The analysis of contemporary socio-technical processes can benefit greatly, methodologically speaking, from considering past processes and solutions. Obviously, all technological projects have a prehistory upon which they depend to a certain extent. In some cases, the prehistory might even take on the shape of a translation terrain, which technical experts employ explicitly to sidestep inexperienced nonexperts. Also, mechanisms that can best be described as a pied piper detour, rather than as an obligatory passage point, are relied on by technical experts who want to exclude the views and participation of nonexperts for themselves to assume a dominating position in the Machiavellian tradition. The relevance and operation of these socio-technical mechanisms were amply illustrated in the Norwegian town of Fredrikstad, where plans for establishing an IT highway project—a digital city concept developed and supported by users (both bureaucrats and laypersons)—came to nothing after technical experts intervened in the shape of a mediating agency and introduced their own scenarios.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Akrich, M. 1992. The de-scription of technological objects. In Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change, edited by W. E. Bijker and J. Law, 205-224. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
Akrich, M., and B. Latour. 1992. A summary of a convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies. In Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change, edited by W. E. Bijker and J. Law, 259-264. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3.
Bjørklund, T. 1994. Public opinion in Norway, Sweden and Finland towards membership in the EU prior to the referenda in the autumn 1994. Working Paper 2/1994. Oslo, Norway: Institute of Political Science.
4.
Callon, M. 1986. Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge?, edited by J. Law, 196-233. London: Routledge Kegan Paul.
5.
Cowan, R. S. 1983/1989. More work for mother: The ironies of household technology from the open hearth to the microwave. Repr. London: Basic Books.
6.
Emery, F., and E. Thorsrud. 1976. Democracy at work: The report of the Norwegian Industrial Democracy Program. Leiden, Norway: Nijhoff.
7.
Graham, S., and S. Marvin. 1996. Telecommunications and the city: Electronic spaces, urban places. London: Routledge.
8.
Greene, G. 1991. Our man in Havana: An entertainment. New York: Penguin.
9.
Hatling, M., and K. H. Sørensen. 1997. Social construction of user participation. Informasjonsteknologi: Rapport fra forskerseminar i regi av programmet Informasjonsteknologi og samfunn. Oslo, Norway: Norwegian Research Council.
10.
Hetland, P. 1996. Exploring hybrid communities: Communications on trial. IMK Report no. 29, ch. 5-6. Oslo, Norway: Department of Media and Communication.
11.
Kubicek, H., H. Dutlon, and R. Williams, eds. 1997. The social shaping of information highways: European and American roads to the information society. New York: St. Martin’s.
12.
Kunzman, K. R., et al. 1998. Visions for the impact of telematics on urban development. Paper presented to the 4th European Digital Cities Conference, Salzburg, Austria, October.
13.
Lahnstein, A. E. 1997. Telenor forsterker sentraliseringen: Økte forskjeller på nok et område. Agrarian Party press release, August 5.
14.
Latour, B. 1983. Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world. In Science observed: Perspectives on the social study of science, edited by K. Knorr and M. Mulkay, 141-170. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
15.
Latour, B. 1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16.
Latour, B., and S. Woolgar. 1979/1986. Laboratory life: The [social] construction of scientific facts. Repr. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
17.
Law, J., and W. E. Bijker. 1992. Postscript: Technology, stability, and social theory. In Shaping technology/building society. Studies in sociotechnical change, edited by W. E. Bijker and J. Law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18.
Machiavelli, N. 1515. The prince. Repr., London: Penguin, 1999.
19.
Nunn, D., and J. B. Rubleske. 1997. “Webbed” cities and development of the national information highway: The creation of World Wide Web sites by U.S. city governments. Journal of Urban Technology4 (1): 53-79.
20.
Rapport om Internett-prosjektet i Fredrikstad kommune. 1996. Fredrikstad Local Authority Information Services and EDP Department, p. 2.
21.
Rokkan, S. 1967. Geography, religion, and social class. Crosscutting cleavages in Norwegian politics. In Party systems and voter alignments. Cross-national perspectives, edited by S. M. Lipset and S. Rokkan, 367-444. New York: Free Press.
22.
Sørensen, K. H. 1995. Action versus analysis: Making sense of technology studies in Norway. In Similar concerns, different styles? European approaches to the social shaping of technology, edited by T. Cronberg and K. H. Sørensen. Brussels: European Commission Directorate-General.
23.
Sørensen, K. H. 1997. Social shaping on the move? On the policy relevance of the social shaping of technology perspective. STS working paper 9/97. Trondheim, Norway: Centre for Technology and Science.
24.
Sørensen, K. H., and A.-J. Berg, eds. 1991. Technology and every day life: Trajectories and trans-formations. Proceedings from a Workshop in Trondheim May 28-29, 1990. Oslo: Norwegian Research Council for Science and the Humanities.
25.
Tsagarousianou, R., D. Tambini, and C. Bryan, eds. 1998. Cyber democracy, technology, cities, and civic networks. London: Routledge.
26.
van Bastelaer, B., and C. Lobet-Maris, eds. 1999. Social learning regarding multimedia developments at a local level: The case of digital cities. Namur, Belgium: CITA-FUNDP.
27.
White paper on growth, competitiveness, and employment: The challenges and ways forward into the 21st century. 1993. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities. Retrieved from www.ispo.cec.be/infosoc/backg/whitpaper.html.
28.
Wyller, T. C. 1994. The referendum as a political process. The Norwegian experience. Working Paper 3/1994, Institute of Political Science.
