【Interdisciplinary Studies of Femtech】 Vol.4:Science, Technology, and Society Studies（STS） and FemTech
In Vol. 3, we explored the connection between FemTech and gender studies.
In this article, we shift to a different perspective by introducing Science, Technology, and Society Studies (STS).
What is Science, Technology, and Society Studies (STS)?
Definition and Purpose of STS
Science, Technology, and Society Studies (STS) is an interdisciplinary field that examines the interactions between science, technology, and society.
Navigating the Era of Technoscience: Science, Technology, and Society
Details below
To put it very simply, STS can be described as “thinking about the non-technical aspects of science and technology.”
Take the example of AI-driven autonomous vehicles: the technology itself could be programmed to prioritize the safety of either pedestrians or drivers in the event of a potential accident. Similarly, consider innovations like nuclear power or genetically modified organisms (GMOs), both of which emerged from advancements in technology.
However, Science and technology are never independent of their social context. They are deeply embedded within social frameworks, influenced not only by regulations and legal systems but also by ethical, societal, and cultural considerations. In other words, there are broader contexts and consequences we must account for when dealing with new technologies.
FemTech, while not a central topic within STS, has gained increasing attention in recent years, particularly through initiatives led by female scholars starting around 2022. (This is such an encouraging trend!)
We believe that FemTech sits at the intersection of technological innovation, gender dynamics, women’s health, and cultural values. Therefore, understanding science and technology within their societal contexts and sociologically analyzing how scientific knowledge is constructed could provide valuable insights for the future of FemTech. This interdisciplinary approach may help us better evaluate and shape FemTech’s development in a way that aligns with societal needs and values.
The Deficit Model
One of the key concepts in STS (Science, Technology, and Society Studies) is the Deficit Model. This concept suggests that the general public’s lack of understanding or skepticism towards science and technology is primarily due to a deficit of scientific knowledge.
The model assumes a dynamic where experts, who possess “correct” knowledge, are positioned against the general public, who lack it. It operates on a top-down approach, presuming that providing the public with accurate information will naturally lead to comprehension and acceptance.
However, historical experiences have demonstrated that this model is neither realistic nor effective in practice.
For instance, in the aftermath of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, concerns arose in the UK regarding radioactive contamination in sheep. Local sheep farmers, often dismissed as part of the “the general public,” demonstrated a more accurate understanding of the radiation levels affecting their livestock and environment than the scientists regarded as “experts.” This case revealed the limitations of expert knowledge and underscored the significant drawbacks of one-directional public education models.
Consequently, the discourse shifted towards advocating for the inclusion of informed members of the public in evaluating scientific and technological issues. This led to a growing emphasis on bidirectional communication and participatory approaches, encouraging greater civic engagement in decision-making processes.
Is Femtech Falling into the Deficit Model?
Engaging with individuals who are actively working to promote Femtech and deepen understanding around women’s health has made us appreciate the power of incremental progress through dialogue. These exchanges, though gradual, have demonstrated the profound importance of communication, a realization further reinforced by examining the deficit model.
When it comes to the dissemination of Femtech, adopting a deficit-model mindset—assuming that lack of understanding stems from the audience’s ignorance and that simply providing the “correct” information will solve the issue—is unlikely to be effective. However, for those deeply involved in the FemTech industry, it’s understandable to feel frustration, asking, “Why can’t people grasp something so important?” after encountering persistent resistance.
Challenges such as neglecting diversity (imposing standardized solutions based on limited data), overlooking sociocultural contexts (taboos or resistance), lack of two-way communication, and the spread of misinformation are likely considered during product and service development. Additionally, efforts to improve literacy around women’s health are often emphasized.
Yet, by adopting a broader perspective that incorporates the social context—examining not just the “what” but the “why” behind the lack of understanding—we may uncover new insights into why the message isn’t resonating.
On a personal note, I recently enrolled in the Science and Technology Interpreter Training Program at the University of Tokyo, a secondary specialization aimed at bridging the gap between science and society. Through this program, I hope to grow as an interpreter and share insights and lessons along the way. However, during my interview for the program, I was confronted with a series of questions that challenged my thinking:
• “If women’s health is so important, why isn’t more emphasis placed on the medical field?”
• “You mention that women’s health issues lead to reduced productivity and economic losses, but is that really a critical issue?”
• “Do technology developers genuinely aim to improve women’s health, or is there another agenda at play?”
These questions, posed by a group of professors with no direct connection to FemTech, left me both unsettled and deeply reflective. They highlighted how rigid my own thinking had become.
While Femtech ostensibly addresses women—who represent half the global population—it remains largely “unclear” or irrelevant to those with no direct connection to the subject. Instead of attempting to overcome this disconnect with a mindset of, “If they just understood it properly, they would get it!” or blaming the audience for a lack of comprehension, I realized the importance of stepping back to reevaluate the issue within its broader social context and framework.
We hope this reflection on the deficit model serves as a useful lens for considering how we approach FemTech and its dissemination. Even just keeping the concept of the deficit model in mind may help spark more effective strategies for communication and engagement.
