WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1
Week 2
Jan. 23rd: Social Nature of Technology
Chapters 1-3 in Fischer, Claude S. 1994. America Calling: A Social History of the Telephone to 1940. Berkeley, CA: UC Press. [HTML]
Jan. 25th: Social Construction of Technology
MacKenzie, Donald. 1996. “Chapter 3: Economic and Sociological Explanations of Technological Change.” in Knowing Machines. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pinch, T. J. 1996. “The Social Construction of Technology: A Review.” in Technological Change, edited by R. Fox: Gordon & Breach.
Fulk, Janet. 1993. “Social Construction of Communication Technology.” The Academy of Management Journal 36:921-950.
SKIM: Clayton, Nick. 2002. “SCOT: Does it Answer?” Technology and Culture 43:351-360.![[PDF]](http://courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i203/s07/wp-content/acrobat_pdf_icon_sm.gif){kind=icon}
SKIM: Bijker, W.E. and T. J. Pinch. 2002. “SCOT Answers, Other Questions.” Technology and Culture 43:361-360.
posted by:
WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1
24 Comments Add your own
1. yliu | January 22nd, 2007 at 9:43 pm
A fairly striking association is noticeable from the Fischer account of the development of the telephone to the development of the Internet. Both were impressive communications advances in their respective times, and both were initially designed and marketed for “serious” purposes - business transactions in prior, and defense / research in the latter. They also introduced a slew of social issues, ranging from the telephone “making men lazy” and “weakening community” to its “intrusion into the domestic circle by solicitors, purveyors of inferior musis, eavesdropping … and even wire-transmitted germs” were raised by various organizations. If one dropped the word “telephone” from the text, one could easily imagine this as yet another listing of the dangers of the Internet, except new jargon like “declining social capital” now replaces the Knights of Columbus and their concerns for community. Interesting that this social opposition to the telephone has mostly fallen away as we have acclimated to this new machinery, assimilated it into our daily processes and routines, and have yet to observe the destruction of civilization. But of course, the target merely shifts to the latest communication technology instead. Does new technology inevitably generates social friction?
What is also interesting is how telephone companies marketed their product by trying to create and actively shape needs, rather than to market telephones as responses to real user needs. The telephone is one of those items that is likely to be heavily influenced by network effects - if one’s friends and business associates conducted their work with telephones, then it is probably more likely for one to adopt the same communication tool. In the converse, if no one else in the immediate network is using the device, then incentive to be the first to subscribe to the expensive service (with no one else to call) perhaps decreases. This active shaping was used to get to early adopters, to reach a critical mass for the network to sustain itself. Perhaps this is the central failing of social networking startups (having been a part of such a failure a couple of years ago) that never reach the mythical, self-sustaining critical mass of users.
As for the MacKenzie paper, I have slight difficulty distinguishing between what it considered the “bad” old neoclassical economics and the new “alternatives” as he proposes. Sure, profit maximization is not practically possible, due to the bounded rationality of market exchanges. Profit orientation, rather than profit maximization, seems simply a weaker restatement of the same ideas, and imperfect maximization does not imply no profit maximization at all. This seems like a patch on neoclassical economics, rather than an alternative. Are we splitting rhetorical hairs? Isn’t this one of those variables that we can temporarily set aside when we perform economic modeling? Otherwise, won’t we would need AI (of which Herbert Simon is a pioneer - until today, I’ve only heard of him as an AI researcher) to make these things work…
January 22nd, 2007 at 9:43 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 12. bryan | January 23rd, 2007 at 10:23 am
I had a thought while reading about the billiard ball model of technology.
IF one were to adopt such a model, in which technology is an external force that is applied to society, doesn’t that imply that inventors or innovators are outside of society?
Superficially, this seems to ring somewhat true — the archetype of the mad scientist (Tesla, Edison, Gates) as social outcasts is a vivid one.
Ultimately, though, whether they were shunned or not (a dubious claim to begin with) it’s hard to argue that they were not products of the society that they lived in, were educated in, were influenced by, which is probably why the impact model strikes me as hollow.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:23 am |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 13. jess | January 23rd, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Yiming introduces a really interesting question: “Does new technology inevitably generates social friction?”
This issue was discussed throughout the Quality of Information class last semester. Numerous information technologies or information sources (the printing press, the written word, the novel) each produced objections by the public. For example, the romance novel was especially popular among middle-class women in the late nineteenth century. These novels often highlighted wives that left their husbands for younger men and people objected to such material because they were worried that these novels would inspire readers to also leave their husbands.
While the above objection to novels is gender-specific, Fischer’s article also describes a gender-specific observation about telephone usage. He explains that males in the industry discouraged female telephone gossip and instead invisioned and encouraged business uses. It’s interesting that gender once played a huge role in such frictions to technology or information and today is a very small part of the discussion.
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:03 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 14. daniela | January 23rd, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Bell attempted to directly influence social behavior as part of their marketing techniques. I’m interested in whether these early marketing attempts were able to influence the social dynamics surrounding the telephone and the adoption of this technology. Teaching party-line etiquette, for example, was a practical concern for the telephone companies; but if people were “successfully” conditioned to obey these social rules, such as not eavesdropping, what were the long term effects on telephone conversations and interactions? Did this attempt at “educating” telephone consumers also raise people’s awareness that their privacy could be breached? Did encouraging short conversations have not only have an effect the obvious duration of people’s conversations, but also on their quality? I also wonder more generally how “educating” and “marketing” differ in this context. Does marketing involve convincing rather than simply providing knowledge or teaching?
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:28 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 15. Ken-ichi | January 23rd, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Fischer’s story of the telephone was interesting to me because I’ve always wondered how adoption occurs on scales like this. How do you get people to do what you want them to do? How do you get entire countries to do what you want them to do? This whole story could be read as how Bell wanted America to pay for phone service, and how they went about achieving that goal. I guess you could call that a constructivist reading, in that Bell’s desire to make money drove the adoption of the phone, not that the simple invention of the phone automatically altered the nation’s purchasing and communication behavior.
This is not to say, of course, that Bell had full control over how the technology was interpreted. Eavesdropping on party lines and purely social, non-business uses of the phone were not intended, it seems, but Bell was able to ride the change to even more money and control. People gossiped and eavesdropped before the phone, so this is probably a symptomatic reading, no?
Surprisingly, I’m having trouble coming up with a technological determinist’s view of this history (I assumed, after class, that this would be the camp for me). What kind of phenomena did the phone enable that weren’t simply manifestations of existing practices? Increased rudeness, perhaps? I found it absolutely fascinating and hilarious that courtesy eroded in the early days of landlines, just as it is doing today on cells. Except back then, it seemed the issue was being rude to the person you were talking to, not the people around you. Too bad people who actually interrupt physical conversations in favor of taking a cell call can’t be booted from reality like Bell booted “profane customers.”
I would also like to ask what may be a rude question, that probably stems from my ignorance: why did we spend so much time talking about these three frameworks today (determinism/constructivism/symptoms)? More specifically, why did we spend time applying them to arbitrary subjects for which we had little to no evidence in hand? Dissecting the story of the telephone after reading Fischer is all well and good, because Fischer provides ample and seemingly comprehensive evidence with which to test the validity or usefulness of each framework. Or at least something concrete to argue over. Not everyone has watched enough Star Trek to do the same analysis on Klingon and Federation warp drive technology (a discussion that might be rendered moot by the possibility that Klingons reverse engineered the warp drive from technologically superior invaders). Without evidence to analyze, bandying about what-ifs and maybes just seems fruitless.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:36 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 16. n8agrin | January 24th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Socially Construct This
January 24th, 2007 at 9:57 pm |This ‘blog post has been socially constructed. Or has it? Some years ago, I decided that I needed a higher income, and a job I enjoyed more. My Bachelor’s degree couldn’t afford me the employment opportunities or mobility (or pay) I desired. Why? Because society has dictated what you can and cannot demand for work (or pay) with a lowly Bachelor’s degree. To get a ‘better’ job, I needed to conform to society’s expectations. A Master’s degree sets you in a different employment category, not for any reason, ultimately, other than because of society’s expectations. If I did not follow the compromise of giving two years of my life to study, in order to meet those expectations, I would not be here writing this post.
Or, wait, has my fate truly been a deterministic one? Isn’t it true that a Master’s degree holder has received a better education, more training and more experience than a student who only has earned a Bachelor’s? Part of my rational to return back to school (and be stuck writing essays like this one) was to find a new path for myself, and eventually work for myself that I found more rewarding and interesting. Having my Master’s will ultimately allow me to do this, right? Is that deterministic? My Master’s degree will influence my future employment opportunities, in a both positive, and potentially negative, way.
My point is not to conflate the two ideas of constructionism and determinism, but rather to question if they are both applicable in certain situations. Certainly society comes together to form a need for a technology, which it then develops through the process of interaction of many people, or groups (or agents or any other creative name some bored sociologist would like to come up with). Factors such as economic viability, cost to manufacture, life span of a product, health implications, and even technological implications all go into the design of a technology. Cell phones for example did not simply ‘appear’ as one might expect from a deterministic point of view. Their implementation is only possible through a series of complicated negotiations between many social factors. This theory is supported by the cultural differences of the cell phone industry in the US versus pretty much anywhere else in the world. Here you buy into a cellular company, in most other countries (at least those I’ve visited) you buy the phone, and then chose your carrier company. At the same time, I do believe that cell phones have ultimately influenced the way individuals interact, and thus, societal norms. People do answer phone calls while out on dinner dates, in the middle of meetings and even during one on one conversations (how rude!). Or, is it rude? Maybe this is just society changing, altering its interactions over time; evolving with the technology that must be impacting it.
To me constructionism and determinism seem like Ouroboros, the snake eating its own tail. Constructionism provides an adequate framework for suggesting how technology is actually conceived and ultimately created into a tangible, usable entity in the real world, while determinism allows us, as introspective and thoughtful individuals, to question what the impact of that technology is. Yes, all you social constructionists, technology does have an impact on society. No, I don’t have the empirical data to prove it.
A final issue I have with constructionism; this notion of ‘closure’. I’m sorry but that does not sit well with me. One example provided is the bicycle, and the expectation is that we’ve, as a society, decided that the form and function of a bike has been defined and no longer is open for interpretation. What? I wish we could fast forward 100 years, I guarantee that the notion of what we consider a bike will be dramatically different from its current instantiation.
Blasphemy! How can you support both opposing theories! I know I’m walking a tight rope here (and possibly not even understanding what is going on at all). That said, I can’t logically displace one theory with the other. Constructionism does not say anything about technological impact over time, except that it is based on the complicated needs of a society, and determinism does not account for the development of technology adequately for my tastes. All I want to know is whether or not me being back in school is a consequence of social construction or deterministic ideologies (or am I just absolutely missing the boat on this whole thing?).
WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 17. cvolz | January 25th, 2007 at 12:05 am
Technological Determinism / Social Constructivism - they seem to me, at least, to be diametrically opposed in how they tackle the same problem. And they also seem to have a lot of evidence to support each side. So, are both right (or wrong)?
It is pretty obvious that society interprets and uses technology according to its own whims. There are a number of examples where a technology was invented for one purposed but was employed in a variety of different uses that the original inventors never considered (ie- the Model T being used a as a portable generator to power home and farm equipment). And I think a pretty good argument could be made that society influences (if not, at times, outright demands) that scientific inquiry proceed in certain directions. And it occurs to me that the direction scientific inquiry takes is influenced by society. And I think how judgments of what constitutes “need” (aka the mother of invention) can differ between societies. And I can even see how the development of rigorous logical scientific thinking and experimentation may be more likely to be developed under some societies than others. But I’m still not sold on the notion that society is embodied in the scientific inquiry itself.
As an example: Arabic numerals^ and Roman numerals^ have been around for a long time. Mathematics were known to cultures that employed each set of numbers; so why did we switch from Roman numerals to Arabic ones? Mostly because they were easier to use. Doing math with Roman numerals is a real pain in the ass. (though they were pretty clever in how they managed to do multiplication and division^.)
So, as that example goes, I would say that Math exists in the sense that a lot of people all around the world have figured out how to add two numbers together and represent that feat. Math is, of course, used and expressed in a variety of different ways, but the fundamental meaning behind it is the same. This is what bothered me about the bicycle description. Social preference was embedded, perhaps, in the expression of the form of the bicycle, but just because bicycles can have varied appearances doesn’t mean that the technology behind them, their mechanical workings, was somehow socially constructed. I don’t know, it’s all seeming to be much ado about nothing in particular.
BUT - it did get me thinking (and I’ll credit John Ward for talking this out with me a day or so ago): I think the fundamental problem I’m having is that technology is such a fundamental human activity. First let me claim ignorance, but has there ever been an example of a human society that didn’t use tools? Ever? I mean, technically a pointy-stick for animal skewering is a technology. It’s based on a need; namely the need to skewer potentially tasty animals. I also agree with Aristotle’s belief that “man is a political animal”. I think the capacity for social interaction and social groupings is a fundamental quality for humans. And if they are each fundamental qualities of people then, by extension, what caused what becomes kind of a silly question. It’s like asking whether blue eyes make you blonde or blonde hair makes your eyes blue. The qualities may be related, they may reinforce each other, but I just don’t think you can make a causal relationship between them.
3066 January 25th, 2007 at 12:05 am |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 18. zgillen | January 25th, 2007 at 10:06 am
The last sentence of Daniela’s entry poses the question “Does marketing involve convincing rather than simply provide knowledge or teaching?” According to Wikipedia, a definition of ‘Marketing’ is described as “Any activity which makes humans behave in a desired manner.” If you accept this statement as a social principal of marketing, then changing human behavior can be achieved by either mechanism; providing knowledge or convincing. The answer seems rooted in the level of adoption of a specific technology into society. In the case of Bell, people needed initial education as to the purpose of a telephone. They were presented with a new mechanism of communication, yet they had no social or practical reason to use the device. The first attempts to market the product were focused on practicality and included the long distance broadcasting of sports events, weather reports, etc. The interesting aspect is that Bell, in their educational marketing strategy never realized the social implications until it began happening once the market was saturated. Then, the marketing strategy began to convince with the “Reach out and touch someone” campaigns.
Today, it’s difficult to imagine a world without using a telephone to gossip with relatives or discuss frivolous nonsense with friends. The social aspects of the telephone have become the primary function and use. Look at the introduction of the iPhone and the marketing strategy adopted by Apple. On their homepage, they have adopted the slogan “Introducing iPhone. Apple reinvents the phone.” Everyone is aware of the ubiquitous nature of the telephone and the use for social interaction. Apple is not using this as a marketing tool because it’s known. What’s interesting, is marketing has almost come full circle. Apple has to educate the new functions of their telephone. In fact, the internet capability on the phone is now providing long distance information exchange (broadcasting sports scores) similar to the first imagined uses of the telephone by Bell.
Then, there’s the ‘cool’ factor that Apple adopts in television and print advertising. This doesn’t have the educational impact, because they’re images or short video segments. Instead, they convince with great colors, dancing people, light and motion. The sleek design and signature user interface convinces the social importance of the product. When the first iPhone advertisements hit the media, I guarantee they will attempt to convince rather then educate.
January 25th, 2007 at 10:06 am |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 19. elisa | January 25th, 2007 at 11:28 am
In reading about the history of the phone and of the bicycle, it was great to observe sociology following the historians’ tradition of looking at facts and then making hypotheses based on them, and to realize that, alas, such knowledge is a necessary but not sufficient condition to speculate whether we are seeing technological determinism or some variation of a social construct of technology at work (not to mention that even deciding what is a fact seems to be very hard, as the Bijker-Pinch vs Clayton fabulous controversy shows). The cultural tradition of the enlightenment and of rationalism has shaped us to believe that we can always “seek truth from facts”, but as Pinch very eloquently points out, “theoretical concepts are not directly based upon empirical facts. Theoretical concepts are “invented” by researchers to help them to make sense of empirical data.” Sociology working in tandem with history seems to be the best way to give us a firm ground on which to build an interpretation of the interaction between humans and technology, but it doesn’t give us a definitive answer. It was an interesting exercise to interpret the empirical examples of the phone and the bicycle according to the different theories - everything worked, since, as it was mentioned in class, we can never prove the contrary of whatever hypothesis we make. Did the Mayan fail to invent the wheel (the wheel is a social construct that didn’t have a place in their culture) or to discover it (the wheel exists in nature at least as a potential)? I find myself at a dead end, imprisoned between the strictest technological determinism and the most pervasive social constructivism, so in order to move forward I try to shift the focus and ask: how are we – as consumers and possibly creators of technology – influenced by different interpretations of technology? Does believing in technological determinism change the way we interact with technology? Is it similar to a ‘protestant versus catholic’ debate: if you are protestant you believe in a sort of religious determinism where salvation manifests itself into worldly wealth, so if you are a technological determinist you believe in technology as a manifestation of nature that man can implement, but that was already there? Does believing in technological determinism rather than social constructivism of technology absolves us from our responsibilities towards technology (destructive technologies exists regardless of whether we implement them or not), or do we separate the technology from its use?
Another notion that I found fascinating was that of “natural trajectories of technology” predicated by the alternative economics mentioned by MacKenzie, as I think it is a concept that is helpful to understand how the way we use new technologies seems to be so influenced by the way we used their predecessors, in other words: the phone was not necessarily a “natural evolution” of the telegraph, but the attitude of its creators towards it was a “natural evolution” of their attitude towards the telegraph. This idea seems to focus more on the expectations that there are on new technologies, which, I think we can all agree, are a social construct. Or are they?
January 25th, 2007 at 11:28 am |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 110. kesava | January 25th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
I just wanted to mention this geographical difference in the evolution of phone etiquette. Here in the west, telephone had over a century to permeate itself in the society before caller ID or voice mail technology showed up. But in other parts of world, people jumped to the mobile phone revolution in a much shorter span of time. I’m sure in a lot of not-so-extreme cases, the first phone people ever owned and used is a mobile phone!! As a result, one of the things that can happen to the evolution of etiquette is one doesn’t have to necessarily leave a voice mail. Instead, if I leave a missed call, I’ve essentially meant to say “Hi, this is so and so, give me a call when you see this missed call.” ( Actually this is not very different from a being as a generation Y-er or Z-er )
January 25th, 2007 at 2:02 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 111. evynn | January 26th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Of this weeks readings, I found Fulk’s discussion of how technologies are adopted in formal working groups to be particularly salient. I recently got a job modeling business processes for an IT department as they work to automate several of the organization’s processes. Having never worked in an IT department, I was surprised to find that many of the people in my own formal working group have degrees in the humanities and little formal education in technical subjects. Perhaps this is unsurprising to anyone who has worked in IT, or anyone who has a degree in Computer Science, but it doesn’t fit “common sense” notions of the demographic that would perform IT work.
There is, of course, no reason to think that humanities majors as a group are less inherently able to grasp new technologies than anyone else. One of my co-workers expressed the theory that humanities majors have an education that equips them the flexibility to allow them to pick up new technical skills easily and creatively hack together systems, while computer science majors are over-qualified for the work. Perhaps, but reading about Fulk’s study makes me wonder whether the social effects of working in a highly “attracted” group of people– assuming it is such a group– may have contributed to their ability and drive to learn the systems they work with quickly and efficiently. In questioning how much similar backgrounds contribute to this somewhat vaguely-defined attraction, it would be interesting to study whether work groups composed of people with similar backgrounds have more success learning novel skills than more heterogeneous groups, perhaps groups even containing some people for whom the skill is not novel.
On a more theoretical note, it seems worth noting that in studying social constructivist theories, empirical research focused on communication technology may introduce confounding variables. I wonder whether the types of affects predicted by social constructivist theory would be magnified in communication networks, since reaching that point of stability or convergence is crucial for communications technology to work on a large scale. This is unlike in the case of, say, bicycles, in which both early designs fulfilled the desires of their respective user groups. The people using communication technology, though, must agree on certain standards in technology, etiquette, et cetera in order to use it effectively. Furthermore, the people adopting it (and those leaders in the organization who might adopt it as policy for the rest of the organization) are aware of the need for this stability. This is not to say it’s not a worthwhile place to start, just that in other realms, the factors that seem to support a social-constructivist model of technology adoption may be more muddled.
2adf January 26th, 2007 at 4:53 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 112. mcd | January 27th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Although I am often finding myself guilty of the “So what?” response to SCOT and finely constructed studies such as Janet Fulk’s, I am afraid that this post is going to come out in part as a defense of such rigor. The debate between Clayton and Bijker/Pinch demonstrates the importance of empirical evidence supporting theories to those theories’ acceptance and application.
Clayton extrapolates from flaws in Bijker’s and Pinch’s evidence conclusions about the fallibility of their theory that seem misplaced. That different groups have different needs for tools and technology and that the market for bicycles stabilized is believable, and the exact makeup of those groups and dates of this closure are not strictly relevant to the theory. While I agree that the application of SCOT can be taken to extremes as in the super-collider example, I think there is validity to the notion of implicit negotiations guiding the development of technology, and Clayton’s critique does not wholly discredit it.
Janet Fulk’s work provides an example of an empirical defense against such criticism. Making the arguably sensible claim that (apologies for the reference to “common sense”) people tend to agree with (have views which are “positively predicted” by) the views of groups that they tend to agree with (are “highly attracted” to), she arms herself with page after page of quantitative evidence as opposed to the spotty and selective historical evidence of Bijker and Pinch. We saw briefly in class that Coye, himself a professor of Quantitative Methods much as Clayton is a specialist in the history of bicycles, did not find significant fault with her method.
January 27th, 2007 at 4:06 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 113. jerryye | January 27th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
It is simply unpersuasive to seriously consider an answer to the question of whether technology molds society or vice versa without considering market forces. While one can argue that financial influences are technically societal influences, we must remember that research and development often includes crucial engineering decisions that determines the costs of a product independent of market forces and before a single consumer gets their hands on it. Apple Inc., known for their iconic consumer products, is notorious for their secretive product development cycles that shuns the use of focus groups. Costs are determined as much in product development as they are are after they are introduced to humanity.
Mackenzie mentions that there might be some sort of natural pattern to technological development. In the case of microprocessors, Mackenzie suggests that it follows a law that Gordon Moore coined when the industry was still in its infancy. The suggestion hints that technology, at least for microprocessors, develops independently of outside influences. This is of course absurd, there are just so many outside factors that influence any single technology to consider this seriously. Even Moore himself declared Moore’s law to be dead in 2005. This is not to suggest that social factors are behind microprocessor development, let alone its sole instigator. What Mackenzie’s paper, or any of the assigned readings, doesn’t mention is the importance of financial factors. Specifically, microprocessor development occurs as much due to the manufacturer’s desire to drive costs down by shrinking die size as to the desire to improve processor speed. It just so happens that reducing die size automatically increases processor speed in the microprocessor industry. Monetary incentives are a significant reason for technological improvements.
Throughout history, there are tale-tail signs that consumer understanding of the costs and benefits of a particular technology is alive and well, regardless of what any engineer or regulatory body may tell them. For bicycles, although initial bicycle designs looked radically different(definitely designed by physicists wishing to maximize speed) than modern bikes, it is likely that having uniform tire sizes drove costs down by reducing the need to manufacture two different size tires. And seriously, do you want to replace the tire on a 56-inch wheel? Cupled with improvements in gear designs, the benefits of earlier designs were diminished and costs became more important. In developing countries, people communicate through cellphones and many have never seen a landline before. It is not because their culture or society wills them to be more mobile, but because it’s simply more cost effective to build and maintain a wireless infrastructure than a wired one.
Finally, while I understand that a lot of the successes in the humanities can be attributed to it’s ability to evoke thoughts with provoking and often polarizing suppositions, it dumbfounds me as to whether anyone seriously believes there is a unary answer to whether technology molds society or vice versa. If we consider the canonical definition of technology as “applied science,” technology simply doesn’t exist if no one applies it. Society and technology are closely intertwined, to consider one without the other is plain silly. To discredit the ingenuity on the part of the inventor, often required for revolutions in technology, and to attribute it as some by product of society at large seems just selfish to me.
January 27th, 2007 at 6:40 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 114. megha | January 28th, 2007 at 12:36 am
ABOUT this weeks readings, i enjoyed the chapters from “America Calling”.An amazing explanation of how ordinary
people used and embraced one of the pervasive technology of twentieth century– the telephone. Fisher particularly focused on the social molding done by users, who do not just passively consume what is put in front of them, but help to shape the meaning and social role of the technology that they use. Fisher mentioned that even though Bell Systems initially sanctioned telephones for homes and household management , the technology’s diffusion over time transformed it to
a more versatile product. Society’s growing demand for using telephone as a means of communication with distant friends and families etc made Bell discover many other social use-cases of telephone.
Even though needs and demands of the society play a major role in shaping the technology, big organizations can influence the technological innovations to some extent by using their financial and political reach. Bell system’s “dirty tricks” –refusing to connect its lines to those of any independent,bribery of city officials, financial subversion for maintaining their monopoly was an example for the same.
January 28th, 2007 at 12:36 am |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 115. eunkyoung | January 28th, 2007 at 2:06 am
As I’ve grown up most of my lifetime in Korea, and now living in the U.S., I appreciate my opportunity of being an observer of two different societies. And now, I’m quite sure that even the same technology can result in totally different consequences based on in which culture, environmental condition and group of people the technology is being used and applied.
During last Tuesday’s lecture, which was about the social nature of technology, we all learned the technology determinist’s interpretation of “automobile created suburbia.” I was surprised to hear that because very different result came out in Korea. As the number of cars grew, traffic jam got worse, and people gave up commute by automobile and live near their workplace. Rather than people living in a big house in suburbia, people preferred to live in a high-rise apartment buildings that are located in the urban area where short commute by transportation is possible. The price of real estate in urban area went higher and higher, so that it now became almost impossible to buy a house in central city area for young people no matter how hard they work for a lifetime. Oil price also matters – it is as twice as expensive than the U.S., so it is economically burden to commute everyday by automobile.
I can’t deny that what we learn in the class is pretty much U.S. centric point of view, but personally, it is interesting to catch similarities and differences driven by two distinct cultures and their effect on current society.
205a January 28th, 2007 at 2:06 am |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 116. karenhsu | January 28th, 2007 at 3:14 am
Like the automobile, the telephone is a technological contributor to “placelessness.” In his paper America Calling, Fischer provides meaningful comparisons of the two (then competing) technologies because of the similarities in their development period as well as their social impact. In particular, it was very interesting to see that throughout the 20th century both technologies generally saw relatively steady increases in social acceptance, with the telephone in the lead except in the mid-1920’s to late- 1940’s. This seemingly sudden, though temporary, upset was due to a decline in rural demand for telephones, likely propelled by the decrease in farm incomes in the early 1920’s in addition to the heightened market competition with the emergence of the radio. Moreover, the steady adoption of the automobile in congruence with the telephone (used to transport physical people, rather than just voice) further loosens convictions on impersonality induced by technological placelessness.
One last thing I’d like to make a quick comment on is the Mackenzie paper, which provides both economic and social analyses on technological change and attempts to bridge the gap between. One such mentioned gap, ethnoaccountancy, is particularly interesting to me as I, like the author, was very surprised to learn that only recently has it been generating interest. Before contemplating how accounting ought to be practiced, don’t you have to first understand how it is actually being practiced? I’m thoroughly bewildered.
January 28th, 2007 at 3:14 am |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 117. lawan | January 28th, 2007 at 11:24 am
It is interesting to see, as Fisher mention, that the development in need of telephone was begun from “practical necessity” in the early late 1880’s. Then it was shifted to luxury theme for businessman, and later became social use. I see the same phenomenon in today’s technology like computer applications. First, it was started from need in military and education to communicate in very urgent or important situation. Later, it was shifted to business-related application for business purpose. Today, increasingly, applications are developed for social use like flickr, facebook, del.icio.us, skype, etc.
Also it is interesting to see that not only technology impacts how people behave, but also how people perceive it and make use of it. I see technology as a tool to fulfill society demand. Like telephone case, though Bell’s tried to push / advertised it as luxury thing for business people but it was not so successful. Until the use of technology can actually be perceived by society then the true demand drove the widespread use of telephone technology.
January 28th, 2007 at 11:24 am |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 118. celeste | January 28th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Product Design and Theories of Technological Innovation
This isn’t going to be very long, since I wound up sick this weekend, but I want to put it out there anyway. I was struck by some apparent mirroring between product plans and a couple of the theories we have been discussing in class. I seem to recall that Coye pointed out that some companies work in a Technological Deterministic mode - I think he’s right - characterized by the attitude of “if we don’t make it, someone else will”. However, there is a growing view that is much closer to social construcivism: user-centered design, in particular user-centered design that uses Needfinding.
Essentially, needfinding is observing and talking to people to figure out what their needs are, even (and especially) if they can’t articulate them. So in social constructivism, you look back and try to see what negotiations between different parties resulted in the technological development you are interested in. In needfinding, you look forward and try and predict what people will get out of certain compromises when developing new products. Of course, when performing needfinding, you are generally doing so for the benefit of a certain company that is looking to fill needs in a particular area and (often) with certain type of technology. Occasionally, a company may decide to change directions completely, or adopt new technologies when they see that only by doing so will they be able to stay in competition (for example, kodak’s move toward digital photography, which required them to acquire a whole new expertise).
In some ways, this mirroring makes a case for the information a social constructive look at history provides. Essentially, for a product or technology to do well, it must (at some point) fulfill a need of some portion of the population. Social constructivism says that this need is found through negotiations between different parties. Technological determinism says the technology will appear to meed the need. To market to a particular need requires a bit of social awareness (what those needs might be) which mirrors social constructive theory. Even following a deterministic viewpoint, companies must market to the right segment of the population - especially in today’s world of advertising campaigns there is very little reality in the “if you make it they will come” outlook. Companies today (which have technology driven models) have the option of “making up” uses for the products they devise (like the telephone or Segwey), or doing some design research (essentially, needfinding) to find out what needs they might be able to meet with the technology they now have at hand - essentially trying to find that social need the telephone missed for so long. Both ways seem, to me, to be ultimately closer to social constructivism.
January 28th, 2007 at 11:42 am |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 119. bindiya | January 28th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
In the first chapter of America Calling, “Technology and Modern Life”, various theories and debates are discussed regarding how technologies emerge. Do they come into existence due to circumstances created by society or does technology enter a society from outside and “impact” social life? Irrespective of which holds true, it is interesting how the same technology impacts different cultures and societies across nations in different ways. Even more than impacting the society, its interesting how different groups of people use the same technology in different ways. Take the cell phone for example. One can argue that it was created to meet the social need of people wanting to communicate with each other with other in a more efficient manner or talk about the fact that cell phones have made people ruder etc. Maybe both perspectives hold true but it is also true that in different societies cell-phones are used in different ways.
In India for instance, almost no one leaves voicemails. Email is not used as the most common use to communicate. What is interesting is that both voicemails and email are available as freely to people there as in the US. But somehow SMS/messaging on cell phones are used as the most frequent form of communication. When I was in India I used to send/receive innumerable messages on my cell phone in a day. Once I came here, gradually I got hooked on to leaving voicemails and communicating mostly via email. I almost never send messages on cell phones anymore although I still have that option. What changed my behavior? The technology was essentially the same. The purpose of communication was still the same. According to me there are certain unsaid rules set by a particular society about using technologies which everyone within that society automatically follows. Who decides these rules? What are the other factors and constraints that influence them? These are interesting issues which we can ponder about.
January 28th, 2007 at 12:34 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 120. jilblu | January 28th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
It seems to me that much of the difficulty that Bell had in introducing the telephone and convincing the public of its utility came from the fact that people had an existing social structure of notification with many rules about what was and was not appropriate. The medium, or how one is notified, is important. Certain messages are inappropriate to convey across certain media, and everybody knows these rules. Of course, when the telephone first became available, none of the notification rules were related to the telephone, and as a result people had difficulty fitting the telephone into their notification patterns.
I wonder if the adoption of the telephone could have been hastened with the use of social constructivist models and the findings of the Fulk study. According to the study, early users of new technology should be individuals who are positively disposed toward the system and informal leaders within their work groups who are highly attracted to their groups. Work groups chosen for the new technology should have the greatest need for it.
Instead of choosing influential early adopters, Bell’s strategy for introducing the phone was based on salesmen who demonstrated the telephone to the general public. In addition, they targeted businesses, emphasizing the possibilities of new customers and greater efficiencies. The results of the Fulk study suggest that perhaps a better way of introducing the telephone would have been to GIVE them to a group of people influential with the general public – perhaps post offices, shopkeepers, or other organizations where the public naturally gathers. These influential people would then use the telephones, find them useful, and then evangelize the benefits to people they came in contact with. Instead of attempting to prescribe how phones should be used, Bell likely would have done better to observers how users wanted to use the telephone, and then adjust their product accordingly.
January 28th, 2007 at 7:51 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 121. nfultz | January 28th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Coye & Judd: I just have a few questions about SCOT:
1) In the readings, SCOT is used to explain the adoption of technology, but in class you said it covers the development. These are seperate phases in a software lifecycle. In the adoption phase social causation seems intuitive, but how can there be social causation in the development phase? There aren’t any users at that point, or any other relevant social groups other than the developers themselves.
2) Software is a different kind of technology than bicycles and telephones. Bikes and phones are actual stuff, whereas software is just ideas. It seemed like SCOT people were more concerned with the propogation of stuff. How does software fit into their model? :iiam:
January 28th, 2007 at 9:30 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 122. jimmy | January 28th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
For the reading about SCOT, it is interesting that the advancement of technology is much influenced by social issues. Pinch and Bijker’s example about different views on the front wheel of bicycle explains the social impacts on the design of technology. Being trained as an engineer for the past few years, I tend to ignore human factors during the development of technology. However, this may lead to misjudge of what users really need. Without careful consideration of the social aspect of technology, it is likely to end up with plenty of lab patents that cannot match our society’s needs.
The question about whether technology leads to the change of society or society changes the advancement of technology might arouse some debates. But SCOT has explained the social intervention during the progress of the development of technology. It is essential to understand the interpretative flexibility over technologies. An artefact can be given different meanings from different social groups, not to mention the different viewpoints of users and technologists. As our society itself forms a variety of needs for new design and change of technology, ignoring this fact may lead to “useless” technologies. Therefore, whether a new technology is successful greatly depends on how the society sees it. This can also be seen as a marketing issue.
January 28th, 2007 at 10:54 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 123. Sean_Carey | January 30th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
In reading America Calling, I was taken by the passage about how the automobile, tire and oil industries killed the electric street car. In thinking about the passage, I considered the points brought up in the movie Who killed the Electric Car? For those whom have not seen the movie, it is a documentary about General Motor’s EV1, from its inception to the day they mysteriously recalled the car. The story of the electric street car and electric car is similar to the story of the telephone. When automobiles were first developed, three types of power sources existed: Gasoline, Electric and Steam. Steam was not practical, because of the large boiler that had to be carried around. Gasoline cars had great range, but required manual starting and gear shifting. Electric cars were quiet, didn’t require gear shifting but had a limited range. Gasoline cars won out in the end, but why has electric returned at all?
January 30th, 2007 at 2:01 pm |I wonder if human emotions can be applied to Social Determinism. Did greed kill the electric car? At it’s extreme, technology causes social change, but can social views change technology? In the Symptomaic approach, technologies are expressions of culture. This might make more sense because technology is created out of a broad cultural need or desire. But not everyone expresses distain in the production of the electric car. In an era of high gas prices, heavy pollution and global warming, Electric cars make sense to me. It seems to me that we have such a deep seated investment in oil as a power source that the shear element of greed determines which technologies survive and which don’t. Bell purchased rival companies in order to gain a near monopoly. The car companies bought out street cars, shut them down, which forced people to purchase cars for transportation. Social constructivism does not seem to fit the bill either, because it would require struggles and negotiations between the different parties (the consumers and the car company owners).
WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 124. Bernt Wahl | January 31st, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Network Effect
In Technology and Modern Life, the chapter points out how technology drives social change. As more people are able to communicate over long distances people developed extended bonds that are more based on interest bonding than locality interaction. From Graham Bell’s fragmented network we see how a structure forms that creates a network of uses throughout America. This standard became the envoy of the world until it was broken up in 1984. Eventually new wireless phone technology took over. Now Wi-Fi technology has the potential replace that technology with cost bearers that are even lower that can be distributed over a global network.
Other technologies also had a similar adoption rate. The “Engelbart Law” states that adoption of new technology initially starts slower than expected (the estimate is usually plotted as an accelerated slope) but generally become exponential over time. This is true with the telegraph, the fax machine (1843), the phone, radio, television, and the Internet. In Metcalf’s Law the value of the network is proportion to the square of the number of users. The one noticeable effect is that technology adoption seems to have accelerated. It could be that these inventions had something to do with spreading information at a faster rate thus speeding the adoption of products that provide information.
January 31st, 2007 at 10:26 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed