Current Editor: Chris Merrill, email@example.com
Previous Editors: Mark Sanders 1989-1997; James LaPorte: 1997-2010
As an open access journal, the JTE does not charge fees for authors to publish or readers to access.
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