1. Ideas
2. Humans
3. Artifacts
4. Modern Ideology of Technological Progress
4.1. Technological progress is measured by modern notions of progress based on
4.1.1. Science
4.1.2. Rationality
4.1.3. Market
4.2. We choose pathways we want to go forward with
4.2.1. Ties in with the first methodological rule of STS (It Could Have Been Otherwise)
5. Weak technologies
6. STRONG TECHNOLOGIES
7. Old ways of thinking about technological failure/success
8. New ways of thinking about technological success/failure
9. Pathological Technologies
9.1. Something inherently wrong (built in) causes it to fail
10. Failure in technology helps it succeed (Stepping stone to success)
10.1. Seperating failed and successful technology doesn't help because technical problems exist in successful technologies too!
11. No pre-ordained direction
11.1. Is it really a failure? it could be a success as another use.
11.1.1. So, there is nothing inherently wrong with the hardware
12. Built in features don't always make a technology succeed/fail
12.1. The best technology isn't always successful!
13. Failure as an inevitable pre-requisite to success
13.1. Forms of innovation can only be established through failure
14. Design is always imperfect; it will never meet everyone’s needs
14.1. Successful technologies are still seen as failure to some
15. Form cannot follow function alone
15.1. Other forms exist, which perform the same function
16. Failure as a humanly generated outcome
16.1. evermore demanding expectation humans impose on their all too limited technology
17. FAILURE AS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION
17.1. Reification
17.1.1. Abstract concepts like success and failure is made concrete through social construction processes (RSGs)
17.1.2. Stabilization occurs with closure on what a technology is & how it is used
17.2. Relevant Social Group
17.2.1. Come together and agree upon which technology is a success and which one is a failure
17.3. Interpretive flexibility
17.3.1. Different interpretations of a technology by various RSGs
17.4. Closure
17.4.1. Stabilization around a technology on what it is and how it is used
18. Social Construction Of Technology
18.1. Relevant Social Groups
18.1.1. Shape technology
18.1.2. Each RSGs have different versions of what a technology is and what it means
18.1.3. Attribute different meanings to the technology
18.2. Interpretive Flexibility
18.2.1. Different ways of thinking about a technology
18.2.2. Different ways of designing a technology
18.2.2.1. Not just one possible way or one best way of designing an artifact
18.2.3. Helps understand how a technology stabilizes or how it doesn't
18.3. Multi-directional. Not Linear
18.4. Connect stabilizing and content of technology with wider sociopolitical environment
18.4.1. Left hand products for inclusion of left handed people, or products for female users etc.
19. RSG 1
19.1. Interpretation 4
19.1.1. problem 1
20. RSG 2
20.1. Interpretation 5
20.1.1. problem 2
21. RSG 3
21.1. Interpretation 1
21.1.1. problem 3
22. RSG 4
22.1. Interpretation 2
22.1.1. problem 4
23. RSG 5
23.1. Interpretation 3
23.1.1. problem 5
24. Technology
25. Market failure = Technological failure?
25.1. No, monetary gain might not provide a good indication of how a technology is doing.
25.1.1. Technology is making a lot of money but it comprises a little of the market share
25.2. Market share solely also is not a good indicator of how the technology is doing
25.2.1. It may have a huge market but if it doesn't make enough money then that technology is probably not a success
26. If there is not an agreement on what the technology is and what it means, then it is not going to stabilize.
27. It is going to go through a continuous process of variation and selection until RSGs can come together and agree upon what the technology is and what it means
28. ABSTRACT TO CONCRETE IDEA (REIFICATION)
29. Innovator
30. Solution 1
31. Solution 2
32. Solution 3
33. Solution 4
34. Solutino 5
35. Innovators respond to these RSGs through processes of variations in order to change/tweak the technology to provide solutions to their problems
36. Some solutions might solve more than 1 RSGs problems.
36.1. This facilitates in stabilizing the technology
36.1.1. I have noticed this in most technologies today, they are capable of doing more than one tasks to accodomodate solutions for various RSGs
37. Are the solutions or problems conflicting?
37.1. If the solutions are conflicting then there might not be stabilization of the product
38. Sociological deconstruction of technology
38.1. Steps of RSGs, interpretive flexibility, problems and solutions etc help understand who the RSGs were, what their interpretations of the tech were, what problems and solutions did they attribute to it
39. All these factors make technological innovation multi-directional and not linear
40. IT COULD HAVE BEEN OTHERWISE
40.1. These are the problems and solutions that were attributed. It could have been otherwise; Different problems could have been raised or the innovators could have responded to different probklems
41. Path Dependency
41.1. Path is laid down by previous events so future evnts flow easier when following this path
41.2. Past decisions influence future trajectories
41.3. One technology laid the path for future uses of same or similar technologies
42. Technological Lock-in
42.1. The oppotunity cost of adapting to a new technology is high so one technology becomes locked-in, preferred and dominant
42.2. Economic path dependence
42.3. Because of network effects the market gets locked in or stuck with that standard even though the marke paricipants may be better off with an alternative
43. Network Externalities
43.1. Direct consumption externalities
43.1.1. Direct physical effect of the number of purchasers on the quality of the product
43.1.2. Technologies are only as good as the number of users
43.2. Indirect effects that give rise to consumption externalities
43.3. Positive consumption externalities
43.3.1. Durable goods, quality and availability of post purchase service depending on the experience and size of the service network, which may in turn vary with the number of units of the goods that have been sold
43.3.2. Helps lock-in technology
44. SCOT
45. ANT
46. Actor Network Theory
46.1. Seen as Techno-Science
46.1.1. as technology and science are very connected within the network
46.2. Networks comprised of technology, science and society
46.2.1. Produce technologies, scientific facts, and social realities
46.3. Scientists and engineers create alliances/networks
46.3.1. Produce technology and solidify scientific facts
46.4. Larger stronger networks
46.4.1. bring allies
46.4.1.1. produce technology
46.5. Focus on non-human actors as actants along with humans as actants to form networks
46.6. The glue of the network is each actant and their interests
46.6.1. Any clash in interests or leave of an actant can break the network
46.6.2. Glue is aligned interests
47. The map of new multidirectional ideology ideology vs old ways of linear thinking
48. Social Constructivism
49. Technology/(Arti)facts
49.1. Outcomes of negotiations/Social processes
49.2. Socially constructed
49.3. True
50. Methodological Rules
50.1. It Could Have Been Otherwise!
50.1.1. Contingency/Multi-directional innovation
50.1.2. Choices were made
50.1.2.1. Paths were followed (PATH DEPENDENCY)
50.1.3. Interpretive Flexibility
50.1.4. Personal, Professional, Organizational goals effect outcome in influencing the technology we have
50.1.5. Notion of obduracy
50.1.5.1. Not everything is possible
50.2. Principle of Symmetry
50.2.1. Development of technology (Success or Failure)
50.2.1.1. SCOT
50.2.2. Role of Actors (Human & Non-human)
50.2.2.1. ANT
50.3. Interventionist approach
50.3.1. developed as
50.3.1.1. critical analytic field
50.3.1.2. procedures for democratization
50.4. Co Production
50.4.1. Technology
50.4.2. Soceity
51. Multi-directional innovation does not mean that everything is possible
52. Social order is secured by material circumstances/ technical artifacts/ scientific facts
53. Facts and artifacts become meaningful in social context
54. Changing nature is changing society
55. Heterogeneity in socio-technical ensemble
56. Science & Technological Studies approach to studying Technology
57. Linear Model
57.1. Basic, Applied Research
57.1.1. Linear story of Winners
57.1.1.1. Orderly rational path
57.2. CRITIQUES
57.2.1. Technical knowledge/Knowledge & Knowledge Productions
57.2.1.1. Science
57.2.1.2. Engineers
57.2.1.3. Technologists
57.2.1.4. Inventors
57.2.2. Input Parameters
57.2.2.1. Scientific & Technical knowledge
57.2.2.2. Material
57.2.2.3. Financial
57.2.2.4. Social
57.2.2.5. USERS
57.2.2.6. ideologies
57.2.2.7. rhetorical resources
58. To be challenged...
59. Not Just a Single Stream of Science
60. Emphasized throughout
60.1. SCOT
60.2. PATH DEPENDENCY
61. Role of Users
61.1. Play in establishing success or failure of technology
61.2. Technological abandonment
61.2.1. Don't work as desired
61.2.2. Design is flawed or overly complex
61.2.3. Mismatch between solutions and users needs or expectations
61.2.4. Users need changed technology didn't
61.2.5. Users abilities may improve or get worse