Science, Relativism and the New Sociology of Technology: Reply to Russell

We welcome Stewart Russell's paper, 'The Social Construction of Artefacts: A Response to Pinch and Bijker',1 not only because the author fully supports our objective of 'developing an explanation of the content of technology', but also because the points he raises give us an opportunity to comment further upon the exciting developments in this new field of science studies. Since writing our earlier paper advocating a new sociology of technology, the rapid growth of this field has been most encouraging. Two edited collections of papers have appeared in which the theme of a sociology of the content of technology is developed.2 Furthermore, an international Workshop has been held which has brought together proponents of a variety of new approaches in the history and sociology of technology approaches which are in sympathy with many of the proposals outlined in our earlier paper. An edited volume of papers from this workshop will appear later this year.3 As one commentator has noted in discussing this Workshop, 'we may look back to it as the place where the social study of technology first became a recognizable field'.4 One of the most satisfying things about these recent developments is that detailed empirical case studies which attempt to show how the content of technology is socially shaped are at last being carried out. Thus, in a sense, our earlier paper has rapidly been overtaken by events in the field.5