Sociology of Science, Technology and Social Change - Literature review Example

Social Construction of Technology and Expository Continuum Name Course Lecturer Date Social Construction of Technology According to Klein and Kleinman (2002), Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) is a theory in the studies of science and technology. Supporters of this theory claim that, technology is shaped by human action and that, one cannot understand the manner in which technology is used without comprehending the way the technology is entrenched in its social setting. SCOT comprise of four interconnected components. Interpretive flexibility is the first component, which emerges from the experimental program of relativism. It supposes that, technology design constitutes an open procedure that can generate different outcomes, which are dependent on the development’s social circumstances. A number of social scientists assert that physics’ entities like particles learned in particle physics, constitute outcomes of intergroup negotiations about the construal of observations. In turn, SCOT scholars apply interpretive flexibility to artefacts of technology to show the way the artefacts are likewise the outcomes of intergroup negotiations. Examples of such kind of research include, MacKenzie’s (1990) explanation of the negotiations regarding missile accuracy’s definition, Misa‘s (1995) investigation of steel manufacturing and Bijker’s (1995) studies of fluorescent lighting. Technological artefacts are adequately underdetermined to permit various possible designs, thus whatever design that is eventually generated by the process, it is different. The idea of pertinent social groups constitutes the second element of the SCOT theory. Pertinent social groups are particular interpretations’ embodiments. All the members of a particular social group have identical collection of meanings that are connected to a particular artefact (Pinch & Bijker 1987, p.30). Bijker (1995, p.270) observes that, members form the agents in the theory of social construction of technology, which is an agency-centred approach. The approach’s actions are evident in the meanings that they pass on to artefacts. Technology development involves a procedure whereby different groups, each representing a particular interpretation of a work of art, negotiate about its design, and various social groups see and create quite diverse objects. For instance, groups might have different description of a functioning technology, thus development persists until all groups reach a consensus on the functioning of their shared artefact. Design stops because the group of pertinent social groups approves that the artefact functions in a way that suits them, rather than functioning in an objective sense (Klein & Kleinman 2002) According to Klein and Kleinman (2002, p.29), stabilization and closure is the third element of the SCOT approach. A multi-group plan process might experience controversies whereby different interpretations result in conflicting pictures of an artefact. The design will carry on until the conflicts are solved and all the pertinent social groups are comfortable with the artefact. The multi-group procedure attains closure, no additional design modifications take place, and the artefact remains in its ultimate form. In some way, a final resolution or a termination of more decisions takes place. Pinch and Bijker (1987) perceive this as taking place through closure methods. They give two examples of these methods. In relation to a rhetorical closure, members of the pertinent social groups make a declaration that there are no additional problems present, and that, further design is not needed. Closure by redefinition takes place when unresolved issues are redefined in order for them to stop posing problems to the concerned social groups. The fourth component of SCOT is the broader context, which implies the broader political and socio-cultural milieu wherein artefact development occurs. This component plays a trivial role in Pinch and Bijker’s original idea of SCOT. The background provisions for group relations, such as interpersonal relations, the rules governing their interactions, and aspects contributing to disparities in their authority, remain mainly invisible. Most critiques and discussion of structural concepts revolve around this component (Klein & Kleinman 2002, p.30). The original idea of SCOT has been criticized by numerous scholars as insufficient. In fact, the original writers have themselves accepted and even taken part in the critique (Pinch 1996). A lot of criticism concerns the excessive stress on agency while neglecting structure. An essential target of disapproval is SCOT’s perspective about the society as made up of groups. Pinch (1996) summarize this by stating that, “The particular way in which society is conceptualized and linked to artefacts is via the notion of relevant social groups” (p. 23). According to Winner (1993, p.362), that is a basically pluralist perspective about society. Implicitly, the SCOT concept presumes that groups hold equal positions and that every pertinent social group actively participates in the artefact design process. This does not adequately tackle power asymmetry amid groups. Some groups might be effectively barred from taking part in the artefact design process. Moreover, a number of groups might not be real groups, but a diverse assortment of subgroups where some actor pretends to speak on their behalf. Haard (1993) further argues that, the procedure of artefact development might be full of intra-group and intergroup conflict. The supposition that the outcome of interaction amid different social groups is normally consensus also deserves critical rethinking. Such a supposition is far much agency centred. They overlook methodical asymmetries of authority and how such authority differences are entrenched in structural features of social life. One key idea has been launched in SCOT since the initial presentation of the framework. Bijker (1995) added technological frame on top of the four initial components of SCOT. This component relates to the mutual cognitive framework that describes a pertinent social group and represents members’ joint construal of an artefact. A technological frame might include goals, current theories, key problems, testing procedures, rules of thumb, and excellent artefacts that, explicitly or tacitly, structure the thinking of group members, problem solving, design activities and strategy formation (Bijker 1995, p.125). A technological frame might promote particular actions and put off others. Bijker (1995) asserts that, “Within a technological frame not everything is possible anymore, but the remaining possibilities are relatively clearly and readily available to all members of the relevant social group” (p.192). The launching of the component of technological frame in the SCOT structure is a significant initial step toward acknowledgment of structure, but numerous possibilities are present for further insights. Expository Continuum Various educators have described a number of teaching methodologies. Effective teachers formulate an ever-expanding range of teaching methods that they might apply when making decisions regarding the techniques that are most suitable for the present situation (Eggen & Kauchak 2012). Expository teaching is one that is dominated by the teacher. He or she decides what to teach. The teacher provides notes, lectures, explains charts, shows videos, reads stories, solves examples of problems, shows internet materials and demonstrates laboratory activities, among others. All these teaching activities revolve around the teacher (Eggen & Kauchak 2012). According to Eggen and Kauchak (2012), in expository teaching, the teacher directs what the students should do and learn; hence he or she is the source as well as the possessor of the knowledge. It is a teaching approach whereby the teacher provides students with the rules of the subject matter and gives examples that demonstrate the rules. Such examples include prerequisite information, pictorial relationships, and context via historical information. These examples provide contextual elaboration and helps students to view the topic from several different perspectives. Students might or might not be cognitively involved, and there is no a certain method through which the teacher can know whether the students are involved cognitively. The only way for gauging the cognitive involvement of students is by pausing and asking them to summarize what they have learned in a similar way like when they are reading a short story. Even through such a method, the understandings that students internalize might not be clear (Eggen & Kauchak 2012). Martin (2001) observes that, expository teaching constitutes a lecture, telling strategy or a presentation used during teaching. The procedure for expository teaching entails a situation whereby the teacher assumes responsibility of presenting the topic to students and directs them during the lesson. He or she presents a rule along with an example after which practice is presented. The instructor focuses the attention of students on main points of the current topic, and might use diagrams, graphics, or others forms of presentation to expand upon the topic. Generally, the expository mode of teaching starts with a prologue and outline of the topic to be taught prior to providing more precise detail and information. This expository approach develops the lesson and organizes the students ready for the information and activities that follow (Martin 2001). A shift from general information to specific one enables students to comprehend the increasingly comprehensive elaborations of the information. It also enables students to link the elaborations with the general information that the teacher provided previously in the overview of the topic. Instructional approach is intended to help students to acquire comparatively factual material. This method is facilitated through the use of conceptual or advanced organizers or re-instructional oral statements, and sequencing of a topic’s content. For example, in a hierarchical arranged series, global, overarching principles and concepts of the field of study are presented initially in an advanced organizer (Martin 2001). Martin (2001) further maintains that, the expository continuum assumes a central place in the teaching of science. A teacher may not be required to provide the whole class with new information as a background for future studies. He or she may wish to show an activity prior to setting students to work independently. When providing directions to students, a teacher will need to draw the attention of every student. The attention of the whole class is needed when engaging in teaching and class activities, such as listing safety precautions, citing field trip’s rules, or giving directions. Explanations about certain concepts of science, such as atomic theory, cellular structure, and nuclear energy, may be taught best using an expository method with the entire class. Moreover, a number of scientific procedures, including experimenting with particular chemicals or using costly equipment, are best explained using videos or demonstrations. Expository method is also suitable for carrying out lesson closures and summaries (Martin 2001). Drawing from Martin (2012), expository teaching has a number of advantages. To start with, teachers who apply expository teaching provide their students with information in an objective way that enables them to simply make connections between different concepts. Students obtain information from a professional, which might be a teacher or even another professional, including an author of an educational video, or a textbook. When possible, an instructor makes use of an advanced organizer, an instrument used in introducing a lesson and demonstrating the link amid what the students will learn and what they have previously learned. In addition, the format of an expository teaching session is intended to assist students to remain focused on a particular topic. Martin (2012) further argues that, expository mode of teaching is commonly used because of its efficiency and takes much less time compared to discovery learning. When used in real practice, this teaching mode is also very effective in teaching principles and concepts. Furthermore, expository teaching presents a student with the ideal opportunity to achieve an organized perspective of his or her field of study. This is because; the instructor is able to organize the field of study in a more effective way for learning compared to the trainee student. Other merits of expository mode of teaching include a well-organized dissemination of information, consistency of presentation, as well as clear topic development. Nevertheless, expository teaching is associated with some demerits including lack of modification of a lesson to suit the needs of every child, and uncertain level of student’ attention. Other disadvantages of this mode of teaching include the possible lack of significance of the learning material to the lives of the children, and inability of every child to track the lesson flow at a similar pace. Most people think that the biggest problem with expository teaching is the inability of children to pay attention, but the actual problem is that it is hard to know whether one is concentrating or not (Martin 2012). In can thus be concluded that, expository mode of teaching constitutes a good teaching method given that its advantages far outweigh its disadvantages. Reference List Bijker, W 1995, The social construction of fluorescent lighting, or how an artefact was invented in its diffusion stage, In W. Bijker & J. Law, Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 75-102), Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Eggen, PD & Kauchak, DP 2012, Strategies and Models for Teachers: Teaching Content and Thinking Skills, Boston, MA, Allyn & Bacon, Incorporated. Haard, M 1993, Beyond harmony and consensus: A social conflict approach to technology, Science, Technology, and Human Values, 18 (1), 408-32. Klein, HK & Kleinman, DL 2002, The Social Construction of Technology: Structural Considerations, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 27 (1), 28-52. MacKenzie, D 1990, Inventing accuracy: A historical sociology of nuclear missile guidance, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Martin, DJ 2001, Constructing early childhood science, Albany, NY, Delmar Thomson Learning. Martin, DJ 2012, Elementary science methods: a constructivist approach, Belmont, CA, Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Misa, T 1995, A nation of steel: The making of modern America, 1865-1925, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press. Pinch, T 1996, The social construction of technology: A review, In Technological change: Methods and themes in the history of technology (pp. 17-35), Australia, Harwood Academic Publishers. Pinch, T & Bijker, W 1987, The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other, In The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Winner, L 1993, Upon opening the black box and finding it empty: Social constructivism and the philosophy of technology, Science, Technology, and Human Values, 18 (1), 362-78. Read More