I am fascinated by the idea of "the underlying sociological and cultural factors" that go into the way a sociocultural group engages in the task of engineering (within this context: the scientific approach to problem-solving).
I realize this is a poor explanation, but an example of the phenomenon should be able to clarify what I attempt to describe. The underlying structure of the thought process behind how the Russian conception of war resulted in divergent, yet ultimately superior tank design. The cultural influence on the way tools that fill a universal need are themselves constructed. Like how western saws cut on the pushstroke, but eastern ones on the pullstroke. the saw is almost the same, and exists to serve a shared need for a tool. yet the simplest thing diverges completely.
The tank example is material instead of cultural as well. So much ink has been spilled on the subject of ww2 tanks so I’ll keep to broad strokes lest 69 fat dudes roll through with their very specific critiques:
Russian tanks weren’t designed how they were designed because of a cultural affinity for crude mass produced stuff and German tanks weren’t designed to reflect the GeRmAn eNgEnEeRiNg. Both were designed to take full advantage of their respective productive capacities.
Russia before and during ww2 was developing their heavy industry. Germany had an already developed heavy industry complete with advanced metallurgy and the workforce to support and develop it.
No surprise that German tanks were how they were and Russian tanks were how they were. That’s what you build when you have those productive capacities and forces!
Just the expected battlefield geography changed the tank design. Soviet tanks wide and flat for tiny silhouettes with shit gun depression because they’d be fighting in the wide terrain of Eastern Europe. American/NATO tanks have great gun depression and reverse speeds because there was an expectation of shooting over and using cover in hilly western europe