1. SCOT SCOT The Social Constructivist Paradigm to Study Technology in Society and some examples Wiebe E. Bijker ESST Maastricht, September 2002

2. Think of problems such as... Sustainable development »…its conception »…its implementation Users’ involvement in technological design »…because of a “sustainable technology” »…because of a need to democratise technological culture

3. The purpose of this paper... not Is not to give you a concrete instrument But But to give you a specific perspective to »… identify otherwise hidden problems »... open-up new solutions »... view the world in a new way

4. Modern society’s problem seems to be: science/technology develops autonomously,... having an impact on society and the only reactions left to the public, are : »accept »protest »run off technologicaldeterminism

5. intermezzo 1: Technological Determinism Technological determinism (TD) means: »Technology develops autonomously »Technology determines society TD is problematic because: »TD is politically debilitating »TD is false TD is false because: »Technology does change as result of social changes »Technology can be changed as a result of conscious (political, social) action

6. The struggle of invention Our bicycle: mistake of 400 years of engineering? All elements of modern bicycle already existed for centuries First successful bicycle was a monstrous machine (high wheeled “Ordinary”)Ordinary Now, let us try to understand this technology.

7. So, let’s describe the bicycle but:... not with the mistakes of our hindsight, … not with the illusion that the bikes speak for themselves. That is: Through the eyes of the people of those days themselves; for example the women:the women …and we see: the Unsafe Bicycle Or we see, through the eyes of users of the Ordinary:users …and we see: the Macho Bicycle

8. relevant social groups women technology Ordinary young men interpretative flexibility Technological frame

9. SCOT (social construction of technology) Technology is socially constructed: …its design …Its gender …its working The process of social construction continues forever Many social groups are involved in the social construction of technology

10. And......this analysis of an artifact such as the bicycle opens up the wider world in new ways: Bicycling  women emancipation We can now extend our analysis: Study the culture of technology Study technological culture

11. “We live in a Technological Culture” “Technological culture” = Our modern society that cannot exist without science and technology

12. Concept of “Technological Culture” = modern society which cannot be understood without recognising the role of science and technology Co-evolution of technology and society Construction processes are continuous (i.e. technology is also being constructed after its leaving the design, production, marketing and publication departments) Construction is done by all sorts of actors (i.e. not only by engineers, technicians, marketeers, but also by groups in the public) Definition as technical/cultural/political is negotiated

13. A break...

14. This moment in lecture and in module In lecture: »Technological determinism »SCOT »Broader view: technological culture »A methodological reflection on STS and ESST »Some projects as examples In module: »Technological determinism »“New sociology of technology”: –SCOT –Systems approach –Actor network theory

15. Problems of Technological Culture:  peace and safety  global distribution of wealth, resources, risks  environment / ecology These are problems of Democracy, not of Technology Needed: politicisation of Technological Culture

16. How to study Nature, Culture, and Science and Technology? Where to start? What to look for? Which topic to choose? Which methods to use? How to balance data and theory? Pitfalls to avoid? Thesis’ structure?

17. Women Advisory Committees on Housing (VACs) All-women committees (white, middle class, married- with-children, educated) Advice on public housing and town planning (since 1946) In 50% of all Dutch municipalities Recognised expertise (self-trained) Paradox 1: »Playing the “women experience” cardPlaying the “women experience” card »Non-feministNon-feminist Paradox 2: Paradox 2: »SuccessfulSuccessful »Unknown to the general publicUnknown to the general public

18. Changing identities Representing respectively: »Housewives »Women in general »House consumers –Officially recognised spokespersons for the general public (consumers) –But how to live up to that status? Women experience feminism

19. The feminist self? using rhetorical oppositions: male—female abstract— concrete by head— by heart expert knowl.— common sense esthetics— functionality demarcation from other women organisations: »autonomous feminism »women architects »academic women

20. “Peace-keeping” strategy expertise: in the niche between “real experts” and “non-informed residents” “stable participation” two vocabularies: »external: high inclusion in male building technological frame –through: low key interventions –price paid: “caught in the frame” (e.g. one-family house with fixed gender roles) –profit gained: influence »internal: high inclusion in feminism

21. “Public Debate” on nature development Case of nature development: »Public controversy »Technology & science »High stakes “Public Debate Conference”: »Heterogeneous panel »4-stage process –Introduction –Information market –Field studies –Consensus conference and public debate »Unclear mandate

22. Lessons from Public Debate One cornerstone of politicisation of Technological Culture is to give the public(s) a voice (“to get the values from the public” (Keeney)) e.g. in the nature development debate: »research budget for panellists »agenda-setting by panellists »through field studies of case also “nature” acquired a voice generally: »support science shops »support specific groups so, not just values!

23. Lessons for planning engineers Recognise the limits of your own expertise Recognise the expertise of other relevant social groups Recognise your own heterogeneous engineering capabilities

24. References Bijker, W. E. (1995). Of Bicycles, Bakelites and Bulbs. Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bijker, W. E., & Bijsterveld, K. (2000). Women Walking through Plans—Technology, democracy and gender identity. Technology & Culture, 41(3), 485-515. Bijker, W. E. (forthcoming in 2002). Sustainable Policy? A Public Debate about Nature Development in the Netherlands. Plurimondi. Aibar, E., & Bijker, W. E. (1997). Constructing a City: The Cerdà Plan for the Extension of Barcelona. Science, Technology & Human Values, 22(1), 3-30. Slides at:

26. does it work?

27. Alternative high wheelers Back to intermezzo

28. The American “Star” Back to intermezzo

29. Women did want to bicycle! The “Ladies’ Ariel”

30. However, in practice... The Ordinary was a very unsafe machine which did not work!

31. …even when you went to a bicycling school Back to SCOT

32. “Young men of means and nerve” The “Macho Bicycle” Back to SCOT which did work well!

33. Women emancipation The wheel of the past… and …the wheel of the future

34. “Will dinner be ready at six?” back

35. Bijker’s Curriculum vitae elements: Training: »Engineer, physics »Philosophy of science »PhD in sociology/history of technology Professor of “Technology & Society” »University of Maastricht »Undergraduate, MA, PhD programmes in STS Chairman of Board of Netherlands PhD School on Science, Technology & Modern Culture (network of 6 universities; Workshops and International Summer Schools)