Por una gobernanza en tecnología menos ingenua
Abstract
In the following work I continue the criticism developed to the perspectives constructivists in technology, in this occasion this critic it’s centred in the governance of technology processes. For this I introduce Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) (Bijker, 1995; Pinch y Bijker, 1984) and the Actor Network Theory (ANT) (Latour, 1987, 1983; Callon, 1987; Law, 1987; 1991) approaches, which they influence in the Constructivistic of Technology Assesment (CTA) (Rip, 1994, 2002; Rip et al, 1995) perspective, that works particularly around the formulation of public policy in technology.In second term, I expose Large Socio-technical System (LST) (Hughes, 1987, 1983, 1996) approach, it serves me to locate the management of conflicts in institutions characterized for few tolerant styles in front of environmental resistances. Besides, I refer to the most authoritarian governments and, from this situation I incorporate the approaches on the management of the hostile intensity originating from the resistant groups and affected (Galtung, 1971). To finalize I deliver some delineations in favor of the gobernance in science and technology activated since the resistant groups.References
Appadurai, A. 2002. “Deep Democracy: Urban Governmentality and the Horizion of Politics,” Environment and Urbanization 13 (2). 23-43. October 2001.
Baigorrotegui, G. 2008. “Dinámica y Gestión Social de las Electroenergías. Abordando su dimensión controversial”. Tesis Doctoral. San Sebastián. Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibersitatea.
Beck, U. 2004. Poder y Contrapoder en la era global. Barcelona, Paidós.
Bloor, D. 1976. Knowledge and Social Imagery. London & Boston MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bourdieu, P. & Wacquart, L. 2005 Una Invitación a la Sociología Reflexiva. Coyoacán, Siglo veintiuno.
Brekke, O. y Eriksen, E. 1999. “Technology Assessment in a deliberative perspective” VON SCHOMBERG, R. (ed.), Democratising Technology. Theory and Practice of Deliberative Technology Policy. 93-119. Hengelo, National Centre for Human and Public Affairs.
Brown, S. y Lee, N. 1998. “La alteridad y el Actor-Red. El continente no descubierto”, en Domènech, M. y Tirado, F. J. (comp.), Sociología Simétrica. 219-248. Barcelona, Gedisa.
Callon, M. 1995. “Algunos elementos para una sociología de la traducción: la domesticación de las vieiras y los pescadores de la bahía de St. Brieuc” en Iranzo, J. M. et al (Comp.) Sociología de la ciencia y de la tecnología. 259-82. Madrid, CSIC.
Callon, M. y Rabeharisoa, V. 2008. “The growing engagement of emergent concerned groups in political and economic life. Lessons from the french Association of Neuromuscular Disease Patients”. Science, Technology and Human Values (33/2), 230-261.
Collins, H. M y Yearley, S. 1992. “Epistemological chicken”, en Pickering, A. Science as Practice and Culture. 301-26. Londres, The University of Chicago Press.
Entelman, R. 2002. Teoría de Conflictos. Hacia un Nuevo Paradigma. Barcelona, Gedisa.
Galtung, J 1971. “Peace Thinking”, en Lepawski, A.; Buehring, E.; Lasswell, H. (ed.). The Search for World Order. New York, Meredith.
Hacking, I. 2001. ¿La Construcción Social de Qué? Barcelona, Paidós.
Hagendijk, R.; Healey, P.; Horst, M.; Irwin, A. 2005. Science, Technology and Governance in Europe. Challenges of Public Engagement. Final Report, Stage Project.
Hård, M. 1993. “Beyond Harmony and Consensus: a Social Conflict Approach to Technology”, Science, Technology, and Human Values (18/4), 408-432.
Hughes, T. P. 1983. Networks of Power. London, Johns Hopkins University Press. Hughes, T. P. 1987. “The Evolution of Large Technological Systems”, en Bijker, W.; Hughes, T.P.; Pinch, T. (ed.). The Social Construction of Technological Systems. New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technoloy. 51-82. Cambridge MIT Press, 1990.
Jæger, B. 2001. “Strengths and Weaknesses of Constructivistic Studies of Technology”, Institute for Samfundsvidensab og Erhveervsokonomi. Documento de trabajo (18/01).(http://www.ruc.dk/upload/application/pdf/f51d6748/18-01.pdf (13/03/05)).
Law, J. 1987. “The Anatomy of a Socio-technical Struggle: The Design of the TSR2” en Bijker, W.; Hughes, T.P.Y Pinch, T. (ed.), The Social Construction of Technological Systems. New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technoloy. 44-69. Cambridge MIT Press, 1990.
López Cerezo, J. A. y González, M. I. 2002. Políticas del Bosque. Expertos, políticos y Ciudadanos en la Polémica del Eucalipto en Asturias. Madrid, Cambridge University Press.
Martin, B. 2006. “Paths to social change: conventional politics, violence and non-violence”, en Summy, R. (ed.). Nonviolent Alternatives for Social Change. Oxford: Eolss Publishers. (http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/06eolss.html (14/02/06)).
Pinch, T. J. y Bijker, W.. 1984. “The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology might Benefit Each Other”, Social Studies of Science (14), 399-441.
Rip, A.; Misa, T. J.; Schot, J. 1995. “Constructive Technology Assessment: a new paradigm for managing technology in society”, en Rip, A.; Misa, T. J.; Schot, J. (ed.). Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. 1-14. London, Pinter.
Rip, A. 1994. “Science and Technology Studies and Constructive Technology Assessment”, European Association for the Study of Science and Technology – EASST Review (13/3).
Rip, A. 2002. “Co-evolution of science, technology and society”, Revisión experta del Bundesministerium Bildung. (http://www.sciencepolicystudies.de/dok/expertise-rip.pdf (15/09/08)).
Smith, A. y Stirling, A. 2006. “Inside or out? open or closed? positioning the governance of sustainable technology”, SPRU. Documentos de Trabajo (148). (http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/1-6-1-2-1.html (20/02/08)).
Smith, A. & Stirling, A. 2008. “Social-ecological resilience and socio-technical transitions: critical issues for sustainability governance”, STEPs working paper (8). Brighton, Spru.
Snow, D. Y Benford, R. 2000. “Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment”, Annual Rev. Sociology (26), 611-39.
Stoker, G 1998. “Governance as theory: five propositions”, International Social Science Journal (50/155), 17-28.
Williams, R. y Edge, D. 1996. “The social shaping of technology”, Research Policy (25), 856-899.
Winner, L. 1993. “Opening the black box and finding it empty: Social constructivism and the philosophy of technology”, Science, Technology and Human Values (18), 362-78.
