Technology


 * Definition**

Technology is a concept that has progressed from a simple noun into a complex notion embodying some of the most monumental changes in society throughout the Industrial Revolution and into the Information Age. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, technology has its roots from the Latin //technologi//a and Greek //tekhnologia// in the early 17th century. It was initially used to describe any sort of discourse or piece on the arts. It was not until the beginning of the 19th century that technology first described actual tangible things, which Ross (2005) argued “clearly reflect the rise of industrialization and the onset of economic development tied to science-based innovations” (p. 342). In this now-common view, technologies are viewed as artifacts and instruments detached from human bodies. Moreover, non-tangible uses of this term referenced the practical arts, especially mechanical and scientific inquiries that most people associate the term with today (Williams, 1985, p. 315). Communication research about technology largely focuses on its formation, uses, and impact (Poole & Walther, 2002). However, scholars are divided over the normative implications and functions of technologies and their relationships with human society.


 * Technology and Communication Research**

In communication research, types of technology usually include mass media outlets, telecommunication devices, information technologies like the Internet, and various hardware and/or software that may mediate or assist communication processes. However, there is not a consensus on the definition of “technology” in the literature (Fulk & Gould, 2009), primarily because any technologies have to be interpreted in specific contexts, and most technological artifacts evolve quickly over time (Fulk & Gould, 2009). Definitions of “new” communication technologies are historically relative (Marvin, 1990). On the basis of a broad understanding of “technologies”, empirical communication technology research typically focuses on “the factors that shape it (technology) and its influences on individuals, groups, organizations , cultures, societies, and the world” (Poole & Walther, 2002, p. 6).

//Health communication//
Within the scholarships of health communication, researchers have examined the implementation of health information technologies and the related health outcomes (Kreps & Neuhauser, 2010). Research has found tha t using health inform ation websites helped patients cope with chronic conditions, and better __ communicat __ e with doctors (Schultz, Rubinelli, Zufferey, & Hartung, 2010). Also, given the social stigma concerns, people were more likely to seek social support related to mental health through online support groups than in-person support groups (DeAndrea, 2015). Further, computer-based prevention programs may be more effective with improving health education and attitudes (Roberto, Zimmerman, Carlyle, Abner, Cupp, & Hansen, 2007). Technology skills and health literacy play important roles in the extent to which a person may benefit from health information technologies (Neter & Brainin, 2012). For instance, adolescents with high smoking media literacy reported less susceptibility to smoke cigarettes (Primack & Hobbs, 2009). Low income adults with low health literacy were less likely to engage in online health information seeking (Jensen, King, Davis, & Guntzviller, 2010).

//Social well-being and interpersonal communication//
Significant findings were also found regarding technologies’ influences on the relational and social well-being of individuals. Earlier research (e.g., Kraut et al., 1998) indicates that prevalence of the Internet may lead to increased social isolation, because people’s time spent on the Internet would displace opportunities for face-to-face interaction, which is crucial to build and maintain strong social ties (Vaillant, 2012). The preference for online social interaction as opposed to face-to-face communication may give rise to compulsive Internet use, which in turn, would be related to greater chances of negative outcomes, such as missing out social engagements (Caplan, 2005). Problematic Internet use tends to be associated with more time spent using the Internet for social communication (Caplan, Williams, & Lee, 2009,) and loneliness in general (Kim, LaRose, & Peng, 2009). Yet, other studies (e.g., Lee, 2009) show that people who benefit from online social communication were those who already have strong social networks and the benefits associated with Internet-mediated communication tend to be greater for individuals with higher levels of sociability (Kraut et al., 2002).

Also central to communication technology scholarships is computer-mediated communication in the context of interpersonal relationships. Communication technologies play increasingly crucial role on various phases of relationship development, including relationship formation (Heino, Ellison, & Gibbs, 2010; Wang, Moon, Kwon, Evan, & Stefanone, 2010) and maintenance (Ledbetter & Beck, 2014). Research has also inspected how relational partners may exploit affordance of different technologies during key communicative processes, such as self-disclosure (Mesch & Beker, 2010) and conflict management (Caughlin, Basinger, & Sharabi, in press).

//Small group and organizational communication//
Communication technology research has also moved beyond the impact of the individual and relational dyads into larger levels of analysis. For example, research in group communication has extensively looked at the differences between face-to-face and technology mediated communication in small groups (Rogers, 1999y). Moreover, Poole and Ahmed (2009,) show that technology mediated communication may actually generate conflict and negative interactions with more difficult small- group tasks. With respect to organizations, technology has had a profound impact on organizational communication , ranging from its structure (Fulk & DeSanctis, 1999) to how meetings are conducted (Fulk & Collins-Jarvis, 1999). Research has also looked into how new technology can complicate the ways organizations handle crisis communication (Taylor, 2010; Vielhaber & Waltman, 2008, ) and how messages from complementary communication technologies can increase information effectiveness and behavioral intentions (Stephens & Rains, 2010). In addition, some scholars have begun to examine how different age groups are affected by the growing use of technology in the workplace. Missing the chance to learn about technologies during their formal education, older employees tend to be less experienced with technologies (Ford, Ledbetter, & Roberts, 1996). With people living longer lives, and technology ever advancing in the workplace, som e conflict ha s arisen due to the fact that older employees are considered to be lacking in experience and expertise with new technology (Czaja & Sharit, 1993). When requirement to use technologies at work is perceived as a negative aspect, job satisfaction may decrease as employee age increases (Barnes-Farrell & Matthews, 2007).
 * Perspectives on Technology**

The most widespread debate surrounding technology revolves around the instrumental/constructivist and existential/deterministic perspectives on technology. Christians (1997) argued that the instrumentalist view of technology, which posits that technology is an external means to an end, was first developed by Aristotle and later more formally articulated by the developer of cybernetics, Norman Weiner. Likewise, a social constructivist view of technology argues that technology is the result (or explanandum) of larger social/cultural forces and that human action shapes technology (Pinch & Bijker, 1989). In a similar vein, Thomas Hughes, a proponent of actor-network theory to explain technological change, posits that we must expand our minds to recognize how a multitude of actors and institutions (human and non-human technologies) and the relations between them contribute to technological and social change (Hughes, 1986).

On the other hand, perspectives of technological determinism assert that technology is the most important force influencing social change (Winner, 1977, as cited in Slack & Wise, 2007, p. 43). For instance, in opposition to the instrumental view of technology, Martin Heidegger argued that technology was not a means to an end, but rather a mode of production. That is, technology is not external to humans, instead technology is “intertwined with the existential structure of human being” (Christians, 1997, p. 68). Also related to technological determinism is McLuhan’s (1964) statement “the medium is the message”, which posits that new media technologies are extensions of human sensorium, and thus, alter individuals’ interpretation of social existence.

Similarly, Jacques Ellul’s (1977) pessimistic account of technology views it as man’s new actual living environment, which has sterilized and diluted the symbol making function and personality of human beings (an example is Socrates’ criticism of the potential adverse effects writing in Plato’s Phaedras). Inspired by a similar deterministic influence, Luddism (named after the early 19th century British Luddite movement) exemplifies the view of technological resistance and points to the negative societal effects of technology (Slack & Wise, 2007). A recent example is Carr’s (2008) warning that Google is making us stupid. In a different note, Feenberg (1991) argued that both deterministic and instrumentalist views of technology need to be taken into account in order to fully articulate a critical theory of technology (i.e., Instrumentalization Theory). Despite the differences in each perspective, they all share the view that communication technology is an important aspect of social change (Rasmussen, 2000).Indeed, many contemporary views on society include technology as an important part of their theory in one way or another. For instance, the digital divide literature notes the growing gap between technological access and democratic use between rich/poor individuals and industrialized/developing nations (Norris, 2001). Castells (1996) viewed technology as key facilitator transitioning human civilization into the network society.

include component="comments" page="page:Technology" limit="10"


 * References**

Barnes-Farrell, J., & Matthews, R. (2007). Age and work attitudes. In K. S. Shultz & G. A. Adams (Eds.). //Aging and work in the 21st century (//pp.139-162). Mahwah, NJ: LEA. Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. J. (1987). //The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology.// Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Caplan, S., Williams, D., & Yee, N. (2009). Problematic Internet use and psychosocial well-being among MMO players. //Computers in Human Behavior, 25//, 1312-1319. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.06.006 Caplan, S. E. (2005). A social skill account of problematic Internet use. //Journal of Communication, 55//, 721-736. doi: 10.1093/joc/55.4.721 Carr, N. (2008). Is Google Making Us Stupid? //Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 107//, 86-94. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7984.2008.00172.x   Castells, M. (1996). //The rise of the network society.// Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers. Cattan, M., Kime, N., & Bagnall, A. (2011). The use of telephone befriending in low level support for socially isolated older people – an evaluation. //Health and Social care in the Community, 19//, 198-206. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2524.2010.00967.x   Caughlin, J. P., Basinger, E. D., & Sharabi, L. L. (in press). The connections between communication technologies and relational conflict: A multiple goals and communication interdependence perspective. In J. A. Samp (Ed.), //Communicating interpersonal conflict// // in close relationships: Contexts, challenges and opportunities //. New York: NY: Routledge. Christians, C. (1997). Technology and triadic theories of mediation. In S. M. Hoover & K. Lundby (Eds.), //Rethinking media, religion, and culture// (pp. 65-85). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Czaja, S. J., & Sharit, J. (1993). Age of differences in the performance of computer-based work. //Psychology and Aging, 8//, 59-67. doi: 10.1037//0882-7974.8.1.59//

DeAndrea, D. C. (2015). Testing the proclaimed affordances of online support groups in a nationally representative sample of adults seeking mental health assistance. // Journal of Health Communication: International Perspectives, 20, // 147-156. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2014.914606 Ellul, J. (1977). //The technological society// (1st American ed.) //. New York: Knopf. //  Feenberg, A. (2005). // Critical theory of technology. // Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ford, F.N., Ledbetter, W.N., & Roberts, T.L. (1996). The impact of decision support training on computer use: The effect of prior training, age, and gender. // Journal of End User Computing, 8 ////, 15-23. //  Fulk, J., & Collins-Jarvis, L. (2000). Wired meetings: Technological mediation of organizational gatherings. In F. M. Jablin & L. Putnam (Eds.), // The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods // (pp. 624-663). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Fulk, J., & DeSanctis, G. (1999). Articulation of communication technology and organizational form. In G. DeSanctis & J. Fulk (Eds.), // Shaping organizational form: Communication, connection and community // (pp. 71-100). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Fulk, J., & Gould, J. J. (2009). Features and contexts in technology research: A modest proposal for research and reporting. // Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, // 764-770. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01469.x  Heino, R. D., Ellison, N. B. & Gibbs, J. L. (2010). Relationshopping: Investigating the market metaphor in online dating. // Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27 ,// 427-447. doi: 10.1177/0265407510361614 Hughes, T. P. (1986). The seamless web: Technology, science, etcetera, etcetera. // Social Studies of Science, 16 ,// 281-292. doi: 10.1177/0306312786016002004 Jensen, J. D., King, A. J., Davis, L. A., & Guntzviller, L. M. (2010). Utilization of Internet technology by low-income adults : The role of health literacy, health numeracy, and computer assistance. // Journal of Aging and Health, 22, 6,// 804-826. doi: 10.1177/0898264310366161 Kim, J., LaRose, R., & Peng, W. (2009). Loneliness as the cause and the effect of problematic Internet use: The relationship between Internet use and psychological well-being. //Cyberpsychlogy, Behavior, and Social Networking, 12,// 451-455. doi:10.1089/cpb.2008.0327. Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, A., Mukophadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? // American Psychologist, 53, 1//017-1031. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.53.9.1017 Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A. (2002). Internet paradox revisited. //Journal of Social Issues, 58//, 49-74. doi: 10.1111/1540-4560.00248 Kreps, G, L., & Neuhauser, L. (2010). Editors’ introduction: Ehealth and the delivery of health care. // Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15 ////, //364-366. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2010.01524.x  Ledbetter, A. M., & Beck, S. J. (2014). A theoretical comparison of relational maintenance and closeness as mediators of family communication patterns in parent-child relationships. //Journal of Family Communication, 14,// 230-252. doi: 10.1080/15267431.2014.908196 Lee, S. J. (2009). Online communication and adolescent social ties: Who benefits more from internet use. // Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14 ,// 509-531. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01451.x  Marvin, C. (1990 ). //When old technologies were new: Thinking about electric communication in the late nineteenth century.// Oxford University Press, NY: New York. McLuhan, M. (1964). The medium is the message, in M. McLuhan, // Understanding media: The extensions of man // (pp. 23-35, 63-67). New York: Signet. Mesch, G. S., & Beker, G. (2010). Are norms of disclosure of online and offline personal information associated with the disclosure of personal information online ? //Human Communication Research, 36// //, // 579-592. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01389.x  Neter, E., & Brainin, E. (2012). eHealth Literacy: Extending the digital divide to the realm of health information. // Journal of Medical Internet Research, 14 ////, 29-29. // Norris, P. (2001). // Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. // Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Poole, M. S., & Ahmed, I. (2009). Group decision support systems. In W. Eadie (Ed.), // 21st century communication: A reference handbook. // Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Poole, M.S., & Walther, J. (2002). // Communication-Ubiquitous, complex, consequential .// Paper presented at annual meeting of National Communication Association, Washington, .DC  Primack, B. A., & Hobbs, R. (2009). Association of various components of media literacy and adolescent smoking. // American Journal of Health Behavior, 33 ,// 192-201. doi: 10.5993/AJHB.33.2.8 Rasmussen, T. (2000). // Social theory and communication technology .// Aldershot: Ashgate. Roberto, A. J., Zimmerman, R. S., Carlyle, K. E., Abner, E. L., Cupp, P. K., & Hansen, G. L. (2007). The effects of a computer-based pregnancy, STD, and HIV prevention intervention: A nine-school trial. // Health Communication, 21 ,// 115 - 124. doi: 10.1080/10410230701306990 Ross, A. (2005). Technology. In T. Bennett, L. Grossberg, M. Morris & R. Williams (Eds.), // New keywords: A revised vocabulary of culture and society // (pp. 342-344). Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing. Schulz, P. J., Rubinelli, S., Zufferey, M. C., & Hartung, U. (2010). Coping with chronic lower back pain: Designing and testing the online tool ONESELF. // Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15 ,// 625-645. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01509.x  Scott, C. (1999). Communication technology and group communication. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran & M. S. Poole (Eds.), // The handbook of group communication theory and research // (pp. 432-475). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: London: Sage. Slack, J., & Wise, J. M. (2007). // Culture and technology: A primer .// New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Stephens, K. K., & Rains, S. A. (2010). Information and Communication Technology Sequences and Message Repetition in Interpersonal Interaction. //Communication Research// //, 38, //101-122. doi: 10.1177/0093650210362679 Taylor, M. (2010). Organizational use of new communication technology in product recall crises. In W. T. Coombs & S. J. Holladay (Eds.), // The handbook of crisis communication // (pp. 410-423).Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Vaillant, G. E. (2012). // Triumphs of experience: The men of the Harvard Grant Study. // Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Vielhaber, M. E., & Waltman, J. L. (2008). //Changing uses of technology.// // Journal of business communication, 45 ////, //308-330. doi: 10.1177/0021943608317112 Wang, S, S., Moon, SI, Kwon, K. H., Evans, C. A., & Stefanone, M. A. (2010). Face off: Implications of visual cues on initiating friendship on Facebook. //Computer in Human Behavior, 26,// 226-234. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.001