IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socres/v14y2009i2p36-47.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rethinking the Social Construction of Technology through ‘Following the Actors’: A Reappraisal of Technological Frames

Author

Listed:
  • Christina Prell

Abstract

In this paper, I summarize case study research on an information system called Connected Kids. This case study was guided by an approach to technology studies called the ‘Social construction of technology’ or SCOT Pinch and Bijker (1984). In discussing Connected Kids, I illustrate many of SCOT's main tenents, e.g. the various social interactions that surround and influence technology design. As the paper progresses, however, I focus on one concept in particular, that being SCOT's notion of a ‘technological frame,’ which is used as a catch-all concept for handling the structural influences in technology design. My discussion and illustration of this concept shows that – whilst technological frames help an analyst understand, in general terms, the role structure(s) play in shaping technology – the ‘heterogeneity’ of technological frames can cloak the more obvious, and potentially most influential, forces at work in technology design. In the case of Connected kids, the role of resources, and which actors had access to these resources, was critical in pointing Connected Kids down a particular trajectory. Further, this discovery emerged from listening carefully to respondents’ comments on the role of resources in their community. These comments, and my own observations on how resource-access propelled certain actors into a leadership position, led to my developing an alternative method for analyzing technological frames. The implications of this analysis are then discussed within the context of SCOT and technology studies more generally.

Suggested Citation

  • Christina Prell, 2009. "Rethinking the Social Construction of Technology through ‘Following the Actors’: A Reappraisal of Technological Frames," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 14(2), pages 36-47, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:14:y:2009:i:2:p:36-47
    DOI: 10.5153/sro.1913
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5153/sro.1913
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5153/sro.1913?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Williams, Robin & Edge, David, 1996. "The social shaping of technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 865-899, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Cardullo, Paolo, 2017. "Gentrification in the mesh? Ethnography of Open Wireless Network - Deptford," OSF Preprints jm68s, Center for Open Science.
    2. Kate Lyle, 2021. "Interventional STS: A Framework for Developing Workable Technologies," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 26(2), pages 410-426, June.
    3. Hoang Thi Minh Vo & Gerardo van Halsema & Petra Hellegers & Andrew Wyatt & Quan Hong Nguyen, 2021. "The Emergence of Lotus Farming as an Innovation for Adapting to Climate Change in the Upper Vietnamese Mekong Delta," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-19, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Benjamin Cole & Preeta Banerjee, 2013. "Morally Contentious Technology-Field Intersections: The Case of Biotechnology in the United States," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 115(3), pages 555-574, July.
    2. Geels, Frank W., 2006. "The hygienic transition from cesspools to sewer systems (1840-1930): The dynamics of regime transformation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 1069-1082, September.
    3. Richard J. Boland & Kalle Lyytinen & Youngjin Yoo, 2007. "Wakes of Innovation in Project Networks: The Case of Digital 3-D Representations in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 631-647, August.
    4. Gruber, Mario, 2020. "An evolutionary perspective on adoption-diffusion theory," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 535-541.
    5. Tylecote, Andrew, 2019. "Biotechnology as a new techno-economic paradigm that will help drive the world economy and mitigate climate change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 858-868.
    6. Chenyang Wang & Linxiu Wang & Tiantian Gu & Enyang Hao & Yujie Chen & Huanjie Zhang, 2024. "Evaluating Smart Community Development in China from the Perspective of Residents’ Sense of Safety: An Analysis Using Criteria Importance through Intercriteria Correlation and Fuzzy Comprehensive Eval," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-21, September.
    7. Wallace, Matthew L. & Ràfols, Ismael, 2018. "Institutional shaping of research priorities: A case study on avian influenza," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(10), pages 1975-1989.
    8. Hyysalo, Sampsa & Usenyuk, Svetlana, 2015. "The user dominated technology era: Dynamics of dispersed peer-innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 560-576.
    9. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2022. "Beyond the triangle of renewable energy acceptance: The five dimensions of domestic hydrogen acceptance," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    10. Fisher, Erik, 2019. "Governing with ambivalence: The tentative origins of socio-technical integration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1138-1149.
    11. Serrano-Bosquet, Francisco Javier & Carreño Correa, Lina María & Giorgi, Emanuele, 2023. "Review: technological resources for vulnerable communities," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    12. Hahn, Katrin, 2019. "Innovation in times of financialization: Do future-oriented innovation strategies suffer? Examples from German industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 923-935.
    13. Hyysalo, Sampsa, 2009. "Learning for learning economy and social learning," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 726-735, June.
    14. Green, Ken & Hull, Richard & McMeekin, Andrew & Walsh, Vivien, 1999. "The construction of the techno-economic: networks vs. paradigms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(7), pages 777-792, September.
    15. Munthali, Nyamwaya & van Paassen, Annemarie & Leeuwis, Cees & Lie, Rico & van Lammeren, Ron & Aguilar-Gallegos, Norman & Oppong-Mensah, Birgitta, 2021. "Social media platforms, open communication and problem solving in the back-office of Ghanaian extension: A substantive, structural and relational analysis," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    16. Corinthias P. M. Sianipar & Gatot Yudoko & Kiyoshi Dowaki & Akbar Adhiutama, 2013. "Design Methodology for Appropriate Technology: Engineering as if People Mattered," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(8), pages 1-44, August.
    17. Martin, Ben R. & Nightingale, Paul & Yegros-Yegros, Alfredo, 2012. "Science and technology studies: Exploring the knowledge base," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1182-1204.
    18. Sterre Bierens & Kees Boersma & Marc J. C. van den Homberg, 2020. "The Legitimacy, Accountability, and Ownership of an Impact-Based Forecasting Model in Disaster Governance," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 445-455.
    19. Ribeiro, Barbara & Shapira, Philip, 2019. "Anticipating governance challenges in synthetic biology: Insights from biosynthetic menthol," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 311-320.
    20. Fischer, Klara, 2016. "Why new crop technology is not scale-neutral—A critique of the expectations for a crop-based African Green Revolution," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(6), pages 1185-1194.

    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:sae:socres:v:14:y:2009:i:2:p:36-47. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.