DOCSLIB.ORG

Wegwijs in Sts – Knowing Your Way in Sts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wegwijs in Sts – Knowing Your Way in Sts WEGWIJS IN STS – KNOWING YOUR WAY IN STS Wegwijs in STS – Knowing your way in STS Editors: (Niet op titelpagina!) Harro van Lente Tsjalling Swierstra Sally Wyatt Ragna Zeiss Compilation and layout of text: Sabine Kuipers Illustrator and cover designer: Mirko Reithler © 2017, Maastricht University Science, Technology and Society Studies (MUSTS) Contents INTRODUCTIE: DE DOCHTER VAN 17 5 DOING DEMOCRACY 11 Technoscience, democracy, and human rights – René Gabriels 13 STS and citizenship – Govert Valkenburg 19 Transparency – Joseph Wachelder 23 From the democratisation boulevard to the muddy road. Practising engagement in STS – Roland Bal 27 Crossing boundaries: the curious case of basic income – Julia Backhaus 31 Technologische cultuur – Tsjalling Swierstra 35 BICYCLES AND BEYOND 39 Bicycle technologies and cycling cultures – Harry Oosterhuis 41 Biking like a boy – Jenny Slatman 47 Het zeilschip-effect en de elektrische auto – Marc Dijk 51 Obduracy: de hardheid van techniek – Anique Hommels 53 ENGINEERING WATER AND NATURE 57 Après Wiebe le déluge: water, engineering, and politics – Cyrus Mody 59 Samen werken aan integrale ruimtelijke opgaven – Trudes Heems 63 Water quality: it could have been otherwise – Ragna Zeiss 69 Of Dutch, dikes and dams – Anna Wesselink 75 Dam builders: the game of SCOT – Alexandra Supper and Sally Wyatt 81 Biodiversity – Jens Lachmund 89 Nature-cultures – Raf de Bont 93 SOUNDS OF MUSIC 97 Piepende oren: over de rol van wetenschap in het ontstaan van publieke problemen – Karin Bijsterveld 99 How STS provides a new way of thinking about musical instruments and their sounds – Trevor Pinch 105 How to make a new pipe organ sound old – Peter Peters 111 POWERS OF KNOWLEDGE 115 Boilerplate – Ger Wackers 117 Quantification and classification: the politics of counting and sorting – Jess Bier 121 De geschiedenis van de waarheid – Geert Somsen 127 STS and the understanding of risk – Frederic Bouder 131 Het verleden van de toekomst – Rein de Wilde 135 Co-productie – Rik Wehrens 141 3 Wegwijs in STS – Knowing your way in STS Dementie en de ethiek van etnografisch onderzoek: de clown, de antropoloog en het ERCIC – Ruud Hendriks 145 Interdisciplinariteit – Anna Wolters 151 Technologie en behoefte: de wonderlijke omdraaiing van gevolg en oorzaak – Harro van Lente 155 HOW HEALTHY IS MEDICINE? 159 Collectieve vormgeving van gepersonaliseerde geneeskunde: een vergelijkend perspectief – Erik Aarden 161 On ‘Big Science’ Can we characterise Wiebe as a ‘Big Scientist’? – Niki Vermeulen 167 The social construction of sport doping: Body enhancement beyond good and evil – Toine Pieters 171 Bodies and bicycles – Bernike Pasveer 175 Hoe het ‘gewone’ bijzonder is – Jessica Mesman 179 Technologie in de gezondheidszorg: het nut van een WTO perspectief – Agnes Meershoek 183 Geloven in technologie over de co-constructie van religie en technologie – Michiel van Well en Maarten Verkerk 187 TRAVELLING KNOWLEDGE 193 Science, society and technology studies have some good stories to tell! – Ruth Mourik 195 Natuurkunde tussen bijgeloof, industrie en activisme – Ernst Homburg 199 Glances behind the scenes: the construction and dissemination of knowledge and technology in different times and spaces – Marith Dieker, Lisa van Diem and Claudia Egher 205 Je brein als een waterklok: metaforen in de wetenschap – Ties van de Werff 217 Bridging knowledges: a plea for professionalizing knowledge brokerage – Louk Box 221 GOING SOUTH 227 Virtual travelling of a nano-enabled anti-tuberculosis drug – Trust Saidi 229 Doing research to make a difference – Annapurna Mamidipudi 233 Science and technology in the global south – Koen Beumer and Andreas Mitzschke 237 Questioning the obvious about small hydro projects in India – Johanna I. Höffken 243 Innovation for tuberculosis control in India – Nora Engel 247 ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS / OVER DE AUTEURS 251 4 INTRODUCTIE: DE DOCHTER VAN 17 Waarom heeft wetenschappelijke kennis een streepje voor op andere vormen van kennis? Waarom is het vanzelfsprekend dat een fiets twee gelijke wielen heeft? Wat zou India aan nanotechnologie kunnen hebben? Hoe zou maatschappelijke inspraak over nieuwe technologie georganiseerd kunnen worden? Dit soort vragen wordt gesteld in het vakgebied Science, Technology and Society Studies, ofwel STS. Dit vakgebied is in de afgelopen 40 jaar opgekomen en dit boek is geschreven als introductie. De lezer die we in gedachten hebben is de slimme jonge meid die wel weet wat er in de wereld te koop is maar ook bereid is om verrast te worden. STS uitgelegd aan je dochter van 17, dat is de formule van dit boek. We nodigen de lezer uit om - als dochter van 17 - in dit boek mee te gaan langs bekende en onbekende plaatsen binnen en buiten de wetenschap, om open te staan voor de bijzondere vragen en verrassende antwoorden van STS, in acht delen en twee talen. De hoofdstukken zijn geschreven door collega’s en oud-collega’s van professor Wiebe Bijker die sinds 1994 in Maastricht hebben gewerkt in het STS onderzoeksprogramma dat Wiebe heeft opgezet: Maastricht University Science, Technology and Society Studies (MUSTS). We kunnen wel zeggen dat Wiebe niet zozeer in het vakgebied van STS heeft gewerkt, maar aan het vakgebied. In wat STS nu is, is de hand van Wiebe Bijker zichtbaar. Hij stond aan de wieg van wat STS een vakgebied maakt, zoals centrale theorieën en concepten, iconische voorbeelden, wetenschappelijke verenigingen en het opleiden van nieuwe onderzoekers. Door de hand van Wiebe te volgen krijgen we ook een introductie in STS, dat is de gedachte van het boek. We volgen enkele thema’s die centraal staan in STS en deel uitmaken van het werk van Wiebe Bijker: democratie, water en natuur, transport, geluid, macht van kennis, gezondheid, kennis op reis en technologie buiten Europa. Goede ideeën Dit boek als geheel geeft een introductie in de vragen, invalshoeken en antwoorden van STS. Het eerste hoofdstuk laat zien hoe je als wetenschapper in een vakgebied succesvol kan zijn en volgt daarbij de bijdragen van Wiebe Bijker. Wat is er nodig voor een productieve en inspirerende carrière in de wetenschap? In de eerste plaats heb je goede ideeën nodig. Het eerste goede idee van Wiebe was een theorie die vertelt hoe een technisch apparaat, of technologie, tot stand komt. Hoe kun je bijvoorbeeld begrijpen dat een fiets eruit ziet zoals die er nu uit ziet, met twee gelijke wielen en trappers ertussen die met een ketting verbonden zijn met het achterwiel. We weten namelijk ook dat er andere soorten fietsen hebben bestaan. In het museum of in oude films zien we dan mensen op rare fietsen met een klein achterwiel en een groot voorwiel. Heel onhandig ziet dat eruit; je denkt dan dat onhandige bestond omdat de ‘echte’ fiets nog niet bekend was. Maar dat is 5 Wegwijs in STS – Knowing your way in STS geschiedvervalsing. Wiebe bestudeerde in de jaren ’80, samen met Ellen van Oost, de geschiedenis van de fiets en zij kwamen tot heel andere inzichten. Symmetrisch Wiebe liet zich inspireren door ontwikkelingen in de wetenschapsfilosofie waarin niet alleen het falen van wetenschap uit sociale factoren werd verklaard, maar ook de successen. Het is buiten de filosofie nog steeds gebruikelijk om vooral voor wetenschappelijke dwalingen een verklaring te geven: hoe kan het dat iets wordt aangehangen terwijl (later) blijkt dat het niet klopt? Welke belangen, groepsprocessen en andere maatschappelijke factoren hebben geleid tot deze situatie? Voor wetenschappelijke successen is de redenering vaak anders. Veel mensen vinden het onnodig om te onderzoeken waarom een wetenschappelijke overtuiging wordt aangehangen. De verklaring lijkt immers simpel: iets geldt als wetenschappelijke waar omdat het waar is. Waarom denkt iedereen in de wetenschap dat Einstein gelijk heeft? Omdat hij gelijk heeft! Toch is deze redenering onbevredigend. We weten bijvoorbeeld dat wetenschap vooruitgang boekt, dat wil zeggen dat wat we nu voor waar houden anders is dan wat we honderd jaar geleden voor waar hielden. Als je wetenschappelijke vooruitgang koestert moet je ook erkennen dat wat we nu voor waar houden over honderd jaar misschien niet langer als waar wordt gezien. Dus als we willen begrijpen waarom iets nu als waar geldt, moet je dezelfde vragen stellen als voor dwalingen: welke belangen en maatschappelijk processen spelen hier? Zowel ware als niet-ware wetenschap moet je dus op dezelfde manier onderzoeken. In de wetenschapsfilosofie moet je, met andere woorden, symmetrisch zijn. Wiebe nam, met Ellen van Oost en later ook Trevor Pinch, de gedachte van symmetrie over in de bestudering van technologie. Als je wilt begrijpen waarom technologie eruit ziet zoals het eruit ziet, moet je symmetrisch te werk gaan. Je moet verklaren wanneer een technologie faalt, maar ook wanneer een technologie werkt. En hiermee opende hij een nieuw veld van vragen. Tot dan toe werd gedacht: we hoeven alleen te verklaren waarom een technologie die niet goed werkt er toch is: welke denkbeelden, belangen en maatschappelijke krachten zijn hier werkzaam? Een technologie die werkt, ja, die is er natuurlijk omdat het werkt. Een fiets, bijvoorbeeld, is er omdat het heel handig is dat er fietsen zijn. Maar als je symmetrisch te werk gaat, stel je andere vragen. Dan wil je weten: waarom vinden we fietsen dan handig? En voor welke problemen zijn fietsen dan een oplossing? En wat is ‘een fiets’ dan eigenlijk? In de wereldberoemd geworden studie van de geschiedenis van de fiets wezen Wiebe en zijn collega’s op de lange tijd (het laatste kwart van de 19e eeuw) waarin het nog helemaal niet duidelijk was wat een fiets nou eigenlijk was en wat je ermee zou moeten. Betekenisflexibiliteit noemden ze dat: de ene groep, vooral ouderen, vond zo’n fiets met een hoog voorwiel maar gevaarlijk en onhandig terwijl een andere groep, vooral jonge mannen, het hoge voorwiel juist waardeerde omdat het snelheid gaf en 6 lekker gevaarlijk was. Daarmee kon je indruk maken. Die verschillende betekenissen leidden vervolgens weer tot verschillende routes voor nieuwe ontwerpen: voor de ouderen kwamen er fietsen met kleinere voorwielen en voor de jonge macho’s fietsen met juist grotere wielen.
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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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,
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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).
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Del Laboratorio a La Ciudad: Wiebe Bijker Habla De La Evolución De Los Estudios Sociales De La Tecnología Redes, Vol
    Redes ISSN: 0328-3186 [email protected] Universidad Nacional de Quilmes Argentina Boczkowski, Pablo J. Del Laboratorio a la Ciudad: Wiebe Bijker habla de la evolución de los Estudios Sociales de la Tecnología Redes, vol. 7, núm. 16, diciembre, 2000, pp. 89-106 Universidad Nacional de Quilmes Buenos Aires, Argentina Disponible en: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=90701603 Cómo citar el artículo Número completo Sistema de Información Científica Más información del artículo Red de Revistas Científicas de América Latina, el Caribe, España y Portugal Página de la revista en redalyc.org Proyecto académico sin fines de lucro, desarrollado bajo la iniciativa de acceso abierto DOSSIER Del Laboratorio a la Ciudad: Wiebe Bijker habla de la evolución de los Estudios Sociales de la Tecnología REDES, Vol. VII, No. 16, diciembre de 2000, pp. 87-106 Del Laboratorio a la Ciudad: Wiebe Bijker habla de la evolución de los Estudios Sociales de la Tecnología* Pablo J. Boczkowski ** Wiebe Bijker es un ingeniero heterodoxo y, parafraseando a John Law, heterogéneo. Si entendemos la ingeniería en sentido amplio como el uso del conocimiento y la experi- mentación para la creación de objetos socialmente útiles, la trayectoria de Bijker es cier- tamente “ingenieril” –tal como se manifiesta en la construcción de entidades tan diversas como planes de reforma curricular para la educación media, colecciones edi- toriales, programas transnacionales de posgrado, disciplinas académicas, movimientos políticos, manuales de Física para alumnos de escuela secundaria y textos sociológi- cos–. En el medio de tanta heterodoxia y heterogeneidad ha habido al menos un ele- mento constante: la pasión –y tal vez la obsesión– por democratizar la tecnología a través de mostrar que su rigidez es el resultado de procesos sociales “endurecidos” usualmente disfrazados bajo justificaciones técnicas, y por ende capaces de ser modi- ficados en las condiciones apropiadas.
    [Show full text]
  • Wiebe E. Bijker Curriculum Vitae and Publication Lists March 2016
    Wiebe E. Bijker Curriculum Vitae and publication lists March 2016 Summary 3 Personal details and addresses 5 Education 5 Affiliations 5 Awards 6 Academic and professional functions 6 Professional functions (international) 6 Professional functions (the Netherlands) 6 Editorial committees 7 Evaluation and assessment 7 Scientific advice and peer-review 7 Membership of professional organisations 8 Visiting researcher and professor 9 Postdoctoral fellows received 9 Contract research 9 Graduate teaching: management, supervision and examination 10 Coordinating functions 10 PhD-supervision 10 PhD Examiner 11 MSc, MA, and MPhil examination boards 13 Undergraduate teaching 13 Science and culture studies, Maastricht University (since 1990) 13 Medical School, Maastricht University (1988 – 1999) 13 Ten Key publications 14 Complete list of publications 15 Journal articles 15 in refereed journals 15 in other journals 16 BooKs 16 Monographs and edited volumes 16 Book chapters 17 Conference proceedings 19 Professional publications and other products 19 Professional publications 19 Reports 19 Books and articles related to physics teaching 20 1 2 Summary1 Wiebe E. Bijker (1951) was educated as an engineer (physics) at Delft University of Technology, then studied philosophy of science at the Universities of Amsterdam and Groningen, and received a PhD in the history and sociology of technology from Twente University. Bijker’s teaching and research focus on the relations between science, technology and society, encompassing the full spectrum from fundamental theoretical and empirical research to applied and policy-related projects. His work straddles the natural, social and humanistic sciences. Partly parallel to his physics and philosophy education he taught physics in secondary school and co-authored a series of Dutch science textbooks for secondary school that combined physics, chemistry and biology.
    [Show full text]
  • Elman As Mentor: Study of Scientific Cultures and Scientific
    Edinburgh Research Explorer Science, technology and late imperial history Citation for published version: Bray, F 2017, 'Science, technology and late imperial history', Chinese Historical Review, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 93-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/1547402X.2017.1297598 Digital Object Identifier (DOI): 10.1080/1547402X.2017.1297598 Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Peer reviewed version Published In: Chinese Historical Review General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 26. Sep. 2021 SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND LATE IMPERIAL HISTORY FRANCESCA BRAY University of Edinburgh As illustrated in the work of Elman and his school, the demystification of science has opened new vistas in the history of late imperial China. I argue that the similarly demystified concept of technology, as it is has recently been elaborated in technology studies, offers equally exciting new opportunities. They include an enrichment of our understanding of late imperial governance, subjectivities and material culture, and new possibilities for organizing, relating and comparing within the history of China, as well as for cross-cultural comparison.
    [Show full text]
  • Delft University of Technology Three Philosophical Perspectives on The
    Delft University of Technology Three philosophical perspectives on the relation between technology and society, and how they affect the current debate about artificial intelligence Poel, Ibo van de DOI 10.1515/humaff-2020-0042 Publication date 2020 Document Version Final published version Published in Human Affairs Citation (APA) Poel, I. V. D. (2020). Three philosophical perspectives on the relation between technology and society, and how they affect the current debate about artificial intelligence. Human Affairs, 30(4), 499-511. https://doi.org/10.1515/humaff-2020-0042 Important note To cite this publication, please use the final published version (if applicable). Please check the document version above. Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons. Takedown policy Please contact us and provide details if you believe this document breaches copyrights. We will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. This work is downloaded from Delft University of Technology. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to a maximum of 10. Green Open Access added to TU Delft Institutional Repository 'You share, we take care!' - Taverne project https://www.openaccess.nl/en/you-share-we-take-care Otherwise as indicated in the copyright section: the publisher is the copyright holder of this work and the author uses the Dutch legislation to make this work public.
    [Show full text]