ScholarGate
Assistent

Methoden vergelijken

Bekijk de geselecteerde methoden naast elkaar; rijen die verschillen zijn gemarkeerd.

Controversy Mapping×Social Construction of Technology×
VakgebiedScience Technology StudiesScience Technology Studies
FamilieProcess / pipelineProcess / pipeline
Jaar van ontstaan20101984
GrondleggerBruno Latour (Sciences Po médialab); codified by Tommaso VenturiniTrevor Pinch & Wiebe Bijker
TypeQualitative descriptive method and pedagogyConstructivist theory of technological development
Oorspronkelijke bronVenturini, T. (2010). Diving in magma: how to explore controversies with actor-network theory. Public Understanding of Science, 19(3), 258-273. DOI ↗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. DOI ↗
AliassenCartography of controversies, Mapping scientific controversies, Controversy analysisSCOT, Social constructivism of technology, Interpretive flexibility analysis
Verwant44
SamenvattingControversy mapping is a descriptive method for exploring and representing socio-technical disputes while they are still open and unsettled, before they harden into accepted facts or stable technologies. Developed as a teaching practice by Bruno Latour and codified by Tommaso Venturini at the Sciences Po médialab, it asks the analyst to dive into the heat of a debate, follow the actors and their arguments without prematurely taking sides, and render the resulting complexity legible through maps and visualisations. It treats controversy not as a pathology to be resolved but as the privileged moment in which the social and the technical are visibly being assembled.The Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) is a constructivist framework holding that technological artefacts are shaped by the interpretations and negotiations of relevant social groups rather than by technical logic alone. Introduced by Trevor Pinch and Wiebe Bijker in 1984, it shows that an artefact has 'interpretive flexibility'—different groups see different problems and solutions in it—until a process of closure stabilises one design as the obvious one.
ScholarGateGegevensset
  1. v1
  2. 2 Bronnen
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 2 Bronnen
  3. PUBLISHED

Naar zoeken Dia's downloaden

ScholarGateMethoden vergelijken: Controversy Mapping · Social Construction of Technology. Geraadpleegd op 2026-06-25 via https://scholargate.app/nl/compare