Researcher questions society's adoption of technology without critical assessment

October 1, 2010 By Dana Yates, Ryerson University
"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: New paper sheds light on bonobo language

Related Stories

New paper sheds light on bonobo language

August 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 ...

Recommended for you

Lifting barriers to citizenship for low-income immigrants

January 15, 2018

Taking the Oath of Allegiance at a naturalization ceremony is an emotional moment for many immigrants, and for good reason: it is the culmination of an often arduous process and many years of striving. Citizenship also opens ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

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?
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.
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.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.