Question:

A range of theoretical perspectives have attempted to explain the development and application of different technologies and organizational practices (e.g. Technological Determinism (TD), Social Construction of Technology (SCOT), and Actor Network Theory (ANT)). Focus on a specific technology, technique or organizational practice and critically examine how you would examine the development or application of this case from a TD perspective, and either a SCOT or ANT perspective. (I want to describe a current technology or process, such as Facebook vs Twitter for example, from a TD, and SCOT perspectives.)

Marking:

First class work: the ability to evaluate concepts critically and apply concepts to the problems in imaginative and innovative ways. A wider literature search and the ability to synthesize and integrate the relevant literature in relation to the specific question.
While this criteria should provide you with some guidance as to the demands and expectations of the course, they are not definitive and there are no rigid rules for evaluation.

Marks will be awarded for the level of understanding of the concepts and how they are applied when reviewing specific cases in relation to issues of change and development. The student will also be assessed on their recognition of the relevant literature and their ability to critically examine the different ideas and perspectives. Furthermore, the assignments will be assessed on the ways in which the concepts are illustrated and examined in relation to specific examples. Finally, additional marks will be awarded where the student displays innovative and imaginative ways of dealing with these issues within the coursework.

Useful Texts:
Smith & Marx (1994) Does Technology Drive History?
Mackenzie & Wajcman (1999) The Social Shaping of Technology.
Bijker, Hughes, & Pinch (1987) The Social Construction of Technological Systems.
Latour (2005) Reassembling the Social.
Grint & Woolgar (1997) The Machine at Work.

Answer:

Contents

Introduction. 2

Overview of Technological Determinism (TD) 2

Analysis of Facebook from the Technological Determinism (TD) perspective. 4

Overview of the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) approach. 7

Analysis of Facebook from the SCOT perspective. 8

Conclusion. 9

References. 10

 

Introduction

In recent years, many technologies and organizational practices have emerged. In response, scholars have attempted to explain the emergence and development of these technologies using various theoretical perspectives. Some of these theoretical perspectives include Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) and Technological Determinism (TD). It is crucial for efforts to be made to describe various emerging technologies such as Facebook and Twitter using these theories. This facilitates a better understanding of both the technologies and the theories used to describe them. The aim of this paper is to describe the emergence Facebook from both the TD and SCOT perspectives.

Overview of Technological Determinism (TD)

In technological determinism, the objective is to explain historical and social phenomena from the basis of one determining factor. The perspective is based on the doctrine of causal or historical primacy (Smith & Marx, 1994). The term “technological determinism” was first used by Thorstein Veblen, an American economist and sociologist; he used the term in an effort to address the controversy regarding the extent to which technology does condition social change (Smith & Marx, 1994). Unfortunately, even at the present time, no success has been achieved in identifying the core factors that determine the emergence of new technologies. Different commentators put emphasis on different factors in the emergence of new technologies and organizational practices.

Technological determinism is sometimes considered a very persuasive stance (Smith & Marx, 1994). It has even been referred to in some quarters as a source of major pitfalls because of the wide generalizations that its proponents generate. In this theory, the foundational feature is the relationship between technology and human society. Over time, many scholars have subjected this theory to critical review. In fact, this critical review has evolved into a widely held conception, in which “deterministic” is considered a negative term for most social scientists(Smith & Marx, 1994). Moreover, for most modern sociologists, this is a term of abuse.

In technological determinism, social change is analyzed from a technological perspective. In fact, the proponents of this theory view technology as “the prime mover” in human history (Callon, 1986). Being a technology-led perspective, it is used as an alternative in the explanation of numerous concepts in social sciences. For instance, in economics, the “demand-pull” theory is replaced with the “technology-push” theory (Dutton, 1999).

Technological determinists argue that technological developments and communications technologies are the sole antecedent causes of social change. Moreover, technology is viewed as the fundamental condition that underlies all patterns of social organization. For technological determinists, communications technologies have been the basis for social reorganization in the past. They are also held to be the basis of such reorganization in the present time and in the future.

The proponents of this perspective hold the view that technologies such as print, writing, computer, and technology have literally “changed society” (Smith & Marx, 1994). The extreme view by these proponents is that the form of society that exists is determined by technology. Whenever new technologies emerge, they are expected to bring transformational change to society at every level; they change the way institutions operate, the way people engage in social interactions, and the way individuals relate with one another at the interpersonal level. In this situation, social arrangements and “human factors” are thought to be of secondary importance as far as the influence of technology is concerned.

According to Smith & Marx (1994), Karl Max is a staunch supporter of technological determinism. He gives various examples of how various technologies have determines the types of societies that have been in existence. One example is that of the windmill, which, according to Marx, led to the emergence of a society that was dominated by the feudal lord. On the other hand, the steam-mill brought about the formation of a society dominated by the industrial capitalist (Smith & Marx, 1994). However, some critics of this perspective have, for example Law & Singleton (2005), disputed the view that Marx was a technological determinist. Other technological determinists have also attempted to provide examples to show how technology is the sole determinant of social change. In one example, the invention of the horse collar is said to have led to the emergence of the modern society (Latour, 2005).

Futuristic commentators also use technological determinism to predict the emergence of “the microelectronic revolution” (Forester, 1985). For example, Christopher Evans predicted that the computer would soon bring about transformation in society at every level (Forester, 1985). Incidentally, today, computers have revolutionized communication. We live in the information age. People from all parts of the world are able to communicate with each other through various forms of computer mediated communication such as teleconferencing, chat rooms, social media, and email.

Analysis of Facebook from the Technological Determinism (TD) perspective

Of all these forms of computer-mediated communication, social media has had the most far-reaching impact on the way people communicate. For instance, Facebook is a social media website that brings together friends via internet. The friends can send messages to each other, chat with one another, share photos, share news, form groups, market companies’ products, play games, as well as plan for social activities such as parties and camping expeditions.

In October 2012, the number of people interacting via Facebook reached one billion (Smith, 2012). Facebook was launched in 2004 as a social networking website. It took six years for Facebook to reach 500 million users and only two to hit the one-billion mark (Smith, 2012). This indicates the rapid rate at which the company has been growing. There is no denying that this social website has revolutionized society. Today, one can use Facebook to communicate with a business associate, to access market information, to read online news, to watch TV news updates, and to market a new product.

Interestingly, one does not need to pay a penny to join Facebook, and this explains why it has become so popular within such a short time. A person only needs to create an online profile and link up with friends and acquaintances. In 2012, Facebook started trading as a public company. Moreover, the Initial Public Offering (IPO) that preceded this historic move was the largest in US history. On this basis, technological determinists would argue that Facebook has changed all aspects of modern life.

Today, people are more socially connected to each other than at any other time in human history. They not only get news information, they also know numerous things about their friends. Moreover, in its default settings, the social media platform enables anyone to access information regarding any individual who has uploaded his or her profile into the website. In the way, the term “peeking” has been given a new meaning. A friend does not need to turn up at the neighbor’s house see how the couple’s new baby boy looks like. He or she only needs to know the couple’s names and search for their profiles on Facebook. It is highly likely the couple will have posted a photo of the newborn baby boy on the social website and neighbor will have readily view it. This shows the far-reaching impact that Facebook has on the modern society.

Technological determinists would argue that the intentions of the person who designed Facebook determined the practice into which the social networking platform was put. However, this is not the case. In other words, technology cannot determine practice. After all, in the analysis of communications technology, it is always difficult to isolate “causes” and “effects”. By arguing that Facebook designers determine the practice of users, technological determinists are in essence explaining social change using a “mono-causal approach” rather than the universally accepted “multi-causal approach” (Bijker, Hughes, & Pinch, 1987).

The mono-causal approach has in many cases been widely criticized because it provides a single independent variable or cause for all social phenomena taking place at a certain time in human history. It is grossly inaccurate to argue that Facebook is a single independent cause of any social phenomenon in today’s society. Although Facebook has contributed to far-reaching social changes, it is not the sole cause of the emergence of today’s online society. Moreover, not everyone in society is ruled over by the world of Facebook.

Facebook applications, for instance, have never imposed themselves upon societies. Moreover, prior to the emergence of Facebook other similar platforms such as Friendster and Myspace had been launched and society had rejected them. Technological determinism fails to explain how the technological idea was later on accepted the world over when it was reintroduced years later in the form of Facebook. This puts to the fore the unpredictable nature of society. Technological determinism fails to account for this unpredictability. For many people, Facebook is just a convenient tool of taking them where the target social groups with the aim of influencing them in one way or the other. On the basis of this analysis, technological determinism is not an appropriate perspective for explaining the emergence of Facebook.

Overview of the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) approach

The SCOT approach is based on the argument that technologies shape society and society shapes technology (Bijker, Hughes, & Pinch, 1987). In other words, practices are determined by how people choose to integrate technology into their lives; they are not determined by technologies. Proponents of this approach argue that technologies are continually being shaped and reshaped to ensure that the prevailing needs and desires of people are met. In this way, technologies and people are seen to evolve together (Bijker, Hughes, & Pinch, 1987).

From the perspective of social construction of technology, technology design is viewed as an open process capable of producing different results depending on the prevailing social circumstances (Latour, 1992). Another concept promoted through this approach relates to the existence of a relevant social group. The proponents observe that all members who belong to a certain social group have a set of shared meanings, which they attach to a specific artifact (Bijker & Law, 1992). During the technology development process, multiple groups, each representing a specific interpretation of a specific artifact, participate in negotiations over its design.

According to Mackenzie & Wajcman (1999), it is normal for different groups to have different conceptions of how a certain technology should work. In such a scenario, the SCOT approach posits that the development process continues until such a time when all groups are in agreement that platform works. The design work ceases not because an objective sense of functionality has been achieved, but because all the relevant social groups have come to a consensus that it works appropriately for them.

Analysis of Facebook from the SCOT perspective

From the SCOT perspective, Facebook is seen as a social media technology that emerged from a long process of negotiations over which was the best way of constructing an internet-based social media platform. Social group membership was a crucial factor in this process, which involved negotiations. When one form of technology such as Friendster was introduced, members of the social group responded in various ways, Friendster influenced people just as much as the people influenced Friendster. From the SCOT perspective, such interactions shaped the process of developing changes that eventually led to the creation of the Facebook platform.

Indeed, prior to the development of Facebook, many efforts had been made to introduce various social media platforms. Examples of the platforms that developed during the infant years of social media include Bulletin Board System (BBS), Compuserve, America Online (AOL), Classmates.com, SixDegrees.com, AsianAvenue.com, Friendster, LinkedIn, and MySpace. The development of all these social platforms indicates a long process of negotiations over the best way to represent an artifact. Proponents of the SCOT approach argue that this process involved constant interactions between technology and people. The corollary to this point of view is that this process is ongoing; therefore, people should expect future changes to occur in the world of social media.

Proponents of the SCOT would not like to see a situation where the Facebook founder forces users to behave exactly as he thinks people ought to behave on social network. This would be tantamount to “configuring the users” (Grint & Woolgar, 1997). Such rigidity on the part of the Facebook designer would eventually make people to stop interacting through the website. This would make Facebook lose popularity and eventually die. From this point of view, one begins to understand why Facebook, unlike other social-network websites, has survived for eight years. All along, Facebook has been dynamic in terms of website architecture, privacy, security features, and aesthetics. Users have been expressing concerns all along, and the company has in virtually all cases expressed willingness to adapt to the users’ needs.

The design work at Facebook ceased not because an objective sense of functionality had been achieved, but because all the relevant social groups came to a consensus that it worked appropriately for them. Indeed, such a consensus has already been reached given that the number of Facebook users reached one billion in October 2012, eight years after the launch of the social networking website. This is an indication of a phenomenon where technology is shaping people and people are being shaped by technology.

Conclusion

In conclusion, both the TD and SCOT approaches provide valuable insights into the interaction between people and technology. Proponents of the TD approach argue that technological developments and communications technologies are the sole antecedent causes of social change. In contrast, SCOT theorists argue that technologies shape people and at the same time people shape technologies. In other words, practices are determined by how people choose to integrate technology into their lives.

The SCOT approach best describes the influence of Facebook on today’s society. On the one hand, Facebook is impacting on the way people socialize with one another. On the other hand, people’s concerns regarding Facebook continue to compel the founders of the social networking website to make changes, particularly in areas of security and privacy. The TD approach is inappropriate for describing the development of the Facebook platform. This is because Facebook does not fully determine practice. Facebook users have their preferences, which the company has to respond to from time to time in order to avoid the risk of losing popularity and finally closing down just like most of its predecessors.

 

References

Bijker W., Hughes, T., & Pinch. T. (1987). The Social Construction of Technological Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge.

Bijker, W. & Law, J. (1992). Shaping Technology, Building Society. MIT Press, Cambridge.

Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay, in J. Law, (ed.) Power, Action, and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? (pp. 196-233), Routledge and Kegan Paul, London

Dutton, W. (1999). Society on the Line. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Forester, T. (1985). The Information Technology Revolution. Blackwell Publishing, Boston.

Grint, K. & Woolgar, S. (1997). The Machine at Work. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Latour, B. (1992). ‘Where Are the Missing Masses?’ in W. Bijker, & J. Law, (eds.) Shaping Technology/Building Society, (pp. 225-258), MIT Press, Cambridge.

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social. Columbia University Press, New York.

Law, J. & Singleton, V. (2005). Object Lessons. Organization, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 331-355.

Mackenzie, D. & Wajcman, J. (1999). The Social Shaping of Technology. Oxford University Press, London.

Smith, A. (2012). Facebook reaches one billion users.  4 October 2012, Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/04/technology/facebook-billion-users/index.html  on January 11, 2013.

Smith, M. & Marx, L. (1994). Does Technology Drive History? MIT Press, Cambridge.