Social Responsibility and Theoretical Choice - Part 5

Where is Our Technology Design Leading Us?

As demonstrated in the above example of the US government seeking to influence the design of new technologies, there are decisions being made about what work roles should be replaced, who has control over the creation of new technology, and what values it will represent. The design processes we use also have a similar effect. Technological determinism is a term sometimes used to describe this technological change (Feenberg, 1999). This theory has weak and strong versions, with the latter advocating that new technologies follow their own unquestionable evolutionary path and that humanity needs to adapt to the needs of scientific progress. The more commonly advocated weak version stipulates that while new technologies do influence behaviour, there is also another significant effect of people deciding which technologies to create and how to use them. Some social science researchers are on the other end of the spectrum and believe that personal choice and environmental situations are the primary controlling factors of technology development and use (Arnold, 2003). This perspective dismisses the history of progressive technology advancement and successful predictive formulae such as Moore’s Law (Fitts & Posner, 1967) which are based on the premise that new advancements in science will result in the predictable growth of new technologies. For example, some of the most stable predictions in technology design are that devices will get smaller, more powerful and more efficient. When these powerful handheld devices are delivered into the hands of customers by hardware and software vendors, they will have an impact on employment roles, social relations and governments. People will make some decisions about how to use these devices, but they will be constrained by the physical limitations of the devices and tempted to use the features which are easy and inexpensive.

Thus it seems that there is a balance in responsibility between those who are designing and selling devices, governments which regulate their practices, and users of these technologies who decide what is desired and socially acceptable. Clearly we do not want situations where introduction of new technologies results in members of the surrounding community living in inhumane conditions. However we should also remember that the introduction of a new technology was not the significant factor in the Luddite rebellion. Instead it was unethical business owners and a government which did not enact laws to support a healthy economic climate in which people could find quality work. The older textile technology of the wooden frame was used to exploit workers, just as the new automated machinery was after it. However, some technologies do change workers job roles more than others; for example enhancements to frames were not as disruptive as entirely new shearing frames. However, it is the way that business owners choose (or are regulated) to use available technologies and treat their employees, which greatly influences the quality of life of workers. Thus it is quite possible that we as designers could use completely humane design theories, which produce a mutually satisfactory product, which is then implemented in a profit-driven fashion by industry, which results in the abuse of workers. Thus it must be remembered that design theory and methods is only a small part of the bigger picture of humane sociotechnical systems.

Next Post: Potential Solutions: Subversive Technologies and Impact Statements