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"
