Сравнение методов

	Technological Frames Analysis	Social Construction of Technology
Область	Science Technology Studies	Science Technology Studies
Семейство	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Год появления	1995	1984
Автор метода	Wiebe E. Bijker; extended to organisations by Wanda Orlikowski & Debra Gash	Trevor Pinch & Wiebe Bijker
Тип	Qualitative interpretive method	Constructivist theory of technological development
Основополагающий источник	Bijker, W. E. (1995). Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. MIT Press. ISBN: 9780262023764	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.
Другие названия	Technological frame analysis, Frame incongruence analysis, Relevant social group framing	SCOT, Social constructivism of technology, Interpretive flexibility analysis
Связанные	4	4
Сводка	Technological frames analysis examines the shared assumptions, goals, and problem-solving strategies through which groups make sense of a technology and act upon it. Introduced by Wiebe Bijker as part of the social construction of technology, a technological frame structures the interaction among members of a relevant social group and binds the meaning of an artefact to their concerns. Wanda Orlikowski and Debra Gash later carried the concept into organisations, showing how different stakeholder groups hold distinct frames about information technology and how the resulting frame incongruence shapes adoption and use. The method reconstructs these frames, analyses their content, and links them to technological outcomes.	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.