IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - March 2022 - 45

considers technology2 to have flexibility and a
type of interpretative indeterminacy, just as EPOR
believes the same thing about science. Pinch and
Bijker tried to explain " interpretation " by elaborating
the history of the bicycle and the social controversies
that existed concerning the design of this technical
artifact. While the bicycle was a " secure " mean
for transportation for women and older men, the
" young men " enjoyed it for sport and also as a means
for showing off [18]. Therefore, there was a tension
between the values of " speed " and " security " in the
design of the bicycle. This disagreement over the
expected function or " interpretation " of two groups
about the same artifact, or in more exact words, the
controversy over speed and security among social
groups is a case that Pinch and Bijker put a special
emphasis on in their essay. The concept of " relevant
social groups " can be understood clearly in this controversy
over the design of the bicycle. The " young
men " and the " women " (and also the older men)
are the social groups who have become related to
a technical artifact, through the mediation of their
different expectations from the bicycle [18].
Accordingly, the tension between speed and
security, the two desired values of the aforementioned
social groups, led to various designs of the
bicycle. The result of this tension in the history of
bicycle manufacturing is a transition from the early
bicycles with solid and dissimilarly sized wheels
to the contemporary designs of " safety bicycles, "
a bicycle with smaller and similarly sized wheels,
chains, a diamond frame, and inflatable tires [18].
Providing documented evidences from the history
of the bicycle, Pinch and Bijker [18] have
argued that this change in bicycle design took 19
years (from 1879 to 1898), and the " stabilization " of
2Despite the similarities, the concept of " technology " differs among philosophers; to
wit: Pinch-Bijker, Hughes, Law, and Feenberg each have their own specific definition
of it. Pinch and Bijker have explicitly alluded to " technical artifact " and their focus on
the case of the bicycle clarifies that their definition of technology refers specifically
to technical artifacts. To understand what Hughes meant by the use of " technology, "
it is necessary to refer to his insistence on the notion of " technological systems "
[13]. Peter Kroes, the Dutch philosopher of technology, has pointed to this definition
of technological systems by Hughes and considers it to be a base for the new
term " socio-technical systems " [14]. Therefore, we can take Hughes's definition of
technology to be " socio-technical systems. " A detailed discussion about the " sociotechnical
systems " and their differences with " technical artifact " can be proposed;
being hierarchical, having interconnected parts, feedback loops, self-organization,
and so on, are some attributes for socio-technical systems discussed in the literature
of the engineering sciences [20]. However, to understand the nature of this system,
it is useful to mention a description adopted from the literature of the philosophy of
technology. Socio-technical system contains a collection of technical artifacts and
humans, each one located in a special spot of various parts in a single system, to
provide a desirable function [14].
Law [15] has stated his own idea very clearly in his article: " ... a family of methods for
associating and channeling other entities and forces, both human and nonhuman. "
Therefore, Law considers technology to be a method that is more general than
" socio-technical systems. " Feenberg [9] has confirmed that the definition of
technology he uses in his works, especially in the article " Ten Paradoxes of
Technology, " is " socio-technical systems " (via an e-mail dated July 18, 2019).
Figure 1. Relationship between social
groups and technical artifact in the SCOT
approach [18].
Figure 2. Lawson's bicycle (1879) [19].
the safety bicycle and the " closure " of the disagreement
between the two aforementioned groups, was
the result of this tension. Thus, Pinch and Bijker have
explained the concept of closure by using the outline
of the history of the bicycle as a case study.
In this way, what Pinch and Bijker have clearly
endorsed is the great influence of society on the development
of technology3 and the approach of the SCOT.
3This article has benefited from the article in which Pinch and Bijker [18] defined
SCOT. Although Bijker has offered a new approach that differs from that of the one
used in SCOT in his next work [26], he nevertheless claims that the newer approach
is an extension of the one used in SCOT. For example, he proposes the concept of
" technological frame " which is influenced by Law's critical ideas about SCOT [26].
Law's approach is also described in this essay.
March 2022
45

IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - March 2022

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - March 2022