تغییر فن آوری به عنوان یک تجارت کردن بین ساخت و ساز اجتماعی و پارادایم های فن آوری

The theory of social construction of technology (SCOT) and the theory of technological paradigms (TTP) are normally regarded as competing or even incompatible perspectives on technological change. In this paper, we show how and when the perspectives are complementary by comparing how the theories conceptualise technology development, understand stakeholders, and determine driving forces for technological change. When stakeholders have different relations to the innovation process, and when the outcome of the innovation process is open, we argue that the two theories could be complementary tools for analysing the process. When using SCOT and TTP as complementary analytical tools, it becomes easier to understand and design innovation processes in which different stakeholders are attached to roles where they are able to contribute in the most productive ways.

The theory of the social construction of technology (SCOT) and the theory of technological paradigms (TTP) are generally regarded as competing or even incompatible perspectives on technological change [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]. The purpose of this paper is to discuss how and under what conditions SCOT and TTP can be used as complementary tools for analysing technological development. We will present some basic assumptions found in most social theories about technological development. Based on these, we will discuss complementarities between SCOT and TTP. Two extensive case studies will illustrate how a complementary application could be accomplished. Finally, we will suggest how a complementary angle may improve practical innovation projects. Advocates for SCOT and TTP benefit from the argument that the other theory is an opposite theoretical pole. It becomes easier to explain their own positions when it is possible to contrast them with something diametrically different. Certain scholars emphasise that SCOT were developed as a sociological alternative to neo-Schumpeterian economic theory [6]. And the neo-Schumpeterian advocates take a theoretical perspective that seems to deal with the same topics but from a totally different angle. The difference between the theories is to a large extent expressed in behavioural assumptions about the actor. While TTP is based on the concept of bounded rationality [7] and [8], SCOT theorists consider the actors as socially shaped as a result of interactions, negotiations, and conflicts [9], [10], [11] and [12]. The main objections to a complementary use of the theories are that different behavioural assumptions involve different epistemological perspectives [9], [11], [13] and [14]. Therefore, it becomes meaningless to use the theories as complementary tools. Even though scholars have discussed and criticised SCOT and TTP from different theoretical angles [5], [15] and [16], it is hard to find a systematic comparison of the two traditions. Furthermore, it is very rare to see the two perspectives used together in empirical studies, even though complementary use may actually improve the analysis and enhance the explanations of technology development [17] and [18].

A SCOT perspective tends to regard change processes as a question of motives, interests, and resources possessed by the actors involved, and the outcome of innovative activities as the result of negotiation processes among relevant social groups. A technology trajectory perspective pays attention to how technologies in use constitute the framework for changes taking place in enterprises, and how the learning process and feasible solutions are determined by technologies the firm already possesses. SCOT theorists regard technological progress as unpredictable; TTP theorists predict the outcome of innovative processes as incremental changes in existing technologies. Even so, they both have the same point of departure in the assumption that technology development is based on existing knowledge and technology. Two analytical dimensions in the theories show the potential for complementary use in empirical analysis: (a) the relationships stakeholders have to the development process and (b) the main characteristics of the situation in which the innovations take place. When using SCOT and TTP as complementary tools, the analysis becomes richer and reveals explanatory factors that had remained hidden if only one of the theoretical perspectives was applied. Thus, studies concerning technological change should focus more on the social institutions and organisations shaping the interaction between enterprise trajectory and selection environment. Theoretical approaches to the study of technological development also have policy implications. When designing innovation processes, policy makers should pay more attention to the different relationships that stakeholders have to the innovation process. It makes it easier to see that bureaucrats, politicians, industrialists, and scientists regard technological development as tools for quite different purposes. It makes it easier to avoid counterproductive processes based on assumptions about shared perceptions about the purpose and outcome of innovative processes. It makes it easier to design innovation processes when stakeholders are attached to roles where they can contribute in productive ways. Finally, a higher consciousness of the characteristics of the situation where the innovations take place could contribute to design innovation processes involving actors with complementary roles and interests. This may avoid conflicts and counterproductive processes based on misconceptions about stakeholder interests in the technology under development.