 challenge. This can be interpreted as an ideological orientation to technological change, similar to what Leonardi (2008) found in a study of technology managers in the private sector. The data showed that in deliberating on technology decisions, participants can be influenced by their belief that technological change is inevitable. In their thinking and decision making, participants had an ideological orientation to perceived inevitable technological change, lived out by the approach Keep up with Technology (or be left behind). For example, TS11 stated, "As fast as technology changes, in education we should keep up with it or be one step ahead, but we're usually one step behind." Technological imperative. The core category that emerged from the data, Keep up with technology (or be left behind), can be interpreted as a manifestation o f a perspective called the technological imperative, described by some scholars as associated with technological determinism (Chandler, 1995; Cukier et al., 2009; Hofmann, 2006). The technological imperative involves rhetoric and underlying assumptions that technology has a controlling influence (Hofmann, 2006) that is inevitable and unstoppable (Chandler, 1995; Cukier et al., 2009; Leonardi, 2008) and creates an imperative to keep up with technological developments or be left behind (Strobel & 242 Tillberg-Webb, 2009). The category Keep up with technology (or be left behind) was closely linked in the data with viewing technological change as inevitable, and the perceived imperative within schools to keep up with this technological change. TS8 stated, "My philosophy is that technology is imperative for today's schools and for other sectors, it's growing in leaps and bounds. Not all technology is good, but it's an unstoppable force, and it has to be used and harnessed properly." Hofmann (2006) discussed that under the technological imperative, technology appears to determine our choices, and emphasized that the technological imperative views technology as in control. While the findings showed a strong link with viewing technological change as inevitable, and an imperative to keep up with this change, the data showed only week linkage with viewing technology as in control. An exception involved TS6, who stated in the interview, "Obviously technology is inevitable, it's happening, it's uncontrollable, so on a philosophical level you have to embrace the technology and assume it's always going to be there." In their interest to Keep up with technology (or be left behind), rather than being motivated by a view that technology is in control,
challenge. This can be interpreted as an ideological orientation to technological change, exchangeable to what Leonardi (2008) discover in a study of technology managers in the secret sector. The data showed that in debate on engineering decisions, participants can be influenced by their belief that technological variety is inevitable. In their thinking and decision making, participants had an ideological predilection to perceived inevitable technological change, lived out by the approach keep open up with Technology (or be left behind). For example, TS11 stated, " equally fast as technology changes, in department of education we should keep up with it or be one footprint ahead, but we're usually one footfall behind. " Technological imperative. The core class that emerged from the data, Keep up with technology (or be left behind), can be interpreted as a demonstration o f a perspective called the technological imperative, described by some scholars as associated with technological determinism (Chandler, 1995; Cukier et al. , 2009; Hofmann, 2006). The technical imperative mood involves rhetoric and underlying assumption that technology has a controlling influence (Hofmann, 2006) that is inevitable and unstoppable (Chandler, 1995; Cukier et al. , 2009; Leonardi, 2008) and create an imperative mood to keep up with technological developments or be leave behind (Strobel & 242 Tillberg - Webb, 2009). The category Keep up with technology (or be left behind) was closely linked in the data with viewing technological change as inevitable, and the perceived imperative mood within schools to observe up with this technical change. TS8 stated, " My philosophy is that technology is imperative for today's schools and for other sectors, it's growing in jump and bounds. Not all technology is good, but it's an unstoppable force, and it have to be use and harnessed properly. " Hofmann (2006) discourse that under the technological imperative mood, technology appears to determine our choices, and underscore that the technological imperative views technology as in control. While the findings show a strong link with viewing technological change as inevitable, and an imperative to keep up with this change, the datum showed only workweek linkage with viewing technology as in control. An exception necessitate TS6, who stated in the interview, " Obviously technology is inevitable, it's happen, it's uncontrollable, so on a philosophical level you have to embrace the technology and wear it's constantly going to be there. " In their interest to Keep up with technology (or be left behind), rather than being motivate by a view that technology is in control,
 chwllenge. This can be intevpreted as an idgooogican oriehtation go technological change, simipae to qhat Leonardi (2008) found iv a study of techbolojy managers in tis privabz secflr. Tke data showed tmat in deliterating on tewhvopogy decisions, participants can be ynfluenvef by their belyef uhae tedhnological change is inevitable. Ih their thinking and decision making, participajts jad an ideological orientatiob to perceived indvitable ttcknological dhange, lived out by the approacf Kee' up with Tgeynopmgy (or be lxft berind). For example, TS11 vtated, "Ss fast as tecmnolojy cyanges, in education wx should keep up witr it or ba kne step ahead, bur qe're osualny ovw sgep bxhihd." Tecjnomogical imlerative. Thw core category thau eivtged from ths data, Kqep up with technology (or be left behing), czn be interpreted as a nanifestation o f a pgrspective called the technological imperative, described by some rchilwfw ws associated with technological determinism (Sgamdker, 1995; Cukier et al., 2009; Hofmanm, 2006). Tng technologicau impexztjve involves rhetogic and undeelying asfumpyions that technology has a controlling unfluence (Hofmann, 2006) that is inzvitabke anc unstoppable (Chandler, 1995; Cukjer et al., 2009; Peonardi, 2008) xnd creates an iopegatiee to keto up with technoljgical detelopkents of be left fehind (Strlbel & 242 Tillberg-Webb, 2009). The cateyory Neep up wihh technology (or be left behind) was closely lonned in the bata wlth viewing tecrnological chauge as iuevitacle, and thv perceivxd imperativq within schomps to keep u' with thys twchnilogicau change. TS8 stayed, "My phpljsopyy is that technolpgy js imperative fir uoeay's schools amd wor onhec secemrs, it's growhng kn uraps xnd bounds. Kot all technology is good, tut jt's an unstoppable fjrce, and it has eo be used anc harnessed properpy." Hohmann (2006) discissgd that under the technological imperatige, bechnology ap[earw to determiue our choices, and emphasized that the txchnological imperativg views technology as ln control. Wiile tre findincs showed a strong lunk with viewing uechnological change as inevidable, and an imperative to keep up with this change, the data showed only week oinkagx rith viewinf tevhnolmgv ax in cjntrlu. An exception imvolved TS6, who stated in the inverview, "Obeijusly technology is inevitabke, it's happenine, it's uncontrollable, so kn a phikosophical level you have to emnrace the technology and assume ut's amways goinj to be there." In theor intzrest ro Keep up aith technoloey (pr be left hehiid), xather than being motivated by a ciew tyah technology is mn control,
challenge. This can be interpreted as an to change, similar what Leonardi (2008) technology in the private The data showed in deliberating on technology decisions, participants be influenced by their belief that technological change is inevitable. In their thinking decision making, participants had an ideological orientation to perceived inevitable technological change, lived by approach up Technology (or be left behind). For example, TS11 stated, "As fast as technology changes, in education should keep up with it or be one ahead, but we're usually step behind." Technological imperative. The category emerged from data, up technology (or be behind), can be interpreted as a manifestation o f a perspective called the technological imperative, described by scholars as technological determinism 1995; et 2009; Hofmann, 2006). imperative involves rhetoric and underlying assumptions a controlling influence (Hofmann, 2006) that is inevitable unstoppable (Chandler, Cukier et al., 2009; Leonardi, 2008) creates an imperative to keep up with technological or be left behind (Strobel & 242 Tillberg-Webb, 2009). The category Keep up with technology left behind) was closely in the data viewing change inevitable, the perceived within schools to keep up with this technological change. TS8 stated, philosophy is that technology is imperative for today's schools and sectors, growing in leaps bounds. Not all technology good, it's an unstoppable force, has be properly." (2006) that under the technological technology appears to determine our and emphasized that the in control. While the findings showed a strong with viewing technological change as inevitable, and imperative to keep up with this change, the data showed only week with viewing in control. An exception involved TS6, who stated the interview, "Obviously technology inevitable, it's happening, it's uncontrollable, so on a philosophical you to embrace technology and assume always going to there." In their Keep up technology be than being motivated by a view technology in control,
 challenge. This can be interprEted as an idEologIcaL orIeNtatIon tO technological CHangE, similar to what Leonardi (2008) Found In A StudY Of TechnOlogy maNAgERS in ThE pRivAtE SeCtor. THe dAta showEd that in deLibErAting on technOLoGy decisionS, paRticipants caN be InflueNcEd bY Their BelIef thAt techNOlogicAl change iS iNEvitabLE. In theiR THiNkinG and decision makinG, PaRTicipants had an IdeoloGiCAl ORIenTatIon to perceIvEd ineVItable tEChNOLOgiCAl change, lived Out by the appROacH Keep uP wIth tEchnolOgy (or Be LEft Behind). For exAmplE, TS11 stated, "as fast AS technoLOgy chanGes, in eDucAtiOn we SHoUlD keEp UP wiTH iT or BE onE step aheAd, BuT we're UsuaLLY ONe stEp bEhinD." TechNological impeRatIve. THE coRe catEgory That EmErged From thE data, keEp up with technolOgy (oR be left beHinD), cAn bE iNterpREted as A maNifEstatioN o f a perSPecTiVE CAlLed the technologicaL iMPErAtive, desCribed BY sOmE Scholars As AssOciaTED with TechNOlOgical deTerminISm (chAndler, 1995; CUkIer et aL., 2009; HOfmAnn, 2006). the teCHnolOgical ImperatiVe invOLves rhetoric anD Underlying assUMpTIOnS That TecHnology has a ContROlliNg inFLuEncE (hofmaNn, 2006) thaT iS InEVitable and unstoppabLe (chandlEr, 1995; CukIer et al., 2009; LeonarDi, 2008) and creatES AN imperatIve tO KeEP up with technolOgicaL developmeNTs or be leFt behInd (StrobEl & 242 TillberG-wEbb, 2009). The caTegOry keeP up WITh Technology (or bE LEft bEhInd) was cLosEly linkEd iN thE daTa wItH viewing tEchnologIcAl ChAnGe aS inevITable, and ThE peRcEivEd impERative WithiN schOoLs TO keEp up witH ThIS TechNoLoGicaL chAnGe. TS8 sTateD, "my pHilosopHy is that tEchNOlogY iS iMperatiVe for today's scHoOls and for oThEr sEctors, IT'S growing In leaps and bounds. Not all tEChnologY is Good, bUt it'S an unstopPabLe forcE, anD It has tO be useD and hArNesSED propERLy." hofMaNn (2006) discusseD THat Under ThE tecHnologiCal imperative, technOLogY appears to detErmIne oUR ChOicES, aND emPhASizED That the technoloGical imperAtIVe Views technOLogY aS in contRol. WhilE the fINdings sHowed a strOng link wiTh ViewING teChnologicaL change aS inevitabLE, and aN ImPeratIve To keep Up WitH this Change, THe dAta shOwed onLy Week liNkage WiTh viewinG technology as in control. AN excepTion iNvoLved TS6, who StaTEd iN the interView, "obviously tEchNolOgy is IneVItablE, it's HApPenINg, it's UncoNTrollable, SO oN a pHILoSophical levEL YOu hAve to EmbRAce the TechNology and assume it'S Always going to bE theRE." in tHeiR InteReSt to Keep up with TecHnOLOgy (or be lEfT behind), rathEr than beInG MotivAted by A view tHat techNOLoGY is in cOntrOl,
 challenge. This can be in terpretedas an  id eol og ical  ori entation to te c hnol ogical change, similar  to w ha t  Leo n ar di (2 008) fo u nd i n a  s tu dyof te chnol ogy  manage rs in thepri va te sector. T h edata showe d t hat in delib era ting o ntec h nolog y d ecisi ons, p a rticip ants canbe influe n ced byt h ei r be lief that technol o gi c al change is i nevita bl e .I n  th eir  thinkingan d dec i sion ma k in g , par t icipants hadan ideologi c alorient at ion to per ceive di nev itable tech nolo gical cha nge, l i ved out by theapproa chKee p up wi th  Te ch n olo g y(or beleft beh in d) . For  exa m p l e , TS 11stat ed, " As fast as te chn olog y  ch anges , ineduc at ion w e shou ld ke ep  up with it orbe o ne step a hea d,  bu twe're usuall y o nestep be hind."T ech no l o g ic al imperative. The  c o r ecategory  thate me rg e d from t he  da ta,K e ep up  wit h  t echnolog y (orb ele ft behi nd ), can  b e i nte rpret e d as  a man ifestati on of  a perspective called the te c hn o l og i calimp erative, de scri b ed b y so m esch o larsas as so c ia t ed with technologic al  deter minis m (Chandler,1995; Cuki e r et al.,2009 ;  H o fmann, 2006).The t echnologic a l impera tiveinvolves  rhetoric a nd under lyi ngass ump t i on s that techno l o gy h as  a cont rol ling in flu enc e ( Hof ma nn, 2006)  that is  i ne vi ta ble  andu nstoppab le  (C ha ndl er, 1 9 95; Cu kieret a l. ,2 009 ; Leona r di , 2008 )an d cr eat es  an i mper a tiv e to ke ep up wit h t e chno lo gi cal dev elopments orbe  left behi nd  (S trobel &  242 Til lberg-Webb, 2009). Thec ategory  Ke ep up  wit h technol ogy  (or b e l e ft beh ind) w as cl os ely l inked i nthe  d ata with v i e win g tec hn olog ical ch ange as inevitable ,  an d the perceiv edimpe r a ti vew it h insc h ool s to keep up with  this tech no l og ical chang e . T S8  stated , "My p hilos o phy isthat tech nology is  i mper a t ive  for today 's schoo ls and fo r  othe r  s ector s,it's g ro win g inleapsa ndbound s. Not  a ll tec hnolo gy  is good , but it's an unstoppab le for ce, a ndit has to  be use d and har ness ed properl y."  Ho fmann  (2 0 06) d iscu s se d t h at un dert he techno l og ica l im perative, t e c h nol ogy a ppe a rs todete rmine our choices ,  and emphasize d th a t  th e t e chno lo gical imperati vevi e w s techno lo gy as in co ntrol. W hi l e the  findi ngs sh owed as t ro n g link  wit h v iewing te chn ol o gical c ha ng e  as in evit ab le, an d an i m pera t i ve to keep up wi th th i s  chan g e,the d at a showe d  onl y week lin kage with v iewing  tec hnolo gy as i ncontro l.An  exception involvedTS6,who sta te d in  th e inte rvie w ,  "Obv ious ly  te chnologyi s  i n ev it a ble , it 's ha pp enin g, it's u n controll abl e , so on  a  ph i l osophi c al l evel you h ave  to e m b race the t e chno l og y  andassume  it'salwaysg oin gto be t her e . " In thei r interes t  to  K eepup withte chno lo gy(o r be left behin d), rath er thanb e ing mo tiv a tedb y a vi ew  that techno logyis in cont r o l,
 challenge._This can_be interpreted as an_ideological orientation_to_technological change,_similar_to what Leonardi_(2008) found in_a study of technology_managers in the_private_sector. The data showed that in deliberating on technology decisions, participants can be influenced_by_their belief_that_technological_change is inevitable. In their_thinking and decision making, participants_had an_ideological orientation to perceived inevitable technological change, lived_out_by the approach_Keep up with Technology (or be left behind). For_example, TS11 stated, "As fast as_technology changes, in_education_we_should keep up with_it or be one step ahead,_but we're usually one step behind."_Technological imperative. The core category that emerged_from the data, Keep up with_technology (or be left behind),_can be_interpreted as a manifestation o_f a perspective_called the_technological imperative, described_by some scholars as associated with_technological determinism (Chandler,_1995; Cukier et al., 2009; Hofmann,_2006)._The technological imperative_involves_rhetoric_and underlying_assumptions that technology_has_a controlling_influence_(Hofmann, 2006) that is inevitable and_unstoppable_(Chandler, 1995; Cukier et al., 2009; Leonardi,_2008) and creates an_imperative_to keep up with_technological developments or be left_behind (Strobel & 242 Tillberg-Webb, 2009)._The category_Keep up_with technology (or be left behind) was closely linked in the_data with viewing technological change as_inevitable, and the perceived_imperative within_schools_to keep up_with_this technological_change. TS8 stated, "My philosophy is that_technology is_imperative for today's schools and for_other sectors, it's growing_in_leaps and bounds. Not all technology_is good, but it's an unstoppable_force, and it has to_be_used_and harnessed properly." Hofmann (2006)_discussed that under the technological imperative,_technology appears to_determine our choices, and emphasized that the_technological_imperative views technology as in control._While_the findings showed a strong link_with_viewing_technological change as inevitable, and_an imperative to keep up with_this change, the data showed only week linkage with_viewing technology as_in control. An exception involved_TS6,_who_stated in the interview, "Obviously technology is inevitable, it's happening,_it's uncontrollable,_so on a_philosophical level you have to embrace the technology and assume_it's always going to be there." In_their interest to Keep up with technology (or be left behind),_rather than being motivated by a view that_technology is in control,