Linganisha mbinu
Pitia mbinu ulizochagua bega kwa bega; safu zinazotofautiana zinaangaziwa.
| Script Analysis× | Social Construction of Technology× | |
|---|---|---|
| Nyanja | Science Technology Studies | Science Technology Studies |
| Familia | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Mwaka wa asili≠ | 1992 | 1984 |
| Mwanzilishi≠ | Madeleine Akrich (with Bruno Latour) | Trevor Pinch & Wiebe Bijker |
| Aina≠ | Material-semiotic analytic method for technological artefacts | Constructivist theory of technological development |
| Chanzo asilia≠ | Akrich, M. (1992). The de-scription of technical objects. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping Technology/Building Society (pp. 205-224). MIT Press. ISBN: 9780262023382 | 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 ↗ |
| Majina mbadala | De-scription analysis, Technological script analysis, Inscription analysis | SCOT, Social constructivism of technology, Interpretive flexibility analysis |
| Zinazohusiana | 4 | 4 |
| Muhtasari≠ | Script analysis, developed by Madeleine Akrich with Bruno Latour, treats technological artefacts like texts. When designers build a device, they inscribe a 'script' into it—a set of assumptions about who the users will be, what skills and motives they have, and how the world around the device is arranged—and the artefact then prescribes roles and conduct for the people and things it encounters. 'De-scription' is the analyst's method of reading that script back out of the object and comparing the user the designer projected with the user who actually appears, revealing the often invisible politics built into ordinary things. | 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. |
| ScholarGateSeti ya data ↗ |
|
|