A Perspective on Technological Determinism
The book, "Personal Connections in the Digital Age," (Baym, 2015) offers scholars a critical analysis on interpersonal communication via digital media. Early chapters are structured to set readers up for thinking deeper and broader about online interactions and the technologies that facilitate those messages. Baym (2015) identifies four dominate theoretical frameworks found throughout multidisciplinary new media scholarship; technological determinism, the social construction of technology, social shaping, and domestication.
For doctoral students, hypothesizing within the seams of theoretical frameworks, for all its significance, isn't instinctive. Iqubal (2007) opines that identifying and selecting one is "the most difficult but not impossible part of [crafting the dissertation] proposal" (p.17). Metaphorically, Grant & Osanloo (2014) liken a theoretical framework to the "blueprint of a house" (p. 12). Furthermore, Pratt (2016) explains that theoretical frameworks "[operate] at the level of the researcher's consciousness, that is, how s/he thinks about the world: this may be from a scientific, interpersonal, or activist point of view, or even in the context of a great philosopher’s insights into the nature of reality" (p. 2).
Chapter two, "Making New Media Make Sense," (Baym, 2015, p. 24) serves as a motivator for keeping research-orientation top of mind. Although the chapter doesn't deep-dive into the four major frameworks, it's a well-rounded section for making connections between each paradigm and last week's assigned readings. For instance, I associated "Explicating problematic social network sites use: A review of concepts, theoretical frameworks, and future directions for communication theorizing," (Lee, Ho, and Lwin, 2016) with social shaping.
I've opted to share some initial thoughts on technological determinism for the remainder of this blog post. Keeping in mind that these thoughts are far from grounded or even astute, I put forth questions and underdeveloped ideas as an exploratory activity.
Technological Determinism
According to Baym (2015), technological determinism is the perspective in which technology "...[rises] independent[ly] of social contexts and then affect[s] them" (pg. 44). It adamantly maintains rigidity for which we're to investigate new media phenomena. Largely, I agree with Lynne Markus' (1994) assertion that the framework is "ultimately [ ] optimistic" (Baym, 2015, pg.32). However, I still wonder about the efficacy in discounting the theory's applicability solely based on the notion that it's too "formulaic and hyperbolized" (Baym, 2015, p. 32).
If combined with another major theoretical framework, technological determinism may affirm a place among skeptics.
If we pivot from viewing the framework as a standalone change agent, perhaps we can dissect it so that it becomes a concept that falls under another overarching paradigm. This thought is spurred by Baym's (2015) commentary on how the basis of determinism is to build "better technology" in response to "negative outcomes" created by earlier iterations (p. 32). While I have yet to completely subscribe to this worldview, I'm admittedly confused about how one can call for sweeping cultural change (under a different framework) if the implications for technical alteration are not investigated; pronounced are the cases in which users are unwilling to part with it.
On another note, I'm driven by the idea that technology is neither utopic or dystopic at the point of inception. It's a neutral thing (e.g. feature, app, platform, etc.) that after, and only after, its launch becomes instantaneously utopic and dystopic. Certainly, this dual state of being is molded by the ecology in which it sits. Therefore, technology is not an external affliction, nor is it predestined by social factors in en masse. Instead, imagine fragmentation. An infinite number of parts that delineate users and non-users into haves and have nots. A complex phenomenon that is fueled by capitalism and perceived human need. This train of thought is influenced by my professional experience in product development and understanding how digital and IT teams decide on which technologies and/or features to build (and when) for targeted users.
References
Baym, N. K. (2010). Personal connections in the digital age. Cambridge, UK ; Malden, MA: Polity.
Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical framework in dissertation research: creating the blueprint for your “house.” Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice, and Research, 14(2), 12-26. doi: 10.1046/j.0266-4909.2003.00051.x
Iqbal, J. (2007). Learning from a doctoral research project: Structure and content of a research proposal. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 5(1),11–20.
Lee E.W., Ho S.S., Lwin M.O. (2016). Explicating problematic social network sites use: A review of concepts, theoretical frameworks, and future directions for communication theorizing. new media & society : 1461444816671891.
Markus, L. (1994). Finding the happy medium: explaining the negative effects of electronic communication on social life at work. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 12, 119-49.
Pratt, D.D. (2016). Research orientations, theories and related terms. English for Research Purposes (Blog). Retrieved from http://dutmoodle.dut.ac.za/moodle/pluginfile.php/69727/mod_resource/content/11/Research%20orientations%2C%20theories% 20and%20related%20terms.pdf
WangMing. (2017). Photograph. Retrieved from https://www.pexels.com/photo/art-background-decoration-light-354939/.
