Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On the Signature of New Technologies: Materiality, Sociality and Practical Reasoning

  • Chapter
Risk and the Public Acceptance of New Technologies

Abstract

In this chapter I will examine critically some of the underlying sociological ideas present in recent debates about the social acceptability of new technologies. I focus on the notion of constructionism: a perspective and analytical approach that recognises, and seeks to explicate, the ways in which the categories of human discourse are socially negotiated and selected (see e.g. Hannigan, 1995). I will argue that whilst the use of constructionist ideas has enriched such debates, and moved them away from a narrow technocratic reductionism, they have done so at the risk of losing track of the specific features of technological artefacts. In seeking to include human sensibilities in the analysis, a preference has been given to sociological theories of reality at the expense of engaging with what I will call the signature of the technology: the specific ways in which it is articulated in practical reasoning and discourse within real-world settings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • D. Anderson and P. Mullen (eds), Faking It: the Sentimentalisation of Modern Society (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Anderson and W. Sharrock, ‘Can organisations afford knowledge?’, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 1 (1993) 143–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • B. Barnes, The Elements of Social Theory (London: UCL Press, 1995).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • U. Beck, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (London, Sage, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • P. Bellaby, ‘Communication and miscommunication of risk: understanding UK patient’s attitudes to combined MMR vaccination’, British Medical Journal, 327 (2003) 725–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • P. Berger and T. Luckman, The Social Construction of Reality (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Best (ed.), Images of Issues: Typifying Contemporary Social Problems (New York: Aldine De Gruyter, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  • W. Bijker and J. Law (eds), Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Bloor, R. Datta, Y. Gilinskiy and T. Horlick-Jones, ‘Unicorn among the cedars: on the possibility of effective “smart regulation” of the globalized shipping industry’, Social & Legal Studies (2006) 15, 4, 534–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D. Boden, ‘Worlds in action: information, instantaneity and global futures trading’, in Adam, B., Beck, U. and Van Loon, J. (eds) The Risk Society and Beyond: Critical Issues for Social Theory (London: Sage, 2000) 183–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • A. Burgess, Cellular Phones, Public Fears and a Culture of Precaution (Cambridge-Cambridge University Press, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • K. Burningham and G. Cooper, ‘Being constructive: social constructionism and the environment’, Sociology, 33, 2 (1999) 297–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • G. Button (ed.), Ethnomethodology and the Human Sciences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  • G. Button, ‘Introduction’ and ‘The curious case of the vanishing technology’, in Button, G. (ed.) Technology in Working Order: Studies of Work, Interaction and Technology (London: Routledge, 1993), 7–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • C. Candlin and S. Candlin, ‘Discourse, expertise and the management of risk in healthcare settings’, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35 (2002) 115–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CEC (2001) European Governance: a White Paper, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • D. Collingridge, The Management of Scale: Big Organizations, Big Decisions, Big Mistakes (London: Routledge, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Dingwall, ‘“Risk Society”: the cult of theory and the millennium?’, Social Policy & Administration, 33, 4 (1999) 474–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. Douglas, ‘Risk as a forensic resource’, Daedalus, 119, 4 (1990) 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Douglas and A. Wildavsky, Risk and Culture: an Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  • B. Durodié, ‘The true cost of precautionary chemical regulation’, Risk Analysis, 23, 2 (2003) 389–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • N. Fox, ‘“Risks”, “hazards” and life choices: reflections on health at work’, Sociology, 32, 4 (1998) 665–687.

    Google Scholar 

  • F. Furedi, Culture of Fear: Risk-Taking and the Morality of Low Expectations (London: Cassell, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  • H. Garfinkel, Studies in Ethnomethodology (Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1967).

    Google Scholar 

  • J.J. Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  • A. Giddens, Modernity and Self-Identity (Cambridge: Polity, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  • B. Glassner, The Culture of Fear: why Americans are Afraid of the Wrong Things (New York: Basic Books, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • I. Hacking, The Social Construction of What? (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Hannigan, Environmental Sociology: A Social Constructionist Perspective (London: Routledge, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Hilgartner, ‘The social construction of risk objects: or, how to pry open networks of risk’, in Short, J.F. Jr. and Clarke, L. (eds) Organizations, Uncertainty, and Risk (Boulder, Col.: Westview Press, 1992) 39–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • C. Hood and D. Jones, ‘Preface’, in Hood, C. and Jones, D. (eds) Accident and Design: Contemporary Debates in Risk Management (London: UCL Press, 1996) xi–xiii.

    Google Scholar 

  • T. Horlick-Jones, ‘Is safety a by-product of quality management?’, in Hood, C. and Jones, D. (eds) Accident and Design: Contemporary Debates in Risk Management (London: UCL Press, 1996) 144–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • T. Horlick-Jones, ‘Science — the language of the powerful?’, Journal of Risk Research, 1, 4 (1998a) 321–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • T. Horlick-Jones, ‘Meaning and contextualisation in risk assessment’, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 59 (1998b) 79–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • T. Horlick-Jones, ‘Experts in risk?…do they exist?’, Health, Risk & Society, 6, 2 (2004) 107–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • T. Horlick-Jones, ‘On “risk work”: professional discourse, accountability and everyday action’, Health, Risk & Society, 7, 3 (2005a) 293–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • T. Horlick-Jones, ‘Informal logics of risk: contingency and modes of practical reasoning’, Journal of Risk Research, 8, 3 (2005b) 253–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • T. Horlick-Jones and B. De Marchi, ‘The crisis of scientific expertise in fin de siècle Europe’, Science and Public Policy, 22, June (1995) 139–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • T. Horlick-Jones and J. Sime, ‘Living on the border: knowledge, risk and trans-disciplinarity’, Futures, 36 (2004) 441–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • T. Horlick-Jones, J. Walls, G. Rowe, N. Pidgeon, W. Poortinga, G. Murdock and T. O’Riordan, The GM Debate: Risk, Politics and Public Engagement (London: Routledge, 2007a).

    Google Scholar 

  • T. Horlick-Jones, J. Walls and J. Kitzinger, ‘Bricolage in action: learning about, making sense of, and discussing issues about GM crops and food’, Health, Risk & Society (2007b).

    Google Scholar 

  • T. Horlick-Jones, G. Rowe and J. Walls, ‘Citizen engagement processes as information systems: the role of knowledge and the concept of translation quality’, Public Understanding of Science (London: HMSO, 2007c) 16, 3, 259–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, Third Report, ‘Science and Society’, HL Paper 38 (London: HMSO, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • P. Huber, Galileo’s Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom (New York: Basic Books, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  • I. Hutchby, Conversation and Technology: from the Telephone to the Internet (Cambridge: Polity, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • A. Irwin and B. Wynne (eds) Misunderstanding Science: the Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Kaldor, The Baroque Arsenal (London: Andre Deutsch, 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Lash, B. Szerzynski and B. Wynne (eds) Risk, Environment & Modernity: Towards a New Ecology (London: Sage, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Löfstedt and T. Horlick-Jones, ‘Environmental politics in the UK: institutional change and public trust’, in Cvetkovich, G. and Löfstedt, R. (eds) Social Trust and the Management of Risk (London: Earthscan, 1999) 73–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Löfstedt and O. Renn, ‘The Brent Spar controversy: an example of risk communication gone wrong’, Risk Analysis, 17, 2 (1997) 131–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D. Lupton, Risk (London: Routledge, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Lynch, Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action: Ethnomethodology and Social Studies of Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Lynch, ‘The contingencies of social construction’, Economy and Society, 30, 2 (2001) 240–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D. Maynard, Bad News, Good News: Conversational Order in Everyday Talk and Clinical Settings (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • H. Molotch, Where Stuff Comes From: How Toasters, Toilets, Cars, Computers, and Many Other Things Come to Be as They Are (New York: Routledge, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Mulkay, Review of Misunderstanding Science? The Public Construction of Science and Technology, in Irwin, A. and Wynne, B. (eds) Science, Technology & Human Values, 22, 2 (1997) 254–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • G. Myers and P. Macnaghten, ‘Rhetorics of environmental sustainability: commonplaces and places’, Environment and Planning A, 30 (1998) 333–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • C. Norris, ‘Truth, science and the growth of knowledge’, New Left Review, 210 (1995) 105–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD, Engaging Citizens in Policy-Making: Information, Consultation and Public Participation, PUMA Policy briefing No. 10 (Paris: Organisation of Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • T. O’Riordan, R. Kemp and M. Purdue, Sizewell B: an Anatomy of the Inquiry (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1988).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • C. Perrow, Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies (New York: Basic Books, 1984).

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Petts, T. Horlick-Jones and G. Murdock, Social Amplification of Risk: the Media and the Public (Sudbury: HSE Books, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, J. Bridgeman and M. Ferguson-Smith, The BSE Inquiry (‘The Phillips Inquiry’) (London: HMSO, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • A. Pickering (ed.), Science as Practice and Culture (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • O. Renn, ‘Concepts of risk: a classification’, in: Krimsky, S. and Golding, D. (eds) Social Theories of Risk (Westport, Conn: Praeger, 1992) 53–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • N. Rose, ‘Authority and the genealogy of subjectivity’, in Heelas, P., Lash, S. and Morris, P. (eds) Detraditionalization: Critical Reflections of Authority and Identity (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996) 294–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • N. Rose, Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • H. Rothstein, ‘The institutional origins of risk: a new agenda for risk research’, Health, Risk & Society, 8, 3 (2006) 215–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royal Society, ‘The Public Understanding of Science’ (London: Royal Society, 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  • A. Sayer, Realism and Social Science (London: Sage, 2000).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • A. Sayer (2004) ‘Restoring the moral dimension’, Department of Sociology, University of Lancaster: http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/papers/sayer-restoring-moral-dimension.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Shotter and K. Gergen (eds), Texts of Identity (London: Sage, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Sime, ‘What is environmental psychology? Texts, content and context’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19 (1999) 191–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • P. Slovic, The Perception of Risk (London: Earthscan, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Spector and J. Kitsuse, Constructing Social Problems (New York: Aldine De Gruyter, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  • P. Strong, ‘Sociological imperialism and the profession of medicine: a critical examination of the thesis of medical imperialism’, Social Science & Medicine 13A (1979) 199–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • P. Strong and R. Dingwall, ‘Romantics and Stoics’, in Gubrium, J. and Silverman, D. (eds) The Politics of Field Research: Sociology Beyond Enlightenment (London: Sage, 1989) 49–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • L. Timotijevic and J. Barnett, ‘Managing the possible health risks of mobile telecommunications: public understanding of precautionary action and advice’, Health, Risk & Society, 8, 2 (2006) 143–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • I. Velody and R. Williams (eds), The Politics of Constructionism (London: Sage, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Walls, N. Pidgeon, A. Weyman and T. Horlick-Jones, ‘Critical trust: understanding lay perceptions of health and safety risk regulation’, Health, Risk & Society, 6, 2 (2004) 133–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J. Walls, T. Horlick-Jones, J. Niewöhner, and T. O’Riordan, ‘The meta-governance of risk: GM crops and mobile telephones’, Journal of Risk Research, 8, 7–8 (2005) 635–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • S. Woolgar and D. Pawluch, ‘Ontological Gerrymandering: the anatomy of social problems explanations’, Social Problems, 32 (1985) 214–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • B. Wynne, Rationality and Ritual: the Windscale Inquiry and Nuclear Decisions in Britain (Chalfont St. Giles: The British Society for the History of Science, 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  • B. Wynne, ‘SSK’s identity parade: signing-up, off-and-on’, Social Studies of Science, 26 (1996) 357–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • B. Wynne, ‘Creating public alienation: expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs’, Science as Culture, 10, 4 (2001) 445–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Tom Horlick-Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Social, Cultural and Policy Research, University of Salford, UK

    Rob Flynn  & Paul Bellaby  & 

Copyright information

© 2007 Tom Horlick-Jones

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Horlick-Jones, T. (2007). On the Signature of New Technologies: Materiality, Sociality and Practical Reasoning. In: Flynn, R., Bellaby, P. (eds) Risk and the Public Acceptance of New Technologies. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230591288_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation