The Case of Office Automation - CiteSeerX

The Effect of A Priori Views on the Social Implications of Computing: The Case of Office Automation R. A. HIRSCHHElM Oxford Institute

of Information

Management,

Templeton College, University

of Oxford, Oxford, U.K. OX1 5NY

Office automation impact has received considerable attention in the literature recently. Unfortunately, that which has appeared is diverse and contradictory. The relevant literature is reviewed, summarized, and placed in a framework containing three positions on office automation impact: optimism, pessimism, and relativism. The basic assumptions and empirical support for each position are noted and analyzed. It is proposed that these positions are based on a number of a priori views which guide the reporting and beliefs about technological impact. Categories and Subject Descriptors: H.4.1 [Information Systems Applications]: Automation; H.4.3 [Information Systems Applications]: Communications Applications; K.4.3 [Computers and Society]: Organizational Impacts

Office

General Terms: Human Factors, Management Additional Key Words and Phrases: Bureaucratic rationalism, communication, employment, information systems, office automation, power, privacy, productivity, quality of work life, social and ethical acceptability, social implications of computing, social implications of office automation

of the tasks they performed would be taken over by computers. Rhee [1968], in an asOver the years there has been considerable sessment of the available evidence, drew interest in the effects of computerization the same conclusion. Whisler [ 19701noted, on the individual, organizations, and soci- through his study of 20 insurance compaety. Much of the interest stems from the nies, that computerization led to a further apparently limitless number of areas to centralization of control by top managewhich the computer has been applied and ment. Klatzsky [1970], in a similar study, the consequent changes it has brought to. found the reverse; computers led to a the work that people perform. Predictions decentralization of decision making and and reports of how work has been, or will control. Hunt and Newell [1971], in a be, changed abound. They can be traced to comprehensive review of the available litas far back as the late 195Os,when people erature, contended that the various presuch as Hoos [ 19601and Leavitt and Whis- dictions on the effects of computers had ler [1958] speculated on how computers been grossly overstated. They saw no eviwould affect administrative functions in dence to suggest that computers had any the office. They predicted that the jobs of particular effect; rather, they were “neumiddle management would become more tral elements which could be fitted into routinized and structured, and that many the organization to support whatever INTRODUCTION

Permission to copy without fee all or part of this material is granted provided that the copies are not made or distributed for direct commercial advantage, the ACM copyright notice and the title of the publication and its date appear, and notice is given that copying is by permission of the Association for Computing Machinery. To copy otherwise, or to republish, requires a fee and/or specific permission. 0 1986 ACM 0360-0300/86/0600-0165 $00.75 Computing

Surveys, Vol. 18, No. 2, June 1986

166

l

R. A. Hirschheim

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1. PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH ANALYZING OFFICE AUTOMATION IMPACT 2. OFFICE AUTOMATION: A SPECIAL CASE OF COMPUTING 3. OFFICE AUTOMATION LITERATURE CLASSIFICATION 4. ALTERNATIVE VIEWS OF OFFICE AUTOMATION IMPACT 5. THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES OF THE ALTERNATIVE VIEWS 5.1 Philosophical Roots 5.2 Pragmatic Roots 5.3 Additional Underlying Differences 6. SURVEY OF THE IMPLICATIONS 6.1 The Optimist Position 6.2 The Pessimist Position 6.3 The Relativist Position 7. ANALYSIS 8. CONCLUSIONS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES

basic managerial philosophy existed” [Hunt and Newell, 1971, p. 421. More recent studies come to the same conclusion [Buchanan and Boddy 1983; Child 1984; Warner 19841. This is likely to be the view held by Attewell and Rule, who, in an updated review of the literature, suggest that no particular cause-effect relationship exists. They state: There is no reason why computing should not result in deskilling in some settings and the enhancement of job content elsewhere.. . . [W]e see no reason to believe that any simple set of theoretical relationships can account for all the data one might expect empirical inquiry to bring to life on these subjects. [Attewell and Rule, 1984, p. 11901

Simon goes so far as the contend that there has been a distinct decline in the interest in the effects of computerization: It is significant that most of the studies on the impact of office automation were carried out in the middle sixties, when the technology was new and its possible impact hard to anticipate. Today, when automation is far more widespread than it was at the time the studies were made, we hear very little about its effects. Perhaps the reason is that, once the changes had been introduced and Computing Surveys, Vol. 18, No. 2, June 1986

initial disturbances had had time to work themselves out, there was not much to study. [Simon, 1977, p. 941

The view held by Simon, however, is not necessarily shared by all. New technological developments have a habit of capturing people’s imagination and promoting images of dramatic changes. Database systems were thought by some to be a development that would revolutionize the way in which management made decisions (cf. Nolan [1973] and Scott [1976]). Similar dramatic claims have been made for decision support systems [Keen and Scott Morton 1978; Sprague 19801, microcomputers [Evans 1979; Toong and Gupta 19821, artificial intelligence [Feigenbaum and McCorduck 1983; Hayes and Michie 19831, and factory [Ayres and Miller 1982; automation Bylinksy and Moore 19831. One of the latest technological developments, which has caused a surge in interest in the effects of new information technology, is office automation (OA). There is widespread agreement that its effects will be both marked and pervasive. There is, however, widespread disagreement on what those effects will be. As can be noted with a casual perusal of the literature, there are widely different views on the implications of OA. Some see it as the vehicle for “bringing the office into the twentieth century” and providing improved productivity, quality of working life, communication, job satisfaction, and so on. Others see jobs deskilled, job satisfaction and quality of working life degraded, personal privacy decreased, and the like. The purpose of this paper is to explore, in some detail, the area of office automation impact.’ The contention proposed here is that the reason for such markedly different peri In this paper the term “impact” is used synonymously with implications, consequences, and effects. When used on its own (without a modifier), it refers to the conceived changes-typically in terms of productivity, work, employment, communication, and the quality of work life-brought about by the implementation and use of office automation. It reflects a “cause-effect” relationship, where office automation is the cause and “impact” the effect. Elsewhere [Hirschheim 1985a; Klein and Hirschheim 19831 it is argued that such a cause-effect notion tends to portray office automation in a very simplistic, deterministic fashion, namely, OA has particular consequences. As it is hoped that this

Social Implications of Office Automation ceptions on OA impact has more to do with the values and a priori beliefs held by the particular commentator/observer than any empirical reality. These beliefs affect the type of research methodology chosen to study impacts, which in turn affects the type of results that the researcher finds. To put it differently, values and beliefs have a direct bearing on the choice of knowledge acquisition instruments (i.e., the “lens” through which the world is perceived), which influences what is seen. In order to appreciate better the literature on the impact of office automation, it is important to understand these a priori views, which underlie the perceptions of the observers. These views, it is postulated, exist independently of any particular information technology. However, in order to understand how they relate to the reporting of technological implications, the specific case of office automation is examined. In the next section of this paper we look at some of the problems associated with analyzing the area of OA impact. The area of office automation is briefly explored in Section 2-what it is and why its effects might be different from those expected from computer-based information systems. Section 3 provides a framework for classifying the literature on OA impact. Three primary alternative views are discussed in terms of their philosophical and pragmatic roots in Section 4. Section 5 explores some additional underlying differences between these views in terms of politics, volition, and technology development. Section 6 surveys the literature on OA impact, and Section 7 offers some thoughts about the research undertaken so far, the need for further research, and proposals on the kind of research needed. 1. PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH ANALYZING OFFICE AUTOMATION IMPACT

Because of the newness of office automation, there is not a great deal of empirical evidence by which to judge what its effects paperpointsout,thereis much more to understanding “office automation impact” than simply looking at particular technologies or applications and expecting certain effects, even though the vast majority of the literature portray OA impacts in such a simplistic way.

l

167

are likely to be. That which does exist tends to be contradictory or can be interpreted in many different ways. There are additional problems. First, there is the problem of separating office automation from computing. That is, is there a difference between the effects caused by the introduction of computers and that of office automation? Second, how are such effects measured? Anecdotes and case histories are common, but they often lack the rigor and empirical grounding of laboratory and survey studies. Moreover, measuring impact is extremely problematic; it is very difficult (indeed in some cases impossible) to “prove” that a particular cause (e.g., the introduction of a computer) has a particular effect (e.g., an increase in productivity). Was it the introduction of the computer that had that effect or something else? Third, much of the literature that does exist on the implications of office automation can be summarized as either single case studies, which report on the effects in a specific instance, or impressionistic reviews, which adopt a particular focus. The latter normally promote either a favorable or unfavorable view of office automation. There are few reviews that attempt to cover the broad spectrum of office automation impact. Fourth, “implications” frameworks are rare and not grounded in any epistemological sense. Kling’s [ 19801 “systems rationalism versus segmented institutionalism” framework is one exception. Here Kling notes six different perspectives that can be used to analyze the effects of computing: rational, structural, human relations, interactionist, organizational politics, and class politics. Even Kling, however, neglects the epistemological and ontological stances that each of these perspectives implicitly adopts. Another major complication in dealing with OA impact is that most of the reported empirical studies have focused on “incidents” or applications of office automation, not complete systems. For example, a number of studies have explored the implications of word processing, the results of which are thought to be OA impacts. The difficulty, of course, is extrapolating the consequences of a specific application or technology (e.g., word processing or electronic mail) to all of office automation. Computing Surveys, Vol. 18, No. 2, June 1966

168

.

R. A. Hirschheim

Although these problems exist, it is felt that some meaningful treatment of office automation impact is still possible. 2. OFFICE AUTOMATION: A SPECIAL CASE OF COMPUTING

There is considerable disagreement over what the term “office automation” means. To some it is a new type of information technology that is markedly different from what was available in the past. Others conceive of it as little more than the application of new technology to the geographical area generally referred to as “the office.” Leaving aside the delicate issue of what actually constitues “the office,” it is sufficient to note that there is a considerable weight of literature that promotes a difference between computing and office automation. For example, writers such as Dodswell [1983], Ellis and Nutt [1980], Hammer and Sirbu [ 19801, Olson and Lucas [ 19821, Tapscott [1982], Uhlig et al. [ 19791, and Zisman [1978] all note a difference between office automation and computing. The general view is that computer-based information systems are thought to focus on automating manual processes and/or providing management whereas office automation information, focuses more on the provision of individualized tools, such as word processing and electronic spreadsheets, for the office worker. Other differences, as noted by Bracchi and Pernici [1984], are in terms of the kinds of activities supported, usage characteristics, and interconnection of elements. The definition of office automation offered in Hirschheim [1985a, p. 161 is suggestive of some basic difference: Office automation, in its current form, refers to the application of integrated computer, communications and office product technologies, and social science knowledge to support the myriad activities and functions in an office or office environment.

Although there may indeed be differences between office automation and computing, it is the contention of this paper that these differences do not materially alter the a priori views held about impact. These views exist independent of any particular Computing

Surveys, Vol. 18, No. 2, June 1986

application or technology. And it is these views that are at the foundation of the literature on OA implications. Thus, for the purposes of this paper, it is sufficient to treat OA as a special case of computing. (See Section 7 for a further elaboration of this point.) 3. OFFICE AUTOMATION CLASSIFICATION

LITERATURE

The studies reporting on office automation impact vary in terms of empirical validity; some are little more than anecdotes, others are based on elaborate laboratory experiments. It is possible to divide the literature along two dimensions: methodological base and specificity. Methodological base refers to the underlying research method used to elicit information about impact and can be partitioned into two categories: empirical (in the sense that it is guided by experience and observation) and nonempirical (or intuitive). The latter tend to be impressionistic reports on how office automation is likely to affect individuals and organizations, and the former more quantitative studies (employing questionnaires, laboratory experiments, and the like) reporting on the implications of one or more applications or technologies. Specificity refers to whether a study is specific to one particular application or technology or aspecific, covering a broad spectrum. The former are those studies that examine impact in terms of how a specific office automation technology or application has affected a particular environment, for example, individual, organizational, or societal; the latter are usually reviews that examine impact across a wide spectrum of office automation applications and technologies. These dimensions are really complementary and can be mapped onto one another to produce a framework that permits the office automation impact literature to be classified. Figure 1 depicts this diagrammatically. It can be noted that there are few studies that are of an empirical base and review (i.e., aspecific) in nature. This perhaps underscores the difficulty in assessing OA implications.

Social Implications

of Office Automation

Methodological Specificity Specific Application

Empirical

Technology Aspecific

169

base Nonempirical

Christie [1981], Edwards 119771. Hiltz and Turoff [ 19811, Leduc [1979], Zuboff [ 19811 MSC [1982], G’Neal [ 19761 L

l

.,

Olson and Lucas [1982]

Brandt [ 19831, Carlisle 119761, Jones [ 19821, _’ Rank Xerox [1983], Rule et al. [1980a] Arnold [ 19801, Blackey [ 19801, Downing [1980], Kelly [1979], Sherman [1980] Abraham [1981], Burns [1984], Evans [1979], Forester [1980], Gregory and Nussbaum [ 19821, Martin [ 19811, Matteis [ 19791, Poppel [ 19821, Toffler [ 19801

Literature and the specific area of study: Carlisle [1976]-computer-mediated work; Rule et al. [1980]messaging; databases; Christie [1981], Ed wards [1977], Hiltz and Turoff [1981], Leduc [1979]-electronic Brandt [1983], Jones [1982], Rank Xerox [1983], Zuboff [1981]-homeworking (computer-mediated work in general); Arnold [1980], Blackey [1980], Downing [1980], Kelly [1979], MSC [1982], O’Neal [1976], Sherman [1980]-word processors. Abraham [1981], Burns [1984], Evans [1979], Forester [1980], Gregory and Nussbaum [1982], Martin [1981], Matteis [1979], Olson and Lucas [1982], Poppel [1982], and Toffler [1980] were unspecific to any particular application or technology. Office automation was discussed as a whole. Figure 1.

4. ALTERNATIVE VIEWS OF OFFICE AUTOMATION

Office automation

IMPACT

Much of what has been written about office automation and its likely effects is little more than speculation. That which is of a more substantial nature, and the subject of this review, can be said to reflect one of three alternative positions on impact; optimism, pessimism, and relativism. These positions represent broad viewpoints about the nature of change and its effects on individuals, organizations, and society. They reflect, to some degree, an underlying value position about technological change-its rightness or wrongness-and how society might or should deal with it. The values are not manifest but intrinsic to the view held. Individuals may not even be aware that the view they hold has a particular value position. The optimist position asserts that the new information technology will increase the productivity of both managers and staff, create at least as many jobs as it destroys, increase organizational effectiveness, and create exciting new varieties of work. Communication will be enhanced,

implications

framework.

the quality of working life will improve with fewer menial tasks and more leisure, and medical facilities, television, mail delivery, home life, travel, and education will all be improved through the use of new information technology. The pessimist position contends that office automation will do little to increase the office productivity of professionals, since their jobs are too unstructured to automate, and any increased productivity of clerical workers will result in widespread clerical job losses. There is a belief that the overall effect of OA will be the creation of unemployment, that the remaining work will be deskilled, yielding less job satisfaction, and that the general quality of working life will be deleteriously affected. The pessimist also contends that office automation will lead to a further centralization of power and a lessening of personal privacy and freedom. Information technology is perceived as simply the latest in a stream of tools and techniques that are used to maintain control over the workers. The relativist position is neither optimistic nor pessimistic, but a compromise between the two. It proposes that possibilities Computing Surveys, Vol. 18, No. 2, June 1986

170

l

R. A. Hirschheim

created by office automation are positive or negative, depending on the way in which the technology is put to use. The relativist, therefore, is concerned with developing criteria for social and ethical acceptance of office automation, and the application of “acceptable” technologies in appropriate circumstances. It is not so much the technology but the underlying values behind its implementation that are critical. These three positions on the impact of office automation are somewhat overstated and oversimplified; they are really generalizations or archetypes (cf. Mitroff [ 19831). Although they appear distinct from one another, this distinction is sometimes blurred; reality is always more complex. Nevertheless, as the following section shows, these views do have a strong theoretical foundation. Moreover, as a means of summarizing and categorizing fundamental stances on OA impact, they provide a useful basis by which to explore the organizational and social consequences of office automation. 5. THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES OF THE ALTERNATIVE VIEWS 5.1 Philosophical

Roots

The three views on office automation impact have a firm rooting in philosophical tradition. Each makes certain epistemological and ontological assumptions that lead to the adoption of a particular scientific paradigm.2 No view or position on impact can avoid making philosophical assumptions, because each has a need for knowleach involves some edge acquisition; process of inquiry. Ontological assumptions are concerned with the nature of the world around us, in particular, the “slice” of reality that the researcher chooses to address. There are two basic ontological positions: realism and nominalism. Realism postulates ’ Paradigms are defined by Burrell and Morgan [1979] as “metatheoretical assumptions about the nature of the subject of study.” This differs somewhat from Kuhn’s [1970] classic conception of paradigms, which were defined as “universally recognized scientific achievements that for a time provide model problems and solutions to a community of practitioners.”

Computing Surveys, Vol. 18, No. 2, June 1986

that the universe comprises objectively given immutable objects and structures. These exist as empirical entities, on their own, independent of the observer’s appreciation of them. In contrast, nominalism holds that reality is a subjective construction of the mind. Socially transmitted concepts and names direct how reality is perceived and structured; reality therefore varies with different languages and cultures. What is subjectively experienced as an objective reality exists only in the observer’s mind. Epistemological assumptions are concerned with the nature of knowledge and how it is acquired. There are two principal positions: positivism and antipositivism. Positivism approaches inquiry by concentrating on the explanation and prediction of observable phenomena through the identification of causal laws, which are presumed to govern the observed sequence of events. It espouses the notion of the unity of science; that is, the adopted inquiry process is deemed valid for both the natural and social world. Empiricism is typically equated with positivism even though they are not strictly synonymous (cf. Hirschheim [1985b]). It is also often associated with deductive reasoning. Antipositivism, on the other hand, denies the appropriateness of the causal model for understanding social or human action except for physiological responses. It holds the belief that when a scientist applies concepts to a particular domain of inquiry, there is an intrinsic dependence on some socially preconditioned understanding of this action. Knowledge about the domain of inquiry can only be improved through the application of the point of view of the individuals directly involved in the activities studied. Knowledge, therefore, is relative to the historical frame of reference of the scientist and the participants. Whatever method of inquiry the scientists try to use, it is necessary for the results to be understood from the subjective vantage point of the insider rather than from the interpretation of objective measurements taken by some outsider. Antipositivism is sometimes associated with an inductive reasoning process.

Social Implications Certain enistemological and ontological assumptions naturally coexist together-and form common scientific paradigms: realism/positivism, the functionalist paradigm; and nominalism/antipositivism, the interpretiuist paradigm. These paradigms lie at the two extremes of a continuum of assumptions about (approaches to) knowledge acquisition. Burrell and Morgan [1979] refer to the former as objectivism, and the latter as subjectivism. They provide the framework for obtaining knowledge, and can briefly be described as follows: Functionalism. Knowledge is obtained through the application of the scientific method. The functionalist’s position is based on four pillars: (a) the belief in the unity of the scientific (hypothetical-deductive) method; (b) the search for causal relationships; (c) the belief in empiricism; that is, that experience of the senses is the only source of knowledge; (d) that science (or its process) is value free. Knowledge, tainty.

for the functionalist,

has cer-

Interpretivism. Knowledge is conditional: it is a communal achievement and is relative to time and space. Knowledge is thus a matter of community acceptance and agreement. The scientific method used to acquire knowledge is also a matter of communal agreement and has more to do with a creative search to better understand than the application of some well-used quantitative technique. The means by which knowledge is acquired is of direct relevance to the view held on office automation impact. Beliefs about the likely effects arise from the interpretation of and desire for certain types of information. Those holding an optimistic view of office automation tend to be technologically minded and motivated, and perceive knowledge acquisition within the context of the “scientific method.” This seems to reflect the technological imperative that the optimist believes in. Exhibiting a strong predilection toward

of Office Automation

l

171

technology, the optimist naturally adopts a functionalist scientific paradigm since this reflects the ethos of the technologist. The history of technological thought drives the optimist’s education and enculturation process such that he or she believes in the notion of a single method of scientific inquiry. The approach is suitable and used for the acquisition of knowledge about both the natural (physical) and human world. This is the belief in the unity of the scientific method (“scientism” according to Klein and Lyytinen [1985]) that governs technological thought. For further details see Boguslaw [ 19651, Cooley [1980], Kraft [ 19771, Mowshowitz [ 19761, and Weizenbaum [1976]. Moreover, the optimist notes that technology is intrinsically neutral; its analog in the adopted scientific paradigm is that science is value free. Those adopting a pessimistic view of the impact of office automation not only differ in terms of what they expect the effects to be, but also in how such knowledge can be acquired. The pessimist often questions the validity of the “scientific method” and wonders whether this approach can lead to a “real” understanding of human and mental phenomena. This concern is shared by many contemporary social scientists; see, for example, Berger and Luckmann [ 19661, Burrell and Morgan [1979], Clegg and Dunkerley [1980], Glaser and Strauss [ 19671, Halfpenny [ 19791, and Van Maanen [ 19791. The pessimist worries that the realist/positivist method of inquiry treats a person as just another research subject, no different from an inanimate object, even though human beings possess properties completely different from other objects, for example, free will. The writings of the classic antipositivist philosophers support the pessimist’s concern as they contend that the acquisition of knowledge about people requires a different scientific approach. For the pessimist, the use of the “scientific method” to obtain knowledge on human phenomena would likely lead to the distortion of truth. Yet the pessimist notes that this is precisely what technologically minded researchers do. This gives rise to what Horkheimer [ 19471 called “instrumental reason,” which is the analytical and

Computing

Surveys, Vol. 16, No. 2, June 1966

172

.

R. A. Hirschheim

logical reasoning process used to acquire knowledge and solve problems. Leavitt [1964] notes it is built on “a kind of faith in the ultimate victory of better problem solutions over less good ones . . . a preFreudian fixation on rationality” (quoted in Bjorn-Andersen and Eason [1980, p. 1071). Their intentions may be good, but history, the educational system, and the enculturation process all lead to a blinding of the implications of their research and the limitations of their adopted scientific approach. Often they are even unaware that alternative scientific paradigms exist and that their own paradigm has serious philosophical flaws. It is therefore not surprising that the pessimist tends to opt for an alternative scientific paradigm, one that is antithetical to the optimist’s. The one most likely to be chosen is that of interpretivism since this puts human understanding at the heart of its scientific inquiry process. Moreover, interpretivism postulates that technology is not neutral. (It should be noted that the pessimist’s line of reasoning is also based on historical grounds and may draw heavily on the writings of Marx; cf. Braverman [ 1974].)3 For the office automation relativist, the issue of knowledge acquisition and the appropriate scientific paradigm is less clear. The relativist, in general, recognizes the weaknesses of the hypothetical-deductive method for obtaining knowledge about the social world and therefore leans more toward subjectivist approaches. Often the scientific paradigm adopted is something of a 3 It must be noted that this conjecture is somewhat at odds with the nosition ado&ad bv Burrell and Morgan [1979], who posit that radical or-dialectic materialism embraces a more objectivist view of knowledge acquisition. The view adopted here is that, although Marxists often do use objectivist methods of knowledge acquisition, they need not do so. It is not uncommon for them to switch between objectivism and subjectivism, depending on the issue at hand. In other words, the choice of the knowledge acquisition approach varies with circumstances (although the dominant form is indeed obiectivism). Additionally, it must also be pointed out that pessimists need not .be Marxists. In fact, the arguments raised by the pessimists, although consistent with general radical materialist writings, are not driven by them. The arguments quite naturally emerge when a more interpretivist approach to knowledge acquisition is adopted.

Computing

Surveys, Vol. 18, No. 2, June 1986

compromise between functionalism and interpretivism, for example, symbolic interactionalism, action frame of reference, or an equivalent. The approach taken normally reflects a desire to use some compromise to the two main alternatives. The relativist is aware of the historical and cultural reasons behind the optimist’s adherence to functionalism and the pessimist’s use of interpretivism. The relativist’s hope is to transcend them and provide a fresh alternative that is based more on the contextual factors of acquiring human knowledge than on historical arguments. It must be stated that the link between “view of office automation impact” and “scientific paradigm” is neither as clear-cut nor as strong as the above discussion might imply. Pessimists do not always embrace interpretivism nor optimists functionalism. Relativists usually favor more subjectivist paradigms, but this is not always the case. The link is a conceptual one, based partly on historical grounds and partly on practical application. Certain scientific paradigms lend themselves to certain arguments and points of view. 5.2 Pragmatic

Roots

In addition to the philosophical underpinnings of the three alternative views, there is a pragmatic aspect that notes that an essential criterion for determining the value of these views lies in the practical consequences they bring about. It is important to look at how the views perceive, interpret, and treat the two underlying components of impact: technology and man (i.e., the user of the technology). It is possible to describe their approach to impact in terms of root metaphors-one for technology, one for man. (The concept of root metaphor is taken from Pepper [1942]; however, its use here is somewhat more limited.) For the optimist, the root metaphors are technology as a tool, man as craftsman. Technology is thought to be a tool in the hands of the workers. It is used when and where appropriate, to make their work more efficient and to raise the quality of life in general. The tool is of itself neutral and can be used in many ways. Man is

Social Implications Table 1.

Comparison

l

Relativist

Ontology

Realism