The Social Construction of Artefacts: a Response to Pinch and Bijker
The Social Construction of Artefacts: a Response to Pinch and Bijker
复制标题
文物的社会建构：对 Pinch 和 Bijker 的回应
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1986
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Stewart Russell
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Stewart Russell
在他们关于《事实和人工制品的社会建构》的论文中，Pinch和Bijker主张用一种综合的社会建构主义方法来解释科学知识和技术人工制品，建议每个单独的社会学领域如何相互受益。特别是，他们比较了科学的经验相对主义方案(EPOR)和技术的社会建设方案(SCOT)。他们认为，由于他们的解释目标是相似的，相对主义的方法，以及“解释灵活性”和“闭合”等概念，可能在两者中都有用。我在这里关心的是技术，而不是科学，除非EPOR可能影响了苏格兰人，或者随着关系的加深而这样做。1我完全支持将技术的内容作为一种社会产品进行解释的目标，因此我欢迎Pinch和Bijker的讨论。我同意他们对经济学家的“黑箱”处理、创新的线性模型和描述性史学的批评。然而，我想指出该文件所述苏格兰办法的一些弱点，特别是它拥护相对主义和技术变革的进化模式；它对待“社会群体”；以及它对它们影响发展的手段的解释。我要争辩说，把科学社会学的概念转移到技术上，就是忽视了两者作为活动和作为产品的基本区别。我们应该更好地尝试将生产技术的社会过程置于一个既定的框架中
In their paper on 'The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts', Pinch and Bijker advocate an integrated social constructivist approach to explaining scientific knowledge and technological artefacts, suggesting how each separate sociological field might benefit the other. In particular, they compare the Empirical Programme of Relativism (EPOR) for science and the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) programme. They suggest that since their explanatory goals are similar, a relativist approach, and concepts such as 'interpretative flexibility' and 'closure', may be useful in both. I am concerned here with technology rather than science, except insofar as EPOR may have influenced SCOT or come to do so as the relationship is furthered.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 economists' '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 its explanation of their means of influence on development. I shall argue that to transfer the concepts of a sociology of science to technology is to ignore basic differences between the two, as activities and as products. We should do better to try to situate the social processes producing technologies in an established framework that