Defining Technological Determinism (academic)

Focus: Present two questions that have arisen from readings and/or discussions in class so far. Why are these important to me in relation to both my personal and academic interests.

Question 1: What is technological determinism?
Technological determinism appears to be a recurring theme across various Mathematics, Science and Technology classes. And like many academic terms, it appears that its meaning is provisional, changing depending on the author, her usage and the time when she writes.

Marx and Smith (1994) define technological determinism as "the human tendency to create the kind of society that invests technologies with enough power to drive history" (p. xiv). Additionally, Heilbroner (1994) defines technological determinism as "peculiarly a problem of a certain historical epoch-specifically that of high capitalism and low socialism-in which the forces of technological change have been unleashed, but when the agencies for the control or guidance of technology are still rudimentary" (p. 63 - emphasis is his).

As a relative neophyte in the world of Communication, Computing, and Technology in Education, the lack of certainty with regard to what appears to be a key conceptual building block of my field leaves me initially wary about my intellectual engagement with its constituent subject matter. More specifically, how can I begin to understand the world of the Social and Communicative Aspects of the Internet and other ICTs when my initial forays are clouded by definitional differences and ambiguities?

In terms of the question of what is technological determinism, I would combine the two definitions as follows. Technological determinism is "the human tendency, over certain historical epochs (such as high capitalism and low socialism), to create the kind of society that invests technologies with enough power to drive history. During these epochs, the forces of technological change have been unleashed but the agencies for the control or guidance of technology are still rudimentary".

I am not entirely satisfied with this definition as it appears that Marx & Smith look at technological determinism as more of a general phenomenon that is long lasting and continuous while Heilbroner appears to constrain it according to specific historical periods (e.g. historical epochs) defined by particular economic/political regimes (e.g. high capitalism and low socialism). As much of my thoughts on this field thus far, my understanding of technological determinism is provisional, uncertain and subject to change. Encountering additional definitions, usages and examples should only cloud things over until I, hopefully, find a definition that is both more all encompassing of the materials I read and the experiences I have while also reaching more definitional clarity.

Question 2: How are competing intellectual schools of thought reconciled?

In "The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other", Pinch & Bijker (1987) "argue that the social constructivist view that is prevalent within the sociology of science and also emerging within the sociology of technology provides a useful starting point" (p. 17) to create a unified social constructivist approach. This focus intrigued me due to my previous work on my Master of Philosophy degree. I wrote a research thesis titled "The possible role of preservice teacher education programs in teacher attrition rates: the exploratory first year stage of a longitudinal, multi-year study". One of the most significant challenges I faced was attempting to integrate the quantitative and qualitative aspects of my research into a seamless whole. As I was attempting to negotiate this philosophical divide, one of the thoughts I had was concerning the utility of the exercise itself. Intellectually it was interesting trying to find a connection between two distinct entities. However, even if I could adequately do this, in practical terms, would it have much of an effect? For example, if I was using survey (quantitative) and case study (qualitative) methodologies in my study, in practical terms would it matter whether or not I successfully philosophically integrated these competing epistemologies? And when I read this article, it reminded me very much of this internal tension. Do we as academics strive to reconcile philosophical points that are moot on a practical, everyday level? If so, does this investment of time take our time and energy away from issues of greater importance? Also, and this is especially relevant to people working in educational research, does this attempt at epistemological and philosophical purity push us further away from the quotidian challenges of the classroom?

Conclusion:
In terms of these two questions, they clearly appear to engage me in relation to my academic interests. However, their relation to my personal interests appears, at least initially, less clear. Similar to the example of the distinction between hard and soft technological determinism (Marx & Smith, 1994, p.p. xii-xiii), you could also create a similar spectrum between the academic/rational and personal/emotional. However, this dichotomy feels at least partially false. Does something that is interesting to us on an academic/rational level perhaps imply that on a deeper level it could also be personally/emotionally important? If you take a holistic view of human beings as having an essential biology and cognitive makeup that is shaped by the political, economic, social environment where they find themselves, perhaps something that is inexplicably engaging on an intellectual level is the result of a combination of these forces that were somehow emotionally charged at a previous time. As an example, think of the poor child who ends up being an advocate for the impoverished as an adult. I love the idea of binaries, such as hard and soft technological determinism, because it helps me define the upper limits of the concept at hand. But these extremes are usually that - extreme. The truth usually lies somewhere in the more amorphous and highly contested space between these two endpoints. And perhaps my intellectual engagement with technological determinism and rectifying competing intellectual schools of thought is the end result of deeper unidentified currents running beneath my consciousness.

References:
Marx, L., & Smith, M.R. (1994). Introduction. In M.R. Smith & L. Marx (Eds.), Does technology drive history?: The dilemma of technological determinism (ix-xv). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Heilbroner, R. (1994). Do Machines Make History? In M.R. Smith & L. Marx (Eds.), Does technology drive history?: The dilemma of technological determinism (53-65). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Pinch, T, & Bijker, W. (1987). The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other. In W. Bijker, T. Hughes & T. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (17-50). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.