Review of: Lars Fuglsang, Technology and New Institutions, A Comparison of Strategic Choices and Technology Studies in the United States, Denmark and Sweden, Academic Press, Copenhagen, 1993.
The initial phrases of the book point towards the potential of technology studies to influence organizations active in the development of new technology. Organizations become more open as a consequence of two developments. First, new initiatives emerge in the management of technology that are underpinned by new infrastructures and new educational initiatives. Second, new visions of technical change are promoted by new networks of financial and industrial actors that challenge existing cultural and institional structures. The focus of the book is narrowed down to put into perspecitve the development of technology studies in the United States, Denmark and Sweden. Thus the stated aim becomes to compare the institutional embeddedness of technology studies in these three countries. The initial broader question is thus reduced to a comparative understanding of the technology studies community within the wider perspective of influencing technology development. In a way the efforts made by technology studies are to be understood as a conscience way for the three societies to cope with the dilemmas of the societal steering of technology development.
The book is divided into five parts: the rationale behind the book, a section on the motivation behind technology studies, the comparision of technology studies initiatives in the three countries, an attempt to paint with a broad brush the social embedded development of technology, and a concluding section where the case studies are located in this broader picture. This construction of the book demonstrates that the approach is an ambitious attempt. And it is between the various parts that I find tensions which make the reading sometimes quite difficult. The wide ranging descriptions of technology development in society raise broader questions than can be answered through the cases studies and are not always required for an interpretation of the case studies. In part this is a consequence of neglecting some of the developments in academic and consultant organizations that also relate to the theme. I will come back to this point later.
The first part deals with an outline of the authors’ involvement in the subject, a wide (and perhaps too broad) variety of social theories are addressed that are of relevance to the subject. The main thrust is that the preferred way of dealing with technology development consists of addressing organizations as open systems. This claim is followed by a discussion of technology development in three phases: (initial) flexibility, momentum and senility. The arguments are not developed very far and do not relate to the initial point of view introduced. The three phase model is not explored and remains a fremdkrper within the book. The main point to come out of this part of the book is to look at the development of technology studies as reflecting the institutional relations of particular societies. The second part of the book does provide a clearer focus for the comparative study of the cases. Three levels of critique are distinguished, that of cultural norms, of cultural criticisms in a broader sense at the social level and those related to strategic choices. Fuglsang goes on with that last type of analysis.
The third is the most interesting part of the book. Technology studies are interpreted along two lines of comparison. The first dimension is provided by organizational choices and intentions for technology studies. These organizational choices relate technology studies to the ideas and options of its practioners vis—vis the influence of social groups. The second dimension consists of the relation between the actors of technology studies and the emergent institutional concerns and the institutionalization of collective social and cultural concerns. In the case studies empirical material is presented along these dimensions. The empirical material itself is organized through descriptions of programs and units at universities and programmatic inititatives at the societal level. In each case studies can be found which deal with university-based STS groups. Next to it societal inititiatives, such as the Office of Technology Assessment in the US, working life programs in Sweden and Ministry of Education intitiatives in Denmark are described.
In the case of the US the main elements of the development of STS are formed by the presence of strong technology cultures with supporting ideologies. Therefore, intellectual debate and cultural criticism of technology are important elements. The community has engaged in the development of methods to support the societal criticism of technology development through new methods and modes of interpretation. It is concluded that its development has been spurred by a drive towards professionalization. Because of the local differences in academic institutions, STS has not developed as a unified professional activity. For example, three versions of history of technology are distinguished. (1) Technical institutions are characterized by a drive towards public oriented explanations of technology. (2) Critical groups in universities aim at a more fundamental understanding of the role of science and technology in society. (3) Professionals in history departments are drawn towards conceptualizations of different conditions for the emergence of science and technology. In general the conclusions are that STS in the United States has moved from being based in a social movement through a combination of technical questions with societal concerns to a situation where STS is focusing more directly on strategic choices in technology development. The basis of STS is within educational institutions and because of its academic professionalism is subject to centrifugal forces.
In contrast to the United States Danish technology studies are related to political culture. It is characterized by a fragmented institutionalization. The main thrust is a link with a broader political culture in which technology criticism is a central concern. Most STS professionals have worked together with social groups such as trade unions and the environmental movement. Their impact at the level of society is linked to the political interests and power of such groups. A central role is played by social experiments linked with technology assessment. The way in which technology assessment was performed by various social groups provides a guiding example. TA tends to be seen as an instrument of the various social groups to organize experiments and social debate. Experts do not provide the process but coach the social groups. The more active role is linked to the Danish political structure which, compared to the US and Sweden, more decentralized and experimental. The main focus in technology criticism is thus scepticism toward technical change, social innovation and institutionalization at the level of policy culture and debate. This thrust also implies the lack of university institutionalization which is described.
Sweden is more characterized by top-down approaches. Research communities that do policy relevant research are usually connected quite closely with these policy areas. Attention in this area is therefore more drawn towards professional support of policy development. Some of the subjects covered relate to social control to the effects of public policy. The direction of attention towards technology development in Swedish society accordingly is linked to attempts to modify the impacts of technology. There is not so much attention to the origins of technology development and constructive attempts to guide its creation. While there is a high level of public participation in policymaking it tends to be more orchestrated than in Denmark and critique of technology impacts is therefore fragmented in different specific programs and top-down initiatives. The state itself pulls technology studies in different directions, and coordinating efforts to institutionalize STS groups at the level of academia are relatively weak.
Finally, this book provides a useful set of three case analyses of STS communities. The development of technology studies thus provides us with an interesting meta analysis of the emergence of our own field. In a way it is argued that STS groups are as much a product of their social and instituional environments as most other scientific fields. In itself this is not surpising but it is good to remind us of this situation. It also interesting to follow Fuglsang’s argument that we need to consider the societal purposes and alliances in order to contribute to the social guidance of technology development.
However, I found this argument of the broader potential of the STS community to influence technology development in need of better tools and information than provided in the case studies. With regard to the US, for instance, it is quite clear that the thinking of numerous individuals and groups outside the STS community has provided the policy and institutional thrust of technology management and policy. In my opinion the relative lack of attention in the STS community towards organization of the main organizational drivers (industry, government and international organizations) of modern technology development suggests a rather marginal position of STS academic communities. In line with Fuglsang’s description of the Danish case the fluidity of strategic issues should warrant input in policy and management debates from a more dispersed set of experts with a greater variation in insights than the STS community can provide.