College 1. Technological Determinism or Social Construction of Technology
(Martin Tanis)
Papers Bijker – Social Construction of Technology = SCOT, and technological
determinism
Castells – Internet developments, network society, individualization
Is it technology that decides how we behave and how we interact or do people have a strong
influence in what technology looks like? Who is the leading force?
Marshal McLuhan: The medium is the message
The communication medium has decisive impact on the meaning of the message and
thereby on human interaction
Technological deterministic technologie bepaalt maatschappelijke ontwikkeling,
structuur, etc.
A society’s technology determines the development of its social structure and cultural
values
Criticism:
It is not perceived to be a very accurate view of the way in which we interact with
technology
The relationships between technology and society cannot be reduced to simplistic
cause-and-effect formula, it’s rather an ‘intertwining’ (vervlechting), whereby
technology does not determine but ‘operates and is operated in a complex social field
(Murphie & Potts, 2003)
Example: The development of the format of newspaper articles
In the 18th and 19th century newspapers had no headlines. During the American Civil War
newspapers received news by a telegraph. But lines were cut out so there was a risk of
losing the bulk information. Without the core information, there was no ‘news-value’, thereby
no reason to but the paper as a customer.
That’s why nowadays newspaper have headlines with relevant information followed by
‘less important’ details An example of how technology drives communication
Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) Bijker & Pinch technologie bepaalt niet het
menselijk handelen
It is one approach among several constructivist ways of studying science and
technology that emerged in the 1980’s
‘Constructivist’ is about accomplishments rather than intrinsic properties of those facts
and machines
Example: the success of the bicycle
Is the success of the bicycle as we know it caused by its technical superior chain-drive?
, A problem (and therefor the reason for a solution) is only defined as such, when there
is a social group for which it constitutes a ‘problem’ (Pinch & Bijker, 1984)
It shows that technology does not determine human action, but human actions (and
social developments) shape technology.
In order to understand how technology is used, we should understand how that
technology is embedded in its social context.
Technologies work or fail because of a range of heterogeneous interpretations and
variables (constraining or driving factors).
In the development of an artefact (something that is made/created), two steps are important:
Step one: dealing with relevant social groups and interpretative flexibility
An artefact is described through the eyes of relevant social groups (example of the bike: the
producers, the sportsmen, etc.). Descriptions of the artefact (what it is, what it can do, etc.)
are diverse for the different relevant social groups. interpretative flexibility. There is not
one description, but there are many (for every social group)
Step two: dealing with stabilization and closure
Stabilization is the process in which social construction takes place and meanings slowly
converge (different meanings of an artefact slowly come together). Until closure is achieved:
the end of the stabilization process (it’s relatively cheap, sportive means of transportations,
etc.)
Example of SCOT: koffiezetapparaat op kantoor, mensen geven er een eigen betekenis aan
kletsen en roddelen people decide how they use technology (SCOT) het sociale
proces stopt niet als een artefact de fabriek verlaat, maar gaat door wanneer de gebruikers
de technologie haar specifieke gebruik en betekenis geven
Example: Mobile devices and SCOT
Step one
o Relevant social groups a child, businessman, mother
o Interpretative flexibility (describing the artefact): for calling, texting, e-mailing,
to take pictures, etc.
Step two
o Stabilized: no foldable phones anymore, not in their back pocket (they can be
bigger), to watch movies so bigger screen
o Closure: bigger phones
The symmetry principle
Symmetrical analysis of true and false scientific statements, explaining their development
with the same conceptual framework Working and non-working machines should be
analyzed symmetrically and in the same terms
Successful innovations cannot be fully explained by assuming that they "work" better than
failed innovations.
When trying to explain the success of technical innovations, historians should not be
biased in explaining the success of the innovation by referring to their “technical superiority”,
but putting forward sociological explanations (citing political influence in the case of failures).
,Core aspects of SCOT
- We often make claims that the internet has caused polarization , but we should be
careful with that: it is maybe always an interaction or maybe even the other way
around: a polarized society calls for applications such as Twitter to ventilate these
feelings.
Manuell Castells – the Information Age (1996)
Technology is material culture. It’s not created in a social or institutional vacuum. Users
appropriate and adapt technology, rather than simply adopt it . By this, they modify and
produce it in an endless process.
Conclusion: how technology develops and influences society is not as predictable, but
highly dependent on how people/society deals with this technology (sounds like SCOT
reasoning)
The success of the Internet can be explained by:
The development of the World Wide Web
Decision of the ‘early founders’ of the internet to keep it under loose management
But similarly by: changes in societal structure, culture and behavior with networking
as prevalent organizational form: The Network Society (Jan van Dijk)
The more people use the Internet, the more they increase their sociability online and offline ,
their civic engagement, and the intensity of family and friendship relationships in all cultures.
According to Castells:
Social relationships are reconstructed in this time of individuation
o Self-development is becoming more important (Me-centered society) who
you are, what you like
o Migration to metropolitan life, away from the ‘patriarchal family’
o Culture and communication shift to mass self-communication based on the
internet
The Internet allows for connecting with:
- Like-minded others
- Family and friends
- Work relations
- New people
Technological innovation and individuation does not lead to isolation, nor reduces
sociability It facilitates sociability
Conclusion:
The Internet does not produce (positive or negative) effects by itself
It facilitates (and interacts with) social and cultural developments
So, rather than causing large-scale developments and societies based on network, it
enables these movements
Understanding that these technical and social components interact is of key
importance
, BUT: important to realize, Castells online looks at the social aspects. Nothing about privacy,
fake news, information overload, etc. He’s a pro internet guy, because he only sees the
social aspects.
It’s an ongoing debate whether:
Technology is the decider (technological deterministic way of thinking)
Technology is the enabler (social construction of technology way of thinking)
It’s a continuous interaction of both technology and society
College 2. Always on: Multitasking and performance (Martin Tanis)
Papers Carrier – Media multitasking in relation to learning performance
May & Elder – The impact of media multitasking on academic performance
Cain – Media multitasking in adolescents
Media multitasking = Using more than 1 electronic device at the same time, or multiple
screens, or using media during other activities Media saturation (verzadiging)
Internal factors (thoughts about future online activities) and external (alerts from
smartphones) factors influence multitasking prevalence
Who’s involved?
- Four out of five adolescents indicate to media-multitask every now and then
- 8-18 years old (generation M for multitasking)
o Squeeze 10:45 hours of media consumption into 7:30 hours of media use
o Media multitask 29% of their time 2010 (16% in 2000)
Why do we multitask?
Because we can: media is everywhere (bedroom, study, classroom, on bicycle)
Computer-based gadgets let us (smartphones with notifications, multiple screens)
Students report they think it helps them to multitask (Junco and Cotton, 2011)
Because you have not a concrete goal what to do (Judd and Kennedy, 2011)
In situations under time pressure (Foehr, 2006)
A desire to communicate/feeling bored (Clayson and Haley, 2012)
Fear of Mission Out (FOMO)
While studying in ‘home’ study students stayed on task 65% of the time.
On average 6 minutes on a task before switching to other task texting, Facebook,
watching TV, walking around, etc. They switch to another task when it’s getting difficult
(Rosen, Carrier, Cheever, 2013)
What is multitasking?
Type 1: The simultaneous execution of two or more processing activities at the same time
Psychological Refractory Period: the reaction time of one of the tasks is
delayed because of the presence of the other task. While both tasks are carried
out simultaneously.
(Martin Tanis)
Papers Bijker – Social Construction of Technology = SCOT, and technological
determinism
Castells – Internet developments, network society, individualization
Is it technology that decides how we behave and how we interact or do people have a strong
influence in what technology looks like? Who is the leading force?
Marshal McLuhan: The medium is the message
The communication medium has decisive impact on the meaning of the message and
thereby on human interaction
Technological deterministic technologie bepaalt maatschappelijke ontwikkeling,
structuur, etc.
A society’s technology determines the development of its social structure and cultural
values
Criticism:
It is not perceived to be a very accurate view of the way in which we interact with
technology
The relationships between technology and society cannot be reduced to simplistic
cause-and-effect formula, it’s rather an ‘intertwining’ (vervlechting), whereby
technology does not determine but ‘operates and is operated in a complex social field
(Murphie & Potts, 2003)
Example: The development of the format of newspaper articles
In the 18th and 19th century newspapers had no headlines. During the American Civil War
newspapers received news by a telegraph. But lines were cut out so there was a risk of
losing the bulk information. Without the core information, there was no ‘news-value’, thereby
no reason to but the paper as a customer.
That’s why nowadays newspaper have headlines with relevant information followed by
‘less important’ details An example of how technology drives communication
Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) Bijker & Pinch technologie bepaalt niet het
menselijk handelen
It is one approach among several constructivist ways of studying science and
technology that emerged in the 1980’s
‘Constructivist’ is about accomplishments rather than intrinsic properties of those facts
and machines
Example: the success of the bicycle
Is the success of the bicycle as we know it caused by its technical superior chain-drive?
, A problem (and therefor the reason for a solution) is only defined as such, when there
is a social group for which it constitutes a ‘problem’ (Pinch & Bijker, 1984)
It shows that technology does not determine human action, but human actions (and
social developments) shape technology.
In order to understand how technology is used, we should understand how that
technology is embedded in its social context.
Technologies work or fail because of a range of heterogeneous interpretations and
variables (constraining or driving factors).
In the development of an artefact (something that is made/created), two steps are important:
Step one: dealing with relevant social groups and interpretative flexibility
An artefact is described through the eyes of relevant social groups (example of the bike: the
producers, the sportsmen, etc.). Descriptions of the artefact (what it is, what it can do, etc.)
are diverse for the different relevant social groups. interpretative flexibility. There is not
one description, but there are many (for every social group)
Step two: dealing with stabilization and closure
Stabilization is the process in which social construction takes place and meanings slowly
converge (different meanings of an artefact slowly come together). Until closure is achieved:
the end of the stabilization process (it’s relatively cheap, sportive means of transportations,
etc.)
Example of SCOT: koffiezetapparaat op kantoor, mensen geven er een eigen betekenis aan
kletsen en roddelen people decide how they use technology (SCOT) het sociale
proces stopt niet als een artefact de fabriek verlaat, maar gaat door wanneer de gebruikers
de technologie haar specifieke gebruik en betekenis geven
Example: Mobile devices and SCOT
Step one
o Relevant social groups a child, businessman, mother
o Interpretative flexibility (describing the artefact): for calling, texting, e-mailing,
to take pictures, etc.
Step two
o Stabilized: no foldable phones anymore, not in their back pocket (they can be
bigger), to watch movies so bigger screen
o Closure: bigger phones
The symmetry principle
Symmetrical analysis of true and false scientific statements, explaining their development
with the same conceptual framework Working and non-working machines should be
analyzed symmetrically and in the same terms
Successful innovations cannot be fully explained by assuming that they "work" better than
failed innovations.
When trying to explain the success of technical innovations, historians should not be
biased in explaining the success of the innovation by referring to their “technical superiority”,
but putting forward sociological explanations (citing political influence in the case of failures).
,Core aspects of SCOT
- We often make claims that the internet has caused polarization , but we should be
careful with that: it is maybe always an interaction or maybe even the other way
around: a polarized society calls for applications such as Twitter to ventilate these
feelings.
Manuell Castells – the Information Age (1996)
Technology is material culture. It’s not created in a social or institutional vacuum. Users
appropriate and adapt technology, rather than simply adopt it . By this, they modify and
produce it in an endless process.
Conclusion: how technology develops and influences society is not as predictable, but
highly dependent on how people/society deals with this technology (sounds like SCOT
reasoning)
The success of the Internet can be explained by:
The development of the World Wide Web
Decision of the ‘early founders’ of the internet to keep it under loose management
But similarly by: changes in societal structure, culture and behavior with networking
as prevalent organizational form: The Network Society (Jan van Dijk)
The more people use the Internet, the more they increase their sociability online and offline ,
their civic engagement, and the intensity of family and friendship relationships in all cultures.
According to Castells:
Social relationships are reconstructed in this time of individuation
o Self-development is becoming more important (Me-centered society) who
you are, what you like
o Migration to metropolitan life, away from the ‘patriarchal family’
o Culture and communication shift to mass self-communication based on the
internet
The Internet allows for connecting with:
- Like-minded others
- Family and friends
- Work relations
- New people
Technological innovation and individuation does not lead to isolation, nor reduces
sociability It facilitates sociability
Conclusion:
The Internet does not produce (positive or negative) effects by itself
It facilitates (and interacts with) social and cultural developments
So, rather than causing large-scale developments and societies based on network, it
enables these movements
Understanding that these technical and social components interact is of key
importance
, BUT: important to realize, Castells online looks at the social aspects. Nothing about privacy,
fake news, information overload, etc. He’s a pro internet guy, because he only sees the
social aspects.
It’s an ongoing debate whether:
Technology is the decider (technological deterministic way of thinking)
Technology is the enabler (social construction of technology way of thinking)
It’s a continuous interaction of both technology and society
College 2. Always on: Multitasking and performance (Martin Tanis)
Papers Carrier – Media multitasking in relation to learning performance
May & Elder – The impact of media multitasking on academic performance
Cain – Media multitasking in adolescents
Media multitasking = Using more than 1 electronic device at the same time, or multiple
screens, or using media during other activities Media saturation (verzadiging)
Internal factors (thoughts about future online activities) and external (alerts from
smartphones) factors influence multitasking prevalence
Who’s involved?
- Four out of five adolescents indicate to media-multitask every now and then
- 8-18 years old (generation M for multitasking)
o Squeeze 10:45 hours of media consumption into 7:30 hours of media use
o Media multitask 29% of their time 2010 (16% in 2000)
Why do we multitask?
Because we can: media is everywhere (bedroom, study, classroom, on bicycle)
Computer-based gadgets let us (smartphones with notifications, multiple screens)
Students report they think it helps them to multitask (Junco and Cotton, 2011)
Because you have not a concrete goal what to do (Judd and Kennedy, 2011)
In situations under time pressure (Foehr, 2006)
A desire to communicate/feeling bored (Clayson and Haley, 2012)
Fear of Mission Out (FOMO)
While studying in ‘home’ study students stayed on task 65% of the time.
On average 6 minutes on a task before switching to other task texting, Facebook,
watching TV, walking around, etc. They switch to another task when it’s getting difficult
(Rosen, Carrier, Cheever, 2013)
What is multitasking?
Type 1: The simultaneous execution of two or more processing activities at the same time
Psychological Refractory Period: the reaction time of one of the tasks is
delayed because of the presence of the other task. While both tasks are carried
out simultaneously.
