Mini-essay 1a
Yara Langeveld (2760223) - MPA - MSTS
400 words
The concept of interpretative flexibility is connected to the theories Empirical Programme of
Relativism (EPOR) and the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT). Within EPOR it is best
described by Pinch & Bijker1 as follows:
- “To demonstrate the interpretative flexibility of scientific findings, the sociologist of science
must show that differing interpretations of the natural world are available: in short, s/he
must demonstrate that nature does not 'force the issue' of the existence or non-existence of
some purported phenomenon, one way or the other.” (p.420)
By this, Pinch & Bijker1 indicate scientific findings and knowledge can be interpreted in multiple
ways. People cannot be forced to accept the existence or non-existence of certain findings and
knowledge, because they interpret it in their own way. This is exemplified by the adoption of the
Evolution Theory of Charles Darwin. Darwin based his theory on extensive evidence and
research, but diversity of life could be interpreted in different ways. His concepts of natural
selection and evolution, for instance, convinced some, while others, such as religious groups,
rejected this, because it was not in line with religious findings. As more evidence accumulated,
controversies diminished and the theory was accepted on a broader scale. This illustrates how
scientific facts are not objective and fixed, but constructed by different social groups through
negotiation.
Within SCOT, interpretative flexibility is best described by the Pinch & Bijker1 as follows:
- “By this [interpretative flexibility] we mean, not only that there is flexibility in how people
think of, or interpret, artefacts, but also that there is flexibility in how artefacts are
designed.” (p.421)
This illustrates that there are also multiple interpretations of technologies, what purposes they
should serve and how they should be designed. Different social groups, namely, give
technologies different meanings and technologies are constructed based on these social
influences. An example of interpretative flexibility within SCOT is the development of electric
cars. Some people saw electric cars as an environmentally friendly alternative to cars on fossil
fuel and a commitment to be more sustainable. Other people saw it rather as a cool, new and
technologically advanced toy to show off with. Also, economic factors played a role for some
people, as subsidies were provided for buying an electric car. This shows people interpreted the
electric car in different ways and aimed for different design choices, such as being the most
environmentally friendly, the fastest or the most financially attractive.
1
Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1984). The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: Or How the
Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other. Social Studies of
Science, 14(3), 399–441. http://www.jstor.org/stable/285355
Yara Langeveld (2760223) - MPA - MSTS
400 words
The concept of interpretative flexibility is connected to the theories Empirical Programme of
Relativism (EPOR) and the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT). Within EPOR it is best
described by Pinch & Bijker1 as follows:
- “To demonstrate the interpretative flexibility of scientific findings, the sociologist of science
must show that differing interpretations of the natural world are available: in short, s/he
must demonstrate that nature does not 'force the issue' of the existence or non-existence of
some purported phenomenon, one way or the other.” (p.420)
By this, Pinch & Bijker1 indicate scientific findings and knowledge can be interpreted in multiple
ways. People cannot be forced to accept the existence or non-existence of certain findings and
knowledge, because they interpret it in their own way. This is exemplified by the adoption of the
Evolution Theory of Charles Darwin. Darwin based his theory on extensive evidence and
research, but diversity of life could be interpreted in different ways. His concepts of natural
selection and evolution, for instance, convinced some, while others, such as religious groups,
rejected this, because it was not in line with religious findings. As more evidence accumulated,
controversies diminished and the theory was accepted on a broader scale. This illustrates how
scientific facts are not objective and fixed, but constructed by different social groups through
negotiation.
Within SCOT, interpretative flexibility is best described by the Pinch & Bijker1 as follows:
- “By this [interpretative flexibility] we mean, not only that there is flexibility in how people
think of, or interpret, artefacts, but also that there is flexibility in how artefacts are
designed.” (p.421)
This illustrates that there are also multiple interpretations of technologies, what purposes they
should serve and how they should be designed. Different social groups, namely, give
technologies different meanings and technologies are constructed based on these social
influences. An example of interpretative flexibility within SCOT is the development of electric
cars. Some people saw electric cars as an environmentally friendly alternative to cars on fossil
fuel and a commitment to be more sustainable. Other people saw it rather as a cool, new and
technologically advanced toy to show off with. Also, economic factors played a role for some
people, as subsidies were provided for buying an electric car. This shows people interpreted the
electric car in different ways and aimed for different design choices, such as being the most
environmentally friendly, the fastest or the most financially attractive.
1
Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1984). The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: Or How the
Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other. Social Studies of
Science, 14(3), 399–441. http://www.jstor.org/stable/285355
