Information system
Sociotechnical Debate: Technological determinism vs Social determinism
The power that we acquire from technology is quite big. In today’s society, technology has developed to a great extent and it is our belief that the extent to which it can go is quite unimaginable. It is developed at a very fast rate than before. Through definition, technology has been there in the human society even as it started. Saying that technology has always been there in the society can be in the form of electronics or otherwise (Agarwal and Lucas 2005, 385; Klein, 2002, 38). Question arises if technology is powerful that would enable it to control the society or if the society is the driving force behind the society. This is the basis for this debate. Personally, I think that that these two theories are relevant for the times they were brought to existence, I may not agree with everything that is brought forth for one theory. They both certain levels of acceptance.
Each side of the debate has applied a different and autonomous basis from the other, reducing the other theory’s theoretical and practical clarification from what they bring forth. While these debate have solutions to a number of questions, answered by their views, based on advancement, innovation and application of based technologies, a good number of issues have stayed unanswered (Anantatmula, and Thomas, 2010, 68). This can be attributed to perceived difficulty when aimed to be explained by either the technological determinism or social determinism theories. When one aims to use one theory to explain or analyze something it would not be sufficient.
A good example is the research of the efficiency of collaboration tools in a company, the social determinism for a bigger part is of the opinion that the information and communication technologies are simply tools that are applied by the staff to undertake the stated duties and that these tools have no impact on the staff or social framework (Jennifer and McGregor, 2007, 46). Looking at the technological determinism the proponents focus on the impact of these tools on the staff and companies that may arise from using it.
It is definite that the use of these two aspects has an impact on the advancement and model of information technology, and it similarly goes on to affect the social model and how we apply them. Additionally, in our places of work, we tend to complain of inability to undertake something due to technological issues that arise from using technology, we tend to get used to work. In reaction, if we are not able to alter the tools, we alter the processes and tasks so that they become operational in the areas it’s placed by the tools. Since none of them is able to provide a sufficient answer to these issues like usability and utilization of collaboration tools, a common basis existent between the social and technological determinism ought to be relevant.
Technological Determinism
Technological creations take place at a very fast rate and the technological knowledge dies out after a few months. As noticed in the evolution of computer chip. The development of technological knowledge is similarly believed to be ‘determinist’ aspect in human interaction, working style and productivity. Microsoft has developed to a more complicated company in regard to the technology used. This is a good way to looks at things with regard to technological determinism (Leonardi and Barley, 2010, 13). This point of view argues that it was the attributes of technology that determined how it is applied and the part played by a broad-minded society was to acquire and acquire benefit from technological change.
Social human beings, without sufficient knowledge of using technology, creating real existence of technology in our daily life, subtly going through cyborgization; a developing and learning process through technology and computer literacy, and it is part of our social aspect and reality.
According to Gregory Stock, we are prone to be functional cyborgs through the creating extracorporeal electronic tools to elevate and increase the range of present sense and other parts. In a feminist point of view, Donna Haraway states that the cyborg aspect starts to be a starting metaphor for assessing ways of dividing the nature element (Alter, 2013, 96). She shows how the need to disintegrate two elements of the world is getting to be quite hard and aims to make use of this confusion of border to come up with new ways behaving politically.
Another focus was developed by Alexander Chislenko who aimed to create variation between man-machine creations that arise from science fiction and our normal lives that we develop with the help of technologies like eye glasses and cell phones among other aids. The concept of ‘fyborg’ (function cyborg) is taking place currently and the question that arises what we are creating, are we able to understand our creation and the effect it has to the social and cultural impact of technology – how it models the society and how the society responds as well as the direction followed.
This takes us to assumption created by technological determinism. Vividly, it states that the social aspect, which is the users and society, are dependent factor in direct relationship with an autonomous factor which is technology. The social aspect is passive in this regard, according to sociologists, the technological part of the debate (Alnuaimi, Robert, and Maruping, 2010, 205). However, in a popular setting, the myth of technology has become part of our lives. To relate how stories of how technology began and the ones that invented it. According to Green, the role played by the myth is to rejoice the advancements made to our lives and they are meant to be sustainable to our society.
The ability created by sustainable myth has grown to be a practical reality to be realized through social process in the popular culture. This is done without questioning the myth and missing social grounds in the process of mythologizing of technology (Lyytinen, and Newman, 2008, 593). Basically, it is quite complicated than it appears. From the sociological focus, this model is questioned in the absence of social setting where scientific discoveries are acquired. Generally, technology is not an independent element; it is inadequate to be aware of the variations and development created by technology without connecting or placing it in the social setting through time and culture. The time and culture take up the space that technology is induced.
Social Determinism of Technology
Sociological point of view stated the space left by technology, now focus shifts to getting to understand the technological determinism. This states that society is charged with the advancement and allocation of certain technologies. The techno-cultures that we get involved in show the elites in our cultures, the individuals who have the bigger say in the manner we plan for the future and the manner we issue out resources.
Looking at the social determinism of technology, it opens up varied areas of social reality and methods in close relation with research knowledge in social studies and humanities. One of ways to question this theory is through neutrality of technology. It has mostly been believed that technological growth in the 21t century cannot be avoided (Alter, 2010, 18). No nation has the ability to hinder the growth of technology. Those nations that lack the ability to catch up with the changes in technology, it is not their fault or its locals. Hence, technological growth is neutral in this case.
From the point of view of technological determinism, technological growth is neutral. Though, from sociological sense, it is based on technological connection to strengthen. It is not neutral. MacKenzie and Wajcman he states that technology is not neutral so long as no one knows what reason technology is used. Technology is an object that is neutral, it is a subject of how social players are capable of implicating trends of honor and segregation.
According to Green, with knowledge coming into play, technology is used in social processes and there lacks neutrality in social aspects. Variation of gender, wealth and education say that knowledge is political. In cases where knowledge is related to power, just like new technologies which are well safeguarded (Alter, 2006, 34). Additionally, the knowledge of how to build and develop technology and how to use technology is knowledge that is socially bound. Every society runs in a way that determines who gets this knowledge and in which areas. Knowledge is neutral when compared to technology.
Is more simplified words, money is a piece of paper of value in our day to day life. It is a neutral in its basic physical technological aspect that is an object. Though it is not neutral when connected in economic, politic, socio-cultural and psychological forces, a construction of human backed by legitimate company process (Orlikowski, 2010, 132). Therefore, technology is an object with no life that acquired questioning. The question now goes to researching the subject or social aspects of technology. These social aspects has been focused in the social determinism of technology.
Bruno Latour states that there is a disconnection between science and technology that is not focused sociological explanation (Orlikowski, 2010, 133). This means that the explanation used in religion, art and culture cannot be used in hard science or technology. Basically, there is no connection in the meaning of issuing a deep description of social explanation of science or art.
Understanding of the Debate
The social determinism and technological determinism debate are both quite interesting. As we have seen in the views they put across, technological determinism shows that social change is controlled by technological advancements. While sociological determinism states that technology is neutral and that the advantage of adverse effects of this technology is basically based on objectives of man using it.
There notion that ‘guns do not kill people, people do’ is the most convincing argument that supports sociological determinism (Olsen and Engen, 2007, 460). Guns are just objects and it is based on the will to target, use and kill. This notion can be used in nuclear bombs that are created, it does not mean that a nuclear war will take place. It is soothing to be sure that the society is in charge of its fate and model.
However, there is proof that state that technological determinism similarly adds society’s framework and the manner that we think. Internet technology and social networking sites precisely, have created the way that we behave in the society through the elevation of social skills. It appears that the remodeling of our social skills has an adverse effect when applying these social networking sites, as opposed to their objective (Ritzer, 2005, 12; Oppenheim, 2007, 480). Definitely, social networking sites came up with new ways to interact with others, though an added social skill that came up after contact and application of sites like Facebook. In a manner it appears that the social networking sites take up life of their own after inception. This shows a technological determinist impact on the society.
At this juncture, it is hard to acquire a clear-cut solution to which one is probably deterministic. The two theories may be correct in one way or the other, with social and technological aspects taking the assumption of a more connected association in regards to their impact on society.
Conclusion
Logically, when there are certain level of interaction with other elements is allowed, it is hard to justify a firmness in technology or media a significant one. The paper has noted that the limitations of deterministic aspects can depress us, we are just determined not to be deterministic. It is may not be valid to move from the conclusion that the relation between technology and society is not simple to conclusion that the application of certain technology in a certain instance may not have an impact. Any change in technology that is big, can produce change that is social in nature.
Technology is one of the mediating elements in human tendency and social change. Proof however lacks in support of technological deterministic debate. The past sociologist have bent on avoiding the value of technology and communication. However, it has some strong aspects that ought not to be ignored. The paper has been able to focus on the debate between technological determinism and social determinism. Both parts of the argument offer strong support for their sides in regards to which controls the other. However, value is acquired in both debates.
Bibliography
Agarwal, R., and Lucas Jr, H.C. 2005. “The Information Systems Identity Crisis: Focusing on High-Visibility and High-Impact Research,” MIS Quarterly 29(3), pp 381-398.
Alnuaimi, O.A., Robert, L.P., and Maruping, L.M. 2010. “Team Size, Dispersion, and Social Loafing in Technology-Supported Teams: A Perspective on the Theory of Moral Disengagement,” Journal of Management Information Systems 27(1), pp 203-230.
Alter, S. 2006. “Work Systems and It Artifacts-Does the Definition Matter?,” Communications of the Association for Information Systems 17(1).
Alter, S. 2010. “Work Systems as the Core of the Design Space for Organisational Design and
Engineering,” International Journal of Organisational Design and Engineering 1(1), pp 5-28.
Alter, S. 2013. “Work System Theory: Overview of Core Concepts, Extensions, and Challenges for the Future,” Journal of the Association for Information Systems 14 (2), pp 72-121.
Anantatmula, V., and Thomas, M. 2010. “Managing Global Projects: A Structured Approach for Better Performance,” Project Management Journal 41(2), pp 60-72.
Jennifer Daryl Slack and J. McGregor Wise 2007. Culture and Technology: A Primer. New York: Peter Lang, p. 46.
Klein H K, Kleinman D L. 2002. The Social Construction of Technology: Structural Considerations Science Technology Human Values 27: 28-52.
Leonardi, P.M., and Barley, S.R. 2010. “What’s under Construction Here? Social Action, Materiality, and Power in Constructivist Studies of Technology and Organizing,” The Academy of Management Annals 4(1), pp 1-51.
Lyytinen, K., and Newman, M. 2008. “Explaining Information Systems Change: A Punctuated Socio-Technical Change Model,” European Journal of Information Systems 17 (6), pp 589-613.
Ritzer G. 2005. The Encyclopedia of Social Theory. UK: Sage Publication.
Olsen O E, Engen A O. 2007. Technological Change as a Trade-off between Social Construction and Technological Paradigms Technology in Society 29: 456-468.
Orlikowski, W.J. 2010. “The Sociomateriality of Organisational Life: Considering Technology in Management Research,” Cambridge Journal of Economics 34 (1), pp 125-141.
Oppenheim R. 2007. Actor-Network Theory and Anthropology After Science Technology and Society Antropological Theory 7: 471-493.
