User:Mxnicpixie/Science and technology studies: Difference between revisions
Mxnicpixie (talk | contribs) m added sentence to section 2 |
Mxnicpixie (talk | contribs) m added sentence to section 2 |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Section one edits== |
==Section one edits== |
||
*[[Technology and society|Science, technology, and society]]. In the mid- to late-1960s, student and faculty social movements in the U.S., UK, and European universities helped to launch a range of new interdisciplinary fields (such as [[women's studies]]) that were seen to address relevant topics that the traditional curriculum ignored. One such development was the rise of "science, technology, and society" programs, which are also—confusingly—known by the STS acronym. Drawn from a variety of disciplines, including [[anthropology]], [[history]], [[political science]], and [[sociology]], scholars in these programs created undergraduate curricula devoted to exploring the issues raised by [[science]] and [[technology]]. Feminist scholars in this and other emerging STS areas addressed themselves to the exclusion of [[Women in science|women]] from science and engineering, focusing instead on critiquing gendered power dynamics in prior STS research<ref>{{Citation |last=Wajcman |first=Judy |title=Feminist theories of technology |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412990127.n9 |work=Handbook of Science and Technology Studies |pages=189–204 |place= |publisher=SAGE Publications Inc. |access-date=14 April 2022}}</ref>. |
*[[Technology and society|Science, technology, and society]]. In the mid- to late-1960s, student and faculty social movements in the U.S., UK, and European universities helped to launch a range of new interdisciplinary fields (such as [[women's studies]]) that were seen to address relevant topics that the traditional curriculum ignored. One such development was the rise of "science, technology, and society" programs, which are also—confusingly—known by the STS acronym. Drawn from a variety of disciplines, including [[anthropology]], [[history]], [[political science]], and [[sociology]], scholars in these programs created undergraduate curricula devoted to exploring the issues raised by [[science]] and [[technology]]. Feminist scholars in this and other emerging STS areas addressed themselves to the exclusion of [[Women in science|women]] from science and engineering, focusing instead on critiquing gendered power dynamics in prior STS research<ref name=":3">{{Citation |last=Wajcman |first=Judy |title=Feminist theories of technology |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412990127.n9 |work=Handbook of Science and Technology Studies |pages=189–204 |place= |publisher=SAGE Publications Inc. |access-date=14 April 2022}}</ref>. |
||
*Science, engineering, and public [[policy studies]] emerged in the 1970s from the same concerns that motivated the founders of the science, technology, and society movement: A sense that science and technology were developing in ways that were increasingly at odds with the public's best interests.{{According to whom|date=November 2013}} The science, technology, and society movement tried to humanize those who would make tomorrow's science and technology, but this discipline took a different approach: It would train students with the professional skills needed to become players in science and technology policy. Some programs came to emphasize quantitative methodologies, and most of these were eventually absorbed into [[systems engineering]]. Others emphasized sociological and qualitative approaches, and found that their closest kin could be found among scholars in science, technology, and society departments.{{Citation needed|date=September 2010}} |
*Science, engineering, and public [[policy studies]] emerged in the 1970s from the same concerns that motivated the founders of the science, technology, and society movement: A sense that science and technology were developing in ways that were increasingly at odds with the public's best interests.{{According to whom|date=November 2013}} The science, technology, and society movement tried to humanize those who would make tomorrow's science and technology, but this discipline took a different approach: It would train students with the professional skills needed to become players in science and technology policy. Some programs came to emphasize quantitative methodologies, and most of these were eventually absorbed into [[systems engineering]]. Others emphasized sociological and qualitative approaches, and found that their closest kin could be found among scholars in science, technology, and society departments.{{Citation needed|date=September 2010}} |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
{{see also|Social construction of technology}} |
{{see also|Social construction of technology}} |
||
A decisive moment in the development of STS was the mid-1980s addition of technology studies to the range of interests reflected in science. During that decade, two works appeared ''en seriatim'' that signaled what [[Steve Woolgar]] was to call the "turn to technology".<ref>{{cite journal |last=Woolgar |first=Steve |date=January 1991 |title=The turn to technology in social studies of science |journal=[[Science, Technology, & Human Values]] |volume=16 |issue=1 |pages=20–50 |doi=10.1177/016224399101600102 |jstor=690038|s2cid=145470661 }}</ref> In a seminal 1984 article, [[Trevor Pinch]] and [[Wiebe Bijker]] {{clarify span|attached the sociology of scientific knowledge to technology by showing how the sociology of technology could proceed along the theoretical and methodological lines established by the sociology of scientific knowledge.|date=April 2021}}<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Pinch |first1=Trevor J. |last2=Bijker |first2=Wiebe E. |date=August 1984 |title=The social construction of facts and artefacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other |journal=[[Social Studies of Science]] |volume=14 |issue=3 |pages=399–441 |doi=10.1177/030631284014003004 |jstor=285355|s2cid=19157599 |url=https://research.utwente.nl/en/publications/the-social-construction-of-facts-and-artefacts-or-how-the-sociology-of-science-and-the-sociology-of-technology-might-benefit-each-other(9370d395-f64e-418e-922e-bfbc59fb9250).html }} See also: {{cite book |editor1-last=Bijker |editor1-first=Wiebe E. |editor2-last=Hughes |editor2-first=Thomas Parke |editor3-last=Pinch |editor3-first=Trevor J. |date=2012 |orig-year=1987 |title=The social construction of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology |edition=Anniversary |location=Cambridge, MA |publisher=[[MIT Press]] |isbn=9780262517607 |oclc=759491749}}</ref> This was the intellectual foundation of the field they called the social construction of technology. Donald MacKenzie and [[Judy Wajcman]] primed the pump by publishing a collection of articles attesting to the influence of society on technological design (''Social Shaping of Technology'', 1985).<ref>{{cite book |editor1-last=MacKenzie |editor1-first=Donald A. |editor2-last=Wajcman |editor2-first=Judy |date=1999 |orig-year=1985 |title=The social shaping of technology |edition=2nd |location=Buckingham |publisher=[[Open University Press]] |isbn=0335199143 |oclc=39713267 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/socialshapingoft0000unse }}</ref> Social science research continued to interrogate STS research from this point onward as researchers moved from post-modern to post-structural frameworks of thought, Bijker and Pinch contributing to SCOT knowledge and Wajcman providing boundary work through a feminist lens<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |last=Law |first=John |date=November 2008 |title=On Sociology and STS |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954x.2008.00808.x |journal=The Sociological Review |volume=56 |issue=4 |pages=623–649 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-954x.2008.00808.x |issn=0038-0261}}</ref>. |
A decisive moment in the development of STS was the mid-1980s addition of technology studies to the range of interests reflected in science. During that decade, two works appeared ''en seriatim'' that signaled what [[Steve Woolgar]] was to call the "turn to technology".<ref name=":2">{{cite journal |last=Woolgar |first=Steve |date=January 1991 |title=The turn to technology in social studies of science |journal=[[Science, Technology, & Human Values]] |volume=16 |issue=1 |pages=20–50 |doi=10.1177/016224399101600102 |jstor=690038|s2cid=145470661 }}</ref> In a seminal 1984 article, [[Trevor Pinch]] and [[Wiebe Bijker]] {{clarify span|attached the sociology of scientific knowledge to technology by showing how the sociology of technology could proceed along the theoretical and methodological lines established by the sociology of scientific knowledge.|date=April 2021}}<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Pinch |first1=Trevor J. |last2=Bijker |first2=Wiebe E. |date=August 1984 |title=The social construction of facts and artefacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other |journal=[[Social Studies of Science]] |volume=14 |issue=3 |pages=399–441 |doi=10.1177/030631284014003004 |jstor=285355|s2cid=19157599 |url=https://research.utwente.nl/en/publications/the-social-construction-of-facts-and-artefacts-or-how-the-sociology-of-science-and-the-sociology-of-technology-might-benefit-each-other(9370d395-f64e-418e-922e-bfbc59fb9250).html }} See also: {{cite book |editor1-last=Bijker |editor1-first=Wiebe E. |editor2-last=Hughes |editor2-first=Thomas Parke |editor3-last=Pinch |editor3-first=Trevor J. |date=2012 |orig-year=1987 |title=The social construction of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology |edition=Anniversary |location=Cambridge, MA |publisher=[[MIT Press]] |isbn=9780262517607 |oclc=759491749}}</ref> This was the intellectual foundation of the field they called the social construction of technology. Donald MacKenzie and [[Judy Wajcman]] primed the pump by publishing a collection of articles attesting to the influence of society on technological design (''Social Shaping of Technology'', 1985).<ref>{{cite book |editor1-last=MacKenzie |editor1-first=Donald A. |editor2-last=Wajcman |editor2-first=Judy |date=1999 |orig-year=1985 |title=The social shaping of technology |edition=2nd |location=Buckingham |publisher=[[Open University Press]] |isbn=0335199143 |oclc=39713267 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/socialshapingoft0000unse }}</ref> Social science research continued to interrogate STS research from this point onward as researchers moved from post-modern to post-structural frameworks of thought, Bijker and Pinch contributing to SCOT knowledge and Wajcman providing boundary work through a feminist lens<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |last=Law |first=John |date=November 2008 |title=On Sociology and STS |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954x.2008.00808.x |journal=The Sociological Review |volume=56 |issue=4 |pages=623–649 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-954x.2008.00808.x |issn=0038-0261}}</ref>. |
||
The "turn to technology" helped to cement an already growing awareness of underlying unity among the various emerging STS programs. More recently, there has been an associated turn to ecology, nature, and materiality in general, whereby the socio-technical and natural/material co-produce each other. This is especially evident in work in STS analyses of biomedicine (such as [[Carl May]] and [[Annemarie Mol]]) and ecological interventions (such as [[Bruno Latour]], [[Sheila Jasanoff]], [[Matthias Gross]], and [[S. Lochlann Jain]]). |
The "turn to technology" helped to cement an already growing awareness of underlying unity among the various emerging STS programs. More recently, there has been an associated turn to ecology, nature, and materiality in general, whereby the socio-technical and natural/material co-produce each other. This is especially evident in work in STS analyses of biomedicine (such as [[Carl May]] and [[Annemarie Mol]]) and ecological interventions (such as [[Bruno Latour]], [[Sheila Jasanoff]], [[Matthias Gross]], and [[S. Lochlann Jain]]). |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
{{see also|Feminist science and technology studies}} |
{{see also|Feminist science and technology studies}} |
||
With methodology from ANT, feminist STS theorists built upon SCOT's theory of co-construction to explore the relationship between gender and technology, proposing one cannot exist separately from the other<ref name=":1" />. This approach suggests the material and social are not separate, reality being produced through interactions and studied through representations of those realities<ref name=":1" />. Building on Woolgar's boundary work on user configuration<ref name=":2" />, feminist critiques shifted the focus away from users of technology and science towards whether technology and science represent a fixed, unified reality<ref name=":3" /> According to this approach, identity could no longer be treated as causal in human interactions with technology as it cannot exist prior to that interaction, feminist STS researchers proposing a "double-constructivist" approach to account for this contradiction<ref>Landström, Catharina {{Citation |title=Queering Feminist Technology Studies |date=11 September 2013 |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203427415-35 |work=Women, Science, and Technology |pages=419–433 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-0-203-42741-5 |access-date=2022-04-14}}</ref>. John Law credits feminist STS scholars for contributing material-semiotic approaches to the broader discipline of STS, stating that research not only attempts to describe reality, but enacts it through the research process<ref name=":2" />. |
|||
With methodology from ANT, feminist STS theorists built upon SCOT's theory of co-construction to explore the relationship between gender and technology, proposing one cannot exist separately from the other<ref name=":1" />. |
|||
=== Sociotechnical imaginaries (STIs) === |
=== Sociotechnical imaginaries (STIs) === |
||
Latest revision as of 04:22, 22 April 2022
Section one edits
[edit]- Science, technology, and society. In the mid- to late-1960s, student and faculty social movements in the U.S., UK, and European universities helped to launch a range of new interdisciplinary fields (such as women's studies) that were seen to address relevant topics that the traditional curriculum ignored. One such development was the rise of "science, technology, and society" programs, which are also—confusingly—known by the STS acronym. Drawn from a variety of disciplines, including anthropology, history, political science, and sociology, scholars in these programs created undergraduate curricula devoted to exploring the issues raised by science and technology. Feminist scholars in this and other emerging STS areas addressed themselves to the exclusion of women from science and engineering, focusing instead on critiquing gendered power dynamics in prior STS research[1].
- Science, engineering, and public policy studies emerged in the 1970s from the same concerns that motivated the founders of the science, technology, and society movement: A sense that science and technology were developing in ways that were increasingly at odds with the public's best interests.[according to whom?] The science, technology, and society movement tried to humanize those who would make tomorrow's science and technology, but this discipline took a different approach: It would train students with the professional skills needed to become players in science and technology policy. Some programs came to emphasize quantitative methodologies, and most of these were eventually absorbed into systems engineering. Others emphasized sociological and qualitative approaches, and found that their closest kin could be found among scholars in science, technology, and society departments.[citation needed]
During the 1970s and 1980s, non leading universities in the US, UK, and Europe began drawing these various components together in new, interdisciplinary programs. For example, in the 1970s, Cornell University developed a new program that united science studies and policy-oriented scholars with historians and philosophers of science and technology. Each of these programs developed unique identities due to variation in the components that were drawn together, as well as their location within the various universities. For example, the University of Virginia's STS program united scholars drawn from a variety of fields (with particular strength in the history of technology); however, the program's teaching responsibilities—it is located within an engineering school and teaches ethics to undergraduate engineering students—means that all of its faculty share a strong interest in engineering ethics.[2]
The "turn to technology" (and beyond)
[edit]A decisive moment in the development of STS was the mid-1980s addition of technology studies to the range of interests reflected in science. During that decade, two works appeared en seriatim that signaled what Steve Woolgar was to call the "turn to technology".[3] In a seminal 1984 article, Trevor Pinch and Wiebe Bijker attached the sociology of scientific knowledge to technology by showing how the sociology of technology could proceed along the theoretical and methodological lines established by the sociology of scientific knowledge.[clarify][4] This was the intellectual foundation of the field they called the social construction of technology. Donald MacKenzie and Judy Wajcman primed the pump by publishing a collection of articles attesting to the influence of society on technological design (Social Shaping of Technology, 1985).[5] Social science research continued to interrogate STS research from this point onward as researchers moved from post-modern to post-structural frameworks of thought, Bijker and Pinch contributing to SCOT knowledge and Wajcman providing boundary work through a feminist lens[6].
The "turn to technology" helped to cement an already growing awareness of underlying unity among the various emerging STS programs. More recently, there has been an associated turn to ecology, nature, and materiality in general, whereby the socio-technical and natural/material co-produce each other. This is especially evident in work in STS analyses of biomedicine (such as Carl May and Annemarie Mol) and ecological interventions (such as Bruno Latour, Sheila Jasanoff, Matthias Gross, and S. Lochlann Jain).
Section two edits
[edit]The first "social construction" or progress of the velocipede caused the need for a newer "social construction" to be recognized and developed into a safer bicycle design. Consequently, the velocipede was then developed into what is now commonly known as the "bicycle" to fit within society's newer "social construction," the newer standards of higher vehicle safety. Thus the popularity of the modern geared bicycle design came as a response to the first social construction, the original need for greater speed, which had caused the high-wheel bicycle to be designed in the first place. The popularity of the modern geared bicycle design ultimately ended the widespread use of the velocipede itself, as eventually it was found to best accomplish the social-needs/ social-constructions of both greater speed and of greater safety.[7]
Material semiotics
[edit]With methodology from ANT, feminist STS theorists built upon SCOT's theory of co-construction to explore the relationship between gender and technology, proposing one cannot exist separately from the other[6]. This approach suggests the material and social are not separate, reality being produced through interactions and studied through representations of those realities[6]. Building on Woolgar's boundary work on user configuration[3], feminist critiques shifted the focus away from users of technology and science towards whether technology and science represent a fixed, unified reality[1] According to this approach, identity could no longer be treated as causal in human interactions with technology as it cannot exist prior to that interaction, feminist STS researchers proposing a "double-constructivist" approach to account for this contradiction[8]. John Law credits feminist STS scholars for contributing material-semiotic approaches to the broader discipline of STS, stating that research not only attempts to describe reality, but enacts it through the research process[3].
Sociotechnical imaginaries (STIs)
[edit]Sociotechnical imaginaries are what certain communities, societies and nations envision as achievable through the combination of scientific innovation and social changes.[9] These visions can be based on what is possible to achieve for a certain society, and can also show what a certain state or nation desires.[9] STIs are often bound with ideologies and ambitions of those who create and circulate them.[10] Sociotechnical imaginaries can be created by states and policy makers, smaller groups within society, or can be a result of interaction of both.[11]
- ^ a b Wajcman, Judy, "Feminist theories of technology", Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, SAGE Publications Inc., pp. 189–204, retrieved 14 April 2022
- ^ Gorman, Michael; Hertz, Michael; Louis, Garrick; Magpili, Luna; Mauss, Mark; Mehalik, Matthew; Tuttle, J.B. (October 2000). "Integrating Ethics & Engineering: A Graduate Option in Systems Engineering, Ethics, and Technology Studies". Journal of Engineering Education. 89 (4): 461–469. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2000.tb00552.x.
- ^ a b c Woolgar, Steve (January 1991). "The turn to technology in social studies of science". Science, Technology, & Human Values. 16 (1): 20–50. doi:10.1177/016224399101600102. JSTOR 690038. S2CID 145470661.
- ^ Pinch, Trevor J.; Bijker, Wiebe E. (August 1984). "The social construction of facts and artefacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other". Social Studies of Science. 14 (3): 399–441. doi:10.1177/030631284014003004. JSTOR 285355. S2CID 19157599. See also: Bijker, Wiebe E.; Hughes, Thomas Parke; Pinch, Trevor J., eds. (2012) [1987]. The social construction of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology (Anniversary ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262517607. OCLC 759491749.
- ^ MacKenzie, Donald A.; Wajcman, Judy, eds. (1999) [1985]. The social shaping of technology (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press. ISBN 0335199143. OCLC 39713267.
- ^ a b c Law, John (November 2008). "On Sociology and STS". The Sociological Review. 56 (4): 623–649. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954x.2008.00808.x. ISSN 0038-0261.
- ^ Bijker, Wiebe (1993). The Social Construction of Technological System (1st ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. pp. 28–45. ISBN 978-0-262-52137-6.
- ^ Landström, Catharina "Queering Feminist Technology Studies", Women, Science, and Technology, Routledge, pp. 419–433, 11 September 2013, ISBN 978-0-203-42741-5, retrieved 2022-04-14
- ^ a b Jasanoff, Sheila; Kim, Sang-Hyun (2009). "Containing the Atom: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and Nuclear Power in the United States and South Korea". Minerva. 47 (2): 120. doi:10.1007/s11024-009-9124-4. ISSN 0026-4695.
- ^ Jasanoff, Sheila; Kim, Sang-Hyun (2009). "Containing the Atom: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and Nuclear Power in the United States and South Korea". Minerva. 47 (2): 126. doi:10.1007/s11024-009-9124-4. ISSN 0026-4695.
- ^ Jasanoff, Sheila; Simmet, Hilton R. (2021-10-01). "Renewing the future: Excluded imaginaries in the global energy transition". Energy Research & Social Science. 80: 3. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2021.102205. ISSN 2214-6296.