澳洲论文代写

澳洲代写:技术社会构建

澳洲代写:技术社会构建

技术社会建构是界定技术与人的关系的技术与工作社会学理论。换句话说,技术的社会建构在人与技术之间建立了明确的界限。技术理论社会建构的主要论点或焦点是技术驱动人而非技术驱动人。技术的社会建设挑战着人类行动与这些行动的技术要求之间的相互依赖。许多作家认为,技术驱动着人类的行为和判断,但技术理论的社会建构抑制了这种说法(George, 2014)。这一理论还定义了技术与社会融合的方式。技术的成功和失败取决于社会在生活中如何接受技术。因为技术为社会的不同阶层提供了更好的解决问题的方法,这意味着技术的成功和失败对于相同的用户有着不同的定义。
因此,这说明技术的成败标准并不是全社会统一的,而是取决于它的使用者。技术社会建构理论认为,人类行为与技术之间的区别在于,技术的使用仅限于某些人。(Jones, Allan, and Bissell, 2009)。技术社会建构理论还界定了技术人工制品的封闭性或技术不为社会或相关社会群体服务的点。许多人认为,一旦技术人工制品实现了灵活性,或者一旦定义了社会群体的解释,那么技术人工制品就不会导致封闭。然而,有一些因素证明这一概念是错误的,这意味着如果实现了一些因素,就可以结束技术人工制品。

澳洲代写:技术社会构建

Social construction of technology is the theory of Sociology of Technology & Work which defines relationship between technology and humans. In other words, social construction of technology establishes clear distinction between humans and technology. Main argument or focus point of social construction of technology theory is that technology does not drives humans rather human drives technology. Social construction of technology challenges interdependence of human actions and technology requirements in those actions. Many writers argue that technology drives human action and judgements, but social construction of technology theory curtails such saying (George, 2014). This theory also defines the way in which technology has been integrated with society. Success and failure of technology depends on how society accepts technology in their life. Since technology has provided better problem solving approach to different section of society, which means that technology success and failure have different definitions according to different users of same.
Therefore, this states that success and failure criteria of technology are not uniform in terms of whole society, but it depends on its user. Social construction of technology theory suggests differentiation between human action and technology by proving use of technology is limited for some people only. (Jones, Allan, and Bissell, 2009). Social construction of technology theory also defines closure of technology artefacts or the point where technology does not serve the need to society or relevant social group. Many have argued that once technology artefacts achieve flexibility or once interpretation of social group is defined then technology artefacts do not lead to closure. However, there are some factors that prove this concept wrong, which means there are some factors if achieved can bring end to technology artefacts.