In this paper we cruictze the social construction of artifacts approach followed by Wiebe Bijker, Thomas Hughes and Trevor Pinch, as exposed in their article "The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology ofTechnology Might Benefit Each Other" (1989) and in their book The Social Construction of Technological Systems. New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology (1989). We contend that their model of explanation is reductionist and partial. In addition, it does not give a precise account of the relation between science and technology, since it limits itself to describe some aspects of technology invention. The main concepts of their theoretical perspective are here analyzed, and the obscurity of concepts and ambiguity of the approach are emphasized.

En este artículo hacemos una crítica al enfoque de la construcción de social de artefactos de Wiebe Bijker, Thomas Hughes y Trevor Pinch, tal como lo exponen en el artículo "The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other'' (1989) y en el libro The Social Construction of Technological Systems. New Directions in the Sociology and History of Techology (1989). Dicho modelo resulta ser reduccionista y parcial. Tampoco da cuenta exacta de la relación entre ciencia y tecnología, tan solo se limita a explicar cierta faceta de la creación tecnológica. Además, analizamos los principales conceptos de dicha perspectiva teórica y destacamos la oscuridad de los conceptos y la ambigüedad del enfoque

UCR::Vicerrectoría de Investigación::Unidades de Investigación::Artes y Letras::Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas (INIF)