Порівняння методів

	Controversy Mapping	Social Construction of Technology
Галузь	Science Technology Studies	Science Technology Studies
Родина	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Рік появи	2010	1984
Автор методу	Bruno Latour (Sciences Po médialab); codified by Tommaso Venturini	Trevor Pinch & Wiebe Bijker
Тип	Qualitative descriptive method and pedagogy	Constructivist theory of technological development
Основоположне джерело	Venturini, T. (2010). Diving in magma: how to explore controversies with actor-network theory. Public Understanding of Science, 19(3), 258-273.	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.
Інші назви	Cartography of controversies, Mapping scientific controversies, Controversy analysis	SCOT, Social constructivism of technology, Interpretive flexibility analysis
Пов'язані	4	4
Підсумок	Controversy 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.