This article is an exploration of the differences between science and technology studies and the history of technology, taken as independent intellectual fields. The differences range from stylistic and professional, to matters of theory, narrative, and inference. These make true interdisciplinarity challenging, although scholars do bridge the disciplines. Both provide important resources for critical technological literacy by promoting historical thinking and by providing tools for exploring reflexivity by the social contextualization of scholarly activities and knowledge production in general.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bijker, W. (1995). Bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
Bijker, W. (2001). Understanding technological culture through a constructivist view of science, technology, and society. In S. Cutcliffe & C. Mitcham (Eds.), Visions of STS: Counterpoints in science, technology, and society studies (chap. 2, pp. 19-34). Albany: State University of New York Press.
3.
Borg, K. (1999). The chauffeur problem in the early auto era: Structuration theory and users of technology. Technology and Culture, 40(4), 797-832.
4.
Buchanan, R. A. (1991). Theory and narrative in the history of technology. Technology and Culture, 32(2), 365-376.
5.
Collins, H. M., & Kusch, M. (1995). Automating air pumps: An empirical and conceptual analysis. Technology and Culture, 36(4), 802-829.
6.
Cowan, R. S. (1996). Technology is to science as female is to male: Musings on the history and character of our discipline. Technology and Culture, 37(3), 572-582.
7.
Dear, P. (2001). Science studies as epistemography. In J. Labinger & H. Collins (Ed.), The one culture? A conversation about science (pp. 128-141). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8.
Friere, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. (Original work published 1973)
9.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge, MA: Polity.
10.
Gieryn, T. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11.
hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge.
12.
Law, J. (1991). Theory and narrative in the history of technology: Response. Technology and Culture, 32(2), 377-384.
13.
Lerman, N. E., Mohun, A. P., & Oldenziel, R. (1997). Versatile tools: Gender analysis and the history of technology. Technology and Culture, 38(1), 1-8.
14.
Lewis, M. J. T. (1994). The origins of the wheelbarrow. Technology and Culture, 35(3), 453-475.
15.
Lynch, M. (2001, fall). The epistemology of epistopics: Science and technology studies as an emergent (non)discipline [Newsletter]. American Sociological Association Section on Science, Knowledge and Technology, p. 2-3.
16.
Marra, R. M., Palmer, B., &Litzinger, T. A. (2000). The effects of a first year engineering design course on student intellectual development as measured by the Perry scheme. Journal of Engineering Education, 89(1), 39-46.
17.
Matthies, A. L. (1991). The medieval wheelbarrow. Technology and Culture, 32(2), 356-364.
18.
O’Connell, J. (1992). The fine tuning of a golden ear. Technology and Culture, 33(1), 1-37.
19.
Perry, W. G. (1970). Intellectual and ethical development in the college years: Ascheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston.
20.
Pinch, T., & Kline, R. (1996). Users as agents of technological change: The social construction of the automobile in the rural United States. Technology and Culture, 37(4), 763-795.
21.
Proctor, R. N. (1999). The Nazi war on cancer. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
22.
Rogers, E. (1995). The diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
23.
Roland, A. (1997). Does the history of technology matter. Technology and Culture, 38(3), 697-713.
24.
Ropers-Huilman, B. (1998). Feminist teaching in theory and practice: Situating power & knowledge in poststructural classrooms. New York: Teacher’s College Press.
25.
Schiffer, M. B. (1993). Cultural imperatives and product development: The case of the shirt-pocket radio. Technology and Culture, 34(1), 98-113.
26.
Scranton, P. (1991). Theory and narrative in the history of technology: Comment. Technology and Culture, 32(2), 385-393.
27.
Scranton, P. (1994). Manufacturing diversity: Production systems, markets, and an American consumer society, 1870-1930. Technology and Culture, 35(3), 476-505.
28.
Shapin, S. (1994). A social history of truth: Civility and science in seventeenth-century England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29.
Small, M. L. (1999). Departmental conditions and the emergence of new disciplines: Two cases in the legitimation of African-American studies. Theory and Society, 28, 659-707.
30.
Sokal, A. (1996). Aphysicist experiments with cultural studies and the conventions of academic discourse. Lingua Franca, 6(4), 62-64.
31.
Staudenmaier, J. (1985). Technology’s storytellers: Reweaving the human fabric. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32.
Staudenmaier, J. (1996). Taking the baton. Technology and Culture, 37(1), 1-4.
33.
Vincenti, W. (1994). The retractable airplane landing gear and the Northrop anomaly: Variation-selection and the shaping of technology. Technology and Culture, 35(1), 1-33.
34.
White, H. (1987). The content of the form: Narrative discourse and historical representation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
35.
Winch, P. (1990). The idea of social science and its relation to philosophy (2nd ed.). Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
36.
Yager, R. E. (1996). Science/technology/society as reform in science education. Albany: State University of New York Press.
37.
Yager, R. E. (2001). Science-technology-society and education: A focus on learning and how persons know. In S. Cutcliffe & C. Mitcham (Eds.), Visions of STS: Counterpoints in science, technology, and society studies (chap. 6, pp. 81-98). Albany: State University of New York Press.
