STS 302 (002H) · The Social Construction of Technology, Technological Determinism, and Socio‑Technical Systems

Paradigms, Communities of Practice, and the Social Construction of Technology

We will use the reading on knowledge and learning as a bridge to explore several important concepts in thinking about technology: paradigms, communities of practice, social groups, and the social construction of technology. These concepts help explain how new technologies develop and why such development is often disruptive—frequently displacing proponents of older technologies.

A paradigm is a conceptual framework that shapes our thinking about a particular subject. The term became widely known through the work of Thomas Kuhn in his influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn examined how paradigms function in science, and his insights have since been applied in many other fields.

Communities of Practice

Communities of practice operate according to paradigms—frameworks that shape their activities and ways of thinking.

• For college students, there is a paradigm of what a college course is and how one studies for it.
• For professors, there is a framework for teaching, interacting with colleagues, attending conferences, and writing scholarly work.

From outside the community, these practices may seem foreign or odd. The intellectual content of disciplines is also shaped by these frameworks.

Historical example: In the 15th century, astronomers adhered to the geocentric paradigm—the belief that the sun revolved around the earth. Even when new data supported the heliocentric model, most astronomers reinterpreted it to fit the old paradigm.

When two people or groups operate under different paradigms, their thinking can be incommensurable—lacking a shared standard for communication or comparison.

Social Groups

A social group is similar to a community of practice but is defined by a shared identity within a given context. Members often perform the same functions and tend to see issues in similar ways.

Example: Mainframe Computers vs Personal Computers

Mainframe Computers (1960s–1970s)

The dominant computer paradigm in this period was the mainframe—large, expensive machines (often $1–10 million) that occupied entire rooms and were typically made by IBM. They were used by large organizations with major data‑processing needs (banks, governments, airlines, utilities).

Elements of the mainframe paradigm:

• Cost was no object — These businesses had demanding requirements and were willing to pay for performance and reliability.
• High performance, reliability, and service — IBM provided exceptional support; the saying “No one ever got fired for buying IBM” captured the security of choosing IBM.
• Controlled change — Large investments meant customers expected to keep systems for years; IBM introduced new models every 3–4 years.

Personal Computers (Mid‑1970s)

In 1975, a small hobbyist company introduced the first personal computer—a stark contrast to the mainframe: small size, low cost (~$400), low performance and reliability, and initially little practical business use.

Social groups & communities of practice:

• Hobbyists who enjoyed experimenting
• Early software developers (e.g., Bill Gates & Microsoft)
• Users who valued personal access over centralized control

At IBM, many mainframe professionals saw PCs as “toys.” Although IBM introduced its own PC, the company’s culture remained rooted in the mainframe paradigm. Different communities supported the two paradigms and often misunderstood each other.

The Social Construction of Technology

This concept holds that technologies do not have a fixed form—they emerge from the interactions of the social groups associated with them. Each group may have its own vision of what the technology should be, and the resulting form reflects the influence of the groups most able to impose their vision. The “best” technology is not always the one that prevails.

Technological Determinism

Technological determinism offers a contrasting perspective:

1. Technology develops according to its own internal logic, independent of social factors.
2. Society adapts to the constraints technology imposes.

Examples: Moore’s Law; statements like “The automobile created the suburbs” or “The birth control pill created the sexual revolution.” Technological determinism gives agency to technology rather than humans.

Social construction says societies shape technology; technological determinism says technologies shape societies. In practice, both can be true—like Escher’s Drawing Hands.

Socio‑Technical Systems

No technology exists in isolation. Each is part of a socio‑technical system—a network of technical and social components.

Factors of production

• Materials — What materials are used, and where do they come from?
• Workforce — What kinds of workers are required (engineers/scientists, manufacturing labor)?
• Capital equipment — What production equipment is needed?
• Components — What components are needed, and who supplies them?

Consumption

• Consumers — Who uses the system, and how are they persuaded to adopt it?
• User requirements — Do consumers need particular skills or characteristics?
• Adjunct technologies — What other technologies are necessary for it to function?
• Institutions & organizations — What entities support it (including government or the military)?
• Values & norms — What meanings and social norms support the technology?

These elements are interconnected. Changes in one part ripple through the system. For example, the iPhone relies on global supply chains, Chinese manufacturing systems, and international technical standards. Driving a car depends on roads built from mined materials, fuel supply chains, and regulatory bodies.

Standard phases of a socio‑technical system

1. Invention
2. Development
3. Innovation
4. Technology transfer
5. Growth, competition, and consolidation

Systems gain momentum over time, making major changes harder to implement.

In‑Class Activities

• Paradigms & Social Groups: Identify the paradigm of the modern American university, the social groups involved, and who might support or resist changes (e.g., a shift to fully online universities).
• Socio‑Technical Systems: Using the automobile, identify key elements, consider whether major changes are possible in 2024, and predict ripple effects across the system.