Does SCOT Answer? A Comment

To model or not to model? That appears to be the underlying question addressed in the debate between Mr. Clayton and Drs. Pinch and Bijker. Can the evolution of individual artifacts be synthesized into a coherent and meaningful theory of technological development? Should we even try? I am somewhat reluctant to wade into the whirlpool of the debate because Clayton is a friend and colleague, while my own research on the American bicycle industry has been greatly influenced by Pinch and Bijker's work. Instead, I will ask four admittedly speculative questions that I hope may shed some light.

Clayton is quite right when he expresses disappointment in the narrative history of the bicycle that Pinch and Bijker provide. However, I believe the fault is not necessarily theirs. As I have often informed colleagues and the authors of papers submitted to T&C for review, no adequate comprehensive history of the bicycle exists. Until Nick Clayton organized the first International Cycle History Conference (ICHC) in 1990, bicycle history was such a stagnant backwater that nobody really appreciated what a sad state things were in. No medium existed to exchange the disparate information held by scholars, industry insiders, and collectors from around the world. I do not think I exaggerate when I say that the study of bicycle history has advanced more in the last twelve years than during the preceding century. Scholarly publishing is a slow process. Only in the last year or two has the information generated through the ICHC begun to make its way into book form. The publication of a comprehensive international bicycle history (including Asia and Africa) may still be several years off.

This brings me to my first speculative question: Is it necessary that an artifact have a well-documented narrative history before it can serve as a case study for the development of a theoretical model? It would certainly have simplified the current debate if both sides agreed on something as simple as the relative chronologies of the safety bicycle and the pneumatic tire. On the other hand, it would be a dull world if scholars had to wait for a consensus narrative to develop about every object before beginning any conceptual investigation. In addition, the privileging of a given narrative as "accepted" is itself a stultifying and intellectually dangerous concept.

"If only you had asked us!" cries Clayton. "We could have set you straight!" Pinch and Bijker respond that theirs has been a work in progress for eighteen years. "You knew where to call us" is their unspoken retort. Thus, my second speculative question: Who dropped the ball?

At the 1994 ICHC, Nicholas Oddy read a paper extensively discussing Pinch and Bijker's 1984 SCOFA article. ¹ Oddy concluded that "there is a clear case for a non-technologically centered history of design development of the cycle. . . . [I]t is plain that major problems in plain technological developmental interpretation could be resolved by seriously considering the 'social construction' of design forms. . . . [T]he time has come where a major reassessment of cycling history is required." At the following year's conference, Andrew Ritchie, author of a widely respected 1975 book on cycle history, responded with his own paper. ² Taking exception to Oddy's call for a historical reevaluation, Ritchie argued: "The goal of the historian is to show the 'truth' of a situation or complex of situations, and ensure that it will be amply and elegantly demonstrated by the evidence. In the end this discussion of methodology should be useful in helping to clarify what is and what is not 'true'. . . . I don't really think we need a reassessment of cycle history, or a change in the methodology used to approach it." Ritchie maintained that objective technical standards of success and failure adequately explained the technical history of the bicycle. He admitted that social factors did influence bicycle design, but suggested that the economics of the bicycle industry and the influence of professional racing were the only...