How design acronyms work

The D&T Framework in 2004 brought together some useful tools for the teaching of design skills, such as ACCESS FM, Winners and Losers, 4X4, SCAMPER, etc (see Module 4: Teaching the subskills of designing). Unfortunately, the roll-out of the training was a bit patchy (to say the least) so there has been a mixed experience in schools. This can manifest in two ways: firstly, in some schools the strategies were not adopted  to help children learn the skills of designing (including exploring, generating, developing, planning and evaluating); secondly, in the breadth of activities being used and the sophistication of use, never mind the confidence to adapt and develop strategies was limited – sometimes causing frustration and rejection! However, some activities have been widely adopted.

I’ve been thinking recently about the use of acronyms, in particular, such as ACCESS FM[1. aesthetics, customer, cost, environment, size, safety, function, materials] and SCAMPER[2. substitute, combine, adapt, modify, purpose, eliminate, rearrange]. There is nothing special about these acronyms, other than the fact that they are memorable (mnemonics) and each ‘heading’ (e.g. ‘customer’ in ACCESS FM) may not be useful or appropriate in each situation. However, they are useful cognitive tools, that can help teachers and children to build design thinking and strategies – as well as highlight links between the material areas in D&T. But like any tools, the require a certain level of skill in use.

So how do I use an acronym (or any of the strategies)?

There are two ‘extremes’ that you will be working between when you adopt and use a design tool like ACCESS FM:

  • Rigid (scaffolded[3. Note: there is an element of scaffolding AND facilitation at both ‘extremes’]) use of all the headings in a teacher lead activity.
  • Flexible (facilitated) adaption by the learner(s) in an independent maker.

When leaning towards the former approach, the teacher needs to consider the learners’ age, ability, prior experience and the context of the activity. Assuming the learners will understand what is expected is a common mistake, as the meanings of the ‘headings’ can be unclear (e.g. aesthetics). So there are at least three choices to make at this point: (a) define the meaning, (b) use examples, and (c) use prompt questions or explanations. There is an excellent opportunity for developing literacy in the use of technical language here, through worksheets, glossaries, word walls etc.

Other choices to make include: changing unfamiliar words to more familiar ones (e.g. ‘aesthetics’ for ‘appearance’); or removing headings to reduce the number (e.g. ACCESS FM could become FACE – function, appearance, customer, environment). The annotated worksheet below, combines the SCAMPER strategy (page 380) with and activity called 4X4 (page 371). Notice how the worksheet includes the SCAMPER acronym (top), with prompts (above) and the main 4X4 activity clearly laid out (main section). This is a scaffolded activity, rather than a style of presenting a design development sheet, but might be an appropriate starting point for Key Stage 3 (KS3) learners. The aim being that as confidence grows, learners employ and adapt a range of strategies independently. So a similar activity with Year 9s or 10s might have an A3 page folded twice to create 4 boxes, with the teacher using examples, a slideshow and/or a poster to remind/prompt about the the strategy.

SCAMPER 4X4

Annotated SCAMPER / 4X4 worksheet

[Click here to download the worksheet above]

The key to using design activities like this is good teacher modelling, when first introducing them to learners. It is also important not to use them as the only form of design activity, so children have to opportunity to apply what they learn (e.g. sketching, combining materials, making a prototype etc.), and are not thrown when they are faced with a ‘blank page’ for the first time. Teacher modelling can include demonstrating, explaining and questioning, each of which can[4. …and should, in most cases.] be achieved ‘live’ in the lesson or through learning resources (worksheet, posters, presentations, videos etc.). When beginning with a new approach, a ‘worked example’ (demonstration) can show learners what is expected. This is most effective when you demonstrate using the same materials and format to the learners, so using a visualiser, video camera or if you don’t have access to either, gather the learners around a table[4. Remember that they can’t see what you can see]. To avoid stifling creativity, you might use a different context to that of the lesson, so that you don’t lead learners to particular solutions[5. i.e. “This is what the teachers must want.”].

When working with older or more confident learners, you could begin to be more flexible. For example, when using the 4X4 activity encourage them to use the strategies that are helpful if and when they need them – i.e. to help to prompt thinking, if they don’t have any immediate ideas. This returns us to the concept at the beginning of this blog post, that the activities are nothing special in themselves and a certainly not ‘designing’, but rather learning aids or scaffolds to developing design skills – enabling learners to become more confident and well rounded design thinkers.

See previous blog post: Quick and dirty product analysis

Towards a philosophy of products?

I read an interesting article yesterday (26th April 2013) on Google Glass, in the MIT Technology Review (thanks to David Barlex and Torben Stegg). The author (John Pavius) discusses some of the, potential, technical and social issues with the user interface with Google Glass. However, the most interesting part was a reference to the 20th Century German philosopher Martin Heidegger, who is possibly best know for his writing on tool use.

Pavius takes a slightly dystopian view of the implications of the Google Glass user interface with future ‘technological’ products in the future, which somewhat reflects Heideggar’s leanings. Having said that, I think that he (Heideggar) can teach us something about products. He wrote within a the school of phenomenology, which (very crudely speaking) is concerned with the observation and experience of phenomena (things that occur/happen in human experience).

Taken from: http://www.flickr.com/

Heideggar was interested in objects, or more accurately ‘things’: he actually was not particularly keen of objects as a term, inferring a distance, whereas ‘things’ are experienced and meaningful (think that I’ve got that right!?). Two key concepts regarding tools, in heidegarrian philosophy are readiness to hand and presence at hand. These terms describe human beings relationship to and use of tools. Heideggar used the example of the hammer. When a hammer is in use, it becomes an extension of the arm and withdraws from consciousness: this is readiness to hand. Conversely, if the hammer does not function or functions inefficiently, it comes into consciousness and become less effective as a tool (Heideggar takes about ‘broken’ tools): this is presence at hand.

This got me thinking that often when I have read people explaining this concept, it is in terms of tools being one or the other. But what if tools move between the two states? We experience (use) tools (products and/or technologies) in two different ways (or from two different perspectives). Sometimes products are used instinctively and unconsciously, such as spectacles, and they become an extension to our body (readiness to hand). Many technologies are like this when they become ubiquitous and part of how we live and act within our society/culture. On the other extreme, there are products that are very much in our consciousness, but not necessarily because they are ‘broken’. Take, for example, the iPhone: much loved by many despite its perceived flaws. So appears to be a disruptive element in the design of much-loved products that pulls them into consciousness (presence at hand).

This line of argument suggests that products might be ‘positioned’ at a point along a continuum between readiness at hand and presence to hand. This positioning might be contingent on the technology maturity of or adoption of specific technologies by the local culture (and individual), but complex products, such as smart phones, cars and buildings, move in and out of consciousness; so the ‘position’ is not fixed. When I feel the hardness (resistance, even mild discomfort) of my iPhone in my hand and against my ear, I am reminded that it is not part of me, it remains in my consciousness (presence at hand); at the same time functioning as an extension being used unconsciously (readiness to hand).

Readiness to hand / presence at hand product continuum

So what are the implications for a philosophy of products or product design? Are disruptive ‘imperfections’ part of people’s emotional attachment to products? Can complex products be simultaneously ready to hand and present at hand? Or do they move in and out of consciousness? Does Heideggar suggest a way to avoid the dystopian view of technology and technological determinism?… [to be continued]

Alternative (draft) Programme of Study for Design and Technology!

On Friday 19th April 2013 the Design and Technology Association (D&TA) and Education for Engineering (E4E) met at the Royal Academy of Engineering, London, with around 50 representatives from schools, higher education, industry (design, engineering and food), the cultural sector (museums) and subject associations to discuss a re-drafting of an alternative Programme of Study for Design and Technology. The meeting came about as the result of the Department for Education (DFE) giving the D&TA and E4E permission to present a reworked proposal on Monday 22nd April 2013 (today) – so quite a tight turn around!

I am pleased to say that the group worked solidly all day Friday and developed a redraft, a version of which had been presented at the beginning of the day. The drafting team worked ‘flat out’ over the weekend to respond to feedback and create a document that was ready to present to the DFE. You can click here to download and read the new proposal.

So what can you do?

We would encourage you to read the proposal carefully and feel that you can support this document as it is presented to the DFE, as a more accurate representation of what D&T should be as a forward looking subject. You could:

  1. Email John Husbands at the D&T Association, with your name, title and institution, to signal your support (identifying your support either as an individual or an institution);
  2. Leave a comment or join in a discussion on the Believe in D&T website;
  3. Email your MP and ask them to support this proposal;
  4. Email Elizabeth Truss MP (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Education) directly;
  5. Share this blog post and the document with as many teachers as you can and encourage them to respond;
  6. Use social media (Facebook, Twitter) to spread the word;

If you have any thoughts, responses or questions on the Alternative Programme of Study feel free to leave a comment on this blog and share the link!

Download the proposal: D&T Assoc and E4E Draft D&T PoS April 22.pdf

The complex nature of products in design and technology: elaborate or expand?

During the relatively short history of Design and Technology (D&T) education in England, the role of products has been central. The practical nature of the subject emerging from a making (craft) culture in the 80s and 90s towards designing and making. I say ‘towards’ designing and making, recognising that the effects of craft pedagogical paradigms (model) has lingered in the practice in some schools.

In the first National Curriculum (NC) programme of study (PoS) for Technology (NCC, 1990) the terms “artefacts, systems and environments” were introduced: in addition to “objects”. These terms were in many ways problematic in their meanings and common usage. For example, whilst being technically appropriate to describe objects made by human being, ‘artefact’ conjures up images of archeology and antiquity. Similarly, the public were becoming used to talking and hearing about the environment as something that they interacted with or had an impact on, but possibly not something that they designed. By 1990 the NC PoS for D&T[1. replacing Craft Design and Technology (CDT and Home Economics (HE) under the original Technology banner.] the terms “artefact” and “environment” were replaced by the more tangible and user friendly “product” (DFE, 1995). Systems remained as a term, but almost in a separate category to products (systems and control).

Image taken from Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery (England, UK) at www.flickr.com

In many ways this simplification could be seen as a positive thing in the short term. It identifies a tangible and physical object that is understood as being designed. However, I would argue that the focus (may be even fixation) on products in D&T has hindered the development of pedagogical models. The Focus Practical Task (FPT) and Design and Make Activity (DMA) work toward a product, and the strong motivator in D&T in may schools has been to have a ‘take home product’ that appeals to learners and parents. This is a laudable aim and engages many learners, where interesting products are being made.

‘Glowjar’ project – reusing glass jars with a ‘joule thief’ circuit to use ‘spent’ batteries.

The problem comes when the product becomes central and design contexts are overlooked, not to mention the learning objectives, experiences and/or outcomes. What happens to open ended activities that are not restricted by materials, tools and equipment available in school workshops, studios and kitchens? So called blue-sky thinking and designing. Also, what happens when you work through a considered and thoughtful design process and decide that the best solution is not to have a product? A difficult question for us in D&T!

This blog post comes from a discussion around the reform of the the National Curriculum currently underway. last week. The meaning of ‘product’ was identified a problematic and possibly restricting. It was discussed whether to define ‘product’ or to extend it to ‘products, systems and services’: services being ‘products that aren’t products’ (i.e. intangible products). The suggestion was also made to re-include “environments”. Both of these arguments (elaborate or expand) have merit, but it got me thinking (and possibly understanding a bit better) some aspects of Pragmatism[2. The philosophical movement, rather than just being or acting pragmatically.] proposed by Richard Rorty. Rorty talks about language as an imprecise tool, and philosophy concerning itself with redescription of meaning (Rorty, 1979). There is a risk that the debate could get lost in an endless redescription, but it is an important question.

So should we elaborate or expand? In short, I don’t know, but it is clear (to me) that a designed object (or artefact[3. I quite like artefact as a technical and academic term, but wouldn’t suggest it as a description to be used in curriculum documents!]) in D&T could be:

  • a product
  • a system
  • a service
  • an environment

We do products quite extensively (possibly exclusively) and to some extent systems (in schools where electronics or systems and control is taught), so maybe the new frontiers for D&T is services (non-tangible products) and/or possibly a revisiting of designed environments…

“But if we could ever become reconciled to the idea that most of reality is indifferent to our descriptions of it and that the human self is created by the use of a vocabulary rather that being adequately or inadequately expressed in a vocabulary, then we should at last have assimilated what was true in the Romantic idea that truth is made rather than found. What is true about this claim is just that languages are made rather than found, and that truth is a property of linguistic entities, or sentences.” (Rorty, 1989: 7)

References:

DfE (1995). Design and Technology in the National Curriculum. London: Department for Education.

NCC (1990). Technology in the National Curriculum. London: Department for Education and Science and the Welsh Office.

Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge, USA: Cambridge University Press

Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. USA: Princeton University Press.

Quick and dirty product analysis tool for graphic products…

We’ve had ACCESS FM[1. Aesthetics, Consumer, Cost, Environment, Size, Safety, Function, Materials] and CAFÉ QUE[2. Cost, Aesthetics, Function, Ergonomics, Quality, User, Environment] for product analysis in D&T, but talking to one of my PGCE trainees this afternoon (about a job interview) we reflected on how these don’t work quite as effectively with graphic products, as with other D&T areas. The trainee wanted to plan a ‘quick and dirty’ product analysis that could lead into a design activity[3. we decided that it would be better in this instance to lead into a pupils generating a product design specification – it’s for a 20 minute activity!]. After a quick brainstorm, TICL was created:

TICL (pronounced Tickle)…

  • Text: the way that fonts, styles, information, data, layout, etc. are used…
  • Image: the graphics (such as images, shapes, symbols) used to attract attention…
  • Colour: the choice of colours and combinations (supplementary and complimentary)…
  • Logo: the way product and company branding is used…

Needs unpacking with two to four prompt questions for each category. Will have to wait and see how it works!

Image taken from www.ecotools.com

What is Design and Technology knowledge?

Thoughts on knowledge in Design and Technology…

With the National Curriculum review underway between February and April 2013, there has been a lot of talk about what knowledge is in Design and Technology. With the focus on “essential knowledge [and] fundamental operations” (DFE, 2011: 6) the relationship between D&T and knowledge has been under the spotlight. When the subject was originally conceived, knowledge was viewed as a “resource to be used” (DES/WO, 1988:29) in design and technology activity.

Education for Engineering (E4E) have presented their New Principles for Design and Technology in the Curriculum, which take a ‘tool kit’ approach, identifying design, technology, critiquing and data tools. Whilst there is work to be done if this was to be developed as a programme of study, it does provide a set of ‘lenses’ to evaluate and plan design and technology. It certainly provides a (more) rigorous framework than the DFE’s draft programme of study.

Similarly, the Design Council released their 5 Principles of Design Education: Build a design literate society; Apply user-centred design methods; Ensure a multidisciplinary approach is at the heart of learning; Develop technical skills; Be embedded within an industrial, academic and cultural framework.

Both E4E and the Design Council’s ‘principles’ have merit and value, demanding further discussion and analysis (which I’m not going to do here!). What I’ve been thinking of recently is knowledge areas in D&T. This has been influenced by a number discussions that I have been involved with amongst teachers and teacher educators. The current political ideology informing the curriculum ‘reforms’ undervalues process and activity, which have been the areas that we have been most comfortable with in D&T.

What is Design and Technology?

The mindmap above, shows my first attempt at trying to unpick the knowledge that contributes to the D&T processes. Initially (as you can see above) my thinking was around internal (design) and external (material) knowledge. However, there is another area that this doesn’t take into consideration; that of knowledge of products (see below), which in some aspects is a synthesis between design and materials areas. However, this does not account for the social and cultural aspects of D&T, such as fitness for purpose and designing for real human contexts.

knowledge in D&T

Bodies of knowledge in design and technology (annotated and updated 28th April 2013)

On further analysis, ‘materials’ as an area of knowledge begins to break down, as in D&T we can also be working with components, ingredients and (even) ideas/concepts. So how about ‘technologies’ as the third area? This viewing technology as human interaction with the material world, rather than specific ‘artefacts’ of technology.

So does this lead use to be in a position to develop a taxonomy of design and technology activity? This is something that Mike Martin, my colleague at LJMU, has been thinking about as well. In other words, defining broad categories (albeit overlapping) of knowledge. What is below is my first attempt at drawing together the conversations and past versions of the D&T programmes of study, with D&T being built on knowledge of designing, knowledge of products and knowledge of technologies

A taxonomy of Design and Technology?

Designing

Design thinking & designing

Investigating:

  • Identify and gather primary and secondary data appropriate to each design context/project
  • Analyse data for specific contexts and briefs (and specifications)

Ideation:

  • Use appropriate ‘tools’ for generating ideas
  • Record ideas using words and drawings (2D and 3D) appropriate to the technological domain

Modelling:

  • 2D and 3D modelling and development of ideas (representational and prototyping)
  • Use ICT for simulation and design

Communicating:

  • Presenting ideas visually and aurally
  • Drawings, diagrams and models

Planning:

  • Managing design projects and manufacturing processes

Critiquing:

  • Analysing, synthesising and evaluating ideas, products and systems
  • Understand the impact of design decisions and evaluate against design specifications

Products

Products, systems & environments

Fitness for purpose:

  • Functionality / fitness for purpose / authenticity
  • User and market

Creativity and innovation:

  • Market and technological push and pull
  • Comparing and evaluating products

Cultural/historical:

  • Cultural aspects of design, e.g. aesthetics, function
  • Knowledge of British and global designers/innovators

Technologies

Materials, components & ingredients

Domains:

  • Electronics and control
  • Food
  • Materials (resistant & compliant)
    • Wood, metal, plastic, textiles, (ceramics)

Properties of materials:

  • Physical/chemical
  • Working
  • Natural, man-made (including smart and modern) materials

Processing of materials:

  • Addition
  • Subtraction/wastage
  • Forming/moulding
  • Combining/joining

Origins of materials:

  • Sustainability, sourcing and selecting of materials, components and ingredients
  • Life Cycle Analysis

Control Systems:

  • Knowledge of open and closed systems

Information and Communication Technologies:

  • Use ICT to design, manufacture and evaluate
  • Use collaborative technologies to work creatively as individuals and teams

Note: this is a starting point for conversation and ‘thinking aloud’. 

References

DES/WO (1988) National Curriculum Design and Technology Working Group: Interim Report. London: Department for Education and Science/Welsh Office.

DFE (2011) The Framework for the National Curriculum. A report by the Expert Panel for the National Curriculum review. London: Department for Education. Available at: https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationDetail/Page1/DFE-00135-2011 [last accessed 14th April 2013]

Object-elicitation

As part of my PhD study, I am using semi-structured interviews with object-elicitation – a variation of photo-elicitation – as a research method to direct the discussion around the research questions (What do you value? How do you improve your practice?). So here goes… the object above illustrates for me how I developed my used of questioning, discussion and analysis in the classroom using product analysis/evaluation, mystery objects etc. It was as chance encounter with the object at the first Specialist Schools Trust (that latterly became the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust) conference. It wasn’t part of a conference session, but an incidental object from lunch! There was an opportunity to network and a peruse the exhibition stalls. Hence the need for the object (which, I’ve yet to explain!).

The object is designed to clip to a plate and hold a wine glass! It’s used for conferences and posh dinner parties where you need to keep a hand free. Obvious when you know what it is, isn’t it? But it is a great object to get a discussion going and prompt analytical thinking. As a teacher, you can use prompt questions- “What are the parts?” What do you think the different parts do? (i.e. their function)” “What is it made from?” “Why do you think the material(s) have been used?” “How might it have been made?” “Why do you think it is made in two parts?” etc…

So this is just a little of example of how an object reveals my values and thinking, as both a teacher and a designer/technologist; as well as how it influence my practice. I’m expecting that objects that teacher who I interview will choose might include: products they have made, products made by their learners, teaching and learning resources/aids, learners design or written work, assessment materials etc. I could be anything really. What I learn from this about professional development (other than the techniques developed) is that CPD can be informal, as well as formal, and unplanned, as well as planned.

Part of my methodological assumption is that tools/artefacts/objects, whether they are physical or conceptual, mediate human activity. In other words, I’m working within a constructivist framework (e.g. Lev Vygotsky, Jerome Bruner, etc.) and influenced by Engestrom’s Human Activity System. If you are interested, read my PhD proposal!!

Developing Arthur’s ‘Typology of Technology’

Please read this as a work in progress (thinking out loud), rather than a formulated and considered piece of work…

Arthur (2009) discusses the many different uses of the word technology, which (possibly) unlike science (as a body of knowledge), makes it difficult to define. There are three main areas that he identifies as ‘types’ of technology: technology-singular (artefacts, systems, devices and objects), technology-plural (fields and domains) and technology-general (principles arising from phenomena). The essesence of technology is described as “a phenomenon captured and put to use” (p.50). He shies away from the term exploitation, due to the obvious connotations, but the principle/concept is good. However, I am not sure that I quite agree that this it the ‘full’ essence of technology.

Heideggar (1977) who was rather pessimistic about the nature and essence of technology, or what he calls modern technology. However, this may be because he puts science at the root of technology, whereas Arthur places science and technology in a symbiotic relationship with both relying on each other. On this basis, I would want to widen the definition of the essence of technology to the observation, capturing and application of phenomenon to human purposes. The observational aspect of technological activity (as expressed in design) can be from either a formal scientific perspective (like the standard engineering model that Arthur describes) or the arts (or humanities) perspective (like designer makers, ’boutique’ product designers etc). There is not clear boundary between each ‘category’ (in fact I’d prefer not to categorise, but rather consider these to be influences or mindsets that ‘push’ or ‘pull’ a design process): engineering can take influences from the arts and artists can take influences from the sciences. Arthur describes how invention of a technology (artefact) can be either needs-driven (social/human) or phenomena-driven (technological/technical), although the incorporate both aspects through the invention/design process (p.107-130).

What Arthur offers us is the beginnings of a typology of technology, with three ‘levels’ or ‘zones’. I’ve not quite decided how to represent this yet, but my ideas so far are: (a) a pyramid (Figure 1) with objects at the top, domains in the middle and principles at the bottom (built on phenomena); (b) concentric circles (Figure 2) with objects as the centre; (c) a web or network (Figure 3) of connections with principles deriving from phenomena, which give rise to domains, in turn being expressed in ‘objects’. Each ‘lens’ has it’s advantages/attractions, but I am leaning towards option (c) at the moment. Although options (a) and (b) may have useful applications for analysing and evaluating technological objects/artefacts. [Diagrams added 15/4/13]

Figure 1: Pyramid model

Figure 2: Concentric circle model

Figure 3: Network model

So what does this mean for Design and Technology? Firstly, if give us a basis to (potentially) build bodies of knowledge, which stem from phenomena, into principles and domains. The current domains in the D&T curriculum (QCA, 2007) are Resistant Materials, Systems & Control, Food and Textiles. However, these are under threat on one side from the current review of the national curriculum (DFE, 2013), which add horticulure and maintenance, alongside what is being described as backward-looking and retrogressive in the D&T Community (see Twitter #dtcurric and http://www.believeindandt.org.uk). Having said this, I am not sure that we can continue to hold closely to the material areas in D&T. Whilst there are traditional material disciplines of woodwork, metalwork and needlework (pre-D&T), I am becoming less convinced that there is a rationale separation between Resistant Materials and Textiles, as a domain of technology. This is not to say that Textiles and Resistant Materials (well can we come up with a better name) have not place, but possibly should be viewed as sub domains of materials technology. So a D&T (or Product Design) Textiles could draw in Resistant Materials knowledge and vice versa.

I’m not sure how this works with Food and Systems & Control. However, Systems & Control has drawn from (variously) electronics, mechanisms, pneumatics and microprocessor control, albeit with local variations and some (sub-)domains being in or out of the curriculum a different points. We seem to have focused more on electronics in recent year, which is fine, as a sub-domain of Systems and Control. Also, whilst we talk about ingredients (food) and components (electronics) as materials (and there certainly is an argument), they have some differences in terms of the technological ‘sub-assemblies’ – which might include combinations or processes. Not sure where I am going with this other than question whether we need to rethink and/or reposition materials within D&T. This leads on to the question about what is D&T…

 

References:

Arthur, W.B. (2009). The Nature of Technology. London: Penguin Books.

DFE (2013). Draft National Curriculum programmes of study [online], 3April 2013. Available at: http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/teachingandlearning/… [last accessed 11th April 2013]

Heidegger, M. (1977). The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays (Trans. W. Lovitt). London: Garland Publishing, Ltd.

QCA (2007). Design and Technology: programme of study for key stage 3 and attainment target. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.

Hello world!

Welcome to my new blog.

At the moment I’m thinking about the technology. Reading W Brian Arthur’s ‘The Nature of Technology” has got me thinking about the essence of technology. I read Martin Heiddegger’s “the Question Concerning Technology” a few months ago and, to be quite honest, found to heavy going and pessimistic (not surprising, given the little I knew about him!).

Arthur makes a strong case of technology as an equal to science, in a symbiotic relationship. He also talks about different aspects of technology: devices, domains and principles.

 

References:

Arthur, W.B. (2009). The Nature of Technology. London: Penguin Books.

Heidegger, M. (1977). The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays (Trans. W. Lovitt). London: Garland Publishing, Ltd.