Theory of Technology

David Clarke

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9780765808448
• eBook ISBN: 9781351472173
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

The history of technology is often troubled by good ideas that do not, for one reason or another, take off right away--sometimes for millennia. Sometimes, technology comes to a standstill, and sometimes, it even reverses itself. Thus, unlike science, which seems to proceed at a reasonable and calm rate, the progress of technology is difficult to theorize about. While in science many developments are predictable to a certain extent and this predictability may, at times, direct or stymie science's progress--as with stem-cell research and cloning--technological advances, such as the Internet, are often sudden and unpredictable, and therefore frightening.

In Theory of Technology, David Clarke brings together nine authors who try to understand technology from a variety of viewpoints. Rias van Wyk, in "Technology," parses the concept into many angles, including its anatomy, taxonomy, and evolution. Karol Pelc, in "Knowledge Mapping," discusses tracking the evolution of the emerging discipline of technology management. Jon Beard, in "Management of Technology," pursues a similar mapping endeavor, but looks to the patterns of the literature of technology management. Thomas Clarke, in "Unique Features of an R&D Work Environment and Research Scientists and Engineers," takes the reader on a tour of how people of technology present unique challenges to not just management but whole organizations.

Richard Howey, in "Understanding Software Technology," places enterprise software into a meaningful pattern of technology management. Fred Foldvary and Daniel Klein, in "The Half-Life of Policy Rationales," discuss how new technology affects old policy issues. John Cogan, in "Some Philosophical Thoughts on the Nature of Technology," maintains that our Aristotelian search for the essence of technology is doomed. And Peter Bond, in "The Biology of Technology," establishes a basis for the development of a socio-biological approach to understanding the pheno

1
Technology: A Fundamental Structure?

Rias J. van Wyk

Because technology plays such an important part in our daily lives, in our businesses, and in government policy, we need to understand it better. But technology has not undergone the elegant simplification that marks the development of most fields of knowledge as they grow to maturity. To achieve simplification we need first to discover the fundamental structure that underpins all technologies. Such a structure may well turn out to be one of the more significant conceptual foundations of the new century. What is the state of knowledge in this area? Beginning with Babbage early in the nineteenth century, many attempts have been made to create such a structure. The history of these attempts is poorly recorded with no well-documented central theme. One approach, called Strategic Technology Analysis (STA), seems to have advanced a little further than most others. It focuses on the intrinsic characteristics of technologies. Based on these characteristics, the field offers a set of frameworks for analyzing individual technological entities as well as entire technological landscapes. These frameworks cover the (1) anatomy, (2) taxonomy, (3) evolution, and (4) ecology of technology. This chapter traces the development of these frameworks. It recommends that they be scrutinized anew and evaluated as part of a revitalized search for fundamental structure.

Background

A fascinating quest of the past few years has been the search for a fundamental theoretical structure that underpins all of technology. This search could possibly yield one of the most significant conceptual foundations for the twenty-first century. Such a fundamental structure would materially improve our understanding of technology, enhance our ability to manage it better, and increase our effectiveness in formulating public policy in this area.

It is not hard to find evidence of the need for fundamental structure. In scholarly debate the terminology of technology is not used in a consistent manner. The very word has vastly different meanings—ranging all the way from computers and software to the totality of all tools devised by humankind. When describing individual technologies we do not refer to consistent distinguishing characteristics. Concepts like nano-technology, space technology, nuclear technology, and information technology exist side by side. And yet each relies on a different descriptor. This draws attention to a related issue. In technology we do not have a commonly accepted formal taxonomy, a way of classifying all technologies. Different organizations use different versions, mostly custom-made. All in all the theory of technology does not seem to have a satisfactory overall paradigm. The status of the field can best be described as being in the “unstructured,” “pragmatic,” or “pre-paradigmatic” phase.

In the practice of technology management, there is also evidence of the need for better structure. Most corporate managers will admit to being blindsided by new technology. Rare indeed is the CEO who systematically maps the global technological landscape and who knows where to expect definitive developments. In the case of technology policy, very few policymakers have a coherent view of the technological frontier and understand the intricate interplay of specialization and fusion in technological evolution. In the world of investments, monies flow in and out of technology-based companies more on the basis of fashion than on the basis of rational technology analysis. Is it not ironic that in the international stock markets, technology has become synonymous with disruptive and impoverishing volatility?

Why does such an unstructured state of affairs exist? The answer is that for most people it does not appear extraordinary; it reflects the inherent nature of technology. The popular view of technology is that it consists of a large number of separate fields, each with its own special characteristics and terminology. There is no big picture and there is no unifying concept. And, some would argue, there is no need for them. Most people would say that we understand technology well enough as it is. In fact things are going very well. More and more is costing less and less. We now advance further in a shorter space of time than ever before. Also, we are not doing this blindly. We can make roadmaps for individual technologies and we can plot their progress into the future. Problems do exist, but they are of a detailed nature and can probably be cured with a little better science and engineering.

It is against this backdrop that we hear the voice of those in favor of fundamental structure. This voice asserts that in spite of a general level of satisfaction with technology, we still lack comprehensive understanding. We do not yet have the “big picture.” We cannot show where our roadmaps lie on a global technological atlas. In fact, we do not even have such an atlas. Much tidyingup needs to be done. No wonder then that in the seventies Friedrich Rapp, a technology philosopher, exclaimed, “But it is an astonishing fact that the commonly accepted and carefully investigated philosophy of science has not yet found its counterpart in a philosophy of technology” (Rapp, 1974: vii). No wonder too that in the nineties Chris Farrell, a technology manager, started a groundbreaking article with the assertion “Technology is in need of a unifying concept to aid in its comprehension” (Farrell, 1993: 161). And no wonder that, at the close of the millennium, a study group sponsored by the National Science Foundation in the United States stressed the need for a “framework and a book of knowledge of the Management of Technology” (Khalil, 2000: 20).

The Search for Fundamental Structure

What do we mean by fundamental structure? Every field of knowledge seems to undergo a deep and elegant simplification at some stage of its development. So, in the eighteenth century, biology was raised to a new level of elegance by the Linnean taxonomy. In the nineteenth century physics benefited from the electromagnetic spectrum, while chemistry was irrevocably simplified by the periodic table of the elements. Then, in the twentieth century, macroeconomics was given structure through the elements of final demand and the Keynesian equation. These fundamental structures help us form a simplified big picture against which to map all the individual details that constitute a field of knowledge.

Frequently these fundamental structures receive only scant attention from contemporary professionals. Sometimes they are pointedly ignored. Sometimes they are met with skepticism and derision. This seems to be inherent in the process of diffusion. However, in the end, elegance and economy of thought do prevail. The structures enter daily use, everybody forgets the turbulence associated with their creation, and we all are the better off.

What is the position with respect to technology? Interestingly enough, technology was one field that early on attracted the attention of a universal thinker, Charles Babbage (Mazlish, 1993: 137.) In the early nineteenth century, and even before the creation of the periodic table and the electromagnetic spectrum, Babbage advocated a general understanding of what he called “the processes of manufacture”—today we may call them manufacturing technologies. To support this general understanding he offered a classification (discussed later). More important at this stage is Babbage’s approach. “The difficulties of understanding the processes of manufacture have unfortunately been greatly overstated. To examine them with an eye of a manufacturer, so as to be able to direct others to repeat them, does undoubtedly require much skill and previous acquaintance with the subject; but merely to apprehend their general principles and mutual relations is within the power of every person possessing a tolerable education” (Babbage, 1835: iv). He then proceeded to outline his taxonomy of processes of manufacture. Unfortunately, and in spite of its appeal to people with a “tolerable education,” Babbage’s pioneering effort in this field remained largely unexplored. It never grew into a general system for understanding. The flurry of universal thinking that characterized the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries did not succeed in endowing technology with a profound simplification that would make it more comprehensible.

For over a century-and-a-half, the question of fundamental structure seems to have lapsed into relative obscurity. Nevertheless, a continuous but thin stream of authors addressed this issue. But these efforts did not follow a consistent line of investigation and seemed to be isolated from each other. We cannot offer a complete review here but can illustrate the type of initiatives with some examples from the late twentieth century.

In the United States the early sixties saw a concern with understanding the phenomenon of “automaticity” (Amber and Amber, 1962). Here we should recall that automation was a prevaiting concern at the time and that “data automation” was an early term for what is now known as IT. The sixties also saw the work of James Bright and his classic analysis of the basic trends in technology development (Bright, 1963).

The seventies saw further advances. On the continent a publication in German of a “systems theory of technology” had a defining influence on the development of fundamental structure (Ropohl, 1979). In the United States, Miller published a monumental work. Living Systems. This book provided a most useful set of templates for comprehending technology (Miller, 1978). These two approaches augment each other admirably.

In the eighties the initiatives seemed to proliferate—a development that may have been associated with a revival of the field of management of technology (MOT). At MIT, the Management of Technology Group led by Ed Roberts lent considerable weight to emphasizing the importance of fundamental structure and encouraging scholars in this area. Elsewhere, writings appeared on the “functional approach to technology” (Majer, 1985), “technometrics” (Sahal, 1985; Grupp and Hohmeyer, 1986), and “metatechnology” (le Duff and Maïsseu, 1988). The eighties also saw the appearance of a comprehensive text on A Theory of Technology (De Gregori, 1985).

The nineties saw further creative ideas on unifying concepts. Ex...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Foreword
• 1 Technology: A Fundamental Structure?
• 2 Knowledge Mapping: The Consolidation of the Technology Management Discipline
• 3 Management of Technology: A Three-Dimensional Framework with Propositions for Future Research
• 4 Unique Features of an R&D Work Environment and Research Scientists and Engineers
• 5 Understanding Software Technology
• 6 The Half-Life of Policy Rationales: How New Technology Affects Old Policy Issues
• 7 Some Philosophical Thoughts on theNature of Technology
• 8 The Biology of Technology—An Exploratory Essay
• 9 Technological Semantics and Technological Practice: Lessons from an Enigmatic Episode in Twentieth-Century Technology Studies
• Index