technological+frame+(Brucato)

=Technological Frame=

Definition
Originally developed by Trevor Pinch and Wiebe Bijker (1989), the technological frame refers to stability in "ways of thinking" and "fixed patterns of interaction" that "emerge around them." "People with a high degree of inclusion in a technological frame will find it difficult to imagine other ways of dealing with the world, of using these things radically differently or even not using them at all" (Bijker 2007, p. 122)

Once artifacts have "grown hard and obdurate," they are resistant to change, and "may even stand in the way of innovation" (ibid.). The obduracy results from //micropolitical power structures// and //semiotic power structures//, fundamental components of the technological frame (Bijker 2001).

Explication
Bijker proposed the concept of "technological frame" to reconcile the explanation in the social construction of artifacts while accounting for changing "degrees of stability" for the artifact. The technological frame is used to "avoid social reductionism" through "the development of heterogeneous sociotechnical ensembles" (2001, pp. 26-7). These ensembles can serve as "boundary-creating instruments [...] on the border between two relevant social groups" (ibid., p. 29).

"A technological frame structures the interactions between the 'actors' of a relevant social group" (Bijker 2001, p. 27). The groups who shape the artifact are those who “share the same set of meanings, attached to specific artifact” (Pinch and Bijker 1989, p. 30). "A key characteristic of the concept is that it is applicable to all within the relevant groups -- technicians and others alike" (Bijker 2001, p. 27). The technological frame is "built up when interaction 'around' a technology starts and continues. Existing practice does guide future practice, though not completely deterministically" (ibid., p. 27).

Rather than //determining// outcomes, the technological frame "//influences// interaction and thus shapes specific cultures, but it also explains how a new technology is constructed by a combination of enabling and constraining interactions within relevant social groups in a specific way" (ibid., p. 27, emphasis added).

"Closure" or "lock-in" occurs when the groups involved through considerable investment and then its //meaning// is fixed -- the frame "cannot be changed easily, and it forms part of an enduring network of practices, theories, and social institutions. From this time on, it may indeed happen that, naively speaking, the technology 'determines' social development" (Bijker 2001, pp. 28-9).

When actors in social groups have less inclusion, a technology may be accepted it with little opportunity to modify it, or to reject it with little consequence. In such occasions, after the technology has reached closure within the frame, the artifact has developed obduracy. "For such actors, there is no flexibility; there is no differentiated insight; there is only technology, determining life to some extent and allowing at best an 'all or nothing' choice" (Bijker 2001, p. 29). "For the high included actors, on the contrary, there is no life without the exemplary artifact, but there is a lot of life within it" (Bijker 2001, p. 29). Obduracy is presented to actors with a high level of inclusion as "being all-pervasive, beyond questioning, and dominating thoughts and interactions" (ibid.).

This obduracy results not only from micropolitical contexts that are revealed in the construction of the artifact and often locked-in to its design and function, but also in terms of the semiotic structures of power that "results from these micropolitics and constrains actors" (ibid., p. 28) Accepting a boundary artifact "results in being included into such a semiotic power structure," which the actor who refuses a technology would be immune to (ibid., p. 29).

Example
Bijker provides an example of the technological frame:

//**Someone who buys a car [...] is thereby included in the semiotic structure of automobiling: cars-roads-rules-jams-gasoline-pricestaxes. This will result in automobilists exerting power, for example by using the car during rush hour and thereby contributing to a traffic jam, but will also make them subject to the exertion of power by others-the traffic jam again. Without a car, however, jams and oil prices simply do not matter. "Exemplars," or key artifacts result in obduracy because they constitute to an important degree the world in which one is living. This also implies inclusion in a semiotic power structure but with different possibilities and effects. Many of the power interactions are now in terms of the exemplary artifact. Leaving the car standing is less likely an option, but changing one's driving hours or routes (to beat the jams), changing from gasoline to diesel or liquid gas (to beat the taxes), or changing to a smaller car (to reduce parking problems) are possibilities **//(ibid., pp. 29-30).

More examples can be found in the entry for thick objects.

Criticism
Thomas P. Hughes (1994) has accused this perspective as deterministic.

The technological frame has primarily been developed by its creators in their own studies, and has been difficult for others to utilize with a similar focus. In Orlikowski and Gash, their use of the technological frame differs little from Kuhn's "paradigm." In their usage, the technological frame is "the cognitions and values of users and designers," and "the underlying assumptions, expectations, and knowledge that people have about technology" (1994, p. 174), neglecting the social and physical aspects that are equally important.

Pinch and Bijker proclaim that “the use of the concept of relevant social groups is quite straightforward … In deciding which problems are relevant, the social groups concerned with the artifact and the meanings that those groups give to the artifact play a crucial role: A problem is defined as such only when there is a social group for which it constitutes a ‘problem.’” (1989, p. 30). While important heuristically, this is methodologically problematic because a researcher is only able to identify empirically those engaged during the process of innovation. While Bijker's more recent work, discussed above, differentiates levels of inclusion of actors, this approach tends to ignore broader contextual issues.

__Related reading__: Boundary Objects Thick Objects

__Works cited__: Bijker, W. (2001) "Understanding Technological Culture through a Constructivist View of Science, Technology, and Society," in //Visions of STS: counterpoints in science, technology, and society studies//, edited by Stephen H. Cutcliffe and Carl Mitcham, SUNY Press. --- (2007) "Dikes and dams, thick with politics." //ISIS, 98//, pp. 109-123. Hughes, T. (1994) "Technological Momentum" in //Does Technology Drive History?// edited by M. Smith and L. Marx, MIT Press, pp. 101-13). Orlikowski, W. and D. Gash (1994) "Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organizations," ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12(2), pp. 174-207. Pinch, T. and W. Bijker (1989) “The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts” in //The Social Construction of Technological Systems//, Bijker, Hughes & Pinch (eds.). MIT Press.