Razones fundamentales del mal comportamiento sísmico

The theories of Social Construction of technology (SCOT) and Social Shaping of Technology (SST) which has common orientations serve as the theoretical basis of this study.

Central elements of this theory came from the thoughts and ideas developed by Weibe Bijker in "The Social Construction of Technological Systems" (1987) and "Of Bicycles, Bakelites and Bulbs" (1992); as well as the work of Donald MacKenzie: "The Social Shaping of Technology" with Judy Wajcman (1985) and "Inventing Accuracy" (1993). The social construction of Technology (SCOT) theory argues that technology does not determine human action, but that human action shapes technology (Pinch and Bijker; Kline 1992). Key concepts include: 1) Interpretive flexibility. That "Technological artefacts are culturally constructed and interpreted which means that not only that there is flexibility in how people think of or interpret artefacts but also that there is flexibility in how artefacts are designed."2) Relevant social groups share a particular set of meanings about an artefact. 3) Wider context. This implies that „the socio-cultural and political situation of a social group shapes its norms and values, which in turn influence the meaning given to an artefact”. These propositions are supported by Marx: “People construct (make) history, but they do so within the circumstances transmitted from the past“. “The legacy of technology."

In terms of orientation the main focus of this theory entail: i) firstly; seek to understand the links between social and technical processes. ii) Secondly; the meaning of an artefact, that is the nature of truth as social construction focus on the elements of flexibility of interpretations, consensus building and closure mechanisms and that this activity is carried out within a socio- cultural milieu. iii) Thirdly; that science and technology are socially constructed sub-cultures in the sense that both are human or social constructions. iv) Fourthly; the boundaries between them are the product of social negotiations. v) Fifthly; that technology is shaped by human engineers, Market forces, Consumer needs and demands as well as all groups and individuals who are also social products.

The Social Construction theory achieves this by attempting to link the activity of individuals to wider social processes, power, internal structure of technology and new ways to theoretically ground the relationship between society and technology in order to allow for action such as macro and micro level analysis of technology within the framework of political analyses and change.

According to Keel (2006) the constructionist element of this theory advocates; a) that the meaning of a technic does not lie in technology itself. This implies that it is up to the user to develop and apply appropriate techniques of usage. b) The interaction of Actor-network and Technological Systems to produce desired effects or impacts. c) Avoiding the linear analysis of technological development. d) Avoid asymmetry: include focus on failed technology: How a particular technic becomes seen as successful. e) Focus on the internal dynamics that is the details of technologies and the social context in which these details come to have particular meanings and applications. f) The common evolution of Technology and Society and g) Invention and Creativity as Social Processes. Individuals matter, yet only within particular social contexts- the inevitability of inventions.

Theory Requirements

Relating the specific requirements of this theory, Keel (2006), highlights the following concepts: A) the theory considers both change and continuity by specifying the conditions in which either occurs. B) It explains the success and/or failure of a particular technic as being the result of socio-technological developments and not necessarily as a cause of these developments. Success does not equal an artefact that "works," but what works is a product of the eye of beholder. C) In terms of Actor/Structure Integration, the theory advocates for the understanding of specific individual actors within particular situations as well as options and choices constrained by structural elements. D) In terms of interrelationships, the theory advocates that there is no a priori distinction between Societies, Technology, Politics, Economics, etc.

Consequently the total outcome will be the construction of an understanding of socio- technical change which is probabilistic in the sense that they are neither simply rational and goal directed nor purely idiosyncratic and spontaneous. Thus Socio-technical change is contingent on a variety of factors, including systematic structural constraints and other contingent factors. However the theory does not go without criticisms. The SCOT approach tends to have difficulty in accounting for closure. The possibilities of `interpretative flexibility’ (i.e. of `choice') seems endless. Actor-network studies remain sceptical about the nature and influence of broader social and economic structures of power and interests, insisting that actors create the world anew (Latour 1983, 1986 & 1988), and implying that technologies (and social systems generally) are

highly malleable to local actors. It has been noted that much of their early research has involved micro-level studies, focusing upon the scientific or R&D laboratory, and tending to examine current technological fields, in which the broader institutional context is fluid (Russell & Williams 1988, Rosen 1993, Russell 1994). Recently, researchers from this tradition have shown more interest in the relative stability of certain larger scale structures, practices and the context of innovation (Law and Callon 1992, Callon 1993). This concern with the stabilization of socio- technical systems signals an attempt to engage with other traditions in the field (Law and Bijker 1992).