Historiography of Science and Technology: Key Approaches and Foundational Scholars

The historiography of science is usefully framed by the distinction between ‘cognitive identity’ and ‘professional identity’, as enunciated by Arnold Thackray and Robert K. Merton. While the field achieved professional recognition in the twentieth century, its literary tradition is ancient, with Aristotle arguably being the first historian of science. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, accounts of scientific progress became increasingly common, authored either by philosophers or by practicing scientists documenting their own disciplines. These early narratives laid the groundwork for more systematic study.

Influential twentieth-century scholarship began with French scientists like Pierre Duhem, whose multi-volume work "Le système du monde" meticulously studied medieval cosmology. They were succeeded by philosophically trained scholars who analyzed diachronic changes in systems of scientific thought. Their idealistic orientation profoundly influenced later diverse thinkers, including Alexandre Koyré, Thomas Kuhn, and Michel Foucault. Concurrently, in Germany, Max Weber’s sociology linked the Reformation’s religious sensibilities to the rise of capitalism and science.

The 1930s saw the development of a Marxist orientation among socially active scientists in England. This approach sought to situate science in social context, particularly in response to technological and economic needs. Related work by continental refugee scholars emphasized the role of craft and craftsmen in the seventeenth-century emergence of modern science. These externalist perspectives contrasted with more internal, idea-focused histories, setting up a central tension in the field.

Two seminal syntheses appeared on the eve of World War II: Robert K. Merton’s "Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth-Century England" (1938) and Alexandre Koyré’s "Etudes Galiléennes" (1939). Both addressed the Scientific Revolution but from divergent perspectives. Koyré, a philosopher, focused on the ‘intellectual mutation’ in astronomy and physics—the shift from an Aristotelian to a Platonic-Archimedean worldview—while largely ignoring social factors. Merton, a sociologist, emphasized social context, arguing for the influence of Puritanism and technological demands in seventeenth-century England.

This established the classic dichotomy between ‘internal’ and ‘external’ approaches to the history of science, with the internalist approach dominating until the 1970s. In contrast, the historiography of technology before 1945 developed along different lines. The most profound contribution came from Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels through their ‘historical materialism’. This framework privileged matter over ideas, placing mankind's struggle to control the ‘forces of production’ at history's core. For Marx, technology represented the shaping of matter for human purposes, embedding it within class struggle.

Few historians fully embraced Marx’s technological determinism, but many incorporated his notions of class conflict. The modern trajectory of the field began with hagiographic ‘great-man’ histories, exemplified by Samuel Smiles’s biographies of civil engineers. These works celebrated the Industrial Revolution, reflecting a triumphalist belief in Western technological superiority. This narrative persisted well into the twentieth century.

A significant critical turn came with Lewis Mumford’s "Technics and Civilization" (1934). Mumford provided a synthetic overview, dividing history into technological ages defined by materials and power sources. While initially hopeful about the ‘neotechnic’ age, post-World War II pessimism colored his later work regarding technology's growing influence. His critiques importantly shaped later social thinkers like Jacques Ellul and E.F. Schumacher.

Economists also contributed foundational ideas. Joseph Schumpeter was particularly influential, introducing key concepts such as the distinction between invention and innovation and the theory of ‘creative destruction’. He established technology as an independent variable in economic systems, offering an explanatory framework that rivaled Marxist materialism in its power. These concepts continue to stimulate reinterpretations within the history of technology.