Researcher questions society's adoption of technology without critical assessment

Oct 01, 2010 By Dana Yates
"When it comes to adopting new technologies, we need more forethought and less hindsight," says Isabel Pedersen, a Professional Communications professor.

It's a science-fiction idea being brought to life: a brain-controlled headset that enables users to move on-screen images using the power of thought. But what is the real purpose of this technology - video gaming fun or mind surveillance? Furthermore, will it do people more harm than good?

That's the premise of Isabel Pedersen's research at Ryerson. A professor of Professional Communication, Pedersen uses a humanities-based approach to study wearable technologies. Examples of these future high-tech inventions include invisibility cloaking materials and electronic contact lenses that provide augmented vision, similar to that of The Terminator.

"Typically, a is assessed after it has been made available," Pedersen says. "Usability studies are done or new policies are created, such as the Ontario law that bans cell phone use while driving. We never consider, however, the hidden implications of technologies prior to their release."

One major concern, she cautions, is a public that accepts new technologies long before they are available for purchase. The reason for this early adoption: new inventions are touted as the next great thing by the media, on YouTube, and in advertisements, movies and science-fiction books. Pedersen believes this process derails discussions of the dehumanizing and humanizing aspects of new technologies.

"We're told to automatically see an as a positive thing. But we need to look at the full circumference of a technology. It's not the job of scientists to do that."

To that end, Pedersen is writing a book that explores this issue. Specifically, she is interested in the language that journalists and marketers use to describe - and justify the invention of - new technologies. One example is a wearable device that records everything a user sees and does, essentially creating a digital life. Driving the development of this technology is a belief that human memory is fallible, and therefore, inferior to a machine.

But this reasoning is problematic, according to Pedersen.

"Humans were never meant to have perfect memories. A digital-memory device limits creative thought and our ability to 'misremember' things. These are basic human traits and they are being degraded."

Currently on sabbatical, Pedersen plans to further her research by attending various technology conferences around the world. During the events, she will analyze how scientists explain and rationalize their latest inventions. In the end, Pedersen hopes her findings will motivate buyers to think critically about their technology purchases - before signing on the dotted line.

"When it comes to adopting new technologies," she says, "we need more forethought and less hindsight."

Explore further: Perthites wanted for study on the Aussie lingo

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

New paper sheds light on bonobo language

Aug 28, 2008

What happens when linguistic tools used to analyze human language are applied to a conversation between a language-competent bonobo and a human? The findings, published this month in the Journal of Integrative Psychological an ...

Recommended for you

Awarded a Pell Grant? Better double-check

14 hours ago

(AP)—Potentially tens of thousands of students awarded a Pell Grant or other need-based federal aid for the coming school year could find it taken away because of a mistake in filling out the form.

Perthites wanted for study on the Aussie lingo

22 hours ago

We all know that Australians speak English differently from the way it's spoken in the UK or the US, and many of us are aware that Perth people have a slightly different version of the language from, say, Melbournians - but ...

User comments : 3

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Corban
not rated yet Oct 01, 2010
Earlier this year, the NY Times published a similar article but on the internet's effect on misremembering: http://www.nytime...-t2.html

He's right. Humans were never meant to do these things. But humans were never meant to do a lot of things. This is only a concern for someone who judges a tool based on what's been done, rather than what is possible. By definition, a backward-looking approach. In light of this, isn't it odd that he asks for forethought when his approach is by hindsight?
dirk_bruere
not rated yet Oct 01, 2010
Sounds like the latest Luddite justification. I mean who knows what any invention will lead to - best ban it until proved safe. Just look at computers, they can turn into killer robots.
marjon
not rated yet Oct 01, 2010
"by attending various technology conferences around the world."
I am sure these will be held in very nice vacation resorts. Tough research.