Report on the conference of the GWTF (German Society for Science and Technology Studies), Berlin, November 26-27 2004.

As researchers in science and technology studies we have become comfortable with constructivism. The provocative charm of a concept aligning epistemic practices with everyday ones and disputing the claim of exceptionality of scientific knowledge eventually faded away, however. Meanwhile we have accepted that scientific knowledge is not the result of discovery but of a process of construction situated in laboratories. The omnipresence of the term ‘construction,’ however, signifies that there are ambiguities to be analysed in the discourse of science and technology studies. What are the consequences to draw from this situation? Are we currently observing a change of paradigms?

The presentations at the conference ultimately propose three possible answers to this key question. The first group of speakers made a plea for further development of the constructivist paradigm, but in a more sophisticated way. The strategies presented for refinement differed. One means is to analyse the inherent tensions of this paradigm and articulate the key problems to be resolved (Martina Merz). Another is to enlarge the scope of conditions and factors responsible for ‘constructing,’ e.g., with respect to gender-sensitive technology development (Andrea Wolffram). A third is to refine central concepts such as ‘interpretative flexibility,’ and discuss potential variations and their heuristic potential (Uli Meyer/Ingo Schulz-Schaeffer). The second perspective related constructivism to concrete design. On the one hand, there was an emphasis on the creative spill-over to be obtained in a transition from constructivism to the practice of design, under the auspices of actor-network theory (Thomas Berker). On the other hand, a warning was issued about too much optimism in the potential to extract concrete design strategies from the sociological reconstruction of technological developments. The variety of problems of transfer should be considered and investigated (Armin Grunwald). The third group of presenters discussed the prospect of moving beyond constructivism. One direction is the methodological acumination of the constructivist paradigm. In one talk the “post-constructivist” was conceptually focused on material and performative practices to analyse ‘unknown unknowns,’ in the debate on a sociology of scientific ignorance (Peter Wehling). A second direction was the enlargement of relevant settings. It may be fruitful to draft a conceptual framework for trans-human interaction that takes the different levels of social interaction into account (societal, organizational, inter- and intra-individual) (Roger Häussling). Others focused precisely on the linkages between science and society - the “structural coupling“ between science and justice - against the backdrop of network analysis (Thomas Heinze), or as a dynamic model of technological change between technology, actors and institutions (Raymund Werle).

In addition to these varied perspectives responding to the main question, two special lectures took up central points not to be missed when reflecting upon paradigmatic shifts. Wolfgang Krohn reminded us in his plea for “deliberative constructivism“ not only to take the problem of observation in the sociology of science serious with respect to its consequences, but also to be aware of the problem of cultural relativity in the justification of knowledge. It requires a constant negotiation of the boundaries of science. Concluding the conference, Wolfgang Bonß, in a discussion of modernization theories, pointed out how the standard view of scientific capacity, established in the so-called ‘first modernity,’ is undergoing a process of relativisation. The production of scientific knowledge is not only a rational enterprise; the debates on scientifically induced catastrophes are also relevant to understand the dynamic of this evolution. What we observe in general is a shift from a “dialectics of enlightenment“ to a “dialectics of scientification.“ As a consequence we would have to discuss and specify the problem of the justification of knowledge not only in a broader setting (including institutional questions) but also in a way reflected in modernization theory.

An all-embracing answer to the question of the “after” is impossible and was not the main emphasis of the organization team. The focus was much more on screening the present debate and investigating new programmatic territory. The wealth of questions thrown up demonstrated that the provocation of the central question achieved its aim. Obviously, the question hits a nerve in science and technology studies. The intention is to publish a selection of contributions in the newly established Internet-forum. Science, Technology and Innovation-Studies (STI-Studies).

The author is affiliated with the University of Augsburg, Germany.