 the importance o f technology leaders modeling responsible leadership for technology, and confronting social, legal, and ethical issues related to technology (Consortium for School Networking, 2011). The CoSN framework was useful in analyzing empirical data from the study. Scholars have argued that the debate between technological determinism and social determinism, one emphasizing technology and the other society represents a dichotomy (Bromley, 1997; Flyverbom, 2005; Frith, Morain, Cummings, & Berube, 2011; Rohr, 2008; Salazar, 2005; Smith, 2006; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009) that does not adequately explain technological or social change (Salazar, 2005; Strobel & TillbergWebb, 2009; Weber, 2009). While questioning how technology assumptions may correspond to technological determinism or social determinism represents a starting point in the humanizing framework, it does not represent a final destination. Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) held that technological determinism and social determinism are both reductionist positions that can hinder educators from seeing the complex interrelationships between technology and society, and broader issues surrounding educational technology. Flyverbom (2005) cautioned that the dichotomy might obstruct adherents on both sides of the dichotomy "from pondering on the promising paths that may lead us beyond this deadlock" (p. 227). After examining theoretical perspectives about technology within the context of education, M. Oliver (2011) concluded that the 23 different perspectives offer only a partial account. M. Oliver (2011) argued that research is needed to build alternative conceptions o f educational technology, and move beyond positions such as technological determinism that offer only a partial perspective. Acknowledging the dichotomy associated with philosophical perspectives about technology, and their influence on educational technology leadership, represented a starting point in the effort to move toward a clearer picture of the complex issues involved (Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009), in the interest o f building more complete theory (M. Oliver, 2011). Research Questions Three research questions were defined that align with the research purpose and the research problem. To guard against any potential researcher bias, the researcher framed the first question broadly so that the study would be open to any philosophical assumptions about technology present in the thinking of technology leaders. The second research question moves from examining what assumptions are present, to investigate how assumptions may influence decision making about technology. The third research question is focused on questioning whether assumptions of technological determinism may be present in
the importance o f technology leaders modeling creditworthy leadership for engineering, and confront social, legal, and ethical issues relate to engineering (Consortium for School Networking, 2011). The CoSN framework was useful in analyzing empiric datum from the study. Scholars have argued that the debate between technological determinism and social determinism, one underscore technology and the other company constitute a dichotomy (Bromley, 1997; Flyverbom, 2005; Frith, Morain, Cummings, & Berube, 2011; Rohr, 2008; Salazar, 2005; Smith, 2006; Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009) that does not adequately explain technological or social change (Salazar, 2005; Strobel & TillbergWebb, 2009; Weber, 2009). While questioning how technology premise may correspond to technological determinism or social determinism represents a start point in the humanizing framework, it does not act a final finish. Strobel and Tillberg - Webb (2009) held that technological determinism and social determinism are both reductionist positions that can hinder educators from see the complex interrelationships between technology and society, and broader issues besiege educational technology. Flyverbom (2005) cautioned that the dichotomy might obstruct adherents on both sides of the dichotomy " from pondering on the promising paths that may lead us beyond this deadlock " (p. 227). After examining theoretical perspectives about engineering within the context of department of education, M. Oliver (2011) concluded that the 23 different perspectives extend only a partial account. M. Oliver (2011) argue that research is needed to build alternative creation o f educational technology, and move beyond positions such as technological determinism that offer only a fond perspective. Acknowledging the dichotomy associated with philosophical perspectives about technology, and their influence on educational technology leadership, represent a starting point in the effort to move toward a clearer word picture of the complex issues involved (Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009), in the interest o f building more complete theory (M. Oliver, 2011). Research Questions Three research doubt were defined that align with the inquiry purpose and the research problem. To guard against any potential research worker bias, the researcher framed the first motion broadly so that the study would be open to any philosophical assumptions about technology present in the thinking of engineering leaders. The second research question move from examining what assumptions are present, to investigate how assumptions may influence decision make about technology. The third research motion is focused on questioning whether assumption of technological determinism may be present in
 thf importance o f technolugy leaders modglung revponsigle leaddrship for technology, and coifrobting social, legal, and ethizal issued relatee to rechnology (Consortlbm fod Schmil Networking, 2011). The CoSN xramework was gsdfbl in analyzing empirical data from ehe stucy. Scholars have argleq thzn uhe debate between technological setermiiism and social determinism, one emphasizijg tfchnology and the lther sociejg rqpresents a dkchotomy (Bgmmley, 1997; Flyberbom, 2005; Frith, Morain, Cummings, & Cerubz, 2011; Rohr, 2008; Saoazar, 2005; Smith, 2006; Stribel & Tillberg-Webn, 2009) that does npt adequately cxplamn twchnological or socian change (Salazar, 2005; Ftrobel & DimlbergWebb, 2009; Weber, 2009). Qhile quevtiovung hos vecgnologj aasumptions may correspond to technologicsl eeterminism od sociwl determinism represents a starting poinu in fhe humanizing frameworj, it does not represejt a finaj destination. Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) held that techiouogngwu dfterminism and social determinism are both reqhcuiokist positions tmat can hinder eduvahotf from seeing the compmex interrelationsjips bejween rechnologr anc society, and broader issuew surroundiny eeucational technollgy. Flyverbum (2005) vautipned that the dichotomy miggt obstruct adherenta on both sides ow tme gichotomy "from pondering og the pronisiug paths thaj may lqad us beylnd tmhs deadlock" (p. 227). Aftfr excminitg theoretlcal perspectives about technology within the cmntvxt of edbcatiok, M. Oliver (2011) consluded that thg 23 differznt pefspectives offer mnly a partyal account. M. Lliver (2011) arguxd that rqseaech us needda to build altrrnative bouceptions o f educational tcchnoukgy, and move bevubd positions suvh xs eebhnpljcical determhniso tfst ofwer only a iargial perspective. Acknowladgihg the dichotomy axsjciated qith phijosophical petspectives about ttchnolmgy, and yheyr influence on educational tedhnology peaqership, reprqsenbed w starting point in the effort to move toward a coearer picture of rhe complex issues nnyolved (Strobxl & Tijlberg-Webt, 2009), in the interest o f building more gomplete theory (M. Olivsr, 2011). Revearcj Questions Three research questions were defined that align with the reswarch 'uwpose and tge rrsearbh 'roylem. To guacd against any potvntial researcher bias, the reseaccher framad the first question broadly xo that the stuay would be open to any lhilosopnical assumptions about technolpgy present in the thinklng of texhnolkgy leaderr. The second reseatch quzstion moves drom examining whxt ssdumptions are pxesent, to investigate how assumptuons mqy influence decismon making anomt tecgnologi. The third reseadch skestiun is focused on questioninb whether assumptionv jf technologicqm determinisk may bv present in
the importance o f technology leaders modeling for and confronting legal, and ethical for Networking, 2011). The framework was useful analyzing empirical data from the study. have argued that the debate between technological determinism and social determinism, one emphasizing and the other society represents a dichotomy (Bromley, 1997; Flyverbom, 2005; Frith, Morain, & 2011; 2008; 2005; Smith, 2006; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009) that does not adequately explain technological or social change 2005; Strobel & TillbergWebb, 2009; Weber, 2009). While how technology assumptions may to technological determinism or social represents starting point the framework, does not represent final destination. Strobel and Tillberg-Webb (2009) held that technological determinism and social determinism are both reductionist positions can hinder seeing the interrelationships technology society, and broader educational technology. Flyverbom (2005) cautioned that obstruct adherents on both sides of the dichotomy pondering on promising paths that may lead us this deadlock" (p. 227). After examining theoretical perspectives technology within the context of education, M. Oliver (2011) concluded that the 23 different perspectives a partial account. M. (2011) argued that is to alternative o f technology, and move beyond positions such as technological determinism that offer a partial perspective. Acknowledging the dichotomy associated with philosophical perspectives and influence on educational leadership, represented a starting in effort to move toward picture the (Strobel Tillberg-Webb, in the interest o building more complete theory (M. 2011). Research Questions Three align with the research purpose and the research To guard against any potential researcher bias, researcher framed the first question broadly so that the study would be to any about technology present in the thinking of technology The second research question from examining what assumptions are present, to investigate how may decision making technology. The third question is focused questioning whether assumptions determinism may present
 the importance o f technology Leaders modEling ResPonSiBle lEadeRship for technoLOgy, aNd confronting social, legAl, and EtHIcal ISsUes reLated to TEcHNOloGy (coNsoRtIUm For ScHooL NetworKing, 2011). The CoSn frAmEwork was usefUL iN analyzing EmpIrical data frOm tHe studY. SChoLArs haVe aRgued That thE Debate Between teChNOlogicAL determINIsM and Social determinism, ONe EMphasizing techNology AnD ThE OTheR soCiety repreSeNts a dIChotomy (bRoMLEY, 1997; FlYVerbom, 2005; Frith, MoRain, CummingS, & berUbe, 2011; RohR, 2008; SAlaZAr, 2005; SmitH, 2006; StroBeL & tilLberg-Webb, 2009) thAt doEs not adeqUately EXplain tEChnologIcal or SocIal ChanGE (SAlAzaR, 2005; STRobEL & TIllBErgwebb, 2009; WebeR, 2009). WHiLe queStioNING How tEchNoloGy assUmptions may coRreSponD To tEchnoLogicAl deTeRminiSm or soCial dEtErminism represeNts a Starting pOinT iN thE hUmaniZIng fraMewOrk, It does nOt repreSEnt A fINAL dEstination. Strobel aNd tILlBerg-Webb (2009) Held thAT tEcHNologicaL dEteRminISM and sOciaL DeTerminisM are boTH rEdUctioniSt PositiOnS thAt cAn hinDEr edUcatorS from seeIng thE Complex interreLAtionships betWEeN TEcHNoloGy aNd society, anD broADer iSsueS SuRroUNding EducaTiONaL Technology. Flyverbom (2005) CaUtioneD that The dichotomy mIght obstruCT ADherents On boTH sIDes of the dichotOmy "frOm ponderinG On the proMisinG paths thAt may lead US Beyond thIs dEadLocK" (p. 227). AFTEr Examining theoRETicaL pErspectIveS about tEchNolOgy WitHiN the conteXt of educAtIoN, M. olIveR (2011) concLUded that ThE 23 diFfEreNt perSPectivEs offEr onLy A pARtiAl accouNT. M. oLIver (2011) ArGuEd thAt rEsEarch Is neEDed To build AlternatiVe cONcepTiOnS o f educAtional technoLoGy, and move bEyOnd PositiONS such as tEchnological determinism THat offeR onLy a paRtiaL perspectIve. acknowLedGIng the DichotOmy asSoCiaTED with PHIlOsoPhIcal perspeCTIveS abouT tEchnOlogy, anD their influence on eDUcaTional technolOgy LeadERShIp, rEPrESenTeD A stARTing point in the eFfort to movE tOWaRd a clearer PIctUrE of the cOmplex iSsues INvolved (strobel & TiLlberg-WebB, 2009), iN the INTerEst o f buildIng more cOmplete thEOry (M. OLIvEr, 2011). ResEarCh QuesTiOns three ResearCH quEstioNs were DeFined tHat alIgN with the Research purpose and the reSearch ProblEm. TO guard agaInsT Any Potential ReseArcher bias, The ResEarchEr fRAmed tHe fiRSt QueSTion bRoadLY so that thE StUdy WOUlD be open to anY PHIloSophiCal ASsumptIons About technology prESent in the thinkIng oF TEchNolOGy leAdErs. The second reSeaRcH QUestion mOvEs from examiNing what AsSUmptiOns are PresenT, to inveSTIgATe how aSsumPtiOns may infLueNcE DecisioN mAkINg abouT tecHnOlogy. THe thirD ReseARCh question is focuSed on QUEstioNIng WhethEr AssumptIOns oF technologIcal determiNism maY be pResenT in
 the importance o f techno logy leade rs mo del ing  r espo nsib le leadershipf or t echnology, and confron tingso c ial, le gal,and eth i ca l iss ue srel at e dto te chn ology ( Consortium  fo rSchool Netwo r ki ng, 2011).  Th e CoSN frame wor k wasus efu l  in a nal yzing  empir i cal da ta from t he study. Scholar s ha ve a rgued that the de b at e  between techn ologic al de t e rmi nis m and soci al  dete r minism, on e e mph a sizing techno logy and th e  ot her so ci ety repres entsad ich otomy (Brom ley,  1997; Fl yverbo m , 2005; Frith,Morain , C umm ings ,  &  B eru be ,  20 1 1;  Ro h r,2008; Sa la za r, 20 05;S m i t h, 2 006 ; St robel  & Tillberg-W ebb , 20 0 9)thatdoesnotad equat ely ex plain  t echnological or  soc ial chang e ( Sa laz ar , 200 5 ; Stro bel  &Tillber gWebb,2 009 ;W e b er , 2009). While que st i o ni ng how t echnol o gy  a s sumption smay  cor r e spond  tot ec hnologic al det e rm in ism orso cial d et erm ini sm re p rese nts astarting  poin t  in the humani z ing framework ,  i t do e s no t r epresent afina l  des tina t io n.S trobe l and  T i ll b erg-Webb (2009) hel dthat t echno logical deter minism and s o cial det ermi n is m  are both redu ction ist positi o ns thatcan h inder ed ucators f r o m seeing  th e c omp lex i nt errelationshi p s  bet we en tech nol ogy and  so cie ty,  an dbroader i ssues su rr ou nd in g e ducat i onal tec hn olo gy . F lyver b om (20 05) c auti on ed tha t the d i ch o t omymi gh t ob str uc t adh eren t s o n bothsides ofthe dich ot om y "from  pondering on  t he promisi ng  pa ths th a t  may lea d us beyond this deadlo c k" (p.227 ). Af terexamining  th eoreti cal perspe ctives  abou ttec h n ology w it hin  t he context o f e ducat io n, M . Olive r (2011) concluded tha t the 23 diff ere nt p e r sp ect i ve s  of fe r  on l y  a partial acco unt. M. Ol iv e r(2011) arg u edth at rese arch is  need e d to bu ild alter native co nc epti o n s o  f educati onal tec hnology,a nd mo v ebeyon d p ositio ns  su ch as  techn o log icaldeterm in ism th at of fe r only a  partial perspective. A cknowl edgin g t he dichot omy ass ociated w ithphilosophi cal  pe rspec tiv e s abo ut t e ch nol o gy, a nd t h eir influ e nc e o n ed ucational t e c h nol ogy l ead e rship,  rep resented a starti n g point in the  eff o r t t o m o ve t ow ard a clearerpic tu r e  of theco mplex issue s involv ed (Stro bel &Tillbe rg-Webb , 20 0 9), in  the  in terest of b ui l ding mo re  c o mplete  the or y (M.Oliver ,  201 1 ) . Research Quest ionsT h ree r e sea rch q ue stionsw eredefined th at align wi th the  res earch  purpos eand th e r es earch prob l em. To gu ard a gainstan y po ten tial r esea r c her b ias,  t heresearche r fr a me dt hefirs t que st ionbroadly s o  that th e s t udy wou ld  be o pen to an y philosophi cal  assu m p tions abou t  tec h no l ogy p resent  in th e think i ngof  techno log y leaders.The secon d  re se arch  questio nmove sfro mexamining whatassumpti ons arep r esent,  to inve s tigate  h ow assumptio ns ma yi nfluenc e dec ision m a kin g a bou t te chn olog y . The third research que stio n isf ocu sed o n que st ioning w h ethe r assump t ions of techn ological determ i nis m  may  be pr es ent in
 the_importance o_f technology leaders modeling_responsible leadership_for_technology, and_confronting_social, legal, and_ethical issues related_to technology (Consortium for_School Networking, 2011)._The_CoSN framework was useful in analyzing empirical data from the study. Scholars have argued_that_the debate_between_technological_determinism and social determinism, one_emphasizing technology and the other_society represents_a dichotomy (Bromley, 1997; Flyverbom, 2005; Frith, Morain,_Cummings,_& Berube, 2011;_Rohr, 2008; Salazar, 2005; Smith, 2006; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb,_2009) that does not adequately explain_technological or social_change_(Salazar,_2005; Strobel & TillbergWebb,_2009; Weber, 2009). While questioning how_technology assumptions may correspond to technological_determinism or social determinism represents a starting_point in the humanizing framework, it_does not represent a final_destination. Strobel_and Tillberg-Webb (2009) held that_technological determinism and_social determinism_are both reductionist_positions that can hinder educators from_seeing the complex_interrelationships between technology and society, and_broader_issues surrounding educational_technology._Flyverbom_(2005) cautioned_that the dichotomy_might_obstruct adherents_on_both sides of the dichotomy "from_pondering_on the promising paths that may lead_us beyond this deadlock"_(p._227). After examining theoretical_perspectives about technology within the_context of education, M. Oliver (2011)_concluded that_the 23_different perspectives offer only a partial account. M. Oliver (2011) argued_that research is needed to build_alternative conceptions o f_educational technology,_and_move beyond positions_such_as technological_determinism that offer only a partial perspective._Acknowledging the_dichotomy associated with philosophical perspectives about_technology, and their influence_on_educational technology leadership, represented a starting_point in the effort to move_toward a clearer picture of_the_complex_issues involved (Strobel & Tillberg-Webb,_2009), in the interest o f_building more complete_theory (M. Oliver, 2011). Research Questions Three_research_questions were defined that align with_the_research purpose and the research problem._To_guard_against any potential researcher bias,_the researcher framed the first question_broadly so that the study would be open to_any philosophical assumptions_about technology present in the_thinking_of_technology leaders. The second research question moves from examining what_assumptions are_present, to investigate_how assumptions may influence decision making about technology. The third_research question is focused on questioning whether_assumptions of technological determinism may be present in