What if We could See “Technology” Differently?
Let me share with you something I came to realize recently:
“Distorted understanding can only lead to futile use and ineffective interaction”
More often than not, creative inventions, scientific breakthroughs, and solutions stem not from discovering the new or devising the novel but from a better understanding of the environment around us and ourselves. Also, from new perspectives of the same thing we used to see and deal with without realizing we could use it in a different way and that it can actually improve our lives. This is normal. In fact, it is inevitable.
If you want to lose the joy of reading, you can jump to the last paragraph. But I advise you to enjoy this adventure and get ready to dive with me!
Given that we only have a limited ability to decipher this world as humans, and the relatively “slow” process of improving on the tools we use to understand our environment, it is normal to have an imperfect and flawed perception of a newly discovered concept or object, and even artificial instruments. However, over time it is also inevitable to develop new ways to use and interact with what was once considered novel and unfamiliar, and consequently improving our understanding of it. And I think, that’s where the beauty and wonder of this life lie.
Unfortunately, that is not always the case. One of the things we fail to recognize as humans is what I just talked about. Our flawed understanding of ourselves and the world around us. This leads to serious issues, and probably the most severe one is failing to realize there is always a flaw in our understanding of everything. Especially newly encountered things and concepts around us. Worse still, if we are to integrate a new thing, let’s call it X, into our lives and we still fail to keep in mind our imperfect conception, the only thing we will get from using X is “what we see” it can offer. Or, in other words, if I’m allowed to use a concept from the world of software design and development,
“What You See Is What You Get”
Our limited understanding of a particular concept or instrument leads to a limited use of it. And then, unaware of doing that, we gradually start attributing the affordances (a term coined by psychologist James J. Gibson, which means the things an object offers and provides either for good or ill as a result of our use, which in turn is based on our perception) to that particular thing itself. This has serious effects on the scientific inquiry and our perception of the world. Francis Bacon, the famous English philosopher whose works laid the groundwork for the scientific method, explained it very well:
“The handling of final causes, mixed with the rest in physical inquiries, hath intercepted the severe and diligent inquiry of all real and physical causes, and given men the occasion to stay upon these satisfactory and specious causes, to the great arrest and prejudice of further discovery” — Bacon
Put simply, Bacon here is criticizing the study of final causes which leads to restricting what a particular thing can or cannot do and thus fixing its affordances. According to De Vries, this instrumentalist view, the tendency to associate the reason we use an instrument for, and the results of that use, with the instrument itself, is the most common conception among people. And unfortunately, technology is no exception. According to Martin Oliver, professor in Education and Technology and head of the Center for Doctoral Education, there is no solid philosophical foundation of the term “technology” and thus a lack of theorization that “left us with a poorly conceptualized field”. This means technology has no clear and exact definition. Really? I thought technology is everything related to computers and high-tech machines!
See? This is the real issue. According to Oliver, most, if not all, technology definitions point to an example of technology. And if we think about it, we will find both the definitions and our perspectives of technology are driven by practical examples. And if we are to connect the dots here and explain this in terms of what I said earlier, we will find that what we attribute to technology whether it is a property, a characteristic, a reason, or an effect is actually something we should attribute to the particular technological instrument and our use of it.
This is what Francis Bacon was trying to tell us. Technology per se, the concept, or any discovery, is neutral and doesn’t have any shape. To illustrate this further, Martin Oliver uses an example of early philosophical discussions about one of the greatest and earliest learning technologies in human history; Writing.
In this example, he mentions Socrates’ mistrust of writing due to the fact that the Sophists used to use it as a means to deceive people and to convey their ideas and beliefs. It makes no sense to refuse reading books and writing just because there are people out there who use writing for evil or whatever purpose you may not agree with. This tendency to attribute effects of a particular use of something to the thing itself is common. Writing is neutral, and so is technology.
We often find ourselves talking about technology’s effects in certain contexts, and we often fail to question the “What” and essence of what is causing the effect. Overlooking this part of the equation is exactly why we’re stuck in the flawed understanding of the concept of technology and thus making no progress at all in terms of correcting our perspective and improving our understanding of it. If we are to step back from our referential definitions, which always restrict the concept of technology and confine it in the shape of the technological tool being referenced, and consider the question “What is Technology?”, we will have to inspect different historical and ancient views and traditions as well as contemporary discussions of the question. Unfortunately, doing that will require a really long post for that alone. Let’s first inspect some interesting conceptions of this term and then try to define it.
Can we define Technology?
According to Rushby and Surry, authors of the Wiley Handbook of Learning Technology, De Vries classifies conceptions of technology into four main dimensions. Technology can be explained in terms of all these conceptions. And these conceptions are more of perspectives than contrasting views; angles to see the concept of technology from. Basically, we can see technology as artifacts, as knowledge, as activities, and/or as values. Elaborating on these views is beyond the scope of this post. If you’re interested to know more, you can visit the third chapter of the aforementioned book.
Essentially, the most common and dominant understanding of technology is the “technology as artifacts” conception. Most of us interpret technology in terms of affordances. This conception characterizes technology in terms of ends and means and is represented in questions such as “What works?”, “What are the best practices?”, “Is this going to improve my workflow/to help me perform tasks better?”, “What is the added value if I integrate this technological solution into my organization/system?”. And then, our analysis and decision is based on the answers of such questions. This view is the most limited conception, and it is only normal to see it like this in the first encounter with the concept.
But why is it so limited? Aren’t we looking for what works best? Don’t we want a better way to do things? Well, Yes! But the problem is that this view tends to fixate on what is perceived by the user and consider the technological artifact as something immutable and unbending which puts the user into a passive position. That is the best case scenario. What’s worse is that this limited view devalue technology, in the broader sense, if the end goals cannot be met using the “instrument”, or if the use of the technological tool affects us or the environment negatively. This is exactly why we’re still having problems “we cannot solve” through technology. And as I said earlier, the theoretical gap in this field left us stuck in this flawed understanding. There are other similar but slightly different conceptions of technology and they all fall under this view.
Fortunately, there is an improved and better explanation of technology, which is a little bit challenging but it could completely change the way we understand and deal with this concept.
Technology As Knowledge
If we combine the idea that technology per se is neutral and we detach it from any particular use or reason, we will start viewing technology as applying science — and art as well, to nature. In fact, technology goes even beyond the application of science and art for the creation of systems and artifacts. Technological knowledge is unique in itself; it has its own reasoning and intricacies. It is where all disciplines and human knowledge meet. Shifting to this level of understanding requires a serious and conscious effort to change our perspective through researching, reasoning about, and inspecting technological instruments and phenomena, and learning about the history of technology. But, it’s worth it.
Now, we can see the concept of “technology” in 2D. This new understanding allows us to be more than passive “designers” and users of technological instruments and actually discover that technology is an intermediary between us and our environment. Thus, we will start crafting and using technology to improve on nature and complete things that “whilst natural, are less than perfect at serving human purposes, such as house-building”(Martin Oliver), or knowledge-construction, for instance. If the starting point is improving and/or extending a natural process or phenomenon such as curing diseases, purifying air and water, maintaining physical and mental health, learning and extending cognitive abilities, etc, applying technology will by no means be restricted in pre-defined technological tools and driven by questions such as “what works?”. The end goal and the value added are clear from the very beginning. Therefore, the immutability and unbending nature of technology (which, by the way, could take us to ugly places such as viewing ourselves being controlled by technology and eventually leading us to technophobia) is no longer true. Instead, the question should be, “How to design and implement the extension of this natural phenomenon?” and the success of implementing technology here will depend on how creative and accurate we are in terms of devising the solution. Of course, the design and creation process is lot more complex than that.
This conception implies a principle, or a prerequisite if you will, that is of vital importance to the success of applying technology to solve a problem or improve a process. Do we have a solid understanding of the domain and/or phenomenon we are trying to solve or improve through technology? If not, continuing in this path may not be a good idea. In fact, it could do harm more than good. And by the way, this is true for both the designer and the user of the technological instrument.
Technology as Activities and As Values — or “Volition”
These last two conceptions are considered advanced levels of understanding technology(sort of viewing technology in 4D).
“Technology as activities” implies that crafting technological tools and novel approaches to deal with our world is a natural phenomenon that is as old as humans. Technology has always been an integral part of our lives as human beings. This view emphasizes the importance of technological knowledge and regard technology as a process of designing, making, using, and assessing objects and artifacts as a way to extend abilities and improve processes, be it natural or artificial.
Finally, the “technology as values” view deals with cultural aspects and involves reasoning about technology in terms of ethics and social values. It also regard technological instruments and systems as servants to the ethical and cultural aspects of a nation.
Technology is not all about computers and high-tech industry. Technology is an innovative process that uses all human knowledge to creatively devise and use objects and artifacts for the sake of improving on natural processes, solving problems, and basically serving human needs. Using a tree as a bridge is technology. Medicaments is technology. Telecommunication is technology. Designing and making tools is technology. Developing computer software is technology, etc.
The TAA Project sums it up in a nice definition. Technology is
“…human innovation in action. It involves the generation of knowledge and processes to develop systems that solve problems and extend human capabilities”
I invite you to re-read this post form the start. Especially, if you feel your perspective and understanding of technology is being shaken. It takes reflective thoughts and time to digest and instill what you just read.
This post was originally written as an introduction to an article in which I discuss Educational and Learning Technology, but due to its conceptual nature and length, I have been advised to split it into independent parts.
I’ve written this post out of a strong desire to change the way we see technology. I believe if our understanding of it improves, our lives will improve as well, considerably. Help me get it to as many people as possible by clapping and sharing it. I am sure there are engineers and talented people out there that this may be all what it takes to spark their creativity, inventiveness, and problem solving skills. De Vries book “Teaching About Technology” is a short book on this topic that I’m sure will change not only your understanding, but also your way of thinking and solving problems!
