STS Concepts

BLACK BOX

A term coined by Bruno Latour in Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies (1999). Latour describes how science is not something that is always “in the making”, for in order to produce viable results there needs to be something that is more concrete and not constantly fluctuating or controversial. If one envisions science “in the making” to be a transparent box, the box gradually turns opaque as scientific concepts start to become more accepted and less controversial. Once a scientific hypothesis reaches a point where it becomes an accepted result in the science community, the box becomes black. A science or technology that has become a black box is no longer open for scrutiny because it is now a widely accepted truth. As Latour put it, black-boxing is “the way scientific and technical work is made invisible by its own success. When a machine runs efficiently, when a matter of fact is settled, one need focus only on its inputs and outputs and not on its internal complexity. Thus, paradoxically, the more science and technology succeed, the opaquer and more obscure they become” (1999: 304). Reference: Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: essays on the reality of science studies. Harvard University Press.

BOUNDARY OBJECT

A theoretical tool initially introduced by Susan Leigh Star and James Griesemer in their 1989 article to help understand how various actors of differing and sometimes conflicting interests can get together and cooperate on a scientific project. A boundary object is any object that provides information, such as specimens, field notes, and maps, and that exists in, is used, and interpreted differently in multiple communities. Boundary objects need to have a certain level of fluidity in order to adapt different identities within different communities and to adhere to the differing local needs. However, they also need to be well-defined enough to maintain integrity and a level of authenticity. Star and Griesemer perceived that through the creation and management of boundary objects, intersecting social worlds could develop and maintain coherence. Reference: Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social studies of science, 19(3), 387-420.

BOUNDARY WORK

Boundary-work refers to instances in which the boundaries between fields of knowledge are created, attacked, defended, or reinforced. These instances may imply that the existing boundaries are not set in stone, and are in fact socially constructed divisions that have fluidity. The term was originally coined by sociologist Thomas F. Gieryn in his work, “Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists” (1983), with a definition geared towards the academic field of science. Gieryn defines ‘boundary-work’ as the “attribution of selected characteristics to the institution of science (i.e., to its practitioners, methods, stock of knowledge, values and work organization) for purposes of constructing a social boundary that distinguishes some intellectual activities as ‘non-science’” (1983: 782). Gieryn’s paper discussed the centuries old problem of setting a clear demarcation between ‘science’ and ‘non-science’ fields, and argued that such discussion of demarcations itself was ideological in nature. Boundary-work was thus necessary for scientists in order to set themselves and their field of study apart as inhabiting a purely objective and autonomous sphere. Reference: Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American sociological review, 781-795.

COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE

A community of practice (CoP) is a group of people who share practices, usually in the form of a profession and/or craft. The term was introduced in 1991 by cognitive anthropologist Jean Lave and educational theorist Etienne Wenger in their book Situated Learning (Lave & Wenger 1991), and is tied to the argument that knowledge does not exist in the heads of individuals (a theory called the cognitive model) – rather, it exists relationally in context and through interaction with others. In other words, knowledge and learning are situated and embedded in cultural practices. References: Hoadley, Christopher, ‘What is a community of practice and how can we support it?’ in D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd ed., pp. 287- 300). New York: Routledge. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

CONTROVERSY STUDIES

In the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS), the study of various cases of scientific controversy has long been considered a crucial component. Through controversy studies, researchers are able to gain insights into the areas and processes of the sciences which are usually not visible. Scientific controversies are methodological tools for researchers to observe the social dimensions of science and technology, which remain hidden until a clash between the sciences and the general society occurs. A controversy reveals the veiled dynamics between the two. By observing where the feuds occur, researchers can begin investigating what kinds of social norms, political struggles, and assumptions are embedded within science technology.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265245795_Studying_Scientific_Controversy_from_the_STS_Perspective

CO-PRODUCTION OF SCIENCE AND ORDER

“The idiom of co-production is a theoretical approach highlighting the mutual constitution of technoscience and social order. This approach has been developed at many level of social organization and knowledge production. Here are a few examples: The creation of new scientific objects and new societies around them (e.g., Latour’s discussion of microbes in The Pasteurization of France (1993)) The production of regulatory sciences and the identification of science as a central ideological element in the construction of democratic politics (e.g. Jasanoff’s discussion [2004] of expert advisory bodies at EPA and FDA, or her elaboration of national systems of rhetoric and practice for warranting policy-relevant knowledge claims in different national political cultures) The emergence of science as a unique form of social order for manufacturing credible knowledge and hence for legitimizing and delegitimizing political rhetorics (e.g., in Shapin and Schaffer’s discussion of restoration England) A coherent treatment of co-production as an idiom and theoretical perspective, along with a number of interesting case studies, can be found in S. Jasanoff, ed. States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order (Routledge: London), 2004.” *Adapted from STS-Wiki http://stswiki.org/index.php?title=Co-production_of_Science_and_Social_Order

CULTURAL FIX

A term coined by Linda Layne in her article, The Cultural Fix: An Anthropological Contribution to Science and Technology Studies (2000). Societies breed people with culturally fixed attitudes regarding things, which may exhort certain responses to technologies. As such, one society may respond to a certain technological innovation in a vastly different manner than another society might respond. Reference: Layne, L. L. (2000). The cultural fix: An anthropological contribution to science and technology studies. Science, Technology & Human Values, 25(4), 492-519.

CULTURE INDUSTRY

A term coined by critical theorists Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer in their book Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944). Adorno and Horkheimer likened popular culture to a factory, contending that it produces cultural goods, such as magazines and films, that trap the masses in passivity and promotes conformity. As such, mass produced entertainment is akin to propaganda. The culture industry is made possible by new technologies of communication; technology makes mass production of entertainment more and more affordable and reproducible as time goes on. Interestingly, the culture industry presents itself as the solution to the dissatisfaction and alienation it produces, urging the masses to consume more and thus continue feeding the machine that produced the industry in the first place. Reference: Adorno, T. W., & Horkheimer, M. (1997). Dialectic of enlightenment (Vol. 15). Verso.

CYBERNETICS

“Body of knowledge inaugurated by Norbert Wiener (1948), which understands the actions of both people and machines as based on a circular processing of information between organism and environment” (Shaw, 2008: 173). Reference: Shaw, D. B. (2008). Technoculture: The key concepts. Berg. Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics: Control and communication in the animal and the machine (p. 194). New York: Wiley.

CYBERSPACE

A term coined by William Gibson in his short story “Burning Chrome” (1982), indicating the shared space of information where communications via computer networks occur.

CYBORG

A term used by Donna Haraway in her essay “A Cyborg Manifesto” (1985) to describe the rejection of any boundaries separating what is ‘human’ from what is ‘machine’ and ‘animal’. In her cyborg theory, Haraway repudiates essentialism by approaching the modern world as one inhabited by a chimeric blend of humans, animals, and machines. This blend is made possible by the advent of 20th century technologies that have blurred the lines between what is natural and what is artificial. Haraway was especially concerned with the issues she perceived in traditional feminism, and originally intended her manifesto on cyborgs to be a feminist critique. In the manifesto, she criticizes what she believes to be deterministic and essentialist assumptions of what it means to be male or female; in a world of cyborgs, gender and sexuality are fluid and not necessarily a universal identity. Reference: Haraway, D. (2006). A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late 20th century. In The international handbook of virtual learning environments (pp. 117-158). Springer Netherlands. Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women.

DECONSTRUCTION

Strategy created by noted philosopher Jacques Derrida in the mid-1960s that reveals the insecurity of meaning in language (Shaw, 2008: 174). Derrida pointed to the fact that texts contain hidden alternative meanings that may not always coincide with their literal (dictionary) meanings. For deconstructionists, literal meanings are useless and languages/texts can never perfectly communicate the entirety of what one person might want to convey to the other. For instance, the word ‘cat’ might conjure up a certain image in two conversing people’s minds, but the two images can never be perfectly identical. Reference: Derrida, J. (2016). Of grammatology. JHU Press. Shaw, D. B. (2008). Technoculture: The key concepts. Berg. http://www.iep.utm.edu/deconst

DEFICIT MODEL

This is the perspective that the public’s doubt or antagonism towards science is due to a lack of information and therefore a lack of understanding about science. The view is associated with the idea of a division between experts (who understand science) and non-experts (who don’t), and suggests that science communication should focus on overcoming this division by giving the public more information to overcome the ‘deficit’.

DELEGATION

To entrust authority and responsibility for a task to a representative or agent.

DESKILLING

A term commonly attributed to Harry Braverman, who used it as a central idea in his work Labour and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century (1974). In what is now widely known as his “Deskilling Thesis,” Braverman argued that the capitalist mode of production, characterized by a division of labor and development of machines, reduces the cost of labor by breaking down work processes into smaller sections that require less skill. As a result, individuals are placed as workers in specialized tasks that make them lose knowledge of the complexity of the processes that the comprehensive work would necessitate them to know. Braverman’s idea was of a capitalist system that continues to deskill labor in the twentieth century. Reference: Braverman, H. (1998). Labor and monopoly capital: The degradation of work in the twentieth century. New York: Monthly Review Press (25th Anniversary edition).

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Discourse refers to language or communication use (e.g. written, verbal or communicated physically, for example through sign language). Discourse Analysis refers to various approaches to analyse discourse, taking into account both linguistic content and sociolinguistic context. More recently, the work of Michel Foucault has widened the concept of discourse to include ways of constituting knowledge and power relations. Reference: Oxford English Dictionary

DIVISION OF LABOR

Division of labour describes a kind of arrangement that let a certain individual, unit, or even country be responsible for a specific part of the production. Karl Marx associated labourthe specialisation with the process of alienation. In contrast to Marx, Durkheim argued that all human societies – just like all natural organisms – are based on some kind of division of labour, and he suggested that the division of labour in society was an important source of social solidarity. In his reflections on the impact of industrial modernity in human civilization, Durkheim famously developed a contrast between two forms of social solidarity and division of labor. He argued that “traditional societies” are dominated by what he called “mechanical solidarity”, i.e., they are characterized by a simple division of labor and by a morally homogeneous population bound by similar values and beliefs. By contrast, “modern societies” are dominated by what he called “organic solidarity”, i.e., they operate like a complex organism are thus characterized by a complex division of labor and by a heterogeneous population held together by interdependency, laws, and contracts. Reference: Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1988). The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 and the Communist Manifesto. Martin Milligan, tran. 1st edition. Prometheus Books. Durkheim, E. (1997). The Division of Labor in Society. Reprint edition. Free Press.

DOMESTICATION

Domestication theory deals with the processes by which new technologies are appropriated and ‘domesticated’ by users, and become part of everyday life. This involves various negotiations, adaptations and adjustments to the meanings and uses of the new technology, as it is integrated into social structures and relationships.

EMPIRICISM

Empiricism is the philosophical doctrine that knowledge depends on experience. It stands in contrast to rationalism, which posits that knowledge is structured by the mind. The ‘experiences’ that form the basis of knowledge in empiricism are those that result from our perceptions of the world – how we smell it, see it, hear it, feel it, or taste it (and many more!) Philosophers also admit mental states into the category of experience. Outside the realm of pure philosophy, empiricism tends to refer to an emphasis on having evidence, particularly scientific evidence discovered through experimentation (see “The Scientific Method”). In the social sciences, empiricism tends to refer to research methods that rely on the collection of data (facts, observations, etc.). Reference: http://what- when-how.com/social- sciences/empiricism-social- science/” data-wplink-url-error=”true”>‘Empiricism’, What-When- How https://www.britannica.com/topic/Western-philosophy/Modern- philosophy#ref365841″ data-wplink-url-error=”true”>‘Modern Philosophy’, Encyclopedia Britannica https://www.britannica.com/topic/empiricism” data-wplink-url-error=”true”>‘Empiricism’, Encyclopedia Britannica

EPISTEME

A term coined by French philosopher Michel Foucault in his work “The Order of Things” (1966) to indicate the body of ideas, discourses, norms, and presuppositions that define a period of history and dictate the boundaries and definitions of what is accepted to be the truth. “Term coined by Michel Foucault to describe the connections between scientific knowledge and cultural institutions in any given period of time” (Shaw, 2008: 174). Reference: Foucault, M. (1995). The order of things. NEW STUDIES IN AESTHETICS,26, 117-128. Shaw, D. B. (2008). Technoculture: The key concepts. Berg.

ESSENTIALISM

The view that all entities have ‘essences’ – namely, attributes/set of attributes that characterize the fundamentals of an object and are necessary for the object’s identity and function. Essences are accepted as permanent and unalterable. Essentialism determines that all entities of a certain type must possess a set of properties that are definitive for that specific type. There are many different philosophical branches of essentialism in existence, including ethical essentialism, educational essentialism, and origin essentialism, to name a few. Beyond the field of philosophy, the term takes on additional layers of meanings in fields as different as psychology, mathematics, or biology. In the social sciences (including the fields of anthropology, sociology, gender studies, and STS), the term essentialism usually refers to the idea that people of certain categories have an underlying, unchanging property or attribute (essence) that determines their identity and causes outward behavior and appearance. An essentialist account of gender, for example, holds that the differences between men and women are primarily determined by fixed, inherent features (e.g., men and women behave the way they do because they have different genes). Such reductionist views tend to generate a good deal of criticism, but they can be used as an explanatory strategy (e.g., the notion of a “gay gene”).

ESSENTIALLY CONTESTED CONCEPTS

A term first introduced by Walter Bryce Gallie in his paper, “Essentially Contested Concepts” (1956), delivered at the Aristotelian Society. Essentially contested concepts are concepts that involve endless disputes about their proper uses, and these disputes cannot be settled by appeal to empirical evidence, linguistic usage, or the canons of logic alone. Concepts such as democracy, art, social justice, equality, and feminism are examples of essentially contested concepts. The existence of a concept such as the concept of “equality” is not contested (i.e., people agree that there is a concept called ‘equality’) but the particulars of what constitutes and defines this specific concept are topics of debate. Garver (1978) defines the term “essentially contested concepts” as follows: “The term […] gives a name to a problematic situation that many people recognize: that in certain kinds of talk there is a variety of meanings employed for key terms in an argument, and there is a feeling that dogmatism (“My answer is right and all others are wrong”), skepticism (“All answers are equally true [or false]; everyone has a right to his own truth”), and eclecticism (“Each meaning gives a partial view so the more meanings the better”) are none of them the appropriate attitude towards that variety of meanings” (Garver, 1978: 168). Reference: Gallie, W. B. (1955, January). Essentially contested concepts. In Proceedings of the Aristotelian society (Vol. 56, pp. 167-198). Aristotelian Society, Wiley. Garver, E. (1978). Rhetoric and essentially contested arguments. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 156-172.

ETHNOGRAPHY

Ethnography is associated with a qualitative research project with the intention of producing in-depth representation of a culture or a people. Ethnography can refer to a research method or process (such as in ethnographic research; ethnographic project), or a product of such research (such as in ethnography; ethnographic text). Ethnography is rooted in the discipline of anthropology, and is also adopted by scholars from other disciplines such as sociology. When it is referred to as a research method or process, an ethnographic approach is often equated with fieldwork, which emphasizes long-term engagement and participant observation, and meanwhile opens to a wide range of methods such as semi-structured interviews, survey, and archival research. When ethnography is referred to a research product or a specific genre of academic texts, ethnography seeks to present a “thick description” (Geertz 1973) of a culture or a defined group. It seeks to present an emic view (views of the people studied) that is contextualized in the larger sociocultural and political contexts. While a holistic view is still more or less alive, contemporary ethnographies pays great attention to everyday life and practices of the people and self reflexivity of the ethnographers. References: Geertz, Clifford. 1973. “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture.” In The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, 3-30. New York: Basic Books. Marcus, George E., and Dick Cushman. 1982. “Ethnographies as Texts.” Annual Review of Anthropology 11:25-69.

EXTRAPOLATION

The process of estimating the future based on currently existing facts, observations, as well as social and technological trends. It is a thought process used by science fiction writers in their construction of future and alternative worlds (Shaw, 2008: 1-2, 174). Reference: Shaw, D. B. (2008). Technoculture: The key concepts. Berg.

FALSIFICATION

This idea was put forward by Sir Karl Popper, who introduced a new way of thinking about science. Instead of formulating a hypothesis and then trying to find evidence to confirm it, Popper argued that scientists should try to find evidence to refute it. Key to this approach was falsification – the idea that a scientific theory or hypothesis must be able to be proven false – if not, it is not scientific. If a statement is falsifiable, this means that it is possible to find an argument which negates the statement. A famous example is a theory that ‘all swans are white’ – which can be falsified by observing a black swan.

FORCED TECHNOLOGY CHOICE

A phenomenon introduced by Thomas Misa, and resulting from an imbalance in user-producer interactions, forced technology choice occurs ‘when a leading user announces a preference for a certain production technology, giving producers the “choice” of adopting that technology or facing failure’ (Misa 1999, 276) – in other words, a producer is forced to adopt a technology favoured by their main user. Reference: Misa, Thomas J. (1999). A Nation of Steel: The Making of Modern America, 1865-1925. The John Hopkins University Press.

FORDISM

A modern economic system of mass production pioneered by Henry Ford of the Ford Motor Company. Beginning in the 1930s and lasting till the early 1970s, Fordism transformed the horizon of American and Western European economies by introducing new strategies of production. Fordism is defined by three main aspects: 1. A time and cost-effective system comprised of a moving assembly line and labored by semi-skilled workers, 2. A continuous cycle of mass production and mass consumption, and 3. Rationalization of the workforce through the management of both the work and leisure time of the workers. Workers accepted higher wages as incentives, but in return were under institutional contract with the company to act under certain management regulations on and off the job. In Fordism, leisure time was time deducted from a productive day’s working hours, and thus something to be earned by the workers.

FUTURISM

An international art movement founded in 1909 in Italy that willingly embraced and glorified the advent of the modern world and the benefits of technology, including speed, machines, cities, youth, and violence. In contrast to those that live in the comfort of the modern world while hypocritically criticizing the effects of technology, Futurists gladly accepted all that technology had to offer. Some noted figures in the movement were Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, Umberto Boccioni, Natalia Goncharova, and Velimir Khelbnikov. Reference: Marinetti, F. T. (1909). The Founding and Manifsto of Futurism. Boccioni, U., Carra, C., Russolo, L., Balla, G., & Severini, G. (1910). Manifesto of the Futurist Painters, 1910. Umbero Apollonio, Futurist Manifestos (London: Thames & Hudson, 1973), 26.

GENDER SCRIPT (SEXUAL SCRIPT THEORY)

A concept introduced by the sociologists John H. Gagnon and William Simon in their book Sexual Conduct (1973). Gender scripting suggests that human sexuality and activity are not simple biological facts but are instead socially and culturally learned. According to Gagnon and Simon, sexuality and sexual attraction are shaped by meanings and symbols created by people in the context of social and cultural interactions. Just as a paper script for a play depicts how characters should act in certain scenarios, so a gender script dictates the way males and females are supposed to behave with each other and in certain scenarios. Gender scripts are formed through shared cultural ideals, ideologies, and social norms, and reinforced by the society one lives in and the various people and institutions one interacts with – families, friends, teachers, schools, the media, etc. Gagnon and Simon draw particular attention to three levels of scripting: cultural/historical, social/interactive, and personal/intrapsychic. Reference: Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. (2011). Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality. Transaction publishers.

GEOGRAPHICAL DISEMBEDDING

The notion that with the advancement of transportation and electronic technologies, physical-geographical qualities are having significantly less impact on determining and defining a place. It is a concept introduced by Philip Brey in his 1998 article, “Space-Shaping Technologies and the Geographical Disembedding of Place”. In this article, Brey points out that the nature of places has undergone a dramatic change due to various technological innovations rendering the physical characteristics of locations, such as distances and terrains, irrelevant. Using new technologies, humans are learning to overcome the physical constraints of their local environments. For instance, airplanes make travel between two continents possible within half a day. Phones allow conversations to take place between two people separated by oceans and deserts, while computer networks have created cyberspaces for people to interact with others as well as to inhabit, much like they would a physical place. Reference: Brey, P., Light, A., & Smith, J. M. (1998). Space-shaping technologies and the geographical disembedding of place. Philosophies of place, 239-263.

Coined by Marshall McLuhan in his book The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man (1962), global village is a term that alludes to how the globe has become figuratively smaller, much like a village, due to the advent of new electric and communication technologies.

THE HAPPY CONSCIOUSNESS

A term coined by Herbert Marcuse to describe the mindset of people who believe that the conceptual world created by mass culture is rational. According to Marcuse (1964), people who have been living within the system of mass production and consumption are so ingrained within it that they do not have the capacity to think beyond the limitations set by the system. In a world where everything is commodified, people believe that they should be happy if their desire for commodities (presented as a source of happiness) is fulfilled temporarily through the act of consumption. Reference: Marcuse, H. (1966). One Dimensional Man: Studies in Idiology of Avanced Industrial Society. Beacon Press Boston. * see ‘ http://localhost:8888/sci-tech/#q: Technological Rationality’

HYBRID

Something derived from heterogeneous sources, or composed of different elements. In social science this tends to refer to a crossover between, or breaking down of, binaries of nature and culture, a famous example of which is Donna Haraway’s ‘cyborg’ – a cybernetic organism which consists of a hybrid of machine and human. Reference: Oxford English Dictionary

IDEAL TYPE

A term coined by Max Weber in his book, Grundriss der Sozialökonomik (1922) that describes a hypothetical category which underlines the salient features or significance of a social phenomenon to facilitate comparison or classification. Reference: Weber, M. (1922). Grundriss der Sozialökonomik. J.C.B. Mohr.

I-METHODOLOGY

A concept of design methodology introduced by Madeleine Akrich (1995). Akrich argues that innovators tend to think of their own preferences as representative of those of the future users when designing a technology, and design accordingly (using an ‘I’ methodology). This can be problematic as it promotes the designer’s subjective preferences over those of the real user. References: Akrich, M. (1995) ‘User representations: practices, methods and sociology’,in A. Rip, T. J. Misa and J. Schot (eds) Managing Technology in Society. The Approach of Constructive Technology Asssessment, London and New York: Pinter Publishers, pp. 167–84. Flichy, Patrice (2007). Understanding Technological Innovation: A Socio-technical Approach. Edward Elgar Publishing, Ch.3

INCREMENTAL INNOVATION

‘Incremental innovations exploit the potential of established designs, and often reinforce the dominance of established firms. They improve the existing functional capabilities of a technology by means of small scale improvements in the technology’s value-adding attributes such as performance, safety, quality, and cost.’ Reference: Shavinina, Larisa. (2003) The International Handbook on Innovation

INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION

A transition towards the mechanisation of previously manual labour processes, and new industrial production techniques, driven by a series of inventions centred in Great Britain, which took place between around 1760 and 1840. These changes in manufacturing were accompanied by sweeping social and political changes in Great Britain and Europe as everyday life was transformed. A term coined by Donna Haraway in her well-known essay “A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late 20 th Century” to address the networks of power relations that she perceived to be newly emerging in the advent of industrial capitalism and an information economy. According to Haraway, this new network replaced the traditional hierarchies of domination. Reference: Haraway, D. (2006). A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late 20th century. In The international handbook of virtual learning environments (pp. 117-158). Springer Netherlands.

THE INFORMATIONAL SOCIETY/NETWORK SOCIETY

“Term coined by Manuel Castells in The rise of the network society (1996) to describe the organizational form of global capitalism in which network structures replace hierarchical organization in both businesses and communities” (Shaw, 2008: 175) Reference: Shaw, D. B. (2008). Technoculture: The key concepts. Berg.

INFRASTRUCTURE

According to anthropologist Brian Larkin, infrastructures “are built networks that facilitate the flow of goods, people, or ideas and allow for their exchange over space” (Larkin 2013: 328). In many disciplines and areas of studies, the term infrastructure is self evident, referring to the built structures such as streets, transport, communication, water supply, electricity, and sewage, which urban studies scholars Steven Graham and Simon Marvin (2002) call “networked infrastructure.” In some debates, infrastructures are taken as inherently urban, modern, and stable, a view that is increasingly criticized as ahistorical and Western centric (Furlong 2014). Anthropologists have engaged with infrastructure conceptually for a long time, but mostly metaphorically: it is often used in reference to the Marxian theorization of superstructure and capitalism. That said, there are increasing interests in the forms of infrastructures, which Larkin calls “the poetics of infrastructure” (2013: 329). Drawing on literature of STS, scholars promote the idea to see infrastructures as processes instead of static objects, and as assemblages of various human, non-human forces. They analyze their “material forms along with their capacities to generate aspiration and expectation, deferral and abandonment” (Appel, Anand, Gupta: 2015). By doing so, the literature on infrastructure bring new perspectives to the understandings of materiality, aesthesis, and politics. Reference: Appel, Hannah, Nikhil Anand, and Akhil Gupta. 2015. Introduction: The Infrastructure Toolbox. Fieldsights – Theorizing the Contemporary, Cultural Anthropology Online. https://culanth.org/fieldsights/714-introduction-the-infrastructure-toolbox. Accessed September 30, 2015. Furlong, Kathryn. 2014. “STS beyond the “Modern Infrastructure Ideal”: Extending Theory by Engaging with Infrastructure Challenges in the South.” Technology in Society 38 (0):139-147 Graham, Stephen, and Simon Marvin. 2001. Splintering Urbanism: Networked Infrastructures, Technological Mobilities and the Urban Condition. London; New York: Routledge. Larkin, Brian. 2013. “The Politics and Poetics of Infrastructure.” Annual Review of Anthropology 42 (1):327-343.

INTERMEDIARY ORGANIZATION

These are organisations which support the provision of services by other organisations through a range of possible activities such as funding, awareness building, capacity building or technical or informational assistance, rather than providing services directly themselves. This category includes organisations such as non-governmental organisations (NGOs), funding organisations, think tanks, consulting companies etc. A simple example might be a charity which aims to provide clean water in a low-income country, bringing together the money of donors and technical expertise in clean water of charity workers with local businesses which could be engaged to build wells. Reference: Dekker, Paul. (2010) ‘Intermediary Organizations and Field’ in Helmut K. Anheier and Stefan Toepler (eds.) International Encyclopedia of Civil Society

INTERPRETIVE FLEXIBILITY

Interpretive flexibility, to put in a simple manner, means that different people have different views and interpretations about artifacts and events. Pinch and Bijker (1984) introduce the term to describe the explanatory goals of the sociology of science/technology. They suggest that the first goal is to demonstrate the interpretive flexibility of scientific findings or technological artifacts: Scientific findings, technological artifacts and/or the design of the artifact can be interpreted by different social groups in different ways. The stage of flexibility is to be replaced by the closure of debates and the emergence of consensus/stabilization of an artifact, which need to be further contextualized in the sociocultural and political situation that shapes the social group’s norms and values. References: Pinch, Trevor J., and Wiebe E. Bijker. 1984. “The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other.” Social Studies of Science 14 (3):399-441.

KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY

In global capitalism, knowledge economy is a system that uses intellectual capital in the process of consumption and production. Information is marketed as a commodity. Knowledge economy is especially predominant in developed countries. Reference: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/k/knowledge-economy.asp

LIBERALISM

‘Support for or advocacy of individual rights, civil liberties, and reform tending towards individual freedom, democracy, or social equality; a political and social philosophy based on these principles.’ Reference: Oxford English Dictionary

METANARRATIVE

A term coined by Jean-François Lyotard in his 1979 book, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, to indicate the stories that legitimize power, authority, and social customs and that gradually come to be accepted as ‘truths’. Metanarratives are grand narratives that try to gather smaller narratives about the world, such as historical events, experiences, and social and cultural norms, and tie them into a comprehensive and singular bundle. For instance, capitalism, socialism, feminism, and functionalism are all examples of what are referred to as metanarratives. Reference: Lyotard, J. F. (1999). The postmodern condition. Modernity: Critical Concepts, 4, 161-177.

METHODOLOGICAL INDIVIDUALISM

‘This doctrine was introduced as a methodological precept for the social sciences by Max Weber, most importantly in the first chapter of Economy and Society (1922). It amounts to the claim that social phenomena must be explained by showing how they result from individual actions, which in turn must be explained through reference to the intentional states that motivate the individual actors… Only individuals possess intentional states, and so the methodological privileging of actions entails the methodological privileging of individuals’ (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). According to this view, social structures are made up of individuals, and macro statements about ‘society’ must therefore be able to be reduced to micro statements about individuals, and their relations and properties. Reference: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

MODERNITY

“Historical epoch dominated by the pursuit of truth through the scientific method” (Shaw, 2008: 174). Reference: Shaw, D. B. (2008). Technoculture: The key concepts. Berg.

NORMAL SCIENCE

In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962/1970), the historian of science Thomas Kuhn introduces the concept of ‘‘normal science.’’ According to Kuhn, normal science is ‘‘research firmly based upon one or more past scientific achievements, achievements that some particular scientific community acknowledges for a time as supplying the foundation for its further practice’’ (Kuhn 1962/1970, 10). This ‘‘tradition-bound’’ approach sees science as a process, consisting of debates about the rules of science. Through this process, scientific knowledge periodically undergoes paradigm shifts. When the accepted paradigm—the beliefs, theories, and methodologies—of “normal science” cannot resolve issues without conflict, it leads to revolutionary science and a period in which existing rules are questioned and replaced by a new paradigm capable of resolving emerging contradictions. Scientific revolutions are ‘‘the tradition-shattering complements to the tradition-bound activity of normal science’’ (Kuhn 1962/1970, 6). Reference: Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

ONTOLOGY

In philosophy, ontology is defined as the branch of metaphysics that examines the nature of being – the study of ‘what there is’. This project includes examining questions and problems central to classical philosophy: the nature of existence and reality; categories of being; how the things that exist relate to each other. What makes ontology different from other inquiries into “things that exist” (for example, from the sciences), is that ontology is interested in highly general questions about what exists, typically accepts the existence of material objects, and explores the existence of immaterial objects – numbers, properties, events, music, possibilities, and so on. Ontology typically looks at questions of two kinds. Those that deal with the concrete (for example: is there an elephant in the office next door?), and those that deal with the abstract (does the colour red exist?). Reference: Effingham, N. (2013). An introduction to ontology. John Wiley & Sons. ‘Logic and Ontology’, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ontology Definition of Ontology, Oxford English Dictionary, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ontology

PANOPTICISM

A term coined by Michel Foucault in his work Discipline and Punish (1975) to indicate the way in which people are conditioned to constantly police their own behavior and act upon a set of power relations that they have inscribed in themselves. This is due to the implicit surveillance they are consciously or unconsciously aware of because they are subjected to a field of visibility in society. Reference: Foucoult, M. (1975). Discipline and punish. A. Sheridan, Tr., Paris, FR, Gallimard.

PARLIAMENT OF THINGS

Bruno Latour, in his book We Have Never Been Modern (1991), argues that we have never been ‘modern’ because being modern implies a false logic – that nature and culture are separable realms, when in fact they are inseparable, and exist in hybrid forms, assemblages and networks. In order to come to terms with the reality of the world, he calls for a ‘Parliament of Things’, which involves revealing the composition of these complex networks that make up everyday life, to enable things to ‘speak’ for and represent themselves. So complex scientific assemblages such as nuclear power stations or genetically modified crops should be seen not as separate objects belonging to specialists, but as hybrids – networks of people, ideas and things that are inseparable from everyone’s lives. In this way we can finally come to understand the world as it is rather than see the world through the false logic of modernity. Reference: Latour, Bruno. (1991) We have Never Been Modern

POSTMODERNISM/POSTMODERNITY

‘Postmodernism’ as a term has consistently eluded a singe definition. It is generally accepted, however, that postmodernism refers to the emergence in the late twentieth century of a broad movement encompassing philosophy, the arts, criticism, architecture, and urban planning, and which was defined by its departure from modernism. It tends to be united by scepticism and distrust of modernism – broadly, against enlightenment rationality (including the existence of objective reality), grand narratives, and ideologies. Postmodernists instead argue that, rather than being absolute, knowledge and truth are produced by and contingent upon social, historical and political factors, and as a result are both contextual and constructed. One of the most influential texts of postmodernism in this respect was Jean-François Lyotard’s 1979 La condition postmoderne (The postmodern condition) in which he argued that postmodernism was ‘incredulity towards metanarratives’, where metanarratives are the processes that have typically legitimated cultural practices. Reference: Christopher Butler, Postmodernism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford, 2002) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Accessed 20 th Sept, 2016, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism

POST-NORMAL SCIENCE (SECOND ORDER SCIENCE)

‘‘Post-normal science’’ (PNS) has received much attention in recent years, but the history of this concept goes back to the 1960s and 1970s. Early works by Ravetz (e.g., 1971) critiqued Kuhn’s views on revolutionary paradigm changes, maintaining that science in practice was ‘‘an essentially myopic and anti-critical activity’’ (Ravetz 1986, 419), referring to the (mis)use’ of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, the menaces of acid rain, toxic wastes, and the greenhouse effect. Alongside the excessive professionalization of science, divisions of labor in research, and superficiality of learning, Ravetz (1971) also denounced the industrialization of science, underpinned by narrow-minded battles for budgets and grants. In this context, Ravetz, in association with comrades in the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science, called for the deindustrialization of science, driven by the pronunciation that ‘‘normal’’ science (i.e., ‘‘science as a self-determining form of enquiry,’’ Fuller 2000, 75) had come to an end and had been replaced by a science driven by militaristic and industrial interests. Weariness that science was being misdirected, becoming a servant of governments and other corporate interests, led to calls in the late 1960s and early 1970s for the development of a ‘‘critical science’’ (Ravetz 1971a, quoted in Henkel 2004, 780). By the mid-1980s, interest was growing in major environmental and social issues such as acid rain, ozone depletion, and climate change. In this context, the traditional model of reliance on communicating the findings of scientific enquiry (in a linear fashion) to receptive policy makers was seen as inadequate for addressing cases/issues where ‘‘facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent’’ (Ravetz 1986, 422). Hence Funtowicz and Ravetz (1991) proposed that something like a Second Order Science, which they termed Post-Normal Science (PNS), was needed to address this shortfall. PNS, as a methodology of inquiry, is based on the principle that ‘‘new methods must be developed to make our ignorance usable’’ (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1991, 141), which include ethical and social considerations to assist with management of uncertainty for the common good. PNS – in contrast to Normal Science – is not just based on lab experiments and the study of facts, but tries to include conversations with every stakeholder including local stakeholders. This approach is based on a very different mode of evaluation of scientific research. In contrast to Normal Science and its tendency to confine the work of research evaluation to a very narrowly defined peer community of experts, PNS extends the work of research evolution to an extended peer community that includes local people and stakeholders. Reference: Turnpenny, John et al. 2011. “Where Now for Post-Normal Science? A Critical Review of its Development, Definitions, and Uses” Science Technology Human Values 36 (3): 287-306.

PRINCIPLE OF CAUSALITY

Every event has a cause. This is one of the most basic expressions of the principle of causality, which describes the process by which one process or state (the cause) is connected to another process or state (the effect), where the cause is understood to be responsible, at least in part, for the effect, and the effect is dependent, at least in part, on the cause. Causes have typically been understood as objects, events and processes. Explanations for the causal relationship between events have ranged from probabilistic, mechanistic, and process oriented. As a concept, causality is is key to many of the central questions of philosophy, science, and the humanities, and is so basic to our understanding of the world that it appears to be part of the conceptual structure of ordinary language. There is no single or unified definition of cause or causality, and the study of causality is divided into two lines of work and two sets of goals: what are causes, and how we can recognize them; and, what are the features of a causal relationship, and what are its components? There remain a number of questions about what constitutes the components of causality and how they are connected. Reference: Ross, S. D. (2012). The scientific process. Springer Science & Business Media. Kleinberg, S. (2012). Causality, probability, and time. Cambridge University Press.

PSYCHOTECHNOLOGY

A term coined by Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer in their book Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944) to address the manner in which entertainment technology is used for psychological manipulation of the masses through the production of repetitive cultural products that are indistinguishable from propaganda. The art that is produced encourages conformity by inducing a sense of security that discourages critical thinking. Reference: Adorno, T. W., & Horkheimer, M. (1997). Dialectic of enlightenment (Vol. 15). Verso.

REFLEXIVE MODERNIZATION

Reflexive modernization is a concept that emerged primarily out of the work of the sociologist Ulrich Beck, as well as that of Anthony Giddens and Scott Lash. At the core of reflexive modernization is an attempt to understand the social and historical changes that have occurred through modernization. Many consider reflexive modernization a reaction to postmodernism – rather becoming postmodern, it posits that modernity has become reflexive. For Beck, ‘modernity’ refers to the development of industrial society, and ‘reflexive modernity’ refers to its replacement by what he terms the ‘risk society’ (Beck, 1986). This change is the result of the rupture and replacement of old forms of social life (e.g. class, tradition) with new forms of identity that have occurred as a result of the processes of modernization itself. The society that emerges as a result of these processes is one which has to confront new kinds of risks, and that confrontation involves looking closely (reflexively) at not only how these risks are the product of modernization, but also using this understanding as a basis for action and change. Key themes linking Beck to the work of Giddens and Lash are individualization and ‘detraditionalization’. Reference: Beck, U., Giddens, A., & Lash, S. (1994). Reflexive modernization: Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order. Stanford University Press.

REFLEXIVITY

Reflexivity, at its most simple, refers to the act of reflecting – of thinking deeply and carefully about a topic. In social research, reflexivity broadly refers to the process of reflecting on collected data and its interpretation. The forms that this process takes vary across disciplines, but in general are concerned not only with thinking about the data in and of itself, but also the constraints (either obvious or hidden) that shaped how the data was collected – to consider what impact the researcher and the research process had on the data, and how this could affect how it was collected and interpreted.

REPURPOSING

Repurposing is the process by which something is changed so that it can be used for a different reason or purpose. Repurposing permeates human society, and the means by which it has occurred in the past, across cultures, and in the present, have all been subject to extensive inquiry. Examples of repurposing include using shipping containers as housing or office spaces or making furniture from industrial materials (e.g. wooden pallets or milk crates). Reference: ‘Repurpose’, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/repurpose, accessed 22 nd Sept, 2016)

SCHUMPETERIAN ENTREPRENEUR

Today the figure of the entrepreneur is everywhere, and considered an unmitigated good – from TV to textbooks, these figures and their achievements are lauded and emulated. However, there remains little consensus as to what constitutes entrepreneurs or entrepreneurship. One of the most significant attempts to define entrepreneurship in the twentieth century was made by the economist Joseph Schumpeter (1883-1950). Schumpeter argued that the core of entrepreneurship was innovation, and that the entrepreneurs were innovators who succeeded in identifying and exploiting (using innovative methods) opportunities in the market. Schumpeter linked entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship not only to the activities of individual people or businesses but also the economy as a whole: it was entrepreneurship, he argued, that helped to produce change in capitalist society. Schumpeter’s arguments about entrepreneurship changed over the course of his life. In his early work, he was concerned with entrepreneurship as a driver of economic change. In his later works, however, he was less concerned with the person of the entrepreneur, and more interested in the concept and phenomenon of innovation itself – in essence, he shifted his emphasis from a focus on individuals as the source of innovation, towards innovation being the result of a ‘team effort’, something that was produced by organizations, or by groups of specialists. The larger outcome of this changing understanding of entrepreneurship in Schumpeter’s work was his changing understanding of the nature of the economy more broadly: he argued that the economy was undergoing a process of bureaucratization in which individual entrepreneurs would ultimately lose their function. Reference: Ahmad, N., & Seymour, R. G. (2008). Defining entrepreneurial activity. Bill, F., & Johansson, A. W. (Eds.). (2010). (De) mobilizing the entrepreneurship discourse: exploring entrepreneurial thinking and action. Edward Elgar Publishing. Schumpeter, J. A. (1947). The creative response in economic history. The journal of economic history, 7(02), 149-159. ‘What exactly is an Entrepreneur?’ The Economist Feb 16 th 2014, http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2014/02/our-schumpeter-columnis

SCIENTISM

Scientism is the view that science is the only pathway to revealing the truth about the world and the state of reality, and thus that science should be the primary factor in deciding how we structure and make decisions within society. According to Neil Postman, there are three ideas scientism can be understood in relation to: 1. “the methods of the natural sciences can be applied to the study of human behavior”, 2. “social science generates specific principles which can be used to organize society on a rational and humane basis”, 3. “faith in science can serve as a comprehensive belief system that gives meaning to life” (Postman, 1993: 147). Reference: Neil, P. (1993). Technopoly: the surrender of culture to technology.

SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF TECHNOLOGY (SCOT)

“SCOT is a constructivist theory of technological innovation that has its roots in earlier social science critiques of technological progress as well as in more recent developments in the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK). According to SSK’s principle of symmetry, theories proven to be successful are not necessarily so because they are more true than the less successful theories. Rather, the success stems from the fact that the theories are given more social support compared to the unsuccessful theories. In much the same way, SCOT holds that successful innovations cannot be explained by assuming that they “work” better than failed innovations; the analyst must undercover the social context that promotes (or fails to promote) a given innovation (Pinch and Bijker, 1984; Bijker 1992). SCOT pioneered a new way to examine the social context of technological innovation. In contrast to the linear model of technological innovation, which imagines a mythical, linear succession of basic science, applied science, development, and commercialization (Madhjoudi, 1997), SCOT sees a variety of groups (called relevant social groups) competing to control a design, which at this point is far from preordained (SCOT calls this the phase of interpretive flexibility). Each group has its own idea of the problem that the new artefact is supposed to solve and, in consequence, favors a distinctive technological design, including components and operational principles that may not be favored by competing groups. In a process called stabilization, one social group prevails over the others, so that group’s design prevails and the others are forgotten (Pinch and Bijker, 1984), or two or more groups negotiate a compromise (Bijker, 1996). In sum, SCOT argues that technological innovation is not the result of mythical men who introduce new ‘technologies’ and release them into ‘society,’ starting a series of (un)expected impacts; rather, technological innovation is a complex process of co-construction in which technology and society, to the degree that they could even be conceived separately of one another, negotiate the meaning of new technological artifacts, alter technology through resistance, and construct social and technological frames-of-thought, practices and action.” *Adapted from STS Wiki (http://www.stswiki.org/index.php?title=Social_construction_of_technology_(SCOT) SCOT was introduced in a seminal article by Wiebe Bijker and Trevor Pinch (Pinch and Bijker, 1984). Although SCOT has been widely criticized, it remains one of the two most prominent theories of technological innovation in science and technology studies (STS) (The second prominent theory is actor-network theory, developed by Bruno Latour and Michel Callon.)

THE SPECTACLE/SPECTACULAR SOCIETY

In his 1976 publication The Society of the Spectacle, Guy Debord observed how media technology swiftly took its place in society as the primary means of disseminating reality. Media technologies such as television, film, and advertisement projects images that people absorb, making one’s sense of sight a most crucial factor in measuring one’s experiences. In the modern capitalist society people are presented with a world reduced to images of commodities. According to Debord, this constant exposure gives commodities an illusory power, wherein people invest their emotional and financial resources into obtaining those commodities in order to match the images of the commodified lifestyles shown in the media. This in turn sustains the capitalist economy. Reference: Debord, G. (2014). The society of the spectacle. Bureau of Public Secrets.

STANDING-RESERVE

Term coined by Martin Heidegger to indicate how technology has made the world into its resource – namely, a ‘standing-reserve’ that exists for the sole purpose of serving the needs of technology and humanity. With technology everything has no value in and of itself, but only finds value by being useful for something. Reference: Heidegger, M. (1954). The question concerning technology. Technology and values: Essential readings, 99-113.

SUPERPANOPTICISM

Term coined by Mark Poster in his work “Databases as Discourse; or, Electronic Interpellations” (1995) to indicate that modern technology has given rise to a highly developed form of surveillance and panopticon. This new form of panopticism, the Superpanopticon, exists in a world that is wired and connected through communication networks. Poster elaborated on how the Superpanopticon makes use of computers and their abilities to store and sort through large amounts of data, creating databases of people based on their consumer habits. These databases produce subjects who willingly participate in their own surveillance. Reference: Poster, M. (1996). Databases as Discourse; or, Electronic Interpellations Mark Poster. Computers, surveillance, and privacy, 175. *see “Panopticism”

TECHNICAL POWER OF PROPAGANDA

Term coined by the French philosopher and sociologist Jacques Ellul in his book “The Technological Society” first published in English in 1965. Concerned with the growing influence of the media in society, Ellul (1965: 369) made connections between the social effects of the entertainment media and what he called ‘the technical power of propaganda’. Writing in the post-war period, at a time when the cold war was at it most intense, Ellul argued that the entertainment media were a form of propaganda that was ultimately concerned with “transforming everything it touches into a machine”. Ellul’s point is not that the world has become mechanical in the image of the machine but that the world has become increasingly rationalized in order to accommodate the machine. In this new “technological society”, what – and who – the machine cannot use becomes worthless. To illustrate this idea, Ellul points to the way cities developed to fit the needs of commerce and industry rather than the needs of real people with their different demands. In the name of efficiency, from which technique/technology is largely inseparable, cities function to transport, house and entertain, only those workers who can be made the most efficient use of in the name of profit. Hence, the majority of rough sleepers in big cities are, by and large, those who have been identified as suffering from mental health problems. When Ellul refers to the ‘technical power of propaganda’ he is concerned with the sense in which technique/technology is employed to create a world in which the underlying reasons behind such “health problems” are obscured. As Debra B. Shaw (2008: 19) notes, it is not that we are easily fooled, or manipulated, but that we have come to experience reality as only that which can be evaluated in terms of a technical rationale, a ‘common sense’ sustained by the authority of pervasive media technologies. The result, according to Ellul, is ‘the disappearance of reality in a world of hallucinations’ (Ellul 1965: 372).” Reference: Ellul, J. (1964). The technological society. Shaw, D. B. (2008). Technoculture: The key concepts. Berg.

TECHNOCAPITALISM

“Term coined by Steven Best and Douglas Kellner to describe the way that contemporary global capitalism is enabled by and dependent on information and communications technologies” (Shaw, 2008: 176). Reference: Best, S. and Kellner, D. (2001), The Postmodern Adventure: Science, Technology and Cultural Studies at the Third Millennium, New York: Guilford Press. Shaw, D. B. (2008). Technoculture: The key concepts. Berg.

TECHNOCULTURE

The study of technoculture is “…an enquiry into the relationship between technology and culture and the expression of that relationship in patterns of social life, economic structures, politics, art, literature, and popular culture” (Shaw, 2008: 4) Reference: Shaw, D. B. (2008). Technoculture: The key concepts. Berg.

TECHNOCRACY

The term technocracy derives from the Greek words τέχνη, tekhne meaning skill and κράτος, kratos meaning power or rule. First coined in the first decades of the 20th century, the term initially referred to a system of governance built around technical experts such as scientists and engineers. Today, the term applies to most contemporary industrial and post-industrial societies in the sense that in these societies technology and technological progress are a major source of political power (Reynolds 1991). William H. Smyth, a Californian engineer, is usually credited with inventing the words “technocracy” in his 1919 article “Technocracy—Ways and Means to Gain Industrial Democracy”. Discussions about technocracy in the first decades of the 20th century reflected increasing concerns that modern industrial society had become too complex for traditional forms of elected leadership. These concerns were not entirely new going back to the French Revolution, but they became more significant as objects of political discussion during this period. Early 20th century visions of technocracy by scientists and engineers were based on a radical distinction between politics and technology. Universalistic science and divisive politics were to go their separate ways, and the fact-value distinction given institutional form. By means of this apparent separation of means (technology) and ends (politics), the technocrats hoped to configure the relationship of the state to its citizens in amoral terms, and return authority over the technological life to the bureaus where they served as administrators. The situation in the US can be used as an example of this process. Technocratic assumptions played a large role in the expansion of the administrative state during the Progressive era (1890s-1920s) and then, to a greater degree, during the New Deal (1930s) and World War II—both of which required the large-scale coordination of resources and technical expertise. In the 1930s, through the influence of Howard Scott and his Technocracy Movement, the term technocracy became particularly popular. Scott’s Technocracy Movement defined technocracy as ‘government by technical decision making’, and proposed replacing politicians and business people with scientists and engineers who had the technical expertise to manage the economy. This proposal was very popular during the 1930s, before it was overshadowed by the other proposals for dealing with the crisis of the Great Depression. The Second World War was an important turning point in the history of the term “technocracy”. The label “technocrat” was fairly neutral until the Second World War, but then it started to acquire a derogatory ring. After 1945, the term “technocrat” started to refer to someone who had breached a boundary, who had moved from his/her area of techno-scientific expertise into the domain of political decision-making. Most importantly, commentators started to draw attention to the dangers inherent in breaching this boundary, and there emerged increasing fears of “the capitulation of democracy to technocracy”, as Gabrielle Hecht (1998:28) puts it. The term “technocracy” – in the period immediately after the war – started to refer to the replacement of politicians by experts (including financial and administrative experts as well as technical and scientific experts), and this replacement was increasingly perceived to be problematic. This was the moment when there emerged the first systematic criticisms of early 20th century visions of technocracy. Writing in the 1920s and 1930s, authors like Lewis Mumford in the US, or Theodor Adorno and the Frankfurt School in Germany had already developed insightful critiques of “modern technological society”, but it was only in the post-war period that these critical approaches started to become more fashionable. The critique of technocracy became particularly influential in the 1960s, under the influence of French intellectuals such as Jacques Ellus (The Technological Society, 1964). Reversing the original valence of the term, Ellul warned against the growing role of technocrats who were neither elected nor equipped with sufficient moral imagination to wield power responsibly and responsively to the needs of society. Other critics have since challenged the ways in which technical rationales supplant political decision-making in areas such as nuclear power, employment, or health policy. In Germany, Jürgen Habermas and other advocates of an invigorated public sphere have warned against this “colonization” of social life by technical logic and have argued that many technical issues are quintessentially political questions, involving the principles by which societies choose to live (Habermas, Towards a Rational Society: Student Protest, Science and Politics, 1971). These early critical approaches to technocracy played an important role in the development of STS as an autonomous field of study from the 1960s onwards.

TECHNOLOGICAL CITIZEN

Technological citizenship is citizenship in a technological society. Human life on Earth today looks radically different from just one or two centuries ago, thanks in good part to technologies and technological systems invented and disseminated in the intervening years. As the French philosopher Jacques Ellul (1964 [1954]) pointed out a few years after Hiroshima, modern society is a “technological society”; it is a society that is ruled by technologies as much as it is ruled by laws. Technology enables some activities while rendering others difficult or impossible. Just to give a few examples. Purchasers of electric cars drive more climate-friendly vehicles, but they must reckon with the reality that there are not as many charging stations and gasoline pumps. Users of flush toilets are happy to see their feces conveniently disappear into underground sewers, but these daily acts of disposal continue to have very high costs in terms of water pollution. Modern technological systems rival legal constitutions in their power to order and govern society. Both enable and constrain basic human possibilities, and both establish rights and obligations among social actors. One of the great questions of our time concerns the question of how can we make technological systems evolve toward a more democratic configuration. Governing wisely and democratically requires us to look behind the surfaces of machines, at the judgments and choices that shaped how lines were drawn between what is allowed and what is not. At first glance, technology may appear purely objective, unfailingly rational, and independent of any outside influences that might affect and hinder its mechanisms. Technology is often perceived as a separate domain of technical expertise: “an ostensibly discrete entity – capable of becoming a virtually autonomous, all encompassing agent of change” (Leo Marx). We think that this ideology of autonomy is both illusory and dangerous. A more thoughtful view holds that technologies, far from being independent of human intention and desire, are subservient to social forces all the way through. Knowledge of the inner workings of the atom did not lead to the making of atomic bomb. That consequence came about because of a complex interplay of social forces in the context of international politics. Smartphones and social utilities did not cause the Arab uprisings of 2011, although it was fashionable for a time to call them Twitter revolutions. Rather, existing social forces and networks of protest found phones, video cameras and services like Twitter useful in giving voice to discontent that had been simmering for years under regional conditions of authoritarian, sectarian politics. These observations suggest that we need to rethink technology as both a site and an object of politics. Human values enter into the design of technology. And further downstream human values continue to shape the ways in which technologies are put to use and sometimes even repudiated. This work of making sense of how technology is shaped by human values has long been an important scholarly endeavor in the humanities and social sciences, but we would argue that it is becoming an urgent endeavor for ordinary citizens. We live in a world of increasing uncertainties in which the question of how power is delegated to technological systems has never been more important. Living in a world of increasing uncertainties means that becoming aware of the comprehensive contents and possible repercussions of particular technological choices is no longer just a question for well-informed, responsible citizens; it is a question that concerns every single citizen: it is a matter of survival. The notion of technological citizenship urges people to come to grips with the realities of the workings of power in a world governed by technology. It urges people like you and me not to remain passive beneficiaries or victims of technology, but to become active and informed participants in the process of reclaiming technology for democracy For more information, please refer to the following: Feenberg, A. (2011). Agency and citizenship in a technological society.Presentation to the IT University of Copenhagen. Available at: http://www.sfu.ca/~andrewf/copen5-1.pdf (Accessed: 12 August 2015). Jasanoff, Sheila. (2016). The ethics of Invention. Technology and the Human Future. Norton.

TECHNOLOGICAL DETERMINISM

Technology is a vitally important aspect of the human condition. Technologies feed, clothe, and provide shelter for us; they transport, entertain, and heal us; they provide the bases of wealth and leisure. For good or bad, all of our lives are intertwined with technologies, from simple tools to large technical systems. Supporters of technological determinism believe that when technologies change, these changes have determining effects on society. As Karl Marx once famously put it, “the hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill society with the industrial capitalist” (see his “The Poverty of Philosophy”). There are “soft” and “hard” forms of technological determinism, but all forms of technological determinism tend to assume in one way or another that technology is a determining force of history and cultural evolution. Where they differ is in the degree of determinism. “Hard” forms of technological determinism come across as simplistic cause-and- effect theories of historical change that are at best an oversimplification. By contrast, soft forms of technological determinism assume that changes in technology are only one factor among many others: political, economic, cultural, and so on.

TECHNOLOGICAL FIX

A term coined by Alvin Weinberg in his article, “Can Technology Replace Social Engineering?” (1966) to describe the idea that social issues can be reduced to technological problems and be applied ‘technological fixes’ in an effort to circumvent them. However, these fixes are not meant to be permanent solutions, and are instead temporary reliefs. For instance, the invention of IUD ( a birth control device) to control overpopulation. It is also accepted that while technological fixes might solve some problems, they might also instill new ones along the way. Reference: Weinberg, A. M. (1966). Can technology replace social engineering?. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 22(10), 4-8.

Technological nationalism is a critical concept that scrutinizes how nationalism discourses are used to justify technological choices made by national elites of various kinds. As an ideology, technological nationalism has several functions: 1. To integrate new technologies in society through the usage of national symbols and identity, and 2. To legitimize the interests of elite social groups pushing for technological change. Technological nationalism is often marked by somewhat paradoxical developments. Since it serves primarily the needs of those in power, it can lead to distorted technological decisions that overlook the immediate needs of the public(s).

TECHNOLOGICAL RATIONALITY

Technological rationality is an idea first presented in 1941 by Herbert Marcuse in his article “Some Implications of Modern Technology”. It gained mainstream fame later in 1964 with the publication of his book, One-Dimensional Man. According to Marcuse, rational choices that are made in order to assimilate further technological advances can eventually change the definition of rationality in that particular society. The dominating technological rationality becomes what is known as ‘common sense’, with all problems understood to be solvable by technological means (Shaw, 2008: 176). Technological rationality creates the Happy Consciousness. Reference: Marcuse, H. (1941). Some social implications of modern technology. Studies in Philosophy and Social Science, 9(3), 414-439. Marcuse, H. (2013). One-dimensional man: Studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society. Routledge. *see ‘(http://localhost:8888/sci-tech/e-h/) The Happy Consciousnes’

TECHNOLOGY

The word “technology” is very broad and unspecific. It covers an astonishing diversity of tools and instruments, products, processes, materials, infrastructures, and systems. A composite of Greek techne (skill) and logos (study of), technology in its earliest usage, back in the 17 th century, meant the study of skilled craft. Only in the 1930s did the word begin to refer to objects produced through the application of techne. Today the first images that come to mind when one uses the term “technology” are images of products and devices associated with modern high-tech societies, but the history of technology is as old as the history of humanity itself, and this means that different kinds of societies (hunter-gathering, agricultural, industrial, etc) have different kinds of technological parameters. In most contemporary industrial societies, the term “technology” is often associated with materials in the world of electronics such as computers, cell phones, or tablets. But it is important to note that modern technological systems also include the arsenals of armies, the throbbing dynamos of the manufacturing industry, the plastic forms of GMO, the ingenious gadgets of robotics, the invisible products of nanotechnology, the vehicles and infrastructures of contemporary mobility, the lenses of telescopy and microscopy, the rays and scanners of biomedicine, the entire universe of complex artificial materials from which almost everything we touch and use is made. Caught in the routines of daily life, we hardly notice the countless instruments, and invisible networks that control what we see, hear, taste, smell, do, and even know and believe. Yet, along with the capacity to enlarge out minds and extend our physical reach, things as ordinary as traffic lights, let alone more sophisticated devices like cars, computers, cellphones, and contraceptive pills, also govern our desires and to some extent channel our thoughts and actions. “Technology has the capacity to change social and cultural behavior and transform human—environment relations, but its development, diffusion, and use are also shaped by particular historical conditions” (Santos, 2011: 499). In all its guises, actual or inspirational, technology functions as an instrument of governance. Technological systems rival legal constitutions in their power to order and govern society. Both enable and constrain basic human possibilities, and both establish rights and obligations among major social actors. Reference: Jasanoff, Sheila. (2016). The ethics of Invention. Technology and the Human Future. Norton. Marx, Leo. (2010). Technology The Emergence of a Hazardous Concept. Technology and Culture, Volume 51, Number 3, July 2010, pp. 561-577 Nye, David E. (2007). Technology matters: Questions to live with. MIT Press. Santos, Gonçalo. (2011). Rethinking the Green Revolution in South China: Technological Materialities and Human-Environment Relations. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal (2011) 5:479–504

TECHNOPOLITICS

In her essay “Technology, Politics and National Identity in France” (2001), Gabrielle Hecht refers to technopolitics as “the strategic practice of designing or using technology to constitute, embody, or enact political goals” (2001: 256). Technopolitics distinguishes itself from the general practice of politics because technologies have material reality – they have objective purposes as tools to be used in real life matters. The effectiveness of technologies thus often has an impact on the effectiveness of the political aspirations that they are a part of. It is important to note that technologies are not political in and of themselves. The context that technologies are within, as well as the various agents that make use of them for political purposes are what constitutes technopolitics. For more information, please refer to the following: Hecht, G. (2001). Technology, politics, and national identity in France.Technologies of Power: Essays in Honor of Thomas Parke Hughes and Agatha Chipley Hughes, 253-293.

TRANSDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH

Transdisciplinary research describes the efforts of investigators from different disciplines who work together to move beyond discipline-specific approaches to a problem. This can be done in a number of ways, for example, through joint theoretical, methodological, conceptual or translational approaches. Transdisciplinary research can be distinguished from other collaborative research methodologies (e.g. multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary) in so far as it works to move beyond individual disciplines by creating new forms of knowledge. It can be thought of both as a kind of research methodology, but also as ‘a new form of learning and problem solving involving cooperation among different parts of society, including academia, in order to meet the complex challenges of society’ (McGregor, 2004). Reference: McGregor, S. L. (2004). The nature of transdisciplinary research and practice. Kappa Omicron Nu Human Sciences Working Paper Series.

TECHNOLOGICAL SOMNAMBULISM

A term coined by Langdon Winner (1988) to show how people are quite reluctant to make changes in their lives to fulfill new political ideologies, but unknowingly (i.e., without much thought) make huge changes in their lives to accommodate new technologies.

THICK DESCRIPTION

In social and cultural anthropology, the term refers to an ethnographic method that emphasizes the signification of an activity or symbol and the context needed to understand the activity or symbol, but not the structural patterns and causes of cultural phenomena. The notion of thick description was introduced by philosopher Gilbert Ryle , and later the term was elaborated by anthropologist Clifford Geertz in The Interpretation of Cultures. Reference: Geertz, C. (1977). The Interpretation of Cultures. First Edition. New York: Basic Books. Ryle, G. (2009). Collected Essays 1929 – 1968: Collected Papers Volume 2. First edition. London; New York: Routledge.

TRANSGENICS

The branch of biology that is concerned with the practice of genetically engineering organisms.

TRANSHUMANISM

An international movement that aims to transcend the human condition by the development and usage of advanced technologies that could help overcome the physical, mental, and even ethical limits of humans and greatly improve human capacity. Transhumanists believe in the continuing evolution of intelligent life beyond what is already perceived to be humanity’s limits. Well-known technologies that may be seen as endorsing the transhumanist spirit are cryonics, the preservation of the human body in hopes of after-death revival, and virtual reality, immersive computer-simulated reality typically used in many recent video games.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

In the social sciences, Robert K. Merton first applied systematic analysis to “unanticipated consequences,” to which he referred as unintended outcomes of purposeful actions that tried to cause social changes. Reference: Merton, R. K. (1936). “The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action.” American Sociological Review 1(6): 894–904.

USER-PRODUCER RELATIONS

User-producer relations are most commonly discussed with reference to innovation, and the role of users and producers in the innovation process. This has been the subject of much academic inquiry, though the two most famous scholars of user- producer relations are von Hippel (1976; 1988) and Lundvall (1988). What is emphasized is the importance of users in shaping the innovations created by producers, and in particular the importance of user-producer interaction in the ‘context of successful product innovation’. User-producer relations describes the importance of users’ (this often includes, but is not limited to, customers’) knowledge for successful innovation. This is due in part to the requirements for good innovation, primarily, good communication between users and producers, and access to the preferences and needs of users. Lundvall argued (1988; 1992b) that ‘successful product innovation will most often involve social interaction between producers and users (often customers) of an innovation’. Reference: Keld Laursen, ‘User-producer interaction as a driver of innovation: costs and advantages in an open innovation model’ Science and Public Policy, 38:9 (2011) en Green, Sally Randles (eds.,) Industrial Ecology and Spaces of Innovation (Cheltenham: 2006))