JTE v3n1 - Technological Impacts and Determinism in Technology Education: Alternate Metaphors from Social Constructivism
Volume 3, Number 1
Fall 1991
Technological Impacts and Determinism in Technology Education:
Alternate Metaphors from Social Constructivism
John R. Pannabecker
In technology education, teaching about
technology and society has usually been em-
bedded in the notion of technological impacts
on society. References to the impacts of
technology on society are pervasive in the
literature of technology education. The
notion of technological impacts is simple to
comprehend and has permitted the field to in-
terpret technology in the context of society
and culture, but it has also contributed to a
simplistic and inflexible view of the re-
lationship between technology and society.
The expression "technological impacts"
is a metaphor that implies that technology is
a discrete force with a discernible direction
and influence. Metaphors are figures of
speech widely used in all disciplines and es-
sentially involve the transfer of descriptive
terms from primary usage to different, but
analogous, situations (e.g., Joerges, 1990;
Ortony, 1979; Sacks, 1979; Simpson & Weiner,
1989, Vol. IX, p. 676; Winner, 1986). Tech-
nology is cast in a perspective of cause and
effect relationships in which technology is
the cause of impacts on society. In technol-
ogy education, this perspective has become
the dominant metaphor for conceptualizing the
relationship between technology and society
(e.g., Bame and Cummings, 1988; DeVore, 1980;
Hacker & Barden, 1988; Hales & Snyder, 1981;
"Resources in Technology," 1989, 1990; Savage
& Sterry, 1990; Schwaller, 1989; STANDARDS,
1985; Wiens, 1989, 1990; Wright & Smith,
1989). There are, however, other metaphors
that emphasize the role of humans in direct-
ing technology. Some of these metaphors may
be more appropriate for technology education
than technological impacts.
The first part of this study examines
the implications for technology education of
a perspective committed to technological im-
pacts. The metaphor of technological impacts
only too easily can become the cornerstone
for a philosophy of technological determinism
as described in the second part. The third
part introduces the work of social
constructivists and several alternate per-
spectives for interpreting technology and so-
ciety. Finally, implications for technology
education are reviewed including suggestions
for modifying current curricula, instruc-
tional patterns, and research.
TECHNOLOGICAL IMPACTS
The term impact is at the heart of the
issue because of its primary meaning and
connotations. Impact suggests a striking to-
gether, collision, or shock. (See Simpson &
Weiner, 1989, Vol. VII, pp. 694-695 for ex-
tensive illustrations of etymological founda-
tion and usage, especially in dynamics and
momentum.) Consequently, technology is
viewed as a dynamic force causing collisions
or impacts on society. Interpretations of
social change are framed in a mechanistic
perspective dominated by technology as pri-
mary cause. The impact of technology on so-
ciety is likened to the impact of a hammer on
a nail. This metaphor does not necessarily
imply that technology is the only cause of
impacts, but it does promote a conceptual
framework that emphasizes: (a) cause and ef-
fect relationships with resulting collisions
or impacts; (b) a mechanistic world; (c)
technology as dominant force; and (d) impor-
tance of distinctions between society and
technology. The metaphor of technological
impacts is attractive because of its simplic-
ity but it is inadequate as a means of teach-
ing about the complexity of technology and
society.
In contrast, one might focus primarily
on the people or social groups who develop
and direct technology. For example, instead
of focusing on changes in automotive design
and production techniques, one would empha-
size the interaction of relevant social
groups in directing such changes. This ap-
proach shifts the emphasis to social groups
with less importance on technology. In the
extreme form, this perspective would be char-
acterized by a study of the impacts of soci-
ety on technology. Such a metaphor risks,
however, to lead to just the opposite
mechanistic perspective in which technology
is fully controlled by society.
These two perspectives have been con-
trasted to identify some of the key problems
for technology education in teaching about
technology and society. Alternative perspec-
tives need to provide a more satisfying
understanding of the technology/society re-
lationship. What if, for example, society
and technology were not viewed as distinct
categories? Then the notion of technological
impacts on society would dissolve. What if
the term impact were eliminated? Then the
notion of technology and society as opposing
forces would need to be reexamined.
The mechanical view of technology and
its impacts on society reinforces the idea
that technical systems have an independent
existence, ordered according to materials,
processes, and laws that can be fully under-
stood from an objective standpoint. It fol-
lows that technology appears to have a mass,
velocity, and momentum of its own which can
be objectively studied. Hence, the focus of
study and interpretations are subordinate to
these principles of technology rather than to
individuals and groups who develop the
artifacts and knowledge.
TECHNOLOGICAL DETERMINISM
This particular view of technological
impacts often leads to technological
determinism of which there are various forms,
all related to traditional notions of
determinism. (See Trusted, 1984, for a sys-
tematic and historical introduction to the
implications of determinism.) Determinism
holds that everything is caused (determined)
by a sequence of previous conditions and
events, operating with regularity and, in
principle, predictability. In its most ex-
treme form, technological determinism main-
tains that materials and physical laws are
such that technology is determined to develop
in a particular way or pattern. There are
variations of determinism and technological
determinism, often distinguished by the ex-
tent of human intervention considered possi-
ble, the importance of technical constraints,
the relative autonomy of technology, and
questions of the historical development of
technology (e.g., Constant 1989; Ellul,
1954/1964; Gille, 1978/1986b; Hickman, 1990a,
1990b; Ropohl, 1983; Wilkinson, 1964; Winner,
1977).
Determinism is inherently related to
questions of free will and human responsibil-
ity. For example, if everything is deter-
mined by previous events and conditions, then
humans could have little choice or responsi-
bility for what happens. Such thinking is
generally offensive to those who believe
firmly in human freedom and liberty. Simi-
larly, technological determinism implies di-
minished human choice and responsibility in
controlling technology. When pressed, few
people would claim unadulterated determinism
and most would assert that humans have some
degree of freedom to influence the direction
of technology.
Nevertheless, the current curriculum and
standards of technology education suggest
that technology is a phenomenon with a par-
ticular form, content, and direction result-
ing in impacts that can be studied
objectively. For example, the notion of
"universal technical systems" such as commu-
nications, construction, manufacturing, and
transportation implies a particular form and
content. Similarly, the notion of a uni-
versal system such as "input, processes, out-
put, and feedback" (Hales & Snyder, 1981)
implies a unilinear direction. (See
Schwaller, 1989 and Wiens, 1989 for a dis-
cussion of these standards in technology edu-
cation.) Technology is thus viewed as a
discrete system with its relationship to so-
ciety expressed metaphorically and pedagog-
ically in terms of impacts.
It may well be that the curricular model
in technology education has surpassed its
role as a content organizer and become an id-
eological model for technology. In this
case, however, the model reinforces techno-
logical determinism because of its fixed
form, content, sequential nature, and result-
ing impacts. The more established the model
becomes, the more it is taken for granted as
THE form and content of technology. The ad-
dition of another category such as
biotechnology only expands the breadth with
little effect on the ideology unless it
serves to reopen the issue of human inter-
action in technology and society.
The problematic nature of the relation-
ship between social groups and technology has
not received adequate attention. Technology
education models establish a firm distinction
between the knowers (people) and the known
(technology) by emulating the natural sci-
ences, where the knowers are the scientists
and the known is the natural world. This
traditional view of the natural sciences has
also come under criticism, although science
as taught in schools has not yet changed sig-
nificantly (e.g., Engelhardt & Caplan, 1987;
Suppe, 1977; Ziman, 1978). Note that empha-
sizing the objective knower is especially
strong in industrial technology programs, and
its influence on technology education is ex-
cessive.
It can be argued that a comprehensive
study of technology must emphasize that the
knower or student of technology is simultane-
ously the author of technology. In fact,
both scientists and technologists study AND
construct science and technology, thus form-
ing a complex relationship between knowers
and the known. There is not necessarily a
unilinear cause and effect sequence of tech-
nology followed by impacts as in the case of
two colliding inanimate entities. (See Pinch
& Bijker, 1987, p. 22, Ellul, 1977/1980, p.
4, and Pacey, 1983 for critiques of linear-
ity.) There are, of course, specific phenom-
ena such as the destruction of the ozone
layer or traffic accidents, but their trau-
matic nature and sensationalist media con-
verge to emphasize the ideology of impacts.
Even more pervasive, however, are the
humdrum, daily interactions of people with
other people, artifacts, processes, and know-
ledge that gradually orient technological
change.
What then are the alternatives? How can
the notion of technological impacts be elimi-
nated while retaining the importance of the
social and cultural context? What ap-
proaches, models, or systems avoid the philo-
sophical problems of determinism? How can
philosophical metaphors be more fully inte-
grated with mission and curriculum? Lest
these questions be shrugged off as minor con-
cerns, virtually half of the 11 most commonly
noted weaknesses in NCATE technology educa-
tion program evaluations as noted by Wiens
(1989, pp. 3-4) are related to the issues
raised in this study. These items include:
(a) the four curriculum organizers, (b) tech-
nological systems, (c)
socio/cultural/environmental impacts, (d)
multicultural and global perspectives, (e)
ethics and values, and (f) excessive influ-
ence of technical programs.
TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY
Abandoning the emphasis on impacts im-
plies a shift away from traumatic events and
the rigidity of cause and effect sequences
typical of technological determinism. Simi-
larly, abandoning universal systems implies
greater flexibility in conceptualizing tech-
nology and change.
Instead of focusing on the trauma of im-
pacts, one can focus on the day-to-day
decision-making of human beings in any tech-
nological environment. In addition to pre-
senting linear cause-and-effect sequences
such as input-process-output-feedback, one
can emphasize the multi-directional inter-
action of all groups affecting technological
decisions. Instead of emphasizing
mechanistic metaphors of change, one can ex-
amine the social conflicts, compromises, suc-
cesses, and failures of the technological
enterprise. Rather than assuming universal
systems, one acknowledges alternate systems
and models.
Thus far, the issues raised in this
study have been organized and described in
relation to dominant trends in technology ed-
ucation. The most concise yet comprehensive
recent source on alternate concepts and mod-
els is a volume of international scope and
authorship edited by Bijker, Hughes, and
Pinch (1987) called THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION
OF TECHNOLOGICAL SYSTEMS. This work includes
topics ranging from domestic technology to
biotechnology, and from maritime navigation
systems to expert systems. It is a synthesis
of recent research and is readily accessible.
For these reasons, it is used here as a major
source of examples, although the reader is
encouraged to consult the extensive bibli-
ography included in the book. Despite the
variety of topics and interpretive models in
this volume, the approaches converge in three
important ways: (a) emphasis on groups
rather than individual inventors; (b) oppo-
sition to technological determinism; and (c)
deemphasis on technical, social, economic,
and political distinctions (Bijker et al.,
1987, p. 3).
The latter issue seems to be the major
point of contention between social
constructivism and its critics. Many histo-
rians, for example, do not necessarily empha-
size individual inventors or adopt
deterministic approaches but do maintain
clear distinctions among technical, social,
political, and economic factors. In so do-
ing, they avoid one of the major weaknesses
of some social constructivists who neglect
the material and structural constraints of
technology (e.g., Cutcliffe & Post, 1989;
Hounshell, 1984). Other perspectives also
question technological determinism and need
to be considered along with social
constructivism in developing research in
technology education (e.g., Bernard & Pelto,
1987,/a>; Chubin, 1990; Durbin & Rapp, 1983;
Rothschild, 1988).
Bijker et al. (1987, p. 4) have at-
tempted to achieve a degree of simplicity by
delineating three methodological categories:
(a) social constructivism, (b) systems meta-
phors, and (c) actor networks, all of which
are critical to the continuing development of
technology education. In the interests of
simplicity, these three expressions are used
as headings in the following analysis, al-
though all three categories are part of the
broad social constructivist research empha-
sis. In addition, critiques and supplemen-
tary references are included to promote
integration in technology education programs.
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM
In general, social constructivists em-
phasize the centrality of "relevant social
groups" and "interpretive flexibility" in
technological artifacts and change. They
maintain that there is really more flexibil-
ity in the design of artifacts than technical
and linear analyses would suggest. In par-
ticular, diverse social groups all contribute
their own values and concerns to the design
process. For example, Pinch and Bijker
(1987) focus on the social groups most rele-
vant to the design and evolution of the bicy-
cle from the high-wheeler to the safety
bicycle. They show how, in the late 19th
century, diverse groups interacted through
conflict, compromise, and agreement. The
concerns of women cyclists (dress, social
disapproval), young men (macho image), the
elderly (safety), sports cyclists (speed),
manufacturers (economics), and technologists
(materials, processes, traditions) finally
resulted in the stabilization of the safety
bicycle design. Bicycle design could have
gone in different directions depending upon
varying degrees of influence or power of the
relevant social groups. Pinch and Bijker
provide a simple yet effective multi-
directional graphic model as an alternative
to linear process models. Their model inte-
grates technological artifacts, social
groups, problems, and solutions.
In contrast to this approach, technology
education usually emphasizes the technical
processes of change FOLLOWED by an examina-
tion of their impacts on society. Attention
is focused on the effects or impacts of the
successful artifact, often after it has been
established. Such models are based on a dis-
continuous, sequential, and success-oriented
view of production and social assessment.
How then can one integrate the social
constructivist approach with technology edu-
cation as an educational process?
To demonstrate a social constructivist
approach, students could be divided into
groups representing relevant social groups
associated with a given technology or its en-
vironment. They would then develop competing
designs based on the groups' dominant values
or concerns (as found through interviews with
relevant social groups). The competing de-
signs would then be debated in large group
sessions. Naturally, such a process would
not replicate social behavior and its com-
plexity but would emphasize how widely dif-
ferent variables, conflict, resolution,
success, and failure interact in the design
and the development of technology.
Perhaps the best-known example in tech-
nology education of a form of social
constructivism is found in manufacturing
classes organized around a student corpo-
ration. The importance of relevant social
groups, the multidirectional nature of de-
sign, and social conflict with varying de-
grees of power and influence would need to be
emphasized, however, to achieve an under-
standing of the social constructivist ap-
proach. Nevertheless, such a shift in
emphasis should meet technology education
standards and, at the same time, eliminate
the limitations of the metaphor of technolog-
ical impacts.
SYSTEMS METAPHORS
Systems metaphors, as presented by
Bijker et al. (1987), stem largely from the
work of Hughes (1983), a historian of tech-
nology best known for his systemic approach
to analyzing the development of
electrification networks in Western society.
In brief, Hughes examines technological
change as a system of interrelated factors in
the context of artifacts, institutions, and
their environment. Two key concepts called
"reverse salients" and "critical problems"
are used to identify and analyze the dynamics
of innovative energy in technological sys-
tems. Hughes' analysis could find wide ap-
plications in technology education, though
most likely at the graduate level. His sys-
tems approach does not have the graphic and
conceptual simplicity of Pinch and Bijker
(1987), but his work is essential for any re-
searcher on systems approaches for technology
education. Hughes' interests in innovation
and development coincide with the emphasis
often given to these aspects of technology
education programs.
The notion of systems metaphors is, how-
ever, much broader than Hughes' approach, for
example, as illustrated by Gille (1978/1986a)
and Ropohl (1983). Gille began his work on
the history of technology and systems prior
to Hughes. His most comprehensive work on
technology (1978/1986a) contains detailed
graphic descriptions of technical systems for
different historical periods. The scope of
his topics is much broader than Hughes'. In
brief, Gille seeks to understand the interre-
lationships among elements in entire techni-
cal systems of a particular country or
Western civilization and how they changed
over the centuries. To do so, he shows how
mutations of subsystems occurred (e.g., iron
production or transportation), thus stimulat-
ing changes, imbalance, and eventually, a new
technical system. Although Gille focuses
more on the internal dynamics of technolog-
ical systems, he is sensitive to the highly
complex interaction of society and technol-
ogy. While Hughes presents a very detailed
analysis of the growth of electrification
systems, including contrasting styles in the
United States, England, and Germany, Gille
tries to integrate major subsystems and
shifts in the systems as they changed. (For
a brief review by Hughes of Gille's systems
approach, see Hughes, 1988.)
A third approach to technological sys-
tems is illustrated by Ropohl (1983), which
has the additional advantage of being pre-
sented as part of a critique of technological
determinism. Ropohl's "action system" con-
sists of three subsystems: (a) goal-setting;
(b) information processing; and (c) exe-
cution. In order to include social concerns,
Ropohl assumes several levels of action sys-
tems: (a) micro-level of individuals; (b)
meso-level of organizations; and (c) macro-
level of national society (and eventually a
fourth level of world society). The meso-
level includes the production of technolog-
ical knowledge and technical goods and the
application of technical goods. Because of
its sequential and matrix graphic form,
Ropohl's system has some conceptual similari-
ties with matrices used in technology educa-
tion, although the subsystem categories are
very different. For Ropohl, technological
determinism does apply to the systemic qual-
ity of technical development as perceived by
the individual but not to the controllability
of technical development.
Most systems metaphors reflect an empha-
sis on technical process and development with
variable degrees of integration of social
factors. Such systems tend to promote a mit-
igated form of determinism in which technical
systems have an inherent systemic quality,
though allowing for a certain degree of human
choice (e.g., Ellul, 1977/1980). Differences
in systems approaches suggest differences in
intent, philosophy, scope, and disciplinary
background of their authors.
ACTOR NETWORKS
Actor networks are characterized by the
elimination of distinctions between techni-
cal, social, political, and economic factors,
even to the point of "breaking down the dis-
tinctions between human actors and natural
phenomena" (Bijker et al., 1987, p. 4).
Technologists build networks but these net-
works are not viewed as systems of discrete,
well-defined elements connected in ways that
are always predictable. Uncontrollable fac-
tors, chance, and accidents are too pervasive
in the concept of networks to justify the
term "system."
For example, Callon (1987) casts engi-
neers in the role of sociologists as they
built networks to introduce the electric car
in France during the 1970s. Elements are
heterogeneous, ranging from electrons,
electrodes, and lead batteries to auto man-
ufacturers, governmental offices, and noise
pollution, all combined in the actor network.
Law (1987) also uses the concept of actor
networks, but to show how the Portuguese were
able to integrate people, ocean currents,
winds, ships, money, knowledge, and a multi-
tude of other elements to round Cape Bojador
and thus sail around Africa to India by the
15th century. Cowan (1987) examines the de-
velopment of domestic heating and cooling
systems from an actor network perspective;
however, she emphasizes the importance of
consumers in influencing technological
change. The simplicity of her graphic illus-
trations are comparable to those of Pinch and
Bijker (1987) and can be easily adapted in
technology education to teach about the actor
networks approach.
A major advantage of the actor networks
approach is the elimination of arbitrary dis-
tinctions and categories that often oversim-
plify technological complexity and reinforce
disciplinary boundaries. Actor networks can
be used to critique systems approaches which
are based on the assumption that the system
can be distinguished from its larger environ-
ment. On the other hand, actor networks may
tend to reflect more explicitly the preoccup-
ations of the researcher. Actor networks are
very effective in analyzing the role of con-
troversy and conflict in the development of
technology, thus shifting the emphasis away
from a preoccupation with technology as suc-
cess.
IMPLICATIONS FOR TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION
The expression technological impacts
needs to be abandoned as the primary metaphor
for conceptualizing relationships between
technology and society. These relationships
are too complex to be understood solely as a
set of causes and effects in which technology
is the source of the causes and society the
context of impacts. The immediate task is
not, however, to find a single alternate met-
aphor but to recognize that there are differ-
ent ways of approaching the study of
technology and society. This diversity
should be reflected in technology education
programs, standards, and in the evaluation of
programs. The current state of research and
knowledge of the issues demand flexibility in
the interpretation of the current technology
education standards that address technology
and society.
Nevertheless, flexibility of interpreta-
tion should not be construed to mean lack of
rigor or "anything goes." Technology educa-
tion has a mission with which its instruc-
tional and conceptual metaphors need to be
integrated. For example, the emphasis on
technology education for all students implies
that women as well as men, non-experts and
experts, and persons from all disciplines
take an active part in decision-making. This
inclusivity suggests the need for curricular
research and critiques of technology assess-
ment models, gender bias in technology, and
the distribution of power (e.g., Carpenter,
1983; Noble, 1984; Rothschild, 1988).
Furthermore, technology education empha-
sizes the importance of DOING technology as a
continuous and necessary part of the learning
process. And it is in doing technology that
students socially construct technology. Stu-
dents direct, order, and influence technology
and in so doing, belie the most extreme forms
of technological determinism. Even a brief
observation of this learning process demon-
strates the existence of the indeterminant
and aleatoric, laziness and concentration,
social distribution and acquisition of power,
failures and marginal successes typical of
all social processes.
Studying impacts places the emphasis on
a restricted and traumatic point in a se-
quence, in a sense, after the fact. Studying
the social construction of technology places
greater emphasis on the learning process of
doing technology. Social constructivism, in-
cluding systems metaphors and actor networks,
as well as other models (e.g., historical and
philosophical analyses) provide frameworks
for conscious reflection and extend our
understanding of technological complexity.
----------------
John R. Pannabecker is Professor, Department
of Technology, McPherson College, McPherson,
Kansas. The author thanks Rodney Frey and
JTE reviewers for comments on an earlier
draft.
REFERENCES
Bame, E. A., & Cummings, P. (1988). EXPLOR-
ING TECHNOLOGY (2nd ed.). Worcester, MA:
Davis.
Bernard, H. R., & Pelto, P. T. (Eds.).
(1987). TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIAL CHANGE (2nd
ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. J.
(Eds.). (1987). THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION
OF TECHNOLOGICAL SYSTEMS: NEW DIRECTIONS
IN THE SOCIOLOGY AND HISTORY OF
TECHNOLOGY. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Callon, M. (1987). Society in the making:
The study of technology as a tool for so-
ciological analysis. In W. E. Bijker, T.
P. Hughes, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), THE SO-
CIAL CONSTRUCTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
(pp. 83-103). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Carpenter, S. R. (1983). Technoaxiology:
Appropriate norms for technology assess-
ment. In P. T. Durbin & F. Rapp (Eds.),
PHILOSOPHY AND TECHNOLOGY (pp. 115-136).
Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Chubin, D. (1990). Doing policy analysis
for Congress: The OTA process. THE WEAVER
OF INFORMATION AND PERSPECTIVES ON TECHNO-
LOGICAL LITERACY, 8(1), 8-9.
Constant, E. W. (1989). Cause or
consequence: Science, technology, and reg-
ulatory change in the oil business in
Texas, 1930-1975. TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE,
30, 426-455.
Cowan, R. S. (1987). The consumption
junction: A proposal for research strate-
gies in the sociology of technology. In
W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. J. Pinch
(Eds.), THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF TECHNO-
LOGICAL SYSTEMS (pp. 261-280). Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Cutcliffe, S. H., & Post, R. C. (Eds.).
(1989). IN CONTEXT: HISTORY AND THE HIS-
TORY OF TECHNOLOGY. Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh
University Press.
DeVore, P. W. (1980). TECHNOLOGY: AN INTRO-
DUCTION. Worcester, MA: Davis.
Durbin, P. T., & Rapp, F. (Eds.). (1983).
PHILOSOPHY AND TECHNOLOGY. Dordrecht: D.
Reidel.
Ellul, J. (1964). THE TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY
(J. Wilkinson, Trans.). New York: Vin-
tage. (Original work published 1954)
Ellul, J. (1980). THE TECHNOLOGICAL SYSTEM
(J. Neugroschel, Trans.). New York:
Continuum. (Original work published 1977)
Engelhardt, H. T., & Caplan, A. L. (Eds.).
(1987). SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSIES: CASE
STUDIES IN THE RESOLUTION AND CLOSURE OF
DISPUTES IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gille, B. (1986a). THE HISTORY OF TECH-
NIQUES (Vol. l) (P. Southgate & T.
Williamson, Trans.). New York: Gordon and
Breach Science Publishers. (Original work
published 1978)
Gille, B. (1986b). Technical progress and
society. In B. Gille (Ed.), THE HISTORY
OF TECHNIQUES (Vol. 2, pp. 990-1049).
New York: Gordon and Breach Science Pub-
lishers. (Original work published 1978)
Hacker, M., & Barden, R. A. (1988). LIVING
WITH TECHNOLOGY. Albany, NY: Delmar.
Hales, J., & Snyder, J. (1981). JACKSON'S
MILL INDUSTRIAL ARTS CURRICULUM THEORY.
Charleston: West Virginia Department of
Education.
Hickman, L. A. (1990a). JOHN DEWEY'S PRAG-
MATIC TECHNOLOGY. Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University Press.
Hickman, L. A. (Ed.). (1990b). TECHNOLOGY
AS A HUMAN AFFAIR. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hounshell, D. A. (1984). FROM THE AMERICAN
SYSTEM TO MASS PRODUCTION, 1800-1932: THE
DEVELOPMENT OF MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY IN
THE UNITED STATES. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Hughes, T. P. (1983). NETWORKS OF POWER:
ELECTRIFICATION IN WESTERN SOCIETY,
1880-1930. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Uni-
versity Press.
Hughes, T. P. (1988). Review of THE HISTORY
OF TECHNIQUES. TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE,
29, 688-690.
Joerges, B. (1990). Images of technology in
sociology: Computer as butterfly and bat.
TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE, 31, 203-227.
Law, J. (1987). Technology and heteroge-
neous engineering: The case of Portuguese
expansion. In W. E. Bijker, T. P.
Hughes, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), THE SOCIAL
CONSTRUCTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL SYSTEMS (pp.
111-134). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Noble, D. F. (1984). FORCES OF PRODUCTION:
A SOCIAL HISTORY OF INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Ortony, A. (Ed.). (1979). METAPHOR AND
THOUGHT. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Pacey, A. (1983). THE CULTURE OF
TECHNOLOGY. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1987). The
social construction of facts and
artifacts: Or how the sociology of sci-
ence and the sociology of technology might
benefit each other. In W. E. Bijker, T.
P. Hughes, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), THE SO-
CIAL CONSTRUCTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
(pp. 17-50). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Resources in technology. (1989). THE TECH-
NOLOGY TEACHER, 48(5), 15-22.
Resources in technology. (1990). THE TECH-
NOLOGY TEACHER, 49(7), 17-24.
Ropohl, G. (1983). A critique of technolog-
ical determinism. In P. T. Durbin & F.
Rapp (Eds.), PHILOSOPHY AND TECHNOLOGY
(pp. 83-96). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Rothschild, J. (1988). TEACHING TECHNOLOGY
FROM A FEMINIST PERSPECTIVE: A PRACTICAL
GUIDE. New York: Pergamon.
Sacks, S. (Ed.). (1979). ON METAPHOR.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Savage, E., & Sterry, L. (1990). A concep-
tual framework for technology education.
THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER, 50(1), 6-11.
Schwaller, A. E. (1989, November). IMPLI-
CATIONS OF THE ITEA/CTTE/NCATE STANDARDS.
Paper presented at the meeting of the
Mississippi Valley Industrial Teacher Edu-
cation Conference, Chicago.
Simpson, J. A., & Weiner, E. S. C. (Eds.).
(1989). THE OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY
(2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon.
Standards for technology education. (1985).
South Holland, IL: Goodheart-Wilcox.
Suppe, F. (Ed.). (1977). THE STRUCTURE OF
SCIENTIFIC THEORIES (2nd ed.). Urbana,
IL: University of Illinois Press.
Trusted, J. (1984). FREE WILL AND RESPONSI-
BILITY. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wiens, A. E. (1989, November). HOW IS THE
ITEA/CTTE/NCATE ACCREDITATION PROCESS
FUNCTIONING? Paper presentated at the
meeting of the Mississippi Valley Indus-
trial Teacher Education Conference,
Chicago.
Wiens, A. E. (1990). CTTE/ITEA NCATE.
JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION, 2(1), 60-64.
Wilkinson, J. (1964). Translator's intro-
duction. In J. Ellul, THE TECHNOLOGICAL
SOCIETY (pp. ix-xx). New York: Vintage.
Winner, L. (1977). AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGY.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Winner, L. (1986). THE WHALE AND THE
REACTOR: A SEARCH FOR LIMITS IN AN AGE OF
HIGH TECHNOLOGY. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Wright, R. T., & Smith, H. B. (1989).
UNDERSTANDING TECHNOLOGY. South Holland,
IL: Goodheart-Wilcox.
Ziman, J. (1978). RELIABLE KNOWLEDGE.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Permission is given to copy any
article or graphic provided credit is given and
the copies are not intended for sale.
Journal of Technology Education Volume 3, Number 1 Fall 1991