Editing Science and technology studies (section)

==Important concepts==
=== Social construction(s)===
{{Main|Social construction of technology}}

Social constructions are human-created ideas, objects, or events created by a series of choices and interactions.<ref name="Science Technology and Society">{{cite book|last1=Woodhouse|first1=Edward|title=Science Technology and Society|date=2014|publisher=University Readers|location=San Diego|page=255|edition=1st}}</ref> These interactions have consequences that change the perception that different groups of people have on these constructs. Some examples of social construction include 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 article "What is Social Construction?" by Ian Hacking, "Social construction work is critical of the status quo. Social constructionists about X tend to hold that:
# 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:
# X is quite as bad as it is.
# We would be much better off if X were done away with, or at least radically transformed." 
In the past, there have been viewpoints that were widely regarded as fact until being called to question due to the introduction of new knowledge. Such viewpoints include 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).<ref name="The Social Construction of What">{{cite book|last1=Hacking|first1=Ian|title=The Social Construction of What?|date=1999|publisher=President and Fellows of Harvard University|location=Cambridge, Massachusetts & London, England|isbn=978-0674004122|page=6|edition=1st}}</ref>

An example of the evolution and interaction of various social constructions within science and technology can be found in the development of both the high-wheel bicycle, or [[velocipede]], and then of the [[bicycle]].  The velocipede was widely used in the latter half of the 19th century. In the latter half of the 19th century, a social need was first recognized for a more efficient and rapid means of transportation. Consequently, the velocipede was first developed, which was able to reach higher translational velocities than the smaller non-geared bicycles of the day, by replacing the front wheel with a larger radius wheel. One notable trade-off was a certain decreased stability leading to a greater risk of falling. This trade-off resulted in many riders getting into accidents by losing balance while riding the bicycle or being thrown over the handlebars.

The first "social construction" or progress of the velocipede caused the need for a newer "social construction" to be recognized and developed into a safer bicycle design.  Consequently, the velocipede was then developed into what is now commonly known as the "[[bicycle]]" to fit within society's newer "social construction," the newer standards of higher vehicle safety. Thus the popularity of the modern geared bicycle design came as a response to the first social construction, the original need for greater speed, which had caused the high-wheel bicycle to be designed in the first place.  The popularity of the modern geared bicycle design ultimately ended the widespread use of the velocipede itself, as eventually it was found to best accomplish the social needs/social constructions of both greater speed and of greater safety.<ref name="MIT Press">{{cite book|last1=Bijker|first1=Wiebe|title=The Social Construction of Technological System|date=1993|publisher=MIT Press|location=Cambridge, Massachusetts|isbn=978-0-262-52137-6|pages=28–45|edition=1st}}</ref>

=== Material semiotics ===
{{see also|Feminist science and technology studies}}

With methodology from ANT, feminist STS theorists built upon SCOT's theory of co-construction to explore the relationship between gender and technology, proposing one cannot exist separately from the other.<ref name=":1b"/> This approach suggests the material and social are not separate, reality being produced through interactions and studied through representations of those realities.<ref name=":1b"/> Building on [[Steve Woolgar]]'s boundary work on user configuration,<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Woolgar |first=Steve |date=May 1990 |title=Configuring the User: The Case of Usability Trials |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954x.1990.tb03349.x |journal=The Sociological Review |volume=38 |issue=1_suppl |pages=58–99 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-954x.1990.tb03349.x |s2cid=145786443 |issn=0038-0261|url-access=subscription }}</ref> feminist critiques shifted the focus away from users of technology and science towards whether technology and science represent a fixed, unified reality.<ref>{{Citation |last=Wajcman |first=Judy |title=Feminist theories of technology |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412990127.n9 |work=Handbook of Science and Technology Studies |year=1995 |pages=189–204 |place= |publisher=SAGE Publications Inc. |doi=10.4135/9781412990127.n9 |isbn=9780761924982 |access-date=14 April 2022|url-access=subscription }}</ref> According to this approach, identity could no longer be treated as causal in human interactions with technology as it cannot exist prior to that interaction, feminist STS researchers proposing a "double-constructivist" approach to account for this contradiction.<ref>Landström, Catharina {{Citation |title=Queering Feminist Technology Studies |date=11 September 2013 |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203427415-35 |work=Women, Science, and Technology |pages=419–433 |publisher=Routledge |doi=10.4324/9780203427415-35 |isbn=978-0-203-42741-5 |access-date=2022-04-14|url-access=subscription }}</ref> [[John Law (sociologist)|John Law]] credits feminist STS scholars for contributing material-semiotic approaches to the broader discipline of STS, stating that research not only attempts to describe reality, but enacts it through the research process.<ref name=":1b"/>

=== Sociotechnical imaginaries (STIs) ===
Sociotechnical imaginaries are what certain communities, societies, and nations envision as achievable through the combination of scientific innovation and social changes. These visions can be based on what is possible to achieve for a certain society, and can also show what a certain state or nation desires.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last1=Jasanoff |first1=Sheila |last2=Kim |first2=Sang-Hyun |date=2009 |title=Containing the Atom: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and Nuclear Power in the United States and South Korea |url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11024-009-9124-4 |journal=Minerva |language=en |volume=47 |issue=2 |pages=120 |doi=10.1007/s11024-009-9124-4 |s2cid=145288441 |issn=0026-4695|url-access=subscription }}</ref> STIs are often bound with ideologies and ambitions of those who create and circulate them. Sociotechnical imaginaries can be created by states and policymakers, smaller groups within society, or can be a result of the interaction of both.<ref name=":0" />

The term was coined in 2009 by [[Sheila Jasanoff]] and Sang-Hyun Kim who compared and contrasted sociotechnical imaginaries of nuclear energy in the [[United States|USA]] with those of [[South Korea]] over the second half of the 20th century.<ref name=":0" /> Jasanoff and Kim analyzed the discourse of government representatives, national policies, and civil society organizations, looked at the technological and infrastructural developments, and social protests, and conducted interviews with experts. They concluded that in South Korea nuclear energy was imagined mostly as the means of national development, while in the US the dominant sociotechnical imaginary framed nuclear energy as risky and in need of containment.<ref name=":0" />

The concept has been applied to several objects of study including biomedical research,<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Kim|first=Sang-Hyun|date=2014-07-03|title=The Politics of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research in South Korea: Contesting National Sociotechnical Imaginaries|url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09505431.2013.860095|journal=Science as Culture|language=en|volume=23|issue=3|pages=293–319|doi=10.1080/09505431.2013.860095|s2cid=143997701 |issn=0950-5431|url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Mikami|first=Koichi|date=2015-04-03|title=State-Supported Science and Imaginary Lock-in: The Case of Regenerative Medicine in Japan|url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09505431.2014.945410|journal=Science as Culture|language=en|volume=24|issue=2|pages=183–204|doi=10.1080/09505431.2014.945410|hdl=20.500.11820/2e5035a2-4194-4275-b945-67ed9802ec23 |s2cid=67762834 |issn=0950-5431|hdl-access=free}}</ref> nanotechnology development<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Fonseca|first1=Paulo F.C.|last2=Pereira|first2=Tiago Santos|date=May 2014|title=The governance of nanotechnology in the Brazilian context: Entangling approaches|url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0160791X13000626|journal=Technology in Society|language=en|volume=37|pages=16–27|doi=10.1016/j.techsoc.2013.07.003|url-access=subscription}}</ref> and energy systems and climate change.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last1=Korsnes|first1=Marius|last2=Ryghaug|first2=Marianne|date=2017-08-09|title=With license to build: Chinese offshore wind firms rejecting European certificates|url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09537325.2016.1236188|journal=Technology Analysis & Strategic Management|language=en|volume=29|issue=7|pages=750–761|doi=10.1080/09537325.2016.1236188|hdl=11250/2465357 |s2cid=34124845 |issn=0953-7325|hdl-access=free}}</ref><ref name=":3">{{Cite journal|last1=Kuchler|first1=Magdalena|last2=Bridge|first2=Gavin|date=July 2018|title=Down the black hole: Sustaining national socio-technical imaginaries of coal in Poland|journal=Energy Research & Social Science|language=en|volume=41|pages=136–147|doi=10.1016/j.erss.2018.04.014|s2cid=158509615 |doi-access=free|bibcode=2018ERSS...41..136K }}</ref><ref name=":4">{{Cite journal|last=Delina|first=Laurence L.|date=January 2018|title=Whose and what futures? Navigating the contested coproduction of Thailand's energy sociotechnical imaginaries|url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2214629617303754|journal=Energy Research & Social Science|language=en|volume=35|pages=48–56|doi=10.1016/j.erss.2017.10.045|bibcode=2018ERSS...35...48D |s2cid=158456970 |url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref name=":5">{{Cite journal|last1=Christiansen|first1=Kirstine Lund|last2=Carton|first2=Wim|date=June 2021|title=What 'climate positive future'? Emerging sociotechnical imaginaries of negative emissions in Sweden|journal=Energy Research & Social Science|language=en|volume=76|pages=102086|doi=10.1016/j.erss.2021.102086|s2cid=235529916 |doi-access=free|bibcode=2021ERSS...7602086C }}</ref><ref name=":6">{{Cite journal|last1=Smith|first1=Jessica M|last2=Tidwell|first2=Abraham SD|date=June 2016|title=The everyday lives of energy transitions: Contested sociotechnical imaginaries in the American West|url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0306312716644534|journal=Social Studies of Science|language=en|volume=46|issue=3|pages=327–350|doi=10.1177/0306312716644534|pmid=28948886 |s2cid=4377417 |issn=0306-3127|url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref name=":0" /> Within energy systems, research has focused on nuclear energy,<ref name=":0" /> fossil fuels,<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":6" /> renewables<ref name=":2" /> as well as broader topics of energy transitions,<ref name=":4" /> and the development of new technologies to address climate change.<ref name=":5" />

=== Sociotechnical systems theory ===
{{Main|Sociotechnical system}}

Social technical systems are an interplay between technologies and humans, this is clearly expressed in the [[Sociotechnical system|sociotechnical systems theory]]. To expound on this interplay, humans fulfill and define tasks, then humans in companies use IT and IT supports people, and finally, IT processes tasks and new IT generates new tasks. This IT redefines work practices. This is what we call the sociotechnical systems.<ref name=":7">{{Cite book|last=Trist|first=E. L.|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/8005595|title=The evolution of socio-technical systems : a conceptual framework and an action research program|date=1981|publisher=Ontario Ministry of Labour, Ontario Quality of Working Life Centre|isbn=0-7743-6286-3|location=Toronto|oclc=8005595}}</ref> In socio-technical systems, there are two principles to internalize, that is joint optimization and complementarity. Joint optimization puts an emphasis on developing both systems in parallel and it is only in the interaction of both systems that the success of an organization arises.<ref name=":7" /> The principle of complementarity means that both systems have to be optimized.<ref name=":7" /> If you focus on one system and have bias over the other it will likely lead to the failure of the organization or jeopardize the success of a system. Although the above socio-technical system theory is focused on an organization, it is undoubtedly imperative to correlate this theory and its principles to society today and in science and technology studies.

According to Barley and Bailey, there is a  tendency for AI designers and scholars of design studies to privilege the technical over the social, focusing more on taking "humans out of the loop" paradigm than the "augmented intelligence" paradigm.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Bailey|first1=Diane E.|last2=Barley|first2=Stephen R.|date=2020|title=Beyond design and use: How scholars should study intelligent technologies|url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S147177271830232X|journal=Information and Organization|language=en|volume=30|issue=2|pages=100286|doi=10.1016/j.infoandorg.2019.100286|s2cid=214187921 |url-access=subscription}}</ref>

Recent work on [[artificial intelligence]] considers large sociotechnical systems, such as [[social network]]s and [[online marketplace]]s, as agents whose behavior can be purposeful and adaptive. The behavior of [[recommender system]]s can therefore be analyzed in the language and framework of sociotechnical systems, leading also to a new perspective for their legal regulation.<ref name=socialmachine1>{{cite journal |last1=Cristianini |first1=Nello |last2=Scantamburlo |first2=Teresa|last3=Ladyman |first3=James |title=The social turn of artificial intelligence |journal=AI & Society |date=4 October 2021 |volume=38 |pages=89–96 |doi=10.1007/s00146-021-01289-8 |s2cid=244180663 |url=https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00146-021-01289-8.pdf}}</ref><ref name=socialmachine>{{cite journal |last1=Cristianini |first1=Nello |last2=Scantamburlo |first2=Teresa |title=On social machines for algorithmic regulation |journal=AI & Society |date=8 October 2019 |volume=35 |issue=3 |pages=645–662 |doi=10.1007/s00146-019-00917-8 |arxiv=1904.13316 |bibcode=2019arXiv190413316C |s2cid=140233845 |language=en |issn=1435-5655}}</ref>

=== Technoscience ===
{{Main|Technoscience}}

Technoscience is a subset of Science, Technology, and Society studies that focuses on the inseparable connection between science and technology. It states that fields are linked and grow together, and scientific knowledge requires an infrastructure of technology in order to remain stationary or move forward. Both technological development and scientific discovery drive one another towards more advancement. Technoscience excels at shaping human thoughts and behavior by opening up new possibilities that gradually or quickly come to be perceived as necessities.<ref>Steven Lukes, Power: A Radical View (London: Macmillan, 1974)</ref>

=== Technosocial ===
"Technological action is a social process."<ref name="Goldman, 1992">Goldman, S. (1992). No Innovation Without Representation (pp. 148-160). Troy, New York: Rensselaer.</ref> 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."<ref name="Woodhouse, 2013">Woodhouse, E. (2013). In The Future of Technological Civilization (Revised ed., pp. 1-258).</ref> 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."<ref name="Winner, 1993">Winner, L. (1993). Artifacts/Ideas and Political Culture (pp. 283-292). Troy, New York: Rensselaer.</ref>

====Examples====
* [[Ford Pinto]]<ref name="Dowie, 1997">[https://www.motherjones.com/politics/1977/09/pinto-madness?page=2 Dowie, M. (1977, October 1). Pinto Madness. Retrieved February 4, 2015]</ref> – [[Ford Motor Company]] sold and produced the Pinto during the 1970s. 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 flaw. The company decided to ignore improving its 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 after public scrutiny. Safety organizations later influenced this technology by requiring stricter safety standards for motor vehicles.
* [[DDT]]/toxins<ref name="Woodhouse, 2013" /> – DDT was a common and highly effective insecticide used during the 1940s until its ban in the early 1970s. It was utilized during World War 2 to combat insect-borne human diseases that plagued military members and civilian populations. People and companies soon realized other benefits of DDT for agricultural purposes. [[Rachel Carson]] became worried about widespread use on public health and the environment. Rachel Carson's book ''[[Silent Spring]]'' left an imprint on the industry by claiming the linkage of DDT to many serious illnesses 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 any benefits were outweighed by the potential health risk.
* Autopilots/computer-aided tasks (CATs)<ref name=" Woodhouse, 2013"/> – 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 technology has a direct impact on people by increasing their safety, and society affects technology because people want to be safer so they are constantly trying to improve the autopilot systems.
* Cell phones<ref name="Woodhouse, 2013"/> – Cell phone technology emerged in the early 1920s 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 the communication capabilities of customers. They were also sleeker and weighed less than bulky first-generation technology. Technological advances boosted customer satisfaction and broadened cell phone companies' customer base. Third-generation technology changed the way people interact with others. Now customers had access to Wi-Fi, texting and other applications. Mobile phones are now entering into the fourth generation. Cellular and mobile phones revolutionized the way people socialize and communicate in order to establish a modern social structure. People have affected the development of this technology by demanding features such as larger screens, touch capabilities, and internet accessibility.
* Internet<ref name="Woodhouse, 2013"/> –  The internet arose because of extensive research on ARPANET between various universities, corporations, and ARPA (Advanced Research Project Agency), an agency of the Department of Defense. Scientists 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.

===Deliberative democracy===
[[Deliberative democracy]] is a reform of [[representative democracy|representative]] or [[direct democracy|direct]] democracies which mandates discussion and debate of popular topics which affect society.  Deliberative democracy is a tool for making decisions.  Deliberative democracy can be traced back all the way to [[Corpus Aristotelicum|Aristotle's writings]]. More recently, the term was coined by Joseph Bessette in his 1980 work ''Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican Government'', where he uses the idea in opposition to the elitist interpretations of the [[United States Constitution]] with emphasis on public discussion.<ref name="Bohman">{{cite journal|last1=Bohman|first1=James|title=The Coming of Age of Deliberative Democracy|journal=[[The Journal of Political Philosophy]]|date=1998|volume=6|issue=4|pages=400–425|doi=10.1111/1467-9760.00061}}</ref>

Deliberative democracy can lead to more legitimate, credible, and trustworthy outcomes. Deliberative democracy allows for "a wider range of public knowledge", and it has been argued that this can lead to "more socially intelligent and robust" science. One major shortcoming of deliberative democracy is that many models insufficiently ensure critical interaction.<ref name="Chilvers">{{cite journal|last1=Chilvers|first1=Jason|title=Deliberating Competence, Theoretical and Practitioners Perspectives on Effective Participatory Appraisal Practice|journal=[[Science, Technology, & Human Values]]|date=March 2008|volume=33|issue=2|doi=10.1177/01622439073075941|s2cid=220724507|url=http://sth.sagepub.com|access-date=April 21, 2015|url-access=subscription}}</ref>

According to Ryfe, there are five mechanisms that stand out as critical to the successful design of deliberative democracy:
*Rules of equality, civility, and inclusivity may prompt deliberation even when our first impulse is to avoid it.
*Stories anchor reality by organizing experience and instilling a normative commitment to civic identities and values, and function as a medium for framing discussions.
*Leadership provides important cues to individuals in deliberative settings and can keep groups on a deliberative track when their members slip into routine and habit.
*Individuals are more likely to sustain deliberative reasoning when they have a stake in the outcomes.
*Apprenticeship teaches citizens to deliberate well. We might do well to imagine education as a form of apprenticeship learning, in which individuals learn to deliberate by doing it in concert with others more skilled in the activity.<ref name="Ryfe">{{cite journal|last1=Ryfe|first1=David M.|title=Does Deliberative Democracy Work?|journal=[[Annual Review of Political Science]]|date=March 4, 2005|volume=8|pages=63–64|doi=10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.032904.154633 |s2cid=55726761|doi-access=free}}</ref>

==== Importance ====
Recently,{{when|date=January 2018}} there has been a movement towards greater transparency in the fields of policy and technology. Jasanoff comes to the conclusion that there is no longer a question of if there needs to be increased public participation in making decisions about science and technology, but now there need to be ways to make a more meaningful conversation between the public and those developing the technology.<ref name="Jasanoff">{{cite journal|last1=Jasanoff|first1=Sheila|title=Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science|journal=Minerva|date=2003|volume=41|issue=3|pages=223–244 |doi=10.1023/A:1025557512320|s2cid=14370392}}</ref>

==== In practice ====
[[Bruce Ackerman]] and [[James S. Fishkin]] offered an example of a reform in their paper "Deliberation Day." The deliberation is to enhance public understanding of popular, complex and controversial issues through devices such as Fishkin's [[deliberative polling]],<ref>{{cite web|last1=Ackerman|first1=Bruce|last2=Fishkin|first2=James S.|title=Deliberation Day|url=https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/media/news/2004/03/10/586/deliberation-day/|website=Center for American Progress|access-date=April 21, 2015|date=2004-03-10}}</ref> though implementation of these reforms is unlikely in a large government such as that of the United States. However, things similar to this have been implemented in small, local governments like [[New England]] towns and villages. New England town hall meetings are a good example of [[deliberative democracy]] in a realistic setting.<ref name="Bohman"/>

An ideal deliberative democracy balances the voice and influence of all participants. While the main aim is to reach consensus, deliberative democracy should encourage the voices of those with opposing viewpoints, concerns due to uncertainties, and questions about assumptions made by other participants. It should take its time and ensure that those participating understand the topics on which they debate. Independent managers of debates should also have a substantial grasp of the concepts discussed, but must "[remain] independent and impartial as to the outcomes of the process."<ref name="Chilvers"/>

===Tragedy of the commons===
{{see also|Tragedy of the commons}}

In 1968, [[Garrett Hardin]] popularised the phrase "tragedy of the commons." It is an economic theory where rational people act against the best interest of the group by consuming a common resource. Since then, the tragedy of the commons has been used to symbolize the degradation of the environment whenever many individuals use a common resource. Although Garrett Hardin was not an STS scholar, the concept of the tragedy of the commons still applies to science, technology, and society.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Hardin|first1=Garrett|title=The Tragedy of the Commons|url=https://massless.info/images/162-3859-1243.pdf|website=www.sciencemag.org|publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science|access-date=April 21, 2015}}</ref>

In a contemporary setting, the Internet acts as an example of the tragedy of the commons through the exploitation of digital resources and private information. Data and internet passwords can be stolen much more easily than physical documents. Virtual spying is almost free compared to the costs of physical spying.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Davidow|first1=Bill|title=The Tragedy of the Internet Commons|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/05/the-tragedy-of-the-internet-commons/257290/#disqus_thread|website=theatlantic.com|publisher=The Atlantic|access-date=April 21, 2015|date=2012-05-18}}</ref> Additionally, [[net neutrality]] can be seen as an example of tragedy of the commons in an STS context. The movement for net neutrality argues that the Internet should not be a resource that is dominated by one particular group, specifically those with more money to spend on Internet access.

A counterexample to the tragedy of the commons is offered by Andrew Kahrl. Privatization can be a way to deal with the tragedy of the commons. However, Kahrl suggests that the privatization of beaches on [[Long Island]], in an attempt to combat the overuse of Long Island beaches, made the residents of Long Island more susceptible to flood damage from [[Hurricane Sandy]]. The privatization of these beaches took away from the protection offered by the natural landscape. Tidal lands that offer natural protection were drained and developed. This attempt to combat the tragedy of the commons by privatization was counter-productive. Privatization actually destroyed the public good of natural protection from the landscape.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Kahn|first1=Matthew E.|title=Environmental and Urban Economics|url=http://greeneconomics.blogspot.com/2012/12/a-counter-example-to-tragedy-of-commons.html|access-date=April 21, 2015}}</ref>

===Alternative modernity===
Alternative [[modernity]]<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Eisenstadt|first1=Shmuel|title=Multiple Modernities|journal=Dædalus|date=Winter 2000}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Feenberg|first1=Andrew|title=Alternative Modernity : The Technical Turn in Philosophy and Social Theory|date=1995|publisher=University of California Press|isbn=9780520089860}}</ref> is a conceptual tool conventionally used to represent the state of present western society. Modernity represents the political and social structures of society, the sum of interpersonal discourse, and ultimately a snapshot of society's direction at a point in time. Unfortunately, conventional modernity is incapable of modeling alternative directions for further growth within our society. Also, this concept is ineffective at analyzing similar but unique modern societies such as those found in the diverse cultures of the developing world. Problems can be summarized into two elements: inward failure to analyze the growth potentials of a given society, and outward failure to model different cultures and social structures and predict their growth potentials.

Previously, modernity carried a connotation of the current state of being modern, and its evolution through European colonialism. The process of becoming "modern" is believed to occur in a linear, pre-determined way, and is seen by Philip Brey as a way to interpret and evaluate social and cultural formations. This thought ties in with [[modernization theory]], the thought that societies progress from "pre-modern" to "modern" societies.

Within the field of science and technology, there are two main lenses with which to view modernity. The first is as a way for society to quantify what it wants to move towards. In effect, we can discuss the notion of "alternative modernity" (as described by Andrew Feenberg) and which of these we would like to move towards. Alternatively, modernity can be used to analyze the differences in interactions between cultures and individuals. From this perspective, alternative modernities exist simultaneously, based on differing cultural and societal expectations of how a society (or an individual within society) should function. Because of different types of interactions across different cultures, each culture will have a different modernity.

===Pace of innovation===
{{See also|Pace of innovation}}

The pace of innovation is the speed at which technological innovation or advancement is occurring, with the most apparent instances being too slow or too rapid. Both these rates of innovation are extreme and therefore have effects on the people that get to use this technology.

===No innovation without representation===
{{main|No innovation without representation}}

"No innovation without representation" is a democratic ideal of ensuring that everyone involved gets a chance to be represented fairly in technological developments.

* [[Langdon Winner]] states that groups and social interests likely to be affected by a particular kind of technological change ought to be represented at an early stage in defining exactly what that technology will be. It is the idea that relevant parties have a say in technological developments and are not left in the dark.<ref>Winner, Langdon. "Artifact/Ideas and Political Culture." Technology and the Future (1993): 283-92. Print.</ref>
* Spoken about{{vague|date=May 2022}} by [[Massimiano Bucchi]]<ref>Bucchi, Massimiano. "No Innovation without Representation (A Parliament of Things for the New Technical Democracies)." http://www.fondazionebassetti.org/. 20 Dec. 2003. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.</ref>
* This ideal does not require the public to become experts on the topics of science and engineering, it only asks that the opinions and ideas be heard before making drastic decisions, as talked about by [[Steven L. Goldman]].<ref>Goldman, Steven L. "No Innovation Without Representation: Technological Action in a Democratic Society." New Worlds, New Technologies, New Issues (1992): 148-60. Print.</ref>

===Legacy thinking===

Legacy thinking is defined as an inherited method of thinking imposed from an external source without objection by the individual because it is already widely accepted by society.

Legacy thinking can impair the ability to drive technology for the betterment of society by blinding people to innovations that do not fit into their accepted model of how society works.  By accepting ideas without questioning them, people often see all solutions that contradict these accepted ideas as impossible or impractical.  Legacy thinking tends to advantage the wealthy, who have the means to project their ideas on the public.  It may be used by the wealthy as a vehicle to drive technology in their favor rather than for the greater good.
Examining the role of citizen participation and representation in politics provides an excellent example of legacy thinking in society. The belief that one can spend money freely to gain influence has been popularized, leading to public acceptance of corporate [[lobbying]]. As a result, a self-established role in politics has been cemented where the public does not exercise the power ensured to them by the Constitution to the fullest extent. This can become a barrier to political progress as corporations who have the capital to spend have the potential to wield great influence over policy.<ref>, 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.</ref> Legacy thinking, however, keeps the population from acting to change this, despite polls from Harris Interactive that report over 80% of Americans to feel that big business holds too much power in government.<ref>, 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</ref> Therefore, Americans are beginning to try to steer away from this line of thought, rejecting legacy thinking, and demanding less corporate, and more public, participation in political decision-making.

Additionally, an examination of [[net neutrality]] functions as a separate example of legacy thinking. Starting with [[dial-up]], the internet has always been viewed as a private luxury good.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Is the Internet Becoming a Luxury? {{!}} SSTI |url=https://ssti.org/blog/internet-becoming-luxury |access-date=2024-03-17 |website=ssti.org |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Molla |first=Rani |date=2021-06-03 |title=Good internet service is still a luxury in the US |url=https://www.vox.com/recode/22463131/pew-broadband-internet-income-inequality |access-date=2024-03-17 |website=Vox |language=en}}</ref> Internet today is a vital part of modern-day society members. They use it in and out of life every day.<ref name="Net Neutrality 2015">"Net Neutrality: A Free and Open Internet." The White House. The White House, 26 Feb. 2015. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.</ref> Corporations are able to mislabel and greatly overcharge for their internet resources. Since the American public is so dependent upon the internet there is little for them to do. Legacy thinking has kept this pattern on track despite growing movements arguing that the internet should be considered a <!--which kind? - human right/..?-->utility. Legacy thinking prevents progress because it was widely accepted by others before us through advertising that the internet is a luxury and not a <!--basic?--> utility. Due to pressure from grassroots movements the [[Federal Communications Commission]] (FCC) has redefined the requirements for broadband and internet in general as a utility.<ref name="Net Neutrality 2015"/> Now AT&T and other major internet providers are lobbying against this action and are in large able to delay the onset of this movement due to legacy thinking's grip on American{{Specify |reason=This article & legacy thinking relates to the global population not just the American |date=January 2020}} culture and politics.

For example, those who cannot overcome the barrier of legacy thinking may not consider the [[water privatization|privatization of clean drinking water]] as an issue.<ref>Flow. Oscilloscope Pictures, 2008. DVD.</ref> This is partial because access to water has become such a given fact of the matter to them. For a person living in such circumstances, it may be widely accepted to not concern themselves with drinking water because they have not needed to be concerned with it in the past. Additionally, a person living within an area that does not need to worry about their water supply or the sanitation of their water supply is less likely to be concerned with the privatization of water.

This notion can be examined through the thought experiment of "[[veil of ignorance]]".<ref>Woodhouse, Edward. Science Technology and Society. Spring 2015 ed. N.p.: U Readers, 2014. Print.</ref> Legacy thinking causes people to be particularly ignorant about the implications behind the "you get what you pay for" mentality applied to a life necessity. By utilizing the "veil of ignorance", one can overcome the barrier of legacy thinking as it requires a person to imagine that they are unaware of their own circumstances, allowing them to free themselves from externally imposed thoughts or widely accepted ideas.

====Related concepts====

* [[Technoscience]]<ref name="Woodhouse, 2013" /> – The perception that science and technology are intertwined and depend on each other.
* Technosociety<ref name="Technosociety, n.d.">Technosociety dictionary definition | technosociety defined. (n.d.). Retrieved March 20, 2015, from __http://www.yourdictionary.com/technosociety__</ref> –  An industrially developed society with a reliance on technology.
* Technological utopianism – 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<ref name="Woodhouse, 2004">"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.</ref> – people and technologies that combine to work as heterogeneous but functional wholes.
* Critical Technical Practice<ref name="Agre, 1997">"Toward a Critical Technical Practice:
Lessons Learned in Trying to Reform AI", Philip E. Agre, in Bridging the Great Divide: Social Science, Technical Systems, and Cooperative Work, Geoff Bowker, Les Gasser, Leigh Star, and Bill Turner, eds, Erlbaum, 1997</ref> – the practice of technological creation while simultaneously critiquing and maintaining awareness of the inherent biases and value systems which become embedded in those technologies.

====Classifications====

* [[Technological optimism]]<ref name="Hochschild, 2012">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</ref> – The opinion that technology has positive effects on society and should be used in order to improve the welfare of people.
* [[Dystopia#Science and technology|Technological pessimism]]<ref name="Hochschild, 2012"/> – The opinion that technology has negative effects on society and should be discouraged from use.
* Technological neutrality<ref name="Woodhouse, 2004"/> – "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]]<ref name="Woodhouse, 2004"/> – "maintains that technologies are understood as simply and directly causing particular societal outcomes."
* [[Scientism]]<ref name="Kleinman, 2005">Kleinman, D. (2005). Science is Political/Technology is Social: Concerns, Concepts, and Questions. Maryland: Blackwell.</ref> – The belief in the total separation of facts and values.
* Technological progressivism<ref name="Kleinman, 2005"/> – technology is a means to an end itself and an inherently positive pursuit.