Science, technology and society
Science, technology and society (STS), also referred to
as science and technology studies, is a branch or off-
spring of science studies. It considers how social, po-
litical, and cultural values affect scientific research and
technological innovation, and how these, in turn, affect
society, politics and culture.
1 History
STS is a new subject. Like most interdisciplinary pro-
grams, it emerged from the confluence of a variety of dis-
ciplines and disciplinary subfields, all of which had devel-
oped an interest—typically, during the 1960s or 1970s—
in viewing science and technology as socially embed-
ded enterprises.[1] The key disciplinary components of
STS took shape independently, beginning in the 1960s,
and developed in isolation from each other well into the
1980s, although Ludwik Fleck's monograph (1935) Gen-
esis and Development of a Scientific Fact anticipated many
of STS’s key themes. In the 1970s Elting E. Morison
founded the STS program at Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT), which served as a model. By 2011
111 STS programs were counted.[2]
1.1 Key themes
• History of technology, that examines technology in
its social and historical context. Starting in the
1960s, some historians questioned technological de-
terminism, a doctrine that can induce public pas-
sivity to technologic and scientific 'natural' devel-
opment. At the same time, some historians began
to develop similarly contextual approaches to the
history of medicine.
• History and philosophy of science (1960s). After
the publication of Thomas Kuhn's well-known The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), which at-
tributed changes in scientific theories to changes in
underlying intellectual paradigms, programs were
founded at the University of California, Berkeley
and elsewhere that brought historians of science and
philosophers together in unified programs.
• Science, technology, and society In the mid- to
late-1960s, student and faculty social movements
in the U.S., UK, and European universities helped
to launch a range of new interdisciplinary fields
(such as women’s studies) that were seen to address
1
relevant topics that the traditional curriculum ig-
nored. One such development was the rise of “sci-
ence, technology, and society” programs, which are
also—confusingly—known by the STS acronym.
Drawn from a variety of disciplines, including an-
thropology, history, political science, and sociology,
scholars in these programs created undergraduate
curricula devoted to exploring the issues raised by
science and technology. Unlike scholars in science
studies, history of technology, or the history and
philosophy of science, they were and are more likely
to see themselves as activists working for change
rather than dispassionate, “ivory tower” researchers.
As an example of the activist impulse, feminist
scholars in this and other emerging STS areas ad-
dressed themselves to the exclusion of women from
science and engineering.
• Science, engineering, and public policy studies
emerged in the 1970s from the same concerns that
motivated the founders of the science, technology,
and society movement: A sense that science and
technology were developing in ways that were in-
creasingly at odds with the public’s best interests.
The science, technology, and society movement
tried to humanize those who would make tomor-
row’s science and technology, but this discipline
took a different approach: It would train students
with the professional skills needed to become play-
ers in science and technology policy. Some pro-
grams came to emphasize quantitative methodolo-
gies, and most of these were eventually absorbed
into systems engineering. Others emphasized soci-
ological and qualitative approaches, and found that
their closest kin could be found among scholars in
science, technology, and society departments.
During the 1970s and 1980s, leading universities in the
US, UK, and Europe began drawing these various com-
ponents together in new, interdisciplinary programs. For
example, in the 1970s, Cornell University developed
a new program that united science studies and policy-
oriented scholars with historians and philosophers of sci-
ence and technology. Each of these programs devel-
oped unique identities due to variation in the compo-
nents that were drawn together, as well as their location
within the various universities. For example, the Uni-
versity of Virginia’s STS program united scholars drawn
from a variety of fields (with particular strength in the
history of technology); however, the program’s teach-
ing responsibilities—it is located within an engineering
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
[3]
for the Study of Sci-
ence and Technology (EASST) was founded in 1981
See also: Social construction of technology to stimulate communication, 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) researches 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[4]Society for Science and Technology Studies
The Social Construction of Technological Systems (Bijker, (JSSTS) was founded in 2001. The Asia Pacific [5]
Sci-
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, Trevor Pinch and Wiebe Bijker 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; Technology and 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 History of Science at Harvard.
research and development 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 tool 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. influence of all participants. While the main aim is to
Deliberative
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 “moreage the voices of those with opposing viewpoints, con-
cerns due to uncertainties, and questions about assump-
socially intelligent and robust” science. One major short-
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 design 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 Internet 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
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
structures of the society, the sum of interpersonal dis-
course, and ultimately a snapshot of society’s direction at
a point in time. Unfortunately conventional modernity is
incapable of modeling alternative directions for further
growth within our society. Also, this concept is ineffec-
tive at analyzing similar but unique modern societies such
as those found in the diverse cultures of the developing
world. Problems can be summarized into two elements:
inward failure to analyze growth potentials of a given so-
ciety, and outward failure to model different cultures and
social structures and predict their growth potentials.
Previously, modernity carried a connotation of the cur-
rent state of being modern, and its evolution through Eu-
ropean colonialism. The process of becoming “modern”
is believed to occur in a linear, pre-determined way, and
is seen by Philip Brey as a way of to interpret and eval-
uate social and cultural formations. This thought ties in
with the Modernization theory, the thought that societies
progress from 'pre-modern' to 'modern' societies.
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
towards. In effect, we can discuss the notion of “alterna-
tive modernity” (as described by Andrew Feenberg) and
which of these we would like to move towards. Alterna-
tively, modernity can be used to analyze the differences
in interactions between cultures and individuals. From
this perspective, alternative modernities exist simultane-
ously, based on differing cultural and societal expecta-
tions of how a society (or an individual within society)
should function. Because of different types of interac-
tions across different cultures, each culture will have a
different modernity.
4.4 Pace of innovation
See also: Pace of innovation
No innovation without representation is a democratic
ideal of ensuring that everyone involved gets a chance to
be represented fairly in technological developments.
• Langdon Winner (Thomas Phelan Chair of Human-
ities and Social Sciences in the Department of Sci-
ence and Technology Studies at Rensselaer Poly-
technic Institute of Troy, NY) states that groups and
social interests likely to be affected by a particu-
lar kind of technological change ought to be repre-
sented at an early stage in defining exactly what that
technology will be. It is the idea that relevant parties
have a say in technological developments and are not
left in the dark.[16]
• Spoken about by current professor Massimiano Buc-
chi (Ph.D. Social and Political science, European
University Institute, 1997) of the University of
Trento in Italy.[17]
• This ideal does not require the public to become ex-
perts on the topics of science and engineering, it
only asks that the opinions and ideas be heard before
making drastic decisions, as talked about by Steven
L. Goldman (Andrew W. Mellon Distinguished Pro-
fessor in Humanities at Lehigh University).[18]
4.6 Privileged positions of business and
science
Main article: Privileged Positions of Business and
Science
The privileged positions of business and science refer to
the unique authority that persons in these areas hold in
economic, political, and technosocial affairs. Businesses
have strong decision-making abilities in the function of
society, essentially choosing what technological innova-
tions to develop. Scientists and technologists have valu-
able knowledge, ability to pursue the technological inno-
vations they want. They proceed largely without public
scrutiny and as if they had the consent of those poten-
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.
innovations 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]
have the potential to wield great influence over policy.[19] 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
[21]
ery day. 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 Communications 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
net in general as a utility.[21] 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-wheel bicycle. A
clean drinking water as an issue.[22] 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 thrownmanufacturing 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 Technoscience 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
[28]
tion between science and technology. It states that fields not to own an automobile.
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-
necessities.[27] tors and technology are intertwined so that they are de-
pendent upon each other. This includes the aspect that
social, political, and economic factors are inherent in
4.10 Gentle tyranny
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-
scribes the unintended restrictions placed on a popula- cludes a spectrum of artifacts, techniques, organizations,
tion through social constructs. Some hallmarks of gentle and systems.”[31] 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,
subtle. The concept of Gentle Tyranny can be generally technology and culture, technology and politics are by no
thought of as a projection of "Hobson’s choice", wherein means separate.”[32]
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-
1631), he infamously would offer customers the choice • Ford Pinto[33] - 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 production lines to increase profits. Ford
ronmental pollution 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 waste generated as a side effect of large-scale stricter safety standards for motor vehicles.
5.1 Concepts related to the Technosocial
• DDT/Toxins[31] - DDT was a common and highly
effective insecticide used during the 1940s until its
ban in the early 1970s. It was utilized during World
War 2 to combat insect-borne human disease that
plagued military members and civilian populations.
People and companies soon realized other benefits
of DDT for agricultural purposes. Rachel Carson
became worried of wide spread use on public health
and the environment. Rachel Carson’s book “Silent
Spring,” left an imprint on the industry by claim-
ing linkage of DDT to many serious illness such as
cancer. Carson’s book drew criticism from chem-
ical companies who felt their reputation and busi-
ness threatened by such claims.. DDT was even-
tually banned by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) after a long and arduous
process of research on the chemical substance. The
main cause for the removal of DDT was the public
deciding that the benefits any outweighed potential
health risk.
• 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
pilot. Due to reduced error and reaction times flights
on average, using autopilot, have been shown to be
safer. Thus the technology has a direct impact on
people by increasing their safety, and society affects
the technology because people want to be safer so
they are constantly trying to improve the autopilot
systems.
• Cell Phones[31] - Cell phone technology emerged in
the early 1920s after advancements were made in ra-
dio technology. Engineers at Bell Laboratories, the
research and development division of AT&T dis-
covered that cell towers can transmit and receive
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-
cate outside of a designated area. First generation
mobile phones were first created and sold by Mo-
torola. Their phone was only intended for use in
cars. Second generation mobile phone capabilities
continued to improve because of the switch to dig-
ital. Phones were faster which enhanced commu-
nication capabilities of customers. They were also
sleeker and weighed less than bulky first generation
technology. Technologically advances boosted cus-
tomer satisfaction and broadened cell phone com-
panies customer base. Third generation technology
changed the way people interact with other. Now
customers had access to wifi, texting and other ap-
plications. Mobile phones are now entering into the
fourth generations. Cellular and mobile phones rev-
olutionized the way people socialize and communi-
7
cate in order to establish modern social structure .
People have affected the development of this tech-
nology by demanding features such as larger screens,
touch capabilities, and internet accessibility.
• Internet[31] - The internet arose because of exten-
sive research on ARPANET between various uni-
versity, corporations, and ARPA (Advanced Re-
search Project Agency), an agency of the Depart-
ment of Defense. Scientist theorized a network of
computers connected to each other. Computing ca-
pabilities contributed to developments and the cre-
ation of the modern day computer or laptop . The
internet has become a normal part of life and busi-
ness, to such a degree that the united nations views
it as a basic human right. The internet is becoming
larger, one way is that more things are being moved
into the digital world due to demand, for example
online banking. It has drastically changed the way
most people go about daily habits.
technology are intertwined and depend on each
other.
• Technosociety[34] - An industrially developed society
with a reliance on technology.
• Technological Utopianism - A positive outlook on
the effect technology has on social welfare. Includes
the perception that technology will one day enable
society to reach a utopian state.
• Technosocial Systems[35] -Technosocial Systems are
people and technologies that combine to work as
heterogeneous but functional wholes.
• Technological Optimism[36] - The opinion that tech-
nology has positive effects on society and should be
used in order to improve the welfare of people.
• Technological Pessimism[36] - The opinion that tech-
nology has negative effects on society and should be
discouraged from use.
• Technological Neutrality[35] -"maintains that a given
technology has no systematic effects on society: in-
dividuals are perceived as ultimately responsible, for
better or worse, because technologies are merely
tools people use for their own ends.”
• Technological Determinism[35] - “maintains that
technologies are understood as simply and directly
causing particular societal outcomes.”
8 7
• Scientism[37] - The belief in the total separation of
facts and values.
• Technological Progressivism[37] - technology is a
means to an end itself and an inherently positive pur-
suit.
6 See also
• Actor–network theory
• Cyborg anthropology
• Engineering studies
• Historical materialism
• Innovation system
• Mode 2
• Normalization process theory
• Public awareness of science
• Scientometrics
• Science of team science
• Science and technology in Israel
• Social construction of technology
• Sociology of scientific knowledge
• Social shaping of technology
• Technological innovation system
• Science and Technology Studies in India
7 References
[1] Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., Pinch, T. and Douglas,
D. G., The Social Construction of Technological Systems:
New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology,
MIT Press, Cambridge, 2012.
[2] The STS Wiki.
[3] European Association for the Study of Science and Tech-
nology.
[4] Japanese Society for Science and Technology Studies
[5] Asia Pacific Science Technology & Society Network
[6] Bohman, James (1998). “The Coming of Age of Delib-
erative Democracy”. The Journal of Political Philosophy
6 (4): 400–425.
[7] Chilvers, Jason (March 2008). “Deliberating Compe-
tence, Theoretical and Practitioners Perspectives on Ef-
fective Participatory Appraisal Practice”. Science, Tech-
nology, & Human Values 33 (2). Retrieved April 21,
2015.
REFERENCES
[8] Ryfe, David M. (March 4, 2005). “Does Deliberative
Democracy Work?". Annual Review of Political Science 8:
63–64. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.032904.154633.
Retrieved April 10, 2015.
[9] Jasanoff, Sheila (2003). “Technologies of Humility: Citi-
zen Participation in Governing Science”. Minerva 41 (3):
223–244. Retrieved April 21, 2015.
[10] Ackerman, Bruce; Fishkin, James S. “Deliberation Day”.
Center for American Progress. Retrieved April 21, 2015.
[11] Hardin, Garrett. “The Tragedy of the Commons” (PDF).
www.sciencemag.org. American Association for the Ad-
vancement of Science. Retrieved April 21, 2015.
[12] Davidow, Bill. “The Tragedy of the Internet Commons”.
theatlantic.com. The Atlantic. Retrieved April 21, 2015.
[13] Kahn, Matthew E. “Environmental and Urban Eco-
nomics”. Retrieved April 21, 2015.
[14] Eisenstadt, Shmuel (Winter 2000). “Multiple Moderni-
ties”. Dædalus.
[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 Future (1993): 283-92. Print.
[17] Bucchi, Massimiano. “No Innovation without Represen-
tation (A Parliament of Things for the New Technical
Democracies).” http://www.fondazionebassetti.org/. 20
Dec. 2003. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.
[18] Goldman, Steven L. “No Innovation Without Represen-
tation: Technological Action in a Democratic Society.”
New Worlds, New Technologies, New Issues (1992): 148-
60. Print.
[19] Allison, Bill, and Sarah Harkins. “Fixed Fortunes:
Biggest Corporate Political Interests Spend Billions, Get
Trillions.” Sunlight Foundation Blog. Sunlight Founda-
tion, 17 Nov. 2014. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.
[20] Corso, Regina, SVP. “PACs, Big Companies, Lobbyists,
and Banks and Financial Institutions Seen by Strong Ma-
jorities as Having Too Much Power and Influence in DC.”
Harris Interactive: Harris Polls. Harris Interactive, 29
May 2012. Web. 21 Apr. 2015
[21] “Net Neutrality: A Free and Open Internet.” The White
House. The White House, 26 Feb. 2015. Web. 21 Apr.
2015.
[22] Flow. Oscilloscope Pictures, 2008. DVD.
[23] Woodhouse, Edward. Science Technology and Society.
Spring 2015 ed. N.p.: U Readers, 2014. Print.
[24] Woodhouse, Edward (2014). Science Technology and So-
ciety (1st ed.). San Diego: University Readers. p. 255.
[25] Hacking, Ian (1999). The Social Construction of What?
(1st ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts & London, England:
President and Fellows of Harvard University. p. 6. ISBN
978-0674004122.

[26] Bijker,, Wiebe (1993). The Social Construction of Tech-
nological System (1st ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts:
MIT Press. pp. 28–45. ISBN 0-262-52137-7.
[27] Steven Lukes, Power: A Radical View (London: Macmil-
lan, 1974)
[28] Kirkman, Robert. “At Home in the Seamless Web”. Sci-
ence, Technology, & Human Values 34 (Sage Publica-
tions): 234–258.
[29] Woodhouse, Edward (August 2013). The Future of Tech-
nological Civilization.
[30] Goldman, S. (1992). No Innovation Without Representa-
tion (pp. 148-160). Troy, New York: Rensselaer.
[31] Woodhouse, E. (2013). In The Future of Technological
Civilization (Revised ed., pp. 1-258).
[32] Winner, L. (1993). Artifacts/Ideas and Political Culture
(pp. 283-292). Troy, New York: Rensselaer.
[33] Dowie, M. (1977, October 1). Pinto Madness. Retrieved
February 4, 2015
[34] Technosociety dictionary definition | technosociety de-
fined. (n.d.). Retrieved March 20, 2015, from
__http://www.yourdictionary.com/technosociety__
[35] “Design by Society: Science and Technology Studies and
the Social Shaping of Design”, Edward Woodhouse and
Jason W. Patton, Design Issues, Volume 20, Number 3
Summer 2004.
[36] Hochschild, J., Crabill, A., & Sen, M. (2012, De-
cember 1). Technology Optimism or Pessimism:
How Trust in Science Shapes Policy Attitudes to-
ward Genomic Science. Retrieved March 20, 2015,
from __http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/msen/files/
hochschild_crabill_sen.pdf__
[37] Kleinman, D. (2005). Science is Political/Technology is
Social: Concerns, Concepts, and Questions. Maryland:
Blackwell.
8 Further reading
• Bauchspies, Wenda, Jennifer Croissant, and Sal
Restivo (2005). Science, Technology, and Society:
A Sociological Approach (Wiley-Blackwell, 2005).
• Bijker, Wiebe, Hughes, Thomas & Pinch, Trevor,
eds. (1987). The Social Construction of Technolog-
ical Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and
History of Technology Cambridge MA/London:
MIT Press.
• Bijker, Wiebe and John Law, eds. (1994). Shap-
ing Technology / Building Society: Studies in So-
ciotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
(Inside Technology Series).
9
• Bloor, David (1976). Knowledge and Social Im-
agery (Routledge, 1976; 2nd edition Chicago Uni-
versity Press, 1991)
• Cowan, Ruth Schwartz (1983). More Work For
Mother: The Ironies of Household Technology From
the Open Hearth to the Microwave. New York, NY:
Basic Books.
• Ewen, Stuart (2008). Typecasting: On the Arts and
Sciences of Human Inequality. New York, NY:
Seven Stories Press.
• Foucault, Michel (1977). Discipline & Punish. New
York, NY: Vintage Books.
• Fuller, Steve (1993). Philosophy, Rhetoric, and the
End of Knowledge: The Coming of Science and Tech-
nology Studies. Madison, WI: University of Wis-
consin Press. (2nd edition, with James H. Collier,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004)
• Gross, Matthias (2010). Ignorance and Surprise:
Science, Society, Ecological Design. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press (Inside Technology Series).
• Hughes, Thomas (1989). American Genesis: A
Century of Invention and Technological Enthusiasm,
1870 – 1970. New York, NY: Viking.
• Jasanoff, Sheila, Markle, Gerald, Petersen, James
and Pinch, Trevor, eds. (1994). Handbook of Sci-
ence and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
• Jasanoff, Sheila (2005). Designs on Nature: Sci-
ence and Democracy in Europe and the United States.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Kuhn, Thomas (1962). The structure of scientific
revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Lachmund, Jens (2013). Greening Berlin: The Co-
production of Science, Politics, and Urban Nature.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (Inside Technology Se-
ries).
• Latour, Bruno (1987). Science in action: How to fol-
low scientists and engineers through society. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Latour, Bruno (2004). Politics of Nature: How
to Bring the Sciences Into Democracy. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
• Latour, Bruno and Steve Woolgar (1986) [1979].
Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific
Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• MacKenzie, Donald & Wajcman, Judy (eds.)
(1999). The Social Shaping of Technology: How
the Refrigerator Got Its Hum, Milton Keynes, Open
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).
• Mol, Annemarie (2002). The Body Multiple: On-
tology in Medical Practice, Duke University Press
Books.
• STSWiki (devoted to building resources, such as a
worldwide list of STS programs and scholars)
• STS-Wiki of (Dutch) STS PhD research school (this
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 Technology Assessment • Science, Technology, & Human Values
London/NY: Pinter.
• Science & Technology Studies
• Rosenberg, Nathan (1994) Exploring the Black Box:
• Technology in Society
Technology, Economics 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 Jacques Ellul 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