SCOT The Social Constructivist Paradigm to Study Technology

SCOT The Social Constructivist Paradigm to Study Technology in Society and some examples Wiebe E. Bijker ESST Maastricht, September 2002

Think of problems such as. . . Sustainable development » …its conception » …its implementation Users’ involvement in technological design » …because of a “sustainable technology” » …because of a need to democratise technological culture

The purpose of this paper. . . Is not to give you a concrete instrument But to give you a specific perspective to » … identify otherwise hidden problems » . . . open-up new solutions » . . . view the world in a new way

Modern society’s problem seems to be: science/technology develops autonomously, . . . having an impact on society l a c i g o left stom and the only reactions the public, l i o are : n n i » accept h m c r » protest e e t » run off et

intermezzo 1: Technological Determinism Technological determinism (TD) means: » Technology develops autonomously » Technology determines society TD is problematic because: » TD is politically debilitating » TD is false because: » Technology does change as result of social changes » Technology can be changed as a result of conscious (political, social) action

The struggle of invention Our bicycle: mistake of 400 years of engineering? All elements of modern bicycle already existed for centuries First successful bicycle was a monstrous machine (high wheeled “Ordinary”) Now, let us try to understand this technology.

So, let’s describe the bicycle but: . . . not with the mistakes of our hindsight, … not with the illusion that the bikes speak for themselves. That is: Through the eyes of the people of those days themselves; for example the women: …and we see: the Unsafe Bicycle Or we see, through the eyes of users of the Ordinary: …and we see: the Macho Bicycle

technology relevant social groups women Ordinary e m a fr l a ic g o l o n h Tec young Tec hno men log ica l fr am e interpretative flexibility

SCOT (social construction of technology) Technology is socially constructed: …its design …Its gender …its working The process of social construction continues forever Many social groups are involved in the social construction of technology

And. . . this analysis of an artifact such as the bicycle opens up the wider world in new ways: Bicycling women emancipation We can now extend our analysis: Study the culture of technology Study technological culture

“We live in a Technological Culture” “Technological culture” = Our modern society that cannot exist without science and technology

Concept of “Technological Culture” • = modern society which cannot be understood without recognising the role of science and technology Co-evolution of technology and society • Construction processes are continuous • (i. e. technology is also being constructed after its leaving the design, production, marketing and publication departments) • Construction is done by all sorts of actors (i. e. not only by engineers, technicians, marketeers, but also by groups in the public) • Definition as technical/cultural/political is negotiated

A break. . .

This moment in lecture and in module In lecture: » » » Technological determinism SCOT Broader view: technological culture A methodological reflection on STS and ESST Some projects as examples In module: » Technological determinism » “New sociology of technology”: – SCOT – Systems approach – Actor network theory

Problems of Technological Culture: peace and safety M global distribution of wealth, resources, M risks M environment / ecology These are problems of Democracy, not of Technology Needed: politicisation of Technological

How to study Nature, Culture, and Science and Technology? Where to start? What to look for? Which topic to choose? Which methods to use? How to balance data and theory? Pitfalls to avoid? Thesis’ structure?

Women Advisory Committees on Housing (VACs) All-women committees (white, middle class, marriedwith-children, educated) Advice on public housing and town planning (since 1946) In 50% of all Dutch municipalities Recognised expertise (self-trained) Paradox 1: » Playing the “women experience” card » Non-feminist Paradox 2: » Successful » Unknown to the general public

Changing identities Representing respectively: » Housewives » Women in general » House consumers – Officially recognised spokespersons for the general public (consumers) – But how to live up to that status? Women experience <—> feminism

The feminist self? using rhetorical oppositions: male — abstract — by head — expert knowl. esthetics — female concrete by heart — common sense functionality demarcation from other women organisations: » autonomous feminism » women architects » academic women

“Peace-keeping” strategy expertise: in the niche between “real experts” and “non-informed residents” “stable participation” two vocabularies: » external: high inclusion in male building technological frame – through: low key interventions – price paid: “caught in the frame” (e. g. one-family house with fixed gender roles) – profit gained: influence » internal: high inclusion in feminism

“Public Debate” on nature development Case of nature development: » Public controversy » Technology & science » High stakes “Public Debate Conference”: » Heterogeneous panel » 4 -stage process – – Introduction Information market Field studies Consensus conference and public debate » Unclear mandate

Lessons from Public Debate One cornerstone of politicisation of Technological Culture is to give the public(s) a voice (“to get the values from the public” (Keeney)) e. g. in the nature development debate: » research budget for panellists » agenda-setting by panellists » through field studies of case also “nature” acquired a voice so, generally: not just values! » support science shops » support specific groups

Lessons for planning engineers Recognise the limits of your own expertise Recognise the expertise of other relevant social groups Recognise your own heterogeneous engineering capabilities

References Bijker, W. E. (1995). Of Bicycles, Bakelites and Bulbs. Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bijker, W. E. , & Bijsterveld, K. (2000). Women Walking through Plans —Technology, democracy and gender identity. Technology & Culture, 41(3), 485 -515. Bijker, W. E. (forthcoming in 2002). Sustainable Policy? A Public Debate about Nature Development in the Netherlands. Plurimondi. Aibar, E. , & Bijker, W. E. (1997). Constructing a City: The Cerdà Plan for the Extension of Barcelona. Science, Technology & Human Values, 22(1), 3 -30. Slides at:

does it work?

Alternative high wheelers Back to intermezzo

The American “Star” Back to intermezzo

Women did want to bicycle! The “Ladies’ Ariel”

However, in practice. . . The Ordinary was a very unsafe machine which did not work!

…even when you went to a bicycling school Back to SCOT

“Young men of means and nerve” The “Macho Bicycle” which did work well! Back to SCOT

Women emancipation The wheel of the past… and …the wheel of the future

“Will dinner be ready at six? ” back

Bijker’s Curriculum vitae elements: Training: » Engineer, physics » Philosophy of science » Ph. D in sociology/history of technology Professor of “Technology & Society” » University of Maastricht » Undergraduate, MA, Ph. D programmes in STS Chairman of Board of Netherlands Ph. D School on Science, Technology & Modern Culture (network of 6 universities; Workshops and International Summer Schools)