Technology and institutions: living in a material world

Trevor Pinch

doi:10.1007/s11186-008-9069-x

Theory and Society

October 2008, Volume 37, Issue 5, pp 461–483

Technology and institutions: living in a material world

Authors
Authors and affiliations

Trevor PinchEmail author

Article

First Online:: 10 July 2008

DOI: 10.1007/s11186-008-9069-x

Cite this article as:: Pinch, T. Theor Soc (2008) 37: 461. doi:10.1007/s11186-008-9069-x

Abstract

This article addresses the relationship between technology and institutions and asks whether technology itself is an institution. The argument is that social theorists need to attend better to materiality: the world of things and objects of which technical things form an important class. It criticizes the new institutionalism in sociology for its failure to sufficiently open up the black box of technology. Recent work in science and technology studies (S&TS) and in particular the sociology of technology is reviewed as another route into dealing with technology and materiality. The recent ideas in sociology of technology are exemplified with the author’s study of the development of the electronic music synthesizer.

References

Akrich, M. (1992). The de-scription of technological objects. In W. Bijker, & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Alder, K. (1997). Engineering the revolution: Arms and enlightenment in France, 1763–1815. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Arthur, B. W. (1988). Self-reinforcing mechanisms in economics. In P. W. Anderson, K. J. Arrow, & D. Pines (Eds.), The economy as an evolving complex system. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Barley, S., & Orr, J. E. (1997). Between craft and science: Technical work in U.S. settings. Ithaca, NY: ILR University Press.Google Scholar
Bazerman, C. (1999). The language of Edison’s light. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London and Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
Bijker, W. E. (1995a). On bikes bulbs and bakelites. Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bijker, W. E. (1995b). Sociohistorical technical studies. In S. Jasanoff, G. Markle, J. Petersen, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 229–256). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. J. (Eds.) (1987). The social construction of technological systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bijker, W. E., & Law, J. (Eds.) (1992). Shaping technology/building society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bijsterveld, K., & Pinch, T. (2004). Sound studies: New technologies and music, special issue of Social Studies of Science, 34.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1984). The social construction of reality. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Bloor, D. (1999). Anti-latour. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 30, 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1999). The logic of practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Boczkowski, P. J. (2004). Digitizing the news: Innovation in on-line newspapers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Braverman, H. (1975). Labor and monopoly capital: The degradation of work in the twentieth century. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of Sty Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge (pp. 196–223). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Callon, M., & Latour, B. (1992). Don’t throw the baby out with the bath school: A reply to Collins and Yearley. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as culture and practice pp. 343–368. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carroll-Burke, P. (2002). Material designs: Engineering cultures and engineering states—Ireland 1650–1900. Theory and Society, 31(1), 75–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chadabe, J. (1997). Electric sound: The past and promise of electronic music. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Collins, H. M. (1974). The TEA-Set: Tacit knowledge and scientific networks. Science Studies, 4, 165–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, H. M. (1985). Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Collins, H. M. (2001). Tacit knowledge, trust, and the Q of sapphire. Social Studies of Science, 31(1), 71–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, H. M., & Yearley, S. (1992). Epistemological chicken. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Knowledge as culture and practice (pp. 301–326). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
David, P. (1985). Clio and the economics of QWERTY. Economic History, 75, 227–332.Google Scholar
Dimaggio, P., & Hargittai, E. (2001). From the ‘Digital Divide’ to `Digital Inequality’: Studying internet use as penetration increases. Princeton Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Working Paper #15.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. In W. W. Powell, & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1–38). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Douglas, M. (1986). How institutions think. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, C. (1992). America calling: A social history of the telephone to 1940. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Fligstein, N. (2001). Social skill and the theory of fields. Sociological Theory, 19(2), 105–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back In: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell, & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 108–140). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books: New York.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
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, 48, 781–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gieryn, T. F. (1999). Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gieryn, T. F. (2002). What buildings do. Theory and Society, 31(1), 35–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company.Google Scholar
Hannah, M., & Strohmayer, U. (1991). Ornamentalism: Geography and the labor of the language of structuration theory. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 9, 309–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, D. (1987). Working knowledge: Skill and community in a small shop. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology and other essays. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Hughes, T. P. (1984). Networks of power: Electrification in western society, 1880–1930. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ignatieff, M. (1978). A just measure of pain: Penitentiaries in the industrial revolution, 1780–1850. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Jenkins, R. (1997). Technology and the market: George Eastman and the origins of mass Amateur Photography. In S. H. Cutcliffe, & T. S. Reynolds (Eds.), Technology and American history, a historical anthology from technology and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jepperson, R. L. (1991). Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalism. In W. W. Powell, & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 143–163). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kline, R., & Pinch, T. (1996). Users as agents of technological change: The social construction of the automobile in the rural United States. Technology and Culture, 37, 763–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1994). On technical mediation: Philosophy, sociology, genealogy. Common Knowledge, 3(2), 29–64.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1999). For David Bloor and beyond: A reply to David Bloor’s anti-latour. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 30, 113–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverley Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leuenberger, C., & Pinch, T. (2000). Social construction and neoinstitutional theory. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(3), 271–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackay, H., & Gareth, G. (1992). Extending the social shaping approach: Ideology and appropriation. Social Studies of Science, 22, 685–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, D. (1984). Marx and the machine. Technology and Culture, 25, 473–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, D. (1990). Inventing accuracy: A historical sociology of nuclear missile guidance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, D., & Wajcman, J. (1985). The social shaping of technology. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1984). The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life. American Political Science Review, 78(3), 734–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marx, L. (1994). The idea of ‘Technology’ and postmodern pessimism. In Y. Ezrahi, E. Mendelsohn, & H. Segal (Eds.), Technology, pessimism and postmodernity (pp. 11–28). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. (1970). Science, technology & society in seventeenth century England. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. W., & Rown, B. (1991). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. In The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (pp. 41–62). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mizruchi, M. S., & Fein, L. C. (1999). The social construction of organizational knowledge: A study in the uses of coercive, mimetic, and normative Isomorphism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 653–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohr, J. W., & Duquenne, V. (1997). The duality of culture and practice: Poverty relief in New York City, 1888–1917. Theory and Society, 26(2–3), 305–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mukerji, C. (2002). Material practices of domination: Christian humanism, the built environment, and techniques of Western power. Theory and Society, 31(1), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Connell, J. (1993). Metrology: The creation of universality by the circulation of particulars. Social Studies of Science, 23, 129–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogburn, W. F. (1950). Social change with respect to culture and original nature. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Orr, J. E. (1996). Talking about machines: An ethnography of a modern job. Ithaca: ILR Press.Google Scholar
Oudshoorn, N. & Pinch, T. (Eds.) (2003). How users matter: The co-construction of users and technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency and science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pinch, T. (1996). The social construction of technology: A review. In R. Fox (Ed.), Technological change: Methods and themes in the history of technology (pp. 17–36). Amsterdam: Harwood.Google Scholar
Pinch, T. (2001). Why you go to a piano store to buy a synthesizer: Path dependence and the social construction of technology. In R. Garud, & P. Karnoe (Eds.), Path Dependence and Creation (pp. 381–401). New Jersey: LEA Press.Google Scholar
Pinch, T. (2003). How the minimoog was sold to rock and roll. In N. Oudshoorn, & T. Pinch (2003) 247–720.
Pinch, T., & Bijker, W. (1984). The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science, 14, 399–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinch, T., & Trocco, F. (2002). Analog days: The invention and impact of the moog synthesizer. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pinch, T., Ashmore, M., & Mulkay, M. (1992). Technology, testing, text: Clinical budgeting in the U.K. National Health Service. In W. Bijker, & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society (pp. 265–289). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pinch, T., Collins, H., & Carbone, L. (1996). Inside knowledge: Second order measures of skill. Sociological Review, 44, 163–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Powell, W. W. (1991). Expanding the scope of institutional analysis. In W. W. Powell, & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 183–203). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rader, K. (2004). Making mice: Standardizing animals for American biomedical research, 1900–1955. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ravetz, J. (1971). Scientific knowledge and its social problems. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Rowland, N. J., & Gieryn, T. F. (2008). Transfer Troubles: Outsourcing Information Technology in Higher Education. In T. Pinch, and R. Swedberg (Eds.), Living in a material world: Economic Sociology meets Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schaffer, S. (1992). Late victorian metrology and its instrumentation: A manufacture of ohms. In R. Bud, & S. Cozzens (Eds.), Invisible connections: Instruments, institutions and science (pp. 23–56). Bellingham, WA: SPIE Optical Engineering Press.Google Scholar
Scott, R. W. (1995). Institutions and organizations. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (2006). Social ontology: Some basic principles. Anthropological Theory, 6(1), 12–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sewell, W. H. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapin, S. (1988). Understanding the Merton Thesis. Isis, 79(4), 594–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soja, R. W. (1989). Postmodern geographies. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Sorper, M. (1985). The spatial and temporal constitution of social action. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 3, 407–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Star, S. L., & Bowker, G. (1999). Sorting things out. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
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, 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sterne, J. (2003). The audible past: Cultural origins of sound reproduction. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Strathern, M. (1992). After nature: English kinship in the late twentieth century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Suchmann, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human–machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Théberge, P. (1997). Any sound you can imagine: Making music/consuming technology. Hanover: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, E. (2002). The Soundscape of modernity: Architectural acoustics and the culture of listening in America, 1900–1933. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Turner, V. W. (1969). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Von Hippel, E. (1988). The sources of innovations. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wajcman, J. (1991). Feminism confronts technology. College Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Winner, L. (1977). Autonomous technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1973). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Woolgar, S. (1985). Why not a sociology of machines? The case of sociology and artificial intelligence. Sociology, 19, 557–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolgar, S. (1991). Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 58–100). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Yakubovich, V., Granovetter, M., & McGuire, P. (2004). Electric charges: The social construction of rate systems.

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Trevor Pinch
- 1
Email author

1.Science and Technology Studies DepartmentCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations

Actions

Unlimited access to the full article
Instant download
Include local sales tax if applicable

Subscribe to Journal

Get Access to

Theory and Society

for the whole of 2017

Technology and institutions: living in a material world

Abstract

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Personalised recommendations

Cookies