Theory and Society

, Volume 37, Issue 5, pp 461–483 | Cite as

Technology and institutions: living in a material world

Article

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

  1. 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
  2. Alder, K. (1997). Engineering the revolution: Arms and enlightenment in France, 1763–1815. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Barley, S., & Orr, J. E. (1997). Between craft and science: Technical work in U.S. settings. Ithaca, NY: ILR University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bazerman, C. (1999). The language of Edison’s light. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London and Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Bijker, W. E. (1995a). On bikes bulbs and bakelites. Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. J. (Eds.) (1987). The social construction of technological systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bijker, W. E., & Law, J. (Eds.) (1992). Shaping technology/building society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bijsterveld, K., & Pinch, T. (2004). Sound studies: New technologies and music, special issue of Social Studies of Science, 34.Google Scholar
  12. Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1984). The social construction of reality. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  13. Bloor, D. (1999). Anti-latour. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 30, 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Bourdieu, P. (1999). The logic of practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Boczkowski, P. J. (2004). Digitizing the news: Innovation in on-line newspapers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Braverman, H. (1975). Labor and monopoly capital: The degradation of work in the twentieth century. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. Carroll-Burke, P. (2002). Material designs: Engineering cultures and engineering states—Ireland 1650–1900. Theory and Society, 31(1), 75–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  22. Chadabe, J. (1997). Electric sound: The past and promise of electronic music. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  23. Collins, H. M. (1974). The TEA-Set: Tacit knowledge and scientific networks. Science Studies, 4, 165–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Collins, H. M. (1985). Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Collins, H. M. (2001). Tacit knowledge, trust, and the Q of sapphire. Social Studies of Science, 31(1), 71–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. David, P. (1985). Clio and the economics of QWERTY. Economic History, 75, 227–332.Google Scholar
  28. 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.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Douglas, M. (1986). How institutions think. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Fischer, C. (1992). America calling: A social history of the telephone to 1940. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  32. Fligstein, N. (2001). Social skill and the theory of fields. Sociological Theory, 19(2), 105–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  35. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books: New York.Google Scholar
  36. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Gieryn, T. F. (1999). Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. Gieryn, T. F. (2002). What buildings do. Theory and Society, 31(1), 35–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  41. Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company.Google Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Harper, D. (1987). Working knowledge: Skill and community in a small shop. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  44. Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology and other essays. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  45. Hughes, T. P. (1984). Networks of power: Electrification in western society, 1880–1930. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  47. Ignatieff, M. (1978). A just measure of pain: Penitentiaries in the industrial revolution, 1780–1850. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  48. 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
  49. 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
  50. 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
  51. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  53. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Latour, B. (1994). On technical mediation: Philosophy, sociology, genealogy. Common Knowledge, 3(2), 29–64.Google Scholar
  55. 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
  56. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverley Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  57. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Leuenberger, C., & Pinch, T. (2000). Social construction and neoinstitutional theory. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(3), 271–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mackay, H., & Gareth, G. (1992). Extending the social shaping approach: Ideology and appropriation. Social Studies of Science, 22, 685–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. MacKenzie, D. (1984). Marx and the machine. Technology and Culture, 25, 473–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. MacKenzie, D. (1990). Inventing accuracy: A historical sociology of nuclear missile guidance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  62. MacKenzie, D., & Wajcman, J. (1985). The social shaping of technology. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  63. 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
  64. 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
  65. Merton, R. K. (1970). Science, technology & society in seventeenth century England. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
  66. 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.Google Scholar
  67. 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
  68. 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
  69. 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
  70. O’Connell, J. (1993). Metrology: The creation of universality by the circulation of particulars. Social Studies of Science, 23, 129–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Ogburn, W. F. (1950). Social change with respect to culture and original nature. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  72. Orr, J. E. (1996). Talking about machines: An ethnography of a modern job. Ithaca: ILR Press.Google Scholar
  73. Oudshoorn, N. & Pinch, T. (Eds.) (2003). How users matter: The co-construction of users and technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  74. Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency and science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  75. 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
  76. 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
  77. Pinch, T. (2003). How the minimoog was sold to rock and roll. In N. Oudshoorn, & T. Pinch (2003) 247–720.Google Scholar
  78. 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
  79. Pinch, T., & Trocco, F. (2002). Analog days: The invention and impact of the moog synthesizer. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  80. 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
  81. Pinch, T., Collins, H., & Carbone, L. (1996). Inside knowledge: Second order measures of skill. Sociological Review, 44, 163–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  83. 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
  84. Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  85. Rader, K. (2004). Making mice: Standardizing animals for American biomedical research, 1900–1955. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Ravetz, J. (1971). Scientific knowledge and its social problems. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  87. 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
  88. 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
  89. Scott, R. W. (1995). Institutions and organizations. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  90. Searle, J. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  91. Searle, J. (2006). Social ontology: Some basic principles. Anthropological Theory, 6(1), 12–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Sewell, W. H. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Shapin, S. (1988). Understanding the Merton Thesis. Isis, 79(4), 594–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Soja, R. W. (1989). Postmodern geographies. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  95. Sorper, M. (1985). The spatial and temporal constitution of social action. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 3, 407–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Star, S. L., & Bowker, G. (1999). Sorting things out. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  97. 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
  98. Sterne, J. (2003). The audible past: Cultural origins of sound reproduction. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  99. Strathern, M. (1992). After nature: English kinship in the late twentieth century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  100. Suchmann, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human–machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  101. Théberge, P. (1997). Any sound you can imagine: Making music/consuming technology. Hanover: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
  102. Thompson, E. (2002). The Soundscape of modernity: Architectural acoustics and the culture of listening in America, 1900–1933. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  103. Turner, V. W. (1969). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  104. Von Hippel, E. (1988). The sources of innovations. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  105. Wajcman, J. (1991). Feminism confronts technology. College Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  106. Winner, L. (1977). Autonomous technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  107. Wittgenstein, L. (1973). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  108. Woolgar, S. (1985). Why not a sociology of machines? The case of sociology and artificial intelligence. Sociology, 19, 557–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 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
  110. Yakubovich, V., Granovetter, M., & McGuire, P. (2004). Electric charges: The social construction of rate systems.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Science and Technology Studies DepartmentCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations