A Formal Report on “Questioning

Technological Determinism through Empirical

Research” By Mark Webster

By

Dadula, Brent
Incenales, Anellou
Militante, Timothy
Paderanga, Joshua
Revelo, Klein
 Background of concept
Technological Determinism; as argued by Karl Marx, is an

ideology wherein, changes in technology, specifically; productive

technology, are primary influencers on human social relations and

organizational structure, and that social relations and cultural

practices ultimately revolve around the technological and economic

state of a society. In other words, technology is a determining

factor in the formation of our social values, norms and culture.

Issue at hand
Technological Determinism, as with all other reductionist

theories (connecting two otherwise complex ideas into a simplified

phenomena, in this case; technology and society/culture) is a very

hotly debated topic. However, the question still remains as to its

usefulness, and if the theory presented is useful/used by relevant

members of society.
 Goal of the Study/ Analysis

The case study; by Mark David Webster, aims to determine how

the concept of Technological Determinism (as explained in the first

slide) affects and influences actual technological leaders in

their decision making. Furthermore, it aims to prove whether the

concept of Technological Determinism is being applied by

entrepreneurs in the market, and how much of the concept do they

use in their day-to-day decision making.The study focuses on

technological drivers in the educational tech branch; mainly in

the K-12 education department.

Problem
The case study explores the practicality of the concept of

Technological Determinism and whether or not members of society

involved in technological development abide by it or use its

concept/s. Whether technological leaders involved in the K-12

education department use the concept in their decision making. The

sample comprises of 15 technology directors and 16 instructional

technology specialists from Virginia school districts in the

United States; 31 in total.

 Key Facts to consider

In the study, the researcher sampled 31 Technological

Leaders; 15 technology directors and 16 instructional technology

specialists from Virginia school districts in the U.S. Before

asking the core question of the study, conversations between the

researcher and the sampled Technological Leaders found that they

claim to believe in the instrumental view of technology; considers

technology as a tool, as means put to use by users for their

purposeful ends The question asked to the sampled technological

leaders is as follows: “What assumptions characterized by

technological determinism may be present in a leader’s thinking or

decision making?”

After receiving the leaders’ answers and deliberation, the

following data was discovered: Noticeably in the early stages of

data analysis, verbal claims such as ‘Educational goals and

curriculum should drive educational technology’ were prevalent

amongst the Technological Leaders being asked. However, once the

empirical data was complete, the idea that ‘Technology drives

change’ was found out as well, which completely negates most of

the samples verbal claims. 30 out of the 31 Technological Leaders

answered with this ideology, making it a majority decision.

 The study concluded, in essence, with the following phrases:

“Despite the logic of the instrumental view of technology being so

widespread among participant’s claims, the findings show that the

perspective that ‘Technological change is inevitable’ influenced

the thinking of the leaders in a compelling way.’’ “Keep up with

technology (or be left behind) reappeared in-vivo in transcript

narratives in various forms, often expressed in those words, or

variations of them.” There is philosophical tension in technology

leaders’ thinking between the instrumental view of technology, and

a perceived imperative to keep up with the pace of technological

change.

Alternatives to Consider

Regarding the empirical data, it can be easily said that

despite the dilemma many Technological Leaders face,

alternatives can be as follows: They follow the trend at which

relevant technological developments arise, but stay true to

their own cultural/societal vision, only adhering to

technological pressure when need be Completely engross

themselves in the idea that technology is what shapes their

cultural/social needs, in this case, the need to develop

efficient technology in the K-12 educational department.

Distance themselves from technological development, gain

identity and individualism but risk being ‘left out’

commercially by competition that adheres to Technological

Determinism.

Recommendations

Given the conclusion of the study, the dissonance

between the verbal claims of the sampled Technological

Leaders as well as their general belief, the following

recommendations can be created: Create a follow up study that

addresses why their claims are dissonant; why they state that

technology is a tool; a means to end, but also believe that

inevitably, technology forces them to change.

Create a similar study, this time in the student/faculty

department, asking them why/whether or not they believe

technology drives the way they learn. In this way, claims

between technological leaders and the party that majorly

benefits from their advancements/decisions create a more

wholesome study that reflects both sides of the issue, helping

future researchers delve into a more multifaceted study that

addresses multiple issues; namely: If Marx’s theory of

Technological Determinism is truly applicable organically If

the instrumental view of technology correlates with the

theory of Technological Determinism.

 Technological Leaders in the K-12 branch should also not

simply adhere to technological advancements, but ask students

and faculty, what they need most in the educational system.

Acknowledging the needs and wants of the receiving party for

technological development not only helps further the study of

the concept of Technological Determinism, but also furthers

the study of whether or not technological development truly

determines society’s culture/norms/values.

 Related literature

Webster, Mark. ‘Questioning Technological Determinism through

Empirical Research’
pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9bb9/78c7da6a84cb1574dc4078ab5eed8a0886
ee.pdf

Carr-Chellman, Alison A. 2006. “Desperate Technologists:

Critical Issues in Elearning and Implications for Higher
Education.” Journal of Thought 41(10): 95-115, 119.

Clegg, Sue, Alison Hudson and John Steel. 2003. “The Emperor’s
New Clothes: Globalisation and E-learning in Higher Education.”
British Journal of Sociology of Education 24(1): 39-53.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3593303.pdf

Hofmann, Bjørn. 2006. “When Means Become Ends: Technology

Producing Values.” Seminar.net: Media, Technology, & Lifelong
Learning 2(2): 1-12. http://www.seminar.net/images/stories/vol2-
issue2/bjorn_hofmann.pdf

Jackson, Stephen and George Philip. 2010. “A Techno-cultural

Emergence Perspective on the Management of Techno-change.”
International Journal of Information Management 30(5): 445-456.

Lievrouw, Leah A. 2006. “New Media Design and Development:

Diffusion of Innovations v. Social Shaping of Technology.” In
The Handbook of New Media, edited by Leah Lievrouw and Sonia
Livingstone. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.