ICT Futures 2008
DOI: 10.1002/9780470758656.ch1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Predicting the Socio‐Technical Future (and Other Myths)

Abstract: A snooker ball model implies that simple, linear and predictable social change follows from the introduction of new technologies. Unfortunately technology does not have and has never had simple linear predictable social impacts. In this chapter we show that in most measurable ways, the pervasiveness of modern information and communication technologies has had little discernable 'impact' on most human behaviours of sociological significance. Historians of technology remind us that human society co-evolves with … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is difficult to predict what new water-using technologies and practices might emerge, or how current water-consuming devices and routines might disappear or be substituted by arrangements and ways of doing things that require less, or perhaps no water (Ben-Haim 2006;Shove and Walker 2007). As with other forms of 'socio-technological forecasting' our ability to influence the combined trajectories of people's water using practices and to offer scenarios of what this change will look like may be limited (Anderson and Stoneman 2009). Gram-Hanssen puts it this way, people change their routines all the time but "not as a result of concern for the environment or the result of campaigns… it is rather due to changes in the social organization of everyday life combined with the introduction of new technologies" (Gram-Hanssen 2008, p. 1181.…”
Section: Scaling Up Practice: Conclusionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is difficult to predict what new water-using technologies and practices might emerge, or how current water-consuming devices and routines might disappear or be substituted by arrangements and ways of doing things that require less, or perhaps no water (Ben-Haim 2006;Shove and Walker 2007). As with other forms of 'socio-technological forecasting' our ability to influence the combined trajectories of people's water using practices and to offer scenarios of what this change will look like may be limited (Anderson and Stoneman 2009). Gram-Hanssen puts it this way, people change their routines all the time but "not as a result of concern for the environment or the result of campaigns… it is rather due to changes in the social organization of everyday life combined with the introduction of new technologies" (Gram-Hanssen 2008, p. 1181.…”
Section: Scaling Up Practice: Conclusionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These studies indicate that whilst moderate reductions could be achieved through voluntary demand management efforts and a small price increase, greater reductions would require stringent mandatory policies and larger price rises. Thus, our ability to influence the trajectories of people's water use and to offer associated scenarios appears limited (Anderson and Stoneman 2009).…”
Section: Determinants Not Under Utility Controlmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…New technologies, such as intuitive and collaborative Web 2.0 knowledge articulation processes, are showing even faster uptakes, at a pace never seen before (Warren et al, 2008). One particularly significant trend that can be expected to accelerate in the future is that of Web users increasingly designing their own content (Anderson & Stoneman, 2008), obvious examples being content sharing via blogs, shared knowledge creation on wikis or Wikipedia and the burgeoning plethora of social communication Web sites like Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, BeBo, Flickr, YouTube and the like.…”
Section: Pedagogical Solutionsmentioning
confidence: 99%