Thesis (DSc (Sociology and Social Anthropology. Centre for Research on Science and Technology))—University of Stellenbosch, 2009. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: In this study the fundamental question about the technical relationship is investigated.
The term ‘technology’ was found to be misused out of contexts by various disciplinary
authors. Some authors used it for the notion that could better be described as artefacts.
Consequently what was called ‘technology transfer’ was little more than artefactual
transfer. Others concentrated on production and design that could better be described
by techno-practice. Still others confused so-called ‘technological knowledge’ with what
could be described as techno-knowledge and techno-literacy.
A survey of notions of the authors in the field of Science and Technology Studies
(STS), especially those that focussed on technology was done and it was found that the
following elements were identifiable: Techno-practice for the ‘practice’ of the making,
forming, designing and maintaining of artefacts. For this was required Technoknowledge,
for the know-how and experience in making, and maintaining these
artefacts. Furthermore the element of Techno-science for the technical science that
was recording knowledge from different sciences like mathematics, physics and
electronics etc. to help in the solutions of techno-practice was identified. Lastly technoliteracy
was distinguished from techno-knowledge, indicating the capability to use
artefacts without necessarily having the knowledge to fix them. Driving a car but not
being able to fix it sounds like a good example.
The result of techno-practice is normally an artefact. What was interesting, is that
many saw the result of technology as technology. Many associate an artefact with the
process of techno-practice under the term ‘technology’. An amazing paradigmparalysis
was found that could not distinguish the technical from the technological and
cannot be better illustrated than by the biased statement: “Clearly computers are
technology…” where-as clearly computers are artefacts, the result of a technical
design and production process.
Lastly the transcendental empirical method was used to consider the ontic
(transcendental) conditions required for this technical relationship and it was described
in an ontological, anthropological and societal framework. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: In die studie is die grondvraag na die tegniese verwantskap ondersoek. Daar is gevind
dat die term ‘tegnologie’ buite konteks misbruik word deur verskeie vakwetenskaplike
outeurs. Sommige gebruik dit vir wat beter aangedui kan word met die term artefakt.
Gevolglik is wat genoem was ‘tegnologie-oordrag’ eintlik beter beskryf met die terme
artefakt oordrag. Ander het konsentreer op produksie en ontwerp wat eintlik beter
beskryf kan word met die term tegno-praktyk. Sogenaamde ‘tegnologiese kennis’ is
verder verwar met wat eintlik beter beskryf kan word as tegniese kennis en tegniese
geletterdheid.
‘n Oorsig van terme en gebruike van outeurs in die veld van wetenskap en tegnologie
studies (STS) veral diegene wat op ‘tegnologie’ gekonsentreer het, het die volgende
elemente ge-identifiseer. Tegno-praktyk vir die praktyk van vervaardiging, ontwerp en
instandhouding van artefakte. Tegniese kennis (tegno-kennis) vir die ondervinding van
vorming en instandhouding van die artefakte. Tegniese wetenskap (tegno-wetenskap)
vir die wetenskap wat kennis aangaande die tegniese proses byeenbring uit ander
wetenskappe soos wiskunde, fisika en elektronika, byvoorbeeld om tegniese probleme
op te los en moontlikhede te skep. Laastens was tegniese geletterdheid onderskei
van tegniese kennis soos om ‘n motor te kan bestuur sonder om dit noodwendig te
kan herstel.
Die gevolg van tegno-praktyk is gewoonlik ‘n artefakt. Wat interessant was is die feit
dat verskeie die resultaat van ‘tegnologie’ as ‘tegnologie’ beskou het. Baie gevalle van
waar ‘n artefakt gelykgestel was aan die proses van tegno-praktyk was opgemerk
natuurlik onder die term ‘tegnologie’. ‘n Verbasende paradigma versteendheid was
gevind waar outeurs nie die onderskeid tussen die tegniese en tegnologiese kon
onderskei nie. In ‘n sekere sin kan dit nie beter geïllustreer word as die volgende
bevooroordeelde stelling dat dit tog ‘…duidelik is dat rekenaars tegnologie is…’ terwyl
dit ewe-eens duidelik is dat rekenaars eintlik artefakte is, die resultaat van ‘n ontwerp
en vervaardigingsproses.
Laastens is die transendentaal empiriese metode gebruik om die onties (transendentale)
struktuurvoorwaardes vir die tegniese verwantskap in ag te neem en daarna
is dit beskryf in ‘n ontologiese, (wysgerig) antropologiese en samelewingsraamwerk.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:sun/oai:scholar.sun.ac.za:10019.1/1073 |
| Date | 12 1900 |
| Creators | Fourie, Hercules Salmon |
| Contributors | Strauss, D.F.M., Mouton J., University of Stellenbosch. Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. Dept. of Sociology and Social Anthropology. Centre for Research on Science and Technology. |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
Page generated in 0.0556 seconds