Introduction Humans living in a technological

Humans living in a technological world are often swayed by such misgivings; “will

humans be able to control future artificial intelligence?” or “is it acceptable for humans

to engineer the genome?” The prodigious properties of modern technology attenuate

people’s belief in the ability to control technology. From the moment that you turn off

the alarm of your smart-phone in the morning, you spend your time upon the plethora

of technologies with or without your own intention. A lot more times than you assume it

might be, you hardly ever recognize the existence of technology. Without careful

deliberations about technology, it will be impossible for humans to retain the ability to

control technology.

Political emphasis on STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics)

education and enormous efforts of many distinguished scholars exploring the

relationship between society and technology have drawn more attention from public in

recent decades. National surveys, however, still indicate the public does not have clear

awareness of the discipline of technology. Given the impact and power that

contemporary technology wields within a society, fundamental considerations and

discreet awareness of technology become more crucial than ever before in the human

history for a undistorted and healthy relationship between society and technology.

1.1 Scope

Since the Industrial Revolution, the wave of social and technical modernization

has swept the world into a contemporary era. Today, humans are confronting ever more

overwhelming technologies all through the fields of medicine, energy, transportation,

communications, robotics, etc. Social and technical discourse and debates on new

technologies with mass popularity or economic ramification abound. However, a

fundamental consideration about technology itself and a comprehensive approach to

figuring out the relationship between technology and society remain still rather esoteric

to scholars.

To establish a platform and path that could lead the public to the essence of

technology, this study begins with recapitulating preceding contemplation on technology

or “philosophy of technology”, especially from Martin Heidegger’s concept of Ge-stell

(enframing) to critical theory of technology developed and succeeded by Herbert

Marcuse and Andrew Feenberg. Meanwhile, distinctive traits of modern technology are

elicited.

Also an attempt to articulate the discipline of technology is placed mostly upon Carl

Mitcham’s work.

Covered in latter chapters, the concept of human will toward technology is drawn

out of former studies and manipulated to refine the concept of democratization of

technology that has been surfaced by scholars like Feenberg and Langdon Winner.

Finally, a descriptive relationship between technology and society that mechanizes

technological formulation and social attunement is introduced as a guidance to enhance

technological democratization.

1.2 Significance

A Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel calls for the active participation of the

citizen to construct the society, which is pertinent to human well-being [4]. Technology is

not an exception. Even for those who are opposed to such perspectives of technical

determinism or technocracy, there is no doubt that technology is a major source of

power and money in the present age. The social values that technology connotes are the

reason that Feenberg, in response to the myth of technical neutrality, argues that

technology is to be controlled by citizens and exclaims the legitimacy of citizen

involvement in technology [2].

If the mechanism through which a technology forms and interplays with a society

can be described successfully, technology would be able to incorporate public

participation in a systemized manner and technology policy would be executed on

proper spots of intervention. Consequently, these interventions would lead humans to a

technologically democratized society that can assure public redemption of technology

from those groups of experts, politicians, and commercial behemoths.

1.3 Research Question

The research questions of this study were:

1. How can technology be developed toward public interest? (Qualitative)

2. What is the relationship between understanding of technology and its

disciplineand human attitude toward technology? (Quantitative)

1.4 Assumptions

The following assumptions were inherent to this study:

•There is a distinctive domain of technology discipline that is distinguished from

science.

•Technology connotes social meanings as well as technical reason, thus, is value-

laden and subject to be controlled.

•Technology develops out of various causes including technical and social ones.

•The public has the right to choose the technology that they use and the right

should not be encroached by any specific population of a society.

•Unfettered or inappropriately treated technology can be a threat to public interest

and public interest should be protected from such a threat.

•There is a need to figure out the mechanism of technology development, with

which humans can preside technology in accordance with public interest.

•The research methods adopted for this study were appropriate to elicit the

answers for the research questions posed.

•The survey questionnaire was properly constructed to measure the respondents’

perception of technology.

•The respondents of the survey were accurate and honest concerning their own

perception of technology.

1.5 Limitations

The following limitations were inherent to this study:

•Geographically, this study was limited to the West Lafayette area in the state of

Indiana, where the Purdue University located.

•The study was limited to the availability of preceding theories and findings that

were relevant to the discipline of technology and the relationship between

technology and society.

•The study was limited by the amount of historical events of technology that could

be accessed and studied via either printed or electrical version.

•The study was limited by the amount of cooperation of undergraduate and

graduate students at the Purdue Polytechnic Institute enrolling in 2016-2017

academic year.

1.6 Delimitations

The following delimitations were inherent to this study:

•The study utilized the facilities available at the Purdue University in West Lafayette,

Indiana.

•For quantitative approach, the study focused on undergraduate and graduate

students enrolling in the Purdue Polytechnic Institute during 2016-2017 academic

year.

•The study was conducted at the level of comprehensive discipline of technology

and was not focused on any particular kind of engineering technology.

•The study was focused on the technology of the modern and contemporary era.

1.7 Definitions

In the broader context of the study, definitions of the following terms are:

Axial Coding: A set of procedures whereby data are put back together in new ways after

open coding, by making connections between categories. This is done by utilizing a

coding paradigm involving conditions, context, action/interactional strategies and

consequences [6].

Category: A classification of concepts. This classification is discovered when concepts are

compared one against another and appear to pertain to a similar phenomenon.

Thus the concepts are grouped together under a higher order, more abstract

concept called a category [6].

Coding: The process of analyzing data [6].

Concepts: Conceptual labels placed on discrete happenings, events, and other instances

of phenomena [6].

Core Category: The central phenomenon around which all other categories are

integrated [6].

Dimensions: Location of properties along a continuum [6].

Discipline of Technology: The field of study of technology, which, as being distinctive

from that of science, mainly deals with, but not limited to, the reification of

technology and the relationship between technology and society.

Duality of Technology: The insight initially introduced by Jean Baudrillard, which refers to

technical functionality and social connotations that technology incorporates. In the

first place, technology has functions and they account for the most part of its

existence. But in reality, technology connotes a myriad of reflections stemming

from the association with other aspects of society [7,8].

Engineering Philosophy of Technology & Humanities Philosophy of Technology: Two

strains of philosophy of technology that Carl Mitcham named mainly based on

distinctive approaches to technology. Mitcham argues that the former focuses on

describing technology itself while the latter has emphasis on the impacts of

technology on society or vice versa. Some scholars call them “analytical” and

“continental/critical”, respectively [9].

Epistem¯ e:¯ An ancient Greek that refers to generalized scientific knowledge or

pure theory that does not incorporate practical world [9–11].

Ge-stell(Enframing): Heidegger’s concept explaining the phenomenon (mode of

revealing) that “sets upon man to order the real world as technological materials

(standing-reserve)” [12,13].

Open Coding: The process of breaking down, examining, comparing, conceptualizing,

and categorizing data [6].

Philosophy of Technology: A term coined by Ernst Kapp in 1877 to refer to systematic

reflection on aspects of technology to elicit concepts that technology connotes

both inherently and socially [14–17].

Phronesis:¯ An ancient Greek that refers to moral knowledge, prudence, and practical

wisdom, which is about understanding the implications, and making the right

choices [10,11,18].

Poiesis:¯ An ancient Greek that refers to the practical activity of human production [16].

Properties: Attributes or characteristics pertaining to a category [6].

Proven Theoretical Relevance: Indicated that concepts are deemed to be significant

because they are repeatedly present or notably absent when comparing incident

after incident, and are of sufficient importance to be given the status of category

[6].

Selective Coding: The process of selecting the core category, systematically relating it to

other categories, validating those relationships, and filling in categories that need

further refinement and development [6].

Techne:¯ An ancient Greek that refers to the knowledge or discipline associated with

a form of poiesis¯ , which is concerned with knowing how to make something

[10,16].

Technology: A distinctive discipline of human intellect that accompanies procedures and

systems to fulfill practical needs of humans [9,17,19,20].

Technical Codes: Feenberg’s concept that implies the realization of a social interest or

ideology in a way that is congruent with a technical specification [2,8].

Technology Development: A socio-technological phenomenon that shows a series of

technological events such as invention, adoption, diffusion, modification,

transition, and even obsolescence in a society.

Transactional System: A system of analysis that examines action/interaction in

relationship to their conditions and consequences [6].

1.8 Summary

Chapter One stated the problem and presented the scope, significance and

research questions of the study. The chapter also provided a list of assumptions,

limitations and delimitations. The next chapter explores relevant literature elucidating

the topics of the discipline of technology, philosophical reflections on technology, values

and ethics of technology, and the relationship between technology and society.

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE

Since the inception of human history, people have lived upon technologies from a

stone ax to an electric car. For a welter of time, however, only a relatively small amount

of scholarship has been achieved in the field. Genuine study solely contributed to the

discipline of technology is limited. Even now, technology study is commonly perceived as

peripheral or confused with science [21].

Under such a stark situation, this chapter is to look through previous studies

about technology. Both perspectives of engineers and philosophers are in consideration.

Topics of defining, delineating, and coping with technology proceed.

2.1 Approach to the Review

The goals of this review are to formulate a reasonable body of technology and

build a platform to articulate the essence of technology, with which a rational path to

further action on technology can be introduced. Consequently, selective sources are

focused and interdisciplinary works that are believed to be pertinent to the discussion

are borrowed without hesitation.

2.2 Discipline of Technology

Today, humans are living with ever more advanced technologies in history and

the fact renders technological conceit. Most people think or pretend to know

technology. Without serious contemplation of technology, however, the knowing turns

out to be ambiguity. Rapp says this situation of ambiguous understanding happens

similarly to those highly generalized concepts, such as ‘politics’ or ‘society’ [17].

Nevertheless, understanding the discipline of technology as well as technology itself is a

sine qua non for further immersion in technology. Otherwise, it will be impossible for

humans to retain the ability to handle technology properly [21].

Today’s attempts to develop a prescription for a democratic, sustainable

technology are hampered by a lack of clarity in ideas about the nature of

technology itself [22, p.170].

2.2.1 Defining Technology

The public is likely to consider technology as mere forms of artifacts that are

results of applied scientific knowledge [15]. The belief is not true, of course, but experts

and scholars also admit the difficulty of drawing a precise definition of technology.

“Given the manifold determinants of technology, it is unreasonable to expect universal

agreement upon any one definition” [17, p.23]. Technology is considered to be indexical,

which takes its meaning from its uses [23].

2.2.1.1 Etymology

The word technology has its origin in ancient Greek, techne¯, which refers to the

knowledge or discipline associated with a form of poiesis¯ , which refers to the

practical activity of human production [16]. Hence, etymological meaning of technology

is necessarily related to the historical hermeneutic of techne¯ and poiesis¯ .

According to Mitcham, techne¯ was commonly translated as human activities of

“art”, “craft”, or “skill” [9]. Techne¯ also conceived facets of epistem¯ e¯, that was

systematic or scientific knowledge, but the knowledge is applied rather than theoretical.

At the same time, the fact that, for ancient philosophers like Plato and Aristotle, techne¯

was believed to be theoretical as knowledge, thus, rather science of production than art

or skill is noticeable [24]. The limited practicality here attributes to the concept of

phronesis¯ as acting itself in comparison to knowledge of acting.

Techne¯ is considered to be logical: to Plato, techne¯ refers to “all human

activities that can be talked or reasoned about - all activities that are neither

spontaneous nor the result of some unconscious drive or intuitive perception” [9, p.118].

Aristotle defines techne¯ as “a habit (or stable disposition to act in a specific manner)

with a true logos concerned with (or ordered toward) making (the human production of

material objects)” [9, p.120].

Poiesis¯ , as producing, is subordinate to praxis, that is, practical action [18].

Historically, as being considered as handiwork, poiesis¯ used to be degraded of labor

that was assigned to lower class people of a society. Such a phenomenon that the

exercise of metaphysics or aesthetics surpasses the physical or technical exercise can be

found in common both in the Christian tradition of the West and the Confucian tradition

of the East. Jauss, however, notices degrees of perfection in poiesis¯ , and through

the state of perfection, techne¯ can reach its highest realm of art and virtue [18].

According to Herschbach, the English term “technology” used to have a limited

meaning of “the application of science (knowledge) to the making and use of artifacts”

[25, p.32]. But as technology develops, the linkage of formal knowledge and technology

is emphasized. Technology, in the contemporary age, associates with the distinctive

knowledge and logical activity of human beings to make something with degrees of

perfection. Characteristics of technology are explored further in later chapters.

2.2.1.2 Contemporary Understanding of Technology

To historians of technology, the word “technology” is generally used to refer to

“making activities, or knowledge of how to make and use artifacts, or the artifacts

themselves” [9, p.116]. More specifically, technology has been defined as:

“transformation of nature through the intellect (Heinrich Beck)”, “everything that gives a

corporeal form to human will (Max Eyth)”, “reality derived from ideas, through

purposeful forming and processing of natural resources (Friedrich Dessauer)”, “the

general term for all objects, procedures, and systems, which are produced for the

fulfillment of individual and social needs (Klaus Tuchel)”, etc. [17, pp.33-35]. Among

definitions, Ferre is considered to define technology well: “practical implementation of´

intelligence” [19, p.26]. The State of Indiana, in its announced standards for

technological literacy, defines technology as “the modification of the natural

environment in order to satisfy perceived human needs and wants” [20, p.7].

Definitions of technology may change as technology evolves. Nowadays, the

grasp of cutting-edge technologies over society aggravates the misconception of

technology. Especially, objects with high-tech features are considered as technology in

many cases [26]. Without awareness of everyday technologies, however, the public’s

involvement in technology is distant [27]. Consequently, the misconception of

technology will keep aggravating and technological matters will be left to small groups of

experts and politicians. The presence of such a threat is why even contemporary

definition of technology cannot be confined to new technologies and should be

discussed on comprehensive basis.

Upon preceding and contemporary contexts regarding definitions of technology,

this study perceives technology as a distinctive discipline of human intellect that

accompanies procedures and systems to fulfill practical needs of humans. To solve

practical problems and serve human needs, says Pool, “technology combines the

physical world with the social, the objective with the subjective, the machine with the

man” [28, p.15].

2.2.1.3 Technology vs. Science

As mentioned already, Aristotle construes techne¯ as “art” or “technical skill” that

is concerned with “bringing something into being”, and distinguishes it from epistem¯ e¯

that enjoys the primacy of being eternal and scientific [11, p.121]. Much like the

distinction between engineering and physics, technology is applied and involved in

making things while science pursues universal laws. “The two forms of knowledge are

interrelated, and they overlap in practice, but they are discrete” [10, p.10].

The fact that technology associates with making things or poiesis¯

differentiates technology from science which associates with physis, the nature.

While technology deals with the essence, science the existence [16]. De Vries finds the

distinction between science and technology in different purposes of those disciplines.

According to him, science seeks knowledge about reality while technology tries to

change reality to meet human desires, that is, science is problem-oriented and

technology is solution-oriented [15].

Although many people identify technology with applied science, Vincenti shows

that the contribution of science to technology is very limited. He argues that the most

knowledge of technology comes from other sources than science and even when

transferred from science, the knowledge often needs to be transformed by engineers

[29]. For Rapp also, progress in science is necessary but not sufficient to realize

technological procedures and systems [17]. MacKenzie and Wajcman claim: the

misconception that technology is dependent on science is largely attributed to the

second half of the nineteenth century when science and technology were closely

connected. Science and technology, however, have not always been connected and the

contribution of technology to science is as much as the contribution of science to

technology [30]. However, the debate on whether technology is applied science or not is

still frustrating as evidences for both sides of pros and cons can be found easily [15].

Apparently, the question still remains as an aporia. Table 2.1 shows major distinctions

between technology and science.

Table 2.1. Technology vs. Science

Technology Science

associates

with:

poiesis¯ , the

practical activity of

production

physis, the nature

deals with: the essence the existence

tries to: change reality to

seek knowledge

about

human desires reality

is: solution-oriented problem-oriented

2.2.2 Constituents of Technology Reification

Heidegger suggests Aristotle’s four causes of material, formal, final, and efficient

to be involved with the ancient craftsmanship [12,13]. “The four ways of being

responsible bring something into appearance. They let it come forth into presencing”,

says

Heidegger [12, p.9]. Among many scholars, efforts to formulate the constituents of

modern and contemporary technology have been made. For this study, the way to the

discipline of technology is guided mainly by analytical works of Friedrich Rapp and Carl

Mitcham as they are found to maintain the commonality and concatenation of thoughts

of the kind.

Figure 2.1. Four Causes of Aristotle and Craftsmanship [12]

Rapp tried to figure out some common features that technology exhibits

regardless of diverse circumstances. He believed that those features would make

possible a “supra-historical structural description of technology”. He says that technology

is combinations of techniques (or procedures) and technical objects [17, p.25].

Technology = Technique (procedure) + Technical object

And out of the technique, which refers to “the individual technical means themselves,

the actual application processes”, two more aspects of technology emerge: knowledge

and activity [25, p.32].

Technique = Knowledge + Activity

Thus, three features of technology, that is, knowledge, activity, and object, are drawn.

Coherently and expectedly, those three features are also present in Mitcham’s

proposition.

Among various and cumulative considerations about technology, Schuurman

distinguishes technological forming and designing that contribute to fabrication of

technological objects and Carpenter also compartmentalizes the body of technology into

object, knowledge, and process [1,9,31]. McGinn stresses technology as a form of

human activity [32]. On such basis, Mitcham articulates three fundamental modes of

technology: knowledge, activity, and object [9]. In addition to those three concepts,

Mitcham accepts the suggestion of McGinn that properties of technological material

outcomes “may in a sense be said to be due to the volition of the practitioner” and

includes the concept of volition [32, p.182].

As a result, four constituents of technology reification, that is, objects,

knowledge, activities, and volition, had been identified as shown in Figure 2.2 and

Mitcham calls these “four different modes of the manifestation of technology” [9,

p.160]. The diagram portrays how a technology is reified out of abstract knowledge and

volition in a simple manner. Although Mitcham admits that his framework is yet

provisional, it holds meaningful significance in conceptualizing the process of technology

reification as a considerable body of previous studies in the field is subsumed under the

framework.

Figure 2.2. Modes of the Manifestation of Technology [9, p.160]

2.2.2.1 Technology as Objects

Technology as objects is the most immediate and common response when

someone is asked about technology and can include all material artifacts with human

fabrication [9,15]. According to Dipert, the objects can be divided into an instrument, a

tool, and an artifact; when we use a natural object for any practical purpose without

modification of the object, it is an instrument. If a modification is added, it is a tool. Then

an artifact can be marked when it displays its own purpose or function per se [33]. From

mundane to cutting-edge, technological artifacts are everywhere in our lives. Due to the

knowledge-intensive characteristic of modern technology, the concept of artifact

explains technology as objects well.

According to Mitcham, there have been two basic social responses regarding

technological objects: socialist response and Luddite (artifactist response) [9]. The

former shares the belief that social problems are not caused by technological objects,

but by the social context that these objects inhabit while Luddites inculpate objects

themselves. Though, it has to be noted that Luddites are not inherently anti-technology

and they focus on consequences of technological inventions [9]. Technological objects

can be used in accordance with the ways that designers initially intended, that is, proper

function, but at the same time, they can be used in different ways, that is, accidental

function. Here, the ambivalence of technological objects is held [9,15].

The relationship between technological objects and human capability has been

examined by Ihde and McLuhan. Ihde argues that tools or instruments have a

simultaneous amplification/reduction structure through which extend and also restrict

human capability [34]. Mcluhan calls this phenomenon the laws of enhancement and

obsolescence. For him, “any new technique or tool, while enabling a new range of

activities by the user, pushes aside the older ways of doing things” [35, p.99].

2.2.2.2 Technology as Knowledge

Technology as knowledge is based on the idea that technology is a discipline with

a distinct kind of knowledge [9,15]. Ryle introduces two types of knowledge, that is,

“knowing-that” and “knowing-how”. Knowing-that is the knowledge that can be

expressed in propositions such as scientific knowledge and knowing-how cannot be [36].

In the condition of proposition-based, knowing-that could be well fit into what Audi

defines knowledge: “justified true belief” [37, p.220]. Technological knowledge,

however, is definitely the type of knowing-how. Technological knowledge is neither

proposition-based nor belief-based. According to de Vries and Mitcham, technology is

solution-oriented and deals with more practical matters as it aims at changing reality to

fulfill the needs and desires of humans [9,15,38].

Herschbach introduces three forms of technological knowledge: descriptive

knowledge, prescriptive knowledge, and tacit knowledge. Descriptive knowledge is close

to (applied) scientific knowledge that describes things as they are, such as material

properties. Prescriptive knowledge is about “what has to be done in order to achieve the

desired results”, which can be achieved through the successive efforts to obtain “greater

effectiveness, such as improved procedures or operations”. Tacit knowledge is implicit in

activity and embedded in individuals. As being transmitted from one individual to

another by working together, tacit knowledge is seen to be immanent in skilled workers

and engineers, and highly required even in the high-tech industries [25, pp.34-35].

The knowledge of technology is distinctive from the genuine implication of

epistem¯ e¯, which refers to generalized scientific knowledge or pure theory that does

not incorporate practical world, as techne¯ is involved with the knowledge of making

things in praxis, the practical world. [9–11]. Jauss also elucidates different kinds of

knowledge: techne¯, phronesis¯ , and epistem¯ e¯. According to him, techne¯ is

acquired knowledge while phronesis¯ and epistem¯ e¯ are moral knowledge and

theoretical knowledge, respectively [18]. Unlike other knowledge, acquired knowledge is

employed for the purpose of making based on anterior certainty and practicality.

Aristotle, however, shows a firm distinction between the man of techne¯ and the

man of mere memory or experience. He argues that the man of techne¯, that is,

technological knowledge, knows the why and the cause while the other does not [24].

Under the Aristotelian scheme, both techne¯ and phronesis¯ are distinguished from

epistem¯ e¯ for being practical than theoretical. Remaining changeable and uncertain

to cope with the real world never yield knowledge of the eternal. But, techne¯ and

epistem¯ e¯ do share the common ground to be capable of being taught and learned

[24].

Under the introduction of modern technology, the separation between theory

and practical production is unclear, says Dunne, “scientific information about the world

contains technical imperatives: the formulae for the new technology and modes of

production no longer reside in the rules of craftsmen but rather in the corroborated

findings of scientists” [24, p.175]. Of course, this does not imply that technological

knowledge becomes identical to scientific knowledge. But this implies that the feature of

modernization caused inexorable changes in the relationship between these two

categories of knowledge.

2.2.2.3 Technology as Activities

All [technological] artifacts owe their existence to having first been thought

out by man and then systematically and suitably made. Thus it was only

natural that philosophical reflection first focused on two indispensable

prerequisites to the emerging machine technology, namely, the creative act

of invention and the role of the engineer [17, p.4].

The fact that technology associates with poiesis¯ presents human activities as a

constituent of technology. Technology as activities refers to designing, making, using,

and assessing as the main activities in technology [15]. To a certain extent, it can also be

explained with the basic types of human behavioral engagements that include crafting,

inventing, designing, manufacturing, working, operating, and maintaining [9]. Regardless

of taxonomies that can be brought here, the concept is lucid: through proper

technological activities or/and processes, human volition with technological knowledge

becomes the artifacts with intended functions.

As mentioned earlier, human activities of production or poiesis¯ had been

conceived traditionally as handiwork for lower working class of a society. But Karl Marx

reevaluated human labor as a ‘concrete activity’ that is “the true productive activity and

placed above all theory and all political and communicative action” [18, p.600]. In fact,

with introduction of the Industrial Revolution and accompanied autonomous machine

technology, activities of making has made a transition from the labor intensive handicraft

to the knowledge intensive complex system. Accordingly, there has been a major shift in

professional and social status of technological activities as well as, like Mitcham notices,

the shift from artistic design to engineering design [9]. Through the degree of

advancement and complexity, handiwork of “toiling against a resistant nature” has been

promoted to professional activities of inventing and creating out of considerable intellect

[18, p.591].

Comparing to ancient times showing the dominance of artistic design, today, in

most cases, technological activities are construed as engineering [9]. And engineering is

always struggling with various internal and external values, such as efficiency and public

interest. The struggles imply that Technology as activities also connotes ethical and

practical judgments of engineers. Practical judgments are made upon the questions of

internal values of technology while ethical judgments are made upon external values.

More discussions about the values of technology and corresponding judgment of

engineers are followed in later chapters.

2.2.2.4 Technology as Volition

Technology as volition is about the notion that technology is part of human will,

and therefore, it is value-laden [15]. And the notion now turns to be rather philosophical

than technological. Technology is the intrinsic matter to humans. Rapp introduces three

main motives for humans to develop technology: basic human need to survive, desire for

power and control, and desire for the intellectual capacities [17]. Those desires of

humans are associated with volition. To a simple notion, volition is thought to be the

initiation of human intention and activities. According to Ryle, volition is the outputs of

internal forces and is not the subject of being voluntary or involuntary [36].

Mitcham analyzes technology as volition in three senses: technological desire,

technical motivation or movement, and consent to technology. Interrelations of the

senses refer to a technological imperative; technological desires engender motivations,

and through the creation of objects, knowledge, and activity, finally, consent to

technology completes the feedback process of technology [9].

Volition, as a highly subjective and psychological concept of human mind, can be

criticized to be inappropriate to reify technology. Ambiguity of abstraction remains in the

concept of volition. “Volition is the most individualized and subjective of the four modes

of manifestation of technology”, says Mitcham [9, p.250]. Nevertheless, human mind

takes the role in technology and the role can be explained adequately only by various

social elements. While technical reasons or internal values constitute technology, so do

social or external values of technology.

As long as it incorporates human will, technology as volition is also related with

human control over technology. As potence of technology increases, stronger ability of

intelligent control is required. According to Mitcham, the intelligent control of

technology depends on “knowing the right direction and goal of technology, knowing the

consequences of technological actions, and acting in accordance with those two types of

knowledge” [9, p.260]. And a critical issue of incontinence happens when people do

wrong to satiate their desires even though they know that it is wrong. Sometimes the

will breaches the rationality or reasonableness of human action and technology as

volition can account for such phenomenon [9,11].

When the idea of technological neutrality as pure means to human ends is

rejected, human will and the intelligent control of technology become significant. Here,

the concepts of human will and control in relation to technology are quite new and

should not be subject of being considered in traditional circumstances. As the act of

technology has been transited from craft to knowledge intensive, new approaches to the

concepts are required. “It is perhaps permissible to suggest that the pursuit of efficiency

or the will to control might even be termed a historically unique volition that can be

associated with technology in a new way”, says Mitcham [9, p.259]. More discussions

about the relationship between human will and technology are followed also in later

chapters.

2.2.3 Reflections on Technology

The history of technology began no later than the initial appearance of mankind.

Thus, it is reasonable to say that thoughts about technology have existed for a long time

as human history. To the perspective of contemporary scholarship, however, systematic

reflections on technology are generally dated from the work of a German philosopher

Ernst Kapp, in which he coined the term “philosophy of technology (philosophie der

technik)” in 1877 [9,19]. Since then, with enormous development of technology, more

Figure 2.3. Four Constituents of Technology Reification [9]

attention of scholars has been paid to technology and their studies are now subsumed

under the term.

2.2.3.1 Philosophy of Technology

Deleuze defines philosophy as the art of forming, inventing, and fabricating

concepts, which means, eventually, philosophy of technology is about eliciting concepts

that technology connotes [14]. Traditionally, a lot of scholastic efforts have been made

upon establishing philosophy of technology in accordance with legitimate fields of

philosophy: ontology, epistemology, methodology, metaphysics, and ethics and

aesthetics [15].

According to Schuurman, when philosophical reflections on technology began to

appear, the goal was rather to secure the independent domain of technology than to

perform the structural analysis of modern technology [1]. Due to frequent

encroachment of science and economics, technology was not been paid enough

attention by general philosophers. They underestimated the social significance of

technology, and then, reduced it to a mere science. Furthermore, philosophers and

engineers were not familiar with each other and did not communicate, either.

Consequently, thoughts of these two groups were so disparate and a certain degree of

heterogeneity still runs down the field [1].

From the view points on modern technology and its relation to society,

Schuurman distinguishes two groups of modern philosophers of technology:

transcendentalists and positivists [1]. Transcendentalists like Jacques Ellul posit passivity

and technological pessimism, and thus, they are inclined to reject mechanical modern

technology. While they try to strive for a supra-historical humanistic understanding of

technology, they are not likely to have clear distinction between science and technology.

On the other hand, positivists like Karl Steinbuch believe that technological development

is the source of cultural progress, and thus, technology is at the center of their

technocratic view [1]. Regretfully, however, Schuurman argues that neither group of

those philosophers is able to suggest an universal explanation of the relation between

humanity and technology [1].

Within the same context, there has been tensions between being technical and

social, or internalist and externalist through the history of technology. While internalist

studies focus on making and using of technical artifacts, externalist studies focus on the

influence of technology [9]. Likewise, in contemporary philosophy of technology, the

whole work can be divided into two strains; de Vries calls them “analytical” and

“continental/critical”. He argues that the former aims to conceptualize technology and its

discipline while the latter is more interested in making values regarding technology [15].

Alternative names for those two strains of philosophy of technology are “engineering

philosophy of technology (EPT)” and “humanities philosophy of technology (HPT)” that

Mitcham introduces. Identically with de Vries’s idea about analytical and continental, the

former focuses on describing technology itself while the latter has emphasis on the

impacts of technology on society or vice versa [9,15]. Through this study, terms of

Mitcham will be used for the reason of semantic clarity.

Although engineering philosophy of technology is firstborn strain in the field of

philosophy of technology, it has drawn comparatively less scholastic or public attention

so far and has not established as many theories as its counterpart, either. De Vries puts

the unpopularity down to peoples tendency to prefer social and cultural aspects to

genuine concepts of technology. But the very existence of technology has its origin in

technical aspects. He asserts that humanities philosophy of technology is “philosophy

about technology” and through the “empirical turn”, more emphasis has to be made on

“philosophy of technology” that can provide answers for practitioners [15, p.6]. Mitcham

also emphasizes the importance of real world engineering experience and criticizes

humanities philosophy of technology for overlooking it [9].

Humanities philosophy of technology is said to be developed mainly by those

philosophers without an engineering or natural science background and, thus,

concentrates on the society that inhabits technology rather than technology itself [15].

For the reason, Mitcham criticizes the strain for having humanities stand on the center to

conceive technology [9]. Such inherited inclination may weaken belonging philosophers

insights into the discipline of technology. But, it does imply significant meanings to both

technology and society. In fact, as technology develops apace, being either engineering

or humanities in the field of technology study seems trivial and the borderless

collaboration of two strains becomes an inevitable corollary. Furthermore, with the

presence of volition within reification of technology, two strains of philosophy of

technology, engineering and humanities, can share a meaningful intersection. Even in

engineering philosophy of technology, human will could not be excluded from forming a

technology.

Those humanities philosophers of technology believe that socially specific values

are embodied in technology and deal with the question of technological means to social

ends [16,39]. Along with respect to the role of human action toward technology and the

neutrality of technology, Feenberg summarizes the varieties of theory of those

philosophers as Table 2.2.

2.2.3.2 Critical Theory of Technology

Among various theories, this study focuses on the Critical Theory in accordance

with the propositions that technology is value-laden and subject to be controlled by

humans. Specifically, the ideas of Feenberg that can be traced down from Heidegger and

Marcuse are explored for two major reasons; first, the concept of de-worlding or

instrumentalization process of technology is most appropriate to describe the

Table 2.2. The Varieties of Theory [2, p.9]

Technology is: Autonomous Humanly Controlled

Neutral Determinism Instrumentalism

(complete separation of

means and ends)

(e.g. traditional Marxism) (liberal faith in progress)

Value-laden Substantivism Critical Theory

(means from a way of life (means and ends linked

(choice of alternative

that includes ends) systems) means-ends systems)

comprehensive phenomenon of contemporary technology; second, Feenberg’s

suggestion for democratization of technology is the ultimate destination of this study.

As marked in Table 2.2, critical theory of technology posits the beliefs that

technology is not neutral and, thus, needs human intervention. Accordingly, the first step

to embrace the theory is to reject the neutrality of technology. Inherently, especially in

contemporary societies, much of technology development favors interests of certain

groups of a society, and in turn, impinges others’, sometimes including public interest. So

far, such a characteristic of technology development has been likely to be perceived as

an accidental consequence [40]. The traditional assumption of technological neutrality

or rationality by which technology development can be explained solely with efficiency

or other technical reasons has formed modern technocratic falsity and diffused social

indifference to making technological decisions. Feenberg calls this the “innocence of

technology” meaning that technology, as the means to the social ends, “cannot be

blamed for the particular uses to which it is put” [41, p.36]. But critical theory of

technology rejects the assumption and suggests an alternative view:

The Critical Theory school formulated the most influential statement of the

alternative position, arguing that while technology serves generic ends such as

increasing the power of man over nature, its design and application serves the

domination of man by man. In this sense, the means (technology) are not truly

“value free” but include within their very structure the end of furthering a

particular organization of society. In sum, technology is political [40, p.18].

Critical theorists argue that technical rationality itself is socially relative and

embodied with diverse social values and economic interests [40,41]. Feenberg attributes

this contamination of technical sphere to the capitalist production system in which

separated workforces and markets are automatized with atomized individuals. He sees

the separation of labor, consumption, and social decision making as the underlying

problem [40]. “Weber’s account of science and technology as nonsocial and neutral,

which Habermas shares, masks the interests that preside over their genesis and

application,” says Feenberg [2, p.161]. Marcuse also notices the dissipation of

technological neutrality by saying that technical principles formulated in abstraction are

soon to be social when they enter reality [42]. Once technology is turned to be value-

laden and to connote social values, the next step is to distinguish between the two

spheres of technology, that is, “technical reason” and “social meanings”.

2.2.3.3 Duality of Technology and Instrumentalization

As early as in the time of ancient Greece, Aristotle implied the ambivalence of

technology with the distinction between ‘technique’ and ‘praxis’. In the same context,

scholars of critical theory share the insight of Baudrillard, “duality of technology”, which

refers to technical functionality and social connotations that technology incorporates. In

the first place, technology has functions and they account for the most part of its

existence. But in reality, technology connotes a myriad of reflections stemming from the

association with other aspects of society [7,8]. Of importance, the duality of technology

introduces a dichotomous world that consists of two spheres: Marcuse calls them “the

natural world of science” and “the lifeworld of experience”; Habermas “the system” and

“the life world” [43,44]. Latour also makes a similar recognition by introducing

“sociogram” and “technogram” as social interests and technical configurations

respectively that construct technologies. According to him, a specific technology can be

understood at the intersection of the two facets [45]. Those two spheres are very

constituents of technological being that cannot be separated by subjectivity or

objectivity [8]. And this technological world becomes systemized by Feenberg’s

processes of “de-contextualization” and “re-contextualization”, that is, the

“instrumentalization” of technology.

Before going further into the instrumentalization of technology, a retrospection

on Heidegger is indispensable. Although Heidegger’s affiliation to Nazism deteriorates

his reputation, at least his insights into technology still have tremendous influences on

contemporary scholarship. Specifically, Heidegger’s academic contribution to Feenberg

can be found in the concepts of de-worlding and Ge-stell (enframing).

According to Heidegger, technology is “a mode of revealing” [12, p.13]. And the

acts of revealing are distinguished into “bringing-forth” in premodern society and

“challenging-forth” in modern society. This is where modernity isolates social aesthetic

and ethical values from techne¯ and creates dehumanizing threat of modern technology

pursuing technical perfection only [8,12]. Here, the concept of Ge-stell aggravates the

isolation well by reducing nature as mere objects of modern technology. Waddington

explains Ge-stell as “the phenomenon that sets upon man to order the real as standing-

reserve”, while “standing-reserve” implies the status of nature as material objects with

disposability of modern technology [13, p.569]. By reducing nature as objects of

technology, process of de-worlding happens and with Ge-stell, interplays between

society and technology become immanent in the being of technology. Heidegger asserts

that the Ge-stell “distorts the appearing and ruling of truth” [1, p.107].

Figure 2.4. Heidegger’s challenging-forth and standing-reserve [12,13]

Heidegger’s insight of Ge-stell let him explorer deeper into the dualism of subject

and object:

What is central is the existence that precedes thinking and is present in it.

Heidegger begins by looking behind the positions of Descartes, Kant and

Husserl. In them he discerns a dualism: the (thinking) subject stands over

against the objects to be known [1, p.95].

Accordingly, Schuurman asks to be aware of the subjectivity of technology:

We shall be blind to the essence of technology if - as very often happens -

we regard technology as a neutral means that man can either use or misuse

[1, p.101].

Apparently, both Heidegger and Feenberg tried to find the essence of technology

from outside of technical rationality, that is, in contexts of society and technology. But,

Heidegger attributes an autonomous logic to technology and stands on

“substantivism” [46]. Heidegger holds emphasis on exploitation and destruction of

humanities and natural orders. To a certain extent, he calls for returning to a premodern

society by abandoning modern technologies. Heidegger’s passivity and failure to provide

reliable alternatives germinated discontent of Marcuse. Marcuse also deplored

dehumanization of modern technology but, he believed in possibility of redesigning and

controlling technology to properly serve human needs [43].

Marcuse does not propose a conversation with nature but argues for a

technology developed and applied with understanding of the inherent

potentialities of its medium, the raw materials and context it presupposes.

Such an approach would bear a certain resemblance to aesthetic practice,

and would promise a new type of technology that does not conquer nature,

but reconciles human beings with the natural environment in which they

live [40, p.32].

Finally, Feenberg comes up with an alternative. Feenberg, through his

instrumentalization theory, sublimates his predecessors’ reflections on technology into

an impervious analysis and provides a significant initiative to the alternative,

democratization of technology. “The duality of function and meaning underlies the

‘double aspects’ of the instrumentalization theory”, says Feenberg [8, p.174]. According

to him, the essence of technology has two aspects of functional constitution and

realization, which he calls

“primary instrumentalization” and “secondary instrumentalization”, respectively [2,8].

Feenberg explains; in primary instrumentalization, processes of

“de-contextualization”, “reductionism”, “autonomization”, and “positioning” happen to

ensure technical functionality. Natural objects are de-worlded, simplified to fit

designated qualities, and assigned technical features. Till this primary level, technical

rationality presides the processes. Hence, technological neutrality still holds and pure

individual objects are produced. During secondary instrumentalization, processes of

“systemization”, “mediation”, “vocation”, and “initiative” happens to integrate

functionality with its human and natural environment. In this secondary level, the rule of

“technical codes” presides the processes. Technical codes imply the realization of a social

interest or ideology in a way that is congruent with a technical specification [2,8].

Feenberg elucidates technical codes with the concept of Gilbert Simondon,

“concretization”, which implies “designs that accommodate a wide range of influences

and contextual factors” [8, p.215]. Table 2.3 briefly shows Feenberg’s instrumentalization

theory. Vertical axis represents the distinction of de-contextualization (de-worlding) and

re-contextualization (re-worlding) while horizontal axis represents primary and

secondary instrumentalization.

Table 2.3. Instrumentalization Theory [2, p.208]

Functionalization Realization

Objectification Decontextualizatio

Systemization

Reduction Mediation

Subjectification Autonomization Vocation

Positioning Initiative

The facets of duality of technology can be enumerated along with the phases of

instrumentalization as in Figure 2.5.

Figure 2.5. Duality of Technology [2,8]

2.3 Values of Technology

“Incontinence”, in moral philosophy, is the term indicating “a hiatus between

knowledge and action” [9, p.259]. As technology develops, humans are equipped with

more power and ability and, thus, new potentialities are released into the real world.

Without conscientious awareness of technology use and its consequences, however, the

power and ability would rather become a social calamity. The ambivalence of technology

holds here. Nevertheless, humans need technology and reducing the discrepancy

between what we know and what we do in the technological sphere remains critical.

In the crux of the matter lies the value-ladeness of technology. The multiple value

structure of technology causes conflicts among values and renders such questions:

“what kind of values does technology connote?” “what values override others?” and

“how should we deal with the values?” Certainly, efficiency or other technical reasons

cannot answer the questions in full. Consequently, the endeavor enters the domain of

ethics that deals with the values of technology.

2.3.1 Axiology of Technology

Values are not the opposite of facts, subjective desires with no basis in reality.

Values express aspects of reality that have not yet been incorporated into the

taken for granted technical environment. That environment was shaped by the

values that presided over its creation. Technologies are the crystallized

expression of those values [3, p.12].

The study of values of technology posits the denial of technological abstractness

and neutrality. There were several attempts to identify and distinguish the values of

technology. Gonzalez introduced three possible levels of analysis: “axiology of

technology in general” for the values in any form of technology, “axiology of specific

technology” for the values that belong to a specific technology, and “axiology of the

agents developing technology” for the values that are accepted by designers and

engineers [47, p.12]. Another distinction that focused on the life cycle of a technology

was also made as “the construction of a technology” and “the application of a

technology” [47].

Basically, the distinctions of both cases are subsumed under the dichotomous

view on technology, that is, the duality of technology. In this regard, this study proceeds

with the taxonomy of van de Poel that shows a clear demarcation between the two

spheres of technology. He elucidates the values of technology as in “internal” and

“external” values [48].

2.3.1.1 Internal Values of Technology

Internal values of technology are commensurate with technical reason of the two

spheres of technology. Van de Poel defines them as the values “that are perceived by

engineers as internal to engineering practice and that do not, or at least seemingly do

not, refer to broader social goals and values” [48, p.32]. These values are endogenous

for a technological being and contribute to its functionality [47]. The examples of

technical perfection, efficiency, effectiveness, and reliability are categorized as this type.

Engineers’ enthusiasm for technical perfection must be the purist motivation of

technology development. Although technical perfection in itself is not supposed to be

judged by moral criteria, it has been accompanied by numerous negative effects of

technology in history. Wernher von Braun, the famous rocket engineer who made the

first manned flight to the moon possible, was a member of Hitler’s SS during the World

War II. While he was making German missiles and U.S. space shuttle, his only purpose

was in pursuit of the engineering perfection. But his indifference to the social

consequences of his work shows well why engineering ethics is needed [48].

Efficiency, as the most technical value, is believed as the foundation of

technological neutrality. Efficiency can be said to be the ratio between the amount of

function fulfillment and effort where the amount of function fulfillment stands for the

effectiveness. Engineers are likely to suffer from the conundrum of efficiency and

effectiveness. Nevertheless, with these values, they maintain competitiveness and

technical breakthroughs can be achieved. Mitcham defines engineering design as “a

systematic effort to save effort” [9, p.225]. The problem is that efficiency is context-

dependent and circumstantial. Winner also mentions that historically, technologies have

not always increased efficiency [49]. Of important note, technology have required

occasional sacrifices of efficiency. He emphasizes the importance of paying attention to

the meaning of activities such as design and arrangement in evaluating technology.

2.3.1.2 External Values of Technology

As the values that are commensurate with social meanings of technology,

external values are defined as the values “that are related to effects of technology on

other practices” [48, p.33]. These values are pertained to many facets: aesthetic, social,

cultural, political, economic, etc [47]. The examples of safety, health, and sustainability

are categorized as this type.

“Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public”

[50]. The first rule of practice of the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE)

arouses attention to the external values of technology. People’s safety and health must

be considered when engineers practice their knowledge or create a technology.

Otherwise,

the results can be disastrous and this is why blind enthusiasm of engineers must be

alerted. To a certain extent, the values of safety and health constitute public welfare.

Given that the ultimate goal of technology is public interest and welfare, these values of

technology can be the second to none. Sustainability is mainly about the environmental

responsibility [48]. The environmental exploitation of modern and contemporary

technology had been connived by capitalism and now, it became a subject to be

condemned by the conscientious citizens of a society. Recently, capitalism itself seems to

depend more on environmental values for the profitability [2].

The two spheres of technology are not close systems. Likewise, the two types of

technological values are not exclusive. Internal values are transformed to external values

by engineers and designers. Reciprocally, external values are conveyed to internal values

again by users and societies.

2.3.1.3 Values of Information and Communications Technology

The values of information and communications technology (ICT) can be specified

further. Among many values that Neira presents, there are accessibility and versatility for

the internal values of ICT. Accessibility refers to both physical and cognitive meanings.

The first generation computers, for example, were not only too expensive to own

personally but also too difficult to operate for the lay persons. Then, the accessibility was

reinforced with the commercialization of desktop computers [51]. Versatility is

concerned with the intermediary roles of ICT. Occasionally, the users employ ICTs for

different purposes other than the intended ones. The Internet, for example, was

invented initially for the exchange of information among experts with geographical

constraints. But later, it has been the locus of virtual communities in which lay users

pursue a lot more functions than just exchanging dry information.

Davis introduces two external values of ICT that are considered to be foremost

when users choose technologies to adopt: perceived usefulness and ease of use.

According to his Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), these two external values

determine individual’s behavioral intention to use a system as described in Figure 2.6

[52].

Later, with Venkatesh, he adds some interrelated social values such subjective norm and

job relevance to affect people’s decision to choose certain systems [53].

Figure 2.6. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) [54, p.20]

Friedman and van de Poel also mention 12 values to be especially important in

the domain of ICT [48,55]. Among them, values like ownership and property, privacy,

universal usability, informed consent, and identity are noticeable. Besides, an increasing

number of recent debates and studies on information security suggests another external

value of ICT.

Table 2.4. 12 Values of ICT [55]

human welfare, ownership and property, privacy,

freedom from bias, universal usability, trust, autonomy,

informed consent, accountability, identity, calmness,

environmental sustainability

2.3.1.4 Examples: Technologies for Social Values

Mesthene tells that technology can contribute to the social values either “by

bringing some previously unattainable goal within the realm of choice” or “by making

some values easier to implement than heretofore” [56, p.76]. Especially, ICT, with the

internal values of accessibility and versatility, has the absolute strength in performing

intermediary roles for the universal values of technology, that is, public interest and

welfare.

Unlike U.S. or other developed countries, poor people in many underdeveloped

countries cannot afford traditional bank services. So the movement of micro-finance

such as Grameen Bank in Bangladesh made a global sensation. And there is a case that

the mobile technology plays a major role in the movement. M-PESA, meaning “mobile

cash”, is an innovative money transfer service via mobile phone text message for Kenyan

unbanked population. A mobile phone user can send any amount of money directly to

another mobile phone user with the service. The M-PESA account at Safaricom, the

communication service provider, replaces the traditional bank account. Users can

deposit or withdraw at any designated dealers in the neighborhood [57]. With M-PESA,

those people in Kenya are now able to enjoy a nationwide financial system and, as a

result, their economic welfare has been improved.

Mobile phone text message is also used for public health in Kenya. There was a

clinical trial in which HIV infected adults were treated with the antiretroviral therapy

(ART). During the treatment period, some of the patients received mobile phone text

messages once a week from the medical clinics and were asked to respond with how

they were doing with the therapy. For comparison, patients’ adherence to the therapy

was significantly improved with the text messages [58].

2.3.2 Technology and Ethics

The paradox of technology is that it is always praised for its functional utility,

or always held in contempt because of its irritating neutrality, although it has

never ceased to introduce a history of enfoldings, detours, drifts, openings

and translations that abolish the idea of function as much as that of

neutrality [59, p.255].

Technology is not a mere means to an end and its values are involved directly or

indirectly with the formulation and changes of a society. Accordingly, engineering is seen

as the application of related knowledge that has to be accompanied by the exercise of

judgment of engineers [60,61].

Heidegger argues that technology is “a mode of revealing”, and the acts of

revealing in modern society isolates ethical values from the genuine technology that

originates in ancient techne¯ [8,12]. To Aristotle, techne¯ connotes human expertise in

production, thus, professional ethics is inherent in technology [11]. Intentional effort to

redeem ethical values is required.

2.3.2.1 Ethics

The Ethics, however, is a work of practical science. What that means is that

the characteristic aim of studying ethics is not the acquisition of knowledge

about action but action itself. [11, p.xxvii].

To some scholars, ethics is necessarily irrational and arbitrary due to “its

impossible conceit of impartiality” [62, p.103]. Humans, however, still need ethics for a

practical reason: to find a path to the correct decision out of conflicting values. Vesilind

defines ethics as “the study of systematic methodologies which, when guided by

individual moral values, can be useful in making value-laden decisions”, where the moral

values are “those standards or patterns of choice that guide us toward satisfaction,

fulfillment or meaning” [63, pp.290-292]. For Gonzalez, ethics is related to the

“justification of human activity” and morals is conceived as “the study of the actual way

of behavior of individuals, groups and societies” [47, p.16].

There are two major types of modern ethical theories: deontology and

consequentialism [64]. Deontology is basically about right and wrong. In deontological

ethics, people are expected to abide by particular rules and fulfill obligations. Codes of

ethics of many organizations are good instances of deontology [63,64].

Consequentialism, on the other hand, focuses on the consequences of an action. This

type is largely favored by utilitarian economists as they emphasize choices to obtain the

greatest amount of utility [64]. Due to the emphases on results and goals,

consequentialism takes the approach of teleology in a wider spectrum [65].

2.3.2.2 Ethics of Technology

Some scholars say that Aristotle’s primary concern regarding to ethics is “human

expertise rather than moral excellence” [11, p.xxxviii]. Such emphasis of being practical

to ethical issues of technology implies the essence of technology. Along with the values,

ethics of technology can also be analyzed upon the idea of duality of technology. That is,

two types of ethical issues that are involved with either technical reason or social

meanings can be identified. Congruently with the premise, Gonzalez names them

“endogenous” and “exogenous” ethics of technology [47].

Endogenous ethics of technology deals with the internal values of technology.

The value of efficiency, for example, is a matter of technical reason and initially immune

to ethical considerations. But when humans take it for the creation of a technology, it

enters an ethical setting [47]. There is the notion that engineers have to be aware of

their engagement in ethics as early as they act on technical reason. Even though they

stick to abstract knowledge and processes of engineering, their will is already influenced

by the society that they inhabit.

Exogenous ethics of technology, on the one hand, deals with the external values

of technology. When a technology is invented and introduced to a society, ethical

considerations regarding the values of safety and health, for example, take place in

addition to other legal and regulatory ones. The exogenous perspective of technology

ethics appears to be diverse among societies as the criteria of acceptance of

technological values depend on diverse historical, cultural, and/or religious backgrounds

[47]. A technology can be ethically right to use in a society while it is not in another, like

the automobile in Amish communities.

Mitcham calls for a new approaches to ethics of technology in two respects; He

believes that the traditional analyses failed to adequately account for human will toward

technology and the relationship between various human institutions and technology [9].

Mitcham’s concept of a duty plus respicere refers to “a professional obligation to expand

design thinking in order to take more aspects of reality into account” [66,67, p.113].

Ihde’s notion of the “designer fallacy” saying that “a designer can design into a

technology, its purposes and uses” also implies an engineer’s professional responsibility

to the society that he or she inhabits [68, p.121]. Ethics of technology is in need of

further deliberations that can incorporate the complex characteristics of technology

itself as well as the interrelation between technology and society.

2.4 Technology Development

As early as the 1950s, a French sociologist Jacques Ellul described the relationship

between technology and society as one-way influence in which technology dominates

social life [69]. But, de Vries asserts that “technology is totally a human-originated

phenomenon and therefore, humans have full control over it”. He says that the problem

is just people’s indifference, neglect, and dependency on experts [15, p.77].

Based upon the words of Marcuse and other postmodern thinkers, Feenberg

denies the single path of technical rationality for technological development and calls for

philosophical reflection on social control [2,43]. Here, social control means human

intervention in technology. While Marx stresses that technology is thought to obviate

the need for political ideas and practices, social values embodied in technologies denies

the instrumentalism of technology [39]. Rather, technologies are “frameworks for ways

of life” that are in desperate need of human intervention [16, p.14].

2.4.1 Drivers of Technology Development

Humans rely on technology to fulfill their practical needs of everyday life. Thus,

the basic motive for technological reification or invention must be the desire to

overcome the limitations of human faculty. Rapp introduces three main motives for

humans to develop technology: basic human need to survive, pursuit of power and

control, and extension of intellectual capacities [15,17]. Obviously, humans have been

inventing and crafting tools for the ultimate purpose of survival against harsh nature.

Those tools are mainly aimed at amplifying physical abilities of humans. Then, with the

accumulation of intellect and capital, the intermediary role of technology as means of

power and control that support social systems and hegemony is emphasized. The

emergence of sophisticated and complex modern technologies now blurs demarcation of

means and ends of technology. Consequently, technology per se becomes a constituent

of society, in which technology affects all [21].

Autonomous modern technologies diffused two deterministic beliefs in

technology development: “technical necessity dictates the path of development, and

that path is discovered through the pursuit of efficiency” [2, p.77]. Thus, technical

rationality engaging with perfection and efficiency was believed to be the pure driver of

technology development. But, Feenberg sees technology development as “the passage

from abstract technical beginnings to concrete outcomes” and refuses the beliefs [40,

p.44]:

We have the same kind of problem in understanding the development of

technology that Kuhn had with scientific development: progress is not

reducible to a succession of rational choices because criteria of rationality are

themselves in flux [8, p.37].

Instead, as Kuhn takes the notion of “paradigms”, Feenberg introduced the

concept of the technical codes that reflects social values [8,70]. Within the context of

contemporary societies, technology development is not driven only by efficiency or

other technical reasons but also by various social motives, and occasionally, these social

motives even require sacrifices of efficiency itself [49]. The fact constitutes under-

deterministic character of contemporary technology. Unlikely to existing theory of

modernity, efficiency does not solely account for the path of technology development,

but many social forces play together in the path [8]. From this point, further analyses of

technology development emerge.

Regarding instrumentality of technology, questions of technological means and

ends still remain in the center of technological discourse especially in regard to

humanistic and ethical issues. Regarding the concept of the “system” and the “lifeworld”,

in which technical rationality and social meanings of technology are juxtaposed,

Habermas elucidates two spheres that technology connotes. Technical rationality

enables a technology to function properly in technological ways, but at the same time,

every technology has social meanings in the context of a society [44]. These two spheres

are present again in Marcuse’s concept of the “natural world of science” and the

“lifeworld of experience” [43]. Feenberg calls them the “technical context of rationality”

and the “lifeworld context of meaning” that are “radically different but essentially

interlinked” [8, p.168].

Table 2.5. Drivers of Technology Development

Two Spheres (Habermas)

of Technology System / Lifeworld

(Marcuse)

Natural World of Science / Lifeworld of Experience

(Feenberg)

Technical Context of Rationality /

Lifeworld Context of Meaning

Values of Technology Internal Values / External Values

These two spheres of technology represent the duality of technology which has

been introduced earlier in this study, and it seems certain that, in fact, both are strong

drivers of technology development. The concept of two spheres of technology, or duality

of technology, is also commensurate with two types of technological value: internal and

external. Sometimes, technology develops in pursuit of internal values such as efficiency

or/and technical perfection. At the same time, technology is also pursued for the sake of

external values such as money and power. For both cases, apparently, human will to

technology matters.

2.4.2 Human Will and Technology Development

Human action is ultimately not determined by reason. There is something

more fundamental, more basic, more real - namely the will. This is

witnessed by the fact of incontinence; knowing what is good on a rational

level, human beings nevertheless often do something else. The challenge of

such a phenomenon is heightened by the manifestation of technology as

volition. [9, p.266].

The presence of volition as a constituent of technology reification provides two

strains of philosophy of technology, engineering and humanities, with a meaningful

intersection. Even in engineering philosophy of technology, human will could not be

excluded from forming a technology, but presides the creation and adoption of

technology. By designers, engineers, and users, not only technical reason but also social

values are employed in technology. In humanities philosophy of technology, the

implications of human will in technology are even greater. They put more emphases on

the interplay among humans, societies, and technologies.

Within ethical settings, Aristotle considers being incontinent as doing something

wrong by desire although he or she knows that it is wrong [11]. Given the potency of

contemporary technology, the problem of incontinence is a real threat to public interest.

The threat becomes critical as technology advances. Thus, intelligent human control over

technology is required. According to Mitcham, there are three preconditions for the full

exercise of such intelligent control: “(1) knowing what we should do with technology, the

end or goal toward which technological activity ought to be directed; (2) knowing the

consequences of technological actions before the actual performance of such actions;

and (3) acting on the basis of or in accord with both types of knowledge - in other words,

translating intelligence into active volition” [9, p.260].

As mentioned earlier, the acts of intelligent control are to be based on rational

and neutral decisions at least when engineers and designers stay within the internal

values of technology. When the external values of technology intervenes as it happens

all the time in real world, however, situation gets more complex. One instance of

entangled values of technology and human manipulation can be found in technology

entrepreneurship.

2.4.2.1 An Example: Technology Entrepreneurship

The economic potentiality stemming from the social values that are immanent in

technologies makes technology a great opportunity for entrepreneurs. Technology

entrepreneurship germinates in this potentiality. As the acts of spontaneous creation

and economic utilization of technology, in a sense, technology entrepreneurship is a

legitimate apparatus that rationalizes the pursuit of social goals through technology.

Mitcham’s analyses of technology as volition, that is, desire, motivation or movement,

and consent, are all present in technology entrepreneurship. Furthermore, in fact, the

acute tension and ambivalence between technology itself and its society, that is, the

critical interaction between the two spheres of technology, can be found.

Since the 1960s, the shift in U.S. policy in favor of intellectual property and

technological advancement expanded federal financial support for university research

[71]. Although empirical evidence of direct effects on the increase in university

entrepreneurial activity is inadequate, the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 provided incentives

for universities to enhance commercial exploitation of their technology [72]. Nowadays,

universities with high technologies and young engineers and scientists are the

foundation of technology entrepreneurship.

After reviewing 93 journal articles written about technology entrepreneurship

since 1970, Bailetti proposed a definition of technology entrepreneurship:

Technology entrepreneurship is an investment in a project that assembles

and deploys specialized individuals and heterogeneous assets that are

intricately related to advances in scientific and technological knowledge for

the purpose of creating and capturing value for a firm [73, p.9].

Technology entrepreneurship is distinguished from other entrepreneurship types in its

dependency toward scientific and technological change [73]. The opportunities are

fostered through scientific or technological innovations in technology entrepreneurship.

Certainly, technology itself constitutes the core of technology entrepreneurship [74].

The case of Silicon Valley and Route 128 shows the dependency well. With a

torrent of military spending during the Cold War and ample supplies of talented

manpower from distinguished universities around, both regions became the centers of

electronics entrepreneurship. But out of serious setbacks due to changes of the

international situation in the mid 1980s, they experienced different fates. Silicon Valley

was based on the semiconductor, which were used in every electronic product while

Route

128 on the minicomputer, which were relatively limited in use. Consequently, Silicon

Valley could be able to enjoy the prosperity of today [75].

Here, technical perfection or advancement cannot solely explain the counter

results of the two regions. The success or failure of a region cannot be attributed to a

single element of technical reason or social values. Both spheres of technology or both

types of internal and external values that technology connotes are intermingled and

affect each other. Feenberg calls for the necessity to distinguish between “the objective

knowledge of nature embodied in technologies and the form of its concrete social

realization in this or that actual technological device” [40, p.34]. He asserts:

The process of invention is not however purely technical: the abstract

technical elements must be inserted into a context of social constraints

which defines their functional environment and their relation to other

technologies. Technologies, as developed ensembles of technical elements,

are thus greater than the sum of their parts. They meet social criteria of

purpose in the very selection and arrangement of the intrinsically neutral

elements from which they are built up [40, p.34].

Apparently, Heidegger’s aspiration for “free relation to technology” is obviated in

the field of technology entrepreneurship. No absolute “free will” exists, either.

Technology entrepreneurs spare no effort to manipulate and control technology better

than contenders. Success and failure largely depend on how good they are at discerning

and realizing social values in technology as much as on how good they are at technology

itself. Human will presides the creation of technology. By designers, engineers, and

users, not only technical reason but also social values are employed in technology. And

an entrepreneur orchestrates all the resources and processes to accomplish desirable

“concrete” outcomes.

2.5 Technology and Society

Heretofore, the duality of technology that consists of the two spheres of

technical reason and social meanings has been elucidated. According to scholars of the

field, it is certain that technology stays in between theory and practice. Feenberg defines

the relation of the two spheres of technology as “an entangled hierarchy” and argues

that the two spheres must be understood together as a whole [8]. He concludes:

Technical creation involves interaction between reason and experience.

Knowledge of nature is required to make a working device. This is the

element of technical activity we think of as rational. But the device must

function in a social world, and the lessons of experience in that world

influence design. [...] [There is] no inviolate god creating technology and

society from the outside [8, pp.xvii-xxiii].

Since Aristotle’s notion of practicality of technology, Dunne assumes that “the

gulf which had separated theory and production for the Greeks is now eliminated” and

says, “praxis is assimilated to technique” [24, p.175]. Unlike the ancient time in which

scientists of epistem¯ e¯ could be distinguished from craftsmen of techne¯, in the

modern societies, technological values are permeated everywhere and even control the

framework of scientific knowledge [24]. The intrusion of social meanings to technical

reason or mingling of the two spheres of technology has been stimulated by modern

technologies and defines the relationship between contemporary technology and

society.

2.5.1 Being Aware of Value Conflict in Technology

The conflict between internal values such as effectiveness and efficiency is a

usual phenomenon for engineers and can be solved or compromised within the sphere

of technical reason. When the external values are associated with the conflict, however,

situations become ethical. The first step for engineers to be responsible and ethical is to

be aware of these situations happening in the real world.

The first commercially-produced bicycle, the hobby horse or “pedestrian

accelerator”, was popularized in England in the late 1860s. As shown in Figure 2.7, the

earlier bicycle of that time had two wheels of similar sizes so that a rider could balance

easily. Then, the bicycle was began to be used in racing sport and it brought innovations

to bicycle design and technology [76]. To add more speed, the front wheel got bigger

and the rear wheel smaller than the earlier ones as seen in Figure 2.8.

Figure 2.7. Earlier Bicycle (www.historywebsite.co.uk)

Figure 2.8. Racing Bicycle (thegraphicsfairy.com)

New materials other than wood and metal were employed. Instead, as a result,

riding a bicycle became rather acrobatic activity requiring higher skill of balancing of

professional athletes [76]. The question is what the bicycle is used for: racing or

transportation? There is conflict between the values of speed to demonstrate athletic

prowess and the safety to travel a long distance. The invention of bicycle rendered new

values in a society and the social values steered the development of bicycle in that

society.

Even today, for example, the conflict can be witnessed in sweatshops of some

underdeveloped countries mainly in Asia and Central-South America. The young women

hired by multi-national clothing companies work more hours and are paid a lot less

money. Working conditions are often found to be harsh and dangerous. So the

sweatshops are condemned by protesters in developed countries. Here, technology, in

combinations of economic interests, is implicated with the violation of human welfare

again. Meanwhile, engineers also need to be cautious about the ambivalence of a social

phenomenon, especially when they decide someone else’s welfare. On the contrary to

one’s paternalistic prejudication, these young women may prefer working at sweatshops

to living in rural villages. Getting out of the extreme poverty could be closer to their

welfare than having no chance [77,78].

The case of surrogacy requires another contemplation of what is ethical. As

technology advances, human ability to intervene in procreation increases. As a result,

the surrogacy contract between different groups of people becomes prevalent in

contemporary societies. If the welfare of both the rich who want babies and the poor

who want financial rewards are fulfilled, can commercialization of childbirth be

conceived as ethical? Or is surrogacy to be criticized for degrading women by

instrumentalizing their bodies and for violating human dignity? Certainly, some values

override others [4]. And of course, most values can change as societies change.

2.5.2 Policy Need in Technology

When we admit the fact that there are more than a single path of efficiency or

technical rationality for technology development, and when we admit the duality of

technology, neutrality of technology becomes a myth. Given the huge impact of

technology on human societies, the absence of neutrality is attributed to the necessity

for policy and regulation [21].

As Latour expresses technology as a “parliament of things”, contemporary

technology, in certain aspects, became a source of domination, social struggles, and

conflicts of interest [79]. Furthermore, technical prowess of our time resulting in cutting-

edge technologies surpasses systematic readiness to govern them [56]. Winner views

technology as “ways of building order in our world” [49, p.58]. Societies choose

structures for technologies and reciprocally, technologies manipulate every corner of

societies. He repeats a maxim running down the strain: “what matters is not technology

itself, but the social or economic system in which it is embedded” [49, p.53]. Inherently,

technology causes value conflicts. And the conflicts are to be solved by social means of

agreement and decision. The reason that policy is needed in the field of technology lies

in the fact.

Through the recent history of mankind, science and technology have been

revered for enhanced productivity and material prosperity. Under the Capitalist system,

its exploitation of the nature and human lives has been connived. Schuurman argues

that politics is led by the ideology of science and technology, and as a result, leaves no

room for the democratic consideration about technology development [1]. The public is

excluded from the process of technological decision making and enforced unilaterally to

adapt to new environments created by the decisions.

Heidegger condemns technological exploitation of the nature and humans. He

believes that modern science and technology does not, of itself, ensure the

enhancement of human justice or happiness, but can be instrumentalized for the

domination of nature and human beings themselves [24]. Marcuse and Habermas

emphasize the necessity of establishing the guidelines for technology development that

are congruent with democracy [1]. Now, the discussion enters the milieu of public

interest out of the relationship between technology and society.

2.6 Technology and Public Interest

[The market] is a useful means of facilitating the flow of goods from producer

to consumer; but it becomes a social evil when it is allowed to govern the

technology of production [80, p.223].

Mesthene argues that the role of technology policy is to ensure equal distribution

of the opportunities created by new technologies to all segments of population of the

society [56]. Public interest in technological perspectives is basically about opening the

path and sharing the benefits of technology development. If technology is governed only

by a profit system, public good will be encroached [21].

Knowledge intensiveness and complexities of contemporary technologies render

structural restrictions on the citizen participation in technology and perpetuation of

social tendency toward dependency on experts. As technology advances, lay people

confront higher barriers to technological affairs. But any decisions about technology

eventually affect every member of a society and therefore, every member of a society

has a right and duty to be directly involved in making those decisions [49]. Searching for

the ways of governing technology and protecting public interest in the processes of

technology development is necessary.

Harris defines the public in the aspects of technology as “any person or group

vulnerable to the effects of technology, through lack of political or financial power,

information, technical training or time for deliberation” [61, p.322]. And at least in the

domain of technology, engineers are responsible for the public’s vulnerability:

When a class of experts becomes divorced from the public needs they are

called upon to serve, then, says Dewey, their knowledge is private knowledge.

As far as the public is concerned, this is no knowledge at all [81, pp.99-100].

One of the duties and privileges of engineer is to realize social values out of technical

reason, that is, the external values of technology out of the internal values.

2.6.1 Aspirations for Self-Management

I would hate to think that my work as a writer could not be done without a

direct dependence on strip-mined coal. How could I write conscientiously

against the rape of nature if I were, in the act of writing, implicated in the

rape? For the reason, it matters to me that my writing, is done in the

daytime, without electric light [82, p.282].

Modern technology consolidated technocracy in which social polarization was

aggravated. To a certain extent, Heidegger’s apprehension of exploitation of humanities

and destruction of natural orders was realized. As a result, social movements denying

materialization and utilization of such inviolate values for technocratic ends set by small

groups of technical experts, politicians, and corporate behemoths held. Earlier, Feenberg

introduced the French May Events of 1968 as an example [2];

As a series of civil unrest erupted with nationwide demonstrations, labor strikes,

and occupation of universities and factories, the French May Events went out of control

of the government. Termination of the regime of de Gaulle and diffusion of New Leftism

in European and other western countries, however, were not only achievements of the

movement. At the same time, the movement was led by students and workers to

redeem their dignity. It was not just a socialist protest against capitalist control of the

economy and nation, but a collective rejection of technocracy and administrative

bureaucracy in which the public became a subject to be ruled passively by technical

imperatives [2]. What people wanted was a society of self-management, through which

they could redefine the idea of progress. They wanted the progress to be what they

wanted it to be [2].

Heidegger’s ideal of a “free relation to technology” advocates a non-addicted

selective acceptance of a technology so that one can be free of its existence at any time.

He warns that unconditional acceptance of modern technology will have people be

subjugated to technology and exploited [12]. According to Thomson, the Amish people

seem to be closest to the ideal. He praised the Amish people for realizing Heidegger’s

ideal by leaving their cellular phones in the outhouse overnight, for example [46]. The

lesson that the Amish people implies here is the exertion of control over technology.

They do not insist unconditional denial of modern technologies, but try to optimize

technical functionality with their cultural values. They actively regulate the technologies

to use as well as when, how, and why they use the technologies. The Amish people

believe technology is value-laden and thus, can be a potential disruption to the prime

values such as simplicity and humility of their culture and communities [83]. The Amish

way to deal with technology is an action striving for technologically independent society,

in which people can choose and manage their ways of living for themselves.

Again, in the center of the question lies technological neutrality. Those people

who believe the neutrality hold instrumentality of technology and concede a society is

immune to technologies that inhabit it. Rapp argues, however, modern technology with

overwhelming power requires human control [17]. Mitcham also warns that

uncontrolled power will bring a disaster. Technology is not neutral any more [9]. But in

contrary to reality, the public is more likely to leave technological affairs in the hands of

experts [2]. De Vries deplores that the problem is not human ability to control over

technology but public indifference toward technological decisions [15]. It is time for

public to destroy the old beliefs of technological development led and decided by

engineering necessity and efficiency. Given the power and influence that modern

technology bears to the lives of people, technology must be conceived as a social

institution to democratize as well [2].

2.6.2 Citizen Participation and Democratization of Technology

The modern world develops a technology increasingly alienated from

everyday experience. This is an effect of capitalism that restricts control of

design to a small dominant class and its technical servants. The alienation

has the advantage of opening up vast new territories for exploitation and

invention, but there is a corresponding loss of wisdom in the application of

technological power [8, p.xvii].

Sandel calls for the active participation of the citizen to construct the society,

which is “pertinent to human well-being” [4]. Technology is not an exception. Even for

those who are opposed to such perspectives of technical determinism or technocracy,

there is no doubt that technology is a major source of power and money. The reason

that technology is to be involved with the citizen can be found here. But again,

knowledge intensiveness and complexities of contemporary technology inevitably bring

greater dependence on the experts and limited devices. And this is a critical impediment

to the citizen’s understanding and participation in technology [49,56]. Then, how can it

be resolved? The answer is simple: at least in regard to making technological decisions

that may affect the society, experts have to share their knowledge and information with

the public and the citizens have to request legitimate opportunities to be informed and

participate in the process [21].

Unlike many experts of other domains, technology experts or engineers show a

paucity of occupational exchanges with the public, and even seem to enjoy their own

esoteric world of technical jargon. If technology experts are not open to the public,

however, technology is likely to be steered by the demands of money and power, and

the isolated community of experts is likely to be perverted, too. Eventually, not just the

citizens but also the experts will be mutilated [8].

Enlarging citizen participation promises to provide an adequate ways for

(democratic) societies to cope with the effects of existing technologies and to

improve mechanisms for anticipating and evaluating particular consequences

of new technologies [84, p.248].

Those scholars who emphasizes citizen participation in technology or

technological decision making are agreed on the idea of “democratization of

technology”. Democratization of technology is about redeeming the social values of the

public and put them back in technological orders and, thus, incorporating public interest

into technology [8]. Democracy is to empower legitimate participation of the citizens in

constructing social structures and technology itself is a social structure [85]. Hence,

technology is subject to be democratized and the citizens have to be given the legitimacy

to manage their technologies for themselves. Democratization of technology can happen

in various phases of technology development such as designing, adopting, using, and

assessing. Some empirical examples can be found;

Famous Dutch Science Shops originated in the early 1970s. These Shops nested in

universities and were operated by faculties and students with various scientific expertise

to share their knowledge and intellectual properties with the public. The goals were “to

reorient science toward the social needs of workers and disadvantaged groups” and to

fight the interest of social behemoths [84, p.253].

The dispute over Minnesota’s new power-line is often compared to the

MacKenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry. Both happened in the 1970s, these two socio-

technological events epitomize how the process of technological decision making can be

more democratic in a given structure of society. In Minnesota, U.S., the utility companies

to construct new transmission lines across the state and farmers to protect their

farmlands from any potential dangers could not reach an agreement. The state

authorities and businessmen defined the crux of dispute as the health and safety effects

of direct current power-line and confined the issue to scientific resolutions. Blaming the

conflict on farmers’ ignorance of science, they adduced some results of research and

pushed ahead the construction. But the farmers and protesters condemned the decision

as misusing science to confuse matters and lacking true understanding of the essence of

the conflict, that is, the real life world of local farmers [86].

On the contrary, even in the context of the global “energy crisis”, Tom Berger, the

chair of the MacKenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry of Canada, tried to understand both direct

and indirect influences that the gas pipeline across northern territory would have on the

ways of life of the region. He tried to weigh the testimony of both experts and lay people

and encouraged understanding between non-indigenous and indigenous people. Public

awareness and support formed and as a result, a ten-year moratorium on the

construction was recommended [85,87].

2.7 Summary

Chapter Two provided a brief summary of relevant literature that gave ideas on

the discipline of technology, values and ethical issues of technology, the relationship

between technology and society, and policy need in technology. Technology had been

defined and the constituents of technology reification were introduced. Discipline of

technology, consequently, could be seen as the field of study of technology, which, as

being distinctive from that of science, mainly deals with, but not limited to, the

reification of technology and the relationship between technology and society. Also, the

concept of duality of technology, which consisted of the two spheres of technical reason

and social meanings, was delineated to describe the relationship between technology

and society as well as suggesting the momentum to deliver a new way of dealing with

technology. The next chapter goes further about empirical measuring the related

concepts and examining hypotheses.

CHAPTER 3. FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY

Regarding methodology, the study proceeded forward two major goals that

would lead to answers for the research questions: (1) figuring out the mechanism

through which technology develops and (2) measuring the relationship between

understanding of technology and will or attitude toward technology. These goals posited

the assumptions that human intervention in technology, that is, participation in the

process of technology and control over technology, is critical to direct technology toward

public interest, and once the mechanism of technology development is described

successfully, human intervention in the domain of technology can be executed in more

efficient and effective ways. To be clear, the term “technology development” in this

study refers to a socio-technological phenomenon that shows a series of technological

events such as invention, adoption, diffusion, modification, transition, and even

obsolescence in a society.

Once we know that one kind of issue leads to changes in another, we can put

mechanisms in place to deal with those changes. It is a precept - a working

principle [10, p.11].

3.1 Structure of the Study

As mentioned earlier, the study bore two questions: (1) how technology can be

developed toward public interest and (2) what is the relationship between

understanding of technology and human attitude (will) toward technology. In response

to the research questions, the study employed mixed methods of qualitative and

quantitative approaches. According to the incompatibility thesis, combining qualitative

and quantitative methods is inappropriate due to epistemological differences. Denzin,

however, believes methodological eclecticism to be an essential characteristic of mixed

methods research; Researchers can gain deeper understanding of a phenomenon by

selecting and integrating appropriate techniques from multiple methods [88]. Pawson

also considers an inquiry as

“an amalgam of principle and practice” [89, p.55].

As shown in Table 3.1 below, a qualitative study was conducted based on the

methods of grounded theory, phenomenology, and phronetic generalization to describe

the mechanism of technology development. And a quantitative study was conducted as

well with survey questionnaire for the other research question. As post-positivists

emphasize, one major role of the researcher must be “promoting dialogue and engaging

with diverse perspectives, often through the use of multiple methodologies” [10, p.10].

So was this study.

Table 3.1. Structure of the Study

Research Mechanism of Relationship between

Topic Technology Development Understanding of Technology

and Attitude toward

Technology

Research

Approach

Qualitative Quantitative

Methods Grounded Theory,

Phenomenology,

Phronetic Generalization

Survey Questionnaire

3.2 A Qualitative Approach: The Mechanism of Technology Development

The merit of a qualitative approach is to stay closer to the empirical world. For

this study, a qualitative approach was to figure out the mechanism through which

technology develops. Among a number of methods of the approach, grounded theory,

phenomenology, and phronetic generalization were utilized. The rationale of employing

a qualitative approach for the topic was the underlying assumption in technology: in the

essence of technology, the duality of technical reason and social meanings exists. With

the interplay between the two spheres of objectivity and subjectivity, technology

including its development is an interwined and multifaceted matter that inhabit human

societies. Therefore, increased depth of understanding of the practical cases and

situations was preferred to the statistical generalizability.

When one focuses only on technological inherency of abstract knowledge and

technical functionality, he or she would be able to follow the positivists’ view that reality

is fixed and truth is unique [90]. When one focuses on the relationship between

technology and society, however, multiple versions of reality await. The research

anticipated by the study was rather guided by the constructivists’ view that people

construct the multiple realities and those constructions affect their lives and interactions

with others [91]. The mechanism of technology development was to be identified base

on the ground of constructivsm that pursues the epistemological considerations focusing

individual perception, then on the ground of constructionism that pursues the collective

meanings of actual phenomena [91,92].

Adhering to the constructivists’ view, however, did not necessarily imply the

denial of empirical truths in technology, but the acknowledgment of social influences in

technology. As Thomas Kuhn argues that the paradigms of scientific knowledge are

socially constructed, no knowledge can be abstract from human environment in any

absolute sense [70]. In this regard, view points of the study were consistent with

postmodernism and human beings became a major variable acting in the domain of

technology.

3.2.1 Mixed Qualitative Methods

Upon those guidelines, methods of grounded theory, phenomenology, and

phronetic generalization were borrowed. More details of each method and how it was

employed to fit into the context of the study are followed;

3.2.1.1 Grounded Theory

Once concepts are related through statements of relationship into an

explanatory theoretical framework, the research findings move beyond

conceptual ordering to theory. [...] A theory usually is more than a set of

findings; it offers an explanation about phenomena [93, p.22].

Ultimately, the goal of this qualitative study was to build an explanation about

how technology develops. Thus, the study was about the mechanism of technology

development that consisted of various concepts subjugated to the essence of

technology. Basically, qualitative grounded theory shares the constructivists’ view on the

world, but at the same time, the theory strives for objectivity to provide researchers

with some standardization and rigor [91]. Glaser emphasizes that grounded theory, as a

total methodological package, is “a specific methodology on how to get from

systematically collecting data to producing a multivariate conceptual theory” [94, p.836].

Regarding to this contradiction of subjectivity and objectivity, Charmaz warns that “a

constructivist grounded theory may remain at a more intuitive, impressionistic level than

an objectivist approach” [95, p.526]. This study conceives the hindrance and, as Patton

concludes, defines grounded theory as fundamentally incorporating objectivity while still

maintaining constructivists’ insight [91]. Grounded theory requires to be systematic and

creative simultaneously:

It is important to maintain a balance between the qualities of objectivity

and sensitivity when doing analysis. Objectivity enables the researcher to

have confidence that his or her findings are a reasonable, impartial

representation of a problem under investigation, whereas sensitivity

enables creativity and the discovery of new theory from data [93, p.53].

According to Patton, the focus of grounded theory is not on the content of

theory, but on the process of generating theory. It takes the researcher to the results and

findings that are closer to the empirical world [91]. Unlike deductive generation of

theory based on a priori assumptions, grounded theory is rather a posteriori, in which

concepts and underlying pattern are elicited out of data. Thus, the method is constantly

modifiable as data accumulate and collection and analysis of data coincide [91,94].

Grounded theory is an inductive methodology for sure, but Glaser admits that

some deduction is present also. He argues that the deductive strategy of theoretical

sampling can enhance systematic collection of data to compare. “Deductions for

theoretical sampling fosters better sources of data, hence better grounded inductions.

This is a pattern of reverberating induction fostering deduction and so forth,” says Glaser

[96, p.43].

Patton explains that there are three kinds of qualitative data collection: “(1) in-

depth, open-ended interviews, (2) direct observation, and (3) written documents” [91,

p.4]. Unlike many other qualitative inquiries, the study did not collect data by either

interviews or observation. Instead, various written sources about practical and

historical cases that were related to technologies were employed for constant

comparison and analysis.

From the scholarship of critical theory of technology, theoretical concepts and

statements were considered to facilitate collecting data as well as to understand and

systematically interpret what was happening beyond what was seen in the domain of

technology. At the same time, having a specific strain of literature to guide the inquiry

was also worrisome as it could impose biases and stunt the advantage of grounded

theory approach. To mitigate such worries, the inquiry stayed within practical cases and

any existing concepts were reconsidered toward a new set of explanation.

Grounded theory proceeds with multiple works: data collection, constant

comparative analysis, coding, memoing, sorting, theoretical outline, and writing, through

which conceptualization of the data into categories and their properties, overall

integration, and formalization of a substantive theory can be achieved out of ambiguity

and confusion [96,97]. Due to the aspect that this study was conducted with a

preliminary literature review and specific research topics, it might not be fully complied

with the methodology of grounded theory. However, strengths of grounded theory, that

is, the freedom of conceptualization leading to a theory and methodological rigor rooted

in systematic analysis of practical data enriched the study.

3.2.1.2 Phenomenology

We must start from what is known. But things are known in two senses:

known to us and known absolutely [11, p.6].

Among various phenomenological approaches, commonality lies in “a focus on

exploring how human beings make sense of experience and transform experience into

consciousness, both individually and as shared meaning” [91, p.104]. While grounded

theory still maintains the attention to objectivity, subjectivity is mainly emphasized in

phenomenology. According to Patton, there are two implications of the

phenomenological perspective: the first one is knowing what people experience and

how they interpret it while the other one is methodological [91]. Within the same

context, the study was conducted with such a phenomenological perspective, but again,

did not committed effort directly to relative techniques such as participant observation

or in-depth interviewing that are normal in conducting phenomenological inquiries.

The mechanism of technology development in this study was to be built upon

congruent theoretical achievements of various scholars and secondary data of practical

cases were to be analyzed. Thereby, the scope and result of the study would not be

confined to a person or small group of people. Though, the phenomenological

perspective, inclusive of phenomenological philosophy and analysis, was important for

the study to deal with people’s experiences with the domain of technology and to

discern the interplay between the two spheres of technology.

One can employ a general phenomenological perspective to elucidate the

importance of using methods that capture people’s experience of the world

without conducting a phenomenological study that focuses on the essence of

shared experience [91, p.107].

3.2.1.3 Phronetic Generalization

Fischer asserts that “the social sciences, as empirical sciences of society, largely

have failed” [98, p.129]. The notion here is about “usable knowledge”. The major

problem, Spicker says, is that the social sciences “generalize about the wrong sort of

thing” [10, p.10]. The idea of phronetic generalization begins with acknowledging the

failure of existing social sciences and eager for the pragmatic research. Due to the

fallacy of causal explanation of social phenomena and the difficulties of direct

application of social science to social policy, Gans argues that a policy oriented social

science is needed [99].

Aristotle warns: The belief “that a set of true and universal principles is

somewhere waiting to be found” could be an illusion [11, p.xxxi]. Habermas queries,

“how can the promise of practical politics be redeemed without relinquishing, on the

one hand, the rigor of scientific knowledge?” [24, p.173]. As long as the concern

associates the life-world of human beings and incorporates social values, the wish to find

an absolute principle or generalization could be a fancy illusion for social scientists. In

this regard, phronetic generalization can be a reasonable alternative.

As techne¯ corresponds to technology and epistem¯ e¯ to science, Flyvbjerg

calls for phronesis¯ in social science. In comparison to other kinds of knowledge such as

techne¯ and epistem¯ e¯, phronesis¯ usually refers to wisdom, prudence or

judgment [10,100]. Like Noel expresses the concern with the question, “What should I

do in this situation?” [101], phronesis¯ is about “understanding the implications [of

an action], and making the right choices” [10, p.11]. Phronesis¯ emphasizes flexible and

practical judgment of action that can cope with uncertainty and variability of the real

life-world [10,102].

Feenberg stresses the importance of considering circumstantial differences even

in rational procedures:

But critical theorists [of technology] argue that rational, technically efficient

procedures may differ greatly in different forms of society. The notion that

rationality is socially relative makes sense only if one recognizes the extent to

which rational procedures and practices embody social values and economic

interests [40, p.20].

Likewise, Spicker argues that “the generalizations are about experience - about what

happens - rather than about theoretical relationships”, which emphasizes the

circumstantial understanding of experience [10, p.14]. He introduces three

characteristics of phronetic generalization; first, phronesis¯ , as to guide action, is

approximate; second, phronesis¯ , as being understood in a specific context, is

particular; third, phronetic generalization is done by “cross-referring (or triangulating)

experiences from different sources, without eliminating inconvenient data” [10, p.15].

Phronetic generalization is similar to grounded theory in the aspect that it has to be

tolerant of uncertainty and ambiguity.

3.2.2 Conduct of the Inquiry

The major components of qualitative research, Strauss and Corbin introduce, are

the data, analytic and interpretive procedures, and written and verbal reports [6], and

this inquiry complied with the components. While the inquiry followed the procedure of

grounded theory developed mainly by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, critical views

from phenomenology and phronetic generalization were also reflected throughout the

procedure, especially in analysis and coding.

Basically, the inquiry proceeded with a principle assumption: the mechanism

through which technology develops can be described within concepts that can be

interpreted with and subsumed under the duality of technology and critical theory of

technology. Hence, as Glaser and Strauss note that the method of grounded theory can

be employed for either verification or generation of a theory [103], the inquiry first

began as an attempt to verify the existing theories of the duality of technology and

Feenberg’s instrumentalization.

3.2.2.1 Guiding Criteria

Accordingly, although this qualitative inquiry is inductive, decent previous

scholarship of critical theory of technology was referred. As Strauss argues, the aspects

of deductions permitted by propositions can steer data collection into a further

induction [6]. To guide the inquiry to the way that was pertinent to related propositions

and beliefs, some criteria could be set on the mechanism of technology development;

•The mechanism should not be confined to a particular technology, but should be

able to embrace any technology in general.

•The mechanism should be vindicated with academic achievements of the field,

especially the scholarship of critical theory of technology.

•The mechanism should be pertinent to the concept of duality of technology,

especially the premise that social meanings as well as technical reason affect the

way how technology develops.

•The mechanism should be able to describe the interactions between technology

and

society.

•The mechanism should be corroborated by practical cases of technology in social

contexts.

•The mechanism should maintain theoretical flexibility that can incorporate

circumstantial differences.

•Based on a qualitative approach, the mechanism pursues deeper understanding of

underlying relationships or patterns in practice.

3.2.2.2 Procedures

We like to think of grounded theory as a transactional system, a method of

analysis that allows one to examine the interactive nature of events [6, p.159].

As mentioned previously, actual conduct of the inquiry conformed to the

procedure of the method of grounded theory: data collection, analysis through constant

comparison and coding, memoing and sorting, and writing up a theory.

Data collection was performed by theoretical conceptualization and sampling,

which were constant back and forth considerations between deductive and inductive

approaches. Conceptualization was built on the literature scrutinized in Chapter Two,

specifically out of the critical theory of technology and the concepts of duality of

technology. Through conceptualization, theoretical sampling became possible and

samples were collected on the basis of proven theoretical relevance. With the term

“proven theoretical relevance”, Strauss and Corbin indicate certain concepts that are

considered to be significant because “they are repeatedly present or notably absent”

during comparisons of cases [6, p.177]. The literature provided theoretical sensitivity,

which enriched awareness of the subtleties of the meaning of data. Theoretical

sensitivity was a critical attribute to develop categories and their relationships out of

phenomena, and also constituted the quality of grounded theory that could incorporate

the insights and perspectives of the other methods of phenomenology and phronetic

generalization.

Like other grounded theory studies, analysis of the data was performed by a

technique called “coding”. While emphasizing constant comparisons among concepts,

categories, and also cases, there are three major types of coding: open coding, axial

coding, and selective coding. During the process of open coding, the collected data was

broken down, examined, compared, conceptualized, and categorized within each case.

Attempts of labeling phenomena, naming categories, and developing corresponding

properties and dimensions were made.

After open coding, connections were drawn among categories that were found in

each case. This process of axial coding aimed to analyze and reconstruct the relationship

among categories and their subcategories. The paradigm model shown in Table 3.2 had

been utilized to enhance systematic understanding of the cases. With the paradigm

model, multiple activities of analyzing categories such as the hypothetical relating of

subcategories to a category, the verification of those hypotheses against actual data, and

the further development of properties and dimensions of categories and subcategories

were made simultaneously. Overall, as Strauss and Corbin emphasize, there was a

“constant interplay between proposing and checking” [6, p.111].

The process of coding was completed with selective coding, in which the core

categories were selected and their relationships were validated. At this phase of the

inquiry, comparisons on the level of inter-cases were made. Categories, subcategories,

and properties of all cases were compared together and building of the mechanism of

technology development initiated. The techniques of memoing and sorting of grounded

theory were employed through all types of data coding. In fact, while conducting the

inquiry, ordinal distinction among phases or techniques were found to be vague. Rather

much like the inquiry itself went back and forth between deductive and inductive

approaches - the inquiry stayed in any phase or ran any technique simultaneously along

with necessity in striving for the mechanism of technology development.

Table 3.2. The Paradigm Model [6, pp.96-99]

(A) CAUSAL CONDITIONS:

Events, incidents, happenings that lead to the occurrence or

development of a phenomenon. ↓

(B) PHENOMENON:

The central idea, event, happening, incident about which a set of

actions or interactions are directed at managing, handling, or to which

the set of actions is related. ↓

The specific set of properties that pertain to a phenomenon; that is,

the locations of events or incidents pertaining to a phenomenon

along a dimensional range. Context represents the particular set of

conditions within which the action/interactional strategies are taken.

↓

(D) INTERVENING CONDITIONS:

The structural conditions bearing on action/interactional strategies

that pertain to a phenomenon. They facilitate or constrain the

strategies taken within a specific context. ↓

(E) ACTION/INTERACTION:

Strategies devised to manage, handle, carry out, respond to a

phenomenon under a specific set of perceived conditions. ↓

(F) CONSEQUENCES:

Outcomes or results of action and interaction.

3.2.3 Data Collection

Data collection in grounded theory begins with concepts. With concepts, one can

continue to question and examine a phenomenon in the form of propositions.

Propositions, in turn, guide data collection in deductive ways that eventually lead to

further induction as well as testing of the propositions. [6]. Theoretical sensitivity can

also be enhanced by a priori hypotheses. Thus, data collection of the inquiry required a

preceding process of conceptualization.

3.2.3.1 Conceptualization

The principal assumption or hypothesis run through the inquiry was that the

mechanism of technology development could be described within the concepts of

duality of technology. Therefore, the anticipated mechanism of technology development

that predicated upon the concepts of duality of technology had been built as shown in

Figure 3.1. The duality of technology, as a core characteristic of technology, implied

technological inherencies of technical reason and social meanings.

Figure 3.1. Theoretical Conceptualization for Sampling and Coding [2,8]

The anterior phase of technology development was commensurate with

Feenberg’s “primary instrumentalization”, where designers and engineers assign

technical reason to technology. Levels of human knowledge, experience, and skill affect

the completion of a technology [2,8]. Concepts of technical context, functional

constitution, and technological neutrality that were examined in the literature are

subsumed under the concept of technical reason.

Engineers, as inventors and manufacturers, wield the potency within the process

and technology reflects their will. Even during this process, however, the will is not the

free will of engineers. To a certain extent, they are obliged to the society that they

inhabit and the social meanings and values of the society are “delegated” to technology.

The concept of delegation is introduced in Latour’s delegation theory. An automatic door

closer, for example, implies a social norm to keep the door close and the designer

assigned it to the device [104].

The posterior phase of technology development is commensurate with

Feenberg’s “secondary instrumentalization”, where, in short, a technology is socialized

and incorporated in a society. Here, society should not be identified with the market, but

it represents broader contexts of human life world that are interlinked to each other.

External values preside the phase and concepts of social context, realization, and value-

ladeness are subsumed under the concept of social meanings. Feenberg introduces the

concept of “technical codes” to describe the realization of a social interest or ideology in

a way that is congruent with a technical specification [2,8].

Unlike the other phase, users play major roles during the posterior phase. Lay

users purchase, adopt, use, and assess technologies. Consequently, Simondon’s concept

of “concretization” emerges to accommodate the responses of users in societies.

Through this phenomenon of reconciling multiple interests in technology, users or the

general population participate in the process of technology development [8].

Sometimes, unintentional and/or unanticipated social ramifications of new technologies

are witnessed. Table 3.3 adumbrates the two phases of technology development that

were drawn from the

reviewed literature.

3.2.3.2 Theoretical Sampling

Yes, to be sure grounded theory is an inductive methodology, but there is

some deduction in grounded theory. Theoretical sampling is deductive. It is

the carefully grounded deduction from an inducted category or hypotheses

of where to go next for data to compare [96, p.43].

Unlike a quantitative inquiry in which sampling is supposed to be done in a way

that can represent the entire population to be generalized, the concern in grounded

theory Table 3.3. Anticipated Two Phases of Technology Development [2,8]

Anterior Phase Posterior Phase

(Primary

Instrumentalization)

(Secondary

Instrumentalization)

Process of technical reason Process of socializing

and functionality

Domain of Domian of

engineers / designers users / general population

Technology is neutral. Technology is value-laden.

“Delegation” occurs. “Concretization” occurs.

is with “representativeness of concepts”. Based on theoretical relevance, sampling in

grounded theory keeps looking for evidence of a significant presence or absence with

the data. In principle, grounded theory does not pursue generalization but specification.

Grounded theory aims to specify “the conditions under which our phenomena exist, the

action/interaction that pertains to them, and the associated outcomes or

consequences”. The theoretical formulation of the inquiry is expected to apply to certain

situations and circumstances studied under the inquiry but to no others [6, p.191].

Within this context, grounded theory shares an emphasis of phronetic generalization,

that is, circumstantial understanding of a phenomenon. If technical reason solely

constitutes technology, and thus technology is neutral, a technological phenomenon

should be generalized with a universal explanation. But technology is not neutral due to

embodied social meanings, and circumstantial understanding becomes inevitable.

A set of secondary data had been collected for the inquiry. Historical events of

technology documented in forms of journal articles and scholastic books had been

gathered and analyzed. For a certain aspect, the criteria of selecting a sample case

accommodated the perspective of social construction of technology (SCOT), developed

by Bijker and Pinch, to ensure the presence of social meanings that associated

technology. Among various interactions between technology and society witnessed in a

case, various understandings of technology as well as involvement with technology of

different groups of people could be discerned with interpretive flexibility. The process of

theoretical sampling should be well planned but still with some degree of flexibility [6].

After all, the utmost importance lay on representativeness of related concepts, which

was verified with evolving theoretical relevance.

The point at which a researcher can stop collecting data in grounded theory is

called theoretical saturation. Generally, a grounded theory research pursues theoretical

saturation of each category. Strauss and Corbin list the conditions of saturation: “(1) no

new or relevant data seem to emerge regarding a category; (2) the category

development is dense, insofar as all of the paradigm elements are accounted for, along

with variation and process; (3) the relationships between categories are well established

and validated” [6, p.188]. In fact, collection of data had been continued through all

phases of the inquiry. After each case was collected and categories were drawn out of it,

repetitive testing of the case and categories was done to decide the theoretical

relevance. Consequently, sampling and analysis were in tandem so that analysis could

guide the way of sampling. Cancellation and selection of a sample case happened all the

time.

3.2.3.3 Sample Cases

Historical cases of technology collected and analyzed in the inquiry were

summarized and documented chronologically in Appendices A to H. Those cases were

intended to retain mundane to revolutionary technologies, from the seventeenth

century’s mechanical to the twentieth century’s computer technology. Due to the

availability of written documents upon mature investigation, cases were centered

around technologies of the modern and postmodern eras, which were conceived as the

most radical and dynamic periods in human history of technology. Stories borrowed for

this study did not necessarily cover every fact or episode of subject technologies, but

were edited in the ways that were pertinent to the study. Lastly, given that many of

existing documents of technology written from the perspectives of STS study or SCOT are

weighted toward social factors, a case maintaining balanced and unbiased description of

technological factors was preferred. Table 3.4 shows the list of sample cases.

Table 3.4. Sample Cases of Qualitative Inquiry (Appendices A to H)

CASE 1: Mechanical Clocks

CASE 2: Early Bicycles

CASE 3: Motion Pictures

CASE 4: Mass Production

CASE 5: Fluorescent Lamps

CASE 6: The Tel´ etel (Minitel) of France´

CASE 7: Personal Computers

CASE 8: On-line Music

3.3 A Quantitative Approach: Human Attitude toward Technology

While the qualitative inquiry was grounded on the philosophical reflections of

technology in a society, mainly endorsed by critical theory, the quantitative inquiry

stayed within the discipline of technology and examined the relationship among the four

constituents of technology reification that Mitcham identified, that is, technology as

objects, knowledge, activities, and volition.

Taking a close look at each of the concepts made the existence of human volition

noticeable. Technology as volition, as a constituent of reifying technology, could be

differentiated from the others in the aspect that it was more about human mind and

thus, subjective. While other concepts could be translated into how much you knew

which stood for the objectivity of technology, volition could be translated into how you

thought and felt which stood for human intentions in technology. Hence, the concepts of

technology could be reorganized with the term, understanding of technology that

incorporated technology as objects, knowledge, and activities collectively and referred to

the level of people’s understanding of technology and its discipline. Figure 3.2 shows the

reorganized structure of the constituents of technology.

Figure 3.2. Reorganized Structure of the Constituents of Technology Reification

3.3.1 Hypothesis

The research question tested by a quantitative approach in this study was “the

relationship between understanding of technology and human attitude (will) toward

technology”, in which the understanding of technology referred to the level of people’s

understanding of technology and its discipline while human attitude was about the

notion that technology is part of human will and culture and, therefore, humans can

control technology. When understanding of technology referred to understanding of

technology as objects, knowledge, and activities, it could be hypothesized that those

who have higher level of understanding of technology would more likely to have higher

level of will to control technology.

The basic assumption of the inquiry was illustrated in Figure 3.3. When the

understanding level of technology goes higher, the fulcrum shifts to right, and

consequently, human will to control technology gets bigger with the same amount of

human intervention. Technology as volition acts on both sides of the leverage; as human

intervention on the left and as human will to control technology on the right.

3.3.2 Measurements

The summated rating scale format of Rensis Likert was used to measure the levels

of understanding and human will for the vantages that Spector mentions; First, it can

have

Figure 3.3. Basic Assumption of the Relationship between Understanding of Technology

and Attitude toward Technology

good reliability and validity. Second, it is relatively easy to develop. Third, it is usually

easy for respondents to complete the survey [105]. Specifically, except for the

statements that stood for each concept, the Work Locus of Control Scale (WLCS) of

Spector had been adopted. There were six bipolar response choices of agreement from

“disagree very much” to “agree very much”, and the values from one to six were given

respectively: 1 = disagree very much, 2 = disagree moderately, 3 = disagree slightly, 4 =

agree slightly, 5 = agree moderately, 6 = agree very much. As Blair et al. recommend,

midpoint choices of “do not know” or “neutral” had been purposely excluded to prevent

insensitive and dummy responses attenuating the relationship between variables [106].

The independent variable was “understanding of technology” and two to three

measure items were drawn from each concept of technology as objects, knowledge, and

activities that had been elucidated in Chapter Two. Dependent variable was “human

attitude (will) toward technology” and multiple scale items were drawn mainly from the

concept of technology as volition that also had been elucidated in Chapter Two. Control

variables were age, gender, and academic affiliation; Age was asked in ranges from “19

or younger” to “40 or older”, while gender and academic affiliation were in categories.

Generally, younger people are considered to be more familiar with technology

than older people. Also, the field of technology has been a traditional domain of the

men, thus, gender is highly expected to have the net of effects on both independent and

dependent variables. Academic affiliation is expected to have implications on the level of

understanding of technology. All the response choices were checked to be exhaustive

and mutually exclusive.

Sixteen items in total, ten for independent and six for dependent variable, had

been generated from conceptual definitions of the variables. To be sure that each scale

item was conveying correct meaning of corresponding concept, a review by expert in the

discipline of technology had been done. A nationwide survey conducted by Gallup under

the auspices of International Technology Education Association (ITEA) also had been

referred and as a result, a couple of elaborate statements that implied certain concepts

better had been borrowed [107]. Related studies of Pupils’ Attitudes Toward Technology

(PATT) and Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) were also reviewed to check the

comprehensibility of statements [52,108]. Measure items for independent and

dependent variables were as Tables 3.5 and 3.6.

Although already proven scale of WLCS was adopted, reliability and validity

would be tested again as measuring statements had been replaced. Item analysis using

Cronbach’s alpha would be run to ensure the reliability and factor analysis would be

performed for the validity. Items 1, 3, 5, 6 and 8 of independent variable and items 2 and

5 of dependent variable were reverse statements as they conveyed negative meanings to

corresponding concepts and, accordingly, were coded in reverse order.

3.3.3 Data Collection

Data collection began with deciding survey population and how to sample the

population followed by constructing the questionnaire. Basically, the process of data

collection in this quantitative inquiry was conducted within the geographic and

systematic boundaries of Purdue University, West Lafayette, while fully utilizing its

resources.

Table 3.5. Measure Items for Understanding of Technology (IV)

1. Technology is present ONLY in the forms of physical object. (Objects)

2. Every technological object has its own purpose(s) of human need. (Objects)

3. In ancient times, technology did NOT exist. (Objects)

4. There is a distinctive kind of technological knowledge. (Knowledge)

5. Technology is a part of science. (Knowledge)

6. The knowledge of technology is the knowledge of nature. (Knowledge)

7. Technology is more about everyday life than scholarly research.

(Knowledge)

8. The term “scientist” refers to a person who is good at technology.

(Knowledge)

9. Human activities of designing is a part of technology. (Activities) 10.

Technology develops upon human engagement. (Activities)

Table 3.6. Measure Items for Attitude (Will) toward Technology (DV)

1. Human will is a part of technology.

2. Technology determines how people live.

3. Technology is subject to be controlled by humans.

4. The results of the use of technology can be harmful to human beings.

5. Technology is value-free, thus, neutral.

6. I can decide whether to accept or deny a technology on my own.

3.3.3.1 Survey Population and Sampling

Target population of the survey consisted of the students of the Purdue

Polytechnic Institute (College of Technology) and population units were individuals.

Specifically, the population was restricted to the Polytechnic students who were

enrolling in either undergraduate or graduate courses as of the spring semester of 2017.

There were rationales that these boundaries of target population had been set: intimacy,

proximity, and accessibility. First, since the study was about human attitude toward

technology, intimacy with technology and proximity to technology might affect the

dependent variable regardless of the independent variable, respondent’s level of

understanding technology.

Hence, the possibility of bias was minimized by restricting the target population only to

Polytechnic students who were assumed to be relatively homogeneous in the level of

intimacy and proximity regarding technology. Second, as the survey would be conducted

on-line using emails, high level of computer and Internet affiliation of the Polytechnic

students was expected to contribute to higher response rate. Third, to proceed only with

enrolling students would give the survey higher accessibility to the population as those

students were physically bound to university and supposed to check their emails on a

regular base.

According to “Data Digest”, the official data collected and maintained by Purdue

University, a total of 3,988 students were enrolling in the college as of the spring

semester of 2017. As shown in Figure 3.4, there were 614 students in graduate level (376

men and 238 women) and 3,374 students in undergraduate level (2,744 men and 630

women). Although it was not be possible to obtain the whole directory of the

Polytechnic students that was the target population, upon approval of the Institutional

Review Board (IRB), the questionnaire had been emailed to the students by each

department office and academic advisor. The respondents were asked to click a URL

(Uniform Resource Locator) that led to the survey questionnaire produced electronically

by the Purdue Qualtrics system. As the student data was tightly retained by the college

and each department, problems of ineligibles, inaccuracies, omission, and duplication

were relatively negligible. Because the survey questionnaire was to be distributed to

every member of the population, sampling was not required. As a result, any possible

bias stemming from sampling was canceled

out.

Figure 3.4. Survey Population

3.3.3.2 Survey Questionnaire

Purpose of the questionnaire was to operationalize the concepts of

understanding of technology and attitude toward technology. To the initial

questionnaire, two rounds of respondent debriefing had been performed. The first

round was performed face-to-face with five Polytechnic graduate students including two

men (in Ph.D. course) and three women (one in Ph.D. course and two in master’s course)

after they had finished answering the questionnaire. Debriefing was focused mainly on

figuring out any comprehension problems due to highly conceptual characteristic of the

scale. Fortunately, respondents’ levels of comprehension turned to be fine enough as

three of them answered the questions did not have difficulties in understanding at all,

one “a little”, and one “somewhat”. The second round of debriefing had been performed

with two male Polytechnic graduate students with the questionnaire revised upon

former feedbacks. Additional rewording had been made to the scale items in

consequence.

Some ancillary questions including the control variable, age, gender, and

academic affiliations were followed the scale. Each control variable was considered to

have effects on the relationship between the independent and dependent variables, and

to have implications for further extension of the study.

Overall, the concept measurement scale (Section A) preceded ancillary questions

(Section B) to induce more of respondent’s attention to the former. For the first part of

questionnaire, there were survey information and eligibility filtering questions. The

information sheet answered for questions that respondents might have prior to

participation, that was, purpose of research, procedures, duration of participation, risks,

benefits, compensation, confidentiality, voluntariness, contact information, and

informed consent. The filtering question asking if the respondent was a Polytechnic

student was to block out the problem of ineligibles by stopping the respondent if she or

he would choose “no”. And also, there was one more question for eligibility filtering to

cancel out the possibility of duplication problem. Since the survey was to be conducted

on line using emails, repetitive distribution of questionnaire would be placed to ensure

higher response rate and, on the one hand, it was possible to cause duplication of

response. Again, to conduct the survey on-line, the electronic version of questionnaire

was created, and it is believed to have contributed to enhanced control over filtering

questions and easiness for respondents to complete the questionnaire. The survey

questionnaire is attached in Appendix I.

3.3.3.3 Gathering Responses

The survey aimed to measure human perception regarding technology and, thus,

dealt with human subjects. Accordingly, the IRB (Institutional Review Board) approval

was pursued through the Purdue University Human Research Protection Program and

obtained as in Appendix J.

After the IRB approval, the questionnaire was distributed to the population via

email. The URL linked to the electronic questionnaire created and hosted by the Purdue

Qualtrics system was sent with a participation request of Appendix K through

department offices and academic advisors of the Purdue Polytechnic Institute (College of

Technology). The questionnaire was created to be compatible with both computers and

smartphones. With the system, response rate was being monitored in real-time and

additional distributions of the participation request were asked of the departments with

relatively low response rates.

Responses had been gathered and recorded by the system during the period

from the 20th of February to the 7th of March. By the end of the period, a total of 387

responses had been collected with a response rate of 9.7 percent. As data collection was

done for the whole population, there was not a chance of sampling bias, but the

possibility of response bias still existed.

3.4 Summary

Chapter Three has explained the methodology adopted to this study. For the

study, both qualitative and quantitative approaches were employed. Mixed methods of

grounded theory, phenomenology, and phronetic generalization were elucidated for the

qualitative inquiry. For the quantitative inquiry, a survey was conducted. A detailed

description of survey population, sampling, building a questionnaire, conducting a

survey, and collecting the data was present.

CHAPTER 4. ANALYSES AND RESULTS

As emphasized in Chapter Three, the goals of this study were to figure out the

mechanism of technology development and the relationship between understanding of

technology and attitude toward technology. These goals were set intentionally to lead

the ways to (1) serious contemplation of the discipline of technology and (2) the

attunement of technology toward public interest. Upon the framework and

methodologies chosen for the study, collected data were analyzed and results of the

inquiries are delineated in this chapter.

4.1 The Mechanism of Technology Development

If the mechanism through which a technology emerges and interplays with a

society can be described successfully, technology policy will be able to be planned and

executed in a more efficacious and systemized manner. Furthermore, proper

interventions in the mechanism would lead to a technology that incorporates public

interest.

As explained in Chapter Three, the first step of analyzing data was coding.

Figuring out categories and their relationships through coding is described well in the

following words of Glaser:

As the researcher constantly codes, analyzes and theoretically samples for

more data, the latent structural pattern of the substantive theory emerges.

That is, one of the categories seems to be consistently related to many other

categories and their properties over and over. This category soon becomes

classified as the core category, because most other categories are related to

it. This core category provides and becomes the latent structure of the

theory as Lazarsfeld termed it. He showed it over and over by running core

indexes against all other data and finding a preponderance of relationships

with them in a pattern [96, p.26].

Again, all types of coding, that is, open, axial, and selective coding were

employed simultaneously as well as techniques of memoing and sorting. With a social

phenomenon, one could get a mere sense of what is going on beyond what is seen, but

the sense comes in a state of being opaque. With categories and their properties and

dimensions, a systematic analysis on a phenomenon is enabled and reification of the

sense that one is given from a phenomenon becomes possible. While coding, the

paradigm model was utilized for each case as shown in Appendix L. Among them was the

following; Table 4.1. Example of the Paradigm Model Analysis - Mechanical Clocks

(A) CAUSAL CONDITIONS:

- Flaws and inaccuracy of existing clocks. (sundials, water clocks,

sandglasses, incense clocks)

- Religious piety and importance of timely prayer.

↓

(B) PHENOMENON:

- Introduction of mechanical clocks to society.

↓

- Increased accuracy.

- Increased market demand for mechanical clocks.

↓

(D) INTERVENING CONDITIONS:

- Even more increased accuracy with the invention of pendulum clocks.

- Limits of handcraft manufacturing system.

↓

(E) ACTION/INTERACTION:

- Development of the precision machinery using machine tools.

↓

(F) CONSEQUENCES:

- Stimulating the inventions of various scientific instruments that led to

the Renaissance.

As shown in Table 4.1 above, through the paradigm model analysis, a

phenomenon of technology conveyed by the case could be located in a series of social

and technological situations and events.

4.1.1 Core Categories of Technological Phenomena

While defining the relationships among those situations and events, major

concepts were found to be categories. And the categories were accompanied by

properties and dimensions. Categories, properties, and dimensions by each case were

analyzed as shown in Appendix M. As a result, after repetitive comparisons among cases

and their categories, core categories with proven theoretical relevance were found and

could be named as “technical progress”, “economic values”, and “social inclinations”.

4.1.1.1 Technical Progress

Every case showed a phenomenon of introducing a new technology to society.

And every new technology of the sample cases was preceded by relevant technical

achievements; mechanical clocks were possible to be made upon advanced

metalworking of the escapement; bicycles upon carriage- and blacksmith-shop

technology; motion pictures upon phonographs; mass production upon interchangeable

parts, sheet steel punch and press work, and assembly lines; fluorescent lamps upon

incandescent lamps; the Tel´ etel upon telecommunications technology; personal

computers upon personal´ calculators and microprocessors; and on-line music upon

digital recording and computer networks. Existing technology achieved by technical

progress of earlier periods was found to be an important precondition of new

technology.

Hughes introduces the term “reverse salients” to describe an area “where the

growth of technology is seen as lagging”, and argues that efforts to correct reverse

salients attribute to innumerable inventions and developments of technology [30, p.11].

Comparatively bigger size of digital sound before MPEG, for example, confined the

medium of recording and sharing music to the CD. But with constraints of space and

time that were inherent in the CD, like its predecessors, the cassette tape and the LP for

analogue sound, the music industry could not satisfy social inclination toward the

Internet and personal computing until the invention of digital sound compressing

technology opened a new era of on-line music.

Modifications of a technology were often made to enhance functionality or

efficiency. When people were enthusiastic about a new sport using a new technology,

the high-wheel bicycle with enhanced speed was designed. As technology of the

fluorescent lamp had matured, the high-efficiency daylight fluorescent lamp was

manufactured. This was not the end of story. Those new technologies, in turn, appeared

to be preconditions of following technologies. Contributions of mechanical clocks to

precision machinery, for example, was considered to eventually have led the inventions

of mechanical instruments such as telescopes and microscopes, which brought the new

philosophies of scientific inquiry to Europe before the Renaissance.

Certainly, technical progress presided a phenomenon of any case and it

constantly appeared throughout a phenomenon. Technology acted as a cause, an

aggravator, a mitigator, or a solution of a phenomenon as progress was made. Various

categories found in the process of open coding could be sorted into a core category of

technical progress as shown in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2. Categories Pertaining to Technical Progress

Time Keeping, Machine Making, Application, Riding, Playing Movies,

Product Quality, Telecommunications Network, Computing,

Audio Compressing

4.1.1.2 Economic Values

Along with technical progress, presence of economic values such as marketing,

management, maintenance, and service was constantly acknowledged. Those values

were found even in the case of the Tel´ etel of France that had been led by the

government. The´ importance of economic values was observed to increase as a case

was closer to the present era. Especially, the property of profitability along with market

size appeared to be pervasive.

For numerous cases, economic values motivated technical progress; the

profitability of racing bicycles based on social popularity intrigued high-wheel designs.

The high cost of constructing and maintaining national telecommunications

infrastructure pushed introduction of new services utilizing the infrastructure. Economic

goal of maximizing profits with maximized productivity and minimized production cost

was achieved with mass production. Profitability of personal computing attributed to

increasing demand of individuals let companies develop personal computers.

Meanwhile, the fact that religious piety, instead of an economic one, was a precondition

for mechanical clocks was noticeable. Religious piety must have been just as important

in the

European Middle Ages as economic values in contemporary capitalist society.

Likewise, a technology itself was likely to involve elements of economic

enhancement; the high-efficiency daylight fluorescent lamp was advertised as being

“three to two hundred times as much light for the same wattage” comparing its

predecessor, the fluorescent tint lighting lamp, and as being “most economical” to use.

Research on compressing audio data began to find a technological solution to broadcast

with less bandwidth under the scarcity of available frequencies.

Also, many of the intervening conditions to a new technology were attributed to

economic values; an increase of market competition among producers was usual after

successful commercialization of a new technology, as clearly shown in the cases of

motion pictures and fluorescent lamps. Modifications of technology were required to

respond to the changes in market as a technology was not evaluated solely upon the

degree of technical functionality or perfection, but together or even more with

marketability. Sometimes, technology was directed to the way in which economic values

of certain groups could be secured. The high-intensity daylight fluorescent lamp was a

choice of the Mazda companies and the utilities to secure their market share and profits

against a new competitor, Hygrade Sylvania. Neither technical context nor market

demand was responsible for the change. Those categories that could be sorted into a

core category of economic values were shown in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3. Categories Pertaining to Economic Values

Marketing, Management, Maintenance, Service

4.1.1.3 Social Inclinations

There were several categories found not to belong to either technical progress or

economic values: sporting, filming contents, community resource, and on-line network.

They were rather infrastructure or environment in which technologies and economic

values germinated. Popular sporting events employed bicycles as a novel means of a

racing sport. Success or failure of the motion picture industry did not depend on

advanced instruments but on filming contents in which famous celebrities acted on

diverse culture. One of the critical factors that made personal computers possible was

said to be the spontaneous activities of user groups. Invention of the digital audio

compressing technology was mainly due to the social and technological environment in

which people were enjoying personal computing and interactions through the Internet.

In case of the Tel´ etel, there was a strong political drive to overcome national concern of

falling behind´ in information technology.

Those categories were not involved directly with achieving technical progress or

realizing economic values. Rather, they were certain kinds of social inclination that could

be interpreted as a trend of the time. The fact that those categories were also the

historical events that attributed many parts to social and technological aspects was not

deniable. At least in each phenomenon of the sample cases, however, they could be

distinguished from the other core categories. Consequently, the third core category was

found to be social inclinations that contained such categories shown in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4. Categories Pertaining to Social Inclinations

Sporting, Filming Contents, Community Resource, On-line Network

4.1.2 The Paradigm Model of Technology

As Feenberg implies with the concept of “technical codes”, both spheres of

technical reason and social meanings of the duality of technology could be inferred from

core categories of technical progress, economic values, and social inclinations; Technical

progress was commensurate much with technical reason and the others with social

meanings. Those core categories interacted consistently throughout phenomena. One

became a cause of others and then, was caused by others. Technical progress emerged

out of economic values or vice versa. Social inclinations sometimes accounted for

technical progress or economic values. Economic values created by technical progress

eventually triggered another technical progress. The core categories were intertwined

with multilateral relations. Upon the paradigm model analyses on the sample cases and

core categories drawn out of them, the paradigm model of technology could be

proposed as shown in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5. The Paradigm Model of Technology

(A) CAUSAL CONDITIONS:

- Technical progress.

- Social demand (mostly, economic values).

↓

(B) PHENOMENON:

- Introduction of a new technology to society.

↓

- Increased technical ingenuity.

- Increased social satisfaction.

↓

(D) INTERVENING CONDITIONS:

- Social responses to the technology.

↓

(E) ACTION/INTERACTION:

- Modifications of technology to cope with social responses.

(technical or/and social)

↓

(F) CONSEQUENCES:

- Transition to another phenomenon of technology.

Around a central phenomenon, multiple interactions among core categories were

found. A new technology equipped with increased technical ingenuity or/and social

satisfaction was invented out of core categories. Then, the technology was embraced by

various social responses and modifications, either technical or social, of the technology

were made to cope with social responses. During these interactions of technology and

society, technology was seen to evolve or develop into another technology. Eventually,

the phenomenon was succeeded by another phenomenon of technology.

The idea of “technological paradigm” is considered to be an analogical extension

of the scientific paradigm of Thomas Kuhn in terms of that “particular technical

achievements have played a crucial role as exemplars, as models for future

development” [30, p.9]. Technology stays within a paradigm and its development is

made out of the paradigm. MacKenzie and Wajcman argue that the paradigm of

technology is different from technical trajectory that simply follows an internal logic

[30]. Various social values and demands such as economic values and social inclinations

as shown in Table 4.5 interact with technological trajectory. The discrepancy between

technological paradigm and technological trajectory is attributed to the fact that

technology per se is a social artifact. And the fact accounts for the presence of economic

values and social inclinations as core categories with technical progress.

4.1.3 The Mechanism of Technology Development

It is important to understand that as your theory evolves, you can incorporate

seemingly relevant elements of previous theories, but only as they prove

themselves to be pertinent to the data gathered in your study [6, p.50]

As mentioned earlier in Chapter Three, the inquiry first began as an attempt to

verify the existing theories of the duality of technology and Feenberg’s

instrumentalization with the method of grounded theory. And as proved with the

analyses so far, the concepts of duality of technology, that is, technical reason and social

meanings, were found to constitute technological phenomena in the forms of core

categories of technical progress, economic values, and social inclinations. Likewise,

“delegations” of social values to technology were witnessed in transitions of existing

technology to new ones. Technologies were also “concretized” in response to the social

demand. The elements of the duality of technology and Feenberg’s instrumentalization

were verified by data of the sample cases. But at the same time, the elements were not

sufficient to explain the entire mechanism of technology development and theoretical

extension was inevitable.

The mechanism of technology development described with core categories and

concepts corroborated by the sample cases could be drawn based on the paradigm

model of technology as shown in Figure 4.1. The duality of technology presides over

shaded area on the left with technical progress and social demand, which stands for

economic values and social inclinations. Social responses and modifications of a

technology lead the way to another round of the mechanism. The phenomena of

concretization and delegation happen through the mechanism as the outcomes of

interactions between technology and society. A technology reaches its transition point

through concretization, and the point is succeeded by a new technology through

delegation. On the bottom line, the mechanism incorporates the phases of technology

development: invention, adoption, diffusion, modification, transition, and obsolescence.

The mechanism of technology development turned out to be a concatenation of

the interactions between technical progress and social demand. Apparently, repetitions

of the mechanism will constitute technological paradigms. Then, how can technology be

driven toward public interest? Technology that is pertinent to public interest will be

possible if a social inclination toward public interest can be built and applied to the

mechanism as social demand. Not surprisingly in capitalist societies of today, economic

values rather than social inclinations worked as social demand in the mechanism for

most of the sample cases studied in this inquiry. A few exceptions were found in the

cases of mechanical clocks and the Tel´ etel; Mechanical clocks were known to be

invented out of religious´ piety and importance of praying on time. The reform of the

national telecommunications infrastructure of France were led by a strong political drive.

A technology that is driven by the state concerning development is military

technology. For military technology, economic values are abstained and the social value

of national security is emphasized. The emphasis becomes a social inclination to work in

the mechanism of technology development. Certainly, economic values are present also

in the field of military technology, but those values are created by the state. Military

technology

suggests an analogy to public interest in technology. The state can shape a social

inclination toward public interest and intervene in the mechanism of technology

development. As seen in the case of personal computers, such an intervention could be

Figure4.1. TheMechanismofTechnologyDevelopment

accelerated by the potency of the collective actions of citizens. If successful, technology

will incorporate the social value of public interest and the technological paradigm will

embrace it.

4.2 Human Attitude toward Technology

Analyses on survey responses were conducted along with three major steps; first,

the demographics of respondents were taken into account; second, the respondents’

perception of technology was analyzed with each scale item. The perception of

technology refers how the respondents understand technology and its discipline, and

where they stand on technology; third and finally, the relationship between two

variables of the perception, that is, understanding of technology (IV) and attitude toward

technology (DV), was examined to verify the hypothesis: “those who have higher level of

understanding of technology would more likely to have higher level of will to control

technology”.

4.2.1 Demographics of Respondents

The survey has four demographic questions asking age, gender, and two types of

academic affiliation. The demographics of 387 respondents were as the following;

Age groups of ‘19 or younger’ and ‘20-24’ shared more than 70 percent of the

respondents. Given that about 85 percent of the population was in undergraduate level,

students of those age groups were considered to show comparatively low response rate.

Women appeared to have higher response rate comparing to their counterpart by

sharing one-third of the respondents. In the population, women represented less than

22 percent.

Figure 4.2. Demographics by Age

Figure 4.3. Demographics by Gender

Figure 4.4. Demographics by Academic Affiliation

Figure 4.5. Demographics by Department

As anticipated with the age distribution, 70 percent of the respondents was in

undergraduate level. Again, given the proportion in population, graduate students

appeared to have higher response rate. The number of respondents at the department

of Computer and Information Technology was bigger than any numbers of the rest.

Departments of Aviation and Transportation Technology and Transdisciplinary Studies

shared negligible proportions.

4.2.2 Respondents’ Perception of Technology

As mentioned in Chapter Three, there were sixteen scale items for the survey: ten

for the independent variable and six for the dependent variable. The scale consisted of

four subscales that implied each mode of technology reification, that is, technology as

objects, knowledge, activities, and volition. Response analyses were made with

subscales for technology as objects, knowledge, and activities to discern respondents’

understanding of technology and its discipline (IV), and for technology as volition to

discern respondents’ attitude toward technology (DV).

4.2.2.1 Understanding of Technology and its Discipline

The first three items (Figures 4.6–4.8) implied the concept of technology as

objects, which was relatively typical and familiar. Responses for all items appeared to be

much congruent with the concept. More than 82 percent conceived that technology

could be intangible, and even more respondents acknowledged teleologic perspective of

technological presence for fulfilling human need. Most of the respondents agreed that

technology did exist in ancient times. The common misconception of technology that

people come up with high-tech material objects when they are asked about technology

was not inferred from the respondents.

Figure 4.6. A1. Technology is present ONLY in the forms of physical objects.

Figure 4.7. A2. Every technological objects has its own purpose(s) of human need.

Figure 4.8. A3. In ancient times, technology did NOT exist.

The next five items (Figures 4.9–4.13) were to measure respondents’

understanding of technology as knowledge that referred mainly to the idea that

technology was a discipline with a distinct kind of knowledge, which especially could be

distinguished from knowledge of science. More than 70 percent admitted the presence

of technological knowledge as a distinctive kind. About 64 percent placed emphasis on

technological practicality and about 80 percent answered that technology was different

from the domain of scientists.

But responses for items 5 and 6 were quite provocative and paradoxical. Most

respondents did not have a clear distinction between technology and science by saying

that technology was a part of science. Furthermore, about 70 percent believed that

technology was the knowledge of nature. Technology was perceived to have a distinctive

kind of knowledge and to be practical, but still to be a part of science pursuing the

knowledge of nature. Even though the respondents were all students of technology, they

were having a hard time positioning the domain of technology. Technology still seemed

to be a mere part of science with more emphasis on practical purpose in everyday life,

which was concurred with the term, “applied science”. Though, further investigation

with multiple scale items would be required to decide whether the respondents implied

subordination of technology to science or just deep relationship between the two by

agreeing the item statement, “technology is a part of science”. Also, responses to item 6

are possible to have been influenced by common perception of the term, ‘knowledge’,

which has a strong implication of physis, the nature.

Figure 4.9. A4. There is a distinctive kind of technological knowledge.

Figure 4.10. A5. Technology is a part of science.

Figure 4.11. A6. The knowledge of technology is the knowledge of nature.

Figure 4.12. A7. Technology is more about everyday life than scholarly research.

Figure 4.13. A8. The term “scientist” refers to a person who is good at technology.

Items 9 and 10 (Figures 4.14–4.15) were asking about technology as activities.

More than 90 percent of the respondents accepted activities of design as a part of

technology and believed human engagement to be a constituent of technology

development. By maintaining the idea of human activities in technology reification,

respondents appeared to have a sense of technological activities or poiesis¯ pursuing

techne¯ in comparison to scientific activities pursuing epistem¯ e¯.

Figure 4.14. A9. Human activities of designing is a part of technology.

Figure 4.15. A10. Technology develops upon human engagement.

4.2.2.2 Attitude toward Technology

To measure respondents’ perception of technology as volition or respondents’

attitude toward technology, six items were employed (Figures 4.16–4.21). About 80

percent acknowledged human will in the domain of technology. More than 80 percent

said that the use of a technology could be harmful to humans, and thus, technology was

subject to be controlled by humans. Accordingly, about 80 percent did not see

technology as being value-free or neutral. But, less than 70 percent answered that they

could decide acceptance of a technology on their own, and most provocatively, more

than 85 percent believed that technology determined how they lived.

So, the respondents overcame the myth of technological neutrality and agreed

on the necessity for human control over technology. However, they appeared to have

relatively passive attitudes toward technology. They still seemed to be permeated with

technological determinism or technocracy that was originated from autonomous and

prodigious modern technology. The conflict between the necessity for control over

technology and the paucity of faith in the ability to control technology must attribute

respondents’ dependency toward someone else such as experts or politicians. Given that

the respondents were students of technology including those in graduate courses, the

implication is quite critical.

Figure 4.16. A11. Human will is a part of technology.

Figure 4.17. A12. Technology determines how people live.

Figure 4.18. A13. Technology is subject to be controlled by humans.

Figure 4.19. A14. The results of the use of technology can be harmful to human beings.

Figure 4.20. A15. Technology is value-free, thus, neutral.

Figure 4.21. A16. I can decide whether to accept or deny a technology on my own.

4.2.3 Reliability and Validity

Recoding the responses to those item statements in semantic reverse direction

was necessary before any further analysis. So, the values of items 1, 3, 5, 6 and 8 of

independent variable and items 2 and 5 of dependent variable were recoded in the

completely opposite order of the remainder: 6 = disagree very much, 5 = disagree

moderately, 4 = disagree slightly, 3 = agree slightly, 2 = agree moderately, 1 = agree very

much. Then, internal consistency of the scale was checked to assure reliability and

coefficient alpha (Cronbach’s alpha) turned out to be 0.241, which was too low to test

the hypothesis. Consequently, the process of item analysis had been conducted.

4.2.3.1 Item Analysis

Through an item analysis, those items that are not consistent with the scale can

be found and eliminated [105]. In fact, initial coefficient alpha without recoding the

items with reverse statements was much higher (0.525). Without recoding, however, the

values would cause conceptual conflicts within the scale and violate major theoretical

assumptions of the study. Spector warns that “the item analysis should not be used to

determine the direction in which items should be scored” [105, p.34]. The first round of

item analysis calculated with all sixteen items indicated three items that ran against the

construct of scale: items 5 (A5) and 6 (A6) of independent variable and item 2 (A12) of

dependent variable as shown in Appendix N. As one might expect, those items were

pulled to the opposite direction of the concepts with provocative responses and were all

in reverse wording as shown in Figures 4.10–4.11 and 4.17.

Hopefully, the inconsistency of those items might have reflected respondents’

deep misconception about technology. According to Spector, however, it could be caused

also by either poorly written sentences with ambiguity or respondents’ incapability of

understanding [105]. The items possibly conveyed some highly conceptual meanings

with relatively ambiguous words. After eliminating those three items, coefficient alpha

was 0.472 and indicated one more item that ran against the construct: item 8 (A8) of

independent variable. Without the four items, at last, coefficient alpha reached 0.519 as

shown in Figure 4.22, which was considered to be reasonable to test the hypothesis.

Figure 4.22. Reliability Statistics

Although the coefficient 0.519 did not meet the tacit reference level of 0.7 to be

acceptable, there were several rationales for conceding the relatively low level of alpha.

First, the reference level of alpha is Nunnally’s personal advice that is not based on

either empirical research or clear logical reasoning. Thus, the reference level is

circumstantial to a certain extent [109]. Second, given the small number of items used to

measure multiple constructs covering wide breadth of concepts, even alphas lower than

0.7 can be reasonable to accept. Cronbach’s alpha has a fundamental assumption of uni-

dimensionality that scale items measure only one latent variable or dimension. And a

large number of redundant items contributes to higher alpha by averaging out the error

of low correlation among items [105,110]. The survey scale conducted for the inquiry,

however, consisted of just sixteen items operationalizing and measuring multiple

different concepts. Lastly, increasing alpha to a certain level by deleting items causes

decrease in diversity of items and harms validity of the survey [109].

4.2.3.2 Factor Analysis

Validity is about interpreting what the scale items represent. After the item

analysis above, a factor analysis had been conducted to examine validity of the scale.

With correlation matrix shown in Appendix O, the Pearson correlation coefficient

between all pairs and the one-tailed significance of these coefficients were checked. No

singularity appeared in the data and the determinant value was 0.352 (> 0.00001), which

was good enough to accept. The KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin) value was 0.673 (> 0.5),

which meant that the sample was adequate, and the Bartlett’s test was highly significant

with the value smaller than 0.001. Therefore, factor analysis for the data appeared to be

appropriate [111].

Figure 4.23. KMO and Bartlett’s Test

With the component analysis and the scree plot shown in Appendix P, three

components were found to have an eigenvalue greater than 1, which indicated the

existence of three major factors of the scale as Kaiser recommended [111,112]. Then,

the rotated factor matrix was examined with loading sizes greater than 0.4. According to

Field, comparing to a normal factor matrix, factor rotation makes interpretation

considerably easier by clarifying loading size [111]. As shown in Figure 4.24, three major

factors were scattered over items, which appeared to be quite different from the initial

construct. Upon considerations over belonging items, the first factor could be labeled as

“application of technology”, which implied teleological perspective of technology; the

second factor contained the items that were associated with “production of

technology”; the items that constituted the third factor could be interpreted as the

practical implication or effect of technology, that is, “implications of technology”.

Accordingly, scale items for each factor were reorganized as in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6. Reorganized Items by Major Factors

Factor Scale Item

Application A13. Technology is subject to be controlled by humans.

of A4. There is a distinctive kind of technological knowledge.

Technology A2. Every technological object has its own purpose(s) of human

need. A16. I can decide whether to accept or deny a technology on

my own.

Production A11. Human will is a part of technology.

of A9. Human activities of designing is a part of technology.

Technology A10. Technology develops upon human engagement.

A1. Technology is present ONLY in the forms of physical object.

A3. In ancient times, technology did NOT exist.

Implications A15. Technology is value-free, thus, neutral.

of A14. The results of the use of technology can be harmful to human

Technology beings.

A7. Technology is more about everyday life than scholarly research.

The factors or latent variables drawn out of the process of factor analysis

represented the production, application, and practical implications of technology, which

Figure 4.24. Rotated Factor Matrix

were also meaningful concepts for the study. Based on the result of factor analysis, to a

certain extent, the scale could be said to have failed to measure the concepts in the

forms of initial theoretical distinctions, such as objects, knowledge, activities, and

volition. Those theoretical distinctions as well as the distinction between the

independent variable and the dependent variable were highly conceptual and thus,

somewhat contrived. Obviously, the respondents had perceived those concepts

conveyed by an on-line survey in the ways that they were more familiar with so that the

discrepancy between asking and answering occurred. The discrepancy, however, did not

necessarily impose failure on the survey because those latent variables themselves still

implied the concepts and assumptions of the study. After all, they all implied

respondents’ perception of technology. Therefore, reorganizing the scale items in

accordance with the conceptual distinctions of the respondents and testing the

relationships between those new variables should be worth of testing.

4.2.4 The Relationship between Understanding of Technology and Attitude toward

Technology

Before dealing with the newly found variables of application, production, and

value-ladeness of technology, the relationship between understanding of technology (IV)

and attitude toward technology (DV) was examined provided that the initial concepts

were still measured by the factors analyzed.

The correlation between two variables was statistically significant at the 5

percent level of alpha. Thus, the hypothesis, “those who have higher level of

understanding of technology would more likely to have higher level of will to control

technology”, was supported by the data. But, the Pearson correlation coefficient was

0.275, which was quite low. The R-square was as low as 0.076 meaning that only 7.6

percent of the variation in the level of will to control technology was accounted for by

the level of understanding of technology. The slope was gradual as shown in Figure 4.26.

While constructing the measurement scale, the control variables of age, gender,

academic affiliation, and department were expected to have effects on the independent

and dependent variables. To decide a proper method of analysis on the effects, the

assumptions of the one-way ANOVA, that is, the normality and homogeneity of variance

were tested at the 5 percent level of alpha. As shown in Appendices Q and R, the tests of

Figure 4.25. Correlation between IV and DV

Figure 4.26. Fit Plot for DV

normality and Q-Q plots of the variables rejected the normality of data distribution. The

test of homogeneity of variances also indicated some significant differences between the

variances as shown in Appendix S. Consequently, as both assumptions were violated, an

alternative method was preferred and the Kruskal-Wallis test was employed for further

analysis. The Kruskal-Wallis test is a non-parametric version of the one-way ANOVA

without assuming the normal distribution of the data. Although some scholars argue

that the one-way ANOVA is robust under certain degrees of assumption violation, there

are evidences showing that such violations invalidate the use of the ANOVA [113,114].

As shown in Appendix T, the test indicated that only the independent variable

had significant differences between the groups of academic affiliation (p = 0.018 < 0.05).

To figure out specific groups of academic affiliation that were significantly different from

each other, the Mann-Whitney U test with two independent samples was performed.

Mostly, the Ph.D. students were different from all the other groups except for the

sophomores and master’s students at the statistically significant level as shown in Table

4.7 (p < 0.05). The sophomores were different from the seniors and the master’s

students were not different from any group of students. As shown in the means plots of

Figure 4.27, the Ph.D. students were more likely to have higher level of understanding of

technology than the freshmen, juniors, and seniors.

Table 4.7. Differences between Groups of Academic Affiliation for IV (* p < .05)

Sophomor

Junio

Senio

Master’

Ph.D.

Freshman .082 .37

.99

.36

*.01

Sophomor

.23

*.02

.44

.21

Junior .24

.91

*.01

Senior .24

*.00

Master’s .05

Figure 4.27. Differences among Academic Affiliations for IV

4.2.5 The Relationships between New Variables

For the last part of the study analysis, the relationships between new variables

that had been extracted with factor analysis were examined. As mentioned already, the

respondents appeared to have perceived the initial concepts conveyed by the survey

questionnaire in their own conceptual frame that was typical and familiar. Along with

reorganized factors and scale items shown in Table 4.6, the relationships between the

application of technology and production of technology, application of technology and

implications of technology, and production of technology and implications of technology

were tested. All the correlations between new variables appeared to be statistically

significant at the 5 percent level with gradual slopes as illustrated in Figure 4.28 and

Appendix U.

The Kruskal-Wallis test shown in Appendix T indicated that the control variables

of the academic affiliation and department had significant differences for the production

Figure 4.28. Correlations between New Variables

technology (p = 0.009 < 0.05, p = 0.006 < 0.05). According to the Mann-Whitney U test

shown in Table 4.8, the freshmen and seniors were significantly different from the

master’s and Ph.D. students. The freshmen were also different from the sophomores. As

shown in Figure 4.29, the master’s students and Ph.D. students were more likely to agree

with the concept of production of technology than the freshmen and seniors.

Table 4.8. Differences between Groups of Academic Affiliation for Production of

Technology (* p < .05)

Sophomor

Junio

Senio

Master’

Ph.D.

Freshman *.007 .05

.15

*.00

Sophomor

.27

.05

.87

.86

Junior .32

.21

Senior *.03

*.01

Master’s .99

Figure 4.29. Differences among Academic Affiliations for Production of Technology

As shown in Table 4.9, the department of Computer and Information Technology

was significantly different from Construction Management Technology and Technology

Leadership and Innovation (p < 0.05). Also, the department of Computer Graphics

Technology was significantly different from Construction Management Technology,

Engineering Technology and Technology Leadership and Innovation (p < 0.05). As shown

in Figure 4.30, those students of the departments of Computer and Information

Technology and Computer Graphics Technology were more likely to agree with the

concept of production of technology that implied human engagement in technology and

diverse forms of technology reification than those students of the other departments.

Table 4.9. Major Differences between Groups of Department for Production of

Technology (* p < .05)

Construction Engineering Technology

Management Technology Leadership

Technology & Innovation

Computer &

Information

Technology

*.008 .159 *.024

Computer Graphics

Technology *.001 *.009 *.002

Figure 4.30. Differences among Departments for Production of Technology

4.3 Summary

Chapter Four delineated the analyses and results of the qualitative and

quantitative inquiries of the study. For the qualitative inquiry, eight historical cases of

technology were analyzed based on the method of grounded theory, and as a result, the

mechanism of technology development was drawn and understood as a concatenation

of the interactions between technical progress and social demand. For the quantitative

inquiry, a total of 387 responses of the survey was analyzed. Four of initial scale items

were eliminated to obtain a reasonable reliability and three major factors were found

with factor analysis. The IV, understanding of technology, appeared to be positively

correlated with the DV, will to control technology, at the 5 percent level of statistical

significance. The correlations between those new variables elicited in factor analysis

were also found to be significant at the 5 percent level and positive. The control

variables of academic affiliation and department were found to have significant effects

on the results.

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION

The goals of this study were to determine ways to reconcile technology with

public interest and to understand the relationship between what we know about

technology and how we feel about technology. To achieve the goals, related literatures

were reviewed; the mechanism of technology development was built with empirical

data; human perception of technology was tested with a survey. Findings of the study

are hopefully to be used to establish a platform and path that could lead the public to

the essence of technology and also technology to welfare of the public. This chapter

looks through the findings, limitations, and research implications of the study.

5.1 Findings

As a core characteristic of technology, the duality of technology that implied

technological inherencies of technical reason and social meanings was the principle

assumption of the study. As illustrated in Figure 3.1, under the concept of duality,

technology incorporates system of engineers and lifeworld of users, which are

subjugated to each other by the phenomena of delegation and concretization. Neutrality

of technology becomes a myth with the presence of social meanings embodied in

technology. Given the huge impact of technology on human societies, the absence of

neutrality is, in turn, attributed to the necessity for policy. The concepts of duality of

technology were found to constitute technological phenomena in the forms of technical

progress, economic values, and social inclinations. Likewise, delegations of social values

to technology were witnessed in transitions of existing technology to new ones.

Technologies were also concretized in response to the social demand.

Analyses of eight empirical cases of technology development based on the

method of grounded theory provided core categories of technical progress, economic

values, and social inclinations that maintained proven theoretical relevance. Technical

progress presided a phenomenon of any case and it constantly appeared throughout a

phenomenon. Technology acted as a cause, an aggravator, a mitigator, or a solution of a

phenomenon as progress was made. The importance of economic values was observed

to increase as a case was closer to the present era. For numerous cases, economic values

motivated technical progress and a technology itself was likely to involve elements of

economic enhancement. Also, many of the intervening conditions to a new technology

were attributed to economic values and, sometimes, technology was directed to the way

in which economic values of certain groups could be secured or maximized. Social

inclinations were seen as infrastructure or environment in which technologies and

economic values germinated. They were not involved directly with achieving technical

progress or realizing economic values. Rather, they were certain kinds of social

inclination that could be interpreted as other social values or demands than economic

values.

The mechanism of technology development described with the core categories

and concepts corroborated by the sample cases could be drawn based on the paradigm

model of technology as shown in Figure 4.1. The mechanism turned out to be a

concatenation of the interactions between technical progress and social demand of

either economic values or social inclinations. Earlier in the study, technology was defined

as a distinctive discipline of human intellect that accompanies procedures and systems

to fulfill practical needs of humans. Based on the results of the study, the procedures

and systems could be described with the mechanism of technology development and

interpreted as the interactions between technical reason and social meanings.

Apparently, repetitions of the mechanism were expected to constitute

technological paradigms. Technology that is pertinent to public interest, in this context,

will be possible if a social inclination toward public interest can be built and applied to

the mechanism. The state can shape a social inclination of the kind and intervene in the

mechanism of technology development. As seen in the case of personal computers, such

an intervention could be accelerated by the potency of the collective actions of citizens.

If successful, technology will incorporate the social value of public interest and the

paradigm of technology will embrace it.

Survey responses indicated that the common misconception of technology that

people come up with high-tech material objects when they are asked about technology

was not inferred from the respondents of the Purdue Polytechnic Institute (College of

Technology). However, the biggest misconception of technology was found in the

concept of technological knowledge, which especially was distinguished from scientific

knowledge; technology was perceived to have a distinctive kind of knowledge and to be

practical, but still to be a part of science pursuing the knowledge of nature. Even though

the respondents were all students of technology, they were having a hard time in

positioning the domain of technology. Technology still seemed to be a mere part of

science with more emphasis on practical purpose in everyday life, which was concurred

with the term “applied science”. Respondents agreed on the idea of value-ladeness of

technology and, thus, necessity for human control over technology. However, they

appeared to have relatively passive attitudes toward technology. The conflict between

the necessity for control and the paucity of faith in the ability to control technology by

themselves must attribute respondents’ dependency toward someone else such as

experts or politicians. Given that the respondents were students of technology including

those in graduate courses, the implication is quite critical.

The correlation between understanding of technology and will to control

technology was statistically significant but weak as shown in Figures 4.25–4.26 . The

hypothesis, those who have higher levels of understanding of technology would more

likely to have higher levels of will to control technology, was supported by the data, but

only limited amount of the variation in the dependent variable was accounted for by the

independent variable. All the correlations between new variables that had been

extracted in the process of factor analysis - that is, the application of technology,

production of technology, and implications of technology - appeared to be statistically

significant but also to be weak as illustrated in Figure 4.28. The control variables of

academic affiliation and department were found to have some significant effects on the

results.

5.2 Research Implications

While theoretical sensitivity is emphasized, as Charmaz warns, the method of

grounded theory with constructivist view may harm objectivity by being more intuitive

and impressionistic [91,95]. By staying within the concepts of critical theory of

technology, the results of the study may also fall in the instant joy of lower-level

theorizing without completing the full job [91,96]. However, the study tried to be as

faithful as possible to the objectivity and rigor of the grounded theory. Constant

comparisons through coding and the paradigm model analysis were done with

consistency and hasty theorizing was alerted. Limitations of the secondary data are

inextricable. Direct interviews and participated observation of the field of technology

should enrich the study of the mechanism of technology development and further effort

to verify the mechanism introduced in this study must be meaningful.

Pawson and Tilley emphasized the presence of context to constitute regularity

with mechanism [89]. With the mechanism through which technology develops found in

this study, social context always should be in consideration. By doing so, a regularity with

efficacy can be found to lead the mechanism to the real life-world. To establish a policy

of technology that can induce a desirable social change, the mechanism should be

evaluated with the context that incorporates multiple variables of the society; the

mechanism per se cannot provide an adequate explanation.

Conceptual distinctions among four modes of technology reification were too

ambiguous to be distinguished empirically and perceived by the respondents. Those

theoretical distinctions as well as the distinction between the independent variable and

the dependent variable were highly conceptual and, thus, somewhat contrived. And the

respondents’ perception of the conceptual frame in the ways that they were more

familiar with has critical implications for further study.

A small number of scale items had negative effects on both reliability and validity.

For further studies to account for more of technology in empirical ways, additional

number of items that can successfully operationalize related concepts and average out

responding errors should be developed. For the misconception of technological

knowledge as seen in Figures 4.9–4.13, for example, further investigation with multiple

scale items would be required to decide whether the respondents implied subordination

of technology to science or just deep relationship between the two by agreeing with the

item statement.

As announced in the beginning, the ultimate destination of this study was

democratization of technology, which is about incorporating technology into public

Students also viewed