Reflections on Readings
Chapter 21 ~ “The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts” by Trevor J. Pinch and Wiebe E. Bijker
Pinch and Bijker contends that the study of science and the study of technology can benefit from each other, and one way to do this is through social constructivism.
The paper falls into three main sections. He outlines various strands of augmentation and review bodies of literature which we consider to be relevant to our goals. Then discusses two specific approaches together. Third he brings the two approaches together and provides examples.
First part outlines three bodies of literature in science and technology studies: sociology of science, the science-technology relationship, and technology studies.
In regards to the sociology of science, they primarily look at the emergence of sociology of scientific knowledge and believe that this knowledge promises much for other areas of science studies. Looking at the science-technology relationship, they believe it is heterogeneous and includes contributions from a variety of disciplinary perspectives. Something that is on going through the article is that they note the attempt to spate technology and science but as the author notes and which I agree to is its not possible to separate the two. one point they made I found very interesting regarding technology studies section was that studies seemed to show a linear, progressive, successive growth with technological devices as opposed to showing the failures as well. This is very interesting because it makes people believe all advances are successful and there is no failures.
Pinch and Bijker finish their essay but exploring the two methods they wish to employ: Empirical Programme of Relativism (EPOR) and Social Construction of Technology (SCOT).
EPOR, which is particularly conducive to the study of scientific controversies, has three aims: 1) interpretive flexibility, 2) describing of social mechanisms that limit interpretative flexibility, and 3) relating
Pinch and Bijker contends that the study of science and the study of technology can benefit from each other, and one way to do this is through social constructivism.
The paper falls into three main sections. He outlines various strands of augmentation and review bodies of literature which we consider to be relevant to our goals. Then discusses two specific approaches together. Third he brings the two approaches together and provides examples.
First part outlines three bodies of literature in science and technology studies: sociology of science, the science-technology relationship, and technology studies.
In regards to the sociology of science, they primarily look at the emergence of sociology of scientific knowledge and believe that this knowledge promises much for other areas of science studies. Looking at the science-technology relationship, they believe it is heterogeneous and includes contributions from a variety of disciplinary perspectives. Something that is on going through the article is that they note the attempt to spate technology and science but as the author notes and which I agree to is its not possible to separate the two. one point they made I found very interesting regarding technology studies section was that studies seemed to show a linear, progressive, successive growth with technological devices as opposed to showing the failures as well. This is very interesting because it makes people believe all advances are successful and there is no failures.
Pinch and Bijker finish their essay but exploring the two methods they wish to employ: Empirical Programme of Relativism (EPOR) and Social Construction of Technology (SCOT).
EPOR, which is particularly conducive to the study of scientific controversies, has three aims: 1) interpretive flexibility, 2) describing of social mechanisms that limit interpretative flexibility, and 3) relating