A Social Constructivist Approach Is Relevant In Understanding How Knowledge And Debates Are Formulated By Differing Social Groups
A social constructivist approach is relevant in understanding how knowledge and debates are formulated by differing social groups. Using this theoretical framework provides us with a background on how a technology, in this case hydraulic fracturing, is constructed through separate discourses. According to Bijker, “In the social construction of technology approach (SCOT), relevant social groups are the starting point. Technical artifacts are described through the eyes of the members of these groups. The interactions within and among relevant social groups can give different meanings to the same.” (Bijker, 2001, pp. 26). In order to understand how controversial hydraulic fracturing is, the importance of how this technology is socially constructed among the relevant social groups is crucial. Thus looking at the controversy through a social constructivist study of the technology does not strictly mean we are applying just an ontological position (Bijker, 1993, pp. 115).
In order to understand how actors create a controversy over a technology it is best understood from Ulrich Beck’s theory of risk society. Beck explains how society moves from an industrial society to a risk society through two phases. Phase one: where self-harm is systematically produced but is not a public issue or in any way the center of political conflict, and phase two: hazards from the industrial society now dominate the political and public debates (Beck, 1999, pp. 72). These phases are distinguished due to an increase in knowledge distribution, and the understanding that calculable risks in an industrial society became incalculable and unpredictable now in a risk society. Understanding the different levels of risk interpretation by different actors builds support on why they may or may not support a technology. In the case of hydraulic fracturing, proponents argue fracking outcomes result in simplistic risks, which means they are manageable and can be easily calculated. In responding to
In order to understand how actors create a controversy over a technology it is best understood from Ulrich Beck’s theory of risk society. Beck explains how society moves from an industrial society to a risk society through two phases. Phase one: where self-harm is systematically produced but is not a public issue or in any way the center of political conflict, and phase two: hazards from the industrial society now dominate the political and public debates (Beck, 1999, pp. 72). These phases are distinguished due to an increase in knowledge distribution, and the understanding that calculable risks in an industrial society became incalculable and unpredictable now in a risk society. Understanding the different levels of risk interpretation by different actors builds support on why they may or may not support a technology. In the case of hydraulic fracturing, proponents argue fracking outcomes result in simplistic risks, which means they are manageable and can be easily calculated. In responding to