KV Technology and Society

Module 1: The Politics and Social Construction of Technology

1.1 The Theory of Technological Politics

Developed by Langdon Winner, the theory of technological politics states that technical objects can be judged not just on efficiency or environmental impact, but on how they embody specific forms of power and authority.

Winner argues against two extreme perspectives:

Technological Determinism: The assumption that technology develops solely through an internal dynamic and unilaterally molds society.
Social Determinism: The belief that technology itself does not matter, and only the social or economic embedding system dictates outcomes.

Winner introduces two distinct ways artifacts can contain political properties:

Technologies where the invention or design becomes a way of settling a specific issue within a community (e.g., Robert Moses' low bridges designed to prevent public transit access).
"Inherently political technologies," which appear to require or be strongly compatible with specific kinds of political relationships (e.g., centralized authority).

1.2 Social Construction of Technology (SCOT)

Formulated by Pinch and Bijker, SCOT rejects linear models of technological innovation. Instead, it uses a multi-directional model of innovation to show that a technology's success cannot be explained by the success of the artifact itself.

The core conceptual framework involves:

Relevant Social Groups: Unorganized or organized groups of people who share the same set of meanings attached to a specific artifact (e.g., sports cyclists vs. women cyclists).
Interpretative Flexibility: The concept that different groups attach different meanings to the same artifact, leading to conflicting technical requirements and the realization that there is no single "best" design.
Closure and Stabilization: The social negotiations and mechanisms that define one option as the ultimate solution (e.g., the safety bicycle's air tire universally accepted for both velocity and anti-vibration).
Wider Context: The integration of socio-cultural norms, power relations, and legal restrictions into the development path.

1.3 Fluid Technology

De Laet and Mol introduce "technological fluidity," which describes objects that are not rigorously bounded but adapt to their environment.

Fluid Technology: Prioritizes adaptability, responsiveness, and user orientation. The Zimbabwe Bush Pump succeeded because it lacked rigid boundaries; it acted as a water provider, health promoter, and nation-building apparatus, remaining functional even when missing parts like bolts.
Non-Fluid Technology: The French photoelectric lighting kit failed because it was bound to rigid standards (fixed length cables, non-standard plugs, single switch to prevent tinkering) and ignored local user contexts.

Module 2: Path Creation, Entrepreneurship, and Organizations

2.1 Path Creation: Bricolage vs. Breakthrough

Garud and Karnøe contrast path dependency—where self-reinforcing cycles make emerging alternatives difficult—with deliberate Path Creation. Technological innovation is driven by distributed agency (efforts of many) and embedded agency (actors depend on the emerging path).

Two distinct innovation models determine trajectory success:

Bricolage (Denmark Wind Turbines): Relies on resourcefulness, emergent co-shaping, steadily scaled-up designs, and continuous feedback. Collaboration between designers, producers, and users yields resilient growth.
Breakthrough (USA Wind Turbines): Relies on state-planned programs attempting to generate dramatic, "leap-frogging" outcomes. A lack of interaction and testing standards based on generic engineering science, rather than co-evolution, often leads to systemic failure.

2.2 Institutional Entrepreneurship

Munir and Phillips analyse how the advancement of technology depends on—and modifies—existing societal institutions. Institutions act as the "taken for granted assumptions" in a society.
Kodak popularized the camera by altering societal institutions through specific discursive strategies:

Embedding technology in existing practices: Defining a vacation around photography ("A holiday without a Kodak is a holiday wasted").
Creating new roles: Legitimizing new users (e.g., targeting women via "The Kodak Girl").
Creating new institutions: The photograph album becoming a household staple.

Module 3: Algorithms, Sociotechnical Imaginaries, and AI

3.1 The Social Power of Algorithms

David Beer defines the power of algorithms across two dimensions: the impact of the code and the impact of the notion of the algorithm.

Algorithmic Profiling & Decisions: Algorithms do not "decide" independently; their outputs are treated as decisions in societal contexts. They sort, classify, rank, and make (in)visible, directly shaping human experience. Algorithms operate as "enigmatic technologies" creating a black-box society where authority is algorithmic.
The Notion: The term "algorithm" is deployed discursively to project calculative objectivity, neutrality, and efficiency, influencing social order despite inherent biases.

3.2 Domesticating AI in Medical Diagnosis

Williams et al. conceptualize the integration of AI in healthcare via "domestication," recognizing the gap between curated laboratory data performance and fluctuating real-world clinical application.
The framework comprises three mechanisms:

Learning by doing: Experimental efforts to optimize models for clinical practice.
Learning by interacting: Embedding and scaling the application across different settings to satisfy commercial viability and gather evidence.
Learning by regulating: Developing collective frameworks and institutional arrangements for safe implementation.

3.3 Sociotechnical Imaginaries

Jasanoff & Kim describe sociotechnical imaginaries as "collective visions of 'good' futures enabled by science & technology". These are performative, meaning they dictate resource allocation, guide policy, and create technological lock-ins.
National AI strategies rely on three narrative building blocks:

Inevitability: Framing AI as an unstoppable historical rupture driven by a technological sublime.
Necessity: Linking AI to national competitiveness and survival.
Uncertainty & Leadership: Promising responsible stewardship over the inevitable risks.

Different National Imaginaries: USA (Innovation/Patriotism), China (Cybernetic Social Order), France (Human-centered Renaissance), Germany (Industrial-ethical balance).

Module 4: Mathematical Formulations in Sociotechnical Systems

While sociotechnical systems are fundamentally qualitative, the algorithms embedded within them are strictly quantitative and formulate social categories into discrete mathematical weights.

4.1 The Algorithmic Profiling Model (AMS Austria)

Source material details a discrete algorithmic model used for scoring job seekers. The algorithm expresses an individual's integration likelihood, $BE\_INT$ , as a function $f$ of a linear combination of demographic and socioeconomic variables.

The general model structure operates as a weighted sum:

BE\_INT = f\left(\beta_0 + \sum_{i=1}^{n} \beta_i x_i\right)

Where:

$\beta_0$ represents the base intercept.
$\beta_i$ represents the coefficient (weight) assigned to a specific sociodemographic characteristic.
$x_i$ represents the binary or continuous input variable.

Based on the specific algorithmic profiling document extracted, the exact model formula is defined as:

$BE\_INT = f(0.10 - 0.14 \times x_{GESCHLECHT\_WEIBLICH} - 0.13 \times x_{ALTERSGRUPPE\_30\_49} - 0.70 \times x_{ALTERSGRUPPE\_50\_PLUS} + 0.16 \times x_{STAATENGRUPPE\_EU} - 0.05 \times x_{STAATENGRUPPE\_DRITT} + 0.28 \times x_{AUSBILDUNG\_LEHRE} + 0.01 \times x_{AUSBILDUNG\_MATURA\_PLUS} - 0.15 \times x_{BETREUUNGSPFLICHTIG} - \dots)$

This mathematical representation proves Winner's and Beer's sociological theories: the choice of coefficients (e.g., penalizing women by $-0.14$ or workers over 50 by $-0.70$ ) is an inherently political act nested inside an "objective" algorithmic formulation.