Talk:Digital Media & Culture: Collaborative Essay Collection 2018/Determinism/Research Question 1: Dowbergton

Essay Question
Here, we can brainstorm ideas about our final essay question, relating to the topic of determinism. MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 23:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Final essay question: "Do accusations of technological determinism in any way restrict our access or understanding of important theories in digital media and culture?", everyone happy? MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 13:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Sounds very good! Kjartanhaa (discuss • contribs) 13:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a great essay question Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 13:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Essay Structure/ Section Allocation
Here, we will plan out the structure of our essay - allocating different sections for individual group members to focus on. Additionally, we will all contribute to each-other's sections. MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 23:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay! So we know that we're splitting the essay into 4 main body paragraphs, or at least sections. We should try and figure out subtopics concerning the question that we have decided. Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 13:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Should we define what technological determinism is ? If so I would be happy to work on that. Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 13:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Whichever topic everyone wants to do just sign your name next to/ under the sub-headings. MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 13:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

After we have added anything we would like to eachother's sections, the final material that will be used for the essay (and copied into the book page) in each section will be put in bold. MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 22:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Defining Technological Determinism
Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 13:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

'''Technological Determinism is a popular theory adopted by many academic theorists, most of whom interpret it in a different manner. In order for this essay to come to a conclusion as to whether accusations of technological determinism restrict our understanding of important theories throughout digital media and culture, first the term Technological Determinism must be defined. Despite Determinism being a widely used theory, there is no definitive description of it with different theorists constructing their own definitions. The most popular definitions when discussing technological determinism is that technology develops according to an ‘‘internal logic independent of social influence’’ as suggested by Ronald Kline. This view is shared by other theorists, Bijker (2010) claims technology is developing autonomously and independent of external factors. Although many agree with this statement there are some theorists who put more emphasis on the autonomy of technology. One such determinist, Bimber (1994) who offers a rather extreme version of technological determinism, suggesting that it does not allow for any human agency. Whilst some adopt softer deterministic views in which there is more social input and control over technology’s influence, Bimber (1994) goes in the complete opposite direction.The other component to Technological Determinism is the influence technology has socially and culturally, the general idea of determinism is that as technology changes it alters society in some way. ‘‘technological change determines social change in a prescribed manner’’ (Kline,2001) this is a view shared by many, including perhaps the most influential determinist of all time Marshall Mcluhan. Mcluhan was a pioneer in the academic discussion around Technological Determinism, he argued that throughout history, many large cultural shifts have been the impact of innovations in media technology. He believed that media technologies have the power themselves to actually change society and culture and in turn potentially change the world and thus changing human consciousness. Mcluhan clearly envisioned technology as being extremely influential to society, perhaps his most famous quotation is “the medium is the message”. By this Mcluhan means communication will be shaped by the medium through which the message is sent, therefore the media technology changes society in terms of how people communicate. A simple example of this that enforces Mcluhan’s thinking is how people text, the shortening of words and using symbols was influenced by the price of text messages and the character limit per message. So, to come to a general definition for Technological Determinism, it is the theory that technology develops autonomously and changes in technology can cause significant changes to society and culture. However, there are many theorists who disagree with the theory of Determinism altogether, one prominent theorist being Raymond Williams, who’s views conflict with that of Mcluhan’s. Furthermore, there is the case that Technological Determinism has been used to silence certain academic theorists. Simply accusing an academic theory of being a form of determinism practically silences that academic’s thinking as it is viewed as being nothing new to the field and simply labelled as Determinism. Many academic theories labelled as Determinism surely have something new and interesting to add to the digital media field of research, yet the thinking may never be discussed. Therefore, is Determinism restricting our access to potentially important academic theories as they may simply not be considered or may not be understood due to being viewed as Determinism. This essay will discuss in detail the viewpoints of conflicting academic theorists surrounding the topic of Technological Determinism in an attempt to discover, whether accusations of Technological Determinism does in fact restrict our access or understanding of important theories within the digital media field of research.''' 139.153.68.183 (discuss) 21:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Section Discussion/ Additions
This is a great introductory section - I think some of the stuff on Mcluhan may cross over to the Mcluhan section of the essay, we'll wait and see once that section has been put in. MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 15:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Awh here Scott don't nick my section man Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 10:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I've fiddled with my essay a little bit to avoid stepping on your toes a little. You might want to change a couple wee things (just try and focus on the argument and discourse between McLuhan and Williams and what the argument specifically lead to as opposed to the actual findings of the individuals.) It may be a little bit tricky but worse case scenario just leave it in and it should be okay. Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 10:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

sorry didn't realise anything would cross over, i was just trying to introduce the argument and then your section could develop it, what would you like me to change ? Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 16:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I have referenced my section properly so it is nearly complete so if there is indeed anything you would like me to alter in my section just let me know and i would be more than happy to change it, I do not want my section to undermine anyone else's section, so if anyone also has any feedback or alterations to my section that you would like feel free to let me know or change it yourself if you wish ! Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 17:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, my paragraph tackles different points than yours does, I feel like more than anything your section is purely introductory. I would go as far as to say we -as a group- should scrap the collaborative intro and leave that up to you. Of course, we should do a collaborate conclusion. Also, to make the page look nicer you should consider formatting your work to minimise the need to horizontally scroll to read it ;) Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 14:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Criticisms of Determinism (Raymond Williams and Others)
MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 22:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

'"I just flat out don't believe this idea. I'm also not totally convinced that the people are mindlessly manipulated by media. Sure, I think the media is in cahoots with all sorts of special interests and political and capitalist agendas, but I still say: "Power to the people!" I hold on to the hope that we can use technology for our own ends and purposes. I think there is much more give and take between society and the media that McLuhan allows"'' (Raymond Williams, 1975, on Technological Determinism)

'''There has been a great deal of scepticism and criticism surrounding the topic of technological determinism. Various theorists of technology and culture do not consider technological determinism to be a very accurate or thorough depiction of human beings' relationship with technology. Instead, theorists such as Raymond Williams accuse technological determinism of adhering to a 'simplistic cause-and-effect formula' and take a more nuanced and multi-faceted view about the ways in which society is structured and advanced (Williams, 1975, p.2). Furthering this, Williams takes the position that the invention of new technologies are socially motivated, rather than new technology dictating the direction of our social collective and culture. Williams argues that there are certain social motivations that influence the development of new technologies.One significant oversight of the technological determinism model is that it does not address the concept of technological innovation. Media technologies are invented, developed and subsequently innovated by human actors. In light of this, it may be argued that there is an inherent human control factor over technology that underpins their use. '''Williams cites broadcasting technology as an example of this, as the social need of human actors for broadcasting dictated its very inception. In addition, Williams emphasizes the importance of human influence on the evolution of technology. He argues that the path of technological innovation is not predetermined, rather it is based on decisions made by human beings to fulfill social needs and intertwine with social structure. (Freedman, 2010, p. 427). MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 22:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

'''A more contemporary critique of technological determinism is undertaken by Leila Green, a senior lecturer teaching at the School of Communications and Multimedia at Edith Cowan University, Perth. In her 2001 book Technoculture: From Alphabet to Cybersex, she argues that technological determinism is an old fashioned and somewhat archaic way of exploring the relationship between technology and society. Building upon Williams' initial argument, She replaces technological determinism with social determinism; suggesting that society has full autonomy and control over technology, as opposed to the other way around (Green, 2001). Social determinism believes that social circumstances alone dictate how technologies are adopted and integrated into our lives, arguing that no technology can be considered inevitable on its own. Moreover, the knowledge needed to know how to develop and innovate technology is 'socially bound' knowledge, meaning that technology is constantly intertwined with social processes.''' MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 18:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

'''Williams laid the foundations for critiquing technological determinism as an old fashioned and simplistic theory. Williams, and later theorists such as Green, would argue that McLuhan is fundamentally wrong in his assertion that technology guides society. Instead, they would argue that technology is bound and manipulated by society and its associated social processes.' '''

Section Discussion/ Additions
I think this is a really well written section, great that you mentioned other theorists other than just Williams, shows there is more opposed to Mcluhan's ideas on Determinism Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 15:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

McLuhan and His Impact on Other Determinists
Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 13:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

'''Marshall McLuhan, the ‘poster boy’ for technological determinism, is considered in most scholarly discourse to be an antagonising and contentious theorist who oftentimes puts forth sweeping and contradictory theories on the ‘electric age’. This electric age -to McLuhan- is a utopian culture of sensory plentitude. McLuhan’s deliberations appeal greatly to some who see the technological, contemporary age that we live in as a radical and massively changing culture. With regard to the essay question, it becomes relevant to note the significance of the merit that lies beneath this shroud of controversy and examine how McLuhan’s thinking has influenced cultural and media theory. There are a vast quantity of potentially worrying ramifications correlated with the idea of totally disregarding work purely for being similar to -or based upon- McLuhan’s ‘ramblings’. It is also productive to explore how other (perhaps more coherent) technological determinists are being labelled and generalised as technological determinists, working to discredit even the most promising trains of thought. Throughout the years McLuhan has been a catalyst in academic discussions on cultural shifts with relation to technological forms and media. His main concern was purely to identify these shifts, with the belief that they were brought about by technologies. McLuhan puts for a non-linear ‘mosaic’ way of interpreting new media which has been resisted fervently by the likes of Raymond Williams. His referral to the electric age as a new sort of primitivism, where everyone participates in a ‘global village’, along with his claims that “the medium is the message”, provokes Williams and other humanists taking part in the debate. Regardless of the plethora of criticisms McLuhan received, he went on to influence the thinking of the likes of Baudrillard, Virilio, Poster, Kroker and De Kerckhove. The culmination of all of their works surely should not be discredited on the grounds of one fallacy. Technological determinism is by no means an ideal characteristic of McLuhan’s theorising, but then McLuhan is not really considered a very good theorist by most. Regardless of this, he creates controversy. When there is controversy there is discussion and when there is discussion there is -most likely- enlightening conclusions. The deterministic perspective -regardless of its underlying fallaciousness- can, and should, be read into with an open mind. Williams’s evident victory in the academic community against McLuhan goes to discredit the majority of technological determinists. In the words of Walter Benjamin, “History is written by the victors.” Now, with the aforementioned ‘poster boy’ for technological determinism being seen as problematic and annoying, the same is often considered for those who improve and build upon his ideas. Because of this, many rich and untouched areas of debate and discovery are likely being neglected. Even McLuhan’s convoluted and messy conclusions have led to developments (especially in the 1990s) in new media, connectivity, media convergence, the network society, wired culture and interaction. The notion of a medium existing as an extension to oneself, and the descriptions which McLuhan makes of four differing media cultures (the primitive ‘oral’ culture, the co-existing culture of the phonetic alphabet, the culture of mechanical printing and the electric age) have been, and are still, relevant in academic communities.''' Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 10:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Section Discussion/ Additions
I think this is a great section, it reads well and could easily be put into the final essay. Perhaps just a few more direct quotes (or paraphrases) from McLuhan himself might add to the section further? MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 23:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure thing! I'll look into that. I'm not generally a big quoter, but if my final draft is lacking direction then I'll definitely take that into account! Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 15:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I have made some changes equating to about 120 or so extra words. Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 16:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It's looking good to me, looks like our 3 sections equal around 1700 words at the moment - we're struggling without that final section unfortunately - but maybe a few more additions to each section and a substantial intro and conclusion might bring us nearer 3000? MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 16:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Worry not, fellow wiki wizard, I will be adding content to my section and the introduction throughout the remainder of the deadline!Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 16:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I feel like whilst it is wise to aim for the 3000 word mark, we should not be REQUIRED to have the same level of content when we are down a group member. Normally, we could easily rattle off 1000 words each -that is nothing. But the fact that due to having no input or warning from Kjartan tightened our window to a day, should imply that we can have a slightly shorter essay. Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 16:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

In Defence of Determinism
Kjartanhaa (discuss • contribs) 13:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

'''Hannah Arendt (1958: 144) wrote; “tools and instruments are so intensely worldly objects that we can classify whole civilizations using them as criteria.”  Not only can we, but we frequently do speak in this fashion, ascribing technology to time periods; we address historical epochs or times in history as the “stone,” “iron,” “steam,” and “computer” ages. However, not only is history described in this way, but geographical areas are characterized by reference to technologies too. Nations are referred to technologies which have played a prominent developmental role and/or which are highly symbolic of their culture: Holland and windmills, the United States and cars, Japan and electronics. Robert Heilbroner (1994b) and David Edgerton (1999) argue that it is the availability of different machines that defines what it is like to live in a particular place and time. This becomes clear not only when looking back but if we study contemporary changes to technology and society. The advent of the computer, for example, shows how the fabric of society can change in a short period of time, affecting the daily lives of not only direct users but those who don’t possess computers as well. Everyone has to accommodate to the changes the computer has posed on either banks, libraries, super markets, post offices, schools, airlines, hospitals or the military (Leo Marx, Merritt Roe Smith (2001)). Another example Marx and Smith argue, of technology being the driving force of history can be seen in the printing press as a virtual cause of the reformation. Before its invention copies of the Bible were exclusively in the possession of the clergy; after Gutenberg, however, many individuals gained direct, personal access to the Word of God, on which the Reformation thrived. A strand of technological determinism, associated with the work of Ellul (1980), Marcuse (1964), and the Frankfurt School is that every generation produces a few inventors whose inventions appear to be both the determinants and stepping stones of human development. Unsuccessful inventions fall into the dust of history while successful ones quickly prove their value and are rapidly integrated into society, which they transform. In this way a technological breakthrough can be claimed to have detrimental consequences for society. This simplistic model is one which makes most sense of many people’s experience and hence it endures. For most people, most of the time, everyday technologies are unexplainable in origin as well as design. We have little or no idea of when they came about or how they work. As humans we simply adapt ourselves to their requirements and hope they continue to function in a predictable and positive way. One very misleading and dangerous aspect of technological determinism is its equation of technological change with progress (Leo Marx, 1994). When studying the many histories and contemporary case studies of technological change it becomes evident how unorderly and equivocal the processes of developing technologies are. One issue with technological determinism is that it leaves no space for human choice or intervention and, moreover, absolves us from responsibility for the technologies we make and use. The detonation of the atomic bomb can be seen as an inevitable consequence of technological change, unrelated to progress.

'''

Section Discussion/ Additions
Not trying to be pushy but maybe you should contribute if you don't want to fail! Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 14:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Could we possibly get draft of your section in ASAP? we are going to struggle in terms of final word count without it. MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 18:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yay! You're alive! On the one hand I'm happy that you've done your section but on the other I'm extremely worried because it's only really 12% of the module D: Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 17:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. I find this a total mess tbh. But anyway is there something I can do?

Sure man, there's an introduction and conclusion section that we are all contributing some sentences to. If you could add a little something to each referring to what your section discusses (which by the way, your section is amazing). That'd help us to have a better overall structure regarding the essay as a whole! Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 17:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a really great section, i really liked the Hannah Arendt introduction to the topic. I guess the best you could do is contribute as much as you can in the general discussion while we finalise all the details, and add to the conclusion and introduction with a sentence or two that relates to your section. Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 17:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be proactive and get some contributions going in the general discussion as well as conclusion, intro part.

Remember to add four tildes to your contribs, otherwise you won't be credited for any of the work! Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 17:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Great section, could you possibly add any sources you have used to the bibliography section just to bulk it up a bit? using APA referencing style. MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 17:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Essay Introduction/ Conclusion Discussion

 * This is a great start. Keep it going guys - we need to see lots of discussion recorded here for you to amass "conrtibs" which are used to evaluate engagement. GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

,, We should try and write up the introduction and conclusion for the essay collaboratively as well, we'll wait until all the sections are finalized then we can write up an introduction and conclusion together by all adding to the sections below. MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 17:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Should have my section of the essay up at some point today, regarding the intro/conclusion, since each one of our sections should have a clear meaning (and therefore conclusion) I reckon we should each contribute a sentence or so to the main body of the conclusion and intro in order to represent the essay as a whole in a decent way. Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 08:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

hey that sounds like a good idea Matthew then we can all draw from our sections and put together what should be a coherent conclusion to finish off the essay, not really sure what i would mention in my part however, should i just have a few sentences generalising what Technological Determinism is do you think ? Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 18:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Essentially what you have just now is pretty decent, I would just give it a look over and change some of the wording to seem less like an introduction and more like an in depth exploration of what determinism actually is and what makes it a controversial subject in the fields of media and cultural studies. Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 14:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Added a section. How does it sound you think?

Essay Introduction
'''In these collaborative sections (namely the introduction and conclusion segments) We should add individual sentences after, before or in-between those that others have posted and compile the final product together on the book page. Remember to sign off after you post something!''' Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 14:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, Technological determinism can be interpreted as a reductionist theory that assumes that a society's technology determines its cultural values and social processes. MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 20:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Technological determinism, when applied to cultural and media studies, has been the basis of great controversy for decades. Oftentimes scholars are discredited in a more contemporary setting (referring to post McLuhan/Williams) on the grounds of the fallaciousness that is usually associated with deterministic thought. Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 14:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Academics in the digital media field of study often have their potentially new and innovative theories not taken seriously or even discredited due to their ideas being labelled by others as falling within the idea of Determinism. Determinism potentially restricts the information available withing the digital media field of study due to it rendering other theories worthless. Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 15:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

'''Just as a bit of feedback, I think you should maybe avoid rhetorical questions. It seems somewhat counter productive where the essay is like an answer to a question and we are asking more. It doesn't really matter that much though I'm just being pernickety.''' Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 16:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

''' I think you are right i have altered it slightly, thanks for the feedback. Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 17:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

This collaborative piece will aim to pull from a wide variety of relevant research in order to present an overall definition of what Technological Determinism is. This piece will delve into that academic theories from prominent Determinists such as Mcluhan and Williams and present their conflicting arguments on the topic's validity. Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 18:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

One misleading aspect of technological determinism is its equation of technological change with progress. Rarely is technology based in values, but rather in ambiguous development. Kjartanhaa (discuss • contribs) 17:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Essay Conclusion
Overall, after reading into several different academic views on Determinism involving varying definitions of Determinism, the most objective definition appears to be the theory that technology develops autonomously and that developments in technology can alter culture and society in significant ways. Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 19:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

To conclude, it would be considered objective to say that Williams ‘wins’ the debate in an academic sense. However, this is irrelevant to the overarching statement evident in this work. Particularly, the more pressing matter is that it should not be about ‘winning’. Ultimately, the controversial debate between McLuhan and Williams has lead to a great deal of scholarly intrigue. This could not have been the outcome if McLuhan had -himself- existed in a post-McLuhan academic setting. This is to say that by considering the fallacy of technological determination as a metaphorical death-wish in the fields of cultural and media studies and subsequently giving no further attention to those who fall prey to the tempting logical liberties one can take with it, the debate is being silenced. With this silence of discussion, there also comes a silence of progress.

In defence of technological determinism, it can be said that even if it is critiqued as a reductionist theory the questions it answers is a reflection of most people's experience, therefore it endures as a theory. We as a specie are currently in a 'digital age' and it is our adaption to this age that determines 'success', something that has been true throughout history. However, this is only true in a darwinistic sense of progress, which is where the misleading and often dangerous equation of 'technological change' with progress arises. Kjartanhaa (discuss • contribs) 21:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a great finishing point for the conclusion Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 21:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

'''Here is a starting point for our conclusion. We should assume that Kjartan is just not going to do his section. Best case scenario, he uploads it at the last minute and we get him to make some changes to the conclusion to add some representation to his own findings on the topic''' Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 16:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Team Dowbergton General Discussion Section
Hi team Dowbergton!

I'm afraid that Matthew, Micael and Kjartan have not informed me of their usernames.

This is the discussion page for collaborative essay. Use this pages to edit in discussions, decision making, project planning, and information sharing. Invite other groups to add to the discussion, and contribute to others. Ask for advice from others and share your knowledge. This builds contribs considerably. Start off your discussion by recording your decision-making process re: your research question, email the lecturer to get approval/suggested amendments.Once that's done, you're away.

You can leave notifications for other users by using the reply to template (as I've used in this notice). You can also use your own and each other's discussion pages, as well as the main discussion page on the general theme page. All of this adds to contribs, which are essential to getting a pass mark for this assessment. Don't be tempted to use social media group chat or other platforms to do this. It won't be marked and really misses the entire point of the wiki.

Don't forget to use the four tildes (~) to sign and date your contribution. Every edit you make whilst signed in is still traceable, but a signature makes it much easier to track and respond, and much less likely that the edit will be mis-recognised as spam or vandalism. However: don't sign your edits on the essay page - it looks messy and is unnecessary.

Good Luck!
 * GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 19:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

This is the discussion section for the collaborative essay of the group Dowbergton,, , focusing on the topic of determinism. We will plan, organize & edit our ideas and arrange group meet ups. working towards the final collaborative essay here. Insert your content in the relevant sub-headed sections below. When editing someone else's post or making suggestions please use the Reply to Template to notify the author. Please always sign your contributions with the four tildes. MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 23:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the essay question? MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 12:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Well I was thinking we could perhaps evaluate technological determinism's use as a form of essentially silencing academic theories. Like "Oh I'm not going to give credit to this because it's technological determinism". And whilst that's true, and it is a pretty big issue, it does mean that we have a much more narrow field with which to study. Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 12:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

this seems like a good area to focus on, what exactly do you mean by the way Determinism silences academic theories ? Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 12:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 12:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

that sounds like a good area to focus on, what exactly do you mean by the way determinism silences academic theories ? Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 12:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Well my understanding is that oftentimes scholars will put forth a fairly interesting idea, overlooking the fact that they use a fallacy (in this case, determinism) and that purely for doing such, an opposed scholar will disregard the whole notion and discredit it as "fallacy" even though there are still some interesting ideas in the work. Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 12:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I feel like it's a good start, but I'd like to delve a bit deeper into other things as well. Not sure what, but I think we should come up with a few other topics to discuss Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 12:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I think we're on the right lines with that question, perhaps just narrow it down and assign different parts of the essay to group members? MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 12:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)}}

I did some work on this idea based off of an essay which I wrote. I'm not sure if I can link anything as my external hyperlinks are being refused, but I'd be happy to message you a link or give you a quick citation for the piece. Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 12:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

That would be great, perhaps a refined essay question could be "Does technological determinism serve to silence certain academic theories? MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 12:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

That seems like an interesting area to cover, the question is quite open so there would be a lot we could discuss. Does anyone have any examples we could refer to within the essay ? Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 12:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I feel like we would need a more narrow and refined question with a clearer goal. How about "Do accusations of technological determinism in any way restrict our access or understanding of important theories in digital media and culture?" Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 13:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

seems like a great question if we can focus on certain academic theories, any specific theories anyone would like to focus on ? Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 13:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Sounds brilliant, has a much clearer goal as you say, we should come up with a way of delegating different sections within the group since there is probably loads to look at.MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 13:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

We could discuss the way in which Williams disagrees with Marshall McLuhan's work by labelling it as technological determinism and explore whether or not (overlooking that flaw) there is merit to be found in his deliberations. And yeah, I think that is a good idea, should we take those ideas into the essay structure section of this page? Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 13:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, there must be plenty to choose from. MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 13:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

,, How's everybody getting on? Once we've all put our own sections in the essay structure section we should edit eachother's work if we have anything to add. Aiming to get my section and a few relevant references in over the next week! MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 21:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I’m getting on alright I’m bringing together different theorists definitions of Determinism, if anyone has any sources in mind that define determinism in different or conflicting ways it would be great if yous could send them in the references section for some extra information thanks. I also agree we would benefit from reading over and discussing each other’s work, think we could benefit from each other’s input. Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 00:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll just be adding in my section soon and then you guys can leave your thoughts/ideas for amendments - I'll look into those sources, would be good to end up with a pretty decent reference list by the end. MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 12:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I have been taking so long to send in my input, I have lots of other project work going on at the same time, however I should have my section added in by later on today. Hope this helps. 139.153.68.183 (discuss) 14:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Alright thats me posted a draft of my section, i have not completed the referencing yet and some finishing touches are required. Does anyone have any input they would like to add into my section or any critiques, also it is only 600 words at the moment and the essay has to be around 3000 words so i was wondering how you all are getting on and how many words we are looking at to see whether i need to add a substantial amount more. thanks. 139.153.68.183 (discuss) 21:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I think this section is brilliant, no need to worry about the references just as long as we have them all logged in the references section by tomorrow night we should be fine. I think the section is the perfect length we could even incorporate some of it into the essay introduction. MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 22:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey guys, so I've been working on a rough draft and I'll be working on making it a bit more readable today, I was thinking we should give everyone's section a read and some feedback at some point. If all of us give feedback on each teammate's section then by the end we'll have three insights into what we can quickly do to improve. Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 08:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree, I've struggled to find new information concerning my section, Williams' views on Technological Determinism are laid out but most sources just echo what I've already found. I think my section could use a bit more if anyone had anything to add. The Introduction to Technological Determinism section looks pretty complete to me. MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 13:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

If you are struggling to find additional information on Williams, perhaps we could discuss other relevant criticisms of Mcluhan's determinism ? Also thanks for the feedback I will correct my section with the finishing touches in the next day or so. Hope you are all getting on alright. 139.153.65.159 (discuss) 21:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

how are you getting along with your section ? Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 22:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, are you guys almost ready to upload your sections, just thinking as to whether my section is long enough as it is around 600 words and the length may need to be altered in order for us to fall into the 3000 word mark, thanks. Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 18:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I will aim to add to my section with another theorist's criticisms of technological determinism by the end of tomorrow to increase the word count. I think if we have anything we would like to add to eachother's sections just go for it, as long as we finalize the essay by the 4th we should be fine. MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 23:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you have an initial draft of your section almost ready? MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 23:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll have my word count up tonight guys! We should make plans to all log in at a certain time in unison tomorrow and churn out some criticisms and help and stuff to get everyone's section polished. Are you guys all free at -say- one o'clock tomorrow? We can do a "digital meet-up"! Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 11:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

i could also manage around one tomorrow, we just need to get everyone elses sections up so we can refine them and put together a short introduction to the essay and then a conclusion and make sure we fit within the word count, will yous have your sections up on the discussion part soon ? Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 14:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

hey guys i have uploaded my section into the book section of the page as i believe it to be pretty much complete unless Matthew has anything you would like me to alter ? Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 14:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, scott, how about we rename your segment to "Defining Determinism" and take some of your introductory points or aspects from your work and essentially appropriate it for the start of a collaborative intro Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 14:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

sounds good Matthew, i could manage around one also, we just need to get everyone's sections added and come to a general conclusion and make sure the essay fits withing the word count ! Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 14:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I've formatted the discussion-based aspects of the page in order to make them look a bit cleaner for those visiting! Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 14:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

sure that sounds like a good idea in order to get the intro section up and running, i'll start on it now, i am not entirely sure as to how much i can transfer over from my section, think you could give me a hand and we can make the introduction section together ? also thanks the section looks a lot cleaner now ! Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 14:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure thing Scott! It's you and I VS the world! Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 14:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Matthew, I think your section is more or less ready to be transferred to the book page as it is, it was only if you thought there was anything you wanted to add. MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 17:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

, I'm just working on adding further criticisms on my section and adding a couple more references to the bibliography. Once my section is complete if you guys want to add anything please do, then I'm happy to transfer the section to the book page.MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 17:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

, Okay guys that's my section updated, if you do want to add/discuss anything please do in the discussion/ additions section of my bit! MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 18:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

, Also I'm up for a digital meet up where we're all online and can make changes together, could we begin at around 3 though? If not you guys feel free to get started and I'll join in later on - I do worry about our word count a bit though if we don't get the final 'In Defence of Determinism' section in! As of now, our 3 sections equal 1530 words. MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 20:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

3 works for me! Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 12:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

also Matthew has not finished his section yet so when he finishes that we should have a decent word count, however Kjartan needs to get his section in soon in order for us all to come up with a conclusion as the rest of us do not know what he has been writing about, if anything! Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 12:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay no problem, once Matthew has updated his section we'll see where we are in terms of word count, still have the intro and conclusion remember! In terms of Kjartan's section it looks as though we just aren't getting it, I think the combined content of our 3 sections suitably touches on his topic though so we ma have to just delete his section and make sure our 3 sections incorporate ideas about defending determinism (which I think yours and Matthew's already do to some extent). MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 14:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, if we don't get Kjartan's section, maybe the best structure for the essay on the book page would be:

- Essay Introduction - Introduction to/ Defining Technological Determinism (Scott) - McLuhan and Other Determinists (Matthew) - Criticisms of Determinism (Raymond Williams and Others) (Me) - Essay Conclusion - References

Any thoughts? MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 14:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

yeah i like the look of that, me and Matthew made a start on coming up with an introduction so if there is anything you would like to add to that section relating to your section that would be great. In terms of Kjartan's section if we don't get anything soon you are right we will just need to put in a conclusion and perhaps inform Greg that our essay may be missing a section due to it ? Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 14:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay I'll add a few things to the introduction. I think the essay might not be too far off 3000 words even without Kjartan's section (we'll see once Matthew's finished his section), as long as we have a decent-sized introduction and conclusion - Kjartan's section would have been helpful but I think our three sections answer the question pretty well. I think it's clear from the discussion pages that we've tried to get in touch with Kjartan (I have also done so on Facebook and through his University e-mail) but he's not contributed all that much to discussion or the essay. MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 15:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

yeah there is not really much else we can do, when Matthew gets his section up if we all write a bit of the conclusion that relates to our own sections we should be fine Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 15:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay sounds like a plan. MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 15:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey guys! Sorry about that, I had initially planned to rattle off the final parts of my section last night but I had some unforeseen personal matters to tend to. Either way, I'll be working hard this afternoon and evening to help get everything ready for tomorrow! Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 15:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Got a little start on our collaborative conclusion! Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 17:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

PLUS, YA BOI HAS THAT MAD COLLAPSIBLE PAIRED TEMPLATE Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 17:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

This is it lad, everyone add something referring to their section to both the introduction and the conclusion section and let's split this popsicle stand Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 17:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I really like what you have done to overall appearance of the page, the collapsible titles make the page look a lot cleaner and easier to read so thanks. Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 17:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It is rather nice not having to squint at the screen while you scroll for 2 millennia to find something someone has tagged you in Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 17:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Loving the collapsible paired template very nice indeed! MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 17:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, we've got all four sections in and they all look ready to transfer to the book page! All I would say is if could add any sources he has used into the bibliography section? MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 17:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Should I add the definition from my section into the conclusion ? not sure if it is necessary as it feels like I am repeating myself, what are your thoughts on it ? Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 17:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah you could do, maybe just phrase it slightly differently but the conclusion is for summing up what's been said so you should be fine! MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 17:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay I've transferred our sections and the completed bibliography onto the book page and we're currently at a very respectable 2,210 words - a decent intro/conclusion should finish it off nicely! MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 17:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Alright, ill get working on that conclusion shortly, all in all i think after we have all added to the introduction, conclusion and bibliography we should be just about there. Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 17:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Yas team Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 18:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

That's the bibliography transferred. With the introduction added to the book page we're at around 2500 words (so feel free to add anything on there), so a conclusion of 500 words or more and we've done it! MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 18:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I have added a little bit to the conclusion, not sure if there is anything else i can really add other than an overall definition for Determinism, if we all add our parts to the conclusion that should be enough right ? Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 19:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I'd say so, I think 3000 is the advisory word limit, we certainly won't be far off. 92.6.145.114 (discuss) 19:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

yeah that is true, just need those other parts of the conclusion then and we are pretty much there just on to the final finishing touches, has everyone added their sources into the bibliography ? Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 19:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The bibliography looks finished. It's just the conclusion to go, I'll add a bit just now. MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 19:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

perfect, has everyone added to the conclusion ? Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 20:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

That's the whole essay copied into the book page. The word count currently is 2,602, so maybe what's best is to add anything else you want to bulk up the sections/ intro and conclusion on the book page directly. Once we're all happy we can write the final word count under the finished essay. MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 20:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

we have to aim to be between 10% of the 3000 so if we can get it to 2700 would be great, anyone got anything else they could add into the introduction or conclusion ? Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 20:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

That's us on 2,709, well done guys I think the essay reads well and is a cohesive final piece. MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 21:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

That is us at 2778 words and i agree the piece reads well as a whole so i would say that is our finished piece. Well done everyone! Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 21:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Good work everyone! Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 22:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Bibliography/ References
List of sources that will be used for the essay. Referencing system: APA. MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 23:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

''PETERS, JOHN DURHAM. "You Mean My Whole Fallacy Is Wrong": On Technological Determinism." Representations, vol. 140, no. 1, 2017, pp. 10-26. ''Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 13:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

''Freedman, Des (2010) A 'Technological Idiot'? Raymond Williams and Communications Technology, Information, Communication & Society, 5:3, 425-442, DOI: 10.1080/13691180210159346'' MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 22:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Williams, Raymond (1975), "Television: Technology and Cultural Form", Routledge: London. MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 22:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

''Lister, M., Dovey, J., & Giddings, S. (2008). New media: A Critical Introduction (2nd ed., pp. 77-85). Hoboken: Taylor & Francis. ''Mad00092 (discuss • contribs) 10:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

''Post, J., & Crone, V. (2014). Reporting Revolution. Digital Journalism, 3(6), 871-887.'' Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 17:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

''Dafoe, A. (2018). On Technological Determinism. A Typology, Scope Conditions, And A Mechanism.'' Scs00015 (discuss • contribs) 17:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

''Green, L. (2001). Technoculture: From alphabet to cybersexm, Allen & Unwin: London.'' MichaelGldbrg1 (discuss • contribs) 18:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Smith, M. and Marx, L (2001). Does Technology Drive History?. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, pp. 9-11 Kjartanhaa (discuss • contribs) 18:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Hackett, E. and Wyatt, S (2008). The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge, Mass,: MIT Press, pp. 167-170 Kjartanhaa (discuss • contribs) 18:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Arendt, H. (1958) The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Kjartanhaa (discuss • contribs) 18:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Ellul, J. (1980) The Technological System. New York: Continuum. Kjartanhaa (discuss • contribs) 18:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Marcuse, H. (1964) One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Boston: Beacon Press. Kjartanhaa (discuss • contribs) 18:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Visitor Comments
Hey team just wanted to say a big well done, I think we've all done massively well. Good luck to you all!MTxPrincipessa18 (discuss • contribs) 10:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK
General Feedback
 * Essays of this standard attain the following grade descriptor for the collaborative essay. Whereas not all of the elements here will be directly relevant to your particular response to the brief, this will give you a clearer idea of how the grade you have been given relates to the standards and quality expected of work at this level (although it ought to be noted that this work is at the lowermost end of the grade band):
 * Good. Among other things, work of this standard will make a clear point in a clear way. It will relate concepts to original examples in a straightforward fashion. It will make effective use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons). It may also demonstrate a broader understanding of the module's themes and concerns, and is likely to show evidence of reading and thinking about the subject material. The wiki markup formatting will be very clear.

Specific Feedback:


 * You have submitted a very well written response to the brief. Here you outline a number of arguments that specifically address the theme of Determinism, and your discussion of the research evidences a fairly in-depth working knowledge of a range of scholarship on your chosen topic. The research question that you have chosen to discuss your theme around isoddly phrased – “accusations” of tech determinism? Seems overly harsh on that approach, even though I sort of get why you took that stance, and I agree with a lot of what you write.


 * The essay is written in a fluid, discursive style, and your argument is fairly well structured. This work tends to be critically engaged, and you have demonstrated awareness of the contradictions inherent in the theme itself. This is fairly good work. A very important critique to note here is that parts of the page are made up of large chunks of undifferentiated text. Inclusion of embedded links and images would have helped break this up and make more of the platform’s affordances. A little more attention to detail, formatting and presentation would have been worth the effort. Another critique is that you spend a lot of time discussing McLuhan, who you quite rightly identify as a key influence, and yet you do not cite his work, nor include it in the references. After reading this essay, I am left wondering whether you have actually read Understanding Media? It seems to me a crucial oversight.


 * N.B.:Feedback for your Discussion, engagement and contribs elements for the assessment will be given on your individual User Discussion Pages. Grades for all work will communicated confidentially via Canvas.’’’

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)