Talk:Social construction of technology

AfD

On April 28, this article was nominated for deletion. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Social construction of technology. The result was keep. —Xezbeth 16:42, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

The Theory

I've made an attempt to get the ball rolling here by putting up a short explanation of the theory. It does not include everything. I've made no mention of the epirical program of relativism, and I don't think that my notes on closure do the theory justice. But something is here now, and my hope is that this section will be revised.

I'm also not happy with my formatting, but that's something to fix for another day.--RedJ 17 16:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I've re-read the original article of Pinch and Bijker and based on that, I fixed small errors, added many details and bicycle examples. I've also reorganized the headings to reflect the three-step methodology of Pinch and Bijker. I don't think it is necessary to mention the "empirical program of relativism" because it sounds bad and it did not have much influence anyway :-).

This is also my first Wikipedia contribution! Bviktor 01:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

To do

• Importance of three key aspects of Technological Constructivism: Technical, Social, and Natural factors related to the development of a technology. +Fullerian 00:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Expand discussion of theory DONE
• and use illustrations from Pinch and Bijker (redrawn to avoid copyright issues)
• Add references DONE
• Grammar and spelling clean-up.

Missing text?

I think a chunk of text may have gone missing from the 2nd paragraph, where it jumps from "historical analysis of sociotechnical systems" to Thomas P. Hughes. I took a quick look at the edit history to see if I could spot where it might have happened, but that didn't help. Could somebody who's familiar with the article please have a look and try to fix the problem? Cgingold 05:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

the edit that caused the problem seems to be this one. I'll see if I can't salvage it somehow. Tarheelcoxn (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

ANT as a subtopic?

Describing actor-network theory as a subtopic of SCOT without qualification seems problematic. I can certainly believe some SCOT adherents use an ANT methodology, but ANT itself is not usually seen from that perspective, since one of its whole points is that inanimate objects can get equal footing in the network. Latour, anyway, tends to take a more materialist view of technology. --Delirium (talk) 09:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Social shaping of technology

Let's discuss this at Talk:Social_shaping_of_technology. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)