1
Sharif University of Technology Center for Philosophy of Science
2
Assistant Professor of Centre for Philosophy of Science of Sharif University of Technology
Abstract
However “The Social Construction of Technology (SCOT)” is the title of an approach in the domain of Science and Technology Studies (STS), it has an important effect on the philosophy of technology. This approach that insists on the role of society in the construction of technologies, is based on the sociology of science and the social construction of it. T. J. Pinch and W. E. Bijker, two creators and defenders of SCOT’s approach, was tried to transform three conceptions, “relevant social groups”, “interpretative flexibility” and “closure” that was used in sociology of science, to sociology of technology. In this paper, we explain SCOT’s approach, critics on it and some of it’s defenders replies to these critics.
Achterhuis, H. (Ed.). (2001). American philosophy of technology: The empirical turn. Indiana University Press.
Bijker, W. E., Pinch, T. J., & Clayton, N. (2002). SCOT answers, other questions: A reply to Nick Clayton. Technology and Culture, 43(2), 361-370.
Brewer, W. F., & Lambert, B. L. (1993). The theory-ladenness of observation: Evidence from cognitive psychology. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society(pp. 254-259).
Clayton, N. (2002). SCOT: Does it answer?. Technology and culture, 43(2), 351-360.
Ellul, J. (1964). The technological society.
Epperson, B. (2002). Does SCOT answer? A comment. Technology and Culture, 43(2), 371-373.
Hughes, T. P. (2012). The evolution of large technological systems. The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology, 82.
Laudan, L., & Leplin, J. (1991). Empirical equivalence and underdetermination. The journal of philosophy, 88(9), 449-472.
Law, J. (2012). Technology and heterogeneous engineering: The case of Portuguese expansion. The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology, 1, 1-134.
Pinch, T., & Bijker, W. (1986). Science, relativism and the new sociology of technology: Reply to Russell. Social studies of science, 16(2), 347-360.
Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (2012). The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other. The social constructions of technological systems: New directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, 17, 1-6.
Russell, S. (1986). The social construction of artefacts: a response to Pinch and Bijker. Social studies of science, 16(2), 331-346.
Winner, L. (1993). Upon opening the black box and finding it empty: Social constructivism and the philosophy of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 18(3), 362-378.
Shafikhani, M. A., & Taqavi, M. (2019). A Review of the Social Construction of Technology Approach:
Do Society Constructs Technology?. Science and Technology Policy Letters, 09(1), 5-19.
MLA
Mohamad Amin Shafikhani; Mostafa Taqavi. "A Review of the Social Construction of Technology Approach:
Do Society Constructs Technology?". Science and Technology Policy Letters, 09, 1, 2019, 5-19.
HARVARD
Shafikhani, M. A., Taqavi, M. (2019). 'A Review of the Social Construction of Technology Approach:
Do Society Constructs Technology?', Science and Technology Policy Letters, 09(1), pp. 5-19.
VANCOUVER
Shafikhani, M. A., Taqavi, M. A Review of the Social Construction of Technology Approach:
Do Society Constructs Technology?. Science and Technology Policy Letters, 2019; 09(1): 5-19.
)
