Mapping Science and Technology Studies: Dams, Breaches and Bridges

Monica Salazar

CPROST, SFU

There is no simple way to map the field of Science and Technology Studies (S&TS). One could identify different points of entry. For instance, there is a disciplinary approach (e.g. sociology, history, philosophy, economics). There are also distinctive bodies of literature studying various phases of technological development (e.g. design, construction, production, diffusion, impact, perception). A different focus is looking at the role that technology plays in society (i.e. shaping, shaped by, or co-production). Finally, the field can be organized into three major areas: qualitative studies (usually under the ‘science, technology and society’ label), quantitative studies (i.e. scientometrics), and policy-oriented studies (what could be named ‘science and technology policy). The purpose of this paper will be to focus on the latter categorization, with special attention to the relationship (i.e. divide) between studies on ‘Science, Technology and Society’ (STS) and ‘Science and Technology Policy’ (STP).

STS is a contested acronym: some understand it as ‘science and technology studies’, while other see it as ‘science, technology and society’ or, ‘science and technology in society’, or even ‘social studies of science and technology’. For this paper STS stands for “Science, Technology and Society” emphasizing the societal aspects of scientific and technological development.

Concerns about S&T were born out of World War II, when people recognized the complex and problematic - sometimes undesirable - relationships between power and science. STS emerged clearly in the late 1960s as a social movement, along with other social upheavals that appeared then (e.g. environmental and feminist groupsconsciousness). Because of its origins, early studies in STS were largely critical of S&T developments and often tried to propose ways to control S&T. By the 1980s, STS had evolved into an academic field. At this early stage, it was mainly focused on knowledge creation and tended to neglect policy and control issues.

The Dams

Traditionally, STS scholars have had strong roots in their mother disciplines. The most influential of these have been: history, philosophy and sociology. Although these ties have weakened over the time, the disciplinary divide is still there; a truly interdisciplinary status is still yet to be achieved. Susan Cozzens affirms that “while disciplines are still very much in evidence in this research community, there is no one-to-one correspondence between the topics studied and the traditional disciplines. Nonetheless, the disciplines continue to play a strong role in STS. Most people who study S&T still do so within a single discipline” (Cozzens, 2001: 57).

Science and Technology Policy (STP) was established as an area of government intervention in the immediate aftermath of WW II. Since then, the focus of STP has evolved , both from a theoretical and practical point of view. The study of science policy in the western world which began in earnest during the 1940s, had its main area of intervention and action not only regarding science but, later, during the late 1960s, technology emerged more clearly as an area of concern. This was partly due to budgetary constraints since, governments needed to be more efficient in the allocation of resources and also and to ameliorate the impact of S&T on the overall economy and society. In the 1980s, there was a shift of focus to innovation policy. Some analysts see the emergence of innovation as a particular field within science and technology studies as a breaking point, a change of paradigm. The evolution of STP can be explained mainly by political and economic factors, strongly related to the world economy. Biegelbauer and Borrás (2003) also mention that changes in STP are due to the notorious acceleration of innovation processes and the changing nature of the state. Further, social and environmental concerns have also played a role in shifting emphases.

The study and practice of science and technology policy has been traditionally divided between promotion and control. From a disciplinary perspective, promotion has been influenced by economics and management theory. However, control has evolved in a highly practical manner, with negligible influence received from the social sciences. One of the main criticisms directed at STP studies, especially in the field of promotion, is its lack of a critical stand-point towards scientific and technological development.

The Breaches

Some authors (i.e. Spiegel-Rosing, 1977; Teich, 2001) argue that there is a divide between social and policy studies within the field of science and technology. While others (i.e. Williams & Edge, 1996) affirm that some streams of STS studies, especially social shaping of technology, have been concerned with technology policy. It also can be argued that these academic communities are quite differentiated, with very little overlap. Nonetheless, this does not mean STS scholars have not influenced policy design. It does however suggest that policy design is not their main concern; while science and technology policy (STP) researchers do seek to affect policy directly.

Ina Spiegel-Rosing argued that the traditional divorce between STS studies and STP studies can be attributed to several factors. These include their disciplinary origins, their major sources of research questions, their divergent emphasis between either a cognitive or operational framework of study, and finally, their focus on science or technology (Spiegel-Rosing, 1977: 17). 30 years after Spiegel-Rosing wrote this commentary, her views are still applicable. She stated that STS scholars have strong roots on their mother disciplines, thus implying that they have different intellectual traditions. STP, though is less fragmented, has mainly evolved from political science and economics.

Regarding scientometrics, Spiegel-Rosing made a clear differentiation. In her words:

“Scientometrics is not characterized by its focus on particular problem areas but by its methodology, that is the use of quantitative indicators of the structure and development of science in order to decide the basic regularities of their functioning and direction. Scientometrics covers traditional research areas of both STS and STP, and the fact that the data produced is relevant to both fields. At least in this sense, in this sense, can be said that scientometrics mediate between the two.” (Spiegel-Rosing, 1977: 18-19).

Latour (1987) acknowledges that one of the limitations of S&T studies, that hinder its impact, is its organization by discipline and by object. That would not be a problem, if it was the result of specialization growing from a core set of problems and methods, but as Latour concludes, that is far from the case.

STS in its early years was mainly concerned with the study of science while neglecting technology. Even today, technology is considered a ‘minor’ subject of inquiry. The split between science and technology has characterized academic research, and in a lesser extent has been maintained in government circles. When STS became an academic field, its research problems focused on understanding how science functions and how knowledge is created. Meanwhile, STP became more concerned with governance, direction and promotion in the real world of S&T. Though, the former became concerned with the cognitive aspect of S&T , and the latter with operational problems.

Peter Van Den Besselaar (2000, 2001) has undertaken several studies to analyze the relationships between these scholarly communities. He divides the field of science and technology studies in the same way we did at the beginning of this paper: scientometrics (or quantitative STS), qualitative STS, and policy-oriented S&T studies. He found that these three sub-fields are differentiated from a cognitive point of view , and the relations among them are as follows:

• None of the indicators used showed any interaction between qualitative STS and policy-oriented STS.

• There is a one way relation between qualitative STS and quantitative STS, scientometrics does refer to qualitative STS on a regular basis and , the other way round is almost absentrare.

• The interaction between quantitative and policy-oriented STS is more intimate and growing. This is the case especially in regards to indicator studies and R&D performance evaluations (Van Den Besselaar, 2000: 184; 2001: 442).

Van Den Besselaar also found that there is not only cognitive differentiation (e.g. topics studied, methods, co-citation) but also social and institutional differentiation. He analyzed the most important journals in each sub-field, looking for authors and research institutes that crossed borders. In other words, he looked for those which published in more than one sub-field on a regular basis. What he encountered was that there were very few authors and organizations that had expertise in more than one area., and g His second study confirmed the findings of the first one: reiterating that there is very little social and cognitive relations between qualitative and policy-oriented studies. He concluded that “no one STS field exists, but at most several loosely related sub-fields studying the development of S&T” (Van Den Besselaar, 2000: 175). He added that “if we take these findings together, STS seems to split apart into two relatively stable and coherent fields, the qualitative and the policy-oriented studies, while the position of scientometrics is in between, but more strongly linked with the policy-oriented studies" (Van Den Besselaar, 2000: 184).

Another difference between STS and STP lies in their audiences. For STP it is clear: itstheir audience is mostly policy makers and business people. Conversely, the audience for STS is not as clear. Is it the academe or the general public? It seems that they are not clearly defined for STS. Possibly its potential audiences have been unreceptive since people in general, still might tend to think about science as a neutral, value-free, objective activity. as well as perceive technology in a deterministic way. Characteristics which have been thoroughly refuted in many academic works.

The Bridges

By integrating different bodies of literature, combining sociological and philosophical approaches with economic and management perspectives, one can start to build a bridge between STP and STS. Different lenses could provide us with a comprehensive view of technical change and innovation and how to ‘direct’ their impacts upon society. We need to bring into the STS debate a set of concepts from political economy and organizational analysis and , and suggest how pulling these concepts together could an provide a cogent approach to analyzeing technology development (Klein & Kleinman, 2002). We also need to build a critical vision within STP, more vigourouslyvigorously incorporating precautionary principles as well as and risk and technology assessment.

Although, to date, STS and STP have developed separately, building little or nothing on one another, these two areas converge around very important issues. Both recognize that technologies are embedded in social relations. To use Sheila Jasanoff’s (2005) expression, technology and society are ‘co-produced’. Scholars in both areas of study have also recognized that the process of technological development and innovation is full of uncertainties which inevitably lead to a series of unintended consequences.

STS and STP studies also have methodological problems, both areas of studies have various streams that focus either on micro case studies or macro analysis while, neglecting the meso level (Misa, 1994). The connections between the meso level and the macro level of analysis have must to be worked out. It seems easier to go downward (meso and micro linkages) than upward (meso and macro connections). Several STS streams are emerging that avoid the ends of the spectrum. Some of these emerging streams could contribute to work on this meso level of analysis including approaches such as the critical theory of technology (Andrew Feenberg’s), critical theory of technology, Sheila Jasanoff’s co-production of S&T and society and constructive or participatory technology assessment (Arie Rip). On the STP side, there are also areas of study which could be situated on the meso level of analysis (e.g. regional and sectoral systems of innovation, innovation networks), thatthat are exploring how social factors, such as communication, interaction, and social networks, influence technological change.

STS approaches have focused mainly on individual technologies and technological systems but not on innovation systems and networks. However, technology usually develops in larger structures and/or networks affected bywith the participation of an array of actors such as firms, public organizations, and social and legal institutions; through the importance of ‘system’ accounts. . Innovation occurs in institutional, political and social contexts and it is embedded in social relationships. Consequently, STS and STP studies, if combined, should provide a more cogent view of technological development.

References

Biegelbauer, P., & Borrás, S. (2003). Introduction: Ideas and transition from technology to innovation policy. In P. Biegelbauer & S. Borrás (Eds.), Innovation Policies in Europe and the US: The New Agenda (pp. 1-15). Aldershot, Hampshire, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Cozzens, S. (2001). Making disciplines disappear in STS. In S. Cutcliffe & C. Mitcham (Eds.), Visions of STS: Counterpoints in Science, Technology, and Society Studies (pp. 51-64). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Jasanoff, S. (2004). The idiom of co-production. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of knowledge: the co-production of science and social order (pp. 1-12). New York, London: Routledge.

Klein, H. K., & Kleinman, D. L. (2002). The social construction of technology: Structural considerations. Science, Technology and Human Values, 27(1), 28-52.

Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Metcalfe, S. (2000). Science policy and technology policy in a competitive economy. In C. Edquist & M. McKelvey (Eds.), Systems of Innovation: Growth, Competitiveness and Employment (pp. 403420). Cheltenham (UK), Northampton (USA): Elgar Reference Collection.

Misa, T. J. (1994). Retrieving sociotechnical change from technological determinism. In M. R. Smith & L. Marx (Eds.), Does Technology Drives History? - The Dilemma of Technological Determinism (pp. 115-141). Cambridge (MA), London: MIT Press.

Rip, A. (2001). Assessing the impacts of innovation: New developments in technology assessment. In OECD (Ed.), Social Sciences and Innovation (pp. 197-213). Paris: OECD.

Spiegel-Rosing, I. (1977). The study of Science, Technology and Society (STSS): Recent trends and future challenges. In I. Spiegel-Rosing, D. Price & International Council for Science Policy Studies (Eds.), Science, technology, and society: a cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. 7-42). London; Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications.

Teich, A. (2001). STS from a policy perspective. In S. Cutcliffe & C. Mitcham (Eds.), Visions of STS: Counterpoints in Science, Technology, and Society Studies (pp. 99-107). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Van Den Besselaar, P. (2000). Communication between science and technology studies journals: A case study in differentiation and integration in scientific fields. Scientometrics, 47(2), 169-193.

Van Den Besselaar, P. (2001). The cognitive and the social structure of STS. Scientometrics, 51(2), 441-460.Williams, R., & Edge, D. (1996). The social shaping of technology. Research Policy, 25, 856-899.

Williams, R., & Edge, D. (1996). The social shaping of technology. Research Policy, 25, 856-899.