A Review of the Social Construction of Technology Approach: Do Society Constructs Technology?

Document Type : Promotional article


1 Sharif University of Technology Center for Philosophy of Science

2 Assistant Professor of Centre for Philosophy of Science of Sharif University of Technology


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.


  • مرشدی, ابوالفضل. (1391). دریچه ای به روی جامعه شناسی فناوری - مروری بر مطالعات اجتماعی علم و فناوری. سیاست نامه علم و فناوری, 02(1), 81-94.
  • رحمان شریف­زاده، تکنولوژی، عاملیت و تصمیم، راهبرد فرهنگ، شماره34.
  • وال دوسک، (1393). درآمدی بر فلسفه تکنولوژی. ترجمه مصطفی تقوی. تهران: انتشارات پژوهشکده اندیشه دفاعی.
  • مهدی زاده، محمدرضا، توکل، محمد. (1386). مطالعات علم و فناوری: مروری بر زمینه های جامعه­شناسی فناوری. فصلنامه برنامه ریزی و بودجه. 12(۴)، ۸۵-۱۲۴.
  • ایمان، محمد تقی، غفاری نسب، اسفندیار. (1394). رویکردی نوین به برساخت اجتماعی فناوری‌های نوین. حوزه و دانشگاه روش شناسی علوم انسانی، 21(85)، 145-164.
  • توکل، محمد، (1390). جامعه­شناسی تکنولوژی. تهران: انتشارات جامعه­شناسان.
  • 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 Culture43(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 culture43(2), 351-360.
  • Ellul, J. (1964). The technological society.
  • Epperson, B. (2002). Does SCOT answer? A comment. Technology and Culture43(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 technology82.
  • Laudan, L., & Leplin, J. (1991). Empirical equivalence and underdetermination. The journal of philosophy88(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 technology1, 1-134.
  • Pinch, T., & Bijker, W. (1986). Science, relativism and the new sociology of technology: Reply to Russell. Social studies of science16(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 Technology17, 1-6.
  • Russell, S. (1986). The social construction of artefacts: a response to Pinch and Bijker. Social studies of science16(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 Values18(3), 362-378.