 and Strauss (2008) methodology, which employs the techniques o f constant comparative analysis, theoretical sampling, and theoretical saturation of categories to generate a theory, which some researchers have considered are essential techniques for grounded theory (Creswell, 2008; Holton, 2007; Hood, 2007). Hard technological determinism. The strict perspective of hard technological determinism attributes agency to technology itself (Marx & Smith, 1994) to the extent that technology has a dominant and determined autonomy of its own to cause social change, independent of social constraints (Smith, 1994; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). Instrumental view o f technology. The instrumental view o f technology is a popular perspective on technology (Franssen et al., 2009; Jackson, 2010) that sees technology, whether equipment, tools, or machines, as a means to an end (Berger, 2011; Feenberg, 1991; Heidegger, 2009). The instrumental view of technology commonly sees technology as value neutral instruments, neither good nor bad in themselves, which are designed by engineers to be put to use by users as a means for their own purposeful ends (Franssen et al., 2009). Nomological account o f technological determinism. An interpretation o f hard technological determinism, the nomological account sees technology acting as the primary cause of social change, according to the developmental laws of technology, with technology exercising causal influence, and one development leading inevitably to another (Bimber, 1994; Vermaas, 2011; Wyatt, 2008). The nomological account of technological determinism sees technology causing social change apart from the social context (Vermaas, 2011). Normative account o f technological determinism. This account of technological determinism holds that if the norms o f practice or attitudes o f those who create and employ technology become disconnected from broader ethical criteria, accountability to society, or consideration of means and ends, technology can be understood to have a dominance or autonomy over society (Bimber, 1994; Wyatt, 2008). Ontology. Ontology is concerned with the philosophical investigation of the nature of existence or being (Ameson, 2009b). Ontological assumptions pertaining to agency, autonomy, causality, and structure are important for philosophy of technology theory (Franssen et al., 2009; Smith & Madon, 2007). Philosophy o f technology assumptions. Philosophy of technology examines the underlying assumptions of how technology impacts and transforms human society in ways that are philosophically relevant (Kaplan, 2009a). Philosophical debate has
and Strauss (2008) methodology, which employs the techniques o f constant relative psychoanalysis, theoretical sample distribution, and theoretical saturation of categories to generate a hypothesis, which some researchers have considered are essential technique for grounded theory (Creswell, 2008; Holton, 2007; Hood, 2007). difficult technological determinism. The strict position of hard technological determinism attributes agency to technology itself (Marx & Smith, 1994) to the extent that engineering has a dominant and determined autonomy of its own to induce social change, autonomous of social constraint (Smith, 1994; Strobel & Tillberg - Webb, 2009). Instrumental view o f technology. The implemental view o f technology is a democratic perspective on engineering (Franssen et al. , 2009; Jackson, 2010) that sees technology, whether equipment, tools, or machines, as a means to an end (Berger, 2011; Feenberg, 1991; Heidegger, 2009). The implemental view of technology commonly sees technology as value neutral legal document, neither dear nor bad in themselves, which are designed by engineers to be put to use by users as a mean for their own purposeful ends (Franssen et al. , 2009). Nomological account o f technical determinism. An interpretation o f heavily technical determinism, the nomological account sees technology acting as the basal cause of social change, according to the developmental laws of engineering, with technology exercising causal influence, and one development leading inevitably to another (Bimber, 1994; Vermaas, 2011; Wyatt, 2008). The nomological account of technological determinism sees technology causing social change apart from the social context (Vermaas, 2011). prescriptive account oxygen f technological determinism. This account of technological determinism holds that if the norms o f practice or attitude o f those who create and employ engineering become disconnected from across-the-board ethical criteria, accountability to society, or retainer of means and end, technology can be understood to suffer a dominance or autonomy over club (Bimber, 1994; Wyatt, 2008). Ontology. Ontology is concerned with the philosophic investigation of the nature of existence or being (Ameson, 2009b). Ontological assumption pertaining to agency, autonomy, causality, and social organization are important for philosophy of technology theory (Franssen et al. , 2009; Smith & Madon, 2007). Philosophy o f technology assumptions. Philosophy of technology examines the underlying premise of how technology impacts and transform human society in ways that are philosophically relevant (Kaplan, 2009a). Philosophical debate has
 anf Strauss (2008) methodology, wmich employs the technixues o f constxnt comparative analysis, thelrwticao sampling, and theoretkcal satugation of cattgories to generavs a theory, whjgh sokx researchers hsve considared are essendixl techniques for grounded theory (Crefwell, 2008; Nopton, 2007; Hood, 2007). Hatd tebhgolofpccl determinism. The strict perspsctive mf hard technplogical determinism attrihuted agency to technopogy itself (Marv & Smith, 1994) to ghe extent that technomogy has a dominant and determived abtonomy of utw oat to cause wociaj change, indciendent of socoal constraintx (Skity, 1994; Strobel & Tillberg-Wxbb, 2009). Instrumental vigw o f tecvnklogy. The instrumwnral vhew m f gwchvolkgb ia a poouler perspectjve on techbology (Franssen et sl., 2009; Jackson, 2010) thaf sees tqchnology, whether equipment, tools, or mabhinss, as a means to an end (Berger, 2011; Feenberg, 1991; Heldegger, 2009). Ehe instrumental view of technology commonly sees techiouogv as vxouf neutral instruments, neither good nor bad in fhtmsvlves, which are dcsigned by engineets tp be put to usg by uszds as a means for thfir own purpiseful enqs (Ftanssen et al., 2009). Nomological qccount o f nechbological determinnsm. An inter'retatoon o f hard technological dztermihism, the nolological xccount sees tecfnokocy acting as the primary cwuse of siciak changd, acvordind to the dfveloikental laws of tecjnoloyy, widh technollgy exercising causal influence, and one develppkenn leading inevltably to anothqr (Bimber, 1994; Verkaas, 2011; Wvatt, 2008). Ghe nomolofical arcount of teshnological dajerminism seev technojogy cauwing sozkal change apatt from tkt social cintext (Vermaas, 2011). Novmatixs account o f tzehbological deterkinksm. Tjix wwcount of tewhnouogkval ddterminism molas tnat if the norms o f pradtice or attitudes o f those who crewte and emplou technology becomt discmnnxcted groi broader ethical criteria, acckuntabilihy bo society, or conwideration oy means and ends, technology can be underwtood to have a doninance or autonomy pver societb (Bimbqr, 1994; Wyatt, 2008). Ontology. Ontology us concerned with the philosophical inbestigdtion of the nature of existence or being (Ameson, 2009b). Ontological assumptions perraininj eo agency, ahtonpmy, cdufclity, agd svrncture are importsnt for philosophy of technologb theory (Fsaussen et al., 2009; Smith & Madon, 2007). Pholusophy o f tezhnology assumptions. Phimosophy pf technology examines the undetlying assumptions of hoe technooogy jmpacts anv transforms human spciety in wqys thar arc philosophicauly rclevant (Kaolan, 2009a). Philosophical debate has
and Strauss (2008) methodology, which employs the f comparative analysis, sampling, and theoretical a which some researchers considered are essential for grounded theory (Creswell, 2008; Holton, Hood, 2007). Hard technological determinism. The strict perspective of hard technological determinism attributes to technology itself (Marx & Smith, 1994) to the extent that technology has dominant determined of own to cause social change, independent of social constraints (Smith, 1994; Strobel & Tillberg-Webb, 2009). Instrumental o f technology. The instrumental view o f is a popular perspective technology (Franssen et al., 2009; 2010) sees technology, equipment, or as a means an end (Berger, 2011; Feenberg, 1991; Heidegger, 2009). The instrumental view of technology commonly sees technology as neutral instruments, nor bad themselves, are by engineers to to use by users as a own purposeful ends (Franssen et al., 2009). Nomological o f determinism. An interpretation o f hard determinism, the nomological account sees technology acting as primary cause of social change, according to the developmental laws of technology, with technology exercising and one development leading to another (Bimber, Vermaas, Wyatt, The account of determinism sees technology causing social change apart from the social context 2011). Normative account o f technological determinism. This account of holds if the norms f practice or attitudes f who create and employ disconnected broader to or of means and ends, can be understood to have dominance or autonomy over Ontology. Ontology is concerned with the philosophical investigation the nature of existence or being (Ameson, Ontological assumptions pertaining to agency, autonomy, causality, and structure are important for of technology et al., 2009; Smith & Madon, 2007). Philosophy f technology assumptions. Philosophy technology examines the underlying assumptions of how technology impacts transforms society in that are philosophically (Kaplan, 2009a). Philosophical has
 and Strauss (2008) methodology, whicH employs thE techNiqUes O f ConsTant Comparative anaLYsis, Theoretical sampling, and TheorEtICal sATuRatioN of cateGOrIES to GeNeRatE a THeOry, whIch Some resEarchers haVe cOnSidered are esSEnTial techniQueS for grounded TheOry (CreSwEll, 2008; hOlton, 2007; hooD, 2007). Hard TechnoLOgical DeterminiSm. tHe striCT perspeCTIvE of hArd technological dETeRMinism attributEs agenCy TO tECHnoLogY itself (MarX & SMith, 1994) tO The exteNT tHAT TecHNology has a domInant and detERmiNed autOnOmy OF its owN to caUsE SocIal change, inDepeNdent of soCial coNStraintS (smith, 1994; StRobel & TIllBerG-WebB, 2009). inStRumEnTAl vIEw O f tEChnOlogy. The InStRumenTal vIEW O F tecHnoLogy Is a poPular perspectIve On teCHnoLogy (FRanssEn et Al., 2009; jacksOn, 2010) that Sees tEcHnology, whether eQuipMent, tools, Or mAcHinEs, As a meANs to an End (berGer, 2011; FeenBerg, 1991; HeiDEggEr, 2009). tHE InStrumental view of teChNOLoGy commonLy sees TEcHnOLogy as vaLuE neUtraL INstruMentS, NeIther gooD nor baD In ThEmselveS, wHich arE dEsiGneD by enGIneeRs to be Put to use By useRS as a means for thEIr own purposefUL eNDS (FRAnssEn eT al., 2009). NomologiCal aCCounT o f tEChNolOGical DeterMiNIsM. an interpretation o f hArD technOlogiCal determinisM, the nomoloGICAl accounT seeS TeCHnology acting aS the pRimary causE Of social ChangE, accordiNg to the deVELopmentaL laWs oF teChnOLOgY, with technoloGY ExerCiSing cauSal InfluenCe, aNd oNe dEveLoPment leadIng ineviTaBlY tO aNotHer (BiMBer, 1994; VermaAs, 2011; wyaTt, 2008). the NomolOGical aCcounT of tEcHnOLogIcal detERmINIsm sEeS tEchnOloGy CausiNg soCIal Change aPart from tHe sOCial CoNtExt (VermAas, 2011). Normative aCcOunt o f techNoLogIcal deTERminism. THis account of technologicAL determIniSm holDs thAt if the noRms O f pracTicE Or attiTudes o F thosE wHo cREAte anD EMpLoy TeChnology beCOMe dIsconNeCted From broAder ethical criteriA, AccOuntability to SocIety, OR CoNsiDErATioN oF MeaNS And ends, technoloGy can be undErSToOd to have a dOMinAnCe or autOnomy ovEr socIEty (BimbEr, 1994; Wyatt, 2008). OnTology. OntOlOgy iS COncErned with tHe philosOphical inVEstigATiOn of tHe nAture oF eXisTence Or beinG (ameSon, 2009b). ONtologIcAl assuMptioNs PertainiNg to agency, autonomy, causaLity, anD struCtuRe are impoRtaNT foR philosopHy of Technology TheOry (fransSen ET al., 2009; SmIth & MADoN, 2007). PhILosopHy o f TEchnology ASsUmpTIOnS. Philosophy OF TEchNologY exAMines tHe unDerlying assumptioNS of how technoloGy imPACts And TRansFoRms human societY in WaYS That are pHiLosophicallY relevanT (KAPlan, 2009a). philosOphicaL debate HAS
 and Strauss (2008) method ology, whi ch em plo ysth e te chni ques o f const a nt c omparative analysis, t heore ti c al s a mp ling,  and th e or e t ica lsa tur at i on  of c ate goriesto generat e a  t heory, which so me researc her s have consi der ed are  e sse n tialtec hniqu es for ground ed theory  ( C reswel l , 2008; H ol ton,  2007; Hood, 2007 ) .H ard technologi cal de te r mi n i sm.  Th e strict p er spect i ve of h a rd t e chn o logical deter minism attr i but es age nc y t o  techn ology  i t sel f (Marx & S mith , 1994) t o thee xtent t h at tech nology  ha s a  dom i na nt  an dd ete r mi ned aut onomy of  i ts  ownto c a u s e  soc ial  cha nge,independent o f s ocia l  co nstra ints(Smi th , 199 4; Str obel&Tillberg-Webb,2009 ). Instru men ta l v ie w o f techno log y.The ins trument a l v ie w o  f  technology is a p op u l ar  perspec tive o n  t ec h nology ( Fr ans sene t  al.,  200 9 ;Jackson,  2010) th at  sees t ec hnolog y,  wh eth er eq u ipme nt, to ols, ormachi n es, as a means to an end (Be r ge r ,  2 0 11;Fee nberg, 1991 ; He i degg er,2 00 9). The i nstru me n ta l  view of technology  c ommonl y see s technologyas value n e u t ral inst rume n ts ,  neither goodnor b ad in them s elves, w hichare desi gned by e n g ineers t o b e p uttou s eby users as a m eans  f or thei r o wn purp ose ful  en ds(F ranssen e t al., 2 00 9) .No mol ogica l  account  o  fte chn ologi c al det ermin ism.  A ni nte rpretat i on o  f h ar dtech nol og icaldete r min ism, th e nomolog ica l  acc ou nt  sees t echnology act in g as the p ri mar y caus e of socia l change, according tot he deve lop menta l la ws of tec hno logy,wit h  techn ologyexerc is ing c ausal i nf lue nc e, and one d eve lopme nt  lea ding in evitably to anothe r  (B imber, 1994;Ver maas , 20 11; Wy a tt,  2 0 08) . The nomological  account o ft ec hnological det er minismsees te chnol o gy caus ing socia l changeap artf r omthe social  context  (Vermaas ,  2011 ) .Norma tiv e acco un t o  f te chnolo g ica l det ermini sm . This  acco un t of tec hnological determinismholdsthatifthe norms  of  pr actice or  att itudes o f  th ose  whocre a te an d em p lo y t e chnol ogyb ecome dis c on nec t e dfrom broade r e thi cal c rit e ria, a ccou ntability to soci e ty, or conside rati o n  of  me a ns a nd  ends, technol ogy  c a n  be unde rs tood to hav e a domi na n ce or  auton omy ov er soci e t y( Bimber , 19 94;  Wyatt, 2 008 ). Ontolog y.  O n tology  isco ncerne d with thep h ilosophical inve stiga t i on of the  natu re  of exi s tenc e or being  (Ameson, 2 009b).  Ont ologi cal ass um ptions  pe rt aining toa gency, au tonom y, caus al ity,  an d stru ctur e are i mpor ta ntfor philo s o ph y  o ft ech nolo gy th eo ry ( Franssene t al., 2 009 ;  Smith&Mad o n , 2007 ) .P h ilosophy o  ftechn o l ogy assump t ions .  P h iloso phy of  techn ology e x ami ne s the u nde r l ying assu mptions o f  ho wtech nology i mp acts  a ndtr ansforms humansocietyin wayst h at are  ph i loso p hicall yrelevant (Ka plan,  2 0 09a). P h i los ophical deb ate  ha s
 and_Strauss (2008)_methodology, which employs the_techniques o_f_constant comparative_analysis,_theoretical sampling, and_theoretical saturation of_categories to generate a_theory, which some_researchers_have considered are essential techniques for grounded theory (Creswell, 2008; Holton, 2007; Hood, 2007)._Hard_technological determinism._The_strict_perspective of hard technological determinism_attributes agency to technology itself_(Marx &_Smith, 1994) to the extent that technology has_a_dominant and determined_autonomy of its own to cause social change, independent_of social constraints (Smith, 1994; Strobel_& Tillberg-Webb, 2009)._Instrumental_view_o f technology. The_instrumental view o f technology is_a popular perspective on technology (Franssen_et al., 2009; Jackson, 2010) that sees_technology, whether equipment, tools, or machines,_as a means to an_end (Berger,_2011; Feenberg, 1991; Heidegger, 2009)._The instrumental view_of technology_commonly sees technology_as value neutral instruments, neither good_nor bad in_themselves, which are designed by engineers_to_be put to_use_by_users as_a means for_their_own purposeful_ends_(Franssen et al., 2009). Nomological account_o_f technological determinism. An interpretation o f_hard technological determinism, the_nomological_account sees technology acting_as the primary cause of_social change, according to the developmental_laws of_technology, with_technology exercising causal influence, and one development leading inevitably to another_(Bimber, 1994; Vermaas, 2011; Wyatt, 2008)._The nomological account of_technological determinism_sees_technology causing social_change_apart from_the social context (Vermaas, 2011). Normative account_o f_technological determinism. This account of technological_determinism holds that if_the_norms o f practice or attitudes_o f those who create and_employ technology become disconnected from_broader_ethical_criteria, accountability to society, or_consideration of means and ends, technology_can be understood_to have a dominance or autonomy over_society_(Bimber, 1994; Wyatt, 2008). Ontology. Ontology_is_concerned with the philosophical investigation of_the_nature_of existence or being (Ameson,_2009b). Ontological assumptions pertaining to agency,_autonomy, causality, and structure are important for philosophy of_technology theory (Franssen_et al., 2009; Smith &_Madon,_2007)._Philosophy o f technology assumptions. Philosophy of technology examines the_underlying assumptions_of how technology_impacts and transforms human society in ways that are philosophically_relevant (Kaplan, 2009a). Philosophical debate has