"Social relationships play a key role in the development and functioning of technology"

The new Catalan Association of Science and Technology Studies (STS-CAT), whose president is Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC) professor Eduard Aibar, was launched on 28 February in Barcelona. This inaugural event featured the Dutch engineer and sociologist Wiebe E. Bijker, recognized for his interdisciplinary work at the intersection of technology, society, and science. Bijker is convinced that science and technology studies (STS) will become increasingly involved in political and regulatory issues in the future, particularly in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.

Your research has been instrumental in developing the theory of the social construction of technology. How would you explain this concept to someone unfamiliar with it?

The simplest summary is: the workings of a technology cannot be fully explained by its material and scientific details – physics, chemistry, and engineering are not sufficient to explain the development of technology. Instead, the social relations around the technology play a key role, not only in its impact on society but also in its shaping and its working.

Can you give an example?

Yes, the invention of what is currently the most common type of bicycle, which in the 1880s was the "safety bicycle". In the 1870s, the most commonly used bicycle was the "ordinary bicycle", also known as the penny-farthing or high wheeler. At first sight, its success is difficult to understand, given that it was quite dangerous and all the necessary technical elements for a low-wheeled bicycle with rear chain drive were easily available. But if we look through the eyes of the users of the high-wheeled ordinary, we see the "macho bicycle": a bicycle that could offer a comfortable and speedy ride over cobbled roads and with which one could make an impression of being athletic and daring – so, a successful and well-working machine.

Why was the "safety bicycle" developed, and how did different social groups influence its adoption?

Through the eyes of other groups, such as elderly men and women, however, the ordinary bicycle was unsafe, difficult to ride and thus not working well. Only when this second meaning of the ordinary became more dominant, did the development into the low-wheeled safety bicycle begin. So, by analysing the views of relevant social groups such as the "young men of means and nerve" who rode the ordinary and the women who wanted to cycle but couldn't, we can give an explanation of the technological development around the bicycle at the end of the 19th century.

And the longer answer?

The social construction of technology (SCOT) is a heuristic for studying technology through three steps. First, a machine, such as the bicycle, is described through the eyes of relevant social groups. In my example, young male athletic cyclists and women cyclists each saw a different ordinary bicycle. The researcher thus demonstrates the interpretive flexibility of the machine: there was an "unsafe bike" in the eyes of women and a "macho bike" in the eyes of "young men of means and nerve". In the second step, the researcher observes how interpretive flexibility diminishes over time, as one machine gains dominance over others and its meaning stabilizes as a result of this process of social construction. In the third step, this social construction is analysed and explained by interpreting the social interactions by using the concept of technological frame of that relevant social group.

One of the key aspects of your work is the role of social actors in technological evolution. Could you share an example that illustrates this idea?

The study that Eduard Aibar and I made of the shaping of the expansion of Barcelona in the 19th century offers a nice example. Although the Eixample, as the expansion district of Barcelona is known in Catalan, is commonly called the "Cerdà Plan", its shape and development cannot be understood as a straightforward implementation of the design by Ildefons Cerdà. Instead, the Eixample is the result of complicated interactions between at least two relevant social groups: the civil engineers (with Cerdà) and the architects (with Antoni Rovira as the central spokesperson).

How did the differing perspectives of engineers and architects shape the development of Barcelona's Eixample?

In the battle between the two technological frames, a variety of rhetorical tricks were used. The engineers' technological frame, for example, produced a mathematical formula to determine the distance between the Eixample's building blocks – a formula that was never explained but that still gave the plan some credibility of being scientific. The architects' technological frame first argued that the engineers' plan was too monotonous and lacked imagination. Secondly, and most effectively, they argued that the plan was dictated by central Madrid and a betrayal of Catalonia. In the end, the Eixample still has some of the features of Cerdà's original plan but has been adapted in many dimensions through the incorporation of elements from the architects' technological frame.

From your perspective, what is the future of science and technology studies? Where do you see the field heading?

I see our field furthering the theoretical understanding of the social shaping of science and technology, as well as the scientific and technical shaping of societies, and, regardless of what I am about to say next, the scholarly quality and robustness of STS research should remain the mainstay of what we do. But then, secondly, I do see more active involvement with political and policy issues, based on reflexive and (self-)critical engagement with norms and values, including global solidarity, and politics and policy-making. Specifically, I am convinced that STS can significantly contribute to realizing the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

Given this sketch of the future, what do you consider to be the most important aspect of science and technology studies?

When thinking about the future of STS and its specific value, I want to highlight that three quite different elements of STS practice are important: knowledge, institutions and skills. The scholarly knowledge produced by STS research, such as the constructivist character of technological machines and scientific facts, is important as knowledge in its own right and as a building block for addressing societal challenges. Institutions such as STS journals, funding programmes for STS research, and scholarly societies such as STS-CAT are important to provide a community for researchers in which they can critically but safely discuss each other's work and thus support each other. The social-academic skills of STS-ers are perhaps the most important aspect these days because they comprise the capacity to facilitate interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary cooperation, to combine micro-scale case studies with macro-scale generalizations, to combine scholarship with activism and policy-making, and to act as public intellectuals in societal debates.

You argue that technology is not neutral but is shaped by social and political values. How can we ensure that public interest remains central in technological development?

Mind you, there is not one public interest, unequivocally agreed upon by all citizens. Public interests are plural and that is why they are at the same time urgently needed for and difficult to include in technological development. This implies that the values, views and needs of various groups of stakeholders and citizens are to be included in the development of new technologies in as early a stage as possible.

What are effective ways to involve different stakeholders in technological decision-making, especially in complex or uncertain situations?

This does not necessarily mean a "dialogue of the deaf" in which everyone is shouting against each other, without a common base for dialogue. As I argued in my UOC public lecture in 2009, there are sound ways of organizing public involvement. In so-called "simple-risk" situations, in which all needed knowledge is scientifically certain (e.g. the risk of asbestos), we only need scientists at the table to advise about the size of the risk and the measures to cope with it. In "uncertain-risk" situations not all scientific knowledge is certain and choices need to be made by weighing different interests (e.g. nano-toxicity). In such cases, relevant stakeholders also need to be invited to the table. Finally, in "ambiguous-risk" situations, not only is part of the scientific knowledge uncertain but there is no agreement on a shared vision for society (e.g. human enhancement through AI). Therefore, it's not enough to weigh the stakes, but the very set-up of society should be debated and the citizenry more broadly should be participating in a dialogue on the nature of the risk and the ways forward.

But isn't that relativism?

Recognizing various interests (i.e. what is at stake) and a variety of views on what constitutes an ideal society do not imply relativism. I would strongly argue that humanitarian values, as, for example, explicated in the 1950 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, are universally valid and should be actively upheld by everyone, always and everywhere. (I am aware, though, that the interpretation of these values and the implementation of policies are often difficult and not without controversy.)

Do you think political and commercial interests pose a threat to a technological evolution that prioritizes the common good?

Not necessarily. But I do think that these commercial interests need to be checked and kept under control by the rule of law and various national and international regulations. That is not always easy, as we now clearly see in the nightmare scenario currently playing out in the USA. The commercial interests of big tech and oil companies not only threaten scientific and technological development (with attacks on universities, education, climate science and environmental regulations), but erode the very foundation of the USA's democratic values.

Is there a way out?

Europe can offer an alternative. For decades, EU regulations – though often mocked – have kept some of the biggest capitalistic companies in check and I see no reason why that should not continue. It will come with a price though, since in the current geopolitical situation transatlantic relations will be further strained. But so be it. Europe is not powerless economically, scientifically or technologically, and not even in military terms. STS-ers can help by explicating ways of shaping new technologies in line with commonly shared humanitarian values and by contributing to the design of necessary regulations.

How do you assess the different approaches to artificial intelligence development in the United States, the European Union, and China?

I'm not an expert on AI, but as I just said: Europe is not a small power in technological, scientific, economic and military terms. There is no reason why we shouldn't further develop our own AI style, technologies and industry. Of course, for this to happen, Europe will have to be more united than ever. I am personally strongly in favour of more rather than less European integration.

In your opinion, will current efforts to regulate AI be effective, or is a global consensus necessary to ensure meaningful oversight?

I don't think that a global consensus on AI regulations will be possible soon. But that shouldn't stop the EU and partners like the UK and Norway from proceeding with regulating AI. The economic power of the EU will enhance the global impact of such regulation as it has done with many other regulatory schemes in the past decades.

Climate change presents one of the greatest challenges to contemporary society. How can science and technology studies contribute to addressing this issue?

For those who know the history of STS, which began by criticizing scientists for their arrogant neglect of societal issues and unfounded neo-positivism, my answer may be surprising: I do believe that STS-ers should help maintain trust in science and emphasize the importance of scientific advice in shaping policies.

How can STS help balance trust in science while acknowledging that scientific knowledge and technology are socially constructed?

And, yes, that can be accomplished while recognizing the socially constructed nature of knowledge and machines. Indeed, scientific advice should incorporate diverse perspectives from stakeholders and citizens. One core finding of STS is that science and technology do not develop according to a single, in-built, autonomous logic but that they are value-laden and socially constructed. In short: things could have been different. That opens up the possibility of new styles of technology, industrial systems and economies that are causing less climate change. So, STS offers a foundational argument for reconsidering our science and technology in light of the unprecedented challenge of climate change. In addition, STS can offer its methods and skills for supporting inter- and transdisciplinary work, crucially needed for addressing the big challenges to contemporary societies.

Having collaborated with institutions worldwide, do you see significant differences in how various societies explore the relationship between technology and society?

STS is a field with strong international cooperation, so the similarities across different societies and scientific communities are quite prominent. However, you are right in suggesting that there are fruitful and interesting differences. I'll give you an example. In my work in India and with Indian STS researchers, I have learned much about how to connect activism with scholarship and how to do research with societal engagement. In India, I also learned to recognize, respect and value the plurality of knowledge – different cultures have the right to maintain their own knowledge systems.

How can we reconcile the need to respect diverse knowledge systems with the fight against misinformation and disinformation?

This seems to be in contradiction with what I mentioned earlier about the need to advocate for trust in science and fight fake news, disinformation, and conspiracy theories. But this need not be the case, though it will always be difficult to draw a line between non-scientific knowledge that should be respected and disinformation. But think of a patient's knowledge about their own illness – medical doctors now recognize the value of that knowledge even though it typically is not scientific. The final 2023 G20 declaration included a statement by the Chief Science Advisers of the G20 governments about the importance of recognizing the diversity of knowledge.

What do you see as the main challenges for researchers working in science and technology studies in the coming years?

My answer to this question is coloured by current international developments. So, how can we maintain a critical stance as academics while contributing to building a better world as citizens and policy advisers? How can we celebrate universal humanitarian values in an era of developing extreme-right sentiments? How are we to maintain academic standards of sound scholarship and open academic debate while autocratic governments may induce (self-)censorship? I do not have a proper answer to these questions except the royal adage: "Keep calm and carry on". Let's continue to believe in what scholarship, in general, and STS, in particular, have to offer and continue to keep academic quality standards high.

There is often a perceived gap between the natural sciences and the social sciences and humanities. Do you think these fields should work more closely together? What are the main obstacles to achieving this?

Yes, I do think that natural sciences and SSH should work more closely together. Current societal challenges do not keep within the pillars of the disciplinary organization of universities. STS researchers can play a very important role in promoting and facilitating such cooperation. Interdisciplinarity not only forms the core of the identity of most STS people, they also have skills that can help such cross-disciplinary cooperation within research projects.

What do you mean by cross-disciplinary cooperation?

Such cooperation should go beyond the multidisciplinarity of several disciplines working together, where each contributes its own elements to the solution. In interdisciplinary cooperation, the various disciplines working together produce a new integrated understanding with a new conceptual framework and solutions in which the separate contributing disciplines cannot be clearly distinguished anymore. In transdisciplinary projects, scientists and scholars work together with non-scientists and jointly integrate other types of knowledge and practice with scientific and scholarly knowledge. I am happy to see that, increasingly, journals and funding agencies recognize the value of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research and facilitate and sometimes even require such cooperation. In the National Research Agenda programme, for example, the Dutch Research Council explicitly requires applying consortia to include natural sciences, social sciences and humanities because the societal challenges on that national research agenda could not credibly be addressed otherwise.

 

Research at the UOC

Specializing in the digital realm, the UOC's research contributes to the construction of future society and the transformations required to tackle global challenges.

Over 500 researchers and more than 50 research groups make up five research units, each with a mission: Culture for a critical society, Lifelong education, Digital health and planetary well-being, Ethical and human-centred technology and Digital transition and sustainability.

The university's Hubbik platform fosters the development of UOC community knowledge transfer and entrepreneurship initiatives.

The goals of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and open knowledge are strategic pillars that underpin the UOC's teaching, research and knowledge transfer activities. For more information, visit research.uoc.edu.