Syllabus Technology and Society

Sociology 350: Technology and Society Spring Semester 2006

Sociology 350: Technology and SocietyProfessor Sharon Ghamari-TabriziClass times: Tues-Thurs 9-10:20amRoom: 304 Lincoln Hall

Professor Ghamari’s Contact InformationOffice: Room 352, Armory Building (I am an ACDIS Research Associate)Tel: 244-6168Email: [email protected] hours: Tuesday and Thursday, 3-4pm.

Course DescriptionThis course will be taught as an experiment in exploring the various modalities of learning styles and information processing styles. In the first week, students will identify their preferred learning style, and will work throughout the semester on assignments translating course material into their preferred information presentation modality. The class will culminate in the presentation of student projects in a science fair at the end of the semester.

The objectives of the course are:

• Topically: Students will be presented with various theories of the sociology of technology. Proof of their mastery will be in their applications to different technical objects.

• Experientially: Students will learn techniques for exploring the multiple dimensions of a new topic area, with practical applications for their own preferred learning style.

• Skill development: students will learn their own strengths and weaknesses as learners, and how to align these with the demands of translating theoretical arguments into rewarding research efforts of great personal interest.

Assignments

We will be moving across three dimensions in this class:

• The sociological literature on technology.

• Play across different scales of focus and units of analysis, with an emphasis on identifying the approach that is most interesting to each student

• Different formats for presentation according to the student’s preferred cognitive style.

By the end of the course you will have:

1


Identified a technical object that you love or hate

Analyzed it across multiple dimensions

Researched it

Picked the most promising avenue for analysis

Interpreted it with one of the theoretical prisms offered in the class

Presented it in a pleasing format at the science fair as a final project, which includes submitted supporting documentation online.

Assignment #1: Learning styles Deadline January 26. 10 days after course begins. 15 points.•Take online quiz of learning styles• Read background documents, and respond to posted questions in online assignment. Assignment #2: Find an object on the web Deadline February 7. 12 days after Assignment #1. 20 points• Students will go on the web and follow the object online. They will submit a 2-3 page paper describing and analyzing their itinerary, according to a template I will post in the assignments section on the Compass Website.

Assignment #3: Sketching out the dimensions of a technical object Deadline February 21. 14 days after Assignment #2. 30 points.• Pick a technical object you love or hate and sketch out all of its possible dimensions for study and research. This should be a major paper. 5 pages.

Assignment #4: Path to researching your technical objectDeadline March 7. 14 days after Assignment #3. 20 points.• Students will pick a path to research their object. What you want to research, trace, analyze, among possible structures of analysis. Students will submit a proposal for researching their science fair project in response to a posted template. 2-3 page paper.

Assignment #5: Linking the object to theories discussed in class Deadline April 4. 21 days after Assignment #4, not including Spring Break. 25 points• Students will submit a 3-5 page paper linking their chosen object to one of the theories presented in class.

Assignment #6 Information presentation modality Deadline April 18. 14 days after Assignment #5. 15 points.• Students will submit 2 page paper describing the format of presentation they will adopt for their science fair project, your plan for creating the presentation, supplies you will

2


need. How will you rehearse and pretest your presentation so there are no glitches on the day of the presentation.

Assignment #7 SCIENCE FAIR Date to be determined. 60 points.• Students will set up and present their object in a class science fair. They will also submit documentation regarding the project. . 60 points:30 points for project; 30 points for supporting documentation.

Attendance: 15 points.

Grades will be determined on a 200 point scale. All written assignments will be submitted via the Assignment Dropbox on the Compass Website for the Course.

The assignments break down accordingly:

Assignment 1: 15 points Deadline January 26. (10 days after course begins.)

Assignment 2: 20 points Deadline February 7. (12 days after Assignment #1.)

Assignment 3: 30 points Deadline February 21. (14 days after Assignment #2)

Assignment 4: 20 points Deadline March 7. (14 days after Assignment #3)

Assignment 5: 25 points Deadline April 4. (21 days after Assignment #4, not including Spring Break)

Assignment 6: 15 points Deadline April 18. (14 days after Assignment #5)

Assignment 7: 60 points No date confirmed for Science Fair, but I’m assuming you’ll have about two weeks or a little more.)

Attendance: 15 points

I will count everything up and divide by 2.

I will then use the UIUC scale of 100 points:Grades will be determined according to the following scale: 90-100 = A; 80-89 = B; 70-79 = C; 60-69 = D.

3


Learning Disabilities or Special NeedsIf you have learning or physical disabilities, or other special needs, please come and see me with diagnostic documentation during the first week of the semester. I will make arrangements to accommodate you.

Please note: Students requesting accommodations for a learning disability should be registered with the Division of Rehabilitation-Education Services (DRES), and should have a "Request for Accommodations" letter signed by a member of the DRES staff.

DRES is located at:1207 S. Oak St., Champaign, call 333-4603 (V/TTY),Email: [email protected]. URL: www.disability.uiuc.edu

If you suspect you might have a learning disability, and you want to consult with DRES for possible testing, please contact Karen Wold byemail: [email protected] or tel: 333-8705.

University Policy on Plagiarism (In the interests of full disclosure, I copied the following texts from several online UIUC sources about plagiarism, including the Department of History’s policy on plagiarism. The following words are not my own.)

The Administrative Manual of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign defines plagiarism as, “Representing the words or ideas of another as one's own in any academic endeavor.” The Manual further indicates that plagiarism can occur in three areas: direct quotation, paraphrase, and/or borrowed facts and information. All students should be aware of these definitions and associated comments. In fact, the code states "Ignorance of a rule is never a defense. (See Rule 33, Academic Integrity, of the Code of Policies and Regulations Applying to All Students, in the Administrative Manual for UIUC.)

Submitting papers not written by the student is only the most blatant form of plagiarism. Plagiarism also includes, but is not limited to: copying another student’s work in exams, papers, or other exercises; inappropriate collaboration with another student; and verbatim copying, close paraphrasing, pasting in, or recombining published materials, including materials from the internet, without appropriate citation.

The UIUC Senate recommends that in serious cases without mitigating circumstances, the student receive a failing grade for the course. In the light of an increased level of plagiarism due to the ease of copying from the internet, it is hoped that the severity of the penalty will act as a deterrent. Whatever course of action an instructor chooses, that instructor must follow the procedures prescribed in Rule 33. Whenever a penalty is enforced, instructors are to document the case with a formal letter to be inserted in the

4

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.disability.uiuc.edu/


student’s file. This will alert future instructors that the student has a track record of plagiarism.

How can plagiarism be avoided?• When citing a source, regardless if you directly quote or paraphrase, use quotation

marks and give the author credit. Sometimes you may be in doubt, but when you are, play it safe and give credit.

• Learn how to correctly cite an author even when you paraphrase.

The format for correct citations are: (## means page number)

Book Chapter: Cynthia Hay, 1982, “ Advice from a scientific establishment: the National Academy of Sciences,” in Norbert Elias, Herminio Martins, Richard Whitley, eds., 1982, Scientific Establishments and Hierarchies. Sociology of the Sciences. Vol. 4: ##.Thereafter, (Hay, 1982: ##)

Article: Judith R. Blau, 1978, “Sociometric Structure of a scientific discipline,” Research in Sociology of Knowledge, Sciences and Art, Vol. 1: ##. (Blau, 1978: ##)

Book: Phillip M. Boffey, 1975, The Brain Bank of America: An Inquiry into the Politics of Science, McGraw Hill: ##. (Boffey, 1975: ##)

Online Document: give author, publication date (if you can find it), Title of piece, (in quote marks if an article, in italics if a longer work), URL. Date you accessed it.

Website: author/designer of material. Name of page or website, URL, date you accessed it.

Class will be canceled on Thursday, April 27, 2006.

Course Texts:

Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes, Trevor Pinch, 1987, The Social Construction of Technological Systems, MIT. Abbrev as Bijker87.

Wiebe E. Bijker, John Law, 1992, Shaping Technology/Building Society, MIT. Abbreviated as Bijker92.

Peter Elbow, 1998, Writing with power: Techniques for Mastering the Writing Process, Oxford University Press, Second Edition.

Books at Undergraduate Reserve Desk

Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes, Trevor Pinch, 1987, The Social Construction of Technological Systems, MIT. Abbrev as Bijker87.

5


Wiebe E. Bijker, John Law, 1992, Shaping Technology/Building Society, MIT. Abbreviated as Bijker92.

Amended Class Schedule, Weeks organized as beginning on Thursdays

Week 2: Cognitive Styles; Technological determinism

Thursday Jan 26: Learning and Cognitive Styles. Assignment #1: Learning styles, Due at midnight. 15 points. Submit on compass website through the assignment dropbox.

Tuesday Jan 31: Technological Determinism

Required Reading for Tuesday: 37 pages

Robert Heilbruner, “Do Machines Make History?” in TechDeterm: 53-66. 13 pages.

Robert Heilbroner, “Technological Determinism Revisited” in TechDeterm: 67-78. 11 pages.

Thomas Hughes, “Technological Momentum” in TechDeterm: 101-114. 13 pages

Optional: Merrit Roe Smith, “Technological Determinism in American Culture” in TechDeterm: 1-36. 36 pages.

Week 3: Social determinism (society made the thing)

Required Reading for the Week: 56 pages.

Thursday Feb 2 Langdon Winner, 1986, “Do Artifacts have Politics?” in The Whale and the Reactor, University of Chicago Press: 19-39. 20 pages.

Tuesday Feb 7 Assignment #2: Find an object on the web Due by midnight. 12 days after Assignment #1. 20 points

Bernward Joerges, 1999, “Do Politics have Artefacts?” Social Studies of Science, 29(3): 411-431. 20 pages

6


Steve Woolgar, Geoff Cooper, 1999, “Do Artefacts have ambivalence?” Social Studies of Science, 29(3): 433-449. 16 pages.

Optional: Langdon Winner, 1986, “Technologies as Kinds of Life” in The Whale and the Reactor, University of Chicago Press:3-18. 15 pages.

David F. Noble, 1985, “Social choice in machine design: the case of automatically controlled machine tools,” in Donald MacKenzie, Judy Wajcman, eds., The Social Shaping of Technology, Open University Press: 109-125. 16 pages.

Week 4 The Social Construction of Technology (SCOT)

Required Reading for the Week: 64 pages

Thursday Feb 9Trevor J. Pinch, Wiebe E. Bijker, 1987, “The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other” in Bijker87: 17-50. 33 pages.

Tuesday Feb 14 Wiebe Bijker, 1987, “The Social Construction of Bakelite: Toward a Theory of Invention,” in Bijker87: 159-190. 31 pages.

Optional: Wiebe Bijker, 1992, “The Social Construction of Fluorescent Lighting, or How an Artifact was Invented in its Diffusion,” in Bijker92: 75-102. 27 pages.

Week 5 SCOT Required Reading for the Week: 80 pages

Thursday Feb 16 Thomas J. Misa, 1992, “Controversy and Closure in Technological Change: Constructing ‘Steel,’” in Bijker92: 109-139. 30 pages.

Tuesday Feb 21 Assignment #3: Sketching out the dimensions of a technical object, Due Midnight. 14 days after Assignment #2. 30 points.

W. Bernard Carlson, “Artifacts and Frames of Meaning: Thomas A. Edison, His Managers, and the Cultural Construction of Motion Pictures,” in Bijker92: 175-198. 23 pages.

7


Donald MacKenzie, 1987, “Missile Accuracy: A case study in the social processes of technological accuracy,” Bijker87: 195-222. 27 pages.

Week 6 Objections to SCOTRequired Reading for the Week: 52 pages.

Thursday Feb 23 Nick Clayton, 2002, “SCOT: Does it answer?” Technology and Culture, 43(2): 351-360. 9 pages.

Wiebe E. Bijker, Trevor J. Pinch, 2002, “SCOT Answers, Other Questions. A reply to Nick Clayton,” Technology and Culture, 43(2): 361-370. 9 pages.

Bruce Epperson, 2002, “Does SCOT Answer? A comment,” Technology and Culture, 43(2): 371-373. 3 pages.

Tuesday Feb 28 Stewart Russell, 1986, “The Social Construction of Artefacts: A response to Pinch and Bijker,” Social Studies of Science, 16: 331-346. 15 pages.

Langdon Winner, 1993, “Upon Opening the Black Box and Finding it empty: Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Technology,” Science, Technology, & Human Values, 18(3): 362-378. 16 pages.

Week 7 Actor-Network Theory (ANT)Required Reading for the Week: 83 pages

Thursday Mar 2 Michel Callon, 1986, “Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay,” in John Law, ed., Power, Action, and Belief, Sociological Review Monograph #32, Routledge: 196-233. 37 pages.

Michel Callon, 1987, “Society in the Making: The study of technology as a tool for sociological analysis,” in Bijker87: 83-106. 23 pages.

Tuesday Mar 7 Assignment #4: Path to researching your technical object. Due at midnight. 14 days after Assignment #3. 20 points.

John Law, 1987, “Technology and Heterogeneous Engineering: The case of Portuguese Expansion,” in Bijker87: 111-134. 23 pages.

Optional:

8


John Law, Michel Callon, 1992, “The Life and Death of an Aircraft: A network analysis of technical change,” in Bijker92: 21-52. 31 pages.

Week 8 ANTRequired Reading for the Week: 55 pages

Thursday March 9 Michel Callon, John Law, 1989, “On the Construction of Sociotechnical Networks: Content and Context Revisited,” Knowledge and Society: Studies in the Sociology of Science Past and Present, 8: 57-83. 26 pages.

Tuesday March 14 Michel Callon, 1999, “Techno-economic networks and irreversibility,” in John Law, ed., A Sociology of Monsters, Sociological Review Monograph #38, Routledge: 132-161. 29 pages.

Optional Jim Johnson, (a.k.a. Bruno Latour), 1995, “Mixing humans and nonhumans together: the sociology of a door-closer,” in Susan Leigh Star, ed., Ecologies of Knowledge, State University of New York Press: 257-277.

Madeline Akrich, 1992, “The De-Scription of Technical Objects,” in Bijker92: 205-224. 19 pages.

Week 9 Gender and TechnologyRequired Reading for the Week: 75 pages.

Thursday March16 Knut H. Sorensen, 1992, “Toward a feminized technology? Gendered values in the construction of technology,” Social Studies of Science, 22: 5-31. 26 pages.

Anne-Jorunn Berg, Merete Lie, 1995, “Feminism and Constructivism: Do Artifacts have gender?” Science, Technology, and Human Values, 20(3): 332-351. 19 pages.

Spring Break: No classes March 21, March 23

Tuesday March 28Sherry Turkle, Seymour Papert, 1990, “Epistemological Pluralism: Styles and Voices Within the Computer Culture,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 16(1): 128-158. 30 pages.

Optional:

9


Merete Lie, 1996, “’Excavating’ the present: the computer as gendered material culture,” Knowledge and Society, 10: 51-68. 17 pages.

Anne Machung, 1988, “Who needs a personality to talk to a machine?’: Communication in the automated office,” in Cheris Kramarae, Technology and Women’s Voices, Routledge: 62-81. 19 pages.

Janet F. Davidson, 2001, “ ‘Now that we have girls in the office’: Clerical Work, Masculinity, and the Refashioning of Gender for a Bureaucratic Age,” in Roger Horowitz, ed., 2001, Boys and their Toys?, Routledge: 55-90. 35 pages.

Week 10 Gender and TechnologyRequired Reading for the Week: 65 pages.

Thursday March 30 Wendy Faulkner, 2000, “Dualisms, Hierarchies and Gender in Engineering,” Social Studies of Science, 30(5): 759-792. 33 pages.

Tuesday April 4 Assignment #5: Linking the object to theories discussed in class. Due at midnight. 21 days after Assignment #4, not including Spring Break. 25 points

Wendy Faulkner, 2000, “The power and the Pleasure? A research agenda for ‘making gender stick” to engineers,” Science, Technology, & Human Values, 25(1): 87-119. 32 pages.

Optional: Jan Clarke, 2000, “Skill as a complex gendered concept: a qualitative study of women, information work, and technology,” Knowledge and Society, 12: 209-228. 19 pages.

Judy Wajcman, 2000, “Reflections on Gender and Technology Studies: In What State is the Art?” Social Studies of Science, 30(3): 447-464. 17 pages.

Week 11 Household TechnologiesRequired Reading for the Week: 88 pages

Thursday April 6 Ruth Schwartz Cowan, 1976, “The ‘Industrial Revolution’ in the Home: Household Technology and Social Change in the 20th Century,” Technology and Culture, 17(1): 1-23. 23 pages.

Christine E. Bose, Philip L. Bereano, Mary Malloy, 1984, “Household Technology and the Social Construction of Housework,” Technology and Culture, 25(1): 53-82. 29 pages.

10


Tuesday April 11 Ruth Schwartz Cowan, 1987, “The Consumption Junction: A Proposal for Research Strategies in the Sociology of Technology,” in Bijker87: 261-280. 19 pages.

M. Carme Alemany Gomez, 1994, “Bodies, machines and male power,” in Cynthia Cokburn, Ruza Furst-Dilic, eds., Bringing Technology Home, Open University Press: 129-146. 17 pages.

Optional: Charles A. Thrall, 1982, “The conservative use of modern household technology,” Technology and Culture, 23(2): 175-194. 19 pages.

James C. Williams, 1998, “Getting Housewives the Electric Message: Gender and Energy Marketing in the early 20th century,” in Roger Horowitz, Arwen Mohun, eds., His & Hers: Gender, Consumption and Technology, University Press of Virginia: 95-113. 18 pages.

Week 12 KitchensRequired Reading for the Week: 73 pages

Thursday April 13 Jane Busch, 1983, “Cooking Competition: Technology on the Domestic Market in the 1930s,” Technology and Culture, 24(2): 222-245. 23 pages.

Shelley Nickles, 2002, “ ‘Preserving women’: Refrigerator Design as Social Process in the 1930s,” Technology and Culture, 43(4): 693-727. 34 pages.

Tuesday April 18 Assignment #6 Information presentation modality. Due at midnight. 14 days after Assignment #5. 15 points.Susan Ormrod, 1994, “ ‘Let’s nuke the dinner’: discursive practices of gender in the creation of a new cooking process,” in Cynthia Cockburn, Ruza Furst-Dilic, eds., Bring Technology Home: Gender and Technology in a Changing Europe, Open University Press: 42-58. 16 pages.

Optional: Joy Parr, 1998, “Shopping for a good stove: a parable about gender, design, and the market,” in Roger Horowitz, Arwen Mohun, eds., His and Hers: Gender, Consumption, and Technology, University Press of Virginia: 165-187. 22 pages.

Cynthia Lee Henthorn, 2000, “The emblematic kitchen: labor-saving technology as national propaganda, the United States, 1939-1959,” Knowledge and Society, 12: 153-187. 34 pages.

11


Week 13 Systems ThinkingRequired Reading for the Week: 61 Pages.

Thursday April 20

Thomas P. Hughes, 1986, “The Seamless Web: Technology, Science, Etcetera, Etcetera,” Social Studies of Science, 16(2): 281-292. 11 pages.

Thomas P. Hughes, 1987, “The Evolution of Large Technological Systems,” in Bijker87: 51-82. 31 pages.

Tuesday April 25 Edward W. Constant II, 1987, “The Social Locus of Technological Practice: Community, System, or Organization?” in Bijker87: 223-242. 19 pages.

Optional Reading: Thomas P. Hughes, 1979, “The Electrification of America: The System Builders,” Technology and Culture, 20(1): 124-161. 37 pages.

Thomas Misa, “Retrieving Sociotechnical Change from Technological Determinism,” in TechDeterm: 115-142. 27 pages.

Week 14 Telephones

Thursday April 27 Class Cancelled.

Tuesday May 2

Required Reading for the Week: 20 pages

John W. Bakke, 1996, “Technologies and interpretations: the case of the telephone,” Knowledge and Society, 10: 87-107. 20 pages.

Optional: Louis Galambos, 1988, “Looking for the boundaries of technological determinism: A brief history of the U.S. telephone system,” in Renate Mayntz, Thomas P. Hughes, eds., The Development of Large Technical Systems, Westview Press: 135-153. 18 pages.

Venus Green, 1995, “Race and Technology: African American Women in the Bell System, 1945-1980,” Technology and Culture, 36(2), Supplement: 101-143. 42 pages.

Claude S. Fischer, 1988, “ ‘Touch Someone’: The telephone industry discovers sociability,” Technology and Culture, 29(1): 32-61. 29 pages.

12


Kenneth Lipartito, 1989, “System Building at the Margin: the Problem of Public Choice in the Telephone Industry,” Journal of Economic History, 49: 323-336. 13 pages.

Kenneth Lipartito, 1994, “When women were switches: technology, work and gender in the telephone industry, 1891-1920,” American Historical Review, 99(2): 1075-1111. 36 pages.

Venus Green, 1995, “Goodbye Central: Automation and the Decline of ‘Personal Service’ in the Bell System, 1878-1921,” Technology and Culture, 36(4): 912-949. 37 pages.

Andreas Killen, 2003, “From Shock to Schreck: Psychiatrists, Telephone Operators and Traumatic Neurosis in Germany, 1900-26,” Journal of Contemporary History, 38(2): 201-220. 19 pages.

Kenneth Lipartito, 2003, “Picturephone and the Information Age: The Social Meaning of Failure,” Technology and Culture, 44(1): 50-81. 31 pages.

Thursday No class Reading Day May 4

Science Fair: Date and Time to be determined

Supporting Documentation to be submitted online by Friday, MAY 5, 7-10pm.

13

Syllabus Technology and Society

Documents

Transcript of Syllabus Technology and Society