" We welcome Stewart Russell's paper,' the social construction of artefacts: A response to Pinch and Bijker', not only because the author supports only our objective of developing an explanation of the content of Technology', but also because the point he raises gives us an opportunity to comment further upon the exciting developments in this field of science studies"
" The object of the new sociology of Technology is to explain how technology is socially shaped and, in that this Goal is also professed by Russell, we have no serious quarrel with his general approach"
1) Breaking the wall: the crux of the argument for a new sociology of technology lies in the breaking of the dogma that science is pure and technology as an application is profane or easily manipulated. The new approach also problematises the abstract idea of unnecessary demarcating of science and technology. The new approach emphasised upon empirical moorings, negating this old principle looks more into the social reality by unpacking the black box of technology.
2) Evolutionary approach: for a better understanding, Trevor and Pinch are using the evolutionary approach towards technology rather than a linear one. The failure of the linear approach reminds them about the different directions that technology is imagined, inspired, designed, and succeed or failed.
3) Social group and relevant group: while addressing the criticism charged by Russell regarding the unfinished, fluid understanding of the social structure of them, Pinch and Bijker uses the concepts of socially relevant group, which include those who use, support, deny and suffer due to an artefact. While defining the SCOT and the new sociology of technology, they argue that technology is imagined by differently different groups and this flexible imagination is the underpinning of social constructivism of technology.
