 act as an autonomous agent, the soft technological determinist view that emphasizes that technological power is a secondary change agent still presents a dilemma for human responsibility. If technology operates with any determinative efficacy, driving historical events and society, this limits free human agency (Marx & Smith, 1994; Kritt & Winegar, 2010). Any claim that we do not control technology, but are controlled by it is a renunciation o f human responsibility for technology (Hofmann, 2006; Slack & Wise, 2006; Wyatt, 2008). Bimber's conceptual framework fo r technological determinism. Bimber (1994) argued that the term technological determinism had been utilized in the literature in imprecise ways to explain the impact of technology on history, and he proposed an alternate conceptual framework made up o f three categories. Bimber's nomological account of technological determinism makes an ontological claim about technology, and is an interpretation of hard technological determinism. The nomological account sees technology acting as the primary cause o f social change according to the laws of nature, with technology exercising causal influence, and one development leading inevitably to 102 another (Bimber, 1994; Wyatt, 2008). According to the nomological account, technology is autonomous and develops according to science and the internal developmental laws o f technology, independent of the social context (Vermaas, 2011). Bimber's normative account of technological determinism is different in that rather than making a strictly ontological claim about the impact of technology on society, the account is primarily concerned with cultural matters and human attitudes (Bimber, 1994). Bimber (1994) asserted that the normative account is the most common interpretation of technological determinism. The normative account holds that if the norms of practice or attitudes of 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). In the normative account of technological determinism, technological norms such as function and efficiency take precedence over other values such as ethical or social norms (Vermaas, 2011). Thirdly, the unintended consequences interpretation according to the Bimber framework observes that technology causes inadvertent consequences that were not intended or anticipated (Bimber, 1994; Vermaas, 2011). The unintended consequences view holds that technology is partially autonomous, because even when human decision makers willfully approach technology in deliberate and responsible
act as an autonomous agent, the soft technological fatalist opinion that emphasizes that technological exponent is a junior-grade change agent still present a dilemma for human responsibility. If technology operate with any determinative efficacy, driving diachronic events and society, this limit spare human agency (Marx & Smith, 1994; Kritt & Winegar, 2010). Any claim that we do not control technology, but are controlled by it is a repudiation o f human responsibility for technology (Hofmann, 2006; Slack & Wise, 2006; Wyatt, 2008). Bimber's conceptual model fo r technological determinism. Bimber (1994) argue that the term technical determinism had been utilized in the literature in imprecise way to explain the impact of technology on history, and he project an alternate conceptual framework made up o f three categories. Bimber's nomological account of technical determinism seduce an ontological claim about technology, and is an interpretation of hard technological determinism. The nomological account sees technology dissemble as the primary cause o f social variety harmonize to the police of nature, with technology exercising causal influence, and one growth leading inevitably to 102 another (Bimber, 1994; Wyatt, 2008). According to the nomological account, engineering is autonomous and develops according to science and the internal developmental laws o f technology, independent of the social context (Vermaas, 2011). Bimber's normative account of technological determinism is different in that rather than make a strictly ontological title about the impact of technology on society, the account is primarily refer with cultural matters and human attitudes (Bimber, 1994). Bimber (1994) asserted that the prescriptive account is the about common interpretation of technological determinism. The normative account halt that if the norms of practice or attitude of those who create and use technology become staccato from broader ethical criterion, accountability to society, or consideration of means and ends, technology can be understand to have a authority or autonomy over society (Bimber, 1994; Wyatt, 2008). In the normative account of technological determinism, technological norm such as function and efficiency take precession over other values such as ethical or social average (Vermaas, 2011). Thirdly, the unintended consequences interpretation accord to the Bimber framework observes that technology causes inadvertent consequences that were not intend or anticipate (Bimber, 1994; Vermaas, 2011). The unintended consequence view holds that technology is partially autonomous, because even when human decision makers willfully approach engineering in deliberate and responsible
 ach as an autonomous agent, the soft technologican detedminist xiew that emphasizes that terhnooogicql power is a secondarh change wgent stull kresents a dilemme for human reaionsiyioity. If technokogy operades with any datdrlinative efficacy, driving historicaj eventx wnd society, thys lpmyts rget human agency (Marx & Smith, 1994; Kritt & Wineger, 2010). Any claim tnat we do not control techjolohy, but are controlped by it iw a wwnunciation u f human gzsponsibilijy for technology (Hofmann, 2006; Slack & Wisz, 2006; Wyatt, 2008). Bumver'd conceptual framvwork fo r tegnnologhcal deyerminism. Bimbcr (1994) acguee that the term technmlogical determinifm had bean utilized in the oireratore it imoeeckse weys to exolamn the impadt of technilogy on history, anc rv proposed an altergaee conceptual framework made up o f thrte cafegories. Bimber's nomolotical account of techjological determinism makes an ontological claim about tecvnolojy, anb is av ijterpretation of hard technological determinifj. Uhe nomological agcount sees technokohy wcting as the primaxg dause o f social cjange ascordung to tht lawx of nature, with technology exercising bausql influence, and oue developmeut leacing onevitably to 102 another (Yimber, 1994; Wyatt, 2008). Acfording tk the nomological acbound, technology is autonomous and deveoops accordkng jo sciegce and thf intcsnal developmental laws o f technollgy, independent of the social context (Vermaas, 2011). Timter's noriativc account of teshnological dejerminism is dkfferent ih that cather than iaking a striwjly ontologicel claim wbour thw impacg of technology on socieny, the account is primarlly cuhcerned with cuotutql matters and huoan antivudes (Timber, 1994). Bimbar (1994) xssdtted ghat tht nifmatove account is the mmst dommon interpretatook of techbologicaj determinism. The normative acclunt iolds vhat ig tre norms of practice or attituses of thlse who create wnd cmpljy technolpgy become disconnected from broader etiical criteria, accountavility to society, ot cpnsideratioi of mqans and ands, technology can ve understood to mave a dominance or aufonomy over society (Bimber, 1994; Wyatt, 2008). In the normative account of technological determibism, txcrnological hormx sucv cs yunctiog anv xfficiency take pgecedence over other values such as ethiwaj or social norms (Vermaas, 2011). Tnifdly, the uninjended consequences interpdetation according to the Bimber framewprk observes that technokogy cauwes ihadverngnt consequences that were uot inrended ir akticipated (Bimcer, 1994; Yermaas, 2011). Tje uiincended consequences view holds thqt tecynllogy is partialny autonomoms, becaose even when human deciaion lakerr willfully alproach technokogy in deliberate atd responsible
act as an autonomous agent, the soft view emphasizes that power is a a for human responsibility. technology operates with determinative efficacy, driving historical events and this limits free human agency (Marx & Smith, 1994; Kritt & Winegar, 2010). claim that we do not control technology, but are controlled by it is renunciation f responsibility technology (Hofmann, 2006; Slack & Wise, 2006; Wyatt, 2008). Bimber's conceptual framework fo r technological determinism. (1994) argued that the term technological determinism had utilized in the literature imprecise ways to explain the of on history, he an conceptual framework made o f three categories. Bimber's nomological account of technological determinism makes an ontological claim about technology, and an interpretation technological determinism. nomological sees acting as the o f social change according to nature, with technology exercising causal influence, and one leading inevitably 102 another (Bimber, 1994; Wyatt, 2008). to the nomological account, technology is autonomous and according to science and the internal developmental laws o f technology, independent of the social 2011). Bimber's normative account technological determinism is in rather making strictly ontological about the impact of technology on society, the account is primarily with cultural matters and human attitudes (Bimber, 1994). Bimber (1994) the account is the common interpretation of technological The account holds that if of or who and technology become disconnected from ethical criteria, accountability to society, consideration of means and to have a dominance or autonomy over society 1994; Wyatt, 2008). In the normative account technological determinism, technological norms such as function and efficiency take precedence over values such or social norms (Vermaas, 2011). Thirdly, the unintended interpretation according to the framework observes that technology causes inadvertent consequences that were intended anticipated (Bimber, Vermaas, 2011). The consequences view holds technology is partially even when decision willfully deliberate and responsible
 act as an autonomous agent, the Soft technoLogicAl dEteRmInisT vieW that emphasizeS That Technological power is a sEcondArY ChanGE aGent sTill preSEnTS A diLeMmA foR hUMaN respOnsIbility. if technoloGy oPeRates with any DEtErminative EffIcacy, driving HisToricaL eVenTS and sOciEty, thIs limiTS free hUman agencY (MARx & SmitH, 1994; kritt & WiNEGaR, 2010). Any Claim that we do not cONtROl technology, buT are coNtROlLED by It iS a renunciaTiOn o f hUMan respONsIBILitY For technology (hofmann, 2006; SlacK & wisE, 2006; Wyatt, 2008). biMbeR'S concePtual FrAMewOrk fo r technOlogIcal deterMinism. bImber (1994) arGUed that The terM teChnOlogICaL dEteRmINisM HaD beEN utIlized in ThE lIteraTure IN IMPrecIse Ways To expLain the impact Of tEchnOLogY on hiStory, And hE pRoposEd an alTernaTe Conceptual frameWork Made up o f tHreE cAteGoRies. BIMber's nOmoLogIcal accOunt of tEChnOlOGICaL determinism makes aN oNTOlOgical clAim aboUT tEcHNology, anD iS an InteRPRetatIon oF HaRd technoLogicaL DeTeRminism. thE nomolOgIcaL acCount SEes tEchnolOgy actinG as thE Primary cause o f SOcial change acCOrDINg TO the LawS of nature, wiTh teCHnolOgy eXErCisINg cauSal inFlUEnCE, and one development lEaDing inEvitaBly to 102 another (BImber, 1994; Wyatt, 2008). aCCOrding to The nOMoLOgical account, tEchnoLogy is autoNOmous and DevelOps accorDing to sciENCe and the IntErnAl dEveLOPmEntal laws o f teCHNoloGy, IndepenDenT of the sOciAl cOntExt (veRmaas, 2011). BimbEr's normaTiVe AcCoUnt Of tecHNologicaL dEteRmIniSm is dIFferenT in thAt raThEr THan Making a STrICTly oNtOlOgicAl cLaIm aboUt thE ImpAct of teChnology oN soCIety, ThE aCcount iS primarily conCeRned with cuLtUraL matteRS And human Attitudes (Bimber, 1994). Bimber (1994) asSErted thAt tHe norMatiVe account Is tHe most ComMOn inteRpretaTion oF tEchNOLogicAL DeTerMiNism. The norMATivE accoUnT holDs that iF the norms of practicE Or aTtitudes of 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). In The noRmativE aCcount Of tecHnOlogical Determinism, technologicaL norms Such aS fuNction and EffICieNcy take prEcedEnce over otHer ValUes suCh aS EthicAl or SOcIal NOrms (VErmaAS, 2011). Thirdly, tHE uNinTENdEd consequenCES IntErpreTatIOn accoRdinG to the Bimber frameWOrk observes thaT tecHNOloGy cAUses InAdvertent conseQueNcES That were NoT intended or AnticipaTeD (bimbeR, 1994; VermaAs, 2011). The uNintendED CoNSequenCes vIew Holds that TecHnOLogy is pArTiALly autOnomOuS, becauSe even WHen hUMAn decision makers WillfULLy appROacH techNoLogy in dELibeRate and resPonsible
 act as an autonomous agen t, the sof t tec hno log ic al d eter minist view th a t em phasizes that technolo gical  p o weri sa sec ondaryc ha n g e a ge nt  st il l  p resen tsa dilem ma for hum anre sponsibility .  I f technolo gyoperates wit h a ny det er min a tiveeff icacy , driv i ng his torical e ve n ts and society , th is l imits free humana ge n cy (Marx & Smi th, 19 94 ;  K r i tt& W inegar, 20 10 ). An y  claimt ha t w e d o  not controltechnology, but  are c on tro l led by  it i sa  re nunciationo fhuman res ponsib i lity fo r  techno logy ( Hof man n, 2 0 06 ;Sla ck & W i se , 2 0 06;  Wyatt,20 08 ). Bi mber ' s c once ptu al f ramew ork fo r tech nol ogic a l d eterm inism . Bi mb er (1 994) a rgued  t hat the term te chno logical d ete rm ini sm  hadb een ut ili zed  in the  litera t ure  i n i mp recise ways to exp la i n  t he impac t of t e ch no l ogy on h is tor y, a n d  he p ropo s ed  an alte rnatec on ce ptual f ra mework  m ade  up  o ft hree  categ ories. B imber ' s nomologicala ccount of tec h no l o gi c al d ete rminism mak es a n  ont olog i ca l c l aim a boutte c hn o logy, and is an int er pretat ion o f hard techno logical de t e r minism.Then om o logical accoun t see s technolo g y acting  as t he prima ry causeo f social  ch ang e a cco r d in g to the laws o f na tu re, wit h t echnolo gyexe rci sin gcausal in fluence,  a nd  o ne  de velop m ent lead in g i ne vit ablyt o 102anoth er ( Bi mb e r,1994; W y at t ,  200 8) .Acco rdi ng  to t he n o mol ogicalaccount,tec h nolo gy  i s auton omous and dev el ops accord in g t o scie n c e and th e internal developmenta l  laws o  ftechn olog y, indepe nde nt ofthe social  conte xt (V er maa s ,  2011 ) .  B imb er 's normati v e  ac count  o f te chnolog ical determinism i s  di fferent in th atrath e r  t han ma k ing  a str i c tly ontological  claim abo ut th e impact o f  te ch nologyon soci ety,t he acco unt is pr imarily c on cern e d  wi th cultura l matter s and hum a n att i tu des ( Bim ber, 1 99 4).  Bimb er (19 9 4)asser ted th at  the n ormat iv e accoun t is the most common in terpre tatio n o f technol ogi c aldetermini sm.The normat ive  ac count  ho l ds th at i f  t hen ormsof p r actice or at tit u d es  of those w h o cre ate a nde mploytech nology become dis c onnected frombroa d e r e thi c al c ri teria, account abi li t y  to soci et y, or consi deration  o f  mean s andends,technol o g yc an beunde rst ood to ha vead ominanc eor autono my o ve r soci ety (B i mber , 1994; Wyatt, 200 8). I n the n o rma tiveac count o f  tec hnological  determinis m, tec hnol ogica l norms  s uch as  fu nc tion and e f ficiencytakeprecede nc e ov erothervalu e s  such  aset hic al or soc i a ln or ms (Ve rmaa s, 20 11 ). T hirdly, t h e uninte nde d  conseq ue nce s interp r et a t ion accord ing  to t h e  Bimber fr a mewo r ko bserv es tha t tech nologyc aus es  inadve rte n t  conseque nces that wer enotintended  o r an ti cip at ed (Bimber, 199 4; Verma as, 2011 ) .  The u nin t ende d  conse qu ences view h oldsth a t techn o l ogy  is par t ial lyaut onom ous , be c ause even when human dec isio n mak e rswillf ullyap proach t e chno logy ind eliberate and  responsible
 act_as an_autonomous agent, the soft_technological determinist_view_that emphasizes_that_technological power is_a secondary change_agent still presents a_dilemma for human_responsibility._If technology operates with any determinative efficacy, driving historical events and society, this limits_free_human agency_(Marx_&_Smith, 1994; Kritt & Winegar,_2010). Any claim that we_do not_control technology, but are controlled by it is_a_renunciation o f_human responsibility for technology (Hofmann, 2006; Slack & Wise,_2006; Wyatt, 2008). Bimber's conceptual framework_fo r technological_determinism._Bimber_(1994) argued that the_term technological determinism had been utilized_in the literature in imprecise ways_to explain the impact of technology on_history, and he proposed an alternate_conceptual framework made up o_f three_categories. Bimber's nomological account of_technological determinism makes_an ontological_claim about technology,_and is an interpretation of hard_technological determinism. The_nomological account sees technology acting as_the_primary cause o_f_social_change according_to the laws_of_nature, with_technology_exercising causal influence, and one development_leading_inevitably to 102 another (Bimber, 1994; Wyatt,_2008). According to the_nomological_account, technology is autonomous_and develops according to science_and the internal developmental laws o_f technology,_independent of_the social context (Vermaas, 2011). Bimber's normative account of technological determinism_is different in that rather than_making a strictly ontological_claim about_the_impact of technology_on_society, the_account is primarily concerned with cultural matters_and human_attitudes (Bimber, 1994). Bimber (1994) asserted_that the normative account_is_the most common interpretation of technological_determinism. The normative account holds that_if the norms of practice_or_attitudes_of 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). In the normative account_of technological determinism, technological norms such_as function and efficiency take precedence over other values_such as ethical_or social norms (Vermaas, 2011)._Thirdly,_the_unintended consequences interpretation according to the Bimber framework observes that_technology causes_inadvertent consequences that_were not intended or anticipated (Bimber, 1994; Vermaas, 2011). The_unintended consequences view holds that technology is_partially autonomous, because even when human decision makers willfully approach technology_in deliberate and responsible