Synthese

, 168:357 | Cite as

Findings follow framings: navigating the empirical turn

Article

Abstract

In this paper, I outline several methodological questions that we need to confront. The chief question is how can we identify the nature of technological change and its varied cultural consequences—including social, political, institutional, and economic dimensions—when our different research methods, using distinct ‘levels’ or ‘scales’ of analysis, yield contradictory results. What can we say, in other words, when our findings about technology follow from the framings of our inquiries? In slightly different terms, can we combine insights from the fine-grained “social shaping of technology” as well as from complementary approaches accenting the “technological shaping of society?” As a way forward, I will suggest conducting multi-scale inquiries into the processes of technological and cultural change. This will involve recognizing and conceptualizing the analytical scales or levels on which we conduct inquiry (very roughly, micro, meso, macro) as well as outlining strategies for moving within and between these scales or levels. Of course we want and need diverse methodologies for analyzing technology and culture. I find myself in sympathy with geographer Brenner (New state spaces: urban governance and the rescaling of statehood, 2004, p. 7), who aspires to a “theoretically precise yet also historically specific conceptualization of [technological change] as a key dimension of social, political and economic life.”

Keywords

Historiography of technology Scale Social constructivism Agency-structure problem 

References

  1. Achterhuis H. (2001) American philosophy of technology: The empirical turn. Indiana University Press, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  2. Beniger J.R. (1989) The control revolution: Technological and economic origins of the information society. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Bijker, W., Law, J. (eds) (1992) Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change. MIT Press, Cambridge/LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Bijker, W., Pinch, T., Hughes, T. (eds) (1987) The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Blaszczyk R. (2000) Imagining consumers: Design and innovation from Wedgwood to Corning. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  6. Borg K. (1999) The ‘Chauffeur problem’ in the early auto era: Structuration theory and the users of technology. Technology and Culture 40: 797–832Google Scholar
  7. Brenner N. (2004) New state spaces: Urban governance and the rescaling of statehood. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Brey P. (2003) Theorizing modernity and technology. In: Misa T. et al (eds) Modernity and technology. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 33–71Google Scholar
  9. Chandler A.D. Jr. (1972) Anthracite coal and the beginnings of the industrial revolution in the United States. Business History Review 46: 141–181. doi: 10.2307/3113503 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chandler A.D. Jr. (1977) The visible hand: The managerial revolution in American business. Belknap Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Chandler A.D. Jr. (1988) Markets, hierarchies, and hegemony: Comment. In: McCraw T.K. (eds) The essential Alfred Chandler: Essays toward a historical theory of big business. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, pp 432–460Google Scholar
  12. Decker, M., Ladikas, M. (eds) (2004) Bridges between science, society and policy: Technology assessment—methods and impacts. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  13. Edgerton D. (2007) The shock of the old: Technology and global history since 1900. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Edwards P.N. (2003) Infrastructure and modernity: Force, time, and social organization in the history of sociotechnical systems. In: Misa T. et al (eds) Modernity and technology. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 185–225Google Scholar
  15. Feenberg A. (2003) Modernity theory and technology studies: Reflections on bridging the gap. In: Misa T. et al (eds) Modernity and technology. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 73–104Google Scholar
  16. Fischer C.S. (1992) America calling: A social history of the telephone to 1940. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  17. Headrick D.R. (2000) When information came of age: Technologies of knowledge in the age of reason and revolution, 1700–1850. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Hecht G. (2002) Rupture-talk in the nuclear age: Conjugating colonial power in Africa. Social Studies of Science 32: 691–727Google Scholar
  19. Hobsbawm E.J. (1968) Industry and empire. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Ihde D. (2004) Has the philosophy of technology arrived? A state-of-the-art review. Philosophy of Science 71: 117–131. doi: 10.1086/381417 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Joerges B. (1999) Do politics have artefacts?. Social Studies of Science 29(3): 411–431. doi: 10.1177/030631299029003004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. John R.R. (1997) Elaborations, revisions, dissents: Alfred D. Chandler, Jr.’s The Visible Hand after twenty years. Business History Review 71: 151–200. doi: 10.2307/3116156 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Klein H., Kleinman D. (2002) The social construction of technology: Structural considerations. Science, Technology & Human Values 27: 28–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kline R.R. (2000) Consumers in the country: Technology and social change in rural America. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  25. 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, 37Google Scholar
  26. Kranakis E. (2005) Surveying technology and history: Essential tensions and postmodern possibilities. Technology and Culture 4: 805–812. doi: 10.1353/tech.2006.0022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Misa T.J. (1988) How machines make history, and how historians (and others) help them to do so. Science, Technology & Human Values 13: 308–331Google Scholar
  28. Misa T.J. (1994) Retrieving sociotechnical change from technological determinism. In: Smith M.R., Marx L. (eds) Does technology drive history?. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 115–141Google Scholar
  29. Misa T.J. (2004a) Leonardo to the Internet: Technology and culture from the renaissance to the present. Johns Hopkins University, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  30. Misa, T. J. (2004b). Beyond linear models: Science, technology, and processes of change. In K. Grandin, et al. (Eds.), The science–industry nexus: History, policy, implications (pp. 257–276). Science History/Watson Publishing.Google Scholar
  31. Mol A. (2002) The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Duke University Press, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  32. Nye D. (2006) Technology matters: Questions to live with. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Oudshoorn, N., Pinch, T. (eds) (2003) How users matter: The co-construction of users and technology. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Rip, A., Misa, T., Schot, J. (eds) (1995) Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment. Pinter, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Schot J. (2003) The contested rise of a modernist technology politics. In: Misa T. et al (eds) Modernity and technology. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 257–278Google Scholar
  36. Scranton P. (1997) Endless novelty: Specialty production and American industrialization, 1865–1925. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  37. Smith, M.R., Marx, L. (eds) (1994) Does technology drive history?. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. Staudenmaier J.M. (1990) Recent trends in the history of technology. The American Historical Review 95: 715–725. doi: 10.2307/2164278 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Usselman S.W. (2006) Still visible: Alfred D. Chandler’s The Visible Hand. Technology and Culture 47(3): 584–596. doi: 10.1353/tech.2006.0206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Verbeek P.-P. (2005) What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. Pennsylvania State University Press, State CollegeGoogle Scholar
  41. Vig, N.J., Paschen, H. (eds) (2000) Parliaments and technology: The development of technology assessment in Europe. State University of New York Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  42. Winner L. (1977) Autonomous technology: Technics-out-of-control as a theme in political thought. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. Winner L. (1980) Do artifacts have politics?. Daedalus 109(1): 121–136Google Scholar
  44. Winpenny T.R. (1979) Hard data on hard coal: Reflections on Chandler’s anthracite thesis. Business History Review 53: 247–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Winpenny T.R. (1984) Industrial progress and human welfare: The rise of the factory system in nineteenth century Lancaster. University Press of America, Lanham, MDGoogle Scholar
  46. Woolgar S., Cooper G. (1999) Do artefacts have ambivalence? Moses’ bridges, Winner’s bridges and other urban legends in S &TS. Social Studies of Science 29(3): 433–449. doi: 10.1177/030631299029003005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yates J. (2006) How business enterprises use technology: Extending the demand-side turn. Enterprise and Society 7(3): 422–455. doi: 10.1093/es/khl004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations