There are a number of theories attempting to address technology, which tend to be associated with the disciplines of Science and technology studies (STS) and Communication studies. If forced, one might categorize them as social and group theories. (Some of the authors cited intend their theories to bridge -- or perhaps destroy -- the categorization of macro/micro or any other the dichotomy.) Additionally, one might distinguish between descriptive and "critical" theories. Descriptive theories attempt to address the definition and substance of technology, how does it emerge, change, and, of course, what is its relation to the human/social sphere? More substantively, to what extent is technology autonomous and how much force does it have in determining social structure or human practice? Critical theories of technology often take a descriptive theory as their basis and articulate concerns and ask in what ways can that relationship be changed? The authors cited are those that have some concern with technology or media, though they often borrow from one another and of course build upon seminal theorists that preceded them. Technology (Gr. ... In academics, science studies (sometimes seen as science and technology studies) is an umbrella term for a number of approaches devoted to studying science, and as a discipline its participants often come from a wide variety of disciplines, usually history of science, sociology of science, philosophy of science, sociology of... Communication studies (or Communications) is the academic discipline which studies communication; subdisciplines include animal communication, theories of communication, group communication, information theory, intrapersonal communication, interpersonal communication, marketing, organizational communication, propaganda, public affairs, public relations, speech communications, and telecommunications. ...

Social Theories

Descriptive

• Actor-network theory (ANT) - posits a heterogeneous network of humans and non-humans as equal interrelated actors. It strives for impartiality in the description of human and nonhuman actors and the reintegration of the natural and social worlds. For example, Latour (1992) argues that instead of worrying whether we are anthropomorphizing technology, we should embrace it as inherently anthropomorphic: technology is made by humans, substitutes for the actions of people, and shapes human action. What is important is the chain and gradients of actors' actions and competences, and the degree to which we choose to have figurative representations. Key concepts include the inscription of beliefs, practices, relations into technology, which is then said to embody them. Key authors include Latour (1997) and Callon (1999).

• Social construction of technology (SCOT) - argues that technology does not determine human action, but that human action shapes technology. Key concepts include:
  • interpretive flexibility: "Technological artifacts are culturally constructed and interpreted ... By this we mean not only that there is flexibility in how people think of or interpret artifacts but also that there is flexibility in how artifacts are designed."
  • relevant social group: shares a particular set of meanings about an artifact
  • closure and stabilization: when the relevant social group has reached a consensus
  • wider context: "the sociocultural and political situation of a social group shapes its norms and values, which in turn influence the meaning given to an artifact"

Key authors include Pinch and Bijker (1992) and Kline.

• Structuration theory - defines structures as rules and resources organized as properties of social systems. The theory employs a recursive notion of actions constrained and enabled by structures which are produced and reproduced by that action. Consequently, technology is not rendered as an artifact, but instead examines how people, as they interact with a technology in their ongoing practices, enact structures which shape their emergent and situated use of that technology. Key authors include DeSantis and Poole (1990), and Orlikowski (1992).

• Systems theory - considers the historical development of technology and media with an emphasis on inertia and heterogeneity, stressing the connections between the artifact being built and the social, economic, political and cultural factors surrounding it. Key concepts include reverse salients which occur when uneven development that attracts inventors, differentiation, operational closure, and autopoietic autonomy. Key authors include Luhmann (2000).

Actor-network theory, sometimes abbreviated to ANT, is a sociological theory developed by Bruno Latour, Michel Callon and John Law. ... Bruno Latour (born 1947, Beaune, France) is a French sociologist of science best known for his books We Have Never Been Modern, Laboratory Life, and Science in Action, describing the process of scientific research from the perspective of social construction based on field observations of working scientists. ... Social construction of technology (also referred to as SCOT) is a branch of the sociology of science and technology. ... Structuration theory, in anthropology, maintains that a repeated cultural practice builds social structure, and that practices are dictated by the social structure. ... Systems theory or general systems theory or systemics is an interdisciplinary field which studies systems as a whole. ... Niklas Luhmann (December 8, 1927 - November 6, 1998) was a German sociologist, administration expert, and social systems theorist, as well as the founder of the sociological systems theory. ...

Critical theories

• Values in Design - asks how do we ensure a place for values (alongside technical standards such as speed, efficiency, and reliability) as criteria by which we judge the quality and acceptability of information systems and new media? How do values such as privacy, autonomy, democracy, and social justice become integral to conception, design, and development, not merely retrofitted after completion? Key thinkers include Nissenbaum (2001).

Other stances

Additionally, many authors have posed technology so as to critique and or emphasize aspects of technology as addressed by the mainline theories. For example, Woolgar (1991) considers technology as text in order to critique the sociology of scientific knowledge as applied to technology and to distinguish between three responses to that notion: the instrumental response (interpretive flexibility), the interpretivist response (environmental/organizational influences), the reflexive response (a double hermeneutic). Pfaffenberger (1992) teats technology as drama to argue that a recursive structuring of technological artifacts and their social structure discursively regulate the technological construction of political power. A technological drama is a discourse of technological "statements" and "counterstatements" within the processes of technological regularization, adjustment, and reconstitution. The sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) is a recognised school of loosely allied thinkers including Gaston Bachelard, Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, Bruno Latour and David Bloor. ...

Group Theories

There are also a number of technology related theories that address specifically how (media) technology affects small group interactions:

• Media richness theory (Daft and Lengel 1986) posits that the amount of information communicated differs with respect its host media's richness. Consequently, there is a rate of understanding achieved in a specific time with which the media can resolve uncertainty and ambiguity. This does not imply that all media are appropriate for all communication tasks. The richness of the media should be matched to the task so as to prevent over-simplification or -complication.

• Media synchronicity theory (MST, [Dennis and Valacish 2004 (http://csdl.computer.org/comp/proceedings/hicss/1999/0001/01/00011017.PDF)]) redirects richness theory towards the synchronicity of the communication.

• Social presence theory (Short, et al. 1976) highlights the salience of another person in a mediated environment as subjectively perceived.

• Social Identification/Deindividuation (SIDE, Postmes, Spears and Lea 1999) theory suggests that in the absence of individuating cues about others, as is the case in computer-mediated communication, individuals build stereotypical impressions of others based on limited information.

• Time, Interaction, and Performance (TIP, McGrath 1991) theory describes work groups as time-based, multi-modal, and multi-functional social systems. Groups interact in one of the modes of inception, problem solving, conflict resolution, and execution. The three functions of a group are production (towards a goal), support (affective) and well-being (norms and roles).

Analytic Theories

Finally, there are theories of technology which are not defined or claimed by a proponent, but are used by authors in describing existing literature, in contrast to their own or as a review of the field.

For example, Markus and Robey (1988) specifically propose a general theory of technology consisting of the causal structures of agency (technological, organizational, imperative, emergent), structure (variance, process), and level (micro, macro) of analysis.

Orlikowski (1992) notes that previous conceptualizations of technology typically differ over scope (is technology more than hardware?) and role (is it an external objective force, the interpreted human action, or an impact moderated by humans?) and identifies three models:

1. technological imperative: focuses on organizational characteristics which can be measured and permits some level of contingency.
2. strategic choice: focuses on how technology is influenced by the context and strategies of decision-makers and users.
3. technology as triggerer of structural change: views technology as a social object.

DeSanctis and Poole (1994) similarly write of three views of technology's effects:

1. decision-making: the view of engineers associated with positivist, rational, systems rationalization, and deterministic approaches
2. institutional school: technology is an opportunity for change, focuses on social evolution, social construction of meaning, interaction and historical processes, interpretive flexibility, and an interplay between technology and power
3. an integrated perspective (social technology): soft-line determinism, with joint social and technological optimization, structural symbolic interaction theory

Bimber (1998) addresses the determinacy of technology effects by distinguishing between the:

1. normative: an autonomous approach where technology is an important influence on history only where societies attached cultural and political meaning to it (e.g., the industrialization of society)
2. nomological: a naturalistic approach wherein an inevitable technological order arises based all laws of nature (e.g., steam mill had to follow the hand mill).
3. unintended consequences: a fuzzy approach that is demonstrative that technology has is contingent (e.g., a car is faster than horse, but unbeknownst to its original creators become a significant source of pollution).

References Cites

Bimber, B. (1998). Three faces of technological determinism. In Smith, M. and Marx, L., editors, Does Technology Drive History? The Dilemma of Technological Determinism, pages 79-100. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Callon, M. (1999). Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of Saint Brieuc Bay. In Biagioli, M., editor, The Science Studies Reader, pages 67-83. Routledge, New York.

Daft, R. L. and Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5):554-571.

Denis, A. and Valacich, J. (1999). Rethinking media richness: towards a theory of media synchronicity. Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science.

Desanctis, G. and Poole, M. S. (1990). Understanding the use of group decision support systems: the theory of adaptive structuration. In J. Fulk, C. S., editor, Organizations and Communication Technology, pages 173-193. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Desanctis, G. and Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2):121-147.

Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In Bijker, W. and Law, J., editors, Shaping Technology/Building Society. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Latour, B. (1997). On Actor Network Theory: a few clarifications. (Part 1 (http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9801/msg00019.html) and 2 (http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9801/msg00020.html) )

Luhmann, N. (2000). The reality of the mass media. Stanford, Stanford, CA,.

Markus, M. and Robey, D. (1988). Information technology and organizational change: causal structure in theory and research. Management Science, 34:583-598.

McGrath, J. E. (1991). Time, interaction, and performance (tip): A theory of groups. small group research. 22(2):147-174.

Nissenbaum, H. (2001). How computer systems embody values How computer systems embody values (http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/papers/embodyvalues.pdf). Computer, 34(3):120-118.

Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3):398-427.

Pfaffenberger, B. (1992). Technological dramas. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 17(3):282-312.

Pinch, T. and Bijker, W. (1992). The social construction of facts and artifacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In Bijker, W. and Law, J., editors, Shaping Technology/Building Society, pages 17-50. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Postmes, T., Spears, R., and Lea, M. (1999). Social identity, group norms, and deindividuation: Lessons from computer-mediated communication for social influence in the group. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, B. D., editor, Social Identity: Context, Commitment, Content. Blackwell., Oxford.

Short, J. A., Williams, E., and Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Woolgar, S. (1991). The turn to technology in social studies of science. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16(1):20-50.