IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v34y2010i1p63-76.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How is technology made?--That is the question!

Author

Listed:
  • Wiebe E. Bijker

Abstract

This article reviews constructivist technology studies, and especially the social construction of technology (SCOT). To investigate how these constructivist studies regard the ontology of technology, I will trace their historical development in units of analysis, methodological approaches and research questions. Constructivist technology studies are relativistic in only one sense: methodological. They are agnostic with respect to the ontology of technology. Constructivist studies of technology thus do not primarily answer the question 'what is technology?'; they trace the process 'how to make technology'. Copyright The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Cambridge Political Economy Society. All rights reserved., Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Wiebe E. Bijker, 2010. "How is technology made?--That is the question!," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 34(1), pages 63-76, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:34:y:2010:i:1:p:63-76
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cje/bep068
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Elsahn, Ziad & Earl, Anna, 2022. "Alternative ways of studying time in qualitative international business research: A review and future agenda," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(3).
    2. Havas, Attila & Weber, K. Matthias, 2017. "The 'fit' between forward-looking activities and the innovation policy governance sub-system: A framework to explore potential impacts," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 327-337.
    3. Ulucanlar, S. & Faulkner, A. & Peirce, S. & Elwyn, G., 2013. "Technology identity: The role of sociotechnical representations in the adoption of medical devices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 95-105.
    4. Philip Faulkner & Clive Lawson & Jochen Runde, 2010. "Theorising technology," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 34(1), pages 1-16, January.
    5. Kalim U. Shah, 2024. "Profiling national institutional archetypes for climate change technology implementation: application in small islands and least developed countries," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 29(5), pages 1-20, June.
    6. Attila Havas & K. Matthias Weber, 2016. "The ‘fit’ between forward-looking activities and the innovation policy governance sub-system," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 1601, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    7. Jiří Malý & Marek Lichter & Tomáš Krejčí, 2024. "The elusive role of urban form, centrality and scale in the absence of a metropolitan planning agenda: Central European perspective," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(1), March.
    8. Alexandra Kriz & Catherine Welch, 2018. "Innovation and internationalisation processes of firms with new-to-the-world technologies," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 49(4), pages 496-522, May.
    9. Chuan-Hoo Tan & Juliana Sutanto & Chee Wei Phang & Anar Gasimov, 2014. "Using Personal Communication Technologies for Commercial Communications: A Cross-Country Investigation of Email and SMS," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 307-327, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:34:y:2010:i:1:p:63-76. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.