sign in sign up
<<
Home , Engineering studies, Technology and Culture, Technology and society, Trevor Pinch

, and

Science, (STS), also referred to relevant topics that the traditional curriculum ig- as science and technology studies, is a branch or off- nored. One such development was the rise of “sci- spring of . It considers how social, po- ence, technology, and society” programs, which are litical, and cultural values affect scientific and also—confusingly—known by the STS acronym. technological , and how these, in turn, affect Drawn from a variety of disciplines, including an- society, and culture. thropology, , political science, and , scholars in these programs created undergraduate curricula devoted to exploring the issues raised by 1 History science and technology. Unlike scholars in science studies, , or the history and of science, they were and are more likely STS is a new subject. Like most interdisciplinary pro- to see themselves as activists working for change grams, it emerged from the confluence of a variety of dis- rather than dispassionate, “ivory tower” researchers. ciplines and disciplinary subfields, all of which had devel- As an example of the activist impulse, feminist oped an interest—typically, during the 1960s or 1970s— scholars in this and other emerging STS areas ad- in viewing science and technology as socially embed- dressed themselves to the exclusion of women from ded enterprises.[1] The key disciplinary components of science and . STS took shape independently, beginning in the 1960s, and developed in isolation from each other well into the • Science, engineering, and public studies 1980s, although Ludwik Fleck's monograph (1935) Gen- emerged in the 1970s from the same concerns that esis and Development of a Scientific Fact anticipated many motivated the founders of the science, technology, of STS’s key themes. In the 1970s Elting E. Morison and society movement: A sense that science and founded the STS program at Massachusetts Institute of technology were developing in ways that were in- Technology (MIT), which served as a model. By 2011 creasingly at odds with the public’s best interests. 111 STS programs were counted.[2] The science, technology, and society movement tried to humanize those who would make tomor- row’s science and technology, but this discipline 1.1 Key themes took a different approach: It would train students with the professional skills needed to become play- • History of technology, that examines technology in ers in science and . Some pro- its social and historical context. Starting in the grams came to emphasize quantitative methodolo- 1960s, some historians questioned technological de- gies, and most of these were eventually absorbed terminism, a doctrine that can induce public pas- into systems engineering. Others emphasized soci- sivity to technologic and scientific 'natural' devel- ological and qualitative approaches, and found that opment. At the same time, some historians began their closest kin could be found among scholars in to develop similarly contextual approaches to the science, technology, and society departments. history of medicine.

• History and (1960s). After During the 1970s and 1980s, leading in the the publication of Thomas Kuhn's well-known The US, UK, and Europe began drawing these various com- Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), which at- ponents together in new, interdisciplinary programs. For tributed changes in scientific theories to changes in example, in the 1970s, Cornell developed underlying intellectual paradigms, programs were a new program that united science studies and policy- founded at the University of California, Berkeley oriented scholars with historians and philosophers of sci- and elsewhere that brought historians of science and ence and technology. Each of these programs devel- philosophers together in unified programs. oped unique identities due to variation in the compo- nents that were drawn together, as well as their location • Science, technology, and society In the mid- to within the various universities. For example, the Uni- late-1960s, student and faculty social movements versity of Virginia’s STS program united scholars drawn in the U.S., UK, and European universities helped from a variety of fields (with particular strength in the to launch a range of new interdisciplinary fields history of technology); however, the program’s teach- (such as women’s studies) that were seen to address ing responsibilities—it is located within an engineering

1 2 4 IMPORTANT CONCEPTS

school and teaches ethics to undergraduate engineering made to add the word “technology” to the association’s students—means that all of its faculty share a strong in- name, thereby reflecting its stature as the leading STS terest in engineering ethics. professional society, but there seems to be widespread sentiment that the name is long enough as it is. 1.2 The “turn to technology” (and beyond) In Europe, the European Association for the Study of Sci- ence and Technology (EASST)[3] was founded in 1981 See also: Social construction of technology to stimulate , exchange and collaboration in the field of studies of science and technology. Simi- larly, the European Inter-University Association on Soci- A decisive moment in the development of STS was the ety, Science and Technology (ESST) and stud- mid-1980s addition of technology studies to the range ies science and technology in society, in both historical of interests reflected in science . During that decade, and contemporary perspectives. two works appeared en seriatim that signaled what Steve Woolgar was to call the “turn to technology": Social Shap- In Asia several STS associations exist. In Japan, the ing of Technology (MacKenzie and Wajcman, 1985) and Japanese Society for Science and Technology Studies (JSSTS)[4] was founded in 2001. The Asia Pacific Sci- The Social Construction of Technological Systems (Bijker, [5] Hughes and Pinch, 1987). MacKenzie and Wajcman ence Technology & Society Network (APSTSN) pri- primed the pump by publishing a collection of articles marily has members from Australasia, Southeast and East attesting to the influence of society on technological de- Asia and Oceania. sign. In a seminal article, and Founded in 1958, the Society for the History of Technol- attached all the legitimacy of the Sociology of Scientific ogy initially attracted members from the history profes- Knowledge to this development by showing how the so- sion who had interests in the contextual history of tech- ciology of technology could proceed along precisely the nology. After the “turn to technology” in the mid-1980s, theoretical and methodological lines established by the the society’s well-regarded journal (Technology and Cul- sociology of scientific knowledge. This was the intellec- ture) and its annual meetings began to attract consider- tual foundation of the field they called the social construc- able interest from non-historians with technology studies tion of technology. interests. The “turn to technology” helped to cement an already Less identified with STS, but also of importance to growing awareness of underlying unity among the vari- many STS scholars in the US, are the History of Sci- ous emerging STS programs. More recently, there has ence Society, the Philosophy of Science Association, and been an associated turn to ecology, nature, and materi- the American Association for the History of Medicine. ality in general, whereby the socio-technical and natu- In addition, there are significant STS-oriented special ral/material co-produce each other. This is especially evi- interest groups within major disciplinary associations, dent in work in STS analyses of biomedicine (such as Carl including the American Anthropological Association, May, Annemarie Mol, Nelly Oudshoorn, and Andrew the American Political Science Association, and the Webster) and ecological interventions (such as Bruno La- American Sociological Association. tour, Sheila Jasanoff, Matthias Gross, S. Lochlann Jain, and Jens Lachmund). 3 Journals 2 Professional associations Notable peer-reviewed journals in STS include: Social Studies of Science; Science, Technology & Human Values; The subject has several professional associations. Science & Technology Studies; Technology in Society; Re- Founded in 1975, the Society for Social Studies of Sci- search Policy; Minerva: A Journal of Science, Learning ence, initially provided scholarly communication facili- and Policy; Science, Technology and Society; Science as ties, including a journal (Science, Technology, and Hu- Culture; ; and Science and Public man Values) and annual meetings that were mainly at- Policy. tended by science studies scholars. The society has since Student journals in STS include: Intersect: the Stanford grown into the most important professional association of Journal of Science, Technology, and Society at Stanford; science and technology studies scholars worldwide. The DEMESCI: International Journal of Deliberative Mecha- Society for Social Studies of Science members also in- nisms in Science; and Synthesis: An Undergraduate Jour- clude government and industry officials concerned with nal of the at Harvard. as well as science and technol- ogy policy; scientists and engineers who wish to better understand the social embeddedness of their professional practice; and citizens concerned about the impact of sci- 4 Important concepts ence and technology in their lives. Proposals have been 4.2 Tragedy of the Commons 3

4.1 Deliberative democracy 4.1.2 Deliberative democracy in practice

Deliberative Democracy is a reform of representative or Ackerman and Fishkin offer an example of a reform direct democracies which mandates discussion and de- in their paper “Deliberation Day.” The deliberation bate of popular topics which affect society. Deliberative is to enhance public understanding of popular, com- Democracy is a for making decisions. Deliberative plex, and controversial issues, through devices such as Democracy can be traced back all the way to Aristotle’s Fishkin’s Deliberative Polling.[10] Although implementa- writings. More recently, the term was coined by Joseph tion of these reforms is unlikely in a large government Bessette in his 1980 work “Deliberative Democracy: The situation such as the United States Federal Government. Majority Principle in Republican Government,” where he However, things similar to this have been implemented uses the idea in opposition to the elitist interpretations of in small, local, governments like New England towns and the United States Constitution with emphasis on public villages. New England town hall meetings are a good ex- discussion.[6] ample of deliberative democracy in a realistic setting.[6] Deliberative Democracy can lead to more legitimate, An ideal Deliberative Democracy balances the voice and credible, and trustworthy outcomes. Deliberative influence of all participants. While the main aim is to Democracy allows for “a wider range of public knowl- reach consensus, a deliberative democracy should encour- edge,” and it has been argued that this can lead to “more age the voices of those with opposing viewpoints, con- socially intelligent and robust” science. One major short- cerns due to uncertainties, and questions about assump- coming of deliberative democracy is that many models tions made by other participants. It should take its time insufficiently ensure critical interaction.[7] and ensure that those participating understand the top- ics on which they debate. Independent managers of de- According to Ryfe, there are five mechanisms that stand bates should also have substantial grasp of the concepts out as critical to the successful of deliberative discussed, but must "[remain] independent and impartial democracy: as to the outcomes of the process.”[7]

• Rules of equality, civility, and inclusivity may prompt deliberation even when our first impulse is 4.2 Tragedy of the Commons to avoid it. See also: Tragedy of the Commons • Stories anchor reality by organizing experience and instilling a normative commitment to civic identities and values, and function as a medium for framing In 1968, Garrett Hardin coined the phrase “Tragedy of discussions. the Commons.” It is an economic theory where rational people act against the best interest of the group by con- • Leadership provides important cues to individuals in suming a common resource. Since then, the Tragedy of deliberative settings, and can keep groups on a de- the Commons has been used to symbolize the degrada- liberative track when their members slip into routine tion of the environment whenever many individuals use and habit. a common resource. Although Garrett Hardin was not an STS scholar, the concept of Tragedy of the Commons • Individuals are more likely to sustain deliberative still applies to science, technology and society.[11] reasoning when they have a stake in the outcomes. In a contemporary setting, the acts as an example of the tragedy of the commons through the exploitation of • Apprenticeship teaches citizens to deliberate well. digital resources and private information. Data and inter- We might do well to imagine education as a form of net passwords can be stolen much more easily than phys- apprenticeship learning, in which individuals learn ical documents. Virtual spying is almost free compared to deliberate by doing it in concert with others more to the costs of physical spying.[12] Additionally, net neu- skilled in the activity.[8] trality can be seen as an example of tragedy of the com- mons in an STS context. The movement for net neutral- 4.1.1 Importance of DD in STS ity argues that the Internet should not be a resource that is dominated by one particular group, specifically those Recently, there has been a movement towards greater with more money to spend on Internet access. transparency in the fields of policy and technology. A counterexample to the tragedy of the commons is Jasanoff comes to the conclusion that there is no longer a offered by Andrew Kahrl. Privatization is normally a question of if there needs to be increased public partici- healthy way to deal with the tragedy of the commons. pation in making decisions about science and technology, Kahrl suggests that the privatization of beaches on Long but now there needs to be ways to make a more meaning- Island, in an attempt to combat overuse of Long Island ful conversation between the public and those developing beaches, made the residents of Long Island more suscep- the technology.[9] tible to flood damage from Hurricane Sandy. The pri- 4 4 IMPORTANT CONCEPTS vatization of these beaches took away from the protec- on the people that get to use this technology. tion offered by the natural landscape. Tidal lands that of- fer natural protection were drained and developed. This attempt to combat the tragedy of the commons by pri- 4.5 No Innovation without representation vatization was counter-productive. Privatization actually destroyed the public good of natural protection from the See also: No innovation without representation landscape.[13] Definition: 4.3 Alternative modernity No innovation without representation is a democratic ideal of ensuring that everyone involved gets a chance to be represented fairly in technological developments. Alternative modernity[14][15] is a conceptual tool con- ventionally used to represent the state of present west- ern society. Modernity represents the political and social • Langdon Winner (Thomas Phelan Chair of Human- structures of the society, the sum of interpersonal dis- ities and Social in the Department of Sci- course, and ultimately a snapshot of society’s direction at ence and Technology Studies at Rensselaer Poly- a point in time. Unfortunately conventional modernity is technic Institute of Troy, NY) states that groups and incapable of modeling alternative directions for further social interests likely to be affected by a particu- growth within our society. Also, this concept is ineffec- lar kind of ought to be repre- tive at analyzing similar but unique modern such sented at an early stage in defining exactly what that as those found in the diverse cultures of the developing technology will be. It is the idea that relevant parties world. Problems can be summarized into two elements: have a say in technological developments and are not [16] inward failure to analyze growth potentials of a given so- left in the dark. ciety, and outward failure to model different cultures and • Spoken about by current professor Massimiano Buc- social structures and predict their growth potentials. chi (Ph.D. Social and Political science, European Previously, modernity carried a connotation of the cur- University Institute, 1997) of the University of rent state of being modern, and its evolution through Eu- Trento in Italy.[17] ropean colonialism. The process of becoming “modern” is believed to occur in a linear, pre-determined way, and • This ideal does not require the public to become ex- is seen by Philip Brey as a way of to interpret and eval- perts on the topics of science and engineering, it uate social and cultural formations. This thought ties in only asks that the opinions and ideas be heard before with the Modernization theory, the thought that societies making drastic decisions, as talked about by Steven from 'pre-modern' to 'modern' societies. L. Goldman (Andrew W. Mellon Distinguished Pro- fessor in Humanities at Lehigh University).[18] Within the field of science and technology, there are two main lenses with which to view modernity. The first is as a way for society to quantify what it wants to move 4.6 Privileged positions of business and towards. In effect, we can discuss the notion of “alterna- science tive modernity” (as described by Andrew Feenberg) and which of these we would like to move towards. Alterna- Main article: Privileged Positions of Business and tively, modernity can be used to analyze the differences Science in interactions between cultures and individuals. From this perspective, alternative modernities exist simultane- ously, based on differing cultural and societal expecta- The privileged positions of business and science refer to tions of how a society (or an individual within society) the unique authority that persons in these areas hold in should function. Because of different types of interac- economic, political, and technosocial affairs. Businesses tions across different cultures, each culture will have a have strong decision-making abilities in the function of different modernity. society, essentially choosing what technological innova- tions to develop. Scientists and technologists have valu- able knowledge, ability to pursue the technological inno- 4.4 Pace of innovation vations they want. They proceed largely without public scrutiny and as if they had the consent of those poten- See also: Pace of innovation tially affected by their discoveries and creations.

Pace of Innovation is the speed at which technological in- 4.7 Legacy thinking novation or advancement is occurring, with the most ap- parent instances being too slow or too rapid. Both these Legacy thinking is defined as an inherited method of rates of innovation are extreme and therefore have effects thinking imposed from an external source without objec- 4.8 STS social construction 5 tion by the individual, due to the fact that it is already to be concerned with it in the past. Additionally, a per- widely accepted by society. son living within an area that does not need to worry about Legacy thinking can impair the ability to drive technol- their water supply or the sanitation of their water supply is ogy for the betterment of society by blinding people to less likely to be concerned with the privatization of water. that do not fit into their accepted model of This notion can be examined through the thought exper- how society works. By accepting ideas without question- iment of "veil of ignorance".[23] Legacy thinking causes ing them, people often see all solutions that contradict people to be particularly ignorant about the implications these accepted ideas as impossible or impractical. Legacy behind the “you get what you pay for” mentality applied to thinking tends to advantage the wealthy, who have the a life necessity. By utilizing the “veil of ignorance”, one means to project their ideas on the public. It may be used can overcome the barrier of legacy thinking as it requires by the wealthy as a vehicle to drive technology in their fa- a person to imagine that they are unaware of their own vor rather than for the greater good. Examining the role circumstances, allowing them to free themselves from ex- of citizen participation and representation in politics pro- ternally imposed thoughts or widely accepted ideas. vides an excellent example of legacy thinking in society. The belief that one can spend money freely to gain influ- ence has been popularized, leading to public acceptance 4.8 STS social construction of corporate lobbying. As a result, a self-established role in politics has been cemented where the public does not Main article: Social construction of technology exercise the power ensured to them by the Constitution to the fullest extent. This can become a barrier to politi- Social constructions are human created ideas, objects, or cal progress as corporations who have the capital to spend events created by a series of choices and interactions.[24] [19] have the potential to wield great influence over policy. These interactions have consequences that change the Legacy thinking however keeps the population from act- perception that different groups of people have on these ing to change this, despite polls from Harris Interactive constructs. Some examples of social construction include that report over 80% of Americans feel that big busi- class, race, money, and citizenship. ness holds too much power in government.[20] Therefore, Americans are beginning to try to steer away this line of The following also alludes to the notion that not every- thought, rejecting legacy thinking, and demanding less thing is set, a circumstance or result could potentially be corporate, and more public, participation in political de- one way or the other. According to the article “What is cision making. Social Construction?" by Laura Flores, “Social construc- tion work is critical of the status quo. Social construc- Additionally, an examination of net neutrality functions tionists about X tend to hold that: as a separate example of legacy thinking. Starting with dial-up, the internet has always been viewed as a private luxury good. Internet today is a vital part of modern- 1. X need not have existed, or need not be at all as it day society members. They use it in and out of life ev- is. X, or X as it is at present, is not determined by ery day.[21] Corporations are able to mislabel and greatly the nature of things; it is not inevitable overcharge for their internet resources. Since the Amer- ican public is so dependent upon internet there is little Very often they go further, and urge that: for them to do. Legacy thinking has kept this pattern on track despite growing movements arguing that the inter- 1. X is quite as bad as it is. net should be considered a utility. Legacy thinking pre- vents progress because it was widely accepted by others 2. We would be much better off if X were done away before us through advertising that the internet is a luxury with, or at least radically transformed.” and not a utility. Due to pressure from grassroots move- ments the Federal Commission (FCC) In the past, there have been viewpoints that were widely has redefined the requirements for broadband and inter- regarded as fact until being called to question due to the [21] net in general as a utility. Now AT&T and other major introduction of new knowledge. Such viewpoints include internet providers are lobbying against this action and are the past concept of a correlation between intelligence and in-large able to delay the onset of this movement due to the nature of a human’s ethnicity or race (X may not be legacy thinking’s grip on American culture and politics. at all as it is).[25] For example, those who cannot overcome the barrier An example of a social construction within science and of legacy thinking may not consider the privatization of technology can be found in the high- bicycle. A [22] clean drinking water as an issue. This is partially due to high-wheel bicycle is able to reach higher translational ve- the fact that access to water has become such a given fact locities than smaller bicycles by replacing the front wheel of the matter to them. For a person living in such circum- with a larger radius wheel. One notable trade-off is the stances, it may be widely accepted to not concern them- decreased stability leading to a greater risk of falling. selves with drinking water because they have not needed This trade-off resulted in many riders getting in accidents 6 5 TECHNOSOCIAL by losing balance while riding the bicycle or being thrown manufacturing is a prime example of this form of gen- over the handle bars. Thus, a technological innovation or tle tyranny. While the population affected isn’t forced progress caused some unintended and undesired conse- to endure the reduction in air quality (i.e. they are free quences. The bicycle was altered to fit within society’s to move, wear a respirator, etc.), these “take it or leave standards of vehicle safety in response to the social con- it”[28] options are not necessarily feasible and place an un- structions that caused the bicycle to be designed in the solicited burden on the population. Gentle Tyranny can first place.[26] also involve an explicit decision made by the public, but under duress, in a sense, to avoid larger societal back- lash. While purchasing an automobile is completely vol- 4.9 untary, the architecture of our society, both literally and metaphorically, presents serious consequences for certain Main article: Technoscience people. Transit by other means is not always feasible, par- ticularly with workers whose commute would not other- Technoscience is a subset of Science, Technology, and wise be possible. Facing restricted travel or unemploy- Society studies that focuses on the inseparable connec- ment, there is not a “choice” in the true sense whether or tion between science and technology. It states that fields not to own an automobile.[28] are linked and grow together, and scientific knowledge re- quires an infrastructure of technology in order to remain stationary or move forward. Both technological develop- ment and scientific discovery drive one another towards 5 Technosocial more advancement. Technoscience excels at shaping hu- man thought and behavior by opening up new possibil- Definition: ities that gradually or quickly come to be perceived as “Technological action is a social process.”[30] Social fac- [27] necessities. tors and technology are intertwined so that they are de- pendent upon each other. This includes the aspect that 4.10 Gentle tyranny social, political, and economic factors are inherent in technology and that social structure influences what tech- nologies are pursued. In other words, “technoscientific 4.10.1 Overview phenomena combined inextricably with social/political/ Gentle Tyranny is a sociological concept that de- economic/psychological phenomena, so ‘technology' in- cludes a spectrum of artifacts, techniques, , scribes the unintended restrictions placed on a popula- [31] tion through social constructs. Some hallmarks of gentle and systems.” Winner expands on this idea by say- tyranny include restriction on choice and is typically very ing “in the late twentieth century technology and society, technology and culture, technology and politics are by no subtle. The concept of Gentle Tyranny can be generally [32] thought of as a projection of "Hobson’s choice", wherein means separate.” the illusion of choice is presented, but in reality, the con- Specific Examples: sumer (in the classic example) actually has none. Ref- erencing a stable owner named Thomas Hobson (1544- • [33] 1631), he infamously would offer customers the choice Ford Pinto - Ford Motor Company sold and pro- of buying the horse in the stall closest to the door or not duced the Pinto during the 1970s. A flaw in the au- purchasing one at all. This “take it or leave it” attitude tomobile design of the rear gas tank caused a fiery is endemic to Gentle Tyranny. While Gentle Tyranny is explosion upon impact. The exploding fuel tank not explicitly defined in sociological circles, but more a killed and injured hundreds of people. Internal doc- general nomenclature for certain social and technological uments of test results, proved Ford CEO Lee Ia- side effects, including the unintended consequences that cocca and engineers were aware of . The company arise from new developments. However, Gentle Tyranny, decided to ignore improving their technology be- across all fronts, describes the phenomena of “living with cause of profit-driven motives, strict internal con- the enduring consequences of sociotechnical changes that trol, and competition from foreign competitors such occurred years or even generations ago.”[28] as Volkswagen. Ford Motor Company conducted a cost-benefit analysis to determine if altering the Ford Pinto model was feasible. An analysis con- 4.10.2 Examples ducted by Ford employees argued against a new de- sign because of increased cost. Employees were also Examples of Gentle Tyranny can be found in virtually ev- under tight control by the CEO who rushed the Pinto ery social and technological sector. Some, such as envi- through lines to increase profits. Ford ronmental and “brown chemicals”,[29] do not in- finally changed are public scrutiny. Safety organi- volve an explicit choice by the affected population what- zations later influenced this technology by requiring soever. The generated as a side effect of large-scale stricter safety standards for motor vehicles. 5.1 Concepts related to the Technosocial 7

• DDT/Toxins[31] - DDT was a common and highly cate in order to establish modern social structure . effective insecticide used during the 1940s until its People have affected the development of this tech- ban in the early 1970s. It was utilized during World nology by demanding features such as larger screens, War 2 to combat insect-borne human disease that touch capabilities, and internet accessibility. plagued military members and civilian populations. [31] People and companies soon realized other benefits • Internet - The internet arose because of exten- of DDT for agricultural purposes. Rachel Carson sive research on ARPANET between various uni- became worried of wide spread use on public health versity, corporations, and ARPA (Advanced Re- and the environment. Rachel Carson’s book “Silent search Project Agency), an agency of the Depart- Spring,” left an imprint on the industry by claim- ment of Defense. Scientist theorized a network of ing linkage of DDT to many serious illness such as connected to each other. Computing ca- cancer. Carson’s book drew criticism from chem- pabilities contributed to developments and the cre- ical companies who felt their reputation and busi- ation of the modern day or laptop . The ness threatened by such claims.. DDT was even- internet has become a normal part of life and busi- tually banned by the United States Environmental ness, to such a degree that the united nations views Protection Agency (EPA) after a long and arduous it as a basic human right. The internet is becoming process of research on the chemical substance. The larger, one way is that more things are being moved main cause for the removal of DDT was the public into the digital world due to demand, for example deciding that the benefits any outweighed potential online banking. It has drastically changed the way health risk. most people go about daily habits.

• Autopilots/Computer Aided Tasks (CATs)[31] - From a security point of view the effects of mak- 5.1 Concepts related to the Technosocial ing a task more computer driven is in the favor of technological advance because there is less reaction • Technoscience[31]-The perception that science and time required and computational error than a human technology are intertwined and depend on each pilot. Due to reduced error and reaction times flights other. on average, using autopilot, have been shown to be [34] safer. Thus the technology has a direct impact on • Technosociety - An industrially developed society people by increasing their safety, and society affects with a reliance on technology. the technology because people want to be safer so • they are constantly trying to improve the autopilot Technological Utopianism - A positive outlook on systems. the effect technology has on social welfare. Includes the perception that technology will one day enable • Cell Phones[31]- Cell phone technology emerged in society to reach a utopian state. the early 1920s after advancements were made in ra- • [35] dio technology. Engineers at Bell Laboratories, the Technosocial Systems -Technosocial Systems are research and development division of AT&T dis- people and that combine to work as covered that cell towers can transmit and receive heterogeneous but functional wholes. signals to and from many directions. The discov- ery by Bell Labs revolutionized the capabilities and outcomes of cellular technology. Technology only 5.2 Classifications of the Technosocial improved once mobile phone users could communi- • [36] cate outside of a designated area. First generation Technological Optimism - The opinion that tech- mobile phones were first created and sold by Mo- nology has positive effects on society and should be torola. Their phone was only intended for use in used in order to improve the welfare of people. cars. Second generation mobile phone capabilities • Technological Pessimism[36]- The opinion that tech- continued to improve because of the switch to dig- nology has negative effects on society and should be ital. Phones were faster which enhanced commu- discouraged from use. nication capabilities of customers. They were also sleeker and weighed less than bulky first generation • Technological Neutrality[35] -"maintains that a given technology. Technologically advances boosted cus- technology has no systematic effects on society: in- tomer satisfaction and broadened cell phone com- dividuals are perceived as ultimately responsible, for panies customer base. Third generation technology better or worse, because technologies are merely changed the way people interact with other. Now people use for their own ends.” customers had access to wifi, texting and other ap- plications. Mobile phones are now entering into the • Technological Determinism[35]- “maintains that fourth generations. Cellular and mobile phones rev- technologies are understood as simply and directly olutionized the way people socialize and communi- causing particular societal outcomes.” 8 7 REFERENCES

• [37]- The belief in the total separation of [8] Ryfe, David M. (March 4, 2005). “Does Deliberative facts and values. Democracy Work?". Annual Review of Political Science 8: 63–64. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.032904.154633. [37] • Technological Progressivism - technology is a Retrieved April 10, 2015. means to an end itself and an inherently positive pur- suit. [9] Jasanoff, Sheila (2003). “Technologies of Humility: Citi- zen Participation in Governing Science”. Minerva 41 (3): 223–244. Retrieved April 21, 2015. 6 See also [10] Ackerman, Bruce; Fishkin, James S. “Deliberation Day”. Center for American Progress. Retrieved April 21, 2015.

• Actor–network theory [11] Hardin, Garrett. “The Tragedy of the Commons” (PDF). www.sciencemag.org. American Association for the Ad- • anthropology vancement of Science. Retrieved April 21, 2015. • [12] Davidow, Bill. “The Tragedy of the Internet Commons”. • Historical materialism theatlantic.com. The Atlantic. Retrieved April 21, 2015. • Innovation system [13] Kahn, Matthew E. “Environmental and Urban Eco- nomics”. Retrieved April 21, 2015. • Mode 2 [14] Eisenstadt, Shmuel (Winter 2000). “Multiple Moderni- • Normalization process theory ties”. Dædalus. • Public awareness of science [15] Feenberg, Andrew (1995). Alternative Modernity : The Technical Turn in Philosophy and Social Theory. Univer- • sity of California Press. ISBN 9780520089860. • [16] Winner, Langdon. “Artifact/Ideas and Political Culture.” Technology and the (1993): 283-92. Print. • Science and technology in Israel [17] Bucchi, Massimiano. “No Innovation without Represen- • Social construction of technology tation (A Parliament of Things for the New Technical • Democracies).” http://www.fondazionebassetti.org/. 20 Sociology of scientific knowledge Dec. 2003. Web. 21 Apr. 2015. • Social shaping of technology [18] Goldman, Steven L. “No Innovation Without Represen- • Technological innovation system tation: Technological Action in a Democratic Society.” New Worlds, New Technologies, New Issues (1992): 148- • Science and Technology Studies in India 60. Print. [19] Allison, Bill, and Sarah Harkins. “Fixed Fortunes: Biggest Corporate Political Interests Spend Billions, Get 7 References Trillions.” Sunlight Foundation Blog. Sunlight Founda- tion, 17 Nov. 2014. Web. 21 Apr. 2015. [1] Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., Pinch, T. and Douglas, [20] Corso, Regina, SVP. “PACs, Big Companies, Lobbyists, D. G., The Social Construction of Technological Systems: and Banks and Financial Institutions Seen by Strong Ma- New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, jorities as Having Too Much Power and Influence in DC.” MIT Press, Cambridge, 2012. Harris Interactive: Harris Polls. Harris Interactive, 29 [2] The STS Wiki. May 2012. Web. 21 Apr. 2015

[3] European Association for the Study of Science and Tech- [21] “Net Neutrality: A Free and Open Internet.” The White nology. House. The White House, 26 Feb. 2015. Web. 21 Apr. 2015. [4] Japanese Society for Science and Technology Studies [22] Flow. Oscilloscope Pictures, 2008. DVD. [5] Asia Pacific Science Technology & Society Network [23] Woodhouse, Edward. Science Technology and Society. [6] Bohman, James (1998). “The Coming of Age of Delib- Spring 2015 ed. N.p.: U Readers, 2014. Print. erative Democracy”. The Journal of Political Philosophy 6 (4): 400–425. [24] Woodhouse, Edward (2014). Science Technology and So- ciety (1st ed.). San Diego: University Readers. p. 255. [7] Chilvers, Jason (March 2008). “Deliberating Compe- tence, Theoretical and Practitioners Perspectives on Ef- [25] Hacking, Ian (1999). The Social Construction of What? fective Participatory Appraisal Practice”. Science, Tech- (1st ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts & London, England: nology, & Human Values 33 (2). Retrieved April 21, President and Fellows of Harvard University. p. 6. ISBN 2015. 978-0674004122. 9

[26] Bijker,, Wiebe (1993). The Social Construction of Tech- • Bloor, David (1976). Knowledge and Social Im- nological System (1st ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: agery (Routledge, 1976; 2nd edition Chicago Uni- MIT Press. pp. 28–45. ISBN 0-262-52137-7. versity Press, 1991)

[27] Steven Lukes, Power: A Radical View (London: Macmil- • Cowan, Ruth Schwartz (1983). More Work For lan, 1974) Mother: The Ironies of Household Technology From the Open Hearth to the Microwave. New York, NY: [28] Kirkman, Robert. “At Home in the Seamless Web”. Sci- Basic Books. ence, Technology, & Human Values 34 (Sage Publica- tions): 234–258. • Ewen, Stuart (2008). Typecasting: On the Arts and Sciences of Human Inequality. New York, NY: [29] Woodhouse, Edward (August 2013). The Future of Tech- nological Civilization. Seven Stories Press. • [30] Goldman, S. (1992). No Innovation Without Representa- Foucault, Michel (1977). Discipline & Punish. New tion (pp. 148-160). Troy, New York: Rensselaer. York, NY: Vintage Books. • [31] Woodhouse, E. (2013). In The Future of Technological Fuller, Steve (1993). Philosophy, Rhetoric, and the Civilization (Revised ed., pp. 1-258). End of Knowledge: The Coming of Science and Tech- nology Studies. Madison, WI: University of Wis- [32] Winner, L. (1993). Artifacts/Ideas and Political Culture consin Press. (2nd edition, with James H. Collier, (pp. 283-292). Troy, New York: Rensselaer. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004)

[33] Dowie, M. (1977, October 1). Pinto Madness. Retrieved • Gross, Matthias (2010). Ignorance and Surprise: February 4, 2015 Science, Society, Ecological Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (Inside Technology Series). [34] Technosociety dictionary definition | technosociety de- fined. (n.d.). Retrieved March 20, 2015, from • Hughes, Thomas (1989). American Genesis: A __http://www.yourdictionary.com/technosociety__ Century of Invention and Technological Enthusiasm, 1870 – 1970. New York, NY: Viking. [35] “Design by Society: Science and Technology Studies and the Social Shaping of Design”, Edward Woodhouse and • Jasanoff, Sheila, Markle, Gerald, Petersen, James Jason W. Patton, Design Issues, Volume 20, Number 3 and Pinch, Trevor, eds. (1994). Handbook of Sci- Summer 2004. ence and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: [36] Hochschild, J., Crabill, A., & Sen, M. (2012, De- Sage. cember 1). Technology Optimism or Pessimism: • Jasanoff, Sheila (2005). on Nature: Sci- How Trust in Science Shapes Policy Attitudes to- ward Genomic Science. Retrieved March 20, 2015, ence and Democracy in Europe and the United States. from __http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/msen/files/ Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. hochschild_crabill_sen.pdf__ • Kuhn, Thomas (1962). The structure of scientific [37] Kleinman, D. (2005). Science is Political/Technology is revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Social: Concerns, Concepts, and Questions. Maryland: • Lachmund, Jens (2013). Greening Berlin: The Co- Blackwell. production of Science, Politics, and Urban Nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (Inside Technology Se- ries). 8 Further reading • Latour, Bruno (1987). Science in action: How to fol- • Bauchspies, Wenda, Jennifer Croissant, and Sal low scientists and engineers through society. Cam- Restivo (2005). Science, Technology, and Society: bridge, MA: Harvard University Press. A Sociological Approach (Wiley-Blackwell, 2005). • Latour, Bruno (2004). Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences Into Democracy. Cambridge, • Bijker, Wiebe, Hughes, Thomas & Pinch, Trevor, MA: Harvard University Press. eds. (1987). The Social Construction of Technolog- ical Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and • Latour, Bruno and Steve Woolgar (1986) [1979]. History of Technology Cambridge MA/London: Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific MIT Press. Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

• Bijker, Wiebe and , eds. (1994). Shap- • MacKenzie, Donald & Wajcman, Judy (eds.) ing Technology / Building Society: Studies in So- (1999). The Social Shaping of Technology: How ciotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press the Refrigerator Got Its Hum, Milton Keynes, Open (Inside Technology Series). University Press. 10 9 EXTERNAL LINKS

• MacKenzie, Donald (1996). Knowing Machines: 9 External links Essays on Technical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (Inside Technology Series). • STSWiki (devoted to building resources, such as a worldwide list of STS programs and scholars) • Mol, Annemarie (2002). The Body Multiple: On- tology in Medical Practice, Duke University Press • STS-Wiki of (Dutch) STS PhD research school (this Books. page is partly a private wiki) • Argentinean Network for Science and Technology • Restivo, Sal (editor-in-chief), Science, Technology, Studies and Society: An Encyclopedia. New York: Oxford, 2005. • Instituto de Estudios sobre la Ciencia y la Tecnología - Universidad Nacional de Quilmes • Restivo, Sal (1992), Mathematics in Society and History. New York: Springer. Journals

• Rip, Arie, Thomas J. Misa and Johan Schot, eds. • Social Studies of Science (1995). Managing Technology in Society: The approach of Constructive • Science, Technology, & Human Values London/NY: Pinter. • Science & Technology Studies • Rosenberg, Nathan (1994) Exploring the Black Box: • Technology in Society Technology, and History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Research Policy

• Shamir, Ronen (2013). Current Flow: The Electri- • Revue d'Anthropologie des Connaissances fication of Palestine. Stanford: Stanford University • Minerva: A Journal of Science, Learning and Policy Press. • Science Technology and Society • Volti, Rudi (2001). Society and technological • change. New York: Worth. Science as Culture • Technology and Culture • Shaw, Jeffrey M (2014). Illusions of Freedom: Thomas Merton and on Technology • Science and Public Policy and the Human Condition. Eugene, OR: Wipf and • Stock. Engineering studies • Tecnoscienza. Italian Journal of Science & Technol- • Vinck, Dominique (2010). The Sociology of Scien- ogy Studies tific Work. The Fundamental Relationship between Science and Society. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Student journals • Vinck, Dominique (2003). Everyday engineering. Ethnography of design and innovation. Cambridge, • Intersect: the Journal of Science, Technology, and MA: MIT Press. Society, Stanford University • DEMESCI: International Journal of Deliberative • Werskey, Gary. The Marxist Critique of Mechanisms in Science Capitalist Science: A History in Three Movements?. The Human Nature Review. 2011-05-21. URL:http://human-nature.com/ science-as-culture/werskey.html. Accessed: 2011-05-21. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5yr1hbYcl)

• Williams, Robin and Edge, David The Social Shap- ing of Technology, Research Policy, Vol. 25, 1996, pp. 856–899 (html version).

• Steven Lukes, Power: A Radical View (London: Macmillan, 1974) 11

10 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

10.1 Text

• Science, technology and society Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science%2C_technology_and_society?oldid=728868937 Contrib- utors: Dreamyshade, Fred Bauder, Lexor, Ronz, Jll, Rl, Buridan, Chuunen Baka, ZimZalaBim, Ancheta Wis, Fastfission, Andycjp, Rich Farmbrough, Giraffedata, Alansohn, Cetheriel, Mompox, Woohookitty, RHaworth, Camw, LOL, Wikiklrsc, KYPark, Vegaswikian, Bg- white, YurikBot, Fcendejas, Gaius Cornelius, NawlinWiki, Madcoverboy, Jpbowen, Stevenwmccrary58, Chichui, Tony1, RedJ 17, Smack- Bot, Pfaff9, Chris the speller, SchfiftyThree, “alyosha”, Dreadstar, Beetstra, RekishiEJ, Blehfu, CmdrObot, Gregbard, Yaris678, Corpx, Odie5533, Thijs!bot, 17Drew, MaxPont, Magioladitis, AuburnPilot, Susan Elisabeth McDonald, Not a dog, MCG, Hdt83, LapisQuem, Ál, Snowfalcon cu, Hamlettp, Axolotl Nr.733, Bonadea, DASonnenfeld, Jeb2118, Jvpwiki, Funandtrvl, DrCain200, VolkovBot, Tomsega, Shijusam, Shahzadak, Jamesks, Biscuittin, Eyedubya, Jojalozzo, Oxymoron83, Technite, Martarius, Sfan00 IMG, ClueBot, The Thing That Should Not Be, Drmies, Auntof6, DragonBot, Excirial, Rhododendrites, Arjayay, 7, SoxBot III, Merodack, Laurenshessels, MystBot, Addbot, Ajwebster, Fgnievinski, Mootros, Tettner, Leszek Jańczuk, Lightbot, Jgwald596, AnomieBOT, Llanberis45, Ulric1313, Materi- alscientist, Citation bot, Xqbot, DSisyphBot, Crzer07, Omnipaedista, PinsonV, Biasco, Pargeter1, Touchatou, Mnent, Hugetim, FrescoBot, Oldlaptop321, Stewartr09, Whoosit, Widavis, SDMMC, Pinethicket, I dream of horses, Tylersoron, Koocannon456, Moiz hcu, EmausBot, Ajraddatz, Dewritech, Sabeen2331, Winner 42, Dcirovic, ZéroBot, Mapc.088, Botanical nomi, Staceyctobin, Phronetic, Bleemoo, Eanita, ClueBot NG, Stic rotide, Marechal Ney, Widr, BG19bot, Anyazelie, Smschrag, Ingmar.lippert, Rmdl2006, Meclee, Whym, BattyBot, David.moreno72, Jrgcastellanos, Me, Myself, and I are Here, Lee Bunce, Blurrim, CGriffyBrown, Jackmcbarn, Ghannam Wasif, Trixie05, Fixuture, CEckhardt, Chhak, Line.caro, Ozdarka, Martin75gk, Ruby XL, Serten II, STS Gentle Tyranny, Independebubble, Jboulter11, STShappywhale, RoccoDelPriore, Timtimgibbons, Vbhagwani, Stslegacythinking, Mscocozza, Jaymarion21, Lehrhr, Srednuas Lenoroc, Changj7, Isaac B 147, Pradipmalla, Sathyu and Anonymous: 132

10.2 Images

• File:Ambox_important.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Ambox_important.svg License: Public do- main Contributors: Own work, based off of Image:Ambox scales.svg Original artist: Dsmurat (talk · contribs) • File:Ambox_rewrite.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Ambox_rewrite.svg License: Public domain Contributors: self-made in Inkscape Original artist: penubag • File:Commons-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Commons-logo.svg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contribu- tors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Edit-clear.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f2/Edit-clear.svg License: Public domain Contributors: The Tango! Desktop Project. Original artist: The people from the Tango! project. And according to the meta-data in the file, specifically: “Andreas Nilsson, and Jakub Steiner (although minimally).” • File:Folder_Hexagonal_Icon.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/48/Folder_Hexagonal_Icon.svg License: Cc-by- sa-3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Library-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Library-logo.svg License: CC0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Mononomic • File:Mergefrom.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Mergefrom.svg License: Public domain Contribu- tors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Portal-puzzle.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fd/Portal-puzzle.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Split-arrows.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Split-arrows.svg License: Public domain Contribu- tors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Symbol_book_class2.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Symbol_book_class2.svg License: CC BY-SA 2.5 Contributors: Mad by Lokal_Profil by combining: Original artist: Lokal_Profil • File:Telecom-icon.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Telecom-icon.svg License: Public domain Con- tributors: Vectorized by User:Booyabazooka from original small PD raster image File:Telecom-icon.jpg Original artist: Vectorized by User:Booyabazooka from original small PD raster image File:Telecom-icon.jpg • File:Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Text_document_ with_red_question_mark.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Created by bdesham with Inkscape; based upon Text-x-generic.svg from the Tango project. Original artist: Benjamin D. Esham (bdesham) • File:Wikiquote-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Wikiquote-logo.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: Rei-artur

10.3 Content license

• Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0