This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

History of Science This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Science Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Technology Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles Start This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Human–Computer Interaction (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human–Computer Interaction, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human–Computer InteractionWikipedia:WikiProject Human–Computer InteractionTemplate:WikiProject Human–Computer InteractionHuman–Computer Interaction articles Science Policy Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Concerning the section "Deliberative Democracy", I recommend to add Habermas to the sources and to bring in the concept of the "spiral of silence" in regard to minority viewpoints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harald Schweiger (talk • contribs) 11:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please expand.Bryan 00:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Expanded and edited. 71.48.150.76 18:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The "blind/empty" quote here attributed to Hansen I have previously seen (rather prominently) attributed to Imre Lakatos. Can we double-check this one way or the author?
• Is Kuhn really the father of mixing history and phil. of sci.? That seems like somewhat of an arbitrary line to draw to me (certainly the work done in the 1930s was a mixture of both history and philosophy of science)?

--Fastfission 02:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• is ssk a branch of sociology of science, vice-versa, or both the same? capi 05:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ssk is closer to sociology of knowledge, i think.--Buridan 13:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• i believe the article should introduce quite early that STS may refer to both: Science, technology and society as well as Science and Technology Studies. Any opposition to this proposal? Ingmar.lippert (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• STS Wiki

As an article about an academic subject, shouldn't it list at some examples of STS programs? Or at the very least, provide a direct link to such a list? Expecting that readers will navigate away from Wikipedia and onto the STS Wiki is probably unrealistic. Fcendejas 23:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the problem then becomes one of neutrality, are you going to list them all? or only ones you choose? if they are interested in degree programs, i bet they will go to the stswiki. The two that you chose aren't really even of sts. There is a difference between science and technology studies and science and technology in society, with different histories and movements. So until there can be some sort of neutral representation, I suggest we don't need them. --Buridan 00:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm the founder, funder, etc., of STS Wiki, and as far as I'm concerned, anything that gets STS information out to the public is a Good Thing. If you visit STS Wiki, though, I think you'll find that there are so many programs that, even if there were just one-line links, you'd add something like 2x - 3x to the length of the page... As for whether it's realistic for people to navigate away from Wikipedia, people with special interests in STS will be motivated to do so. STS Wiki offers all kinds of info that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia - in other words info that wouldn't of interest to the general reader (like what the best textbooks are, etc.) Bryan 22:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Way too many acronyms on this page. I'll take some of them off. Pretty POV in favor of its discipline. I'll remove "vibrants" while keeping "new" and "rapidly growing." --209.128.81.201 21:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

sinProposal withdrawn: I am proposing that this article be merged with Technology and society. 01:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) SteveMc 21:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose This article is about the academic discipline itself, not the subject of that discipline. I would not oppose a merge of Technology and Society into this article, but it might be too big for that. Nick 02:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Response: Separating the discipline from the study is like saying the field of civil engineering is separate from the academic discipline of civil engineering. And merging "Technology and Society" into this article is like saying that the academic discipline of civil engineering encompasses civil engineering, when it is vice-versa. Nonetheless, I do agree that the size of this article may be too large to merge into the other, so I am withdrawing my proposal. SteveMc 02:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose sts is broader than technology and society. in fact, technology and society probably needs to be merged into a larger article 'technology studies' which would still be a smaller category than sts. --|Buridan]] 14:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Response: Since User:Buridan wants to maintain this discussion, I will respond: There seems to be a confusion between life and the study of life. In my paradigm of life, facts about life are discovered in its study. As such, science is about the study of life, science is not life. Consider, let's say, plants: it is nonsense to somehow say that biology is plants, when biology is the study of plants (by definition). Would we say that sociology is society? I hope not. Nor would we say that geology is earth, when geology is the study earth. This proposed taxonomy is confusing because it states that the science (study), a man-made activity, is the phenomenon (technology and society), not man-made, under study. Sure I agree that STS includes the study of technology and society (among many other topics). But, STS is only the "study" of that relationship, not the relationship itself. Therefore, life (technology, science, and society) should be at the top of the taxonomy, and the study (STS) therewithin it somewhere. SteveMc 21:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed this paragraph due to it lacking WP:NPOV and seems to be unsourced original research:

STS is now sufficiently well established to have taken on a distinct identity as a field capable of offering an indispensable perspective on science and technology. At the same time, STS has won widespread respect for the rigor and excellence of its scholarship, much of which takes the form of detailed, book length case studies ^{[citation needed]}. (The term "studies" in "science and technology studies" reflects the field's preference for high-quality, in-depth, detailed case studies as a fundamental measure of scholarly achievement.) Still, some STS scholars express dissatisfaction with the field's as-yet nascent impact on science and technology practice, and call for closer, more collaborative relationships with scientists and engineers.

Not a dog 20:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

what are the benefits derived from technology?

Why student journals are not important? And what makes a non-student journal important? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.58.102.156 (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good point! I changed the word "important" to "notable", and added a link to WP:Academic journals' notability guidelines. If a student journal met those criteria, by all means it should be included in the first list. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Myself and some of my colleagues and students would like to add a section that briefly describes some of the key concepts developed and/or used by STS scholars, with examples specifically relevant to their use in STS scholarship, and links to other Wikipedia main pages on those concepts where appropriate. I'm sure that the list that we generate will not be exhaustive, but it seems like the page would benefit from more information on the content of STS research in addition to information on the field's history, professional journals, etc. Hopefully later editors could contribute to this section as well.

Independebubble (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a proposal for the addition of a section relating to the pace of innovation. The proposed section can be found at: Pace of Innovation

--Vbhagwani (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a proposal for the addition of a section relating to technocrats, enlightenment thinking and the counter-enlightenment movement. The proposed section can be found at: User:Stsh_blue_6792/sandbox (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a proposal for the addition of a section relating to the privileged positions of business and science. The proposed section can be found at: User:Martin75gk/sandbox — Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a proposal for the addition of a section relating to no innovation without representation. The proposed section can be found at No Innovation Without Representation — Preceding undated comment added 19:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I created a page for feminist science and technology studies so I have proposed edits for this section due to important contributions of that field, will be moving in that brief section to connect the articles today. Mxnicpixie (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Section added, potential updates planned based on how this is accepted Mxnicpixie (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We are students at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute taking a Science, Technology, and Source course. We plan on defining intelligent trial and error using five different strategies that we obtained from the following sources:

[1] Woodhouse, Edward J. Biotechnology and the Political Sociology of Risk. N.p.: Elsevier Science, 1992. Print.

[2] Redner, Harry. An Heretical Heir of the Enlightenment: Politics, Policy, and Science in the Work of Charles E. Lindblom. Boulder: Westview, 1993. Print.

[3] Woodhouse, Edward. "Conceptualizing Disasters as Extreme Versions of Everyday Life." Dynamics of Disaster (2013): 61-76. Web.

[4] Lindblom, Charles Edward. The Policy-making Process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1968. Print.

[5] Woodhouse, Edward J., and David Collingridge. "Incrementalism, Intelligent Trial-and-Error, and the Future of Political Decision Theory." An Heretical Heir of the Enlightenment: Politics, Policy, and Science in the Work of Charles E. Lindblom. By Harry Redner. Boulder: Westview, 1993. 139-144. Print.

[6] Urbina, Ian. "As OSHA Emphasizes Safety, Long-Term Health Risks Fester." The New York Times. The New York Times, 30 Mar. 2013. Web. Mar. 2015.

Gentle Tyranny can be furthered understood by reading the following pieces

Kirkman, Robert (2009). "At Home in the Seamless Web". Science, Technology, & Human Values. Sage Publications. 34 (2): 234–258.
Ludwik, Fleck (1979). Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. University of Chicago Press.

We would like to propose the addition of the concept of Legacy Thinking. As a part of our Science, Technology, and Society class at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute we have encountered this term and find it important to an understanding of the way society functions. Based on the following sources, we would like to provide a definition and a few examples of legacy thinking.

"Net Neutrality: A Free and Open Internet." The White House. The White House, 26 Feb. 2015. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.

Corso, Regina, SVP. "PACs, Big Companies, Lobbyists, and Banks and Financial Institutions Seen by Strong Majorities as Having Too Much Power and Influence in DC." Harris Interactive: Harris Polls. Harris Interactive, 29 May 2012. Web. 21 Apr. 2015

Allison, Bill, and Sarah Harkins. "Fixed Fortunes: Biggest Corporate Political Interests Spend Billions, Get Trillions." Sunlight Foundation Blog. Sunlight Foundation, 17 Nov. 2014. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.

Flow. Oscilloscope Pictures, 2008. DVD.

“The National Bureau of Asian Research." India's Water Crisis: Causes and Cures. Web. 21 Apr. 2015. <http://www.nbr.org/research/activity.aspx?id=356>. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:2820:A0D:B959:13AD:5850:203E (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Woodhouse, Edward. Science Technology and Society. Spring 2015 ed. N.p.: U Readers, 2014. Print.

Definition&Concept:

Social constructions are human created ideas, objects, or events created by a series of choices and interactions.^[1] These interactions have consequences that change the perception that different groups of people have on these constructs. Some examples of social construction include gender, class, race, money, and citizenship.

The following also alludes to the notion that not everything is set, a circumstance or result could potentially be one way or the other. According to the What is Social Construction? by Laura Flores, "Social construction work is critical of the status quo. Social constructionists about X tend to hold that: 1) X need not have existed, or need not be at all as it is. X, or X as it is at present, is not determined by the nature of things; it is not inevitable Very often they go further, and urge that: 2) X is quite as bad as it is. 3) We would be much better off if X were done away with, or at least radically transformed." In the past we have seen that some "knowledge" or "facts" have been disproven as new knowledge comes a long and helps our society be better informed or educated on things that were once not questioned. Such "knowledge" includes the past concept of a correlation between intelligence and the nature of a human's ethnicity or race (X may not be at all as it is).^[2]

Examples:

The intention of high-wheel bicycle is to get a higher translational velocity over the ground via replacing the front wheel with a lager-radius wheel. However, this attempt lead to the unstable of riding experience and potential harm. For young athletes and enthusiastic youth, this bicycle means passion. However, for some elder and women, they worry about the issue when a large wheel hit a piece of brick or stone, when rider try to check the wheel, the sudden check usually threw the rider over the handle bar. Therefore, a technological innovation or progress caused some unintended and undesired consequences. The social construction of safety caused the design of the bicycle to change to a more safe design. ^[3]

[Extended copy/paste from Bijker's essay on Bakelite removed for copyright reasons. Please do not copy/paste large blocks of text anywhere on Wikipedia. See WP:COPYVIO for more information.]^[4] --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

^{[refgroup 1]}

Our group has conducted extensive research on the STS concept,“technosocial.” Since there isn't a clear definition on the Science, Technology, and Society Wikipedia page, we propose adding the definition we have developed. In addition, we've compiled examples that relate to our definition, some of which, we would like to add. Additionally, we've formulated many related concepts of technosocial that will help Wikipedia users better understand how “technosocial” fits into the topics of STS.

Definition:

"Technological action is a social process."^[1] Social factors and technology are intertwined so that they are dependent upon each other. This includes the aspect that social, political, and economic factors are inherent in technology and that social structure influences what technologies are pursued. In other words, "technoscientific phenomena combined inextricably with social/political/ economic/psychological phenomena, so ‘technology' includes a spectrum of artifacts, techniques, organizations, and systems." ^[2] Winner expands on this idea by saying "in the late twentieth century technology and society, technology and culture, technology and politics are by no means separate."^[3]

Specific Examples:

Ford Pinto^[4]- Ford Motor Company sold and produced the Pinto during the 1970’s. A flaw in the automobile design of the rear gas tank caused a fiery explosion upon impact. The exploding fuel tank killed and injured hundreds of people. Internal documents of test results, proved Ford CEO Lee Iacocca and engineers were aware of . The company decided to ignore improving their technology because of profit-driven motives, strict internal control, and competition from foreign competitors such as Volkswagen. Ford Motor Company conducted a cost-benefit analysis to determine if altering the Ford Pinto model was feasible. An analysis conducted by Ford employees argued against a new design because of increased cost. Employees were also under tight control by the CEO who rushed the Pinto through production lines to increase profits. Ford finally changed are public scrutiny. Safety organizations later influenced this technology by requiring stricter safety standards for motor vehicles.

DDT/Toxins^[2] - DDT was a common and highly effective insecticide used during the 1940’s until its ban in the early 1970’s. It was utilized during World War 2 to combat insect-borne human disease that plagued military members and civilian populations. People and companies soon realized other benefits of DDT for agricultural purposes. Rachel Carson became worried of wide spread use on public health and the environment. Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring," left an imprint on the industry by claiming linkage of DDT to many serious illness such as cancer. Carson's book drew criticism from chemical companies who felt their reputation and business threatened by such claims.. DDT was eventually banned by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after a long and arduous process of research on the chemical substance. The main cause for the removal of DDT was the public deciding that the benefits any outweighed potential health risk.

Autopilots/Computer Aided Tasks (CATs) ^[2] - From a security point of view the effects of making a task more computer driven is in the favor of technological advance because there is less reaction time required and computational error than a human pilot. Due to reduced error and reaction times flights on average, using autopilot, have been shown to be safer. Thus the technology has a direct impact on people by increasing their safety, and society affects the technology because people want to be safer so they are constantly trying to improve the autopilot systems.

Cell Phones^[2]- Cell phone technology emerged in the early 1920’s after advancements were made in radio technology. Engineers at Bell Laboratories, the research and development division of AT&T discovered that cell towers can transmit and receive signals to and from many directions. The discovery by Bell Labs revolutionized the capabilities and outcomes of cellular technology. Technology only improved once mobile phone users could communicate outside of a designated area. First generation mobile phones were first created and sold by Motorola. Their phone was only intended for use in cars. Second generation mobile phone capabilities continued to improve because of the switch to digital. Phones were faster which enhanced communication capabilities of customers. They were also sleeker and weighed less than bulky first generation technology. Technologically advances boosted customer satisfaction and broadened cell phone companies customer base. Third generation technology changed the way people interact with other. Now customers had access to wifi, texting and other applications. Mobile phones are now entering into the fourth generations. Cellular and mobile phones revolutionized the way people socialize and communicate in order to establish modern social structure . People have affected the development of this technology by demanding features such as larger screens, touch capabilities, and internet accessibility.

Internet^[2]- The internet arose because of extensive research on ARPANET between various university, corporations, and ARPA (Advanced Research Project Agency), an agency of the Department of Defense. Scientist theorized a network of computers connected to each other. Computing capabilities contributed to developments and the creation of the modern day computer or laptop . The internet has become a normal part of life and business, to such a degree that the united nations views it as a basic human right. The internet is becoming larger, one way is that more things are being moved into the digital world due to demand, for example online banking. It has drastically changed the way most people go about daily habits.

Concepts related to Technosocial:

Technoscience^[2]-The perception that science and technology are intertwined and depend on each other.

Technosociety^[5]- An industrially developed society with a reliance on technology.

Technological Utopianism^[6]- A positive outlook on the effect technology has on social welfare. Includes the perception that technology will one day enable society to reach a utopian state.

Technosocial Systems^[7]-Technosocial Systems are people and technologies that combine to work as heterogeneous but functional wholes.

Classifications of Technosocial:

Technological Optimism^[8] - The opinion that technology has positive effects on society and should be used in order to improve the welfare of people.

Technological Pessimism^[8]- The opinion that technology has negative effects on society and should be discouraged from use.

Technological Neutrality^[7] -"maintains that a given technology has no systematic effects on society: individuals are perceived as ultimately responsible, for better or worse, because technologies are merely tools people use for their own ends."

Technological Determinism^[7]- “maintains that technologies are understood as simply and directly causing particular societal outcomes."

Scientism^[9]- The belief in the total separation of facts and values.

Technological Progressivism^[9]- technology is a means to an end itself and an inherently positive pursuit.

• Technosociety dictionary definition | technosociety defined. (n.d.). Retrieved March 20, 2015, from http://www.yourdictionary.com/technosociety

• Technological utopianism. (2015, March 18). Retrieved March 20, 2015, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_utopianism

• "Design by Society: Science and Technology Studies and the Social Shaping of Design", Edward Woodhouse and Jason W. Patton, Design Issues, Volume 20, Number 3 Summer 2004.

• Woodhouse, E. (2013). In The Future of Technological Civilization (Revised ed., pp. 1-258).

• Hochschild, J., Crabill, A., & Sen, M. (2012, December 1). Technology Optimism or Pessimism: How Trust in Science Shapes Policy Attitudes toward Genomic Science. Retrieved March 20, 2015, from http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/msen/files/hochschild_crabill_sen.pdf

• Kleinman, D. (2005). Science is Political/Technology is Social: Concerns, Concepts, and Questions. Maryland: Blackwell.

• Winner, L. (1993). Artifacts/Ideas and Political Culture (pp. 283-292). Troy, New York: Rensselaer.

• Goldman, S. (1992). No Innovation Without Representation (pp. 148-160). Troy, New York: Rensselaer.

• Dowie, M. (1977, October 1). Pinto Madness. Retrieved February 4, 2015, from http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1977/09/pinto-madness?page=2

• Lyles, D. (2014, May 2). Cultivating Optimism. Retrieved March 20, 2015, from https://technosciencepeople.wordpress.com/2014/05/02/cultivating-optimism/

• A classic critique of techno-optimism. (n.d.). Retrieved March 20, 2015, from http://newtechnologyandsociety.org/

I noticed several of you are copy/pasting sources into the talk page. This is a big copyright problem, even if you cite the source. Please remove any big blocks of copy/pasted material and be sure everything is cited. It's not as strict as it is in the article, but copyright applies to every page on Wikipedia. If you do not remove it, I or someone else will have to.

Also, there are a lot of resources available to help student editors. I work for the Wiki Education Foundation and would like very much to be able to contact your professor. Could you either direct him/her to email (ryan [at] wikiedu [dot] org) or give me a name/institution to look up? Thanks. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Follow-up: Thanks to Martin75gk for providing some information about the course. I removed the most egregious of the copyright issues and replaced it with an italicized explanation. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Although, Garrett Hardin was not an scholar, the concept of Tragedy of the Commons still applies to science, technology and society.[11] The internet is a science, technology and society example where tragedy of the commons is relevant as physical resources that are being exploited gets protected by legislation, the internet is a free market which is easily exploitable such as privacy." What? What are you trying to say? GangofOne (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I propose that Science studies be merged here into Science, technology and society. The text in the Science studies article is lower quality and can be better explained in the context of this article. The merge should not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. There is an old circa 2005 discussion of the relationship between these articles at Talk:Science_studies#Science_and_technology_studies.2C_not_Science_studies. This line from the concluding argument there for having two separate articles is telling: "There still are science studies departments -- UCSD, for instance, that don't do much with technology." If you browse to UCSD's web page today, you will find that they are offering a "Minor in Science, Technology, and Society" ([1]). -hugeTim ^(talk) 15:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose: In the lede of science, technology and society it says "science and technology studies, is a branch or offspring of science studies". Science studies also investigates other areas related to science. Also while the science studies articles is more concerned with the methodology and history (etc.) of the field this article here is more about the findings etc. Additionally the article would be too long, people would have a harder time getting info on "science studies" and I don't see the advantage of merging them. --Fixuture (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Agree with proposal Key professional academic associations in the field integrate Science Studies, Science and Technology Studies, Science, Technology and Innovation Studies (e.g. 4S, EASST, APSTSN). Discursively, these fields are closely related. The merging might require some major re-organisation, such as pushing some subsections to their own pages.Ingmar.lippert (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support: The STS article is in need of a big overhaul, it's in bad shape. It's my area of specialty but I am not in a position to overhaul it at this time. I'd be happy to assist someone else with the task as I can. I agree with Ingmar.lippert that the two topics are compatible enough to merge and they are often considered one and the same. The most common label for these types of studies is STS. Meclee (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose: The science studies article is in better shape than this one, which is a mess. While related, there is sufficient historical and contemporary difference between the two to maintain the two separate articles, in my opinion. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose: Science studies comprises a very specific research interest that arose as a cultural trend around the beginning of the 20th century. I think it's relatively clear that science studies as a phenomena was very focused on questioning the practice of science, and the impact of its practice on society, as opposed to STS which is concerned more with the way society interacts with science and technology. These two disciplines, while related, have distinct cultural origins, in my opinion, and the opinions of many others. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi everyone, I've proposed the creation of WikiProject STS in order to address the issues of this and other articles, as well as to provide continuing updates for STS news and STS analysis of issues in science, technology, and governance. Please take a look at the proposal and provide commentary on it, and let me know if you'd be interested in contributing in some way! Mathmitch7 (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's pretty clear to me that these pages need to be merged. The last vote on this subject (in 2016) was 3 to 2 against, but since the page was renamed we should vote again. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment: I don't see any problem with the merger, but as I perused this article I noted that it seems to be a mashup of very different topics, and if Science studies is merged into this article it would be a good opportunity to consider reorganizing the article: for example, the "Professional associations" and "Journals" sections could be moved toward the end of the article, somewhere after the "Important concepts" section, and the "Important concepts" section could use a lengthy introductory paragraph tying together all of its subsections and briefly explaining how, if at all, they have been integrated in STS. Last December, I wrote at Talk:Science studies § Skewed citation pattern in this article: "This article seems overly reliant on citing 'Social studies of volcanology: knowledge generation and expert advice on active volcanoes' by Donovan et al., which is currently the first item, and mostly frequently cited item, in the reference list. In many of the places in this article where Donovan et al. are cited, a more general text about science studies (instead of this text that is specifically about social studies of volcanology) would be more appropriate." That citation problem should be fixed before or during the merger. Do not simply copy the other article's problem into this article! Biogeographist (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just moved the "Professional associations" and "Journals" sections toward the end of the article as I suggested in my earlier comment above. Biogeographist (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• As something similar has been proposed before, this needs to go through the WP:MERGE process, which includes a thread on the science studies talk page and notices on both pages. Otherwise, just a ping to participants in the previous proposal: @Hugetim, Fixuture, Meclee, DASonnenfeld, Ingmar.lippert, and Shibbolethink: — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. A reasonable question to ask (and some excellent suggestions, above, for improving both articles). But I remain of the opinion that, while clearly related, there is sufficient distinction between Science studies, Technology studies, and Science and technology studies for the three to remain separate, cross-referenced articles. As with any field, one can conceive of an overview article plus articles on subfields. In this case, science studies and technology studies are sufficiently distinct as to merit their own articles: I would see it as a three-way Venn diagram rather than a hierarchical relationship. My two cents... Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose - While the name has changed, I don't think much about the actual content of the article has. So I remain opposed for the reasons stated previously.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: It would really make more sense to vote on merging science studies AND technology studies with this article than just science studies alone. It wouldn't make sense to merge one and not the other. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: And don't forget Logology (study of science), which may be the Poland-centric doppelgänger of Science studies. Logology (study of science) should be part of the conversation as well. In principle I don't see any conceptual problem in merging Science studies, Technology studies, and even Logology (study of science) into Science and technology studies. They are all covered by the same professional association, Society for Social Studies of Science (and similar regional associations and special interest groups within the major disciplinary associations). I see "STS" and "science studies" as essentially synonymous. (More precisely: The term "STS" can replace the term "science studies" in just about any sentence except when dealing with technology without science.) But the devil is in the details of merging: To merge them all would be an enormous amount of work requiring much expertise. And rewriting is required. I doubt that there is enough will to do the work necessary to complete the merge even if everyone were to agree that it should be done. @Wikiman2718: I would like to hear your opinion, if you have one; you proposed the merger, but you haven't put forward an argument. Biogeographist (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not exactly an expert here, but my thoughts on the issue are pretty similar to yours. I'd like to hear what @Nihil novi: has to say about logology. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 06:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to at least get it in good enough shape so we can remove all the tags that are plaguing it, maybe make it a bit more streamlined and with less of a "list" feel... and a few more things to bring out some of the key ideas in this important sub-field. If anyone's still around who's into this, please holla at me here. If I don't hear anything I might just start doing stuff as the moment takes me. Would be nice to work with someone on it though. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am watching the article. Also note that Science studies is in bad shape and needs help too. (I added the cleanup tag to that one.) Biogeographist (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge from "Science studies" (not implemented)

• It's not clear what the difference between these articles is supposed to be, except perhaps that Science studies is Science and technology studies without the tech. Except Science studies still states that it involves the "study the relationship between science and technology" (repeatedly re-affirming this in the "Scope" section) so the assumption that one is a subset of the other is contradicted by the article itself; the articles are apparently about the same topic. I propose the two be merged under the broader title. Scyrme (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A note: this merge has been proposed before but it looks like the discussion fizzled out inconclusively both times; reading the past proposals on this talk page, I personally find the arguments raised by supporting editors more convincing than those opposed. Regardless, I think changes since those past discussions suggest a new discussion is warranted. At very least, the fact this has been proposed independently multiple times suggests something needs to change, even if it's not a merge; therefore, if anyone does oppose this, I would ask that they also suggest an alternative solution. Scyrme (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment. Personally, I think the best solution might be to split Science and Technology Studies so that part of it goes into Science Studies and part of it goes into Technology and Society, which can then be renamed Technology Studies. Tommyren (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• That seems like it would drastically change the topic by cutting out the interdisciplinary intersection which is emphasised in both articles I've proposed be merged. However, as a note, Technology studies currently redirects to Science and technology studies -- Scyrme (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Yeah, I also noticed that redirect. It seems to me that there are at least 2 questions we should ask ourselves.

  1. Is it necessary to distinguish between "Science, Technology or Society" and the "Study of Science, Technology or Society?" Personally I don't think we have to, but this is some kind of a grey area. It seems that Biology reads like an abridged textbook of the field, whereas there seems to be no article that focuses on the study of biology itself. However, Physics is basically a description of the field, whereas there seems to be no article that summarizes actual principles of physics (which, admittedly, is hard).
  2. Is the overlap between science and technology distinct enough so that "science and technology" merits an article of its own? I am neural about this and feels that it can work either way.

  Tommyren (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose "Science studies" and "Science and technology studies" appear to be (albeit subtly) different fields, and the difference is more complicated than just that the latter encompasses technology. All the articles need improving, which might then help clarify such matters. Bondegezou (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Why do you think they're different fields? I haven't found anything in either article that supports that conclusion. People have been vaguely suggesting "improving" the articles to clarify for years, but no-one has done it; given this has been brought up before, I doubt it's because no-one is interested. If you are going to object to merge, please suggest a more specific, actionable solution.

I'm not convinced there is a distinction. Harvard's STS program's about page lists several works on "science studies" as 'further reading' on the field. Additionally, the Society for Social Studies of Science doesn't seem to distinguish either, and some organisations/journals which now use STS (eg. the Finnish Society for Science and Technology Studies was founded as the Finnish Society for Science Studies) have previously referred to the field as "science studies". The popularity of the term "STS" appears to be motivated by a desire to emphasise the already interdisciplinary nature of the field rather than by a need to distinguish two different fields. -- Scyrme (talk) 03:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bondegezou: I'd appreciate a reply. If there is a distinction, I sincerely want to know; I'm not making a rhetorical point by asking. I understand that it is "more complicated than just that the latter encompasses technology"; I made that point myself when I initiated the proposal. ("Except Science studies still states...") It's clear that the difference (if there is one) is not what a reader might assume based on the titles. – Scyrme (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Scyrme: Apologies for a slow reply. It's tricky to find the right search terms for discussions of "science studies" vs. "science and technology studies"! Van House (2004) [2] offers this: "STS is variously considered a branch of science studies, a descendant of it, or overlapping with it. Some elements of science studies are not particularly concerned with technology." However, that is only one view and there does seem to be some contention about the relationship, which we should cover.

Here's another citation. Martin and colleagues (2012) [3] did a complicated analysis of the literature, concluding: "One very obvious conclusion to emerge from this analysis is the growing apart of qualitative STS and quantitative science studies during the 1980s and 1990s. These two sets of research activities are now quite distinct – to such an extent that some readers may wonder why we chose to include the latter as ‘part’ of STS in the first place. However, as was stressed at the start, and as the results of this analysis confirm, the two were originally part of a single set of activities, with the central figure in science indicators (de Solla Price) being one of the two editors of the first STS Handbook, and with several prominent sociologists of science (such as the Cole brothers, Crane, Spiegel-Rösing and Zuckerman) making extensive use of science indicators during the 1960s and early 1970s. However, at that point, the paths began to diverge."

Less in depth references, but offering further perspectives, include Dear & Jasanoff (2010, doi:10.1086/657475), who basically say science studies and STS are the same, and Giere (1993, doi:10.1177/016224399301800106), who has science studies as a subset of STS. Hess & Sovacool (2020, doi:10.1016/j.erss.2020.101462) talks of "During the 1980s, some STS researchers also applied similar methods to the study of technology—essentially joining the two formerly disparate threads of technology studies and science studies." Bondegezou (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bondegezou: Thanks for the reply. These authors seemingly don’t even agree about the history of the fields, let alone their relationship to each other. I can see why this has been such a difficult issue to sort out. There are certain points which seem to be generally agreed upon: The two fields are not mutually exclusive (although the nature of their intersection is disputed) and both are interdisciplinary branches of sociology, both of which may encompass research regarding the relationship between science and technology. What is clear is that a merge would be a mistake. As for what’s to be done, I’m lost. I’ve seen “social studies of science” used as a synonym for STS, when I expected to find it used as a synonym for “science studies”, which only makes things even more confounding. For now, I retract the merge proposal. – Scyrme (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving forward

Something needs to be done about this cluster of articles, although it's clear a merge isn't it. I think Wikipedia is missing articles on the sociology of science and sociology of technology which give a clear account of the development and history of each. This would help in providing necessary context/background for this area of sociology, which would help editors in clearing up the relationships between their various branches, descendants, and interdisciplinary intersections.

Sociology of science redirects to sociology of scientific knowledge, but my understanding is that the latter is a much narrower area so I think this redirect is problematic. Are Science studies and Sociology of science synonymous? I would assume so, but "social studies of science" being used synonymously with STS has me questioning everything. If it is, the latter title may be better as it would make it clearer to readers with no background knowledge why the article is separate from that of Science and technology studies.

Sociology of technology doesn’t exist at all, not even as a redirect, which is surprising. However, Technology studies does exist and redirects to Science and technology studies. This is a dubious redirect given that, unless I’m mistaken, technology studies is the older field. It seems Technology studies was the original title of Technology and society, but that the article was moved to the latter title. This seems to me to be a very questionable decision since the latter title isn’t even a topic, it’s a vague intersection between two topics. Vague titles encourage essay-like writing and, unsurprisingly, Technology and society has been tagged for essay-like style since 2010.

Material from Technology and society could be split between Sociology of technology and Science and technology studies as appropriate; this could provide a start for a new article on Sociology of technology. – Scyrme (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I broadly agree with that. I think we need content for any new articles, however. So, yes, Technology studies shouldn’t re-direct to STS, but until we have some content to go in Technology studies, the re-direct is better than nothing perhaps. I will try to add some content at some point on these matters. Thanks for your considered analysis. Bondegezou (talk) 07:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think sociology of science and science studies are sufficiently synonymous to do a redirect to the latter, especially considering that the science studies article directly discusses sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) as a particular theoretical tradition. I would say that modern science studies is a combination of sociology and anthropology, with occasional engagement with history and philosophy of science (HPS), which remains a distinct field. You are correct in assuming that SSK is a distinct category within the sociology of science generally -- it's its own theoretical tradition that generally refers to an approach in the 1960s.

In my experience in the field (I am getting my PhD in STS), sociologists of technology specifically are so few that they tend to have academic conversations with other disciplines within technology studies, which would include for example the history of technology which is somewhat distinct as an academic sub-field and tradition. So I would also redirect sociology of technology to technology studies. I think I agree with @Bondegezou that technology studies could stand to be its own article, but for now a redirect here is better than a redirect to some other page like history of technology.

Deleting/redirecting technology and society to other pages is good -- the idea that this refers to any academic field in particular is fairly dated, and I agree that its content could be covered elsewhere. As it stands right now, it just doesn't make sense as a coherent article about any particular topic. Honestly, some of it could also be moved to technology, though then we get to a bigger can of worms as that's an article with much more traffic than what we've discussed.

In conclusion, I propose

• sociology of science should redirect to science studies
• science studies should discuss its relationship to science and technology studies and history and philosophy of science broadly, and to sociology of scientific knowledge particularly
• technology studies should become its own article but for now can redirect to here, and sociology of technology should redirect there when it is created.
• Really think hard and refocus/delete/move the content of technology and society because who knows what that page is doing - - mathmitch7 ^{(talk/contribs)} 20:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 22 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mxnicpixie (article contribs). Peer reviewers: SilverScreen'sSilverLining.

The primary illustration on this article is a photo of some object in the London Science Museum. It's described as a "communications artifact", with no further elaboration. It looks like a cable winder; if that's what it is, then it is indeed a communications artifact, in the sense that it's man-made, and might be concerned with communication.

But I have no idea why it is in this article. I would like to remove it; I don't think any illustration is appropriate for an article on this topic, although I could be persuaded. But this topic is extremely abstract, and I doubt that a photo of any concrete artifact is helpful as the main article image. MrDemeanour (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know why this section appears in the article. Nothing in the section explains why TOTC has anything to do with Science and Technology Studies, and TOTC is essentially an issue in social relations, not science or technology.

I propose to delete the section.

MrDemeanour (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The tragedy of the commons is an idea that is used in STS too. I think the current citations illustrate that reasonably, although more could be added. I support keeping this section. Bondegezou (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cite error: There are <ref group=refgroup> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a ((reflist|group=refgroup)) template (see the help page).