Essay Sample on History of Technology

Introduction

I am not sure that the approach works for me. The sub-titles were not really matching. I can see what you were trying to do - to structure the critique in the form of a paper - but when you look at the paper you will see that the structure does not work. For example, there were really no research questions or hypothesis.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

My view is that a critique actually work (in this case where you have four different papers) - by putting the papers in date order, going through them almost as a basic literature review - then at the end focusing on addressing the core element of the ideas in the paper. The issue is that there is a mistaken view that the critique only needs looking at the papers that were given. I don't think this is necessarily the correct approach. One will only be able to establish that a cup is full or not when compared to another cup.

This means that for each of the papers being criticized, a comparator paper should have been identified - then you benchmark what you are reading against another paper.

In the course of the most recent sixty years of business action, there has been new available resources of leading business through something we call innovation. Innovation is the headway and utilization of electronic gadgets and other cutting edge hardware to create and advance information into what's to come. Progressions in innovation have influenced administration initiative from multiple points of view in the course of the most recent sixty years. New innovation has adjusted pioneers' awareness, language, and the manner in which they see their association. Mechanical progressions have made things less demanding for those in the board positions of authority. In any case, similarly as with anything, there are sure and negative parts of innovation on initiative. A portion of the positive ... show progressively content...

Furthermore, a considerable lot of the most up to date handheld models can be remotely arranged, which implies pioneers can send and get email and surf the Web without having to "sync up" to a PC. Video-conferencing is a three-dimensional, top-quality sound and video augmented reality media transmission that will enable pioneers to inspect minute articles through remotely controlled magnifying lens. Videoconferencing innovations utilize a compacted video framework to transmit data starting with one area then onto the next either by means of the Internet or a phone line.

On an increasingly negative note, when pioneers are utilizing a portion of the innovative focal points as referenced above, they risk lessening the protection of their association. Security is a benefit that we underestimate in this nation, yet it is emphatically undermined by advances in innovation. The capacity of political and financial foundations to find private data about people and associations is overpowering. A portion of the different ways that data around an association's exercises can be gathered without their insight or assent are: through treats, programs, web indexes, electronic trade, E-mail, and spam

Review of the Literature

The author begins by reviewing History of Technology and points out the definitions of technology as termed by Charles Singer, E.J Holymyard and A.R. Hall. The author also mentions the significance and relationship between science and technology which leads to the two hypotheses of scientists generating new knowledge is imperatively similar to natural sciences

The author further uses A French source which is equivalent to the first source to channel the same concept of the history of technology. In their momentous history of technology Charles Singer, E. J. Holmyard, and A. R. Lobby characterize innovation as "how things are commonly done or made" and "what things are done or made."' That is, they treat innovation as system and the technologist as a specialist. In this utilization the customary meaning of innovation as "methodical learning of the mechanical expressions" turns out to be good for nothing.

However, in this case, technology is echoed on the economic aspect of social diversion rather than scientific leadership to create knowledge. The author also notes the gaps present in the literature. He mentions that Historians of technology in the United States have adopted a new view of technology and the same as in the first and second source. Historians in the United States consider technology to be using work as an organizing proposition. The author concludes by pointing out that the concept of knowledge of technology should be grounded on the effective integration of the history of technology to other arms of social history and intellectual.

In the second book, the author of Anglo-American historians starts with pointing out that technology has been a significant tool in organizational theory. However, the definition and concept of technology and the roles of technology in an organization have been underrated. Further, the author delves into the argument of the divergent meaning and objecting perspective related to technological research which has obstructed the insight of how technology relates with an organization. The author further formulates the idea of reconstructing the concept of technology which significantly which re-evaluates the current aspects of technology and functions to the organization.

The author starts with a review that underpins the changing meanings of technology before 1930. Oldenziel and Marx reviews are used by the author to point out the definition of technology and to relate the new and old views of technology mainly before and after 1930. Next, the author reviews the meaning of technology in nineteenth-century in Europe and America. In this discourse, different idea and meanings of technology are grounded on views of English and Continental languages. European scholars use a single terminology to define technology whereas continental languages use two concepts. They use technology and the cognates of technique.

The gaps present in the existing literature point out that despite all the breakdowns from different views of what technology is, it is not clear how and when technology laid hypothesis of meanings that have triggered it from unclear to a better view. The author begins by pointing out that science and technology have been viewed differently by different scholars. Derek de Solla Price and William Broad stated different takes on the connection between science and technology.

The policy makers see technology and science as an assembly line in the sense that the line is a concept of knowledge to a scientist. The historians, on the other hand, view science and technology as on thing. The distorted model supported by the policymakers portrays science and innovation as a sequential construction system. The start of the line is a thought in the head of the researcher. At resulting work stations along that mechanical production system, activities named connected research, creation, advancement, building, and promoting change that thought into an advancement. A general public looking for advancements should, in the sequential construction system see, place cash into unadulterated science at the front end of the process. In due time, development will leave the opposite end. History specialists of science and innovation have not just switched the heading of the sequential construction system with the goal that innovation presently produces science.

The author also points out the gaps in the existing literature. The counterargument between historians and science policymakers is making it difficult for people to conclude the actual relationship between science and technology (Wise, 1985, 231).

Methods

The author uses a qualitative research analysis for the literature work. This is evident when the author mentions the aspect of the theory of the relationship between science and technology. Theory view of qualitative research is visible in the grounded theory methodology. This methodology is used to a research technique that functions through conduction of questions or gathering of qualitative data. In this light, the author analyzes the data through analysis of the History of technology from different angles of sources. The author merges the ideas and comes up with one solid concept of effective integration of the history of technology to other arms of social history and intellectual. The methodological approach used in this literature is qualitative research. The author uses the concept of technology, meanings and different approaches to get a better view of the term technology. The literature also answers why technology was not considered to be effective during the Anglo-American historians' time.

D. Results and Conclusions

The author identifies various results connected to the technology review. First, the traditional concept of technology being a "systematic knowledge of the industrial arts" is dismissed. Technology is treated as a technique and the technologists as technicians. The history of technology is viewed on a different point of view according to American Historians. They believe technology uses work as an assembling aspect. For this reason, it makes technology to be a liberated historical impact, and it increases the depth of the history of technology.

Conclusion

In conclusion, technology should have an impact of binding the history of technology to other arms of social history and intellectual. The prominence on knowledge assists to enhance focus to innovators in technology, as against technicians.

A new theoretical model, the structurational model of technology, is created on the premise of a new conceptualization. This helps in the field study of information technology. Further, the structurational model creates a deeper insight of the interconnection between the organization and technology. The better ideas result to technology development and use, organizational designs and chances of human choices.

The author finds from other reviews that Anglo-Americans historian did not embrace the concept of technology and that the meanings of technology are linked from a comparatively recent origin. He also finds that Oldenziel and Marx reviews are used to address the meaning of technology and to relate the new and old views of technology mainly before and after 1930.

In conclusion, this literature review brings out the terms of technology from different angles. Oldenziel and Marx used by the author to point out the meaning of technology and to relate the new and old views of technology mainly before and after 1930.

The author identifies two dimensions of the concept of science and technology. The historians rejected the assembly-line model in the modern American world. The author resulted from the historians that all knowledge is not science and technology is knowledge too. Science is invented, and technological tools can assist scientists to create science.

References

Layton Jr, E.T., 1974. Technology as knowledge. Technology and culture, pp.31-41.Orlikowski, W., 1992. The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), PP.398-427.

Schatzberg, E., 2006. "Technik" Comes to America: Changing Meaning of "Technology" before 1930. Technology and Culture, 47(3), pp.486-512.Wise, G., 1985. Science and Technology. Osiris, Historical Writing on American Science, pp. 229-246.