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: Developing nations ride a motorcycle boom

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

Male-biased tweeting

9 hours ago

Today women take an active part in public life. Without a doubt, they also converse with other women. In fact, they even talk to each other about other things besides men. As banal as it sounds, this is far ...

Developing nations ride a motorcycle boom

10 hours ago

Asia's rapidly developing economies should prepare for a full-throttle increase in motorcycle numbers as average incomes increase, a new study from The Australian National University has found.

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.

More news stories

Not just the poor live hand-to-mouth

When the economy hits the skids, government stimulus checks to the poor sometimes follow. Stimulus programs—such as those in 2001, 2008 and 2009—are designed to boost the economy quickly by getting cash ...

Male-biased tweeting

Today women take an active part in public life. Without a doubt, they also converse with other women. In fact, they even talk to each other about other things besides men. As banal as it sounds, this is far ...

Archaeologists, tribe clash over Native remains

Archaeologists and Native Americans are clashing over Indian remains and artifacts that were excavated during a construction project in the San Francisco Bay Area, but then reburied at an undisclosed location.

Math modeling handbook now available

Math comes in handy for answering questions about a variety of topics, from calculating the cost-effectiveness of fuel sources and determining the best regions to build high-speed rail to predicting the spread ...