Science, Technology, and Society (STS) Teaching in the Polytechnic University Environment
The Controversy Description Methodology at the Paris School of Mines
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52712/issn.1850-0013-823Keywords:
STS teaching, pedagogy, methodology, polytechnic universityAbstract
The wish to introduce university students of scientific or technological degrees into questions belonging to the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS) has lead in the last decades to the development of more than a few pedagogical experiments. We want to contribute to this innovation process by presenting a pedagogical proposal that has been developed on the theoretical and methodological basis of the so-called Sociology of Translation, also known as Actor-Network Theory: the methodology ‘description of controversies’, that the Center for the Sociology of Innovation offers at the Paris School of Mines for already more than fifteen years. In this article, we present an analysis of the two courses taught, based on interviews, observation and the participation in one of them. Based on this analysis, we extract conclusions about the interest of the methodology for the integration of STS concepts into engineering education.
Downloads
References
AKRICH, M. (1989): “La construction d’un système socio-technique. Esquisse pour une anthropologie des techniques”, Anthropologie et Sociétés, vol. 13, nº 2, pp. 31-54.
AKRICH, M., M. CALLON, y B. LATOUR (2006): Sociologie de la traduction. Textes fondateurs, París, Presses de l’École de Mines.
AKRICH, M., P. JAMET, C. MEADEL, V. RABEHARISOA y F. VINCENT (2002): La griffe de l’ours. Débats et controverses en environnement, París, Presses de l’École de Mines.
BARRY, A. (2001): Political Machines. Governing a Technological Society, Londres, The Athlone Press.
BERGER, P. L. y T. LUCKMANN (1986): La Construcción social de la realidad, Madrid, Murguía.
BLOOR, D. (1974): Knowledge and Social Imagery, London, Routledge.
BRANTE, T. (1993): “Reasons for studying scientific and science-based controversies”, en T. Brante, S. Fuller y W. Lynch (eds.): Controversial science. From content to contention, New York, State University of New York Press, pp.177-191.
CALLON, M. (1981): “Pour une sociologie des controverses technologiques”, Fundamenta Scientiae, vol. 12, nº 4, pp. 381-399.
CALLON, M., P. LASCOUMES, P. y Y. BARTHE (2001): Agir dans un monde incertain, París, Seuil.
CHINCHILLA, I. y F. MUNIESA (2004): “La controversia como herramienta proyectual”, en A. Hernández Aja (ed.): La Sostenibilidad en el Proyecto Arquitectónico y Urbanístico, Madrid, IAU+S, pp. 278-281 (también disponible en formato electrónico en: http://habitat.aq.upm.es/boletin/n32/aichi01.html).
DE MANUEL, E. (2005): “Los talleres de asesoramiento técnico a los barrios”, Vivienda Popular, nº 15, pp.61-67.
DOMÈNECH, M., y F. J. TIRADO (eds.) (1998): Sociología simétrica. Ensayos sobre ciencia, tecnología y sociedad, Barcelona, Gedisa.
FEENBERG, A. (1999): Questioning Technology, Londres, Routledge.
HENDE, M., y M. S. JØRGENSEN (2001): The Impact of Science Shops on University Curricula and Research. Scipas Report 6, Utrecht, Science Shop for Biology, Utrecht University.
HICKMAN, L. A. (2006): “From Critical Theory to Pragmatism. Feenberg’s progress”, en T. J. Veak (ed.): Democratizing Technology. Andrew Feenberg’s Critical Theory of Technology, Albany, NY, State University of New York Press, pp. 71-81.
LATOUR, B. (1989): “Pasteur y Pouchet: Heterogénesis de la historia de las ciencias”, en M. Serres (coord.): Historia de las ciencias, Madrid, Cátedra, pp. 477-502.
LATOUR, B. (1991): Nunca hemos sido modernos. Ensayo de antropología simétrica, Madrid, Editorial Debate.
LATOUR, B. (1996): “On interobjectivity”, Mind, Culture and Activity, vol. 3, nº 4, pp. 228-245.
LATOUR, B. (2005): Reensamblar lo social. Una introducción a la teoría del actor-red, Buenos Aires, Manantial.
LATOUR, B. (2007a): “Turning Around Politics: A Note on Gerard de Vries’ Paper”, Social Studies of Science, vol. 37, nº 5, pp. 811-820.
LATOUR, B. (2007b): “A Textbook Case Revisited. Knowledge as mode of existente”, en E. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch y J. Wajcman (eds.): The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Third Edition, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, pp. 83-112.
LATOUR, B. y S. WOOLGAR (1979): La vida en el laboratorio, Madrid, Alianza, 1995.
LEACH, M., SCOONES, I. y B. WYNNE (2005): Science and citizens: globalization and the challenge of engagement, Londres, Zed Books.
LOBERA, J. (2008): “Incorporating new transdisciplinary skills into technical subjects: a pilot project at UPC”, GUNI Newsletter, 27 de mayo, disponible en http://www.guni-rmies.net/news/detail.php?id=1199.
LUJÁN LÓPEZ, J. L. y J. A. LÓPEZ CEREZO (1996): “Educación CTS en acción: enseñanza secundaria y universidad”, en M. I. González García, J. A. López Cerezo, y J. L. Luján (eds.): Ciencia Tecnología y Sociedad. Una introducción al estudio social de la ciencia y la tecnología, Madrid, Tecnos, pp. 225-252.
MARRES, N. (2007): “The Issues Deserve More Credit: Pragmatist Contributions to the Study of Public Involvement in Controversy”, Social Studies of Science, vol. 37, pp. 759-780.
MARTÍNEZ, M. (ed.) (2008): Aprenentatge servei i responsabilitat social de les universitats, Barcelona, Octaedro.
MARTÍN GORDILLO, M. y C. OSORIO (2003): “Educar para participar en ciencia y tecnología. Un proyecto para la difusión de la cultura científica”, Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, nº 32, disponible en http://www.rieoei.org/rie32a08.htm.
OSORIO, C. (2005): “La participación pública en sistemas tecnológicos. Lecciones para la educación CTS”, Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad - CTS, vol. 2, nº 6, pp. 159-172, disponible en http://www.revistacts.net/2/6/dossier6 /file.
PINCH, T. J. y W. E. BIJKER (1984): “The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other”, Social Studies of Science, vol. 14, nº 3, pp. 399-441.
SCHLIERF, K., A. ABONI y J. F. LOZANO (2008): “La transferència de tecnologia participativa des de la universitat: vers un canvi tecnològic”, en M. Martínez (ed.): Aprenentatge, servei i responsabilitat social de les universitats, Barcelona, Octaedro, pp. 193-216.
VENTURINI, T. (2010): “Diving in magma: How to explore controversies with actor-network theory”, Public Understanding of Science, vol 19, pp. 258-273.
Sitios web
Asignatura ISIGE: www.isige.ensmp.fr
Asignatura Escuela de Minas: controverses.ensmp.fr
Mapping controversies: www.demoscience.org
IssueCrawler: www.govcom.org
Digital methods: www.digitalmethods.net
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 CC Attribution 4.0
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All CTS's issues and academic articles are under a CC-BY license.
Since 2007, CTS has provided open and free access to all its contents, including the complete archive of its quarterly edition and the different products presented in its electronic platform. This decision is based on the belief that offering free access to published materials helps to build a greater and better exchange of knowledge.
In turn, for the quarterly edition, CTS allows institutional and thematic repositories, as well as personal web pages, to self-archive articles in their post-print or editorial version, immediately after the publication of the final version of each issue and under the condition that a link to the original source will be incorporated into the self-archive.
