• 2009 Small Grants Competition

    to adopt a cross-learning and iterative approach that will enable all researchers to learn from each other across different types of bio-innovation throughout the region.

  • Overview of the Project

    to enhance biological innovative capabilities, policies & institutions to support just, equitable & sustainable social & economic development in developing countries.

  • Bio-innovations in the NEWS

    Policy briefs and articles on relevant dimensions of bio-innovation.

Enabling bioinnovation for poverty allevation in Asia.

The Social Shaping of Technology

By Robin Williams and David Edge

appears in Research Policy Vol. 25, (1996) pp. 856-899

 
INTRODUCTION
This paper reviews the body of research that addresses `the social shaping of technology' (SST) (MacKenzie & Wajcman 1985). In contrast to traditional approaches which only addressed the outcomes or 'impacts' of technological change, this work examines the content of technology and the particular processes involved in innovation. We highlight the growth of socio-economic research falling within this very broad definition of SST. It explores a range of factors - organisational, political, economic and cultural - which pattern the design and implementation of technology.
SST has gained increasing recognition in recent years, particularly in the UK and Europe, as a valuable research focus1, for its broader import for the scientific and policy claims of social sciences. SST is seen as playing a positive role in integrating natural and social science concerns; in offering a greater understanding of the relationship between scientific excellence, technological innovation and economic and social well-being; and in broadening the policy agenda, for example in the promotion and management of technological change (European Science Foundation/Economic and Social Research Council 1991, Newby 1992).

 However, various analytical frameworks have been proposed, which differ to a greater or lesser extent in their terminology and approach. Considerable confusion remains about the identity and claims of SST: what constitutes social shaping research? what are the differences within SST? what is the relationship between SST and other areas of social analysis of technology? Thus `SST' is often taken to be synonymous with one particular approach - for example, the social construction of technology 2 - or more generally with the sociological study of technology (see for example Rose & Smith 1986, Mackay & Gillespie 1992). This paper attempts to clarify the situation by mapping out our conception of the domain of SST as a `broad church', indicating its different strands and the relationships between them. We therefore adopt a very broad definition of SST, without implying a particular consensual 'orthodoxy', clear boundaries, or claims of ownership to the field. As we hope to show, much of the strength in this area lies in the very diversity of work which it encompasses. Our main focus is on Britain, although SST has emerged to an important extent through international discussion.

 
To access the full paper click here
 
---
1 For example, in 1992, European research collaboration was established on SST under the COST programme (COST A4: the impact of the social environment on the creation and diffusion of technologies). SST, with Human Communication, forms one of the nine thematic priorities adopted in 1995 by the Economic and Social Research Council, and is seen as part of the contribution of social sciences to recent UK science and technology policy initiatives: the 1993 White Paper 'Realising our Potential' and the 1995 Technology Foresight Initiative (ESRC 1995, Office of Science and Technology 1995).
2 The metaphor of social construction has proved attractive to many in the field, and we could have grouped this review under the heading of constructivism, rather than SST. We opted not to use this term because it has a substantial history and intellectual baggage and has acquired multiple meanings (Sismondo 1993).