SOC371 Science Technology and Society End-of-Course Assessment – July Semester 2025, Singapore

INSTRUCTIONS TO STUDENTS:

1. This End-of-Course Assessment paper contains 1 question and comprises 5 pages (including the cover page).
2. You are to include the following particulars in your submission: Course Code, Title of the ECA, SUSS PI No., Your Name, and Submission Date.
3. Ensure that you submit your End-of-Course Assessment by the deadline. After the 12-hour grace period, 10% of the total End-of-Course Assessment mark will be deducted for each 24-hour block or part thereof by which your submission is late. Submissions with more than 50 marks deducted will be awarded 0 marks.
4. You are allowed multiple submissions to Turnitin before the deadline. After the deadline, only one submission is allowed, and only if you have not already made a prior submission.
5. If you fail to submit your End-of-Course Assessment, you will be deemed to have withdrawn from the course.

IMPORTANT NOTE

ECA Submission Deadline: Tuesday, 28 October 2025 12:00 pm 

ECA Submission Guidelines

Please read this information before you start working on your ECA.

This ECA carries 40% of the course marks and is a compulsory component. It is to be done individually and not collaboratively with other students.  You must submit it on time.

Submission

You are to submit the end-of-course assessment (ECA) in exactly the same manner as your tutor-marked assignments (TMA), i.e. using Canvas. Submission in any other manner such as hardcopy or any other means will not be accepted. Ensure that you submit your ECA by the deadline. After the 12-hour grace period, 10% of the total ECA mark will be deducted for every 24-hour block or part thereof by which your submission is late. Submissions with more than 50 marks deducted will be awarded 0 marks. You are allowed multiple submissions to Turnitin before the deadline, after which only one submission is allowed, and only if you have not already previously submitted. If you fail to submit your ECA, you will be deemed to have withdrawn from the course.

You are reminded that electronic transmission is not always immediate. It is possible that network traffic may be particularly heavy on the cut-off date, and connections to the system cannot be guaranteed. Hence, you are advised to submit your work no later than the day before the cut-off date in order to make sure that the submission is accepted and in good time.

Once you have submitted your ECA, the status is displayed on the computer screen. You will receive a digital acknowledgement message. Please note that it is the digital time-stamp—and not the acknowledgement message—that indicates that you have submitted your ECA. To ensure a timely submission and to have your ECAs marked, you should therefore not jeopardise your course result by submitting your ECA at the last minute.

Do ensure that you have the correct files for submission.  Any submission, extra files, missing appendices or corrections received separately after the submission of the ECA will not be considered in the grading of your ECA assignment.

Plagiarism and Collusion

The University takes a very serious view of plagiarism (passing off someone else’s ideas as your own, or recycling of contents from your own earlier marked TMA from the same course or another course) and collusion (submitting an assignment which is the same or very similar to another student’s). Both are forms of cheating, and neither is acceptable in any form in a student’s work, including this ECA assignment.

Avoid plagiarism by giving yourself sufficient time to research and understand the material so that you can write up your assignment in your own words, and ensure that you provide appropriate references when necessary. You can avoid collusion by ensuring that your submission is based on your own individual effort.

Penalties for plagiarism and collusion are severe. Serious cases will normally result in the student being referred to SUSS’s Student Disciplinary Group. For other cases, significant marking penalties or expulsion from the course may be imposed. For more information about the University’s policies on plagiarism and collusion, refer to the Student Handbook (Section 5.2, paragraph 1.3).

Question 1

Answer the following question in 3,000 words.

Analyse the relationship between technology and society, using observations from your workplace or educational institution.

Your essay should address the following points:

• Consider what technology is used at your workplace or educational institution. Why is this technology used? Is it used in conventional or expected ways?
• Have there been any changes or innovations in the technologies used? How are these innovations adopted? Do these innovations change patterns of technology use?
• You should examine up to three technologies in your essay. For each technology, you are expected to apply at least one of the STS theories or concepts covered in this course. Your assessment of each technology should ultimately contribute to a clear, overarching argument about the relationship between technology and society.
• Your analysis must include observations of technology use in your workplace or educational institution. They should primarily be observations of how you use technology, but can include observations of how others (your colleagues, instructors, or classmates) use technology. Be sure to use appropriate pseudonyms for other individuals in these observations.
• In developing your answer to this ECA, you are expected to conduct secondary research and a literature review to find relevant content for your data points and arguments. Making use of relevant examples and observations is paramount to making a compelling argument.

Student’s Notes:

Additional research can be done via academic and news databases in the SUSS library’s

e-resources (e.g., JSTOR, Sage Sociology, SOCIndex, Factiva).

You may make use of the following guiding questions to frame your essay:

• From Units 1-2: Do the technologies used reinforce any binaries? Are these binaries crossed or transcended, perhaps through boundary objects?
• From Units 3-4: To what extent do humans have agency in deciding technological use? Who makes decisions about technological innovation and adoption? Why do we use some technologies but not others?
• From Units 5-7: What might be some consequences of adopting a particular technology? Does the technology serve as a form of social control? What mechanisms of social control are embedded within the technology, and how does this affect the relationship between technology and humanity?
• From Unit 8: How do technologies shape the construction of the social self? How are we constituted as individuals, or part of larger social formations?

My experience:

1. Financial Consultant
2. University Student

Tech:

1. Whatsapp
2. Instagram
3. Turnitin

1. Introduction (300–450 words)

1.1 Context Setting

a. Brief personal context: financial adviser + university student

b. Daily life mediated by communication platforms, visibility platforms, and institutional surveillance

1.2 Problem / Framing

a. Society assumes technology is merely a “tool,” but STS shows it actively shapes human behaviour and identity

1.3 Technologies Chosen

a. WhatsApp (workplace communication)

b. Instagram (professional identity)

c. Turnitin (educational surveillance)

1.4 Theoretical Lens

a. Actor-Network Theory → technology co-creates relationships

b. Performativity → identity is enacted through repeated digital presentation

c. Foucault → technology produces self-disciplining subjects

1.5 Thesis Statement (Rewrite bc it is chatgpt)

This essay argues that technology in both professional and educational contexts is not merely a facilitator of communication or productivity, but a powerful mechanism through which trust, identity, and compliance are shaped and governed. Through WhatsApp, Instagram and Turnitin, I show that technology and society are co-produced: social expectations shape how technology is adopted, while technology in turn reshapes how we act, present ourselves, and regulate our behaviour.

1.6 Roadmap

a. Outline what each section will cover

2. Technology 1: WhatsApp (800–900 words)

2.1 Description + Observations

a. How you use WhatsApp with clients

b. Example: voice notes vs calls (Clients preference for text and voice notes, not calls)

c. Even important decisions at work are now made on whatsapp due to the polling thing that is available – which is not applicable on email.

d. Sending of files are even made on whatsapp now.

e. Pseudonym example: “Client A” expecting immediate reply from colleague named Farhan (pseudonym) because of the application’s read receipt and “typing” can be seen.

f. Signing of documents can also be made on whatsapp due to the features that allows user to do so : there is no need to email and wait.

g. Boundary: personal/professional blur

2.2 Why this technology?

a. Client preference, not company policy

b. Speed, permanence, record-keeping

c. Social expectation of convenience → unspoken obligation

2.3 STS Theoretical Application: Actor-Network Theory and SCOT

Actor-Network Theory (Latour):

WhatsApp = actor shaping responsiveness and intimacy

SCOT (Social Construction of Technology)

WhatsApp = chosen because clients shaped its adoption culturally, not technologically

a. WhatsApp as a non-human actor shaping communication norms

b. It scripts behaviour (e.g., read receipts = pressure to respond)

c. Technology is part of the relationship network, not external to it

2.4 Secondary Research (Lit Review)

a. Messaging apps + emotional labour

b. Informality as trust-building

c. “Always on” culture

2.5 Change / Innovation

a. Shift from calls → asynchronous typing

b. Blue-ticks and “last seen” deepen accountability

c. Tech subtly increases emotional labour demands

2.6 Mini-Conclusion

a. WhatsApp shows technology reorganising relational expectations in the workplace

3. Technology 2: Instagram (800–900 words)

3.1 Description + Observations

a. Instagram as marketing and credibility-building

b. Visual storytelling + personal narrative

c. Observations of other financial planners (pseudonym “Sarah”): Sarah post regularly, will pick articles to fit her narratives. She will also get reviews from people to post it to ensure credibility building.

d. “Professional self” is curated

e. I intentionally produce finance-focused educational content for parents, particularly those with young children, as this reflects both my target audience and my professional identity. My role as a financial consultant who specialises in children’s education planning and investment is not only what I do. It is the persona I perform and make visible online.

3.2 Why this tech / attractiveness

a. Algorithm rewards visibility → visibility = legitimacy

b. Financial advisory as a trust economy

3.3 STS Theory (Use McLuhan — “The Medium is the Message” and Hogan — “Performances vs Exhibitions)

a. Identity is performed through repetition

b. Instagram turns selfhood into a public exhibition

c. You become “a financial adviser” through your performance of competence & authenticity

3.4 Secondary Research (Lit Review)

a. Digital labour & self-branding

b. “Authenticity” as performance

c. Influencer logic shaping non-influencer professions

3.5 Innovation / Change

a. Shift to reels (sound trends)

b. “Authenticity” expectation = new type of labour

c. Technology demands emotional visibility

3.6 Mini-conclusion

a. Instagram constructs identity, not just marketing output

4. Technology 3: Turnitin (800–900 words)

4.1 Description + Observation

a. Checking similarity before submission

b. Stress tied to algorithmic judgment

c. You change writing in anticipation of surveillance

4.2 Why this technology

a. Imposed by institution

b. Academic honesty as surveilled, not taught

4.3 STS Theoretical Application (Foucault and Risk/Control (Lakoff/Scott)

a. Turnitin as a digital panopticon

b. Students self-discipline under anticipatory compliance

c. Power becomes internalised

4.4 Secondary Research (Lit Review)

a. Algorithmic governance in education

b. Surveillance as pedagogy

c. Datafication of students

4.5 Innovation / Change

a. Policing outsourced to code

b. Teacher–student trust replaced by system–student monitoring

4.6 Mini-conclusion

a. Turnitin is a disciplinary technology shaping the moral subjectivity of students

5. Conclusion (300–400 words)

5.1 Synthesis

a. Connect WhatsApp (relational discipline)

b. Instagram (identity discipline)

c. Turnitin (institutional discipline)

5.2 Return to thesis

a. Technology is not neutral

b. It governs and organises behaviour

5.3 Co-production argument

a. Society influences adoption (client preference, algorithmic visibility, institutional requirement)

b. Tech reshapes society in return (emotion, identity, compliance)

5.4 Implications

a. Everyday tech = soft governance

b. People are shaped by their digital environments

5.5 Closing insight

a. We do not merely use technology — we become particular kinds of social subjects through it.