A strong social and technical divide is particularly visible in the predominant understanding of technological innovation in modern societies. The field of Science and Technology Studies (STS) aims to overcome this divide, by focusing on the continuously entwined relationships between the social and the technical, that is, sociotechnical combinations. In this article, we argue that while it is reasonable to state that the social and the technical are entangled, it should be acknowledged that some issues are dealt with solutions that are more technical than others. A technical problematisation (the definition of an issue as a problem that is treated via a technical solution) is different to a social problematisation (the definition of an issue as a problem that is treated via a social solution) of the same issue. Our discussion is built upon examples from nuclear waste management, where the social–technical divide has been strong. However, more recently there has been a push for more democracy in technical decision making in this area, with much experimentation on public participation taking place. The only way these activities will successfully support such a democratising process is for them to be integrated into a renewed and explicitly acknowledged technical problematisation of proposed solutions.
AkrichM. (1995). User representations: Practices, methods and sociology. In RipA., MisaT. J., & SchotJ. (Eds.), Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment (pp. 167–184). Pinter.
2.
BarkeR. P., & Jenkins-SmithH. C. (1993). Politics and scientific expertise: Scientists, risk perception, and nuclear waste policy. Risk Analysis, 13(4), 425–439.
3.
BartheY. (2009). Framing nuclear waste as a political issue in France. Journal of Risk Research, 12(7–8), 941–954.
4.
BartheY., ElamM. & SundqvistG. (2020). Technological fix or divisible object of collective concern? Histories of conflict over the geological disposal of nuclear waste in Sweden and France. Science as Culture, 29(2), 196–218.
5.
BenfordR. D., & SnowD. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.
6.
BergmansA. (2014). International socio-technical challenges for implementing geological disposal (Project Final Report FP7, SP5-Euratom). https://www.insotec.eu/
7.
BijkerW. E. (1995). Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. The MIT Press.
8.
CallonM. (1980). Struggles and negotiations to define what is problematic and what is not: The socio-logic of translation. In KnorrK., KrohnR., & WhitleyR. (Eds.), The social process of scientific investigation (pp. 197–219). Dordrecht.
9.
CallonM. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In LawJ. (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 196–223). Routledge.
10.
CallonM. (1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In LawJ. (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 132–161). Routledge.
11.
CallonM. (1998). An essay on framing and overflowing: Economic externalities revisited by sociology. In CallonM. (Ed.), The laws of the markets (pp. 244–269). Blackwell Publishers.
12.
CallonM. (2009). Foreword. In HechtG. (Ed.), The radiance of France: Nuclear power and national identity after World War II (pp. 11–23). The MIT Press.
13.
CallonM., LascoumesP., & BartheY. (2009). Acting in an uncertain world: An essay on technical democracy. The MIT Press.
14.
ChilversJ., & BurgessJ. (2008). Power relations: The politics of risk and procedure in nuclear waste governance. Environment & Planning A, 40(8), 1881–1900.
15.
ElamM., SonerydL., & SundqvistG. (2010). Demonstrating safety—Validating new build: The enduring template of Swedish nuclear waste management. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 7(3), 197–210.
16.
EntmanR. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.
17.
EpsteinS. (1995). The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Science, Technology & Human Values, 20(4), 408–437.
18.
FoucaultM. (1990). The history of sexuality, Vol. 2: The use of pleasure. Vintage.
19.
HechtG. (2009). The radiance of France: Nuclear power and national identity after World War II. The MIT Press.
20.
IrwinA., & WynneB. (Eds.). (1996). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge University Press.
21.
JasanoffS. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41(3), 223–244.
22.
JasanoffS. (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. Routledge.
23.
JasanoffS., & KimS. H. (2009). Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva, 47, 119–146.
24.
KimuraA. H. (2016). Risk communication under post-feminism: Analysis of risk communication programmes after the Fukushima nuclear accident. Science, Technology and Society, 21(1), 24–41.
25.
KonopásekZ., SonerydL., & SvačinaK. (2014). Czech dialogues by Swedish design (Working paper of the InSOTEC project [WP 2]). InSOTEC.
26.
KonopásekZ., StöckelováT., & ZamykalováL. (2008). Making pure science and pure politics: On the expertise of bypass and the bypass of expertise. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 33(4), 529–553.
27.
LatourB. (1993). We have never been modern. Harvard University Press.
28.
LatourB. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Harvard University Press.
29.
LatourB. (2014). Agency at the time of the anthropocene. New Literary History, 45(1), 1–18.
30.
LatourB., & JohnsonJ. (1988). Mixing humans and non-humans together: The sociology of a door-closer. Social Problems, 35(3), 298–310.
31.
LawJ., & CallonM. (1988). Engineering and sociology in a military aircraft project: A network analysis of technical change. Social Problems, 35(3), 284–297.
32.
MacKenzieD., & WajcmanJ. (Eds.). (1999). The social shaping of technology (2nd ed.). Open University Press.
33.
Organisation Mondiale de la Santé (OMS) (1958). Questions de santé mentale que pose l’utilisation de l’énergie atomique à des fins pacifiques [Mental health issues raised by the peaceful use of atomic energy] (Vol. 151). Organisation mondiale de la santé.
34.
PinchT. J., & BijkerW. E. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science, 14(3), 399–441.
35.
SundqvistG. (2002). The bedrock of opinion: Science, technology and society in the siting of high-level nuclear waste. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
36.
SundqvistG. (2014). ‘Heating up’ or ‘cooling down’? Analysing and performing broadened participation in technoscientific conflicts. Environment & Planning A, 46(9), 2065–2079.
37.
SundqvistG., & ElamM. (2010). Public involvement designed to circumvent public concern? The ‘participatory turn’ in European nuclear activities. Risk, Hazards and Crisis in Public Policy, 1(4), 203–229.
38.
WinnerL. (1986). The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology. Chicago University Press.
39.
WynneB. (1996) May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In LashS., SzerszynskiB., & WynneB. (Eds.), Risk, environment & modernity: Towards a new ecology (pp. 44–83). SAGE Publications.
40.
WynneB. (2001). Creating public alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture, 10(4), 445–481.
