Science and technology studies is a curious field of inquiry. While it purports to be integrative, drawing on disciplinary analysis in history, philosophy, sociology, political science, economics, innovation and management studies, psychology, literary and textual analysis, cultural studies, anthropology (and maybe even more), it had better be seen as oriented toward its subject matter, science and technology and their roles in society. Whatever seems relevant to the subject can be taken up, and a certain looseness of method may well go with such an open-ended approach.

The avowed roles of science and technology scholars are linked up with the nature of our field: a mixture of distantiated analysis and a strong engagement with our subject matter, science and technology. This runs from intellectual engagement with the icons of rationality and modernity, and an interest in the broad sweep of history with science and technology as integral factors, to a sense of mission, defending or criticizing progress as it is predicated on the continuing role of science and technology. In both cases, we are modernists, and partake in the modernism of science and technology, as well as the complementary modernism of social science. Sometimes, the sense of mission is put up front, and contrasted with distantiated analysis. One of my aims in this paper is to replace such a sense of mission with a reflective or ironic engagement with our subject matter, science and technology and their role in society.

I will start with diagnosing our field as being better at micro- and meso-analysis than at macro-analysis and tracing long-term transformations. This can be seen as a strength: we are better at something; but also as a weakness, when we limit ourselves to it, or fragment ourselves in endless case studies. In any case, it is certain that we have achieved something that we can build upon, if we want to. With the benefit of the micro-studies of the last 15 years, we are in a position to see and understand how patterns and structures emerge and stabilize. It is not necessary anymore to just posit structures.

This detour through the micro is what constructivism is all about, I would argue. True, constructivism (and especially social constructivism, as it was called for some time) has been pre- occupied with demolishing naive views about science and technology, and has been distracted into polemics about relativism, machiavellism, and “epistemological chicken.” While one may have to destroy before one can build, I prefer to put my efforts into what I call, for emphasis, constructive constructivism.

Still, one can be hesitant about the turn to the micro, as it swept our field. Isn’t there a contrast with the interest in the broad sweep of history and the integral role of science and technology in it, that engages us? Does the focus on the micro indicate a loss of engagement? The recent debates about the loss of the normative in science and technology studies revolve around this question, but it is too easy to just call for more engagement. The real question is what kind of engagement is in order, intellectual and otherwise.

To address this question, I will offer a further diagnosis of our field, as well as use my own and others’ work in the area of constructive technology assessment (CTA) as an occasion to explore varieties of engagement.

The move towards the meso- and micro-level of analysis is not a matter of intellectual fashion among an inward-looking community of science and technology scholars. It reflects the evolving nature of their subject matter (immediately or with some time lag). Science, definitely, and technology to some extent, have become differentiated and somewhat separated subsystems of society.

Especially after the second world war, science, as the “Endless Frontier,” became a quasi-autonomous activity, and its disciplines and specialties proliferated, and became subject of attention of science managers and science scholars alike. Thomas Kuhn’s concept of paradigms and their related scientific communities opened up a field of specialty studies in the 1970s, which continues until today. There is a continuity between the 1950s interest in scientific creativity as one aspect of scientific practice, and the laboratory ethnographies of the late 1970s onwards. All are predicated on the existence of a quasi-autonomous scientific community. The shift is very clear in the contrast between the work of Merton in the 1930s and 1940s, where scientific values and norms were linked with emerging or threatened contracts between science and society, and his work in the 1960s, where the same norms were used to explain the inner workings of the scientific community.

Technology is a much more heterogeneous domain, but one can see a similar movement in the treatment of technology by economists, from a ‘residual’ in the analysis of productivity growth, to its partial un-blackboxing in Nelson and Winter’s and Pavitt’s sectoral analyses, and in the rise of detailed contextual histories of technologies in the same period (1970s and 1980s). In my perspective, this is related to a growing interest in technology as such, as reflected in innovation competition and the emergence of explicit technology policies in the same period.

In the 1980s and 1990s, re-integration of science and technology occurs. Science is scrutinized for its relevance, scientists become active in society, disciplines interact and fuse into new combinations; science and technology become integrated in ‘strategic’ science and technology, and link up with expectations in policy and in society. In addition, scientific and technological development is becoming reflexive: scientists and technologists, as well as science and technology policy makers (note that the concepts of science policy and technology policy, themselves an indicator of a reflexive attitude, are recent: in the case of science, of the 1960s, and in the case of technology, of the 1980s), have become interested in and knowledgeable about the nature of science and technology and the dynamics of their development. The concept of ‘paradigm’ is now regularly used in scientific conversation and in discussions about awarding grants and shaping science policy. Insights in the dynamics of technological developments are taken up in policy documents. Nelson and Winter’s evolutionary model of variations and selection environment, for example, has shaped the text as well as the thinking of the 1989 innovation policy memorandum in the Netherlands.

Neither scientists and technologists, nor science and technology policy makers are naive any more. At least, they need not be naive, if they reflect on what is happening. Of course, as actors, they will be focussed on their situation, their problems, and their interests, and not necessarily be interested in the more general insights from science and technology studies. They may even be right in neglecting these insights, if these have been developed for internal purposes of the community, and/or focus on aspects of science and technology that are no longer important.

If we want to follow our subject matter, science and technology, we should turn to the macro and the long-term again, but with the benefit of the detour through the micro. This allows us a better perspective on the vicissitudes of what is happening with science and technology. In addition, we should have more respect for the insights that reflexive practitioners of science and technology come up with. The contributions from such practitioners, with a lot of experience in science and technology, have always been important in our field, especially if they seriously turn to science and technology studies. John Ziman is a good example here. By now, almost all scientists and technologists have lost their naivet. They may still be biased, according to our cosmopolitan standards, but we might sometimes learn from them, instead of assuming that they should learn from us.

My two diagnoses of the field of science and technology studies have led me to indicate an agenda for further work. I also noted that the role of the science and technology scholar could be changing: the nature of the engagement with the subject matter can be further articulated. Specifically, I would argue that we need not depend on the sympathetic understanding of scientists, technologists, and policy makers only to insert science and technology studies in the real world of science and technology. Recent experiences with constructive technology assessment allow me to develop this point.

Constructive technology assessment (CTA), born of the renewed interest in TA in the 1980s, is not a mature area yet by any means. In a recent book, we speak of a paradigm, but only in the sense that exemplary achievements are recognized and are being articulated. The basic idea is to shift the focus of TA away from assessing fully articulated technologies, and introduce anticipation of technology impacts at an early stage in the development. Actors within the world of technology become an important target group then, but the insight of recent technology studies - that impacts are co-produced in the implementation and diffusion stages - implies that technology actors are not the only ones to be involved. Within the world of technology, the preferred strategy for CTA is to broaden the aspects and the actors that are taken into account. More generally, one should work towards societal learning in handling, and sometimes managing, technology in society.

Interestingly, within the world of technology de facto CTA, in the sense of broadening of aspects and actors, is increasing. The attempts at concurrent (or simultaneous) engineering, where product development, production, implementation and marketing are worked on in parallel, instead of sequentially, are sometimes extended to include work on social acceptance and adoption. This happens emphatically in the biotechnological firms, which have encountered legitimation and acceptance problems that they could not solve by traditional means. It is also in biotechnology (and in telematics and for environmental aspects) that consumers have become interested in a CTA which is consumer-oriented.

From the beginning, CTA emphasized the necessity of insight in, and analysis of, the dynamics of technological development and how technology gets embedded in society. It drew on science and technology studies, and was able to paint a persuasive picture, in spite of the fragmented nature of the field. By now, one can also see the benefits of the detour through the micro: the emphasis on contingency, on seamless webs has led to various theories about how patterns, technologies, and socio-technical orders are constructed. The key point for CTA is that a collusion of actors and factors is needed to have a reliable and otherways “good” technology. And here technology should be recognized as working at more than one level: from the ‘immutable mobiles’ (to use Bruno Latour’s felicitous phrase) to sociotechnical orders and the ‘landscape’ of our society.

Science and technology studies are important for CTA, and in two ways. First, to critically articulate and strengthen the analytic and intellectual basis of CTA; this fits our role as science and technology scholars. Second, to do the specific analysis and often also articulate some advice necessary for concrete CTA projects; here, we must assume a professional role, which we are less used to. The experience of CTA is an example, and in my view, an inspiration for a broader role of science and technology scholars.

When the world of science and technology itself is becoming broader, integrative, and more reflexive, the role of science and technology scholars must change as well. In any case, the opportunities for interaction increase, and collaborative efforts with actors in the world of science and technology become a real possibility. Let me give you an example from an ongoing CTA study (on product development in biotechnology firms).

A recurrent phenomenon is the asymmetric alignment that one associates with technology push, and often corrective action at a later stage (or just luck) is necessary to create the collusion of actors and factors necessary for a “good” technology. How is this possible in a world where planning, management and market orientation are keywords? Let me make a little detour. Michel Callon introduced the notion of an ‘actor world’, a scenario of a new world around a proposed technology (say, the electric vehicle in France). Actors proposing a new technology or development of a new product present a diffuse scenario of the benefits and some of the barriers that have to be overcome. It is an actor world in which the co-production of impacts is not specified yet, even if some of the positive effects are already claimed. When the proposal is accepted and development work starts, very little attention is given to the diffuse scenario. It remains unarticulated, unless something happens that obstructs progress or is otherwise seen as a barrier to be overcome. The point of CTA is that one should articulate the diffuse scenario in parallel to the internal development work, and gradually fill in the actor world. The processes of co-production of impacts is envisaged, and partially implemented at the same time. Here, in this extension of concurrent engineering, the science and technology scholar has an important contribution to make, mobilizing general understanding, doing specific studies, and involving himself in the development over time.

Here, we have a clear example of what I would call the professional service role: there is identification with the problem of the client, but critical contributions based on the professional competence (here, of science and technology scholars) remain in order. This is even necessary, if the science and technology scholar is to provide added value to what actors themselves can do already.

The example is specifically relevant for work on CTA, but other examples of professional service that I have encountered can be phrased in more general terms. That science and technology studies have something to offer that the actors in the world of science and technology cannot produce themselves, can be shown in at least two ways. One is because science and technology studies, when offering concepts like path dependency, or co-production, or paradigm, helps practitioners in ‘naming’, i.e. using a name (a concept, a label) to mobilise one’s own and others’ experience and items from the literature to understand one’s own situation better and derive action strategies. The other value-added benefit is that of ‘circulation’: science and technology scholars can move about as observers and aggregators of data, while actors cannot, because their movement will be as a player, and encounter strategic reactions.

In offering these examples of professional service drawn from my work in CTA, I am arguing that the role of the science and technology scholar can and should be broadened. In addition to intellectual engagement, and the sense of mission, a third component turns out to be viable: professional service.

In conclusion, I would argue that my diagnosis of the field of science and technology studies should lead to action, and that my articulation of the role of the science and technology scholar should be seen as generally applicable, not just to CTA.

Macro and long-term studies are necessary, not just because we should cover all aspects of our domain, but also because the increasing importance of these aspects in the present world in which science and technology play an integral role. It is, in addition, the only way to overcome our helpless feeling with respect to big issues like the situation of less developed countries and their increasingly dependent situation; now, we address the issues out of sympathy rather than analytically.

The small scale of most academic work, however, and especially so in institutionally marginal areas like science and technology studies, is not conducive to concerted attempts to broach bigger questions. One or more consortia, like the political scientists in Europe created more than ten years ago, might be the way to go. In addition, I know that interesting work in our field is already being done in non-university contexts, and I suspect that this will expand. If productive alliances can be formed, and if the intellectual goals can be maintained, a major move forward could be made.

The sense of mission, which is such a pervasive feature in our field and structures our questions and approaches, would profit from the more detailed underpinning that macro and long-term studies would provide. Too often, the mission is put up front, and derives from a position (critical or otherwise) which is not articulated in interaction with concrete studies — exactly similar to the modernist push of scientists and technologists which makes them neglect the articulation of their diffuse scenario about the wonderful world they will help create. I am not arguing for a quasi- neutral approach. The sense of mission should be retained, but it should not be separated from intellectual and scholarly engagement, and be part of a more interactive, sometimes collaborative effort which I discussed under the label ‘professional service.’ So let us remain modernist, by all means, but it must be a reflexive modernism.

I am not arguing that every individual scholar in science and technology studies should be a reflexive modernist. One may very well concentrate on one of the three components that make up the reflexive modernist stance. But it should be a positive choice, in full recognition of the need for all three of them, rather than a dismissal of the other components as irrelevant, or bad. Ideally, the three components should inform and improve each other. Individual scholars like Helga Nowotny and Brian Wynne have done so in their work, and could be taken as role models.

While I have argued my case with the help of examples from technology studies and technology assessment, it would be equally possible to take the study of scientific and engineering practices, or the study of science policy, or the study of controversies, and come up with the same points: the need to add macro and long-term studies (and seeing the first signs of such a movement), and the possibility of a productive combination of three ways to engage with our subject matter, as an intellectual, missionary, and professional, especially now that the world of science and technology is becoming more reflexive. So science and technology studies can and should move with their subject matter, following its evolution, and be engaged with it.

Notes

1. The existence of the Society for Social Studies of Science in the USA, in parallel to various disciplinary societies for the study of science and/or technology, and the nature of its activities, can prove my point. While the field of science and technology studies has come into its own since the late 1960s, its history is usually taken to start in the 1920s, and I will follow this usage. Thus, the critical movement of the 1960s has helped shape the field, but is not its source.

2. A similar point was made by Aant Elzinga in EASST Newsletter 13(1) (March 1994), at p. 10. Note that I (much more than Aant Elzinga) here concentrate on the core of science and technology studies, as it becomes visible in the scholarly journals, conferences, and scholarly societies. Things are different elsewhere, in what we consider as periphery (but are cores in their own right). It is for the core of science and technology studies that my diagnosis of the focus on micro, and my later points about constructivism and the detour through the micro, holds.

3. See Hans Radder, ‘Normative Reflexions on Constructivist Approaches to Science and Technology,’ Social Studies of Science 22 (1992) 141-173, and Richard Rogers’s report on a lecture series on `The Normative Quandary in Science and Technology Studies’ in EASST Newsletter 13 (2) (1994) 17-22.

4. The so-called Brooks Report, Science, Growth, and Society. A New Perspective (Paris: OECD, 1971), is generally considered to mark the transition. Subsequent developments are discussed and analysed in Susan E. Cossens et al. (eds.), The Research System in Transition (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1990).

5. Arie Rip, Tom Misa, Johan Schot (eds.), Managing Technology In Society. The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment (London: Pinter Publishers, forthcoming, 1995). The book is based on the third Twente Workshop in Technology Studies, September 1991.

6. Think of the path-dependency theories, evolutionary and quasi-evolutionary theories, and the “Borodino”-type theories (after H. Rom Harré, ‘Images of the world and societal icons,’ in Karin D. Knorr, Herman Strasser, and Hans-Georg Zilian (eds.), Determinants and Controls of Scientific Development (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1975) 257-283) including the recent interest in expectations and stories (Harro Van Lente, Promising Technology (Ph.D. Thesis, University of Twente, 1993), Bryan Pfaffenberger, ‘Technological Dramas,’ Science, Technology & Human Values 17 (3) (1992) 282-312).).

7. One example is the work of Johan Schot, who combines contextual history of technology, socio-economic theory of technological development, management- and policy-oriented studies, with an attempt to position CTA intellectually (in his view, as a present-day Luddism).

8. Michel Callon, ‘The Sociology of an Actor-Network: The Case of the Electric Vehicle,’ in Michel Callon, John Law, Arie Rip, Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology. Sociology of Science in the Real World (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1986), 19-34.

9. So I am not talking about the “jobbing” that is sometimes required by policy makers and other actors commissioning science and technology studies. This can run from simplistic data collection jobs, to “appeals to social scientists to help lubricate the public acceptability of science and technological change.” I quote Howard Newby, ‘One society, one Wissenschaft: a 21st century vision,’ Science and Public Policy 19 (1) (Feb. 1992) 7-14, at p. 11, because his overall theme is very relevant to my discussion: “.. social science is an integral, not merely a marginal, activity in understanding the process whereby scientific excellence and technological innovation may lead to economic and social well being. There remain formidable obstacles to achieving this integration.” (summary, p. 7).

10. The notion of `naming’ is drawn from Donald A. Schön, The Reflective Practitioner. How professionals think in action (Basic Books, 1983). Here, I am not interested in the cognitive aspect, but in the way ‘naming’ locates situations, problems, options in the landscape of our society as reconstructed by science and technology studies. There is an intriguing link with Paul Carter’s ideas: “To name [places] is to bring them into cultural circulation.” “…names … are rhetorical lighthouses for getting on” (The Road To Botany Bay. An Essay in Spatial History (London: Faber & Faber, 1988), at p. 28 and p. 9). David Edge pointed out to me the Biblical echoes, including God, being jealous of his power, refusing to be named.

11. See further my paper Following the actors, moving about … and then? A social theory of social research, extended version of a paper presented to the 4S meeting at Purdue University, 19-21 November 1993.

12. Ron Giere’s notion of an ‘enlightened postmodern synthesis’ is similar. He starts from the intellectual perspectives in the field (and focusses on the ‘destructive’ version of constructivism), and then calls for a modernist relation between knowledge and policy, the “enlightenment gamble” that knowledge and understanding help, even while we know that things may go wrong. See Ronald N. Giere, ‘Science and Technology Studies: Prospects for an Enlightened Postmodern Synthesis,’ Science, Technology & Human Values 18(1) (Winter 1993) 102-112.

13. In my own work, I combine intellectual engagement and professional service, and I see myself as an ironist, rather than a modernist.