The social contruction of artefacts: A response to pinch and Bijker

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.


Analytic (Question)





Creative Commons Licence