ABSTRACT
One of the most conspicuous characteristics of the present situation in technology studies is the dominance of social constructivism in the broadest sense of the word. Many kinds of approaches belong to this trend (cf. Keith Grint and Steve Woolgar 1997, ch. 1). Despite all differences, what makes discussions in these approaches especially interesting is their common stance against the essentialist tendency in some way or other. These approaches emphasize that they do not commit themselves to any determinism, whether technological or social. That means they do not presuppose the naïve distinction between the technical and the social. Rather, they admit that technological development is determined neither by technical nor social factors alone but by each contingent situation in which the sociotechnical network is realized and in which technological artifacts are interpreted correspondingly. Technological artifacts and their ways of working are considered to have no inherent and essential attributes, and their meanings are considered to be open to various interpretations by different social groups. In this sense, “interpretative flexibility” has become a key concept of this trend.
