 from the traditional school. Warschauer held that social and economic factors work in 112 conjunction with technology to transform instruction, but that technology cannot transform learning by itself. The dichotomy between technological determinism and social determinism. Warschauer concluded that neither technological determinism, nor an instrumental SST focus that views technology simply as tools to be shaped by purposeful human users, can account for the dynamic interactions that take place between society, human agents, and technology. Flyberbom (2005) critiqued the dichotomy of technological determinism vs. social construction of technology in order to consider whether it is reasonable to conclude that either technology impacts society or society shapes technology. Flyberbom (2005) held that the dichotomy is too simplistic, and that in order to meet the challenge of shaping effective policy for an information-based society, neither position is sufficient for a comprehensive framework or policy. From his critique, Flyberbom concluded that the two theories view their research objects in different ways, with technological determinists focusing on material aspects, and SST concerning themselves with the relationship between technology and society (Flyberbom, 2005). In order to help move beyond the dichotomy, Flyberbom proposed keeping the categories of technology and society, and while not viewing technologies as agents, he recognized how in a passive way technologies can facilitate and constrain social forces (Flyberbom, 2005). How (2010) stated that intermediate positions are possible between the technological determinist and social determinist perspectives, and that technology and society might be viewed as inseparable. However, Bromley (1997), in accepting neither technological determinism nor social determinism, asserted that because o f its unforeseen consequences on society, technology should be taken seriously as an independent factor. Smith (2006) took a more nuanced view when considering the dichotomy between technological determinism and social shaping of technology, and did not dismiss a causal role for technology in affecting social change. Concerning the debate between technological determinism and social shaping o f technology, Smith stated that researchers tend to recognize that both the social and technological have influence (Smith, 2006). Smith (2006) saw the debate between these two viewpoints as presenting a dichotomy that cannot be overcome without rethinking philosophical assumptions, and offered critical realism as a possible framework. He argued that theory-practice inconsistencies have plagued information systems and technology research, and asserted that philosophical assumptions are sometimes uncritically held by researchers. Smith asserted that in the final analysis, the debate is
from the traditional school. Warschauer held that social and economic factors work in 112 conjunction with engineering to translate direction, but that technology cannot transform learn by itself. The dichotomy between technological determinism and social determinism. Warschauer concluded that neither technical determinism, nor an instrumental SST focus that views engineering plainly as tools to be shape by purposeful human users, can account for the active interactions that take home between society, human agents, and engineering. Flyberbom (2005) critiqued the dichotomy of technological determinism vs. social construction of engineering in order to consider whether it is reasonable to conclude that either technology impact society or society shapes technology. Flyberbom (2005) held that the dichotomy is excessively simplistic, and that in order to meet the challenge of shaping effective policy for an information - based society, neither position is sufficient for a comprehensive framework or policy. From his critique, Flyberbom concluded that the two theories view their research objects in different ways, with technological fatalist concentrate on material view, and SST concern themselves with the relationship between technology and club (Flyberbom, 2005). In order to help move beyond the dichotomy, Flyberbom proposed observe the categories of technology and society, and while not viewing engineering as agents, he recognized how in a passive way technologies can help and constrain social force (Flyberbom, 2005). How (2010) express that intermediate positions are possible between the technical determinist and social determinist perspectives, and that technology and society might be viewed as inseparable. However, Bromley (1997), in accepting neither technological determinism nor social determinism, asserted that because oxygen f its unforeseen consequences on society, technology should be taken badly as an independent factor. Smith (2006) took a more nuanced view when consider the dichotomy between technological determinism and social formation of technology, and did not dismiss a causal role for technology in affecting social variety. Concerning the debate between technological determinism and social shaping oxygen f technology, Smith stated that researchers tend to recognize that both the social and technical have influence (Smith, 2006). Smith (2006) saw the debate between these two viewpoints as show a dichotomy that cannot be overcome without rethinking philosophical assumptions, and offered critical realism as a potential framework. He argued that theory - practice inconsistencies have plagued information systems and engineering research, and asserted that philosophical assumptions are sometimes uncritically held by researchers. Smith asserted that in the final psychoanalysis, the debate is
 frlm the traditional schoou. Warschauer held that sociam and ecunomic factors work in 112 conjnnctuon wuth technology to tranrform insnruction, vut uhat technology cehnot transforj leaxnmng by itself. Tme dichotomf between techtouoyical determinism and social determigism. Watsfhauer concludgd thse nejnhtr technological determinism, nor zn instgumental SST focux that views technology silply as tools to be shwped by purkksesyl human usefs, can account for the dynamic interactions that take placz between sicuetj, human agenvs, and technology. Nkyberbmm (2005) criyiqued the dicmotomb of technological determmnism vs. social consjruction ox cechnology in order ti xonsiger fhetfwr kt js rsasonahle to concluse that eityer technology impavtf society or skciety srapes technology. Flyberbom (2005) held that tve sichotomy is too simpliwtic, and that in ordet to meet ehe challenge of shaping effective policy for an hnforjxtiin-nasea slciety, neither position is sufficient for a cjjptemensive frameworh or policy. Fgok his critique, Flybexgoj concluded that tje two jheoriws view treir research objects in differwnt ways, witk twchnological deterlinists focbsing pn mayerial aspects, and SST eoncerhing themsepves with ghe relationship benweet technology and society (Fjyberbom, 2005). In prder tu hekp movq beyond tje digvotomy, Flyberbom pgoposgd kee[ing the cwtegories of technology and socmxty, and while nmt niewing tzchnolpgies as agenes, he recognizgd how in a parsive way nechnologmes can facijitate and cotdtrain socian forces (Flyverbim, 2005). How (2010) stated that imtermediane posutions are possiblc betdsen the technoligixal determinist ana sjcpal dqderminist pesspeztixrs, ana that uzchkolugy snd society might be viesed as inseparable. Hjwever, Btomley (1997), ig accepting nrither technologicwl deverminmsm not sjcial determinism, asserted thaf because o n its unforesqen gonsgquences on society, technology should be taken sermously as an independenr factor. Smith (2006) tool a more nuaiced vyew when wonsidering the dichitomy between tecmnological determinism and smcial shaping of technology, and did not dismiss a causal role for technology ib affertyng social dhanbe. Cotczrnnng the debetx between technolpgical determinism and social siaping o f tzchnology, Smith stated that rrsdarchers tend to recognize that both fhe socisl and technological have influrnce (Smith, 2006). Smith (2006) saw tme debate betwsen thvae two viewpoints as preseuting q dichoromy that cannot ce pvcrcome witjout rzthinking philosophical assumptiobs, and ovfered critical cealism as a kossiblg framewjrk. He argued thzt tgfory-ptactice inconsostencies have plagued information srstems and tecyhology reseatch, and dsserted thav philosophiwal assumptions are sometimes uncritically held by tesearchers. Smith asxerted that im the final analysis, thc debwte is
from the traditional school. Warschauer held that economic work in conjunction with technology technology transform learning by The dichotomy between determinism and social determinism. Warschauer concluded neither technological determinism, nor an instrumental SST focus that views technology simply as to be shaped by purposeful human users, can account for the dynamic interactions take between human and technology. Flyberbom (2005) critiqued the dichotomy of technological determinism vs. social construction of technology in to consider whether it is reasonable to conclude either technology impacts society society shapes technology. Flyberbom (2005) that dichotomy is simplistic, that order to meet challenge of shaping effective policy for an information-based society, neither position is sufficient for a comprehensive framework policy. From Flyberbom concluded the theories their research objects ways, with technological determinists focusing on SST concerning themselves with the relationship between technology society (Flyberbom, In order to help move beyond dichotomy, Flyberbom proposed keeping the categories of technology society, and while not viewing technologies as agents, he recognized how in a passive way facilitate and constrain social (Flyberbom, 2005). How stated intermediate are between the determinist and social determinist perspectives, and that technology and society might viewed as inseparable. However, Bromley (1997), in accepting neither technological social asserted that because f its unforeseen consequences society, should be taken seriously independent Smith more view considering the dichotomy between determinism and social shaping of and did not dismiss in affecting social change. Concerning the debate between determinism and social shaping o f technology, stated that researchers tend to recognize that both the social and technological influence (Smith, (2006) saw the debate between these two viewpoints presenting a dichotomy that be overcome without rethinking philosophical assumptions, and offered critical as possible framework. argued that theory-practice have plagued information and technology research, that philosophical are uncritically Smith asserted that in the final the is
 from the traditional school. WArschauer hEld thAt sOciAl And eConoMic factors work IN 112 conJunction with technology To traNsFOrm iNStRuctiOn, but thAT tECHnoLoGy CanNoT TrAnsfoRm lEarning By itself. ThE diChOtomy between TEcHnological DetErminism and sOciAl deteRmIniSM. WarsChaUer coNcludeD That neIther techNoLOgical DEterminISM, nOr an Instrumental SST foCUs THat views technoLogy siMpLY aS TOolS to Be shaped by PuRposeFUl human USeRS, CAn aCCount for the dyNamic interaCTioNs that TaKe pLAce betWeen sOcIEty, Human agents, And tEchnology. flyberBOm (2005) critiQUed the dIchotoMy oF teChnoLOgIcAl dEtERmiNIsM vs. SOciAl constrUcTiOn of tEchnOLOGY in oRdeR to cOnsidEr whether it is ReaSonaBLe tO concLude tHat eItHer teChnoloGy impAcTs society or sociEty sHapes techNolOgY. FlYbErbom (2005) HEld thaT thE diChotomy Is too siMPliStIC, ANd That in order to meet tHe CHAlLenge of sHaping EFfEcTIve policY fOr aN infORMatioN-basED sOciety, neIther pOSiTiOn is sufFiCient fOr A coMprEhensIVe frAmeworK or policY. From HIs critique, FlybERbom concluded THaT THe TWo thEorIes view theiR resEArch ObjeCTs In dIFfereNt wayS, wITh TEchnological determiNiSts focUsing On material aspEcts, and SST CONCerning tHemsELvES with the relatiOnshiP between teCHnology aNd socIety (FlybErbom, 2005). In orDER to help mOve BeyOnd The DIChOtomy, FlyberboM PRopoSeD keepinG thE categoRieS of TecHnoLoGy and sociEty, and whIlE nOt ViEwiNg tecHNologies As AgeNtS, he RecogNIzed hoW in a pAssiVe WaY TecHnologiES cAN FaciLiTaTe anD coNsTrain SociAL foRces (FlyBerbom, 2005). How (2010) StaTEd thAt InTermediAte positions aRe Possible beTwEen The tecHNOlogical Determinist and social detERminist PerSpectIves, And that teChnOlogy aNd sOCiety mIght be VieweD aS inSEParabLE. hoWevEr, bromley (1997), in aCCEptIng neItHer tEchnoloGical determinism noR SocIal determinisM, asSertED ThAt bECaUSe o F iTS unFOReseen consequenCes on socieTy, TEcHnology shoULd bE tAken serIously aS an inDEpendenT factor. SmIth (2006) took a mOrE nuaNCEd vIew when conSidering The dichotOMy betWEeN techNolOgical DeTerMinisM and soCIal ShapiNg of teChNology, And diD nOt dismisS a causal role for technoloGy in afFectiNg sOcial chanGe. CONceRning the dEbatE between teChnOloGical DetERminiSm anD SoCiaL ShapiNg o f TEchnology, sMiTh sTATeD that researCHERs tEnd to RecOGnize tHat bOth the social and teCHnological have InflUENce (smiTH, 2006). SmiTh (2006) Saw the debate beTweEn THEse two viEwPoints as preSenting a DiCHotomY that cAnnot bE overcoME WiTHout reThinKinG philosopHicAl ASsumptiOnS, aND offerEd crItIcal reAlism aS A posSIBle framework. He arGued tHAT theoRY-prActicE iNconsisTEnciEs have plagUed informatIon sysTems And teChnologY rEsearcH, anD aSserted thaT PhilosophIcal aSsumptiOnS are SomEtimes UncrITIcallY helD bY reSearchers. sMItH AsSeRTed That In the FiNal aNalysis, thE Debate is
 from the traditional scho ol. Warsch auerhel d t ha t so cial  and economicf acto rs work in 112 conjunc tionwi t h te c hn ology  to tra n sf o r m i ns tr uct io n ,but t hat  techno logy canno t t ra nsform learn i ng  by itself . T he dichotomy  be tweente chn o logic aldeter minism and so cial dete rm i nism.W arschau e r  c oncl uded that neither te c hnological det ermini sm ,  n o r  an  in strumental  S ST fo c us that vi e w s  te c hnology simpl y as toolst o b e shap ed  by purpos efulhu m anusers, canacco unt for t he dyn a mic int e raction s that  ta keplac e  b et wee ns oci e ty , h u man  agents,  a nd  tech nolo g y . Flyb erb om ( 2005)  critiqued th e d icho t omy  of t echno logi ca l det ermini sm vs .social construc tion  of techn olo gy  in  o rdert o cons ide r w hetherit is r e aso na b l e  t o conclude that ei th e r  t echnolog y impa c ts  s o ciety or  s oci etys h apestech n ol ogy. Fly berbom (2 00 5) held  t hat th edic hot omy i s  too  simpl istic, a nd th a t in order tom eet the chall e ng e of shap ing  effectivepoli c y fo r an in for m ation -base ds oc i ety, neither positi on  is su ffici ent for a com prehensive f r ameworkor p o li c y. From his cr itiqu e, Flyberb o m conclu ded t hat thetwo theor i e s view t hei r r ese arc h ob jects in diff e r entwa ys, wit h t echnolo gic aldet erm in ists focu sing onma te ri al  as pects ,  and SST  c onc er nin g the m selves  with  the  r el a tio nship b e tw e e n te ch no logy  an dsocie ty ( F lyb erbom,2005). In  or d er t ohe lp move  beyond the d ic hotomy, Fl yb erb om pro p o sed keep ing the categories of t e chnolog y a nd so ciet y, and wh ile  not v iew i ng tec hnolog ies a sage n t s, he r ec ogn iz ed how ina pas sivewa y te chnolog ies can facilitate and  constrain so cia l fo r c es  (F l yb e rbo m, 200 5 ) . How (2010) st ated thatin t er mediate po s iti on s are p ossible  betw e en thetechnolog ical dete rm inis t and  social de terminis t perspec t ives, an d tha t t echnol og y a nd so cietym igh t beviewed  a s inse parab le . Howeve r, Bromley (1997), in a ccepti ng ne ith er techno log i cal  determin ismnor social  de ter minis m,a ssert ed t h at  be c auseo fi ts unfore s ee n c o n se quences ons o c iet y, te chn o logy s houl d be taken seriou s ly as an indep ende n t  fa cto r . Sm it h (2006) tooka m or e nuancedvi ew when con sidering  t h e dic hotomy  betwe en tech n o lo g ical d eter min ism and s oci al shaping  o ft echnol ogy,  a nd did  not d i smis s a causal role fo r tec h n ology inaffec ti ng soci a l ch ange. Conc erning thedebate  bet weentechnol og ical d ete rm inism ands ocial sha pingo f tec hn olog y,Smithstat e d  that  res ea rch ers tendt o  r e co gn i zethat  both  t he s ocial and technolo gic a l havein flu e n ce (Sm i th , 2006). Smi th(2006 ) saw the de b ateb et w een t hese t wo vie wpoints aspr esentin g a d ichotomythat cann o t b eover come wit ho ut r et hin ki ng philosophica l assump tions, a n d  offer edc riti c al rea li sm as a poss iblefr a mework. H e a rgued t h atthe ory -pra cti ce i n consistencies have plagu ed i nform a tio n sys temsan d techno l ogyresearch ,  and asserted  that philosoph i cal assu mpt i on sare somet ime s  uncr itic all y he ldby r e s earc h ers. Sm ithassert ed t ha tin the fi na l analy s is,t hedeba te is 
 from_the traditional_school. Warschauer held that_social and_economic_factors work_in_112 conjunction with_technology to transform_instruction, but that technology_cannot transform learning_by_itself. The dichotomy between technological determinism and social determinism. Warschauer concluded that neither technological_determinism,_nor an_instrumental_SST_focus that views technology simply_as tools to be shaped_by purposeful_human users, can account for the dynamic interactions_that_take place between_society, human agents, and technology. Flyberbom (2005) critiqued the_dichotomy of technological determinism vs. social_construction of technology_in_order_to consider whether it_is reasonable to conclude that either_technology impacts society or society shapes_technology. Flyberbom (2005) held that the dichotomy_is too simplistic, and that in_order to meet the challenge_of shaping_effective policy for an information-based_society, neither position_is sufficient_for a comprehensive_framework or policy. From his critique,_Flyberbom concluded that_the two theories view their research_objects_in different ways,_with_technological_determinists focusing_on material aspects,_and_SST concerning_themselves_with the relationship between technology and_society_(Flyberbom, 2005). In order to help move_beyond the dichotomy, Flyberbom_proposed_keeping the categories of_technology and society, and while_not viewing technologies as agents, he_recognized how_in a_passive way technologies can facilitate and constrain social forces (Flyberbom, 2005)._How (2010) stated that intermediate positions_are possible between the_technological determinist_and_social determinist perspectives,_and_that technology_and society might be viewed as inseparable._However, Bromley_(1997), in accepting neither technological determinism_nor social determinism, asserted_that_because o f its unforeseen consequences_on society, technology should be taken_seriously as an independent factor._Smith_(2006)_took a more nuanced view_when considering the dichotomy between technological_determinism and social_shaping of technology, and did not dismiss_a_causal role for technology in affecting_social_change. Concerning the debate between technological_determinism_and_social shaping o f technology,_Smith stated that researchers tend to_recognize that both the social and technological have influence_(Smith, 2006). Smith_(2006) saw the debate between_these_two_viewpoints as presenting a dichotomy that cannot be overcome without_rethinking philosophical_assumptions, and offered_critical realism as a possible framework. He argued that theory-practice_inconsistencies have plagued information systems and technology_research, and asserted that philosophical assumptions are sometimes uncritically held by_researchers. Smith asserted that in the final analysis,_the debate is