Week 4

Law, John. 2017. “STS as Method.” In Felt, Ulrike, et al., eds., The Handbook of Science and
Technology Studies, 4th Edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

(1) Write up a paragraph or two (no more!) on (i) the review by Law; and (ii) the lit review
sections of the sample proposals. For Law, please focus on the intellectual insights, while also
paying attention to how he structures his extended literature reviews. Start connecting insights
and arguments of the reading with your project, wherever possible. For a sample proposal, please
write up on something notable you've learned about the literature review, any weaknesses you
find, and/or how it may inform your review. Please address all five pieces.
(2) Draft lit review of 800-1,000 words: Please (i) write up your *current* research questions, and
(ii) review a total of at least 4 pieces of academic writing, including 1 class reading. This shouldn't
be a list of summaries; it should *start* looking like a review organized around your research
questions. Please refer to the prompt for mid-term.

(ii) Reagan – Disability & Art: Effectively connects STS and disability studies, particularly the
politics of classification. Could engage more with intersectional perspectives. Useful if your
project deals with contested categories or boundary-making.
Hannah – Countercultural Immersive Art: Engages with STS theories of technocratic authority
and socio-technical imaginaries but could expand on critiques of digital art commodification.
Relevant if your project explores technology, culture, and control.
Isabella – Controversial Diagnoses: Strong critique of medical classification politics and
legitimacy but could integrate more on patient activism. Valuable for projects on scientific
authority or contested expertise.
Hana – Techno-Orientalism: Well-grounded in STS discussions on race and technology but could
include counter-narratives. A good model for projects linking technological imaginaries with
cultural representation.
Bella – E-Waste & Planned Obsolescence: Strong materialist analysis linking environmental
justice and technology, though it could engage more with infrastructure studies. Useful for
research on sustainability and global tech flows.

Week Three
Part One: Star and Bowker's chapter on apartheid-era systems of racial classification highlighted
how these categories are not neutral, but rather capable of creating a set of profound social and
material consequences. Their discussion centers around a concept called “infrastructural
inversion”, which reveals the naturalization and entrenchment of classification systems (such as
South Africa's racial categories) over time, shrouding their discriminatory effects in the procss.
The notion that classification systems remain rigidly institutionalized despite frequent and robust
criticism was something that particularly stuck with me. One question that arises is: how can
classification systems be restructured without perpetuating the same hierarchies they were built
upon? If systems were to be restructured, how could we ensure avoidance of the current system’s
flaws?

Rajagopalan et al.'s discussion of race and science contextualizes the evolution of racial categories
within scientific discourse. The reading provides a compelling critique of race-based medicine,
which has continued to perpetuate racial essentialism despite advances in genomics that render
racial essentialism comparatively ineffective. The tension between biological determinism and
socially constructed notions of race resonates with Star and Bowker's work, and reinforces the
idea that categories shape, rather than simply reflect, reality. For me, this piece raised critical
ethical concerns about the reification of racial categories in modern genetics.

MacKenzie, Muniesa, and Siu's introduction to the performativity of economics offered a

refreshing perspective on the capacity for economic theories to actively shape – rather than
simply describe – markets. Their analysis of Jeffrey Sachs' intervention in Bolivia exemplified the
strong potential influence of economic models policy decisions, often with spinoff social
consequences as well. For me, this reading prompted reflection on the role of technocrats and the
extent to which their models account for the lived realities of affected populations.

Gieryn's work on boundary-making in science expanded on these themes by illustrating how

scientific disciplines demarcate themselves from “non-science” to maintain credibility and
authority. His case studies, like the evolution vs. creationism debate, underscored the fluidity of
scientific boundaries and the strategic efforts taken to sustain them. This discussion seems
particularly relevant in the modern era, where science is becoming increasingly politicized and
boundary work is employed to delineate "legitimate" scientific knowledge from alternative
perspectives, such as in the “epidemic” of misinformation and disinformation in online
communities.

Collectively, this week’s readings seemed to once again challenge the notion of objectivity in
various domains and tasks: classification tasks, economics, medicine, science in general, while also
reemphasizing the socially constructed and politically charged nature of these systems. The
readings raised important questions about how classification and boundary-making processes can
be reimagined, which I am excited to discuss hopefully further with the class.

Part Two:

Tentative Research Questions:

-​ How can the centralization of nuclear permitting codes improve regulatory efficiency and
innovation in the nuclear energy sector?
 -​ What role do private-public partnerships play in facilitating collaborative innovation for
nuclear regulatory frameworks?
-​ How do technological advancements impact the standardization and enforcement of
nuclear safety regulations?
-​ Frontrunner: To what extent can the creation of a centralized nuclear codes database
accelerate the deployment of small modular reactors? Can this process set a precedent for
collaborative innovation and regulation in America?

Academic Sources

1.​ Semantic Integration & Single-Site Opening of Multiple Governmental Data Sources –
Konstantinos Kotis
○​ This study presents the S3-AI approach, which enables the integration of disparate
governmental datasets without physically centralizing them. The use of
ontology-driven frameworks allows for federated queries while maintaining data
autonomy. Key takeaways relevant to my research include the potential for
integrating nuclear regulatory data in a decentralized yet cohesive manner,
ensuring interoperability while addressing stakeholder concerns over data
ownership and security.
2.​ Stuck in the Mud – George K. Beard
○​ Beard’s analysis of bureaucratic inertia and the challenges governments face in
fostering innovation provides insights into the institutional resistance that might
hinder the centralization of nuclear permitting codes. His strategies for overcoming
such resistance—such as leadership commitment, innovation incubators, and
procurement reform—offer practical approaches that could inform policy
recommendations for streamlining nuclear regulatory processes.
3.​ Time to Track Cross-Sector Collaboration: Digital Prescriptions for Governing Fragmented
Governments – Khadijeh Roya Rouzbehani
○​ This paper explores the barriers to collaboration among public agencies and
proposes digital tools to facilitate integration. The study's framework, which
emphasizes overcoming communication, cognitive, and power barriers, is
particularly useful in considering how nuclear regulatory bodies can enhance
cross-agency collaboration and stakeholder engagement through digital platforms.

Relevance of Researchto My Research Questions: These sources span a few of the “petals” of my
preliminary exploration/research into my topic. Specifically, I wanted to know more about past
Database Centralization Efforts & Impacts (Kotis article), Contemporary Adversity to Innovation
in Government (Beard article) and the interplay between Government, Technocracy, and the
Public (Rouzhehani article), and overal address a little bit of both the technical and sociopolitical
aspects of the issue. The S3-AI approach presents a potential technical framework for integration
without compromising data autonomy. Beard’s work highlights the cultural and structural
challenges within regulatory agencies that need to be addressed for successful implementation.
Rouzbehani’s research underscores the importance of digital tools in fostering collaboration
across fragmented governmental structures.

1/23/25
Bowker, Geoffrey, and Susan Leigh Star. 2000.Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its
Consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ch. 6. “The Case of Race Classification and
Reclassification Under Apartheid.”

Chapter 6, The Case of Race Classification and Reclassification Under Apartheid” examines the role of
classification systems in shaping and enforcing social structures, focusing on how categories can
both reflect and reinforce divisions within society. Star and Bowker argue that classification
systems, such as those used in bureaucratic, scientific, and technological contexts, have material
effects on people's lives and identities. They introduce the concept of "infrastructural inversion,"
which seeks to reveal the often-hidden work that goes into maintaining these classification
systems. Chapter 6 provides a detailed analysis of how classification systems were not only tools
of oppression but also deeply intertwined with the lived realities of individuals under apartheid. It
underscores the broader theme of the book—how classification systems have real-world
consequences and how they shape social hierarchies and individual identities.

Key themes discussed in the book overall include:

1.​ Classification and Power Dynamics: The authors explore how classification systems
contribute to social stratification, often embedding existing biases and reinforcing
historical inequities. They illustrate this through the example of apartheid in South Africa,
where racial classifications were institutionalized to maintain systemic segregation.
2.​ Infrastructure as Invisible: A central argument is that the infrastructure of classification
tends to become invisible over time, making it difficult to challenge or change. Once
classifications are deeply embedded in institutional processes, they become taken for
granted.
3.​ Marginalization through Categorization: Star and Bowker highlight how classification
systems often fail to capture the complexities of individual identities, leading to the
marginalization of groups that do not fit neatly within predefined categories.
4.​ Ethics of Classification: The authors emphasize the ethical responsibilities associated with
designing and implementing classification systems, calling for greater reflexivity and
inclusivity to avoid perpetuating social injustices.
5.​ Tension between Flexibility and Rigidity: They discuss how classification systems must
balance flexibility to accommodate diversity with the need for standardization to enable
large-scale organization and governance.

Chapter 6 Case Studies:

1.​ Population Registration Act (1950):

 ○​ The chapter discusses how this legislation served as the foundation for the
apartheid government's racial classification system. It required every South African
to be classified into one of several racial categories (White, Black, Coloured,
Indian), which determined their rights and access to resources.
○​ The act's implementation involved extensive bureaucratic processes, including
issuing identity documents based on racial classifications.
2.​ Reclassification Cases:
○​ Star and Bowker explore individual cases where people applied for or were
subjected to racial reclassification. They discuss how individuals and families
sought reclassification to access better opportunities, illustrating the arbitrary and
often absurd criteria used by officials (e.g., hair texture tests, language proficiency,
and social associations).
○​ These cases highlight how classification systems could be contested and
manipulated but ultimately reinforced apartheid’s oppressive structure.
3.​ The Pencil Test:
○​ A notorious method used to classify individuals based on their hair texture.
Officials would place a pencil in a person’s hair; if it fell out, they could be classified
as "White" or "Coloured," but if it stayed, they would be classified as "Black."
○​ This crude method exemplifies the pseudoscientific and arbitrary nature of the
apartheid-era racial classifications.
4.​ Pass Laws and Bureaucratic Control:
○​ The authors analyze how racial classification intersected with the pass laws, which
controlled movement and employment opportunities for non-White South
Africans. They detail how people classified as "Black" were subjected to severe
restrictions, requiring permits to enter certain areas.
5.​ Social and Economic Consequences:
○​ The chapter highlights the long-lasting economic disparities created by the racial
classification system, showing how it determined access to education, jobs,
housing, and even basic human rights.
○​ They include examples of how families were split apart when members were
classified under different racial categories.
6.​ Resistance and Subversion:
○​ The authors touch on acts of resistance, where individuals and communities
challenged the classification system through legal means or strategic
self-presentation to avoid the most restrictive categories.

Rajagopalan, Ramya, et al. 2017. “Race and Science in the Twenty-First Century.” In Felt, Ulrike,
et al., eds., The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. 4th Edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.

Historical Context of Race in Science:

-​ The concept of race has been historically constructed and legitimized through scientific
practices, often reinforcing social hierarchies and justifying inequality.
-​ Early scientific racism used morphological and genetic classifications to rank races
hierarchically, with white Europeans positioned at the top.
-​ The eugenics movement and pseudoscientific studies in the 19th and 20th centuries fueled
discrimination and policies such as forced sterilizations and segregation.

Race and Genetics in Contemporary Science:

-​ Advances in genetics, particularly in the post-Human Genome Project era, have rekindled
debates on race, with some studies continuing to use race as a biological category.
-​ Genomic technologies such as SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) and GWAS
(genome-wide association studies) have been used to map human genetic variation, often
reinforcing racial categories.
-​ Projects like the Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) and the HapMap study have
been critiqued for their potential to reify racial categories under the guise of studying
genetic diversity.

Social and Ethical Implications:

-​ The resurgence of racial categories in genetics has raised ethical concerns, particularly
regarding health disparities and the reinforcement of stereotypes.
-​ Race-based medicine, such as the FDA-approved drug BiDil for African Americans, has
been criticized for lacking sufficient scientific basis and for reinforcing racial essentialism
in healthcare.
-​ Direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies have commercialized genetic ancestry,
influencing personal and collective identities while raising concerns about privacy and data
misuse.

Sociopolitical Dimensions of Race in Science:

-​ Race has been used as a tool of governance and policy-making, including in forensic science
and immigration policies.
-​ DNA forensic techniques have been employed in criminal investigations, leading to
concerns about racial profiling and discrimination.
-​ Scientific findings related to race have been mobilized in political projects, with some
nations using genomics to assert national identity and sovereignty.

The Role of Science and Technology Studies (STS):

-​ The document emphasizes the need for critical STS perspectives to interrogate the
construction of race in scientific knowledge production.
-​ It calls for a reflexive and interventionist approach in STS to challenge biological
determinism and advocate for more nuanced understandings of human diversity.
-​ The work of scholars like Donna Haraway and Troy Duster is highlighted in advocating for
the recognition of social factors in scientific research on race.

1/21/25
Mackenzie, Donald, Fabian Muniesa, and Lucia Siu. 2007. “Introduction.” In Do
Economists Make Markets?: On the Performativity of Economics. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press. pp. 1-16.
-​ Introduces the concept of performativity in economics, which challenges the
traditional notion that economics merely describes markets; instead, it argues that
economics actively shapes and constructs them.
-​ The authors frame their analysis through case studies, such as Jeffrey Sachs'
economic interventions in Bolivia, to illustrate how economic theories, models, and
tools influence and even create market realities.
-​ Drawing on J.L. Austin’s speech act theory, they explore how economic statements
and models do not just represent economic phenomena but actively bring them
into existence through social, institutional, and technical means.
-​ In the context of Analytical Frameworks and Reviewing Literature, the reading
demonstrates how interdisciplinary approaches—combining sociology, philosophy,
and economic history—offer a comprehensive analytical framework for studying
the influence of economics beyond academia.
-​ It reviews existing debates on whether economics is a descriptive or prescriptive
force and provides a synthesis of theories such as Actor-Network Theory and the
sociology of science to examine how economic ideas circulate and take effect in the
real world.

Notable Case Study: The Bolivian Hyperinflation Crisis and Jeffrey Sachs' Intervention

-​ One of the most striking case studies discussed in the introduction is Jeffrey Sachs'
intervention in Bolivia's hyperinflation crisis in 1986. Sachs, a Harvard economist,
was brought in to provide policy recommendations to combat the country's
extreme inflation. His approach was rooted in mainstream monetary theory, which
dictated that controlling the money supply would stabilize the economy. Despite
having little understanding of Bolivia’s cultural and geographical context, Sachs'
policies were implemented, and hyperinflation was eventually curbed.
-​ This case exemplifies the book’s core argument about the performativity of
economics, showing how economic theories are not merely descriptive but actively
shape economic realities. Sachs’ recommendations, grounded in abstract economic
models, were performed into reality through policy implementation, which in turn
influenced the lived economic experience of Bolivians.

Additional Case Study: The Strawberry Auction in Fontaines-en-Sologne

-​ This case, explored in-depth in a later chapter by Marie-France Garcia-Parpet,

presents an example of how economic principles were deliberately enacted in the
 creation of a market structure. A computerized auction system was implemented in
a small French village to achieve a textbook-like "perfect market" with transparent
prices and competitive behavior. The market’s physical and procedural design
incorporated economic theory, shaping the interactions of buyers and sellers in a
way that mirrored theoretical models of supply and demand.

Key takeaway: This reading highlights the necessity of critically evaluating the role of
theoretical frameworks in shaping empirical reality, emphasizing the importance of
recognizing the interplay between theory and practice in economic scholarship.

Gieryn, Thomas. 1995. “The Boundaries of Science.” In Jasanoff, Sheila, et al., eds.,Handbook of
Science and Technology Studies. 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

-​ Gieryn’s work focuses on the sociological analysis of boundary work—the processes

by which scientific disciplines demarcate themselves from non-science or other
competing forms of knowledge.
-​ He argues that these boundaries are not fixed but socially constructed and
maintained through rhetorical strategies and institutional practices.
-​ The chapter examines historical and contemporary cases where scientific
communities have drawn boundaries to establish credibility, authority, and
legitimacy, often in response to external pressures or challenges from competing
epistemologies.
-​ In relation to Analytical Frameworks and Reviewing Literature, Gieryn’s approach
provides an essential methodological lens for analyzing how disciplines evolve and
defend their intellectual territories.
-​ It emphasizes the importance of understanding the socio-political and
cultural contexts in which scientific knowledge is produced and legitimized.
The reading serves as a guide to critically assess literature across disciplines
by highlighting the implicit power structures and strategic delineations that
shape academic discourse.

4 Principles

1.​ Communism
2.​ Universalism
3.​ Disinterestedness
4.​ Orginized Skepticism: Critical evaluation of all claims

Falsifiability → Claims must be refutable

Science Boundaries are shaped by: Consensus on paradigms, Profesionalization
establishing science as a distinct field

Notable Case Study: The Demarcation of Science vs. Non-Science in the Case of Creationism vs.
Evolution

-​ A key case study Gieryn presents involves the longstanding debate between
evolutionary biology and creationism in the United States. The scientific
community has consistently sought to establish boundaries between legitimate
science (evolutionary biology) and pseudoscience (creationism) through rhetorical
strategies and institutional mechanisms such as court rulings, public education
policies, and peer-reviewed publications.
-​ Gieryn examines how scientists argue for the empirical rigor and methodological
validity of evolutionary theory while simultaneously delegitimizing creationist
perspectives as lacking scientific merit. He highlights the strategies used to protect
the epistemic authority of science, including appeals to empirical evidence,
falsifiability, and methodological consistency

Additional Case Study: The Professionalization of Science in the 19th Century

-​ Gieryn discusses how, during the 19th century, scientific institutions such as the
Royal Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS) worked to establish the credibility of science as a distinct professional
discipline. This involved defining norms, creating specialized publications, and
differentiating scientific work from amateur or speculative knowledge.

Key takeaway: Gieryn’s work underscores the role of critical reflection in literature
review, encouraging scholars to be aware of the social dynamics that influence what is
considered legitimate knowledge within their fields.

Week Two
1/16/25
Wynne, Brian. 1989. “Sheepfarming after Chernobyl: A Case Study in Communicating
Scientific Information.” Environment: 31(2)
TLDR: Explores the challenges of communicating scientific information to non-scientific
audiences, particularly within the context of the aftermath of the Chernobyl nuclear
disaster and its effects on sheep farming
Chernobyl’s Impact on Agriculture:
 -​ Radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl disaster caused contamination in livestock,
notably sheep, in affected regions.
-​ Farmers experienced significant disruptions to their livelihoods due to imposed
restrictions on livestock sales and farming practices
Science-Communication Gap:
-​ A disconnect existed between scientists and the farming community. Scientists
provided technical guidelines, but these often failed to account for the practical
realities faced by farmers
-​ The language and framing of scientific advice were often inaccessible or deemed
dismissive of farmers’ concerns
Trust and Authority
-​ Farmers questioned the credibility of scientific advice and government policies,
particularly when guidance changed over time without adequate explanation
-​ There was a perception that experts lacked understanding of local agricultural
practices, further eroding trust
Cultural and Social Contexts:
-​ Scientific communication neglected the socio-cultural dynamics of rural
communities
-​ Farmers relied heavily on local knowledge and community networks, which
sometimes contradicted official advice.
Policy Impolications:
-​ The case underscores the importance of integrating local knowledge and
experiences into scientific and policy frameworks.
-​ Effective communication requires transparency, consistence, and an apprecion of
the audience’s context
Lessons for Future Cases:
-​ The study highlights the need fof participatory approaches in crisis management
-​ It advocates for more inclus between experts and affected populations to foster
mutual understanding and effective solutions.

Sato, Kyoko. 2023. “Reflexivity, Democracy and Public Engagement with Technoscience:
Revisiting Science and Technology Studies.” In Bauer, Martin, and Bernard Schiele, eds.
Science Communication: Taking a Step Back to Move Forward. CNRS Editions.
TLDR: Explores the transition from a “deficit model” of science communication to a dialogic
and participatory approach. Below are the key points:
Deficit Model → Historically, science communication focused on educating the public to
“fill knowledge gaps,” assuming ignorance as the primary barrier to public understanding
Dialogic Approach → Science and Technology Studies (STS) emphasizes the importance of
two-way dialogue, integrating public perspectives into technoscientific governance for
democratic and substantive decision-making
Democratic Governance of Technoscience
-​ STS Insights:
-​ Science and technology are socially constructed and shape societal values
and practices
-​ Decision-making about technoscience should be open to public scrutiny,
given its profound societal implications
-​ Benefits of Public Engagement:
-​ Builds mutual trust and legitimacy
-​ Incorporates diverse, meaningful knowledge and perspectives, leading to
better decisions
Challenges in Engagement
-​ Persistent deficit-model assumptions often undermine dialogic efforts
-​ Political, cultural, and contextual differences influence public engagement
-​ Practical constrains, including time, resources, and preconceived notions of “the
public,” complicate meaningful participation
Case Studies
-​ Covid-19 Governance (Comparative Study)
-​ Findings: Pandemic responses varied significantly across political and
cultural contexts
-​ In Japan, public compliance with government guidance was high, rooted in
collectivist ethos, but dissent and public dialogue were limited.
-​ The U.S. saw more polarized responses, with greater public assertion of
individual rights
-​ Nuclear Governance (Fukushima and Hiroshima)
-​ Short-Term Engagement: U.S. National Academics engaged with
radiation-affected communities briefly but failed to integrate their input
substantively
-​ Sustained Collaboration: Decades-long collaboration with Hiroshima
survivors led to groundbreaking legal recognition of internal radiation
exposure, challenging dominant scientific frameworks
Lessons and Opportunities
Reflexivity and Co-Production → STS promotes the idea that science and society are
co-produced; public input can reshape technoscientific narratives and policies
Building Democratic Capacities →
-​ Engagement fosters scientific citizenship, empower partifipates to shape the
sociotechnical future
 -​ Examples like Hiroshima lawsuit demonstrate the potential for justice and
transformative governance through sustained dialogue.
Conclusion
-​ Effective public engagement aligns technoscience with public needs while
revitalizing democracy
-​ Reflexibve, participatory approaches enable mutual learning, trust-building, and
the co-creation of socially relevant technoscience

Luker, Kristin. 2008. Salsa Dancing into the Social Sciences: Research in an Age of
Info-Glut. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ch.4: What Is This a Case of,
Anyway?
Differentiating Research Interests from Research Questions
-​ A research interest is broad and exploratory, while a research question is specific,
testable, and connected to a scholarly dialogue
-​ A true research question:
1.​ Proposes relationships between concepts
2.​ Explains something important about social life
3.​ Allows for empirically testable answers
4.​ Contributes to an ongoing intellectual conversation
Importance of Framing
-​ Framing is crucial for connecting your research to broader conversations in your
field.
-​ A well-framed question can align you interest with existing academic discussions,
making your work more accessible and relevant to peers
Challenges in Traditional Sociology
-​ Canonical social science often emphasizes pre-defined variables and hypothesis
testing, which stifle creativity in exploratory research
-​ Salsa-dancing social scientists advocate for iterative processes of discovery, where
research questions emerge over time
Iterative Research Process
-​ Research is not linear; it requires revisiting questions, concepts, and methods
repeatedly
-​ Engaging with literature, theory, and field observations helps refine questions and
uncover new insights
Research as a dialogue
-​ Successful research integrates your interests with the broader scholarly
community
-​ Identify the intellectual “cocktail party” your research belongs to and find ways to
join the conversation gracefully
Navigating Academic Publishing
-​ For journal articles:
-​ Study the framing and focus of your target journals
-​ Align your research question with the journal’s scope and audience
-​ For books or broader projects:
-​ Explore framing techniques used in influential works in your field
-​ Books offer more flexibility to explore and frame questions
Avoiding Pitfalls
-​ Avoid the “Damnation of the Ten Thousand Index Cards,” where lack of focus leads
to overwhelming data without direction
-​ Resist forcing your research into canonical molds if they don’t fit; embrace
exploratory methods when necessary
Practical Steps for Refinement
-​ Regularly ask: what is being explained? What explains it?
-​ Engage in exercises to define your intellectual “frame” and identify how your work
contributes to broader discussions
-​ Use trial and error to refine your question, embracing feedback from journals,
mentors, and peers
The Power of Discovery
-​ Salsa-dancing social science emphasizes curiosity, flexibility, and the joy of
discovery
-​ The iterative process allows for more creative, impactful research that aligns with
both personal interests and scholarly contributions

1/14/25
[Elie] Joly, Pierre-Benoit. 2019. “Reimagining Innovation.” In Lechevalier, Sébastien, ed.,
Innovation beyond technology: Science for Society and Interdisciplinary Approaches.
Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
Critique of Innovation Myths
-​ Joly challenges five entrenched myths that shape the dominant “sociotechnical
imaginary” of innovation
-​ 1) Trickle-Down Innovation: Assumes that innovation-driven economic
growth benefits everyone. Joly argues this ignores inequality and
environmental sustainability
-​ 2) Linear Model of Innovation: Frames innovation as a sequential process
from research to market. Joly critiques this as overly simplistic and
disconnected from real-world complexity
 -​ 3) Technology-Driven Innovation: Suggests innovation is synonymous with
technological breakthroughs, overshadowing non-technical or incremental
improvements.
-​ 4) Best Technology Always Wins: Challenges the assumption that markets
naturally select superior technologies, noting path dependency and lock-in
effects
-​ 5) Innovation as Creative Destruction: Questions the idea that innovation
is inherently beneficial, highlighting cases of “destructive creation” liked
planned obsolescence
Reimagining Innovation
-​ Advocates for a broader, multidimensional view of innovation that integrates
values like sustainability, equity, and community empowerment
-​ Calls for a balance between novelty and continuity, emphasizing mainenance,
repair, and incremental improvements
Alternative Innovation Frameworks
-​ Democratizing Innovation: Focuses on user-driven and cmmunity-based
approaches, emphasizing inclusivity and collective agency
-​ Responsible Innovation (RRI): Aligns innovation with societal values and ethical
considerations through inclusive, reflexive governance
-​ Transformative Change: Seeks systemic transitions to address grand challences
(e.g., climate change), integrating technological and social dimensions
Planned Obsolescence
-​ Apple’s throttling of older iPhones highlights how innovation can prioritize
short-term economic gains over sustainability, embodying the critique of
“descructive creation” and challenging the myth that innovation is always good
GMOs and Geoengineering
-​ Genetically Modified Organisms are marketed as solutions to food insecurity, while
geoengineering is proposed as a fix for climate change
-​ Both examples illustrate the “technological fix” mindset embedded in the
myth of trickle-down innovation. These solutions avoid addressing root
causes like consumption patterns or resource inequality
Green Revolution in India
-​ Joly critiques the dominant narrative that the Green Revolution’s success was
driven by high-yielding crop varieties (HVYs). Research shows that small-scale
irrigation systems, no Nehru’s big dams, played a larger role. This challenges the
myth of technology-driven innovation and emphasizes the importance of
incremental improvements and local practices
QWERTY Keyboard and Light Water Reactors
 -​ The QWERTY keyboard remains dominant despite alternatives being more
efficient. Similarly, light water reactors were adopted widely over potentially
better technologies due to historical path dependencies
-​ Undermines the myth that markets alwasys select the “best” technology,
emphasizing how lock-in effects shape innovation trajectories
Distributed Innovation and Open Source Software
-​ Open Source Software (e.g. LInux, 3D Printing with RepRap) demonstrates how
communtiies can co-creat and share technologies, challenging centralized
innovation models
-​ Supports the case for “democratizing innovation” by showing how collective,
user-driven efforts foster diverse and inclusive innovation pathways
Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) In Europe
-​ European Commission’s RRI framework incorporates societal actors to align
innovation with societal values and needs
-​ Provides a practical example of institutional efforts to integrate ethics,
reflexivity, and inclusivity into innovation governance
Transformative Change
-​ Socio-tecnical transitions in energy, mobility, and agriculture are used to illustrate
the need for systemic transformations to address grand challenges like climate
change
-​ Highlights the limitations of incremental change and the importance of
integrating social and technological dimensions for meaningful innovation
France’s Anti-Obsolesence Law
-​ The French law against planned obsolescence criminalizes practices that
deliberately shorten product lifespans, such as forcing premature replacements
-​ Demonstrates a policy-level response to counteract “destructive creation”
and promote sustainability

RRI (Responsible Research and Innovation), as described in Pierre-Benoît Joly’s

framework, is an approach to innovation that aims to align research and technological
development with societal needs, ethical values, and public expectations. It emphasizes
inclusivity, reflexivity, and anticipation to ensure that innovation serves the greater public
good. Key elements include:

1.​ Inclusivity:
○​ Engaging a wide range of stakeholders—scientists, policymakers, industry
leaders, and the public—in the innovation process.
○​ Ensuring diverse perspectives and voices are incorporated into
decision-making.
 2.​ Reflexivity:
○​ Encouraging researchers and innovators to critically examine their
assumptions, values, and potential impacts of their work.
○​ Promoting self-awareness within scientific and technological development.
3.​ Anticipation:
○​ Identifying potential risks, unintended consequences, and long-term
societal impacts of innovations early in the process.
○​ Proactively addressing these challenges rather than reacting to them after
they occur.
4.​ Responsiveness:
○​ Ensuring that research and innovation processes can adapt to changing
societal needs and ethical concerns.
○​ Promoting flexibility in governance and decision-making.

Purpose: RRI seeks to bridge the gap between innovation and social responsibility,
ensuring that advancements in science and technology contribute to equity, sustainability,
and societal well-being, rather than merely serving economic or political interests. It
represents a shift from traditional "top-down" innovation approaches to more
participatory and ethical frameworks.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
-​ Is there a way to make sustainability and equity into economically advantageous
qualities for innovators? (i.e. the creation of a more sustainable or equitable
product adds to the economic competitiveness of the product or the company)

Jasanoff, Sheila. 2016. “The Power of Technology.” The Ethics of Invention: Technology and
the Human Future. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. pp. 1-30.
Transformative Power of Technology
-​ Technology reshapes human lives
-​ convenience, connectivity, improvements in health, productivity, and
longevity
-​ Redefinition of societal norms, personal identity, human interactions
-​ Ethical questions are necessarily raised about governance/impact of these
technological systems
Three Key Challenges (pgs 4-6)
-​ Risk → Technological advances bring existential and environmental risks, including
pandemics and climate change (unintended consequaesnces often go unchecked)
 -​ Inequality → Benefits of technology are unevenly distributed, exacerbating existing
disparities in health, wealth, and accesss
-​ Human Nature → Technologies alter fundamental aspects of human existence,
potentially compromising dignity and natural ways of life
Technological Governance
-​ Technology functions as a form of governance akin to laws, shaping behavior and
societal structures
-​ It challenges traditional democratic oversight because decisions about
technological design and deployment often exclude public scrutiny
Critique of Conventional Wisdom
-​ Technological Determinism → Rejects the notion that technology’s trajectory is
inevitable; human values influence design and use
-​ Technocracy → Argues against the exclusive reliance on experts, emphasizing the
need for public engagement and transparency
-​ Unintended Consequences → Highlights the need to anticipate and address
potential harms rather than attributing failures to unforeseeable events
Democratic Control and Responsibility
-​ Advocates for reclaiming human agency in shaping technological futures through
informed governance and public participation
-​ Proposes a framework for addressing risks, inequalities, and ethical dilemmas in a
globally interconnected world
Traffic Light Example:
-​ Personal experience at a Cambridge intersection highlights technology as
governance and raises questions about invisible political decisions (pp. 10-12)
Antennagate (Apple iPhone 4): The 2010 iPhone antenna issue illustrates “unintended
consequences” and human accountability in design (pp. 22-23)
Hans Monderman’s Shared Space: Removing traffic controls fosters mutual respect
among users, challenging deterministic assumptions (pp. 16-17)
Nuclear Power in Germany vs France: Differences in nuclear policies emphasize cultural
and political factors in governance (pp. 26-27)
Evolution of Traffic Laws: Shift from pedestrian equality to prioritize cars underscores
societal adaptation to technology (p. 16)
Development of the Atomic Bomb: Highlights how politics shapes technological
applications, rejecting determinism
Critique of Technological Determinism: Refutes determinism using the Arab uprisings,
showing technology amplifies existing social movements (p. 18)
Technocracy’s Limitations: Examples like NASA’s Challenger disaster show technocrats’
fallibility and the need for democratic oversight (pp. 20-21)
Responsibility for Risk: Questions who bears responsibility for risk, connecting
governance and ethical foresight (pp. 7-8).
Unintended Consequences: Explores how technologies acquire unforseen uses over time,
as with texting-related train accidents (pp. 24-25).

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1)​ Are there examples of technology successfully addressing societal inequalities?
How were they developed and deployed? What lessons can be drawn from these
cases?

Week One
1/9/25
Winner, Langdon. 1986. “Do Artifacts Have Politics.”
-​ “In controversies about technology and society, there is no idea more provocative
than the notion that technical things have political qualities”
-​ Side-by-side technologies (authoritarian vs democratic)
-​ Technology as a democratizing, liberating force
-​ “Scarcely a new invention comes along that someone does not porcelain it the
salvation of a free society”
-​ Argument: “that certain technologies in themselves have political properties.”
-​ Social determination of technology → “What matters is not technology itself, but the
social or economic system in which it is embedded.”
-​ Re: mutual shaping
-​ “Rather than insist that we immediately reduce everything to the interplay of social
forces, it suggests that we pay attention to the characteristics of technical objects
and the meaning of those characteristics.”
-​ Two ways in which artifacts can contain political properties:
-​ (1) Instances in which the invention, design, or arrangement of a specific
technical device or system becomes a way of settling an issue in a particular
community.
-​ (2) cases of “inherently political technologies”, man-made systems that
appear to require, or to be strongly compatible with, particular kinds of
political relationships.
-​ For the purposes of this essay, “technology” is all modern practical artifice,
“technologies” are smaller or larger pieces or systems of hardware of a specific kind
Technical Arrangement as Forms of Order
-​ Deliberate design of Long Island low-hanging overpasses → to achieve the social
effect of discouraging presence of busses (social-class bias/racial prejudice)
 -​ Pneumatic molding machines (reaper manufacturing plant in Chicago) weeded out
skilled workers who had organized union in Chicago → managed to destroy the
union
-​ “To our accustomed way of thinking, technologies are seen as neutral tools that can
be used well or poorly, for good, evil, or something in between. But we usually do
not stop to inquire whether a given device might have been designed and built in
such a way that it produces a set of consequences logically and temporally prior to
any of its professed uses.”
-​ Not all examples are necessarily conspiratorial – some (like inaccessible urban
planning) are more likely products of neglect, but politically consequential
nonetheless.
-​ “There are instances in which the very process of technical development is so
thoroughly biased in a particular direction that it regularly produces results
counted as wonderful breakthroughs by some social interests and crushing
setbacks by others.”
-​ Mechanical tomato harvester → handpicking replaced with industrialized
production (reduces cost by five to seventeen dollars per ton, but benefits are
confined to the agricultural economy – and large players as opposed to small farms)
-​ “Yes” or “no” choice versus specific features in design/arrangement of a technical
system
-​ “The things we call ‘technologies’ are ways of building order in our world.”
-​ “By far the greatest latitude of choice exists the very first time a particular
instrument, system, or technique is introduced” → “original flexibility vanishes for
all practical purposes once the initial commitments are made”
-​ “The issues that divide or unite people in society are settled not only in the
institutions and practices of politics proper, but also, and less obviously, in tangible
arrangements of steel and concrete, wires and transistors, nuts and bolts.”
Inherently Political Technologies
-​ “Some technologies are by their very nature political in a specific way… the
adoption of a given technical system unavoidably brings with it conditions for
human relationships that have a distinctive political cast – for example, centralized
or decentralized, egalitarian or inegalitarian, repressive or liberating.”
-​ Aforementioned examples had some degree of flexibility, the following are fixed:
-​ “Will authority have disappeared or will it have only changed its form?” (Friedrich
Engel)
-​ cotton -spinning mills, railways, and ships at sea
-​ “The automatic machinery of a big factory is much more despotic than the small
capitalists who employ workers ever have been.”
-​ “What does modern technology make possible or necessary in political life?”
 -​ “If you accept nuclear power plants, you also accept a
techno-scientific-industrial-military elite. Without these people in charge, you
could not have nuclear power.”
-​ Second version of the argument: a given kind of technology is compatible with, but
does not strictly require, social and political relationships of a particular type.

-​
-​ One attempt to salvage the autonomy of politics from the bind of practical
necessity: “democracy stops at the factory gates” → belief that arrangements of
power within industrial corporations, etc. have little bearing on public institutions,
etc.
-​ Vivid contemporary example: nuclear power. Uranium running out → recycling
plutonium as an alternative? Many objections (economic cost, risk of
environmental contamination, danger of proliferating nuclear weapons…. sacrifice
of civil liberties??)
-​ Author takes a both/and position to the above question (a or b?) → “some aspects
may be flexible in their possibilities for society, while other aspects may be (for
better or worse) completely intractable”

The Whale and the Reactor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Ch. 2. pp. 19-39.
Pinch, Trevor J. and Wiebe E. Bijker. 1984. “The Social Construction of Facts and
Artefacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might
Benefit Each Other
-​ “Unified social constructivist approach” to studying science and technology
-​ Both scientific facts and technological artifacts are socially constructed –
open to multiple interpretations and dsigns, depending on social contexts
and groups
-​ EX: Different groups saw the bicycle’s air tire as solving different problems
(e.g., vibration, speed) or as a flawed design
-​ Stabilization of science or technology occurs when controversies are resolved or
problems disappear for relevant social groups
-​ EXAMPLES OF CLOSURE IN TECHNOLOGY → rhetorical persuation, redefining
problems to align with group expectations (e.g. air tire used in racing)
-​ “Relevant social groups” play a crucial role in shaping the meaning and
development of artefacts and scientific findings
 -​ Ex: Women cyclists influenced bicycle design to address their specific needs
and challenges
-​ Science and technology share common social constructivist principles but differ in
group dynamics and stabilization mechanisms
-​ Science often involves a dominant “Core-Set” group, while technology
involves multiple diverse groups
-​ The social constructivist model also challenges traditional linear models of
technological progress, advocating for a multi-directional understanding that
accounts for different development paths
Key Case Studies
1.​ Development of the Bicycle:
a.​ Interpretive flexibility (“Penny-Farthing” was a symbol of speed and virility
by young men but unsafe by women and older riders, competing designs
reflected different social needs)
b.​ Social Group Influence → female cyclists influenced the creation of safer,
lower bicycles, “anti-cyclists” resisted the new technology altogether
2.​ Air Tire Controversy:
a.​ Air tires were initially ridiculed by engineers/ the public for its appearance
and complexity
b.​ “Closure” was achieved when it proved superior in racing contexts and the
problem that the technology was solving was rephrased from “vibration
reduction” to “speed enhancement”
i.​ Demonstrates how artifacts can gain acceptance through
redefinition of the problem
3.​ Solar Oscillation Controversy
a.​ A physicist’s claim about solar oscillations was initially contested due to
conflicting experimental results
b.​ Interpretive flexibility → differing assumptions about experimental methods
and theoretical frameworks allowed both sides to claim validity
c.​ Highlights how scientific consensus emerges through closure mechanisms
like rhetorical arguments and reinterpretation of evidence
Suggestions for Future Research:
1.​ Investigate the function of different types of closure (e.g. rhetorical persuasion,
problem redefinition, ignoring dissent)
2.​ Examination of Failed Artefacts
3.​ Study ongoing debates in emerging technologies
4.​ Relate the development of artifacts to the sociopolitical environment
Vocab:
-​ Interprative Flexibility: The idea that scientific facts and technological artifacts
can be understood or designed in multiple ways, depending on the perspectives
and needs of different groups.
-​ Closure Mechanism: The processes by which controversies surrounding scienfitic
or technological deveopments are resolved, leading to the stabilization of their
meaning or design
-​ Social Group: A collective of individuals who share a common understanding or
stake in a technological artifact, shaping its development and interpretation based
on their specific needs and values