| Chapter 1: | Converting Consumers: The Conceptual Dependence of Controversial Artifacts |
|
|
This is a limited free preview of this book. Please buy full access.
Bijker, however, in his theory on “technological frames” points to the difficulty of establishing a tight one-to-one correspondence between social groups and shared meanings.
Bijker argues that in some instances a meaning proposed by one social group is shared by another. Furthermore, one relevant social group may work with various artifacts simultaneously and interpret each of them in the same way. Hence, meanings and social groupings may not be tightly coupled. For instance, social categories may overlap empirically but differ analytically.19 Celluloid20 engineers, for example, may work with a variety of artifacts, each of which they, as a group, interpret differently.21 Conversely, Bijker also argues, relevant social groups may overlap analytically but remain empirically separate. Again in the case of celluloid, chemists, molders, and pressing-machine designers all represent different sociological categories but share the same analytical frame with regard to celluloid.22 In this case, people from different occupational groupings interpret a particular artifact in the same way.
In the context of newly emerging artifacts, then, how does a SCOT analyst assign a specific meaning to a specific relevant social group without introducing inconsistencies and overlaps? SCOT criteria are rather straightforward: groupings should revolve around shared meanings of a particular artifact. In practice, however, traditional sociological categories such as gender, age, occupation, economic status, and geographic location tend to be used as organizing categories in grouping members. In an environment of artifacts emerging simultaneously, finding a reliable method to sort people into different relevant social groupings associated with different interpretations becomes a daunting task. Changes in mind-set toward an artifact while it is in development introduce another complication in groupings.
Bijker proposes a theoretical framework that breaks the neat classificatory scheme found in SCOT. “The two sides of analysis,” he states, “social groups and technical artifacts,” must be folded into “aspects of one world.”23 Theoretical concepts, according to Bijker, should be “as heterogeneous as the actors’ activities.”24