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.