Sociología de la innovación: construcción social de la perspectiva tecnológica
Main Article Content
Keywords
Innovación, Sociología de la tecnología, Construcción social de la tecnología, Política de la innovación, Promoción del emprendimiento
Resumen
Este artículo académico de tipo teórico describe el efecto que tiene la acción social sobre los artefactos tecnológicos y explora cómo la innovación puede florecer o reducirse en la sociedad. Utilizando la perspectiva del modelo de Construcción Social de la Tecnología (SCOT, por sus siglas en inglés), se describen y se discute el impacto que tienen en la innovación tres importantes elementos, a saber: flexibilidad de la interpretación, grupos sociales relevantes y marco tecnológico. Este artículo propone que en las sociedad en desarrollo, la flexibilidad es difícilmente motivada por los marcos tecnológicos y las normas sociales concretas no admite diseños alternativos ni el uso de artefactos. Este artículo propone que la innovación puede surgir en una sociedad donde se presente un cambio en el marco tecnológico y el emprendimiento se convierta en el marco tecnológico que puede modificar el significado fijo que tienen los artefactos y crear una ruta para diseños e interpretaciones alternativas.
Descargas
Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.
Referencias
Adolf, M., Mast, J. L., & Stehr, N. (2013). The foundations of innovation in modern societies: the displacement of concepts and knowledgeability. Mind & Society, 12(1), 11-22.
Baalen, P. V., van Fenema, P., & Loebbecke, C. (2016). Extending the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) Framework to the Digital World.
Bartis, E. (2007). Two suggested extensions for SCOT: Technological frames and metaphors. Society and
Economy, 29(1), 123-138.
Bijker, W. E. (1995) Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. MIT press. Bijker, W. E.,
Hughes, T. P., Pinch, T., & Douglas, D. G. (1987). The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. MIT press.
Brück, Joanna (2006). Fragmentation, Personhood and the Social Construction of Technology in Middle and
Late Bronze Age Britain. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 16, pp 297-315
Burns, T. R., Machado, N., & Corte, U. (2015). The sociology of creativity: Part I: Theory: The social mechanisms of innovation and creative developments in selectivity environments. Human Systems Management, 34(3), 179-199.
Burns, T. R., Corte, U., & Machado, N. (2015). The sociology of creativity: PART II: Applications: The socio- cultural contexts and conditions of the production of novelty. Human Systems Management, 34(4),
263-286.
Burns, T. R., Corte, U., & Machado, N. (2016). The sociology of creativity: PART III: Applications–The socio- cultural contexts of the acceptance/rejection of innovations. Human Systems Management, 35(1), 11-34.
Burr, V. (2015). Social constructionism. Routledge.
Dahlin, E. C. (2014). The Sociology of Innovation: Organizational, Environmental, and Relative Perspectives.
Sociology Compass, 8(6), 671-687.
Daniel, L. J., & Klein, J. A. (2014). Innovation agendas: the ambiguity of value creation. Prometheus, 32(1),
23-47.
Douglas, Susan J. (1990). The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Isis 81 (306), 80–4.
Elle, M., Dammann, S., Lentsch, J., & Hansen, K. (2010). Learning from the social construction of environmental indicators: From the retrospective to the pro-active use of SCOT in technology development. Building and Environment, 45(1), 135-142.
Fuduric, N. (2008). The Sources of Entrepreneurial Opportunities: Perspectives on Individuals and Institutions.
Aalborg University Publication series 2008, 7.
Fulk, Janet (1993), Social Construction of Communication Technology, The Academy of Management Journal,
36 (5), 921-950.
Geels, F. W. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research policy, 33(6), 897-920.
González, S., & Healey, P. (2005). A sociological institutionalist approach to the study of innovation in governance capacity. Urban Studies, 42(11), 2055-2069.
Hill, B. M. (2010). The sociology of innovation. MIT, viewed, 10, 10-14.
Humphreys, L. (2005). Reframing social groups, closure, and stabilization in the social construction of technology. Social epistemology, 19(2-3), 231-253.
Khajeheian, D. (2014), A Perspective on Media Entrepreneurship Policy: Globalization of Knowledge and
Opportunities for Developing Economies. Journal of Globalization Studies, 5(2), 174-187
Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. (2010). What’s under construction here? Social action, materiality, and power in constructivist studies of technology and organizing. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 1-51.
Lundvall, B. Å., Johnson, B., Andersen, E. S., & Dalum, B. (2002). National systems of production, innovation and competence building. Research policy, 31(2), 213-231.
Lundvall, B. Å. (2009). Scope, style, and theme of research on knowledge and learning societies. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1(1), 18-23.
MacKenzie, D., & Wajcman, J. (1999). The social shaping of technology. Open university press.
Ninan, A. S. (2008). Gandhi’s technoscience: sustainability and technology as themes of politics. Sustainable
Development, 17(3), 183-196.
Olsen, O.E, Engen, O.A. (2007), Technological change as a trade-off between social construction and technological paradigms, Technology in Society 29, 456–468
Olsen, J. K. B., Pedersen, S. A., & Hendricks, V. F. (2009). A Companion to the Philosophy of Technology. Wiley- Blackwell.
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations.
Organization science, 3(3), 398-427.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Gash, D. C. (1994). Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 12(2), 174-207.
Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (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(3), 399-
441.
Ramos, I., & Berry, D. M. (2005). Social construction of information technology supporting work. Cases on
Information Technology: Lessons Learned, Volume 7: Lessons Learned, 7(7), 36.
Rowland, W. (2005). Recognizing the role of the modern business corporation in the “social construction” of technology. Social epistemology, 19(2-3), 287-313.
Sharif, N. (2005). Contributions from the Sociology of Technology to the Study of Innovation Systems.
Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 17(3-4), 83-105.
Sillar, W., 1996. The dead and the drying: techniques for transforming people and things in the Andes. Journal of Material Culture 1, 259–89.
Schlesinger, P (2017). The creative economy: invention of a global orthodoxy, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 30(1), 73-90.
Surry, D. W., & Baker, F. W. (2016). The co- dependent relationship of technology and communities. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 47(1), 13-28.
Utterback, J. M. (1997). Disruptive Technologies; Predator or Prey. In Academy of Management Meeting.
Baalen, P. V., van Fenema, P., & Loebbecke, C. (2016). Extending the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) Framework to the Digital World.
Bartis, E. (2007). Two suggested extensions for SCOT: Technological frames and metaphors. Society and
Economy, 29(1), 123-138.
Bijker, W. E. (1995) Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. MIT press. Bijker, W. E.,
Hughes, T. P., Pinch, T., & Douglas, D. G. (1987). The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. MIT press.
Brück, Joanna (2006). Fragmentation, Personhood and the Social Construction of Technology in Middle and
Late Bronze Age Britain. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 16, pp 297-315
Burns, T. R., Machado, N., & Corte, U. (2015). The sociology of creativity: Part I: Theory: The social mechanisms of innovation and creative developments in selectivity environments. Human Systems Management, 34(3), 179-199.
Burns, T. R., Corte, U., & Machado, N. (2015). The sociology of creativity: PART II: Applications: The socio- cultural contexts and conditions of the production of novelty. Human Systems Management, 34(4),
263-286.
Burns, T. R., Corte, U., & Machado, N. (2016). The sociology of creativity: PART III: Applications–The socio- cultural contexts of the acceptance/rejection of innovations. Human Systems Management, 35(1), 11-34.
Burr, V. (2015). Social constructionism. Routledge.
Dahlin, E. C. (2014). The Sociology of Innovation: Organizational, Environmental, and Relative Perspectives.
Sociology Compass, 8(6), 671-687.
Daniel, L. J., & Klein, J. A. (2014). Innovation agendas: the ambiguity of value creation. Prometheus, 32(1),
23-47.
Douglas, Susan J. (1990). The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Isis 81 (306), 80–4.
Elle, M., Dammann, S., Lentsch, J., & Hansen, K. (2010). Learning from the social construction of environmental indicators: From the retrospective to the pro-active use of SCOT in technology development. Building and Environment, 45(1), 135-142.
Fuduric, N. (2008). The Sources of Entrepreneurial Opportunities: Perspectives on Individuals and Institutions.
Aalborg University Publication series 2008, 7.
Fulk, Janet (1993), Social Construction of Communication Technology, The Academy of Management Journal,
36 (5), 921-950.
Geels, F. W. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research policy, 33(6), 897-920.
González, S., & Healey, P. (2005). A sociological institutionalist approach to the study of innovation in governance capacity. Urban Studies, 42(11), 2055-2069.
Hill, B. M. (2010). The sociology of innovation. MIT, viewed, 10, 10-14.
Humphreys, L. (2005). Reframing social groups, closure, and stabilization in the social construction of technology. Social epistemology, 19(2-3), 231-253.
Khajeheian, D. (2014), A Perspective on Media Entrepreneurship Policy: Globalization of Knowledge and
Opportunities for Developing Economies. Journal of Globalization Studies, 5(2), 174-187
Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. (2010). What’s under construction here? Social action, materiality, and power in constructivist studies of technology and organizing. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 1-51.
Lundvall, B. Å., Johnson, B., Andersen, E. S., & Dalum, B. (2002). National systems of production, innovation and competence building. Research policy, 31(2), 213-231.
Lundvall, B. Å. (2009). Scope, style, and theme of research on knowledge and learning societies. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1(1), 18-23.
MacKenzie, D., & Wajcman, J. (1999). The social shaping of technology. Open university press.
Ninan, A. S. (2008). Gandhi’s technoscience: sustainability and technology as themes of politics. Sustainable
Development, 17(3), 183-196.
Olsen, O.E, Engen, O.A. (2007), Technological change as a trade-off between social construction and technological paradigms, Technology in Society 29, 456–468
Olsen, J. K. B., Pedersen, S. A., & Hendricks, V. F. (2009). A Companion to the Philosophy of Technology. Wiley- Blackwell.
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations.
Organization science, 3(3), 398-427.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Gash, D. C. (1994). Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 12(2), 174-207.
Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (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(3), 399-
441.
Ramos, I., & Berry, D. M. (2005). Social construction of information technology supporting work. Cases on
Information Technology: Lessons Learned, Volume 7: Lessons Learned, 7(7), 36.
Rowland, W. (2005). Recognizing the role of the modern business corporation in the “social construction” of technology. Social epistemology, 19(2-3), 287-313.
Sharif, N. (2005). Contributions from the Sociology of Technology to the Study of Innovation Systems.
Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 17(3-4), 83-105.
Sillar, W., 1996. The dead and the drying: techniques for transforming people and things in the Andes. Journal of Material Culture 1, 259–89.
Schlesinger, P (2017). The creative economy: invention of a global orthodoxy, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 30(1), 73-90.
Surry, D. W., & Baker, F. W. (2016). The co- dependent relationship of technology and communities. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 47(1), 13-28.
Utterback, J. M. (1997). Disruptive Technologies; Predator or Prey. In Academy of Management Meeting.
Article Sidebar
Publicado
feb 28, 2017
Article Details
Cómo citar
Yousefikhah, S. (2017). Sociología de la innovación: construcción social de la perspectiva tecnológica. AD-Minister, (30), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.17230/ad-minister.30.2
Número
Sección
Artículos de investigación
Agencias de apoyo
Biografía del autor/a
Sara Yousefikhah, Universidad Allameh Tabataba'i
PhD researcher in Political Sociology in Allameh Tabataba’i University. She earned her MA in Sociology with specialty in Youth Studies from University of Tehran. Her areas of interest are including sociology of Technology and Political sociology. She is also a lecturer in Payam Noor University, Taleghan branch and Allameh Tabatabae’i University.Los autores que publican en esta revista están de acuerdo con los siguientes términos:
a. Los autores conservan los derechos de autor y garantizan a la revista el derecho de ser la primera publicación del trabajo al igual que licenciado bajo una Creative Commons Attribution License que permite a otros compartir el trabajo con un reconocimiento de la autoría del trabajo y la publicación inicial en esta revista.
b. Los autores pueden establecer por separado acuerdos adicionales para la distribución no exclusiva de la versión de la obra publicada en la revista (por ejemplo, situarlo en un repositorio institucional o publicarlo en un libro), con un reconocimiento de su publicación inicial en esta revista.
c. Se permite y se anima a los autores a difundir sus trabajos electrónicamente (por ejemplo, en repositorios institucionales o en su propio sitio web) antes y durante el proceso de envío, ya que puede dar lugar a intercambios productivos, así como a una citación más temprana y mayor de los trabajos publicados (Véase The Effect of Open Access) (en inglés).