For example, the developers of smart cellophanes not only need to consider the use of customers, but also follow the rules made by government and organizations. In many cases, the media Ruinations) and civil groups may also in some way determine the involvement of a technology. The other core element of SCOT Is Interpretative Flexibility, meaning that the same technological artifact conveys different meanings towards different groups of people.
We take smartness as a example again, some wish that they can listen music on the go using their phones, some hope that they are able to capture any moment in heir life with cellophanes, and the others wish that they can browse the Internet and get updates whenever, wherever. These different Interpretations In all lead to the development of modern smartness, which is basically is one “master gadget”. We also need to realize that in many occasions conflicts arises due to these different interpretations, when the developer of the technological artifact has to compromise.
The final element of SCOT is Closure, which means that any certain technological artifact would eventually come to a closure. One reason for closure Is that all the robbers and conflicts are solved and there is no longer need for development. The other reason is perhaps even though this design is not perfect, it solves a much more severe problem hence It’s worthy to keep. Closure is not permanent however. SST, Social shaping of technology[J, is heavily influenced by Social Construction of Technology.
It is very similar to SCOT, however, it believes that the impact of technology Is not confined within certain groups of people, but come from much greater environment: economy, law. Policy, media. Etc. It also advocates that there Is o Closure for a certain technology, but Stability instead. Social shaping theorists believe that technology and society are indeed ‘mutual shaping. There are however some criticism on SCOT.
Although it notices the roles of social groups In the design of certain technology artifact, it pays no attention to the consequence of the technology. It studies what happened in the past, period. Besides, it also pays little attention to people who have no say in how a technology artifact is designed, yet are impacted by it in their daily life. SCOT also intentionally voids to take a stand In face of conflicts between different social groups, making It unhelpful when trying to reconcile different Interpretations of a certain technology artifact.
My research interest is in Security and Privacy, which has been a core 1 OFF history of security and privacy using SCOT, we can see that the design of security applications and techniques have been impacted by multiple social groups: government, military, business and individual consumers, who each have different interpretations and expectations on the design of security techniques. Moreover, security techniques are also deeply impacted by hackers who try to benefit from stealing confidential information.
The design of security techniques has not come to an conclusion yet, partly because of more efficient computers and more advanced hack techniques.