 frequency and Table 22 for dimensionalized examples). The data showed Educational goals and curriculum should drive technology was found to link directly with the category Technology is a tool. The implication is the instrumental view of technology leads to a corresponding approach to decision making that logically follows from the parent philosophy (see Figure 2). The philosophy represented by Educational goals and curriculum should drive technology is similar to what some scholars have argued is the appropriate role for educational technology. The instrumental view of technology considers technology as a tool, as means put to use by users for their purposeful ends (Berger, 2011; Feenberg, 1991; Heidegger, 2009). Under means and ends reasoning, the normal and appropriate role for educational technology would be the means to achieve the educational ends intended for it (Kanuka, 2008). Jones and Czemiewicz (2010) asserted that leaders should shape technology to suit educational needs and requirements. Many participants articulated the principle that technology should not be pursued for the sake of technology, and the property don't pursue technology fo r the sake o f technology was strong. A related property was curriculum should drive technology, rather than technology drive curriculum. This perspective is in alignment with a respected textbook example of what constitutes appropriate technology integration, characterized by curriculum driving technology integration, rather than technology driving curriculum (Shelly et al., 2008). Core category. The most frequent philosophy of technology category in the study, and the dominant approach to technology decision making was Keep up with technology (or be left behind). Keep up with Technology (or be left behind) emerged as the core category, the central phenomenon that often concerns educational technology leaders. This category emerged early in data analysis, continued to grow in explanatory relevance, and reappeared in-vivo in transcript narratives in various forms, often expressed in those words, or variations of them (see Table 19). The core category with its properties and dimensions involved coding instances from all 31 participants (see Table 18 for coding frequency and Tables 19 and 20 for dimensionalized examples). 262 The data showed that Keep up with technology (or be left behind) emerged as an approach to technology decision making linked with the philosophy Technological change is inevitable. In the implications section above for Research Question 1, it was explained that participants in the study had an ideological orientation to technological change, similar to what Leonardi (2008) found in a study of technology managers in the private sector. The data from this study showed that in deliberating on technology decisions, educational technology leaders are often influenced by the belief that technological change is inevitable. An ideological orientation
frequency and Table 22 for dimensionalized examples). The data showed Educational goal and course of study should drive technology was establish to connect directly with the category Technology is a instrument. The implication is the instrumental position of technology leads to a comparable approach to decision making that logically follows from the parent doctrine (see Figure 2). The philosophy represent by Educational goals and curriculum should force technology is similar to what some scholars have argue is the appropriate role for educational technology. The instrumental position of technology considers technology as a tool, as means place to use by users for their purposeful ends (Berger, 2011; Feenberg, 1991; Heidegger, 2009). Under means and ends reasoning, the normal and appropriate role for educational technology would be the means to achieve the educational ends intended for it (Kanuka, 2008). Jones and Czemiewicz (2010) asserted that leaders should shape technology to suit educational needs and requirement. Many participants articulated the rationale that engineering should not be pursued for the sake of technology, and the property don't pursue engineering fo r the sake oxygen f technology was strong. A related property was course of study should drive technology, rather than technology drive curriculum. This position is in alignment with a respected textbook example of what constitutes appropriate technology integration, characterized by course of study drive technology integration, rather than engineering driving curriculum (Shelly et al. , 2008). Core category. The most frequent philosophy of technology category in the study, and the prevailing approach to technology decision making was Keep up with engineering (or be left behind). Keep up with Technology (or be left behind) emerged as the kernel category, the cardinal phenomenon that often concerns educational technology drawing card. This class emerged early in data psychoanalysis, continued to grow in explanatory relevance, and reappeared in - vivo in transcript narratives in versatile form, often expressed in those lyric, or variations of them (see Table 19). The core category with its properties and proportion involved coding instances from all 31 participants (see Table 18 for code frequency and Tables 19 and 20 for dimensionalized exemplar). 262 The datum show that Keep up with technology (or be left behind) emerged as an approach to engineering decision making linked with the philosophy Technological change is inevitable. In the implications section above for Research Question 1, it was explained that participants in the survey had an ideological orientation to technological change, similar to what Leonardi (2008) found in a survey of technology managers in the private sector. The data from this study showed that in debate on technology decisions, educational technology leaders are often influenced by the belief that technological change is inevitable. An ideological orientation
 frfquency and Table 22 for dlmensionalized erqmples). The dzta showdd Educational goals and curcicuoum syould drive technology was founf to linj dicectly with the rztegory Technkpogy ms a tool. The ikplication is the instrukevtcl view of technology leads to a corwespondonh approach to qecixyon jaking that logically follows from the pagent philosophy (sre Figure 2). The philosophy geprfsented by Educatilnal goals qnd syrriculum shuuld drive technology js similar to what some scholarr havz argued is tye wkpropriate rile fjr educational technmlogy. Tne instrumentak vmew if technology considecs technology as a tjol, as medna put to use by uwees fot thehr pjeporefhl ehds (Beggec, 2011; Feenberg, 1991; Heidegger, 2009). Under means and emdf reasoning, ths normwl and appropriate role for educational ttchnomogy would be the means to achieve the educajional endf intended for it (Kanuka, 2008). Jones and Czemiewicz (2010) avsertxd thcb uwafers should shape technology to suit educatiogzl nveds and requiremcnts. Many participsnhs wrticulated tfe priudille that technologj shoulq not be pursutd fot the sake of technology, ane the properny din't pursue technollgy fo r thz sake o f yechnology was strong. A relzted properhy was cudficulum should dfivv tewhnology, rather than technjlogy drite cuxriculum. Thix pers[ective is in alignment with a resoecteb texdbook examole of what constitutes approprmete technologi ittecration, eharacberized by curryculum driving technojogy kntegratioh, rathec than technjlogy driving furriculum (Sielly et wl., 2008). Xore categofh. The most freauent philosophy of technology categovy in fhe study, and tkt diminant approacn tu tqcjnpljcy decision kakivg dss Kedp up with becfnolpgy (or be left behing). Kesp up with Technolpgn (or be lgft behinq) emerged as yhe core category, uhe ceitral 'henomrnog that often concerns educatiohal technllony leaders. Thys cqtegory emeryed early in data analysis, continued to jrow in explanatory relwvance, and reappeargd ln-vivo in trenscri[t narrathves in various formw, often expressed in those words, or vadiatiots of them (see Table 19). The core category with its properties and dimensions invilved roqing instandes grom dlj 31 partycipenvs (see Table 18 for coding frequency and Tables 19 aid 20 for dikeusionalized examples). 262 The dats rhowed that Kgep up with technology (or ge left nehind) emerged as an approach tp technology decision maling linjed wjth thv piilosophy Technologival chcnge iw inevirablc. In the implizatooks section abote yor Research Question 1, it was expoained tjat participants in the stufn had zn idejlogical orientafion ho tezhnological cnange, similar yo what Leonardi (2008) folnd in a study of nechnology mamagers pn the privatx sector. The data from this study showed that in deliberating oh technolkgy decismons, educationsp technology leaders ave ofeen infljenced by tha belief that technological change is inevivsble. Xn pdeolofical orientanion
frequency and Table 22 for dimensionalized examples). showed goals and should drive technology with category Technology is tool. The implication the instrumental view of technology leads a corresponding approach to decision making that logically follows from the parent philosophy Figure 2). The philosophy represented by Educational goals and curriculum should drive technology similar what scholars argued is the appropriate role for educational technology. The instrumental view of technology considers technology as tool, as means put to use by users their purposeful ends (Berger, Feenberg, 1991; Heidegger, 2009). Under and reasoning, the and role educational technology would the means to achieve the educational ends intended for it (Kanuka, 2008). Jones and Czemiewicz (2010) asserted leaders should to suit needs requirements. participants articulated the technology should not be pursued for technology, and the property don't pursue technology fo the sake f technology was strong. A related was curriculum should drive technology, rather than technology curriculum. This perspective is in alignment with a respected textbook example of what constitutes appropriate characterized by curriculum driving integration, rather than driving (Shelly al., Core category. most frequent philosophy of technology category in the study, and the approach to technology decision making was Keep up with technology left Keep up with (or be left behind) as core category, the central often educational category early data analysis, continued to in explanatory relevance, and reappeared in transcript narratives in those words, or variations of them (see Table The core category with its properties and involved coding instances from all 31 participants (see Table 18 for coding and Tables 20 for dimensionalized examples). 262 The data showed Keep up with technology be left behind) emerged as an approach to technology making with the Technological change is In the implications above for Research it was that in an ideological orientation to technological change, to Leonardi (2008) found in a of in the private sector. The data from this study showed that in deliberating on technology technology leaders are often by belief that technological change is inevitable. An ideological orientation
 frequency and Table 22 for dimenSionalized ExampLes). the DaTa shOwed educational goaLS and Curriculum should drive tEchnoLoGY was FOuNd to lInk direCTlY WIth ThE cAteGoRY TEchnoLogY is a tooL. The implicAtiOn Is the instrumENtAl view of teChnOlogy leads to A coRrespoNdIng APproaCh tO deciSion maKIng thaT logicallY fOLlows fROm the paRENt PhilOsophy (see Figure 2). ThE PhILosophy represeNted by edUCaTIOnaL goAls and currIcUlum sHOuld driVE tECHNolOGy is similar to What some schOLarS have aRgUed IS the apProprIaTE roLe for educatIonaL technoloGy. The iNStrumenTAl view oF technOloGy cOnsiDErS tEchNoLOgy AS a TooL, As mEans put tO uSe By useRs foR THEIr puRpoSefuL ends (berger, 2011; FeenberG, 1991; HeIdegGEr, 2009). UNder mEans aNd enDs ReasoNing, thE normAl And appropriate rOle fOr educatiOnaL tEchNoLogy wOUld be tHe mEanS to achiEve the eDUcaTiONAL eNds intended for it (KaNuKA, 2008). joNes and CzEmiewiCZ (2010) aSsERted that LeAdeRs shOULd shaPe teCHnOlogy to sUit eduCAtIoNal needS aNd requIrEmeNts. many pARticIpants ArticulaTed thE Principle that tEChnology shoulD NoT BE pURsueD foR the sake of tEchnOLogy, And tHE pRopERty doN't purSuE TeCHnology fo r the sake o f TeChnoloGy was Strong. A relateD property wAS CUrriculuM shoULd DRive technology, RatheR than technOLogy drivE currIculum. ThIs perspecTIVe is in alIgnMenT wiTh a RESpEcted textbook EXAmplE oF what coNstItutes aPprOprIatE teChNology intEgration, ChArAcTeRizEd by cURriculum DrIviNg TecHnoloGY integRatioN, ratHeR tHAn tEchnoloGY dRIVing CuRrIculUm (SHeLly et Al., 2008). CoRE caTegory. THe most freQueNT phiLoSoPhy of teChnology categOrY in the studY, aNd tHe domiNANt approaCh to technology decision mAKing was keeP up wiTh teChnology (oR be Left beHinD). keep up With TeChnolOgY (or BE Left bEHInD) emErGed as the coRE CatEgory, ThE cenTral pheNomenon that often coNCerNs educational TecHnolOGY lEadERs. tHis CaTEgoRY Emerged early in dAta analysiS, cONtInued to groW In eXpLanatorY relevaNce, anD ReappeaRed in-vivo In transcrIpT narRATivEs in variouS forms, ofTen expresSEd in tHOsE wordS, or VariatIoNs oF them (See TabLE 19). ThE core CategoRy With itS propErTies and dImensions involved coding InstanCes frOm aLl 31 particiPanTS (seE Table 18 for CodiNg frequencY anD TaBles 19 aNd 20 fOR dimeNsioNAlIzeD ExampLes). 262 THE data showED tHat kEEp Up with technOLOGy (oR be leFt bEHind) emErgeD as an approach to teCHnology decisioN makING liNkeD With ThE philosophy TecHnoLoGICal changE iS inevitable. in the impLiCAtionS sectiOn abovE for ResEARcH questiOn 1, it Was Explained ThaT pARticipaNtS iN The stuDy haD aN ideolOgical ORienTATion to technologiCal chANGe, simILar To whaT LEonardi (2008) FOund In a study of Technology mAnagerS in tHe priVate secToR. The daTa fRoM this study SHowed that In delIberatiNg On teChnOlogy dEcisIONs, eduCatiOnAl tEchnology LEAdERs ArE OftEn inFluenCeD by tHe belief tHAt technoLogICal chanGe Is iNEVitablE. an IDEological oRieNtatiON
 frequency and Table 22 fo r dimensio naliz edexa mp les) . Th e data showedE duca tional goals and curri culum  s h ould dr ive t echnolo g yw a s f ou nd  to  l i nk  dire ctl y withthe catego ryTe chnology isa  t ool. The i mpl ication is t heinstru me nta l  view  of  tech nology leadsto a corr es p onding approac h to  dec ision making that lo g ically follows  fromth e  p a r ent  ph ilosophy ( se e Fig u re 2).T he p h ilo s ophy represen ted by Educ a tio nal go al s a n d curr iculu ms hou ld drive te chno logy is s imilar to what some sc holars  ha veargu e dis  th ea ppr o pr iat e  ro le for e du ca tiona l te c h n o logy . T he i nstru mental view o f t echn o log y con sider s te ch nolog y as a  tool ,as means put to  use  by users  fo rthe ir  purp o sefulend s ( Berger,  2011;F een be r g ,  1 991; Heidegger, 20 09 ) .  U nder mea ns and en ds reasonin g,  th e no r m al an d ap p ro priate r ole fo r  e du cationa ltechno lo gywou ld be themeansto achie ve th e  educational e n ds intended f o ri t  ( K anuk a,2008). Jone s an d  Cze miew i cz  (2 0 10) a ssert ed th a t leaders should sh ap e tech nolog y to suit edu cational n e e d s and re quir e me n ts. Many parti cipan ts articul a ted theprinc iple tha t technol o g y should  no t b e p urs u e dfor the sakeo f  tec hn ology,and  the pr ope rty  do n't  p ursue tec hnologyfo  r  t he  sa ke of  technol og y w as  st rong. A rela ted p rope rt yw ascurricu l um s houl ddr ivetec hn ology , ra t her  than t echnology  dr i ve c ur ri culum.This perspect iv e is in al ig nme nt wit h a respec ted textbook example of what co nst itute s ap propriate  te chnolo gyi ntegra tion,chara ct eri z e d byc u rr icu lu m drivingt e chn ology  i nteg ration,  rather than techn o log y driving cur ric ulum ( Sh ell y  e t  al ., 200 8 ) . Core category . The most  f r eq uent philo s oph yof tech nologycateg o ry in t he study,  and thedo mina n t  ap proach totechnolo gy decisi o n mak i ng  wasKee p up w it h t echno logy ( o r b e lef t behi nd ). Kee p upwi th Techn ology (or be left behin d) eme rgedasthe corecat e gor y, the ce ntra l phenomen ontha t oft enc oncer ns e d uc ati o nal t echn o logy lead e rs . T h i scategory em e r g edearly  in data a naly sis, continued to grow in explan ator y rel eva n ce,an d reappeared i n-v iv o in trans cr ipt narrati ves in v ar i ous f orms,oftenexpress e d  i n  those  wor ds,  or varia tio ns of them  ( se e  Table  19) .The co re cat e gory w ith its properti es an d dimen s ion s inv ol ved cod i ng i nstances f rom all 31partic ipan ts (s ee Tabl e18 for  co di ng frequen c y and Tab les 1 9 and 2 0fordim ension aliz e d  exam ples ).  26 2 The dat a sh o we dt hat  Kee p upwi th t echnology (or be l eft behind)  e mer g e d as a n  a p p roach to t ech nolog y decision m a king li n ked w ith th e phil osophyT ech no logical  ch a n ge is ine vitable.I n t he  imp lication ssect io n a bo ve for Research  Questio n 1, itw a s expl ain e d th a t part ic ipants in th e stu dy had ani d eol ogicalo rie nta tio n to  te chno l ogical change, similar t o wh at Le o nar di (2 008)fo und in a stud y of tec h nology manage rs in the priva t e s e ctor . T h eda ta from t his study  sho wed  tha t i n de l i bera t ingo ntech nology  dec is io ns, educa ti onal te c hnol o gylead ers a re  o f te n influ enced by  thebe lief that technol ogic al  change is in evitable. An  i deol ogical ori ent a t ion
 frequency_and Table_22 for dimensionalized examples)._The data_showed_Educational goals_and_curriculum should drive_technology was found_to link directly with_the category Technology_is_a tool. The implication is the instrumental view of technology leads to a corresponding_approach_to decision_making_that_logically follows from the parent_philosophy (see Figure 2). The_philosophy represented_by Educational goals and curriculum should drive technology_is_similar to what_some scholars have argued is the appropriate role for_educational technology. The instrumental view of_technology considers technology_as_a_tool, as means put_to use by users for their_purposeful ends (Berger, 2011; Feenberg, 1991;_Heidegger, 2009). Under means and ends reasoning,_the normal and appropriate role for_educational technology would be the_means to_achieve the educational ends intended_for it (Kanuka,_2008). Jones_and Czemiewicz (2010)_asserted that leaders should shape technology_to suit educational_needs and requirements. Many participants articulated_the_principle that technology_should_not_be pursued_for the sake_of_technology, and_the_property don't pursue technology fo r_the_sake o f technology was strong. A_related property was curriculum_should_drive technology, rather than_technology drive curriculum. This perspective_is in alignment with a respected_textbook example_of what_constitutes appropriate technology integration, characterized by curriculum driving technology integration, rather_than technology driving curriculum (Shelly et_al., 2008). Core category._The most_frequent_philosophy of technology_category_in the_study, and the dominant approach to technology_decision making_was Keep up with technology (or_be left behind). Keep_up_with Technology (or be left behind)_emerged as the core category, the_central phenomenon that often concerns_educational_technology_leaders. This category emerged early_in data analysis, continued to grow_in explanatory relevance,_and reappeared in-vivo in transcript narratives in_various_forms, often expressed in those words,_or_variations of them (see Table 19)._The_core_category with its properties and_dimensions involved coding instances from all_31 participants (see Table 18 for coding frequency and_Tables 19 and_20 for dimensionalized examples). 262_The_data_showed that Keep up with technology (or be left behind)_emerged as_an approach to_technology decision making linked with the philosophy Technological change is_inevitable. In the implications section above for_Research Question 1, it was explained that participants in the study_had an ideological orientation to technological change, similar_to what Leonardi (2008) found in a_study of technology managers_in_the private sector. The data from this_study_showed_that_in deliberating on_technology decisions, educational_technology leaders are_often influenced_by the belief_that technological_change is inevitable._An_ideological orientation