Порівняння методів

	Technological Frames Analysis	Controversy Mapping
Галузь	Science Technology Studies	Science Technology Studies
Родина	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Рік появи	1995	2010
Автор методу	Wiebe E. Bijker; extended to organisations by Wanda Orlikowski & Debra Gash	Bruno Latour (Sciences Po médialab); codified by Tommaso Venturini
Тип	Qualitative interpretive method	Qualitative descriptive method and pedagogy
Основоположне джерело	Bijker, W. E. (1995). Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. MIT Press. ISBN: 9780262023764	Venturini, T. (2010). Diving in magma: how to explore controversies with actor-network theory. Public Understanding of Science, 19(3), 258-273.
Інші назви	Technological frame analysis, Frame incongruence analysis, Relevant social group framing	Cartography of controversies, Mapping scientific controversies, Controversy analysis
Пов'язані	4	4
Підсумок	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.	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.