| Systems/Paradigms | |
|
|
| Back to Main Menu.. |
| Technological Paradigms |
|
Not all technological options and alternatives that may be beneficial to the environment are developed or explored. Although this is often because alternatives are more expensive or less economical, there are often other reasons, too. Some writers explain the narrowing of options in terms of a technological paradigm. This is a term borrowed from Thomas Kuhn. Thomas Kuhn claimed in 1962 that science progresses through periods of 'normal science' and periods of scientific revolution. 'Normal science' occurs when scientists do research based upon one or more past scientific achievements which they all agree are fundamental to their work and scientific revolutions occur when that consensus is shattered and radically new theories are put forward. The scientific achievements on which 'normal science' are based serve to define the problems and methods for research and "to attract an enduring group of adherents". These scientific achievements, together with the "law, theory, application and instrumentation" that they incorporate, form the basis of a scientific paradigm. It is this paradigm which is studied in universities as preparation for students to join the scientific community. Kuhn argued that the acquisition of a paradigm "is a sign of maturity in the development of any given scientific field." Before such a paradigm is formed there is a continual competition between various views of nature that are all more or less 'scientific' but represent incommensurable ways of seeing the world.
Constant argued that the routine work of engineers and technologists, which he called ÔnormalÕ technology, involves the "extension, articulation or incremental development" of existing technologies. A technological tradition, Constant said, is subscribed to by engineers and technicians who share common educational and work experience backgrounds. The tradition relates to a field of practical endeavour rather than to any academic discipline. Rachel Laudan argued that the function of traditions is to allow technologists to focus on potentially solvable problems and to provide the methods with which to solve those problems. The paradigm or tradition defines the range of technologies which an engineer draws upon to solve problems and therefore determines 'normal' practice.
Dosi described a technological paradigm as "an 'outlook', a set of procedures, a definition of the 'relevant' problems and of the specific knowledge related to their solution." Such a paradigm, Dosi said, embodies strong prescriptions on which technological directions to follow and ensures that engineers and the organisations for which they work are 'blind' to certain technological possibilities. Dosi identified a technological paradigm in four dimensions. The first related to the generic tasks to which it is applied and the second to the material technology it selects. The third related to the physical/chemical properties it exploits and the fourth dimension was the technological and economic dimensions and tradeoffs which are associated with it. These tradeoffs, he said, provided the direction for improvement of the technology. Wojick concentrated more on engineering practice in his description of technological paradigms and he said that 'normal' technology involved the "artful application of well-understood and well-recognised decision-making procedures". In this way there is no ambiguity or doubt about what counts as a good solution within the engineering community. As a result, technological development tends to follow certain directions, or trajectories, that are determined by the engineering profession. Ideas are developed if they fit the paradigm; otherwise, they tend to be ignored by the mainstream engineers, the bulk of the profession.
Richard Nelson and Sidney Winter also observed that there is sometimes a technological 'regime' or paradigm operating which relates to the technicians beliefs about what is feasible or at least worth attempting. They put forward a more convincing explanation of why technological change within a paradigm seems to follow certain directions.
In many cases, Nelson and Winter argued, those directions involve improvements to major components of a system. Similarly Laudan said that problems tackled within a tradition tend to be those of cumulative improvement. Technological RevolutionsKuhn argued that scientists become aware of anomalies in the paradigms they are working within when there is a recognition by scientists that "nature has somehow violated the paradigm-induced expectations". From this recognition, scientific revolutions emerge. However, contradictions between theory and reality are not sufficient to dislodge an engineering paradigm. Engineering theories are judged by whether the resulting technology 'works' satisfactorily. But what works and doesn't work depends on your point of view. John Law argued that what counts as working has to be socially negotiated. Similarly Ruth Schwartz Cowan pointed out that the criteria for deciding which technology is 'better' vary depending on whose interest you are considering.
Recognising the need for a revolution This difficulty in identifying when a technology is working satisfactorily was recognised by Wojick who defined technological paradigms in terms of an 'evaluation policy' which enables engineers and managers to judge their designs and plans. Such evaluation policies, which may be based on scientific theory, engineering principles, rules of thumb, legislation, professional standards or moral precepts, determine decision-making procedures within which 'normal technology' can take place. Anomalies occur in such paradigms, Wojick argued, when standard procedures repeatedly "fail to eliminate known ills" or when knowledge shows up the importance of factors which have previously been incorrectly evaluated. Those contesting the evaluation policy may be outside the paradigm community and their view may be disputed. They can then, Wojick says, turn to the government for a ruling. References E. W. Constant, 'Communities and Hierarchies: Structure in the Practice of Science and Technology', in Rachel Laudan (eds), The Nature of Technological Knowledge. Are Models of Scientific Change Relevant?, (Holland: D. Reidel, 1984). Edward Constant, 'Scientific theory and technological testability: science, dynometers, and water turbines in the 19th century', Technology and Culture, Vol. 24, No. 2 (1983). Giovanni Dosi, 'Technological paradigms and technological trajectories', Research Policy, Vol. 11 (1982) pp. 147-62. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolution, 2nd ed: University of Chicago Press, 1970). Rachel Laudan, 'Cognitive Change in Technology and Science', in Rachel Laudan (eds), The Nature of Technological Knowledge. Are Models of Scientific Change Relevant?, (Holland: D. Reidel, 1984). Richard Nelson and Sidney Winter, 'In search of useful theory of innovation', Research Policy, Vol. 6 (1977) pp. 6-76. Peter Weingart, 'The Structure of Technological Change: Reflections on a Sociological Analysis of Technology', in Rachel Laudan (eds), The Nature of Technological Knowledge. Are Models of Scientific Change Relevant?, (Holland: D. Reidel, 1984) pp. 115-42. David Wojick, 'The Structure of Technological Revolutions', in George Bugliarello and Dean Doner (eds), The History and Philosophy of Technology, (University of Illinois Press, 1979) pp. 238-47. |
© 2003 Sharon Beder