Managing Editors:
Editorial Board:
1984
THE NATURE OF
TECHNOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE.
ARE MODELS OF
SCIENTIFIC CHANGE RELEVANT?
Edited by
RACHEL LAUDAN
Center for the Study of Science in Society,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, U.S.A .
INTRODUCTION
design, and vice versa; both must cope with overall engine
performance requirements in an envisioned aircraft, while
the aircraft designer has to give some thought to the length
of the runways the plane will use. Although each specific
task (turbine blade design or engine design and
manufacture, say) is the province of a highly-specialized
community of practitioners who possess unique and well-
winnowed esoteric knowledge, creation of a functional
system requires continual integration of the knowledge of
different tech no log ica I communities.
This continual interaction, this demand that all design
be a 'team' effort, may have served to obscure the
community basis of technological practice. Also contributing
to the difficulty of defining community structure in
technology is the degree to which technological communities
and traditions of practice often overlap a number of
technologies, hierarchically both higher and lower. Some
basic building blocks, such as bearings or integrated
circuits, crop up in an astonishing variety of final
products, although fine bearings or high-quality integrated
circuits are certainly the purview of well-defined
communities. Similarly, some technologies, like basic
foundry techniques, are used across many industries.
Conversely some firms encompass a variety of partly related
technologies: GM builds autos, diesel locomotives and gas
turbine aircraft engines.
While clear and distinct traditions and communities do
exist in technology, then, they do not have the obvious
boundaries that disciplines, or even specialties, have in
science. This, of couse, may be mere appearance. Science
also is possessed of an array of esoteric specialties
spectroscopy, for example - that are essential to many
disciplines in the same way that foundry techniques are
essential to many technologies. The intercommunal
interaction so critical in technology deserves more careful
examination in science. In big science, especially, it could
well be that while a result from an experiment in high-
energy physics might enter the great science archive under
one or another theoretical rubric, the practitioners actually
doing the experiment might represent a wider or even
different set of specialized sub-communities, possibly
clustered around specific experimental techniques. 14
The hierarchical structure of technology is related to
the different modes of satisficing in science and in
technology. 'Satisficing' of course refers to Herbert
Communities and Hierarchies: Structure in the Practice of Science and Technology 35
possible that his terns had suddenly struck out across the
Pacific and discovered Hawaii or that they had abruptly
mutated to store the huge quantities of energy necessary
for the voyage.
Wolfson found the solution to his puzzle in the wor:< of
Alfred Wegner on continental drift. By combining the
known phylogenetic history of bird species with a theory of
continental drift over the same epochs, Wolfson could
resolve his paradox and not violate accepted evolutionary
principles. But the continents had to move; and the
geological community was unmoved. Having fought their
own century-long war over catastrophism, and having no
geological evidence for continental drift, the geologists in
uniform voice answered no. There the issue lay
unresolved - for another decade, until geological evidence
of sea-floor spreading ignited intra-community interest in
plate tectonics.
A similar story could probably be told about the
current debate between physicists and astrophysicists about
how many neutrinos the sun ought to produce, and why
some scientists seem unable to find them. In short, in
science intra-community concerns come first; that is what
the structure of the disciplines and of their reward systems
requires. This preoccupation does not mean, however, that
there is no hierarchy of theory or of values in science.
Almost all scientists accept theories of conservation of mass-
energy or gravitational attraction; most share some implicit
notion of legitimate explanation. But by the nature of the
enterprise, hierarchical agreement and inter-community
harmony do not seem as important in science as in
technology.
Still, scientists, like technologists, must satisfice:
they do have accepted or conventional modes of limiting
search space. Current theory and the limitations and
capabilities of experimental technique shape problem choice
and define acceptable solutions. For example high-energy
physics experiments monitored by complex computer
programs designed to find the expected not only limit
search space, but also represent an extraordinary example
of the theory-ladeness of observation. Notions about
saliency, credibility, hierarchical structure, and
interdisciplinary consistency operate in science, but the
precise rules for defining a satisfactory solution to a
specific scientific problem are not yet clear. In technology,
crudely 'working· sets the outer bound for satisficing; in
38 Edward W. Constant II
1. INTRODUCTION
2. ON APPLYING KUHN
Department of Philosophy
University of Notre Dame
1. INTRODUCTION
4. ORGANIZATIONA L ATTRIBUTE
6. COMMON OBSERVATIONS
Department of Sociology
University of Pittsburgh
80 Norman P. Hummon
1. INTRODUCTION
2. TECHNOLOGY AS PROBLEM-SOLVING
6. PROBLEM-SOLVING HEURISTICS
9. CONCLUSION
History of Science
Yale University
1. INTRODUCTION
5. CONCLUSIONS
University of Bielefeld
Lammers, C. 51,64
Laudan, Larry. 14,25, Parsons, Talcott. 137,142
83,102 Perrow, Charles. 20,80
Laudan, Rachel. 17,41 Peters, Thomas J. 81
Lawless, Edward. 22 Pinch, Trevor. 16,26
Lawrence, Paul R. 80 Polanyi, Michael. 20,
22,138
Index 145
Sahal, D .. 26
Schlipp, Paul A. 45 Wallace, Anthony. 15,
Schmookler, Jacob. 20,24 21-25,94,104
Schofield, Robert E. 22 Wallis, George. 21
Schumpeter, J. A. 12,24, Weber, Max. 27,44
91,104 Weinberg, Alvin. 103
Shapere, Dudley. 22 Weingart, Peter. 15-17,
Shils, E. A. 137 23,41,137,139
Shinn , T . 139 White, Lawrence. 81
Shuchman, Hedvah. 19 White, Lynn. 24
Simon, Herbert. 35,45,93, Whitley, R. D. 64,137
102,104 Winner, Langdon. 142
Sinclair, Bruce, 21 Wisdom, J. 0. 22
Skolimowski, H. 22,47, Wojick, David. 15,25,41,
57,61-63,65,118,138 42,47,53-57,59,60,64
Smith, Cyril Stanley. Woodward, Joan. 80
22,119,139 Wolfson, Albert. 36,37,45
Smith, Merritt Roe. 21,
94,104
Solow, Robert. 19 Zemotel, Linda. 80
Sombart, Werner. 24
129,141
Spiegel-Rasing, Ina. 23
Stinchcombe, Arthur. 73,
74,79,81
Suhling, L. 139
SOCIOLOGY OF THE SCIENCES
MONOGRAPHS