What is technology, really?
A first foray into the nature of technology
Welcome to the second issue of the Evolving Impact newsletter, a weekly exploration of technology, culture, and complexity in global development and humanitarian aid.
Dear reader,
Over the next few weeks I’ll be exploring the nature of technology and innovation, in general, and within the context of development and humanitarian innovation, in particular. I’m going to start by parachuting into the middle of the metaphorical forest, and I will then try to find my way out in order to explore more practical territory in forthcoming issues.
In recent years and recent jobs I have often found myself pushing the line that “innovation is not just about technology.” In this story, innovation is not only for those working at the frontiers of technology; it is also for those of us for whom Python is a snake and Swift is a pop singer. Innovation is social as well as technological.
It turns out this is both true and not true, depending on how you define technology — and there is no clear consensus. Most of us have an intuitive sense of what we mean by ‘technology.’ We think about cutting-edge products, such as mobile phones, or software, such as AI. But what connects these technologies with older technologies such as the airplane, the steam engine, or even the wheel? What about with ‘frugal’ technologies, such as the Mitticool powerless fridge?
Today’s issue will focus on three interrelated points: (1) technologies serve a purpose; (2) technologies are grounded in natural phenomena; and (3) technologies are replicable. I will also touch briefly on some implications and relevance for the future direction of this newsletter, especially in light of the critiques of humanitarian innovation covered in last week’s issue.
Starting with purpose, it’s pretty obvious that all technologies do something useful. The Oxford Dictionary refers to technologies serving “practical purposes.”1 While the driver of technological development is often understood to be improvements in economic productivity, technologies are invented for lots of reasons other than profit, including military advantage and to address social needs.2
Digging a bit deeper, in Diffusion of Innovations the sociologist and communications theorist Everett Rogers defines technology as "a design for instrumental action that reduces uncertainty in the cause-effect relationships involved in achieving a desired outcome."3 Oof. Stay with me. Put another way: technologies improve the reliability of achieving particular outcomes.
In The Nature of Technology, the complexity economist W. Brian Arthur takes a different perspective but makes a closely related point. Arthur explains how all technologies, at their root, exploit natural phenomena.4 This might not seem immediately intuitive for complex technologies, but Arthur shows how such technologies combine many principles which each make use of natural phenomena.
Some examples: the wheel exploits the phenomenon of friction, reducing resistance and allowing heavy objects to be moved more easily; steam engines exploit the properties of steam and the principle of pressure difference; airplanes exploit the principles of propulsion via internal combustion and lift from aerofoils; and mobile phones and AI exploit a whole range of phenomena in electronics, logic, and many other domains.5
Today, the harnessing of phenomena is often achieved through science, but it is not necessarily achieved through science. The full Oxford Dictionary definition of technology is “the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes.”6 But the idea that technology is simply applied science is heavily disputed.7 Many technologies are developed by uncovering principles and putting them into practice through ways of reasoning that would not be considered scientific, for example, the largely trial-and-error reasoning that resulted in the Wright Brothers’ first flight.8
Arthur’s idea applies equally in social contexts. For example, in Thinking Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman details a large number of behavioural phenomena, in the form of heuristics and biases.9 This is also explored in Nudge, by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, which details the policies and practices that exploit such behavioural phenomena for positive outcomes such as improved retirement savings or better health choices.10
This leads us to another interesting point: By Roger’s definition there is nothing in the nature of technologies that is unique to what we intuitively think of as technologies; technologies can be physical or social. This position is supported by another complexity economist, Eric Beinhocker, who differentiates between ‘physical technologies’ and ‘social technologies’ while recognising that they share the same core characteristics.11
Arthur, however, limits use of the word ‘technology’ to technologies that exploit purely physical phenomena, noting that “the signature of standard technology—what makes us recognize something as a technology—is that it is based upon a physical effect [rather than a behavioural effect].”12 Instead, he considers “standard technology” as a sub-class of “purposed systems” — a grouping which includes both physical and social technologies.13
This understanding of technology as “phenomena captured and put to use”, in Arthur’s words,14 is what accounts for the reduction of uncertainty in achieving desired outcomes, as per Rogers’ definition of technology, and ultimately enables replicability with fidelity — which brings us to the last point about the nature of technology that I will make today.
If we go back to Rogers’ definition he characterises technology in terms of “design”. In The Origin of Wealth Eric Beinhocker similarly argues that the design is the technology, because it is designs that are replicated, not technologies themselves.15 This speaks to the critical importance of codification, in the form of theories of change, manuals, toolkits etc., as well as knowledge management practices and cultural transmission mechanisms, in the development and spread of technologies.
Back to the beginning: In the second paragraph I suggested that innovation can be either technological or social in nature. If you take Rogers’ conception of technology at face value, innovations are purely technological in nature. In fact, Rogers treats the terms ‘innovation’ (noun) and ‘technology’ as synonymous.16 But, of course, Rogers’ conception of technology, along with that of Beinhocker, does actually include both physical and social technologies.
In Bruder and Baar’s systematic literature review of humanitarian innovation, technology (and telecommunications) was the most frequently covered theme.17 They continue: “The concept of innovation can be applied to almost all specialised areas and may include technology, but it is not reducible to technology.”18 Arguably, it is, but only in this broader sense of technology as “phenomena captured and put to use,” including both physical and social technologies.
What I find both satisfying and useful about this conception is that it describes a clear set of similarities in the nature of both low-tech and high-tech physical technologies, and in both physical technologies and social technologies, and therefore allows us to continue with a firm footing. In future issues I intend to use this as a starting point to show how the various ‘objects of innovation’ suggested in the humanitarian innovation literature, such as products, services, processes, positions, paradigms, and business models, are ultimately connected, and the implications for innovation in practice.
Moving forward, I will use the language of ‘technologies’, including both physical and social technologies, rather than ‘innovations’, as I think it is useful to keep in mind the nature of technologies — in this broad but well-defined sense — and the focus on replicability. Arguably, this gives character to innovation as a particular mode of social change, separate to theories of social change that foreground power and politics. Although, as we exit the forest, that difference might begin to fade.
What else?
🔮 UNDP’s excellent Signals Spotlight 2024 highlights emerging trends in development, organised across three chapters on equitable futures, responsible technology, and resilient and connected communities. In want of good news, I particularly enjoyed the positive signals in the themes of Fair Shares, Multi-Species Justice, and Eco-nomic Futures. Fascinating.
🪰 When I was at Elrha we supported an IFRC project, covered in Stanford Social Innovation Review, that surfaced an idea to use black solider flies to reduce organic waste. In recent news, a team of Australian scientists is genetically engineering solider flies to consume more of humanity’s organic waste and turn it into useful products (covered in The Guardian)
🔮 Understanding tipping points, or critical transitions, is important to understanding social change, as frequently discussed on From Poverty to Power, and in an article by Roman Krznaric I recommended last week. Advances in AI mean we might soon be able to predict tipping points before they happen, with potential applications in epidemiology and disaster mitigation and response (covered in The Economist)
🖼️ If you happen to be in London I highly recommend the Francis Alÿs exhibition, ‘Ricochets’, currently on at The Barbican. From the exhibition guide: “For the last two decades Alÿs has travelled to over 15 countries around the world to film children’s games…Recording the universality and ingenuity of play, the series foregrounds social interactions which are in decline due to rapid urbanisation, the erosion of communities and the prevalence of digital entertainment.” Joyful, life-affirming, and thought provoking in equal measure. If you can’t make it, watch the films online
And finally: This newsletter is pretty niche. If you know anyone else interested in digging beneath the jargon and buzzwords to explore the nature of innovation and what it means for development and humanitarian impact, please share it with them.
I write as way to process, learn, and express myself, so everything is typed by hand without any inputs from AI. I sometimes use ChatGPT and Perplexity for brainstorming, research, and relating concepts, but all sources are cross-checked, reviewed, and referenced.
Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries (no date) ‘Technology’. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Available at: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/technology.
Beinhocker, E.D. (2007) The Origin of Wealth: Evolution, Complexity, and the Radical Remaking of Economics. London: Random House Business. Available at: https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/367805/the-origin-of-wealth-by-beinhocker-eric/9780712676618.
Rogers, E.M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations. Fifth Edition. New York: Free Press. Available at: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Diffusion-of-Innovations-5th-Edition/Everett-M-Rogers/9780743258234.
Arthur, W.B. (2011) The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves. Free Press. Available at: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Nature-of-Technology/W-Brian-Arthur/9781416544067.
Several of these examples are from: Arthur, W.B. (2011) The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves. Free Press. Available at: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Nature-of-Technology/W-Brian-Arthur/9781416544067.
Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries (no date) ‘Technology’. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Available at: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/technology.
Arthur, W.B. (2011) The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves. Free Press. Available at: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Nature-of-Technology/W-Brian-Arthur/9781416544067.
Intellectual Ventures (2016) ‘Failing for Success: The Wright Brothers’, Intellectual Ventures, 10 March. Available at: https://www.intellectualventures.com/buzz/insights/failing-for-success-the-wright-brothers.
Kahneman, D. (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow. London: Penguin Books. Available at: https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/56314/thinking-fast-and-slow-by-kahneman-daniel/9780141033570.
Thaler, R.H. and Sunstein, C.R. (2009) Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. New International Edition. London: Penguin Books. Available at: https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/56784/nudge-by-richard-h-thaler-cass-r-sunstein/9780141999937.
Beinhocker, E.D. (2007) The Origin of Wealth: Evolution, Complexity, and the Radical Remaking of Economics. London: Random House Business. Available at: https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/367805/the-origin-of-wealth-by-beinhocker-eric/9780712676618.
Arthur, W.B. (2011) The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves. Free Press. Available at: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Nature-of-Technology/W-Brian-Arthur/9781416544067.
Arthur, W.B. (2011) The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves. Free Press. Available at: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Nature-of-Technology/W-Brian-Arthur/9781416544067.
Arthur, W.B. (2011) The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves. Free Press. Available at: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Nature-of-Technology/W-Brian-Arthur/9781416544067.
Beinhocker, E.D. (2007) The Origin of Wealth: Evolution, Complexity, and the Radical Remaking of Economics. London: Random House Business. Available at: https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/367805/the-origin-of-wealth-by-beinhocker-eric/9780712676618.
Rogers, E.M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations. Fifth Edition. New York: Free Press. Available at: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Diffusion-of-Innovations-5th-Edition/Everett-M-Rogers/9780743258234.
Bruder, M. and Baar, T. (2024) ‘Innovation in humanitarian assistance—a systematic literature review’, Journal of International Humanitarian Action, 9(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41018-023-00144-3.
Bruder, M. and Baar, T. (2024) ‘Innovation in humanitarian assistance—a systematic literature review’, Journal of International Humanitarian Action, 9(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41018-023-00144-3.