This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Science and technology studies article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Concerning the section "Deliberative Democracy", I recommend to add Habermas to the sources and to bring in the concept of the "spiral of silence" in regard to minority viewpoints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harald Schweiger ( talk • contribs) 11:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Please expand. Bryan 00:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
-- Fastfission 02:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
As an article about an academic subject, shouldn't it list at some examples of STS programs? Or at the very least, provide a direct link to such a list? Expecting that readers will navigate away from Wikipedia and onto the STS Wiki is probably unrealistic. Fcendejas 23:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Way too many acronyms on this page. I'll take some of them off. Pretty POV in favor of its discipline. I'll remove "vibrants" while keeping "new" and "rapidly growing." -- 209.128.81.201 21:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
sinProposal withdrawn: I am proposing that this article be merged with
Technology and society. 01:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
SteveMc 21:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed this paragraph due to it lacking WP:NPOV and seems to be unsourced original research:
Not a dog 20:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
what are the benefits derived from technology?
The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Science, Technology and Society →
Science, technology and society –
The article states at the opening that it's "the study of how social, political, and cultural values affect scientific research and technological innovation, and how these, in turn, affect society, politics and culture." Thus, it's clearly a generic term.
Per WP:CAPS and WP:TITLE: this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. In addition, WP:MOS says that a compound item should not be upper-cased just because it is abbreviated with caps. Matches the formatting of related article titles. Tony (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Why student journals are not important? And what makes a non-student journal important? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.58.102.156 ( talk) 13:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Myself and some of my colleagues and students would like to add a section that briefly describes some of the key concepts developed and/or used by STS scholars, with examples specifically relevant to their use in STS scholarship, and links to other Wikipedia main pages on those concepts where appropriate. I'm sure that the list that we generate will not be exhaustive, but it seems like the page would benefit from more information on the content of STS research in addition to information on the field's history, professional journals, etc. Hopefully later editors could contribute to this section as well.
Independebubble ( talk) 13:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a proposal for the addition of a section relating to the pace of innovation. The proposed section can be found at: Pace of Innovation
-- Vbhagwani ( talk) 19:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a proposal for the addition of a section relating to technocrats, enlightenment thinking and the counter-enlightenment movement. The proposed section can be found at: User:Stsh_blue_6792/sandbox ( talk) 19:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a proposal for the addition of a section relating to the privileged positions of business and science. The proposed section can be found at: User:Martin75gk/sandbox — Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a proposal for the addition of a section relating to no innovation without representation. The proposed section can be found at No Innovation Without Representation — Preceding undated comment added 19:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I created a page for feminist science and technology studies so I have proposed edits for this section due to important contributions of that field, will be moving in that brief section to connect the articles today. Mxnicpixie ( talk) 17:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
We are students at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute taking a Science, Technology, and Source course. We plan on defining intelligent trial and error using five different strategies that we obtained from the following sources:
[1] Woodhouse, Edward J. Biotechnology and the Political Sociology of Risk. N.p.: Elsevier Science, 1992. Print.
[2] Redner, Harry. An Heretical Heir of the Enlightenment: Politics, Policy, and Science in the Work of Charles E. Lindblom. Boulder: Westview, 1993. Print.
[3] Woodhouse, Edward. "Conceptualizing Disasters as Extreme Versions of Everyday Life." Dynamics of Disaster (2013): 61-76. Web.
[4] Lindblom, Charles Edward. The Policy-making Process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1968. Print.
[5] Woodhouse, Edward J., and David Collingridge. "Incrementalism, Intelligent Trial-and-Error, and the Future of Political Decision Theory." An Heretical Heir of the Enlightenment: Politics, Policy, and Science in the Work of Charles E. Lindblom. By Harry Redner. Boulder: Westview, 1993. 139-144. Print.
[6] Urbina, Ian. "As OSHA Emphasizes Safety, Long-Term Health Risks Fester." The New York Times. The New York Times, 30 Mar. 2013. Web. Mar. 2015.
Gentle Tyranny can be furthered understood by reading the following pieces
Kirkman, Robert (2009). "At Home in the Seamless Web". Science, Technology, & Human Values. 34 (2). Sage Publications: 234–258.
Ludwik, Fleck (1979). Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. University of Chicago Press.
We would like to propose the addition of the concept of Legacy Thinking. As a part of our Science, Technology, and Society class at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute we have encountered this term and find it important to an understanding of the way society functions. Based on the following sources, we would like to provide a definition and a few examples of legacy thinking.
"Net Neutrality: A Free and Open Internet." The White House. The White House, 26 Feb. 2015. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.
Corso, Regina, SVP. "PACs, Big Companies, Lobbyists, and Banks and Financial Institutions Seen by Strong Majorities as Having Too Much Power and Influence in DC." Harris Interactive: Harris Polls. Harris Interactive, 29 May 2012. Web. 21 Apr. 2015
Allison, Bill, and Sarah Harkins. "Fixed Fortunes: Biggest Corporate Political Interests Spend Billions, Get Trillions." Sunlight Foundation Blog. Sunlight Foundation, 17 Nov. 2014. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.
Flow. Oscilloscope Pictures, 2008. DVD.
“The National Bureau of Asian Research." India's Water Crisis: Causes and Cures. Web. 21 Apr. 2015. < http://www.nbr.org/research/activity.aspx?id=356>. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:2820:A0D:B959:13AD:5850:203E ( talk) 19:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Woodhouse, Edward. Science Technology and Society. Spring 2015 ed. N.p.: U Readers, 2014. Print.
Definition&Concept:
Social constructions are human created ideas, objects, or events created by a series of choices and interactions. [1] These interactions have consequences that change the perception that different groups of people have on these constructs. Some examples of social construction include gender, class, race, money, and citizenship.
The following also alludes to the notion that not everything is set, a circumstance or result could potentially be one way or the other. According to the What is Social Construction? by Laura Flores, "Social construction work is critical of the status quo. Social constructionists about X tend to hold that: 1) X need not have existed, or need not be at all as it is. X, or X as it is at present, is not determined by the nature of things; it is not inevitable Very often they go further, and urge that: 2) X is quite as bad as it is. 3) We would be much better off if X were done away with, or at least radically transformed." In the past we have seen that some "knowledge" or "facts" have been disproven as new knowledge comes a long and helps our society be better informed or educated on things that were once not questioned. Such "knowledge" includes the past concept of a correlation between intelligence and the nature of a human's ethnicity or race (X may not be at all as it is). [2]
Examples:
The intention of high-wheel bicycle is to get a higher translational velocity over the ground via replacing the front wheel with a lager-radius wheel. However, this attempt lead to the unstable of riding experience and potential harm. For young athletes and enthusiastic youth, this bicycle means passion. However, for some elder and women, they worry about the issue when a large wheel hit a piece of brick or stone, when rider try to check the wheel, the sudden check usually threw the rider over the handle bar. Therefore, a technological innovation or progress caused some unintended and undesired consequences. The social construction of safety caused the design of the bicycle to change to a more safe design. [3]
[Extended copy/paste from Bijker's essay on Bakelite removed for copyright reasons. Please do not copy/paste large blocks of text anywhere on Wikipedia. See WP:COPYVIO for more information.] [4] -- Ryan (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 19:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
Our group has conducted extensive research on the STS concept,“technosocial.” Since there isn't a clear definition on the Science, Technology, and Society Wikipedia page, we propose adding the definition we have developed. In addition, we've compiled examples that relate to our definition, some of which, we would like to add. Additionally, we've formulated many related concepts of technosocial that will help Wikipedia users better understand how “technosocial” fits into the topics of STS.
Definition:
"Technological action is a social process."
[1] Social factors and technology are intertwined so that they are dependent upon each other. This includes the aspect that social, political, and economic factors are inherent in technology and that social structure influences what technologies are pursued. In other words, "technoscientific phenomena combined inextricably with social/political/ economic/psychological phenomena, so ‘technology' includes a spectrum of artifacts, techniques, organizations, and systems."
[2] Winner expands on this idea by saying "in the late twentieth century technology and society, technology and culture, technology and politics are by no means separate."
[3]
Specific Examples:
Ford Pinto
[4]- Ford Motor Company sold and produced the Pinto during the 1970’s. A flaw in the automobile design of the rear gas tank caused a fiery explosion upon impact. The exploding fuel tank killed and injured hundreds of people. Internal documents of test results, proved Ford CEO Lee Iacocca and engineers were aware of . The company decided to ignore improving their technology because of profit-driven motives, strict internal control, and competition from foreign competitors such as Volkswagen. Ford Motor Company conducted a cost-benefit analysis to determine if altering the Ford Pinto model was feasible. An analysis conducted by Ford employees argued against a new design because of increased cost. Employees were also under tight control by the CEO who rushed the Pinto through production lines to increase profits. Ford finally changed are public scrutiny. Safety organizations later influenced this technology by requiring stricter safety standards for motor vehicles.
DDT/Toxins
[2] - DDT was a common and highly effective insecticide used during the 1940’s until its ban in the early 1970’s. It was utilized during World War 2 to combat insect-borne human disease that plagued military members and civilian populations. People and companies soon realized other benefits of DDT for agricultural purposes. Rachel Carson became worried of wide spread use on public health and the environment. Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring," left an imprint on the industry by claiming linkage of DDT to many serious illness such as cancer. Carson's book drew criticism from chemical companies who felt their reputation and business threatened by such claims.. DDT was eventually banned by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after a long and arduous process of research on the chemical substance. The main cause for the removal of DDT was the public deciding that the benefits any outweighed potential health risk.
Autopilots/Computer Aided Tasks (CATs)
[2] - From a security point of view the effects of making a task more computer driven is in the favor of technological advance because there is less reaction time required and computational error than a human pilot. Due to reduced error and reaction times flights on average, using autopilot, have been shown to be safer. Thus the technology has a direct impact on people by increasing their safety, and society affects the technology because people want to be safer so they are constantly trying to improve the autopilot systems.
Cell Phones
[2]- Cell phone technology emerged in the early 1920’s after advancements were made in radio technology. Engineers at Bell Laboratories, the research and development division of AT&T discovered that cell towers can transmit and receive signals to and from many directions. The discovery by Bell Labs revolutionized the capabilities and outcomes of cellular technology. Technology only improved once mobile phone users could communicate outside of a designated area. First generation mobile phones were first created and sold by Motorola. Their phone was only intended for use in cars. Second generation mobile phone capabilities continued to improve because of the switch to digital. Phones were faster which enhanced communication capabilities of customers. They were also sleeker and weighed less than bulky first generation technology. Technologically advances boosted customer satisfaction and broadened cell phone companies customer base. Third generation technology changed the way people interact with other. Now customers had access to wifi, texting and other applications. Mobile phones are now entering into the fourth generations. Cellular and mobile phones revolutionized the way people socialize and communicate in order to establish modern social structure . People have affected the development of this technology by demanding features such as larger screens, touch capabilities, and internet accessibility.
Internet
[2]- The internet arose because of extensive research on ARPANET between various university, corporations, and ARPA (Advanced Research Project Agency), an agency of the Department of Defense. Scientist theorized a network of computers connected to each other. Computing capabilities contributed to developments and the creation of the modern day computer or laptop . The internet has become a normal part of life and business, to such a degree that the united nations views it as a basic human right. The internet is becoming larger, one way is that more things are being moved into the digital world due to demand, for example online banking. It has drastically changed the way most people go about daily habits.
Concepts related to Technosocial:
Technoscience
[2]-The perception that science and technology are intertwined and depend on each other.
Technosociety
[5]- An industrially developed society with a reliance on technology.
Technological Utopianism
[6]- A positive outlook on the effect technology has on social welfare. Includes the perception that technology will one day enable society to reach a utopian state.
Technosocial Systems
[7]-Technosocial Systems are people and technologies that combine to work as heterogeneous but functional wholes.
Classifications of Technosocial:
Technological Optimism
[8] - The opinion that technology has positive effects on society and should be used in order to improve the welfare of people.
Technological Pessimism
[8]- The opinion that technology has negative effects on society and should be discouraged from use.
Technological Neutrality
[7] -"maintains that a given technology has no systematic effects on society: individuals are perceived as ultimately responsible, for better or worse, because technologies are merely tools people use for their own ends."
Technological Determinism
[7]- “maintains that technologies are understood as simply and directly causing particular societal outcomes."
Scientism
[9]- The belief in the total separation of facts and values.
Technological Progressivism
[9]- technology is a means to an end itself and an inherently positive pursuit.
I noticed several of you are copy/pasting sources into the talk page. This is a big copyright problem, even if you cite the source. Please remove any big blocks of copy/pasted material and be sure everything is cited. It's not as strict as it is in the article, but copyright applies to every page on Wikipedia. If you do not remove it, I or someone else will have to.
Also, there are a lot of resources available to help student editors. I work for the Wiki Education Foundation and would like very much to be able to contact your professor. Could you either direct him/her to email (ryan [at] wikiedu [dot] org) or give me a name/institution to look up? Thanks. -- Ryan (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 13:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
"Although, Garrett Hardin was not an scholar, the concept of Tragedy of the Commons still applies to science, technology and society.[11] The internet is a science, technology and society example where tragedy of the commons is relevant as physical resources that are being exploited gets protected by legislation, the internet is a free market which is easily exploitable such as privacy." What? What are you trying to say? GangofOne ( talk) 00:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I propose that Science studies be merged here into Science, technology and society. The text in the Science studies article is lower quality and can be better explained in the context of this article. The merge should not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. There is an old circa 2005 discussion of the relationship between these articles at Talk:Science_studies#Science_and_technology_studies.2C_not_Science_studies. This line from the concluding argument there for having two separate articles is telling: "There still are science studies departments -- UCSD, for instance, that don't do much with technology." If you browse to UCSD's web page today, you will find that they are offering a "Minor in Science, Technology, and Society" ( [1]). - hugeTim ( talk) 15:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I've proposed the creation of WikiProject STS in order to address the issues of this and other articles, as well as to provide continuing updates for STS news and STS analysis of issues in science, technology, and governance. Please take a look at the proposal and provide commentary on it, and let me know if you'd be interested in contributing in some way! Mathmitch7 ( talk) 04:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 23:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Science, technology and society → Science and technology studies – Since this article is about the academic field of STS, and not a concept that is the intersection of "science," "technology," and "society," I think it makes more sense to call the page Science and technology studies. Even in the lede for this page, it says "Science, technology, and society studies," indicating that it refers to an academic discipline, not a combination of concepts. I recognize that this is contentious within the STS community (e.g., Virginia Tech's STS department just changed their name from "studies" to "society"; however, they did this to better name their degrees, not to eschew the "studies" part of the name [1]), and generally speaking people use the unexpanded "STS" to encompass both definitions. [2] However, I think that for the purposes of Wikipedia, we need to pick one, and "studies" is the better choice. The name "Science, technology, and society" is largely a holdover from the 70s, when the field was trying out the name "study of science, technology, and society (SSTS)" and has been largely abandoned outside of degree titles and particular STS programs, which keep "society" around so that they can clearly show people what they do. I think that given the Handbook of Science and Technology Studies has used the same acronym for 23 years, [3] [4] the field's name has somewhat stabilized.
WP:CRITERIA suggests five criteria for article naming that I think is better done by "studies" than "society."
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: others (
link)
That's all I've got! Let me know what you think. - - mathmitch7 ( talk/ contribs) 15:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. — Amakuru ( talk) 15:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
It's pretty clear to me that these pages need to be merged. The last vote on this subject (in 2016) was 3 to 2 against, but since the page was renamed we should vote again. -- Wikiman2718 ( talk) 17:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to at least get it in good enough shape so we can remove all the tags that are plaguing it, maybe make it a bit more streamlined and with less of a "list" feel... and a few more things to bring out some of the key ideas in this important sub-field. If anyone's still around who's into this, please holla at me here. If I don't hear anything I might just start doing stuff as the moment takes me. Would be nice to work with someone on it though. Cleopatran Apocalypse ( talk) 13:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Bondegezou: Thanks for the reply. These authors seemingly don’t even agree about the history of the fields, let alone their relationship to each other. I can see why this has been such a difficult issue to sort out. There are certain points which seem to be generally agreed upon: The two fields are not mutually exclusive (although the nature of their intersection is disputed) and both are interdisciplinary branches of sociology, both of which may encompass research regarding the relationship between science and technology. What is clear is that a merge would be a mistake. As for what’s to be done, I’m lost. I’ve seen “social studies of science” used as a synonym for STS, when I expected to find it used as a synonym for “science studies”, which only makes things even more confounding. For now, I retract the merge proposal. – Scyrme ( talk) 00:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Something needs to be done about this cluster of articles, although it's clear a merge isn't it. I think Wikipedia is missing articles on the sociology of science and sociology of technology which give a clear account of the development and history of each. This would help in providing necessary context/background for this area of sociology, which would help editors in clearing up the relationships between their various branches, descendants, and interdisciplinary intersections.
Sociology of science redirects to sociology of scientific knowledge, but my understanding is that the latter is a much narrower area so I think this redirect is problematic. Are Science studies and Sociology of science synonymous? I would assume so, but "social studies of science" being used synonymously with STS has me questioning everything. If it is, the latter title may be better as it would make it clearer to readers with no background knowledge why the article is separate from that of Science and technology studies.
Sociology of technology doesn’t exist at all, not even as a redirect, which is surprising. However, Technology studies does exist and redirects to Science and technology studies. This is a dubious redirect given that, unless I’m mistaken, technology studies is the older field. It seems Technology studies was the original title of Technology and society, but that the article was moved to the latter title. This seems to me to be a very questionable decision since the latter title isn’t even a topic, it’s a vague intersection between two topics. Vague titles encourage essay-like writing and, unsurprisingly, Technology and society has been tagged for essay-like style since 2010.
Material from Technology and society could be split between Sociology of technology and Science and technology studies as appropriate; this could provide a start for a new article on Sociology of technology. – Scyrme ( talk) 00:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 22 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mxnicpixie ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: SilverScreen'sSilverLining.
The primary illustration on this article is a photo of some object in the London Science Museum. It's described as a "communications artifact", with no further elaboration. It looks like a cable winder; if that's what it is, then it is indeed a communications artifact, in the sense that it's man-made, and might be concerned with communication.
But I have no idea why it is in this article. I would like to remove it; I don't think any illustration is appropriate for an article on this topic, although I could be persuaded. But this topic is extremely abstract, and I doubt that a photo of any concrete artifact is helpful as the main article image. MrDemeanour ( talk) 16:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't know why this section appears in the article. Nothing in the section explains why TOTC has anything to do with Science and Technology Studies, and TOTC is essentially an issue in social relations, not science or technology.
I propose to delete the section.
MrDemeanour ( talk) 16:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=refgroup>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=refgroup}}
template (see the
help page).
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Science and technology studies article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Concerning the section "Deliberative Democracy", I recommend to add Habermas to the sources and to bring in the concept of the "spiral of silence" in regard to minority viewpoints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harald Schweiger ( talk • contribs) 11:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Please expand. Bryan 00:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
-- Fastfission 02:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
As an article about an academic subject, shouldn't it list at some examples of STS programs? Or at the very least, provide a direct link to such a list? Expecting that readers will navigate away from Wikipedia and onto the STS Wiki is probably unrealistic. Fcendejas 23:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Way too many acronyms on this page. I'll take some of them off. Pretty POV in favor of its discipline. I'll remove "vibrants" while keeping "new" and "rapidly growing." -- 209.128.81.201 21:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
sinProposal withdrawn: I am proposing that this article be merged with
Technology and society. 01:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
SteveMc 21:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed this paragraph due to it lacking WP:NPOV and seems to be unsourced original research:
Not a dog 20:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
what are the benefits derived from technology?
The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Science, Technology and Society →
Science, technology and society –
The article states at the opening that it's "the study of how social, political, and cultural values affect scientific research and technological innovation, and how these, in turn, affect society, politics and culture." Thus, it's clearly a generic term.
Per WP:CAPS and WP:TITLE: this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. In addition, WP:MOS says that a compound item should not be upper-cased just because it is abbreviated with caps. Matches the formatting of related article titles. Tony (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Why student journals are not important? And what makes a non-student journal important? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.58.102.156 ( talk) 13:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Myself and some of my colleagues and students would like to add a section that briefly describes some of the key concepts developed and/or used by STS scholars, with examples specifically relevant to their use in STS scholarship, and links to other Wikipedia main pages on those concepts where appropriate. I'm sure that the list that we generate will not be exhaustive, but it seems like the page would benefit from more information on the content of STS research in addition to information on the field's history, professional journals, etc. Hopefully later editors could contribute to this section as well.
Independebubble ( talk) 13:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a proposal for the addition of a section relating to the pace of innovation. The proposed section can be found at: Pace of Innovation
-- Vbhagwani ( talk) 19:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a proposal for the addition of a section relating to technocrats, enlightenment thinking and the counter-enlightenment movement. The proposed section can be found at: User:Stsh_blue_6792/sandbox ( talk) 19:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a proposal for the addition of a section relating to the privileged positions of business and science. The proposed section can be found at: User:Martin75gk/sandbox — Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a proposal for the addition of a section relating to no innovation without representation. The proposed section can be found at No Innovation Without Representation — Preceding undated comment added 19:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I created a page for feminist science and technology studies so I have proposed edits for this section due to important contributions of that field, will be moving in that brief section to connect the articles today. Mxnicpixie ( talk) 17:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
We are students at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute taking a Science, Technology, and Source course. We plan on defining intelligent trial and error using five different strategies that we obtained from the following sources:
[1] Woodhouse, Edward J. Biotechnology and the Political Sociology of Risk. N.p.: Elsevier Science, 1992. Print.
[2] Redner, Harry. An Heretical Heir of the Enlightenment: Politics, Policy, and Science in the Work of Charles E. Lindblom. Boulder: Westview, 1993. Print.
[3] Woodhouse, Edward. "Conceptualizing Disasters as Extreme Versions of Everyday Life." Dynamics of Disaster (2013): 61-76. Web.
[4] Lindblom, Charles Edward. The Policy-making Process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1968. Print.
[5] Woodhouse, Edward J., and David Collingridge. "Incrementalism, Intelligent Trial-and-Error, and the Future of Political Decision Theory." An Heretical Heir of the Enlightenment: Politics, Policy, and Science in the Work of Charles E. Lindblom. By Harry Redner. Boulder: Westview, 1993. 139-144. Print.
[6] Urbina, Ian. "As OSHA Emphasizes Safety, Long-Term Health Risks Fester." The New York Times. The New York Times, 30 Mar. 2013. Web. Mar. 2015.
Gentle Tyranny can be furthered understood by reading the following pieces
Kirkman, Robert (2009). "At Home in the Seamless Web". Science, Technology, & Human Values. 34 (2). Sage Publications: 234–258.
Ludwik, Fleck (1979). Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. University of Chicago Press.
We would like to propose the addition of the concept of Legacy Thinking. As a part of our Science, Technology, and Society class at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute we have encountered this term and find it important to an understanding of the way society functions. Based on the following sources, we would like to provide a definition and a few examples of legacy thinking.
"Net Neutrality: A Free and Open Internet." The White House. The White House, 26 Feb. 2015. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.
Corso, Regina, SVP. "PACs, Big Companies, Lobbyists, and Banks and Financial Institutions Seen by Strong Majorities as Having Too Much Power and Influence in DC." Harris Interactive: Harris Polls. Harris Interactive, 29 May 2012. Web. 21 Apr. 2015
Allison, Bill, and Sarah Harkins. "Fixed Fortunes: Biggest Corporate Political Interests Spend Billions, Get Trillions." Sunlight Foundation Blog. Sunlight Foundation, 17 Nov. 2014. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.
Flow. Oscilloscope Pictures, 2008. DVD.
“The National Bureau of Asian Research." India's Water Crisis: Causes and Cures. Web. 21 Apr. 2015. < http://www.nbr.org/research/activity.aspx?id=356>. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:2820:A0D:B959:13AD:5850:203E ( talk) 19:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Woodhouse, Edward. Science Technology and Society. Spring 2015 ed. N.p.: U Readers, 2014. Print.
Definition&Concept:
Social constructions are human created ideas, objects, or events created by a series of choices and interactions. [1] These interactions have consequences that change the perception that different groups of people have on these constructs. Some examples of social construction include gender, class, race, money, and citizenship.
The following also alludes to the notion that not everything is set, a circumstance or result could potentially be one way or the other. According to the What is Social Construction? by Laura Flores, "Social construction work is critical of the status quo. Social constructionists about X tend to hold that: 1) X need not have existed, or need not be at all as it is. X, or X as it is at present, is not determined by the nature of things; it is not inevitable Very often they go further, and urge that: 2) X is quite as bad as it is. 3) We would be much better off if X were done away with, or at least radically transformed." In the past we have seen that some "knowledge" or "facts" have been disproven as new knowledge comes a long and helps our society be better informed or educated on things that were once not questioned. Such "knowledge" includes the past concept of a correlation between intelligence and the nature of a human's ethnicity or race (X may not be at all as it is). [2]
Examples:
The intention of high-wheel bicycle is to get a higher translational velocity over the ground via replacing the front wheel with a lager-radius wheel. However, this attempt lead to the unstable of riding experience and potential harm. For young athletes and enthusiastic youth, this bicycle means passion. However, for some elder and women, they worry about the issue when a large wheel hit a piece of brick or stone, when rider try to check the wheel, the sudden check usually threw the rider over the handle bar. Therefore, a technological innovation or progress caused some unintended and undesired consequences. The social construction of safety caused the design of the bicycle to change to a more safe design. [3]
[Extended copy/paste from Bijker's essay on Bakelite removed for copyright reasons. Please do not copy/paste large blocks of text anywhere on Wikipedia. See WP:COPYVIO for more information.] [4] -- Ryan (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 19:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
Our group has conducted extensive research on the STS concept,“technosocial.” Since there isn't a clear definition on the Science, Technology, and Society Wikipedia page, we propose adding the definition we have developed. In addition, we've compiled examples that relate to our definition, some of which, we would like to add. Additionally, we've formulated many related concepts of technosocial that will help Wikipedia users better understand how “technosocial” fits into the topics of STS.
Definition:
"Technological action is a social process."
[1] Social factors and technology are intertwined so that they are dependent upon each other. This includes the aspect that social, political, and economic factors are inherent in technology and that social structure influences what technologies are pursued. In other words, "technoscientific phenomena combined inextricably with social/political/ economic/psychological phenomena, so ‘technology' includes a spectrum of artifacts, techniques, organizations, and systems."
[2] Winner expands on this idea by saying "in the late twentieth century technology and society, technology and culture, technology and politics are by no means separate."
[3]
Specific Examples:
Ford Pinto
[4]- Ford Motor Company sold and produced the Pinto during the 1970’s. A flaw in the automobile design of the rear gas tank caused a fiery explosion upon impact. The exploding fuel tank killed and injured hundreds of people. Internal documents of test results, proved Ford CEO Lee Iacocca and engineers were aware of . The company decided to ignore improving their technology because of profit-driven motives, strict internal control, and competition from foreign competitors such as Volkswagen. Ford Motor Company conducted a cost-benefit analysis to determine if altering the Ford Pinto model was feasible. An analysis conducted by Ford employees argued against a new design because of increased cost. Employees were also under tight control by the CEO who rushed the Pinto through production lines to increase profits. Ford finally changed are public scrutiny. Safety organizations later influenced this technology by requiring stricter safety standards for motor vehicles.
DDT/Toxins
[2] - DDT was a common and highly effective insecticide used during the 1940’s until its ban in the early 1970’s. It was utilized during World War 2 to combat insect-borne human disease that plagued military members and civilian populations. People and companies soon realized other benefits of DDT for agricultural purposes. Rachel Carson became worried of wide spread use on public health and the environment. Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring," left an imprint on the industry by claiming linkage of DDT to many serious illness such as cancer. Carson's book drew criticism from chemical companies who felt their reputation and business threatened by such claims.. DDT was eventually banned by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after a long and arduous process of research on the chemical substance. The main cause for the removal of DDT was the public deciding that the benefits any outweighed potential health risk.
Autopilots/Computer Aided Tasks (CATs)
[2] - From a security point of view the effects of making a task more computer driven is in the favor of technological advance because there is less reaction time required and computational error than a human pilot. Due to reduced error and reaction times flights on average, using autopilot, have been shown to be safer. Thus the technology has a direct impact on people by increasing their safety, and society affects the technology because people want to be safer so they are constantly trying to improve the autopilot systems.
Cell Phones
[2]- Cell phone technology emerged in the early 1920’s after advancements were made in radio technology. Engineers at Bell Laboratories, the research and development division of AT&T discovered that cell towers can transmit and receive signals to and from many directions. The discovery by Bell Labs revolutionized the capabilities and outcomes of cellular technology. Technology only improved once mobile phone users could communicate outside of a designated area. First generation mobile phones were first created and sold by Motorola. Their phone was only intended for use in cars. Second generation mobile phone capabilities continued to improve because of the switch to digital. Phones were faster which enhanced communication capabilities of customers. They were also sleeker and weighed less than bulky first generation technology. Technologically advances boosted customer satisfaction and broadened cell phone companies customer base. Third generation technology changed the way people interact with other. Now customers had access to wifi, texting and other applications. Mobile phones are now entering into the fourth generations. Cellular and mobile phones revolutionized the way people socialize and communicate in order to establish modern social structure . People have affected the development of this technology by demanding features such as larger screens, touch capabilities, and internet accessibility.
Internet
[2]- The internet arose because of extensive research on ARPANET between various university, corporations, and ARPA (Advanced Research Project Agency), an agency of the Department of Defense. Scientist theorized a network of computers connected to each other. Computing capabilities contributed to developments and the creation of the modern day computer or laptop . The internet has become a normal part of life and business, to such a degree that the united nations views it as a basic human right. The internet is becoming larger, one way is that more things are being moved into the digital world due to demand, for example online banking. It has drastically changed the way most people go about daily habits.
Concepts related to Technosocial:
Technoscience
[2]-The perception that science and technology are intertwined and depend on each other.
Technosociety
[5]- An industrially developed society with a reliance on technology.
Technological Utopianism
[6]- A positive outlook on the effect technology has on social welfare. Includes the perception that technology will one day enable society to reach a utopian state.
Technosocial Systems
[7]-Technosocial Systems are people and technologies that combine to work as heterogeneous but functional wholes.
Classifications of Technosocial:
Technological Optimism
[8] - The opinion that technology has positive effects on society and should be used in order to improve the welfare of people.
Technological Pessimism
[8]- The opinion that technology has negative effects on society and should be discouraged from use.
Technological Neutrality
[7] -"maintains that a given technology has no systematic effects on society: individuals are perceived as ultimately responsible, for better or worse, because technologies are merely tools people use for their own ends."
Technological Determinism
[7]- “maintains that technologies are understood as simply and directly causing particular societal outcomes."
Scientism
[9]- The belief in the total separation of facts and values.
Technological Progressivism
[9]- technology is a means to an end itself and an inherently positive pursuit.
I noticed several of you are copy/pasting sources into the talk page. This is a big copyright problem, even if you cite the source. Please remove any big blocks of copy/pasted material and be sure everything is cited. It's not as strict as it is in the article, but copyright applies to every page on Wikipedia. If you do not remove it, I or someone else will have to.
Also, there are a lot of resources available to help student editors. I work for the Wiki Education Foundation and would like very much to be able to contact your professor. Could you either direct him/her to email (ryan [at] wikiedu [dot] org) or give me a name/institution to look up? Thanks. -- Ryan (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 13:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
"Although, Garrett Hardin was not an scholar, the concept of Tragedy of the Commons still applies to science, technology and society.[11] The internet is a science, technology and society example where tragedy of the commons is relevant as physical resources that are being exploited gets protected by legislation, the internet is a free market which is easily exploitable such as privacy." What? What are you trying to say? GangofOne ( talk) 00:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I propose that Science studies be merged here into Science, technology and society. The text in the Science studies article is lower quality and can be better explained in the context of this article. The merge should not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. There is an old circa 2005 discussion of the relationship between these articles at Talk:Science_studies#Science_and_technology_studies.2C_not_Science_studies. This line from the concluding argument there for having two separate articles is telling: "There still are science studies departments -- UCSD, for instance, that don't do much with technology." If you browse to UCSD's web page today, you will find that they are offering a "Minor in Science, Technology, and Society" ( [1]). - hugeTim ( talk) 15:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I've proposed the creation of WikiProject STS in order to address the issues of this and other articles, as well as to provide continuing updates for STS news and STS analysis of issues in science, technology, and governance. Please take a look at the proposal and provide commentary on it, and let me know if you'd be interested in contributing in some way! Mathmitch7 ( talk) 04:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 23:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Science, technology and society → Science and technology studies – Since this article is about the academic field of STS, and not a concept that is the intersection of "science," "technology," and "society," I think it makes more sense to call the page Science and technology studies. Even in the lede for this page, it says "Science, technology, and society studies," indicating that it refers to an academic discipline, not a combination of concepts. I recognize that this is contentious within the STS community (e.g., Virginia Tech's STS department just changed their name from "studies" to "society"; however, they did this to better name their degrees, not to eschew the "studies" part of the name [1]), and generally speaking people use the unexpanded "STS" to encompass both definitions. [2] However, I think that for the purposes of Wikipedia, we need to pick one, and "studies" is the better choice. The name "Science, technology, and society" is largely a holdover from the 70s, when the field was trying out the name "study of science, technology, and society (SSTS)" and has been largely abandoned outside of degree titles and particular STS programs, which keep "society" around so that they can clearly show people what they do. I think that given the Handbook of Science and Technology Studies has used the same acronym for 23 years, [3] [4] the field's name has somewhat stabilized.
WP:CRITERIA suggests five criteria for article naming that I think is better done by "studies" than "society."
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: others (
link)
That's all I've got! Let me know what you think. - - mathmitch7 ( talk/ contribs) 15:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. — Amakuru ( talk) 15:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
It's pretty clear to me that these pages need to be merged. The last vote on this subject (in 2016) was 3 to 2 against, but since the page was renamed we should vote again. -- Wikiman2718 ( talk) 17:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to at least get it in good enough shape so we can remove all the tags that are plaguing it, maybe make it a bit more streamlined and with less of a "list" feel... and a few more things to bring out some of the key ideas in this important sub-field. If anyone's still around who's into this, please holla at me here. If I don't hear anything I might just start doing stuff as the moment takes me. Would be nice to work with someone on it though. Cleopatran Apocalypse ( talk) 13:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Bondegezou: Thanks for the reply. These authors seemingly don’t even agree about the history of the fields, let alone their relationship to each other. I can see why this has been such a difficult issue to sort out. There are certain points which seem to be generally agreed upon: The two fields are not mutually exclusive (although the nature of their intersection is disputed) and both are interdisciplinary branches of sociology, both of which may encompass research regarding the relationship between science and technology. What is clear is that a merge would be a mistake. As for what’s to be done, I’m lost. I’ve seen “social studies of science” used as a synonym for STS, when I expected to find it used as a synonym for “science studies”, which only makes things even more confounding. For now, I retract the merge proposal. – Scyrme ( talk) 00:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Something needs to be done about this cluster of articles, although it's clear a merge isn't it. I think Wikipedia is missing articles on the sociology of science and sociology of technology which give a clear account of the development and history of each. This would help in providing necessary context/background for this area of sociology, which would help editors in clearing up the relationships between their various branches, descendants, and interdisciplinary intersections.
Sociology of science redirects to sociology of scientific knowledge, but my understanding is that the latter is a much narrower area so I think this redirect is problematic. Are Science studies and Sociology of science synonymous? I would assume so, but "social studies of science" being used synonymously with STS has me questioning everything. If it is, the latter title may be better as it would make it clearer to readers with no background knowledge why the article is separate from that of Science and technology studies.
Sociology of technology doesn’t exist at all, not even as a redirect, which is surprising. However, Technology studies does exist and redirects to Science and technology studies. This is a dubious redirect given that, unless I’m mistaken, technology studies is the older field. It seems Technology studies was the original title of Technology and society, but that the article was moved to the latter title. This seems to me to be a very questionable decision since the latter title isn’t even a topic, it’s a vague intersection between two topics. Vague titles encourage essay-like writing and, unsurprisingly, Technology and society has been tagged for essay-like style since 2010.
Material from Technology and society could be split between Sociology of technology and Science and technology studies as appropriate; this could provide a start for a new article on Sociology of technology. – Scyrme ( talk) 00:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 22 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mxnicpixie ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: SilverScreen'sSilverLining.
The primary illustration on this article is a photo of some object in the London Science Museum. It's described as a "communications artifact", with no further elaboration. It looks like a cable winder; if that's what it is, then it is indeed a communications artifact, in the sense that it's man-made, and might be concerned with communication.
But I have no idea why it is in this article. I would like to remove it; I don't think any illustration is appropriate for an article on this topic, although I could be persuaded. But this topic is extremely abstract, and I doubt that a photo of any concrete artifact is helpful as the main article image. MrDemeanour ( talk) 16:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't know why this section appears in the article. Nothing in the section explains why TOTC has anything to do with Science and Technology Studies, and TOTC is essentially an issue in social relations, not science or technology.
I propose to delete the section.
MrDemeanour ( talk) 16:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=refgroup>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=refgroup}}
template (see the
help page).