The criticism by Russell upon mere unpacking of technology as a black box gives us a more vibrant methodology such as the labour process, which is directly related to my area of interest 'labour and technology'. He further elaborates that a better understanding of deskilling and technological change along with its consequence gives a new dimension of how technology is an "uninvited guest " for most of the majority underprivileged sections of the population. This helps me to connect the rationale behind the defence of trade unions and workers against automation and how it redefines class politics in the era of the fourth industrial revolution.
The debate between Bijker, Pinch and Russell give new insights upon participation, democracy, the social structure in the design, production and consumption of artefacts and technology in the field of STS. Russell also helps us to navigate the ' labour process theory ' as a new tool in understanding technology. along the lines of Marxist tradition, he alarms us with the question that who are the real beneficiaries of technology and who are neglected. his criticism upon the evolutionary approach of SCOT as something superficial understanding of technology reminds us to explore more for a better understanding of technology rather than describing it.
The major literature that the author draws from are
1) The social construction of technology (SCOT): As a critical and response paper, most of the concepts he dissects or unpacks are coming from the writing of Pinch and Bijker. The concepts such as relativism, knowledge system, science and technology, relevant group etc are borrowed from the above school of thought
2) Labour process theory: Harry Braverman's ideas of deskilling, Marxian idea of alienation, technological supremacy are used for both methodological and analytical purpose in this response paper. The author believes that the application of this theory in a different sphere of social life such as politics, policy making, economy etc in relation to technology will give a new insight which will cover the shortcomings of the social constructivist approach.
3) Theories of knowledge: A vague mentioning of this literature are used to show that what are the issues emerge when somebody blurs the demarcation between science and technology. It also navigates the author to problematize the use of certain theories of sociology of science in the "so-called" new sociology of technology without any caution.
1) Neglect of social structure: The author argues that there is a careless approach in understanding the social structure or defining it by the SCOT Scholars. He argues it is beyond the narrative of mere description or identification of relevant social groups, but other important players such as outsiders (and insiders) should be thoroughly 'located' in both cultural and historical context.
2) Short comes of interpretative flexibility: he argues that both pinch and Bijker had taken this idea as taken for granted. According to him it solely did not help us to understand the situations or social determination of technology. According to Russell “An explanation of technological change must show not only what social groups think about an artefact, but also what they are able to do about it". So neither its social objectives nor imagination alone helps to understand technology.
3) The "power" of technology - by referring to the tenets of 'labour process theory author argues that technology is inherently defined and used by dominant groups. Neither a worker nor citizen may have the opportunity to participate in its designing, nor are they benefited from it. Sometimes it will be affecting them badly.
The main argument of the article is primarily focused on the critique of certain concepts used by Pinch and Bijker in their theory of social construction of facts and artefacts. Even though Russell agrees with the umbrella idea of the social construction of technology, he negates the idea of relevant groups and relativism of knowledge. His major critique is focused on equating science and technology or removing its distinction. He also stresses how a relativist viewpoint misses certain sections of society who are never part of the so-called dominant ideology. He argues that theories such as the labour process give a wider spectrum to understand human and technological interaction and its consequences. His major argument is also rooted in the critique of the elite evolutionary methodology of SCOT in understanding the technology.
1) "I fully support the objective of developing an explanation of the content of Technology as a social product, and so I welcome Pinch and Bijker's discussion. I agree with their criticisms of economist's ' black box' treatments, linear models of innovation, and descriptive historiography. I want, however, to identify a number of weaknesses in the SCOT approach as described in the paper- in particular, its espousal of relativism and of an evolutionary model of technological change; its treatment of 'social groups'; and it's an explanation of their means of influence on development. I shall argue that to transfer the concepts of the sociology of science to Technology is to ignore basic differences between the two, as activities and as products".
2) " to counter a scientific notion of facts, and its corollary that establishing these facts does, and should, determine the action taken, we do not need to adopt neutrality which holds each view of social reality as equally valid. To transcend this false dichotomy, I suggest, requires, one to start, not from an essentially academic motivation of injecting relativism into unsatisfactory theories, but from a political commitment to demonstrating the possibility of alternative Technology for alternative goals, and opening up the process of technological development to sections of society denied access to it. Mai Two objections- that a relative approach is inadequate analytically and unacceptable politically-are thus two sides of the same coin. It is no coincidence that some of the most valuable and analytical satisfying critiques of Technologies and their justification have come from movements opposing them and putting forward alternatives"
3)” Pinch and Bijker introduce the concept of 'closure' from the relativistic sociology of knowledge: For Technology it becomes the stabilization of an artefact and the “disappearance of problems ". They acknowledge that it is possible that the type of closure mechanism predominant in science and the type predominant in technology are different. This is an understatement. Whatever validity ' closure' may have for depicting how the direction of the theory is settled in science. I suggest it is altogether inappropriate so Technology, except in Limited cases"