This Thesis Has Been Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements for a Postgraduate Degree (E.G
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Historians of Technology in the Real World: Reflections on the Pursuit of Policy-Oriented History
Historians of Technology in the Real World: Reflections on the Pursuit of Policy-Oriented History Richard F. Hirsh Technology and Culture, Volume 52, Number 1, January 2011, pp. 6-20 (Article) Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press DOI: 10.1353/tech.2011.0039 For additional information about this article http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/tech/summary/v052/52.1.hirsh.html Access provided by Virginia Polytechnic Inst. __ACCESS_STATEMENT__ St.University __ACCESS_STATEMENT__ (Viva) (6 Feb 2014 13:11 GMT) 02_52.1hirsh 6–20:03_49.3dobraszczyk 568– 1/22/11 7:49 AM Page 6 Historians of Technology in the Real World Reflections on the Pursuit of Policy-Oriented History RICHARDF.HIRSH Nearly all historians writing about their craft begin by explaining the value of studying the past. According to the authors of a popular primer, history represents a collective memory that provides an awareness of past events, helping us shape our present and future.1 History has great practical signif- icance, notes another academic, because “intelligent action” draws on past experience.2 As a consequence of the way pedagogues extol the relevance of their work, many high-school students can paraphrase Santayana’s dictum that “[t]hose who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”3 Despite widespread acceptance of the notion that history provides tan- gible benefits, historians usually remain reluctant to apply “lessons” to real- world situations, especially in the realms of public and business policy. Eager to be viewed as unbiased, dispassionate observers of events, most aca- demic historians seem happy to write primarily for their peers. -
The History of Technology. LC Science Tracer Bullet. INSTITUTION Library of Congress, Washington, D.C
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 288 718 SE 048 730 AUTHOR Niskern, Diana, Comp. TITLE The History of Technology. LC Science Tracer Bullet. INSTITUTION Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. National Referral Center for Science and Technology. REPORT NO TB-87-4 PUB DATE Mar 87 NOTE 14p. PUB TYPE Reference Materials - Bibliographies (131) Historical Materials (060) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Books; *Chronicles; Citations (References); Guides; Periodicals; *Reference Materials; *Science idstory; Technological Advancement; *Technology; Textbooks IDENTIFIERS *Historical Bibliography ABSTRACT The history of technology can be approached not only as a chronology of machine development and a study of artifacts, but also as a study of economic and social development. Although the emphasis in this document is on general histories of technology in the English language, many of the sources listed could be useful in compiling the histories of individual branches of technology. This guide to the literature on the history of technology in the collections of the Library of Congress is not necessarily intended to be a comprehensive bibliography. It is designed to provide the reader with a set of resources that can be used to focus on the topic. The document lists the subject headings used by the Library of Congress in cataloging information on the history of technology. It P.Iso contains citations of materials categorized as: (1) brief introductions; (2) basic texts; (3) additional titles;(4) handbooks and encyclopedias; (5) other bibliographies; (6) conference proceedings; (7) government publications; (8) abstracting and indexing services; (9) journal articles; (10) technical reports; and (11) additional sources cot information. (TW) ************************************************w********************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. -
A Complete Bibliography of Publications in Isis, 1970–1979
A Complete Bibliography of Publications in Isis, 1970{1979 Nelson H. F. Beebe University of Utah Department of Mathematics, 110 LCB 155 S 1400 E RM 233 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0090 USA Tel: +1 801 581 5254 FAX: +1 801 581 4148 E-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] (Internet) WWW URL: http://www.math.utah.edu/~beebe/ 26 February 2019 Version 0.14 Title word cross-reference ⊃ [521]. 1 [511]. 1050 [362]. 10th [521]. 11th [1186, 521]. 125th [737]. 1350 [1250]. 1485 [566]. 14th [1409]. 1524 [1554]. 1528 [1484]. 1537 [660]. 1561 [794]. 15th [245]. 1600 [983, 1526, 261]. 1617 [528]. 1632 [805]. 1643 [1058]. 1645 [1776]. 1650 [864]. 1660 [1361]. 1671 [372]. 1672 [1654]. 1674 [1654]. 1675 [88]. 1680 [889]. 1687 [1147]. 1691 [1148]. 1692 [888, 371]. 1695 [296]. 16th [1823]. 1700 [864]. 1700-talets [890]. 1704 [476]. 1708 [265]. 1713 [1415]. 1733 [756]. 1741 [1494]. 1751 [1197]. 1760 [1258]. 1774 [1558]. 1777 [1909, 572]. 1780 [314, 663]. 1792 [269]. 1794 [266]. 1796 [1195, 840]. 1799 [128]. 1799/1804 [128]. 17th [1256, 623, 1813]. 1800 [1641, 100, 1343, 1044, 1655, 248, 1331]. 1802 [127, 437]. 1803 [405, 1778]. 1804 [128]. 1807 [625]. 1814 [668]. 1815 [1777]. 1820 [1660]. 1826 [1857]. 1832 [668]. 1841 [1362]. 1844 [1913, 946]. 1848 [1708]. 185 [1327]. 1850 [1230, 1391]. 1855 [442]. 1860 [301, 1232, 1917, 1367]. 1865 [445, 1263]. 1 2 1866 [253, 71]. 1868 [1019]. 1870's [674]. 1875 [1364]. 1878 [25]. 1880 [1427, 807, 1894]. 1882 [381]. 1889 [1428]. 1893 [1588]. 1894 [1921]. 1895 [896]. -
AWARDS ANNUAL MEETING St
2018 SOCIETY FOR THE HISTORY OF TECHNOLOGY AWARDS ANNUAL MEETING st. louis, missouri 11-14 october CONTENTS Society for the History of Technology. 2 2018 Prize Committees .................................................... 3 Awards .................................................................. 9 Previous winners .......................................................... 23 SOCIETY FOR THE HISTORY OF TECHNOLOGY President John Krige Georgia Institute of Technology Vice President Tom Misa University of Minnesota Secretary Jan Korsten Foundation for the History of Technology Treasurer Richard Hirsh Virginia Tech Editor-in-Chief Suzanne Moon University of Oklahoma 2 SHOT Awards 2018 2018 PRIZE COMMITTEES NASA Fellowship The NASA Fellowship in the History of Space Technology, offered by SHOT and supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) History Division, funds either a predoctoral or postdoctoral fellow for up to one academic year to undertake a research project related to the history of space technology. The fellowship supports advanced research related to all aspects of space history, leading to publications on the history of space technology broadly considered, including cultural and intellectual history, institutional history, economic history, history of law and public policy, and history of engineering and management. In 2017 SHOT, the History of Science Society (HSS), and the American Historical Association (AHA) brought their NASA Fellowship Committees together. Each society continues to award a NASA Fellowship, but a committee consisting of one member from each organization will determine the winners of the three fellowships. Angelina Callahan, Naval Research Laboratory – committee member on behalf of SHOT Kranzberg Dissertation Fellowship This award is in memory of the co-founder of the Society, and honors Melvin Kranzberg’s many contributions to developing the history of technology as a field of scholarly endeavor and SHOT as a professional organization. -
AWARDS ANNUAL MEETING Milano 24-27 October
2019 SOCIETY FOR THE HISTORY OF TECHNOLOGY AWARDS ANNUAL MEETING milano 24-27 october www.historyoftechnology.org In 2020 the SHOT Annual Meeting takes place in New Orleans, Louisiana (USA), 7-11 October. CONTENTS Society for the History of Technology. 2 2019 Prize Committees .................................................... 3 2019 Awards and Fellowships ............................................... 9 Awards, Grants and Fellowships Special Interest Groups .......................... 22 Previous winners .......................................................... 25 SOCIETY FOR THE HISTORY OF TECHNOLOGY President Tom Misa University of Minnesota Vice President Arwen Mohun University of Delaware Secretary Jan Korsten Foundation for the History of Technology Treasurer Amy Bix Iowa State University Editor-in-Chief Suzanne Moon University of Oklahoma 2 SHOT Awards 2019 2019 PRIZE COMMITTEES Leonardo da Vinci Medal The highest recognition from the Society for the History of Technology is the Leonardo da Vinci Medal, presented to an individual who has made an outstanding contribution to the history of technology, through research, teaching, publication, and other activities. Andras Beck (formerly of the Hungarian Academy of Arts) designed the medal, the face of which shows Leonardo’s head modeled after the artist’s self-portrait. The reverse design shows (in the words of the sculptor) “the basic sources of energy: water, wind, and fire.” A certificate accompanies the medal. John Krige (Chair), Georgia Institute of Technology Jennifer Alexander, -
The Social Construction of Technology: Structural Considerations
Science,Klein, Kleinman Technology, / Social & Human Construction Values of Technology The Social Construction of Technology: Structural Considerations Hans K. Klein Georgia Institute of Technology Daniel Lee Kleinman University of Wisconsin–Madison Although scholarship in the social construction of technology (SCOT) has contributed much to illuminating technological development, most work using this theoretical approach is committed to an agency-centered approach. SCOT scholars have made only limited contributions to illustrating the influence of social structures. In this article, the authors argue for the importance of structural concepts to understanding technological development. They summarize the SCOT conceptual framework defined by Trevor Pinch and Wiebe Bijker and survey some of the methodological and explanatory difficulties that arise with their approach. Then the authors present concepts from organizational sociology and political economy that illuminate structural influences in shaping phe- nomena of interest to SCOT scholars. These structural concepts can be applied to the study of the design, development, and transformation of technology. The authors con- clude that the limited amount of scholarship on structural factors in the social shaping of technological development presents numerous opportunities for research. Researchers in the field of science and technology studies (STS) have pro- duced a great deal of scholarshipin recent years that documents and analyzes the social shaping of technology.1 An important area of this scholarship, known as the social construction of technology (SCOT), traces its origins to Trevor Pinch and Wiebe Bijker’s (1987) article, “The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other.” From this seminal work has flowed a body of research that is rich and diverse—but that has largely remained com- mitted to an agency-centered approach. -
03/Post/Final Pass
“A Very Special Relationship” SHOT and the Smithsonian’s Museum of History and Technology ROBERT C. POST Synergism: Cooperative action of discrete agencies . such that the total effect is greater than the sum of the two or more effects taken independently. —Webster’s Third New International Dictionary Friday, 23 May 1958, a fair spring day in Cleveland. The Plain Dealer head- lined the accidental explosion of eight Nike missiles at Middletown, New Jersey, with a death toll of seven or more. Editorially it lamented “Soviet Russia’s present leadership in the field of rocketry,”and a news item quoted a man identified as “America’s chief tracer of unidentified flying objects” on the danger of withholding UFO information from the public: “Russia might claim flying saucers as a propaganda ‘secret weapon’ at any time.” There was a story on the impending demise of the three-cent stamp, and Dr. Post held various jobs at the National Museum of History and Technology/Museum of American History from 1971 to 1996. From 1974 to 1978 he was special assistant to Brooke Hindle, to whose memory he dedicates this article with gratitude for friendship and support, and, not least, for the title. Post writes: “For help with my research, thanks to Bruce Kirby and LaNina Clayton at the Smithsonian Institution Archives and Rob Harding and John Fleckner at the Archives Center, National Museum of American History, intrepid guardians of the SHOT legacy. Thanks also for guidance, support, or criticism to Ron Becker, Silvio Bedini, Barney Finn, Robert Friedel, Morrell and Barbara Heald, Ben Lawless, Miriam Levin, Art Molella, Bob Multhauf, Alex Roland, Joe Schultz, Bruce Seely, John Staudenmaier, Carlene Stephens, Jeffrey Stine, Eugene Uyeki, Robert Vogel, Jack White, Rosalind Williams, and especially to Dian Post. -
Notes on Participants Wiebe Bijker Is Professor of Technology and Society at Maastricht University and the Norwegian University
Notes on Participants Wiebe Bijker is Professor of Technology and Society at Maastricht University and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) in Trondheim, and chairman of the board of NWO-WOTRO. Bijker is founding co-editor of the monograph series “Inside Technology” of MIT Press since 1988. He was trained in applied physics (Delft) and earned his PhD on the social construction of technology (Twente). Publications include: Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. J. (1987). The Social construction of technological systems : new directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press; Bijker, W. E. (1995). Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs : toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press; Bijker, W. E., Bal, R., & Hendriks, R. (2009). Paradox of Scientific Authority: the role of scientific advice in democracies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; Hommels, Anique, Mesman, Jessica, & Bijker, Wiebe E. (Eds.). (2013). Vulnerability in Technological Cultures. New directions in research and governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. In 2006 Bijker received the John Desmond Bernal Prize, awarded jointly by the Society for Social Studies of Science and Thomson Scientific, and in 2012 he was awarded the Leonardo da Vinci Medal by the Society for the History of Technology. Andrew Feenberg has been Canada Research Chair in Philosophy of Technology in the School of Communication of Simon Fraser University since 2003. Since 2013 he has also been Directeur de programme at the Collège International de Philosophie. He was previously professor of Philosophy at San Diego State University from 1969-2003 with some interruptions for visiting appointments at Duke University, the State University of New York at Buffalo, the Universities of California, San Diego and Irvine, the Sorbonne (Paris I), the University of Paris- Dauphine, the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, the University of Tokyo, Harvey Mudd College, and Santa Clara University. -
Whigs in Court: Historiographical Problems with Expert Evidence
Whigs in Court: Historiographical Problems with Expert Evidence Gary Edmond* I. INTRODUCTION The trouble with all this is that it is setting the jury to decide, where doctors disagree.... But how can the jury judge between two statements each founded upon an experience confessedly foreign in kind to their own? -Learned Hand (1901)1 At the beginning of the twentieth century, Learned Hand ex- pressed concern at the assessment of expert disagreement by the lay jury. While the debate over jury competence has continued, Hand's disquiet would appear to apply equally to historians, lawyers, and judges commenting on litigation involving protracted disputes between experts Hand's comment may actually raise the method- ological question: how should historians and legal commentators approach and explain disagreements among experts and scientists during trials and appeals? This Article endeavors to sketch some tentative answers to that question, primarily through the review of several cases exemplifying the recent historiographical treatment of expert evidence. Recent approaches are conspicuous because, where B.A. (Hons), University of Wollongong, L.L.B. (Hons), University of Sydney, Ph.D., Cambridge University. Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Aust- ralia, and Visitor, Law Program, Research School of Social Sciences, The Australian National University, Canberra 0200 Australia. The author would like to thank David Mercer, Wilfred Prest, Rob Nelson, Ivan Crozier, Penny Pether, Paul Roberts, Mike Redmayne, Leighton Mc- Donald, John Gava, John Williams and members of the Research Discussion Group, Adelaide University. 1. Learned Hand, Historicaland PracticalConsiderations Regarding Expert Testimony, 15 HARV. L. REv. 40,54 (1901). -
The Evaluative Relevance of Social Studies of Technology1
PHIL & TECH 1:3-4 Spring 1996 Aibar, Relevance of Social Studies of Technology THE EVALUATIVE RELEVANCE OF SOCIAL STUDIES OF TECHNOLOGY1 Eduardo Aibar, University of Barcelona and INVESCIT During the closing session of the 1991 conference of the Society for Philosophy and Technology, which took place in Puerto Rico, Langdon Winner gave the audience a very interesting and somewhat provocative address on recent work in Social Studies of Technology, focusing mainly on the so-called social constructivist view. This new area of study has emerged during the last decade and has become a very active field of research on technology, involving the work of sociologists, historians, and philosophers of technology. It is quite obvious that some of the main notions and claims made by this new school undermine the standard view of technology, dominant in former approaches and in several fields. Winner starts his article by saying that "to ignore the central claims of this important school of thought . would be to overlook an important challenge" (Winner, 1991: 505). The ending remarks of his work, in contrast, seem to give us the opposite advice. Something like: do not spend much time reading their stuff and do not follow their path. What follows is a critical—although quick—examination of the argumentation that leads Winner to such a negative conclusion. I will not deal with all the issues mentioned by him, but only with the ones I consider more important. I do not think, for instance, that the accusations made against social constructivism of being too disrespectful to the old "popes" of technology studies, or too theoretically imperialistic, are worthy of an answer. -
Science, Technology, and Sustainability: Building a Research Agenda
Science, Technology, and Sustainability: Building a Research Agenda National Science Foundation Supported Workshop Sept. 8-9, 2008 Report Prepared by: Clark Miller Arizona State University Daniel Sarewitz Arizona State University Andrew Light George Mason University Society Nature Knowledge, ideas, and val- ues Science, tech- nology, and governance Socio-technological systems Economy 1 Introduction Over the last decade, the thesis that scientific and technological research can contribute to over- coming sustainability challenges has become conventional wisdom among policy, business, and research leaders.1 By contrast, relatively little attention has been given to the question of how a better understanding of the human and social dimensions of science and technology could also contribute to improving both the understanding of sustainability challenges and efforts to solve them. Yet, such analyses would seem central to sustainability research. After all, human applica- tions of science and technology pose arguably the single greatest source of threats to global sus- tainability, whether we are talking about the energy and transportation systems that underpin global industrial activities or the worldwide expansion of agriculture into forest and savannah ecosystems. These applications arise out of complex social, political, and economic contexts – and they intertwine science, technology, and society in their implementation – making know- ledge of both the human and social contexts and elements of science and technology essential to understanding and responding to sustainability challenges. Thus, while science and technology are central to efforts to improve human health and wellbeing,2 the application of science and technology has not always contributed as anticipated in past efforts to improve the human condi- tion.3 It is essential, therefore, that research on the relationships between science, technology, and society be integrated into the broader sustainability research agenda. -
Sovacool-Dissertation-V10-Final.Pdf
THE POWER PRODUCTION PARADOX: REVEALING THE SOCIO-TECHNICAL IMPEDIMENTS TO DISTRIBUTED GENERATION TECHNOLOGIES by Benjamin K. Sovacool Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In Science and Technology Studies Daniel Breslau, Ph.D. (Chair) Richard Hirsh, Ph.D. (Chair) Eileen Crist, Ph.D. Saul Halfon, Ph.D. Timothy Luke, Ph.D. April 17, 2006 Blacksburg, VA Keywords: Energy Policy, Renewable Energy, Distributed Generation, Technological Systems, History of Technology, Sociology of Technology Copyright 2006, Benjamin K. Sovacool THE POWER PRODUCTION PARADOX: REVEALING THE SOCIO-TECHNICAL IMPEDIMENTS TO DISTRIBUTED GENERATION TECHNOLOGIES By Benjamin K. Sovacool Daniel Breslau (Chair) Richard Hirsh (Chair) Science and Technology Studies ABSTRACT Dramatic improvements in renewable energy and small-scale distributed generation (DG) technologies have been made in the last twenty years. Nevertheless, they remain underutilized in the American electric utility system. Despite the immense environmental, technical, and financial promise of renewable energy systems and DG technologies, such generators still constitute a very small percentage of electricity generation capacity in the United States. This relative neglect occurs despite remarkable gains in their technical performance and reductions in their cost of producing power—the result (in part) of dramatic government support for several decades. Moreover, the technologies often demonstrate great environmental benefits that appeal to policymakers and consumers. At the same time, they offer ways to enhance strained distribution and transmission networks. This project attempts to answer the paradoxical question: why do new energy technologies that offer such impressive benefits also find the least use? The dissertation emphasizes how the history and culture of the community of electricity producers and users helps explain why the new technologies have seen little use.