Science and Technology Studies

10/10/2020 Science and technology studies - Wikipedia
Science and technology studies

Science and technology studies, or science, technology and society studies (both
abbreviated STS) is the study of how society, politics, and culture affect scientific research and
technological innovation, and how these, in turn, affect society, politics and culture.
Contents
History
Key themes
The "turn to technology" (and beyond)
Important concepts
STS social construction
Technoscience
Technosocial
Examples
Deliberative democracy
Importance of deliberative democracy in STS
Deliberative democracy in practice
Tragedy of the commons
Alternative modernity
Pace of innovation
No innovation without representation
Privileged positions of business and science
Legacy thinking
Related concepts
Classifications
Academic programs
Professional associations
Journals
Notable scholars
See also
References
Further reading
External links
Journals
History
Like most interdisciplinary programs, STS emerged from the confluence of a variety of disciplines
and disciplinary subfields, all of which had developed an interest—typically, during the 1960s or
1970s—in viewing science and technology as socially embedded enterprises.[1] The key disciplinary
components of STS took shape independently, beginning in the 1960s, and developed in isolation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_studies 1/15
from each other well into the 1980s, although Ludwik Fleck's (1935) monograph Genesis 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 research centres and academic programs were counted worldwide.[2]
Key themes
History of technology, that examines technology in its social and historical context. Starting in the
1960s, some historians questioned technological determinism, a doctrine that can induce public
passivity to technologic and scientific "natural" development. 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 attributed 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 relevant topics that the traditional
curriculum ignored. One such development was the rise of "science, technology, and society"
programs, which are also—confusingly—known by the STS acronym. Drawn from a variety of
disciplines, including anthropology, history, political science, and sociology, scholars in these
programs created undergraduate curricula devoted to exploring the issues raised by science and
technology. Feminist scholars in this and other emerging STS areas addressed 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 increasingly at odds with the public's
best interests. The science, technology, and society movement tried to humanize those who
would make tomorrow's science and technology, but this discipline took a different approach: It
would train students with the professional skills needed to become players in science and
technology policy. Some programs came to emphasize quantitative methodologies, and most of
these were eventually absorbed into systems engineering. Others emphasized sociological 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 components 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 science and technology. Each of these programs developed unique
identities due to variation in the components that were drawn together, as well as their location
within the various universities. For example, the University 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 teaching responsibilities—it is located within an engineering school and teaches ethics to
undergraduate engineering students—means that all of its faculty share a strong interest in
engineering ethics.
The "turn to technology" (and beyond)
A decisive moment in the development of STS was the mid-1980s addition of technology studies to
the range of interests reflected in science. During that decade, two works appeared en seriatim that
signaled what Steve Woolgar was to call the "turn to technology".[3] In a seminal 1984 article, Trevor
Pinch and Wiebe Bijker attached the sociology of scientific knowledge to technology by showing how
the sociology of technology could proceed along the theoretical and methodological lines established
by the sociology of scientific knowledge.[4] This was the intellectual foundation of the field they called
the social construction of technology. Donald MacKenzie and Judy Wajcman primed the pump by
publishing a collection of articles attesting to the influence of society on technological design (Social
Shaping of Technology, 1985).[5]
The "turn to technology" helped to cement an already growing awareness of underlying unity among
the various emerging STS programs. More recently, there has been an associated turn to ecology,
nature, and materiality in general, whereby the socio-technical and natural/material co-produce each
other. This is especially evident in work in STS analyses of biomedicine (such as Carl May and
Annemarie Mol) and ecological interventions (such as Bruno Latour, Sheila Jasanoff, Matthias Gross,
and S. Lochlann Jain).
Important concepts
STS social construction
Social constructions are human-created ideas, objects, or events created by a series of choices and
interactions.[6] These interactions have consequences that change the perception that different
groups of people have on these constructs. Some examples of social construction include class, race,
money, and citizenship.
The following also alludes to the notion that not everything is set, a circumstance or result could
potentially be one way or the other. According to the article "What is Social Construction?" by Laura
Flores, "Social construction work is critical of the status quo. Social constructionists about X tend to
hold that:
1. X need not have existed, or need not be at all as it is. X, or X as it is at present, is not determined
by the nature of things; it is not inevitable
Very often they go further, and urge that:
1. X is quite as bad as it is.

2. We would be much better off if X were done away with, or at least radically transformed."
In the past, there have been viewpoints that were widely regarded as fact until being called to
question due to the introduction of new knowledge. Such viewpoints include the past concept of a
correlation between intelligence and the nature of a human's ethnicity or race (X may not be at all as
it is).[7]
An example of the evolution and interaction of various social constructions within science and
technology can be found in the development of both the high-wheel bicycle, or velocipede, and then
of the bicycle. The velocipede was widely used in the latter half of the 19th century. In the latter half
of the 19th century, a social need was first recognized for a more efficient and rapid means of
transportation. Consequently, the velocipede was first developed, which was able to reach higher
translational velocities than the smaller non-geared bicycles of the day, by replacing the front wheel
with a larger radius wheel. One notable trade-off was a certain decreased stability leading to a greater
risk of falling. This trade-off resulted in many riders getting into accidents by losing balance while
riding the bicycle or being thrown over the handle bars.
The first "social construction" or progress of the velocipede caused the need for a newer "social
construction" to be recognized and developed into a safer bicycle design. Consequently, the
velocipede was then developed into what is now commonly known as the "bicycle" to fit within
society's newer "social construction," the newer standards of higher vehicle safety. Thus the
popularity of the modern geared bicycle design came as a response to the first social construction, the
original need for greater speed, which had caused the high-wheel bicycle to be designed in the first
place. The popularity of the modern geared bicycle design ultimately ended the widespread use of the
velocipede itself, as eventually it was found to best accomplish the social-needs/ social-constructions
of both greater speed and of greater safety.[8]
Technoscience
Technoscience is a subset of Science, Technology, and Society studies that focuses on the inseparable
connection between science and technology. It states that fields are linked and grow together, and
scientific knowledge requires an infrastructure of technology in order to remain stationary or move
forward. Both technological development and scientific discovery drive one another towards more
advancement. Technoscience excels at shaping human thought and behavior by opening up new
possibilities that gradually or quickly come to be perceived as necessities.[9]
Technosocial
"Technological action is a social process."[10] Social factors and technology are intertwined so that
they are dependent upon each other. This includes the aspect that social, political, and economic
factors are inherent in technology and that social structure influences what technologies are pursued.
In other words, "technoscientific phenomena combined inextricably with social/political/
economic/psychological phenomena, so 'technology' includes a spectrum of artifacts, techniques,
organizations, and systems."[11] Winner expands on this idea by saying "in the late twentieth century
technology and society, technology and culture, technology and politics are by no means separate."[12]
Examples
Ford Pinto[13] – Ford Motor Company sold and produced the Pinto during the 1970s. A flaw in the
automobile design of the rear gas tank caused a fiery explosion upon impact. The exploding fuel
tank killed and injured hundreds of people. Internal documents of test results, proved Ford CEO
Lee Iacocca and engineers were aware of the flaw. The company decided to ignore improving
their technology because of profit-driven motives, strict internal control, and competition from
foreign competitors such as Volkswagen. Ford Motor Company conducted a cost-benefit analysis
to determine if altering the Ford Pinto model was feasible. An analysis conducted by Ford
employees argued against a new design because of increased cost. Employees were also under
tight control by the CEO who rushed the Pinto through production lines to increase profits. Ford
finally changed after public scrutiny. Safety organizations later influenced this technology by
requiring stricter safety standards for motor vehicles.
DDT/toxins[11] – 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 claiming linkage of DDT to many serious illness such as cancer.
Carson's book drew criticism from chemical companies who felt their reputation and business
threatened by such claims.. DDT was eventually 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 any benefits
were outweighed by the potential health risk.
Autopilots/computer-aided tasks (CATs)[11] – From a security point of view the effects of making a
task more computer driven is in the favor of technological advance because there is less reaction
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 technology because people
want to be safer so they are constantly trying to improve the autopilot systems.
Cell phones[11] – Cell phone technology emerged in the early 1920s after advancements were
made in radio technology. Engineers at Bell Laboratories, the research, and development division
of AT&T discovered that cell towers can transmit and receive signals to and from many directions.
The discovery by Bell Labs revolutionized the capabilities and outcomes of cellular technology.
Technology only improved once mobile phone users could communicate outside of a designated
area. First-generation mobile phones were first created and sold by Motorola. Their phone was
only intended for use in cars. Second-generation mobile phone capabilities continued to improve
because of the switch to digital. Phones were faster which enhanced the communication
capabilities of customers. They were also sleeker and weighed less than bulky first-generation
technology. Technologically advances boosted customer satisfaction and broadened cell phone
companies' customer base. Third-generation technology changed the way people interact with
others. Now customers had access to wifi, texting and other applications. Mobile phones are now
entering into the fourth generation. Cellular and mobile phones revolutionized the way people
socialize and communicate in order to establish a modern social structure. People have affected
the development of this technology by demanding features such as larger screens, touch
capabilities, and internet accessibility.
Internet[11] – The internet arose because of extensive research on ARPANET between various
universities, corporations, and ARPA (Advanced Research Project Agency), an agency of the
Department of Defense. Scientists theorized a network of computers connected to each other.
Computing capabilities contributed to developments and the creation of the modern day computer
or laptop. The internet has become a normal part of life and business, 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.
Deliberative democracy
Deliberative democracy is a reform of representative or direct democracies which mandates

discussion and debate of popular topics which affect society. Deliberative democracy is a tool for
making decisions. Deliberative democracy can be traced back all the way to Aristotle's writings. More
recently, the term was coined by Joseph Bessette in his 1980 work Deliberative Democracy: The
Majority Principle in Republican Government, where he uses the idea in opposition to the elitist
interpretations of the United States Constitution with emphasis on public discussion.[14]
Deliberative democracy can lead to more legitimate, credible, and trustworthy outcomes. Deliberative
democracy allows for "a wider range of public knowledge", and it has been argued that this can lead
to "more socially intelligent and robust" science. One major shortcoming of deliberative democracy is
that many models insufficiently ensure critical interaction.[15]
According to Ryfe, there are five mechanisms that stand out as critical to the successful design of
deliberative democracy:
Rules of equality, civility, and inclusivity may prompt deliberation even when our first impulse is to
avoid it.
Stories anchor reality by organizing experience and instilling a normative commitment to civic
identities and values, and function as a medium for framing discussions.
Leadership provides important cues to individuals in deliberative settings, and can keep groups
on a deliberative track when their members slip into routine and habit.
Individuals are more likely to sustain deliberative reasoning when they have a stake in the
outcomes.
Apprenticeship teaches citizens to deliberate well. We might do well to imagine education as a
form of apprenticeship learning, in which individuals learn to deliberate by doing it in concert with
others more skilled in the activity.[16]
Importance of deliberative democracy in STS
Recently, there has been a movement towards greater transparency in the fields of policy and
technology. Jasanoff comes to the conclusion that there is no longer a question of if there needs to be
increased public participation in making decisions about science and technology, but now there needs
to be ways to make a more meaningful conversation between the public and those developing the
technology.[17]
Deliberative democracy in practice
Bruce Ackerman and James S. Fishkin offered an example of a reform in their paper "Deliberation
Day." The deliberation is to enhance public understanding of popular, complex and controversial
issues through devices such as Fishkin's deliberative polling,[18] though implementation of these
reforms is unlikely in a large government such as that of the United States. However, things similar to
this have been implemented in small, local governments like New England towns and villages. New
England town hall meetings are a good example of deliberative democracy in a realistic setting.[14]
An ideal deliberative democracy balances the voice and influence of all participants. While the main
aim is to reach consensus, deliberative democracy should encourage the voices of those with opposing
viewpoints, concerns due to uncertainties, and questions about assumptions made by other
participants. It should take its time and ensure that those participating understand the topics on
which they debate. Independent managers of debates should also have substantial grasp of the
concepts discussed, but must "[remain] independent and impartial as to the outcomes of the
process."[15]
Tragedy of the commons
In 1968, Garrett Hardin popularised the phrase "tragedy of the commons." It is an economic theory
where rational people act against the best interest of the group by consuming a common resource.
Since then, the tragedy of the commons has been used to symbolize the degradation of the
environment whenever many individuals use a common resource. Although Garrett Hardin was not
an STS scholar, the concept of the tragedy of the commons still applies to science, technology and
society.[19]
In a contemporary setting, the Internet acts as an example of the tragedy of the commons through the
exploitation of digital resources and private information. Data and internet passwords can be stolen
much more easily than physical documents. Virtual spying is almost free compared to the costs of
physical spying.[20] Additionally, net neutrality can be seen as an example of tragedy of the commons
in an STS context. The movement for net neutrality argues that the Internet should not be a resource
that is dominated by one particular group, specifically those with more money to spend on Internet
access.
A counterexample to the tragedy of the commons is offered by Andrew Kahrl. Privatization can be a
way to deal with the tragedy of the commons. However, Kahrl suggests that the privatization of
beaches on Long Island, in an attempt to combat the overuse of Long Island beaches, made the
residents of Long Island more susceptible to flood damage from Hurricane Sandy. The privatization
of these beaches took away from the protection offered by the natural landscape. Tidal lands that
offer natural protection were drained and developed. This attempt to combat the tragedy of the
commons by privatization was counter-productive. Privatization actually destroyed the public good of
natural protection from the landscape.[21]
Alternative modernity
Alternative modernity[22][23] is a conceptual tool conventionally used to represent the state of present
western society. Modernity represents the political and social structures of the society, the sum of
interpersonal discourse, 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 ineffective 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 society, and
outward failure to model different cultures and social structures and predict their growth potentials.
Previously, modernity carried a connotation of the current state of being modern, and its evolution
through European 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 to interpret and evaluate social and cultural
formations. This thought ties in with 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 "alternative modernity" (as described by Andrew Feenberg) and which of these we
would like to move towards. Alternatively, modernity can be used to analyze the differences in
interactions between cultures and individuals. From this perspective, alternative modernities exist
simultaneously, based on differing cultural and societal expectations of how a society (or an
individual within society) should function. Because of different types of interactions across different
cultures, each culture will have a different modernity.
Pace of innovation
Pace of Innovation is the speed at which technological innovation or advancement is occurring, with
the most apparent instances being too slow or too rapid. Both these rates of innovation are extreme
and therefore have effects on the people that get to use this technology.
No innovation without representation
"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 states that groups and social interests likely to be affected by a particular kind of
technological change ought to be represented 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.[24]
Spoken about by Massimiano Bucchi[25]
This ideal does not require the public to become experts 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.[26]
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 innovations to develop.
Scientists and technologists have valuable knowledge, the ability to pursue the technological
innovations they want. They proceed largely without public scrutiny and as if they had the consent of
those potentially affected by their discoveries and creations.
Legacy thinking
Legacy thinking is defined as an inherited method of thinking imposed from an external source
without objection by the individual, because it is already widely accepted by society.
Legacy thinking can impair the ability to drive technology for the betterment of society by blinding
people to innovations that do not fit into their accepted model of how society works. By accepting
ideas without questioning them, people often see all solutions that contradict these accepted ideas as
impossible or impractical. Legacy thinking tends to advantage the wealthy, who have the means to
project their ideas on the public. It may be used by the wealthy as a vehicle to drive technology in
their favor rather than for the greater good. Examining the role of citizen participation and
representation in politics provides an excellent example of legacy thinking in society. The belief that
one can spend money freely to gain influence has been popularized, leading to public acceptance of
corporate lobbying. As a result, a self-established role in politics has been cemented where the public
does not exercise the power ensured to them by the Constitution to the fullest extent. This can
become a barrier to political progress as corporations who have the capital to spend have the
potential to wield great influence over policy.[27] Legacy thinking, however, keeps the population
from acting to change this, despite polls from Harris Interactive that report over 80% of Americans to
feel that big business holds too much power in government.[28] Therefore, Americans are beginning
to try to steer away from this line of thought, rejecting legacy thinking, and demanding less corporate,
and more public, participation in political decision making.
Additionally, an examination of net neutrality functions 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-day society members. They use it in and out of life every day.[29] Corporations
are able to mislabel and greatly overcharge for their internet resources. Since the American public is
so dependent upon internet there is little for them to do. Legacy thinking has kept this pattern on
track despite growing movements arguing that the internet should be considered a utility. Legacy
thinking prevents progress because it was widely accepted by others before us through advertising
that the internet is a luxury and not a utility. Due to pressure from grassroots movements the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) has redefined the requirements for broadband and internet in
general as a utility.[29] Now AT&T and other major internet providers are lobbying against this action
and are in-large able to delay the onset of this movement due to legacy thinking's grip on American
culture and politics.
For example, those who cannot overcome the barrier of legacy thinking may not consider the
privatization of clean drinking water as an issue.[30] This is partial because access to water has
become such a given fact of the matter to them. For a person living in such circumstances, it may be
widely accepted to not concern themselves with drinking water because they have not needed to be
concerned with it in the past. Additionally, a person living within an area that does not need to worry
about their water supply or the sanitation of their water supply is less likely to be concerned with the
privatization of water.
This notion can be examined through the thought experiment of "veil of ignorance".[31] Legacy
thinking causes people to be particularly ignorant about the implications behind the "you get what
you pay for" mentality applied to a life necessity. By utilizing the "veil of ignorance", one can
overcome the barrier of legacy thinking as it requires a person to imagine that they are unaware of
their own circumstances, allowing them to free themselves from externally imposed thoughts or
widely accepted ideas.
Related concepts
Technoscience[11] – The perception that science and technology are intertwined and depend on
each other.
Technosociety[32] – 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[33] – people and technologies that combine to work as heterogeneous but
functional wholes.
Critical Technical Practice[34] – the practice of technological creation while simultaneously
critiquing and maintaining awareness of the inherent biases and value systems which become
embedded in those technologies.
Classifications
Technological optimism[35] – The opinion that technology has positive effects on society and
should be used in order to improve the welfare of people.
Technological pessimism[35] – The opinion that technology has negative effects on society and
should be discouraged from use.
Technological neutrality[33] – "maintains that a given technology has no systematic effects on
society: individuals are perceived as ultimately responsible, for better or worse, because
technologies are merely tools people use for their own ends."
Technological determinism[33] – "maintains that technologies are understood as simply and
directly causing particular societal outcomes."
Scientism[36] – The belief in the total separation of facts and values.
Technological progressivism[36] – technology is a means to an end itself and an inherently
positive pursuit.
Academic programs
STS is taught in several countries. According to the STS wiki, STS programs can be found in twenty
countries, including 45 programs in the United States, three programs in India, and eleven programs
in the UK.[37] STS programs can be found in Canada,[38] Germany,[39] Israel,[40] Malaysia,[41] and
Taiwan.[42] Some examples of institutions offering STS programs are Stanford University,[43]
Harvard University,[44] the University of Oxford,[45] Mines ParisTech,[46] Bar-Ilan University,[47] and
York University.[38]
Professional associations
The field has several professional associations.
Founded in 1975, the Society for Social Studies of Science, initially provided scholarly communication
facilities, including a journal (Science, Technology, and Human Values) and annual meetings that
were mainly attended by science studies scholars. The society has since grown into the most
important professional association of science and technology studies scholars worldwide. The Society
for Social Studies of Science members also include government and industry officials concerned with
research and development as well as science and technology policy; scientists and engineers who wish
to better understand the social embeddedness of their professional practice; and citizens concerned
about the impact of science and technology in their lives.
In Europe, the European Association for the Study of Science and Technology (EASST) was founded
in 1981 to "improve scholarly communication and exchange in the field", "increase the visibility of the
subject to policy-makers and to the general public", and "stimulate and support teaching on the
subject at all levels".[48] Similarly, the European Inter-University Association on Society, Science and
Technology (ESST) researches and studies science and technology in society, in both historical and
contemporary perspectives.
In European nation states and language communities, a range of STS associations exist, including in
the UK, Spain, Germany, Austria, Turkey. For instance, in 2015, the UK-based Association for Studies
in Innovation, Science and Technology (AsSIST-UK) was established, principally to foster stronger
integration between the innovation studies and STS fields.[49] In 2019 it had a membership of
350.[50] It holds annual conferences and has built strong links to policy practitioners in
Westminster.[51]
In Asia several STS associations exist. In Japan, the Japanese Society for Science and Technology
Studies (JSSTS)[52] was founded in 2001. The Asia Pacific Science Technology & Society Network
(APSTSN)[53] primarily has members from Australasia, Southeast and East Asia and Oceania.
In Latin America ESOCITE (Estudios Sociales de la Ciencia y la Tecnología) is the biggest association
of Science and Technology studies. The study of STS (CyT in Spanish, CTS in Portuguese) here was
shaped by authors like Amílcar Herrera and Jorge Sabato and Oscar Varsavsky in Argentina, José
Leite Lopes in Brazil, Miguel Wionczek in Mexico, Francisco Sagasti in Peru, Máximo Halty Carrere
in Uruguay and Marcel Roche in Venezuela.[54]
Founded in 1958, the Society for the History of Technology initially attracted members from the
history profession who had interests in the contextual history of technology. After the "turn to
technology" in the mid-1980s, the society's well-regarded journal (Technology and Culture) and its
annual meetings began to attract considerable interest from non-historians with technology studies
interests.
Less identified with STS, but also of importance to many STS scholars, are the History of Science
Society, the Philosophy of Science Association, and the American Association for the History of
Medicine.
Additionally, within the US there are significant STS-oriented special interest groups within major
disciplinary associations, including the American Anthropological Association, the American Political
Science Association, the National Women's Studies Association, and the American Sociological
Association.
Journals
Notable peer-reviewed journals in STS include:
Social Studies of Science Science as Culture

Science, Technology & Human Values Research Policy[56]
Science & Technology Studies[55] Revue d'Anthropologie des
Engaging Science, Technology, and Society Connaissances[57]
Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience IEEE Technology and Society Magazine[58]
Technology in Society; Research Policy Technology and Culture
Minerva: A Journal of Science, Learning and Science and Public Policy
Policy Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology
Science, Technology and Society and Society[59]
Student journals in STS include:
Intersect: the Stanford Journal of Science, The Science In Society Review: A Production
Technology, and Society at Stanford of the Triple Helix at Cornell
DEMESCI: International Journal of Synthesis: An Undergraduate Journal of the
Deliberative Mechanisms in Science History of Science at Harvard
Notable scholars
Karen Barad Thomas Kuhn
S. Barry Barnes Bruno Latour
Wiebe Bijker John Law (sociologist)
David Bloor Donald Angus MacKenzie
Barry Bozeman Carl May
Massimiano Bucchi Annemarie Mol
Michel Callon Elting E. Morison
Harry Collins Michelle Murphy
Andrew Feenberg David F. Noble
Ulrike Felt Trevor Pinch
Ludwik Fleck Arie Rip
Steve Fuller Simon Schaffer
Steven L. Goldman Johan Schot
Matthias Gross Bernard Stiegler
Ian Hacking Helen Verran
Donna Haraway Judy Wajcman
Sandra Harding Robin Williams (academic)
S. Lochlann Jain Langdon Winner
Sheila Jasanoff Steve Woolgar
See also
Actor–network theory Public awareness of science
Critique of technology Science studies
Cultural lag Science of team science
Cyborg anthropology Science and technology in Israel
Engineering studies Science and technology studies in India
Historical materialism Scientometrics
Innovation system Social shaping of technology
Metascience Sociology of scientific knowledge
Mode 2 Technological innovation system
Normalization process theory Technology and society
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 (http://stswiki.org/index.php?title=Worldwide_directory_of_STS_programs).
3. Woolgar, Steve (January 1991). "The turn to technology in social studies of science". Science,
Technology, & Human Values. 16 (1): 20–50. doi:10.1177/016224399101600102 (https://doi.org/1
0.1177%2F016224399101600102). JSTOR 690038 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/690038).
S2CID 145470661 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:145470661).
4. Pinch, Trevor J.; Bijker, Wiebe E. (August 1984). "The social construction of facts and artefacts:
or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other" (https://
research.utwente.nl/en/publications/the-social-construction-of-facts-and-artefacts-or-how-the-soci
ology-of-science-and-the-sociology-of-technology-might-benefit-each-other(9370d395-f64e-418e-
922e-bfbc59fb9250).html). Social Studies of Science. 14 (3): 399–441.
doi:10.1177/030631284014003004 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F030631284014003004).
JSTOR 285355 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/285355). S2CID 19157599 (https://api.semanticschol
ar.org/CorpusID:19157599). See also: Bijker, Wiebe E.; Hughes, Thomas Parke; Pinch, Trevor J.,
eds. (2012) [1987]. The social construction of technological systems: new directions in the
sociology and history of technology (Anniversary ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
ISBN 9780262517607. OCLC 759491749 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/759491749).
5. MacKenzie, Donald A.; Wajcman, Judy, eds. (1999) [1985]. The social shaping of technology (htt
ps://archive.org/details/socialshapingoft0000unse) (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University
Press. ISBN 0335199143. OCLC 39713267 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/39713267).
6. Woodhouse, Edward (2014). Science Technology and Society (1st ed.). San Diego: University
Readers. p. 255.
7. 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.
8. Bijker, Wiebe (1993). The Social Construction of Technological System (1st ed.). Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT Press. pp. 28–45. ISBN 978-0-262-52137-6.
9. Steven Lukes, Power: A Radical View (London: Macmillan, 1974)
10. Goldman, S. (1992). No Innovation Without Representation (pp. 148-160). Troy, New York:
Rensselaer.
11. Woodhouse, E. (2013). In The Future of Technological Civilization (Revised ed., pp. 1-258).
12. Winner, L. (1993). Artifacts/Ideas and Political Culture (pp. 283-292). Troy, New York: Rensselaer.
13. Dowie, M. (1977, October 1). Pinto Madness. Retrieved February 4, 2015 (https://www.motherjon
es.com/politics/1977/09/pinto-madness?page=2)
14. Bohman, James (1998). "The Coming of Age of Deliberative Democracy". The Journal of Political
Philosophy. 6 (4): 400–425. doi:10.1111/1467-9760.00061 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1467-9760.
00061).
15. Chilvers, Jason (March 2008). "Deliberating Competence, Theoretical and Practitioners
Perspectives on Effective Participatory Appraisal Practice" (http://sth.sagepub.com). Science,
Technology, & Human Values. 33 (2). doi:10.1177/01622439073075941 (https://doi.org/10.1177%
2F01622439073075941). S2CID 220724507 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:22072450
7). Retrieved April 21, 2015.
16. Ryfe, David M. (March 4, 2005). "Does Deliberative Democracy Work?" (https://semanticscholar.o
rg/paper/359a0a5af13d1f3656a74254227f30a40090090b). Annual Review of Political Science. 8:
63–64. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.032904.154633 (https://doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev.polisci.
8.032904.154633). S2CID 55726761 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:55726761).
17. Jasanoff, Sheila (2003). "Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science".
Minerva. 41 (3): 223–244. doi:10.1023/A:1025557512320 (https://doi.org/10.1023%2FA%3A1025
557512320). S2CID 14370392 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:14370392).
18. Ackerman, Bruce; Fishkin, James S. (2004-03-10). "Deliberation Day" (https://www.americanprog
ress.org/issues/media/news/2004/03/10/586/deliberation-day/). Center for American Progress.
Retrieved April 21, 2015.
19. Hardin, Garrett. "The Tragedy of the Commons" (http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/misc/we
bfeat/sotp/pdfs/162-3859-1243.pdf) (PDF). www.sciencemag.org. American Association for the
Advancement of Science. Retrieved April 21, 2015.
20. Davidow, Bill (2012-05-18). "The Tragedy of the Internet Commons" (https://www.theatlantic.com/t
echnology/archive/2012/05/the-tragedy-of-the-internet-commons/257290/#disqus_thread).
theatlantic.com. The Atlantic. Retrieved April 21, 2015.
21. Kahn, Matthew E. "Environmental and Urban Economics" (http://greeneconomics.blogspot.com/2
012/12/a-counter-example-to-tragedy-of-commons.html). Retrieved April 21, 2015.
22. Eisenstadt, Shmuel (Winter 2000). "Multiple Modernities". Dædalus.
23. Feenberg, Andrew (1995). Alternative Modernity : The Technical Turn in Philosophy and Social
Theory. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520089860.
24. Winner, Langdon. "Artifact/Ideas and Political Culture." Technology and the Future (1993): 283-
92. Print.
25. Bucchi, Massimiano. "No Innovation without Representation (A Parliament of Things for the New
Technical Democracies)." http://www.fondazionebassetti.org/. 20 Dec. 2003. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.
26. Goldman, Steven L. "No Innovation Without Representation: Technological Action in a
Democratic Society." New Worlds, New Technologies, New Issues (1992): 148-60. Print.
27. , Allison, Bill, and Sarah Harkins. "Fixed Fortunes: Biggest Corporate Political Interests Spend
Billions, Get Trillions." Sunlight Foundation Blog. Sunlight Foundation, 17 Nov. 2014. Web. 21
Apr. 2015.
28. , Corso, Regina, SVP. "PACs, Big Companies, Lobbyists, and Banks and Financial Institutions
Seen by Strong Majorities as Having Too Much Power and Influence in DC." Harris Interactive:
Harris Polls. Harris Interactive, 29 May 2012. Web. 21 Apr. 2015
29. "Net Neutrality: A Free and Open Internet." The White House. The White House, 26 Feb. 2015.
Web. 21 Apr. 2015.
30. Flow. Oscilloscope Pictures, 2008. DVD.
31. Woodhouse, Edward. Science Technology and Society. Spring 2015 ed. N.p.: U Readers, 2014.
Print.
32. Technosociety dictionary definition | technosociety defined. (n.d.). Retrieved March 20, 2015, from
__http://www.yourdictionary.com/technosociety__
33. "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.
34. "Toward a Critical Technical Practice: Lessons Learned in Trying to Reform AI", Philip E. Agre, in
Bridging the Great Divide: Social Science, Technical Systems, and Cooperative Work, Geoff
Bowker, Les Gasser, Leigh Star, and Bill Turner, eds, Erlbaum, 1997
35. Hochschild, J., Crabill, A., & Sen, M. (2012, December 1). Technology Optimism or Pessimism:
How Trust in Science Shapes Policy Attitudes toward Genomic Science. Retrieved March 20,
2015, from http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/msen/files/hochschild_crabill_sen.pdf
36. Kleinman, D. (2005). Science is Political/Technology is Social: Concerns, Concepts, and
Questions. Maryland: Blackwell.
37. "Worldwide directory of STS programs - stswiki" (http://www.stswiki.org/index.php?title=Worldwid
e_directory_of_STS_programs). www.stswiki.org. Retrieved 2018-01-25.
38. "Graduate Program in Science & Technology Studies" (http://sts.gradstudies.yorku.ca/).
sts.gradstudies.yorku.ca. York University. Retrieved 8 January 2019.
39. "Technical University of Munich" (https://www.tum.de/en/studies/degree-programs/detail/science-
and-technology-studies-sts-master-of-arts-ma/).
40. "STS programs: Israel - stswiki" (http://www.stswiki.org/index.php?title=STS_programs:_Israel).
www.stswiki.org. Retrieved 2018-01-25.
41. "STS programs: Malaysia - stswiki" (http://www.stswiki.org/index.php?title=STS_programs:_Malay
sia). www.stswiki.org. Retrieved 2018-01-25.
42. "STS programs: Taiwan - stswiki" (http://www.stswiki.org/index.php?
title=STS_programs:_Taiwan). www.stswiki.org. Retrieved 2018-01-25.
43. "Stanford | The Program in Science, Technology, and Society" (https://sts.stanford.edu/).
44. "Program on Science, Technology and Society at Harvard" (http://sts.hks.harvard.edu/).
sts.hks.harvard.edu. Retrieved 2018-01-25.
45. "Home | Institute for Science Innovation and Society" (https://www.insis.ox.ac.uk/).

www.insis.ox.ac.uk. Retrieved 2018-01-25.
46. "Center for the Sociology of Innovation (CSI) / Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation (CSI)" (http://
www.csi.mines-paristech.fr/en/). csi.mines-paristech.fr (in French). Retrieved 2018-01-25.
47. "STS@BIU - Science, Technology and Society, Bar-Ilan University, Israel" (https://www.sts-biu.or
g/). STS@BIU - Science, Technology and Society, Bar-Ilan University, Israel. Retrieved
2018-01-25.
48. "About EASST" (https://easst.net/about-easst/). easst.net. Retrieved 2020-01-03.
49. "Background – AsSIST-UK" (https://assist-uk.com/association-for-studies-in-innovation-science-a
nd-technology/background/). assist-uk.com. 29 March 2016. Retrieved 2020-01-03.
50. "Members – AsSIST-UK" (https://assist-uk.com/members/). assist-uk.com. 29 March 2016.
Retrieved 2020-01-03.
51. Webster, Andrew (2018). "SATSU – The Science and Technology Studies Unit: 30 years in the
making" (https://easst.net/article/satsu-the-science-and-technology-studies-unit-30-years-in-the-m
aking/). EASST Review. European Association for the Study of Science and Technology. 37 (2).
Retrieved 2020-01-03.
52. Japanese Society for Science and Technology Studies (http://jssts.jp/content/section/14/51/)
53. Asia Pacific Science Technology & Society Network (http://apstsn.org/)
54. Kreimer, P. (2007). Estudios sociales de la ciencia y la tecnología en América Latina: ¿para qué?,
¿ para quién? Redes, 13(26), 55–64. Retrieved from
http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/907/90702603.pdf
55. "Science & Technology Studies" (https://sciencetechnologystudies.journal.fi/).
sciencetechnologystudies.journal.fi. Retrieved 2018-07-05.
56. Research Policy (https://www.journals.elsevier.com/research-policy).
57. "Revue d'anthropologie des connaissances" (http://www.socanco.org). Société d'anthropologie
des connaissances.
58. "Technology and Society Magazine - IEEE Technology and Society" (http://technologyandsociety.
org/technology-and-society-magazine/). IEEE Technology and Society. Retrieved 2018-07-05.
59. "Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society Homepage" (https://www.tandfonline.c
om/toc/ttap20/current). Retrieved 2018-07-05.
Further reading
Bauchspies, Wenda; Croissant, Jennifer; Restivo, Sal (2005). Science, Technology, and Society:
A Sociological Approach. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 9780631232100.
Bijker, Wiebe; Hughes, Thomas; Pinch, Trevor, eds. (1987). The Social Construction of
Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0262022620.
Felt, Ulrike; Fouché, Rayvon; Miller, Clark A.; Smith-Doerr, Laruel, eds. (2017). The Handbook of
Science and Technology Studies (4th ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262035682.
Fuller, Steve (1993). Philosophy, Rhetoric, and the End of Knowledge: The Coming of Science
and Technology Studies. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. (2nd edition, with James H.
Collier, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004)
Hess, David J. (1997). Science Studies: An Advanced Introduction. New York: NYU Press.
ISBN 9780814735640.
Jasanoff, Sheila; Markle, Gerald; Petersen, James; Pinch, Trevor, eds. (1994). Handbook of
Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ISBN 978-0803940215.
Kuhn, Thomas (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Latour, Bruno (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Restivo, Sal, ed. (2005). Science, Technology, and Society: An Encyclopedia (https://archive.org/
details/sciencetechnolog0000unse_m5y0). New York: Oxford University Press.
ISBN 9780195141931.
External links
STSWiki (http://www.stswiki.org) (devoted to building resources, such as a worldwide list of STS
programs and scholars)
STS-Wiki of (Dutch) STS PhD research school (http://www.wtmc.net/wiki) (this page is partly a
private wiki)
Argentinean Network for Science and Technology Studies (http://www.escyt.org)
Instituto de Estudios sobre la Ciencia y la Tecnología - Universidad Nacional de Quilmes (http://w
ww.iesct.unq.edu.ar)
Science and Technology Studies Department - University College London (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/st
s/)
Journals
Social Studies of Science (http://sss.sagepub. Science and Public Policy (http://spp.oxfordjo
com) urnals.org/)
Science, Technology, & Human Values (http:// Engineering studies (https://www.tandfonline.
sth.sagepub.com) com/toc/test20/current)
Science & Technology Studies (https://scienc Tecnoscienza. Italian Journal of Science &
etechnologystudies.journal.fi/) Technology Studies (http://www.tecnoscienza.
Technology in Society (http://www.journals.els net/index.php/tsj/)
evier.com/technology-in-society/) IEEE Technology and Society Magazine (htt
Research Policy (http://www.elsevier.com/loc p://www.ieeessit.org/technology_and_societ
ate/respol) y/)
Revue d'Anthropologie des Connaissances (h Nordic Journal of Science and Technology
ttp://www.cairn.info/revue-anthropologie-des- Studies (https://www.ntnu.no/ojs/index.php/nj
connaissances.htm) sts/index)
Minerva: A Journal of Science, Learning and Paakat: Revista de Tecnología y Sociedad (ht
Policy (https://www.springer.com/education tp://www.udgvirtual.udg.mx/paakat/index.php/
+%26+language/journal/11024) paakat)
Science Technology and Society (http://sts.sa Intersect: the Journal of Science, Technology,
gepub.com/) and Society (http://intersect.stanford.edu),
Stanford University
Science as Culture (http://www.tandf.co.uk/jo
urnals/CSAC) DEMESCI: International Journal of
Technology and Culture (https://www.press.jh Deliberative Mechanisms in Science (http://de
u.edu/journals/technology_and_culture/) mesci.hipatiapress.com)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Science_and_technology_studies&oldid=977144190"
This page was last edited on 7 September 2020, at 04:54 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Science and Technology Studies - Wikipedia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Science and Technology Studies - Wikipedia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10/10/2020 Science and technology studies - Wikipedia

The "turn to technology" (and beyond)

STS social construction

Very often they go further, and urge that:

1. X is quite as bad as it is.

Deliberative democracy is a reform of representative or direct democracies which mandates

others more skilled in the activity.[16]

Importance of deliberative democracy in STS

Deliberative democracy in practice

Tragedy of the commons

No innovation without representation

Privileged positions of business and science

Additionally, an examination of net neutrality functions as a separate example of legacy thinking.

Social Studies of Science Science as Culture

Student journals in STS include:

45. "Home | Institute for Science Innovation and Society" (https://www.insis.ox.ac.uk/).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Science_and_technology_studies&oldid=977144190"

This page was last edited on 7 September 2020, at 04:54 (UTC).

You might also like