USERS AND TECHNOLOGY: PERSPECTIVES
ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND
SOCIETY PART II
I203 Social and Organizational Issues of Information
Agenda

Social Construction of Technology

Actor-Network Theory

Other Explanations for Technological Change
2
Next Week:

Tuesday, in-class discussion lead by Ashwin and
Devin
 Implications
of the Internet
 Small group discussion of paper topics, brainstorming

Thursday:
 No
class, catch up on any readings and/or work on
Assn1.
3
Main arguments of SCOT (review)

Interpretive flexibility
 Different
interpretations of same
artifact by different social groups

Stabilization
 Over
time, negotiations lead to
convergence.

Closure
 Closure
is a social process in which
the technological artifact reaches a
final, consensual form.
4
Relevant ‘Social Groups’ in SCOT

What is a ‘relevant social
group’?



“all members of a social group
share the same set of meanings,
attached to a specific artifact”
(Pinch and Bijker 1987)
Different groups may lead to
different interpretations.
Resulting “technology” is a
negotiation between these
groups.
5
Technological “frames”

Technological frame: A shared cognitive view that defines a
relevant social group; members with a shared technological
frame have a common interpretation of an artifact.






Goals
Tacit knowledge
Current/available theories
Design methods
(among other factors)
Technological frame is similar to concept of the “paradigm”
though not quite as broad.
6
Critiques of SCOT (selected)

SCOT assumes equality of groups.


“Politically Insipid”


Fails to recognize power dynamics between social actors, groups.
SCOT tends to avoid making, “over-arching pronouncements for or
against the particular technological developments…because [the
researchers] know enough to realize the complexities they are
examining that the futility of trying to change the world by
pronouncements.”
SCOT is a historical method, but history is tricky!


The details of a technology’s historical development heavily influence a
SCOT analysis.
Historical details are often contested.

See: Clayton, Nick. 2002. “SCOT: Does it Answer?” Technology and Culture 43:351-360.
7
Critiques of SCOT (selected)

Over-emphasizes agency, under-emphasizes
structure.



Agency: Ability to be in action or to exert power
Structure: Arrangement of parts that together form a whole;
The composition of a social group and the way it is
organized.
Fails to recognize the powerful influences of institutions and
forces that are difficult to change, construct


(e.g. political economy, social classes, geography, sociodemographic factors)
“We make our own world, but not exactly as we please.” – Jean
Lave
8
Rosen’s Critique of SCOT: The Social
Construction of the Mountain Bike
9
Determinism & SCOT in Practice




Both perspectives are extremes, hard to justify on their
own.
A moderate approach is reasonable, but arguably less
exciting and certainly not any better at prediction.
Where do we place the emphasis: on the technology, or on
the people?
The POV you choose helps determine:



The problems you choose to research
The methods you use
Your analysis and interpretation of data (i.e. Agency)
10
Actor-Network Theory (ANT)

Builds on ideas from SCOT; acknowledges non-human
elements in technological development.



Originally credited to Michel Callon, Bruno Latour and John
Law.
Deals with processes by which scientific disputes
become ‘closed’, ideas accepted, methods adopted.
Mostly a qualitative approach: following the actor, or
following inscriptions (texts, images, databases, etc)
11
Vs.
12
Actor-Network Theory


Human and Non-human elements are
connected in a network that can be used to
understand the competing influences on some
outcome.
Actor can be human or non-human.
Humans
 Texts
 Technologies themselves

13
ANT applied to web services
15
Critiques of ANT



How can inanimate objects have agency?
 Proponents say that they know that objects do not have
intentional action
 Critics say that if you treat humans and objects exactly the
same way, it leads to preposterous claims about the effect
of technology
What does it mean that an actor is simultaneously an “actor
and a network”? How do you test and measure that?
If every actor can be a network, how far does this logic go
before we have a network that is too complex to even
comprehend?
16
Other Economic and Sociological Explanations for
Technological Change


Problems with neoclassical
economic solutions to tech
change and radical
innovation
‘Natural’ Trajectories and
Self-fulfilling prophecies
17
Moore’s Law Example
“Since Intel was founded in 1969 by Robert Noyce and
Gordon Moore, Moore's Law became a target that drove
product development within the company. In fact, the entire
semiconductor industry is striving to track Moore's curve: the
Semiconductor Industry Association puts together periodic
"Technology Roadmaps" that were closely followed by the
chip industry. These roadmaps, designed by technology
working groups made up of leading industry experts, define
in detail the course for future developments over a 15-year
period, driven by the desire to continue the past trends of
Moore's Law. In this way, Moore's Law has become a selffulfilling prophecy.”
-Mendelson, 1979
18
Other Economic and Sociological Explanations for
Technological Change

“Ethnoaccountancy”

Do accounting practices
help guide innovation?
19
Assignment #1

Available on Course Website:
20