Considering The Influence Of Technology In Gene

Questionin Considering The Influence That Technology In General Or A

Considering the influence that technology in general or any single technology has over human affairs, it is necessary to consider not only the technology and its presumed "imperatives," but also the key human agents of the technology, the organisations in which they operate, and how these influence the course of technological change (Rudi, 257).

This essay aims to explore how different theoretical perspectives provide unique insights into the relationships between technology, organisations, management, and employees. Specifically, it will focus on two of the four main perspectives—modernist and interpretivist—to analyze their ontological and epistemological underpinnings and how they interpret the dynamics of technological influence within organizations. The goal is to demonstrate how each perspective conceptualizes the interplay among technology, human agents, and organizational structures and to critically evaluate their contributions and limitations.

Paper For Above instruction

The relationship between technology and human organisations is complex, shaped profoundly by underlying theoretical assumptions about the nature of reality and knowledge. Different perspectives shed varying lights on how technology influences organisational life, management, and employee relations. To unpack this complexity, this essay compares the modernist and interpretivist perspectives, revealing how each offers distinctive insights into technologic-organisation interactions and the role of human agency.

Understanding the Perspectives: Ontology and Epistemology

The modernist perspective is rooted in a positivist epistemology and a realist ontology. It perceives organizations and technologies as objective entities that exist independently of human interpretation. Modernists regard technological processes as driven by rational imperatives—deterministic forces that shape organizational structures and management practices (Orlikowski & Barley, 2001). They argue that technological change follows a logical, often linear, trajectory, and that organizations must adapt rationally to these external imperatives to ensure efficiency and stability (Lyytinen & Rose, 2007).

In contrast, the interpretivist perspective adopts a constructivist ontology and a relativist epistemology. It views organizations and technologies as socially constructed phenomena, shaped by human interactions, meanings, and perceptions (Weick, 1995). From this standpoint, technology is not merely an external force but is embedded within organizational narratives and practices. Interpretivists emphasize understanding how human agents interpret and give meaning to technological artefacts, thereby influencing the course of technological development and organizational change (Klein & Myers, 1999).

Insights into Technology-Organisation Relations

The modernist view sees technology as an "imperative" that imposes itself upon organizations, necessitating structural and managerial responses. This perspective suggests that organizations are passive recipients of technological change, which drives organizational restructuring aimed at optimizing efficiency. Management’s role, from this lens, is to align organizational goals with technological opportunities, often emphasizing control, standardization, and predictability (Bijker & Law, 1992).

By contrast, the interpretivist perspective highlights the active role of human agents—managers, employees, and stakeholders—in shaping technological trajectories. Technologies are seen as texts or symbols open to multiple interpretations, which influence organizational routines and practices. This view recognizes that management and employees collaboratively interpret technological tools, sometimes resisting or reconfiguring them, thus playing an active role in technological change (Orlikowski, 1992). Human agency, therefore, becomes central to understanding the nonlinear, negotiated processes of technological adoption and adaptation.

Critiques and Interplay of the Perspectives

Critics of the modernist approach argue that it overlooks the social construction of technology and the contexts of organizational meaning, thereby overemphasizing technological determinism (Pinch & Bijker, 1984). It risks portraying organizations as passive entities that uncritically follow technological imperatives, which ignores the agency of human actors and organizational resistance.

Conversely, interpretivists face criticism for their potential relativism and difficulties in generalizing findings. Since they focus on subjective meanings, they may underplay the structural and material constraints that shape technology’s role in organizations (Walsham, 1993). Moreover, their emphasis on interpretive flexibility can obscure clear causal relations or policy implications.

Implications for Understanding Technology, Management, and Employees

Under the modernist lens, management’s task is to manage technological change efficiently, aligning organizational structures with external technological imperatives. Employees are seen as part of this process—either as implementers or resistors—whose roles are largely dictated by the overarching technological logic (Lyytinen & Rose, 2007). This perspective emphasizes standardization, control, and the predictability of organizational routines.

In contrast, interpretivism places greater emphasis on the negotiated meanings of technology within organizations. Management and employees collaboratively construct organizational realities, with technologies serving as scripts that can be appropriated, resisted, or reconfigured. This results in a more dynamic, socially embedded understanding of technological influence, recognizing the importance of culture, power relations, and individual agency (Klein & Myers, 1999).

Conclusion

Both perspectives provide valuable insights into the complex relations between technology, organization, management, and employees. The modernist view underscores the deterministic influence of technological imperatives, highlighting the importance of structural adaptation and control mechanisms. Conversely, the interpretivist approach emphasizes human agency, social construction, and negotiated meaning, revealing how technology’s impact varies depending on human interpretation and organizational culture. A comprehensive understanding of technological influence in organizations thus benefits from integrating these perspectives, acknowledging both the structural forces and the active agency of human actors in shaping technological change.

References

• Bijker, W. E., & Law, J. (Eds.). (1992). Shaping Technology / Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. MIT Press.
• Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 67–93.
• Lyytinen, K., & Rose, G. M. (2007). Maintenance and change to Information Systems: From support to strategy. Social Studies of Science, 37(1), 33–62.
• Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398–427.
• Orlikowski, W., & Barley, S. R. (2001). Technology and institutions: What can research on information technology and organization say about recent theoretical developments? MIS Quarterly, 25(2), 141–168.
• Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1984). The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science, 14(3), 399–441.
• Walsham, G. (1993). Interpreting information systems in organizations. Wiley.
• Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage Publications.