The concept of 'technology' has two facets: one is 'hard' technology, which focuses on the actual tools and hardware. The other is 'soft' technology, which focuses on methods, theories, or practices. This is the basis of AECT's definition of technology, writes Arun Lakhana in this engaging paper. But, "why does the AECT limit their current definition of soft technology to: 'human-made processes that systematically apply scientific knowledge'?" Why, in other words, is it rooted in systems that are, essentially, exclusively a priori and inflexible? "The AECT's linear model, "input→process→output," is easy to digest. However, it fails to account for the hidden agentive potential for processes to transform their inputs, as in Dewey's theory. A more appropriate diagram might not only feedback on itself (connecting output back to input), but feedback also within itself: 'input↔process↔output.'" Quite so. But making this change in itself changes the definition from 'system', which is unidirectional (toward objectives or goals) to 'network' (which does not presume a priori objectives or goals). Anyhow, great paper, engaging, and carefully crafted.
Today: 0 Total: 1088 [Direct link] [Share]
