 |
|
|
|
The Introduction to paper THE SOCIAL SHAPING OF TECHNOLOGY
Robin Williams and David Edge
appears in Research Policy Vol. 25, (1996) pp.
856-899
|
|
|
|
|
The Introduction to paper THE SOCIAL SHAPING OF TECHNOLOGY
Robin Williams and David Edge
appears in Research Policy Vol. 25, (1996) pp.
856-899
Full Paper in MSWord 6.0
Bibliography
1. INTRODUCTION
This paper reviews the body of research that addresses `the social
shaping of technology' (SST) (MacKenzie & Wajcman 1985). In
contrast to traditional approaches which only addressed the outcomes
or 'impacts' of technological change, this work examines the content
of technology and the particular processes involved in innovation. We
highlight the growth of socio-economic research falling within this
very broad definition of SST. It explores a range of factors -
organisational, political, economic and cultural - which pattern the
design and implementation of technology.
SST has gained increasing recognition in recent years, particularly
in the UK and Europe, as a valuable research focus , for its broader
import for the scientific and policy claims of social sciences. SST
is seen as playing a positive role in integrating natural and social
science concerns; in offering a greater understanding of the
relationship between scientific excellence, technological innovation
and economic and social well-being; and in broadening the policy
agenda, for example in the promotion and management of technological
change (European Science Foundation/Economic and Social Research
Council 1991, Newby 1992).
However, various analytical frameworks have been proposed, which
differ to a greater or lesser extent in their terminology and
approach. Considerable confusion remains about the identity and
claims of SST: what constitutes social shaping research? what are the
differences within SST? what is the relationship between SST and
other areas of social analysis of technology? Thus `SST' is often
taken to be synonymous with one particular approach - for example,
the social construction of technology - or more generally with the
sociological study of technology (see for example Rose & Smith
1986, Mackay & Gillespie 1992). This paper attempts to clarify
the situation by mapping out our conception of the domain of SST as a
`broad church', indicating its different strands and the
relationships between them. We therefore adopt a very broad
definition of SST, without implying a particular consensual
'orthodoxy', clear boundaries, or claims of ownership to the field.
As we hope to show, much of the strength in this area lies in the
very diversity of work which it encompasses. Our main focus is on
Britain, although SST has emerged to an important extent through
international discussion.
We argue that a variety of scholars, with differing concerns and
intellectual traditions, find a meeting point in the SST project.
They are united by an insistence that the `black-box' of technology
must be opened, to allow the socio-economic patterns embedded in both
the content of technologies and the processes of innovation to be
exposed and analysed (MacKenzie and Wajcman 1985, Bijker and Law
1992). SST stands in contrast to post-Enlightenment traditions which
did not problematise technological change, but limited the scope of
enquiry to monitoring the social adjustments it saw as being required
by technological progress. SST emerged through a critique of such
'technological determinism'. SST studies show that technology does
not develop according to an inner technical logic but is instead a
social product, patterned by the conditions of its creation and use.
Every stage in the generation and implementation of new technologies
involves a set of choices between different technical options.
Alongside narrowly `technical' considerations, a range of `social'
factors affect which options are selected - thus influencing the
content of technologies, and their social implications.
Simply establishing that technologies are 'socially shaped' leaves
open many important questions about the character and influence of
the shaping forces. In seeking to grasp the complexity of the
socio-economic processes involved in technological innovation, SST
has been forced to go beyond simplistic forms of social determinism
which, like technological determinism, see technology as reflecting a
single rationality - for example an economic imperative, or the
political imperative of a ruling élite. For example a critique
has been made of the dominant neo-classical tradition of economic
analysis, with its assumptions that technologies will emerge readily
in response to market demands (Coombs et al 1987).
In attempting to grasp this complexity, various conceptual frameworks
have been advanced both about the nature of the socio-economic forces
shaping technology and about the appropriate levels and frameworks
for their analysis. These reflect the differing research concerns and
theoretical traditions within SST. We will therefore begin by
outlining (in Section 2) this diversity of intellectual origins, and
its legacy in current theoretical perspectives and debates.
Central to SST is the concept that there are `choices' (though not
necessarily conscious choices) inherent in both the design of
individual artefacts and systems, and in the direction or trajectory
of innovation programmes. If technology does not emerge from the
unfolding of a predetermined logic or a single determinant, then
innovation is a 'garden of forking paths'. Different routes are
available, potentially leading to different technological outcomes.
Significantly, these choices could have differing implications for
society and for particular social groups. The character of
technologies, as well as their social implications, are problematised
and opened up for enquiry. We can analyse the social influences over
the particular technological routes taken (and their consequences).
This opens up two sets of questions. First SST stresses the
negotiability of technology (Cronberg 1992), highlighting the scope
for particular groups and forces to shape technologies to their ends
and the possibility of different kinds of (`technological' and
`social' outcome). Second it raises questions about irreversibility
(Collingridge 1992, Callon 1993) - the extent and manner in which
choices may be foreclosed. Earlier technological choices pattern
subsequent development (Rosenberg 1994). Certain options may be
selected and become entrenched - for example as a result of the
tendency of new technologies to develop cumulatively, erected upon
the knowledge base and social and technical infrastructure of
existing technologies - particularly where increasing returns to
scale of investment result in 'lock-in' to established solutions
(David 1975, Arthur 1989, Cowan 1992). SST points to closure - the
ways in which innovation may become stabilised (Pinch and Bijker
1984) - as well as the possibility of reversing earlier choices
(Latour 1988). As we shall see below, SST proponents differ over
their characterisation of such `choices', and in their approaches to
the stability or negotiability of technologies - with related
differences over the rôles and significance of large-scale
social and economic structures, as opposed to the activities of
individuals and groups. Long-established debates within social
sciences have resurfaced in this field, with a number of (often
heated) theoretical disputes.
These debates are not merely `academic': they relate to policy claims
and objectives. For SST has been strongly influenced by a concern
with technology policy. By rendering the social processes of
innovation problematic, SST has opened up policy issues that had been
obscured by technological determinism, and by related simplistic
models. For example SST criticised established `linear models', which
conceived of innovation as involving a one-way flow of information,
ideas and solutions from basic science, through Research and
Development (R&D), to production and the diffusion of stable
artefacts through the market to consumers.
Public technology policies underpinned by these linear models are now
seen as unhelpful (Fairclough 1992) because of their division of
innovation into separate phases and their privileging of
technological supply. In contrast, SST has drawn attention to the
close and reciprocal interactions between these stages, and the
transformation of technologies between their initial conception and
their eventual application. SST contributed towards the development
of public policies which emphasised the role of the user as well as
the supplier, and the need for linkages between them (Fleck 1988a).
And it has been claimed that SST could help to broaden technology
policy agendas and make them more pro-active: rather than merely
conducting retrospective cost-benefit analyses of technology,
'Constructive Technology Assessment' would allow exploration of the
possible implications of different choices within and during
technological development (Schot 1992, Rip at al. 1995).
Many SST writers had deeper concerns: to emancipate science and
technology - to dismantle their privileging as inevitable, or
standing outside or above society; and to view them as areas of
social activity, subject to social forces and amenable to social
analysis (Bijker 1993). An important critical strand within SST has
highlighted the politics of technology (Winner 1977, 1980), arguing
that technologies are not neutral, but are fostered by groups to
preserve or alter social relations (Hård 1993); they are
`politics pursued by other means' (Latour 1988). Thus from the outset
SST was influenced by a desire to democratise technological
decision-making (or, at least, to subject it to forms of social
accountability and control). However, the different approaches within
SST reach divergent conclusions about the character of technology,
the social mechanisms of shaping and control, and thus about the
methods (and indeed the very possibility) of social intervention in
technological innovation. And these tensions and contradictions pose
a number of dilemmas, particularly in methodology and
epistemology.
At a theoretical level, we would argue that the tensions are, at
least potentially, creative - requiring continual reassessment both
of research methods and interpretation, and of SST's rôle. It
may be that these internal differences, and more profound schisms
with other disciplines and approaches to the social analysis of
technology (particularly `mainstream' economics [Stoneman
1992]), have impeded SST's cumulative theoretical growth: yet its
empirical work has been remarkably fruitful (European Science
Foundation/ESRC 1992). A range of explanatory concepts has recently
begun to emerge, constituting an effective model of the innovation
process. We briefly summarise some of its elements in Section 3.
Since the final test of any research perspective is its ability to
yield more adequate understandings, Section 4 reviews, by way of
illustration, a range of recent research that addresses specific
instances of the social shaping of information technology (IT).
Finally we discuss some of the intellectual dilemmas in the field
(Section 5), and conclude with some comments on possible future
developments.
Full Paper in MSWord 6.0
Bibliography
|
|
|
|
|