How can theories of the social construction of technology (SCOT) help Essay

How bottomland theories of the social construction of technology (SCOT) help inform the innovation processes by which novel technologie - Essay characterAnd, dialectically speaking advancements in one become the development of the other. It could happen in the other dash around too regressive societies could non only hinder technical reconstruction that as well gave birth to regressive technologies as happened in Fascist Germany. The paper intends to analyze the complex paradigm in which social construction of technology and innovation and creativity in technological development go leave in hand. Social Construction of Technology, Innovation and Smart Technology Social candor must be identified as inherently pluralist. Berger and Luckmann note that pluralism encourages both skepticism and innovation and is thus inherently disloyal of the taken-for-granted reality of the traditional status quo. One can readily sympathize with the experts in the traditional definitions of rea lity when they think back nostalgically to the times when these definitions had a monopoly (Berger and Luckmann, 1966, p. 115). Social construction of technology changes according to the character of the prevailing paradigms of knowledge production. According to Thomas Kuhn, scientific development is no miraculous leaps by with child(p) scientists because a new theory, however special its range of application, is seldom or never just an emergence to what is already known. Its assimilation requires the reconstruction of prior theory and the re-evaluation of prior fact, an intrinsically revolutionary process that is seldom completed by a single man and never overnight (1996, p.7). Certainly, many great technological interventions are known with name of individual scientists. However, every scientists work within a paradigm which is jointly constructed. Therefore, it is possible to make do that technologies are socially constructed. For instance, computer logarithms are the product of late capitalism but it would not have been possible without the ancient Indian invention of zero. Here, it is important to remember that science is not supreme or infallible. Science and technology are necessarily social constructs and social products. Moreover, science emerges as very human and by necessity constrained enterprise, even if its findings are subsequently presented as canonic (Irwin, 1995, p.49). The terminology and language related to the technological discourses are crucial for understanding the social construction of technology. Therefore, Berger and Luckmann argue that the common objectivations of everyday disembodied spirit are maintained primarily by linguistic signification. Everyday life is, above all, life with and by means of the language I share with my fellowmen. An understanding of language is thus essential for any understanding of the reality of everyday life (1966, p.37). Language plays a major component part in the social construction of techn ology as technology is a cultural product too. And, technology, on the other hand, changes language. For instance, social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter have caused a metamorphosis in the means people use English language. Social construction of technology challenges the monopolistic claims by science and scientific community on the production of technologies. Non-deterministic accounts of artifacts and technologies show that scientific knowledge plays little direct role in the development of even many state of the art technologies. Historians and other theorists have argued that there are