transformation of technology essay

• Previous Article
• Next Article

Promises and Pitfalls of Technology

Politics and privacy, private-sector influence and big tech, state competition and conflict, author biography, how is technology changing the world, and how should the world change technology.

[email protected]

• Split-Screen
• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• Open the PDF for in another window
• Guest Access
• Get Permissions
• Cite Icon Cite
• Search Site

Josephine Wolff; How Is Technology Changing the World, and How Should the World Change Technology?. Global Perspectives 1 February 2021; 2 (1): 27353. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2021.27353

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

Technologies are becoming increasingly complicated and increasingly interconnected. Cars, airplanes, medical devices, financial transactions, and electricity systems all rely on more computer software than they ever have before, making them seem both harder to understand and, in some cases, harder to control. Government and corporate surveillance of individuals and information processing relies largely on digital technologies and artificial intelligence, and therefore involves less human-to-human contact than ever before and more opportunities for biases to be embedded and codified in our technological systems in ways we may not even be able to identify or recognize. Bioengineering advances are opening up new terrain for challenging philosophical, political, and economic questions regarding human-natural relations. Additionally, the management of these large and small devices and systems is increasingly done through the cloud, so that control over them is both very remote and removed from direct human or social control. The study of how to make technologies like artificial intelligence or the Internet of Things “explainable” has become its own area of research because it is so difficult to understand how they work or what is at fault when something goes wrong (Gunning and Aha 2019) .

This growing complexity makes it more difficult than ever—and more imperative than ever—for scholars to probe how technological advancements are altering life around the world in both positive and negative ways and what social, political, and legal tools are needed to help shape the development and design of technology in beneficial directions. This can seem like an impossible task in light of the rapid pace of technological change and the sense that its continued advancement is inevitable, but many countries around the world are only just beginning to take significant steps toward regulating computer technologies and are still in the process of radically rethinking the rules governing global data flows and exchange of technology across borders.

These are exciting times not just for technological development but also for technology policy—our technologies may be more advanced and complicated than ever but so, too, are our understandings of how they can best be leveraged, protected, and even constrained. The structures of technological systems as determined largely by government and institutional policies and those structures have tremendous implications for social organization and agency, ranging from open source, open systems that are highly distributed and decentralized, to those that are tightly controlled and closed, structured according to stricter and more hierarchical models. And just as our understanding of the governance of technology is developing in new and interesting ways, so, too, is our understanding of the social, cultural, environmental, and political dimensions of emerging technologies. We are realizing both the challenges and the importance of mapping out the full range of ways that technology is changing our society, what we want those changes to look like, and what tools we have to try to influence and guide those shifts.

Technology can be a source of tremendous optimism. It can help overcome some of the greatest challenges our society faces, including climate change, famine, and disease. For those who believe in the power of innovation and the promise of creative destruction to advance economic development and lead to better quality of life, technology is a vital economic driver (Schumpeter 1942) . But it can also be a tool of tremendous fear and oppression, embedding biases in automated decision-making processes and information-processing algorithms, exacerbating economic and social inequalities within and between countries to a staggering degree, or creating new weapons and avenues for attack unlike any we have had to face in the past. Scholars have even contended that the emergence of the term technology in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries marked a shift from viewing individual pieces of machinery as a means to achieving political and social progress to the more dangerous, or hazardous, view that larger-scale, more complex technological systems were a semiautonomous form of progress in and of themselves (Marx 2010) . More recently, technologists have sharply criticized what they view as a wave of new Luddites, people intent on slowing the development of technology and turning back the clock on innovation as a means of mitigating the societal impacts of technological change (Marlowe 1970) .

At the heart of fights over new technologies and their resulting global changes are often two conflicting visions of technology: a fundamentally optimistic one that believes humans use it as a tool to achieve greater goals, and a fundamentally pessimistic one that holds that technological systems have reached a point beyond our control. Technology philosophers have argued that neither of these views is wholly accurate and that a purely optimistic or pessimistic view of technology is insufficient to capture the nuances and complexity of our relationship to technology (Oberdiek and Tiles 1995) . Understanding technology and how we can make better decisions about designing, deploying, and refining it requires capturing that nuance and complexity through in-depth analysis of the impacts of different technological advancements and the ways they have played out in all their complicated and controversial messiness across the world.

These impacts are often unpredictable as technologies are adopted in new contexts and come to be used in ways that sometimes diverge significantly from the use cases envisioned by their designers. The internet, designed to help transmit information between computer networks, became a crucial vehicle for commerce, introducing unexpected avenues for crime and financial fraud. Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter, designed to connect friends and families through sharing photographs and life updates, became focal points of election controversies and political influence. Cryptocurrencies, originally intended as a means of decentralized digital cash, have become a significant environmental hazard as more and more computing resources are devoted to mining these forms of virtual money. One of the crucial challenges in this area is therefore recognizing, documenting, and even anticipating some of these unexpected consequences and providing mechanisms to technologists for how to think through the impacts of their work, as well as possible other paths to different outcomes (Verbeek 2006) . And just as technological innovations can cause unexpected harm, they can also bring about extraordinary benefits—new vaccines and medicines to address global pandemics and save thousands of lives, new sources of energy that can drastically reduce emissions and help combat climate change, new modes of education that can reach people who would otherwise have no access to schooling. Regulating technology therefore requires a careful balance of mitigating risks without overly restricting potentially beneficial innovations.

Nations around the world have taken very different approaches to governing emerging technologies and have adopted a range of different technologies themselves in pursuit of more modern governance structures and processes (Braman 2009) . In Europe, the precautionary principle has guided much more anticipatory regulation aimed at addressing the risks presented by technologies even before they are fully realized. For instance, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation focuses on the responsibilities of data controllers and processors to provide individuals with access to their data and information about how that data is being used not just as a means of addressing existing security and privacy threats, such as data breaches, but also to protect against future developments and uses of that data for artificial intelligence and automated decision-making purposes. In Germany, Technische Überwachungsvereine, or TÜVs, perform regular tests and inspections of technological systems to assess and minimize risks over time, as the tech landscape evolves. In the United States, by contrast, there is much greater reliance on litigation and liability regimes to address safety and security failings after-the-fact. These different approaches reflect not just the different legal and regulatory mechanisms and philosophies of different nations but also the different ways those nations prioritize rapid development of the technology industry versus safety, security, and individual control. Typically, governance innovations move much more slowly than technological innovations, and regulations can lag years, or even decades, behind the technologies they aim to govern.

In addition to this varied set of national regulatory approaches, a variety of international and nongovernmental organizations also contribute to the process of developing standards, rules, and norms for new technologies, including the International Organization for Standardization­ and the International Telecommunication Union. These multilateral and NGO actors play an especially important role in trying to define appropriate boundaries for the use of new technologies by governments as instruments of control for the state.

At the same time that policymakers are under scrutiny both for their decisions about how to regulate technology as well as their decisions about how and when to adopt technologies like facial recognition themselves, technology firms and designers have also come under increasing criticism. Growing recognition that the design of technologies can have far-reaching social and political implications means that there is more pressure on technologists to take into consideration the consequences of their decisions early on in the design process (Vincenti 1993; Winner 1980) . The question of how technologists should incorporate these social dimensions into their design and development processes is an old one, and debate on these issues dates back to the 1970s, but it remains an urgent and often overlooked part of the puzzle because so many of the supposedly systematic mechanisms for assessing the impacts of new technologies in both the private and public sectors are primarily bureaucratic, symbolic processes rather than carrying any real weight or influence.

Technologists are often ill-equipped or unwilling to respond to the sorts of social problems that their creations have—often unwittingly—exacerbated, and instead point to governments and lawmakers to address those problems (Zuckerberg 2019) . But governments often have few incentives to engage in this area. This is because setting clear standards and rules for an ever-evolving technological landscape can be extremely challenging, because enforcement of those rules can be a significant undertaking requiring considerable expertise, and because the tech sector is a major source of jobs and revenue for many countries that may fear losing those benefits if they constrain companies too much. This indicates not just a need for clearer incentives and better policies for both private- and public-sector entities but also a need for new mechanisms whereby the technology development and design process can be influenced and assessed by people with a wider range of experiences and expertise. If we want technologies to be designed with an eye to their impacts, who is responsible for predicting, measuring, and mitigating those impacts throughout the design process? Involving policymakers in that process in a more meaningful way will also require training them to have the analytic and technical capacity to more fully engage with technologists and understand more fully the implications of their decisions.

At the same time that tech companies seem unwilling or unable to rein in their creations, many also fear they wield too much power, in some cases all but replacing governments and international organizations in their ability to make decisions that affect millions of people worldwide and control access to information, platforms, and audiences (Kilovaty 2020) . Regulators around the world have begun considering whether some of these companies have become so powerful that they violate the tenets of antitrust laws, but it can be difficult for governments to identify exactly what those violations are, especially in the context of an industry where the largest players often provide their customers with free services. And the platforms and services developed by tech companies are often wielded most powerfully and dangerously not directly by their private-sector creators and operators but instead by states themselves for widespread misinformation campaigns that serve political purposes (Nye 2018) .

Since the largest private entities in the tech sector operate in many countries, they are often better poised to implement global changes to the technological ecosystem than individual states or regulatory bodies, creating new challenges to existing governance structures and hierarchies. Just as it can be challenging to provide oversight for government use of technologies, so, too, oversight of the biggest tech companies, which have more resources, reach, and power than many nations, can prove to be a daunting task. The rise of network forms of organization and the growing gig economy have added to these challenges, making it even harder for regulators to fully address the breadth of these companies’ operations (Powell 1990) . The private-public partnerships that have emerged around energy, transportation, medical, and cyber technologies further complicate this picture, blurring the line between the public and private sectors and raising critical questions about the role of each in providing critical infrastructure, health care, and security. How can and should private tech companies operating in these different sectors be governed, and what types of influence do they exert over regulators? How feasible are different policy proposals aimed at technological innovation, and what potential unintended consequences might they have?

Conflict between countries has also spilled over significantly into the private sector in recent years, most notably in the case of tensions between the United States and China over which technologies developed in each country will be permitted by the other and which will be purchased by other customers, outside those two countries. Countries competing to develop the best technology is not a new phenomenon, but the current conflicts have major international ramifications and will influence the infrastructure that is installed and used around the world for years to come. Untangling the different factors that feed into these tussles as well as whom they benefit and whom they leave at a disadvantage is crucial for understanding how governments can most effectively foster technological innovation and invention domestically as well as the global consequences of those efforts. As much of the world is forced to choose between buying technology from the United States or from China, how should we understand the long-term impacts of those choices and the options available to people in countries without robust domestic tech industries? Does the global spread of technologies help fuel further innovation in countries with smaller tech markets, or does it reinforce the dominance of the states that are already most prominent in this sector? How can research universities maintain global collaborations and research communities in light of these national competitions, and what role does government research and development spending play in fostering innovation within its own borders and worldwide? How should intellectual property protections evolve to meet the demands of the technology industry, and how can those protections be enforced globally?

These conflicts between countries sometimes appear to challenge the feasibility of truly global technologies and networks that operate across all countries through standardized protocols and design features. Organizations like the International Organization for Standardization, the World Intellectual Property Organization, the United Nations Industrial Development Organization, and many others have tried to harmonize these policies and protocols across different countries for years, but have met with limited success when it comes to resolving the issues of greatest tension and disagreement among nations. For technology to operate in a global environment, there is a need for a much greater degree of coordination among countries and the development of common standards and norms, but governments continue to struggle to agree not just on those norms themselves but even the appropriate venue and processes for developing them. Without greater global cooperation, is it possible to maintain a global network like the internet or to promote the spread of new technologies around the world to address challenges of sustainability? What might help incentivize that cooperation moving forward, and what could new structures and process for governance of global technologies look like? Why has the tech industry’s self-regulation culture persisted? Do the same traditional drivers for public policy, such as politics of harmonization and path dependency in policy-making, still sufficiently explain policy outcomes in this space? As new technologies and their applications spread across the globe in uneven ways, how and when do they create forces of change from unexpected places?

These are some of the questions that we hope to address in the Technology and Global Change section through articles that tackle new dimensions of the global landscape of designing, developing, deploying, and assessing new technologies to address major challenges the world faces. Understanding these processes requires synthesizing knowledge from a range of different fields, including sociology, political science, economics, and history, as well as technical fields such as engineering, climate science, and computer science. A crucial part of understanding how technology has created global change and, in turn, how global changes have influenced the development of new technologies is understanding the technologies themselves in all their richness and complexity—how they work, the limits of what they can do, what they were designed to do, how they are actually used. Just as technologies themselves are becoming more complicated, so are their embeddings and relationships to the larger social, political, and legal contexts in which they exist. Scholars across all disciplines are encouraged to join us in untangling those complexities.

Josephine Wolff is an associate professor of cybersecurity policy at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. Her book You’ll See This Message When It Is Too Late: The Legal and Economic Aftermath of Cybersecurity Breaches was published by MIT Press in 2018.

Recipient(s) will receive an email with a link to 'How Is Technology Changing the World, and How Should the World Change Technology?' and will not need an account to access the content.

Subject: How Is Technology Changing the World, and How Should the World Change Technology?

(Optional message may have a maximum of 1000 characters.)

Citing articles via

Email alerts, affiliations.

• Special Collections
• Review Symposia
• Info for Authors
• Info for Librarians
• Editorial Team
• Emerging Scholars Forum
• Open Access
• Online ISSN 2575-7350
• Copyright © 2024 The Regents of the University of California. All Rights Reserved.

Stay Informed

Disciplines.

• Ancient World
• Anthropology
• Communication
• Criminology & Criminal Justice
• Film & Media Studies
• Food & Wine
• Browse All Disciplines
• Browse All Courses
• Book Authors
• Booksellers
• Instructions
• Journal Authors
• Journal Editors
• Media & Journalists
• Planned Giving

About UC Press

• Press Releases
• Seasonal Catalog
• Acquisitions Editors
• Customer Service
• Exam/Desk Requests
• Media Inquiries
• Print-Disability
• Rights & Permissions
• UC Press Foundation
• © Copyright 2024 by the Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Privacy policy    Accessibility

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Technology over the long run: zoom out to see how dramatically the world can change within a lifetime

It is easy to underestimate how much the world can change within a lifetime. considering how dramatically the world has changed can help us see how different the world could be in a few years or decades..

Technology can change the world in ways that are unimaginable until they happen. Switching on an electric light would have been unimaginable for our medieval ancestors. In their childhood, our grandparents would have struggled to imagine a world connected by smartphones and the Internet.

Similarly, it is hard for us to imagine the arrival of all those technologies that will fundamentally change the world we are used to.

We can remind ourselves that our own future might look very different from the world today by looking back at how rapidly technology has changed our world in the past. That’s what this article is about.

One insight I take away from this long-term perspective is how unusual our time is. Technological change was extremely slow in the past – the technologies that our ancestors got used to in their childhood were still central to their lives in their old age. In stark contrast to those days, we live in a time of extraordinarily fast technological change. For recent generations, it was common for technologies that were unimaginable in their youth to become common later in life.

The long-run perspective on technological change

The big visualization offers a long-term perspective on the history of technology. 1

The timeline begins at the center of the spiral. The first use of stone tools, 3.4 million years ago, marks the beginning of this history of technology. 2 Each turn of the spiral represents 200,000 years of history. It took 2.4 million years – 12 turns of the spiral – for our ancestors to control fire and use it for cooking. 3

To be able to visualize the inventions in the more recent past – the last 12,000 years – I had to unroll the spiral. I needed more space to be able to show when agriculture, writing, and the wheel were invented. During this period, technological change was faster, but it was still relatively slow: several thousand years passed between each of these three inventions.

From 1800 onwards, I stretched out the timeline even further to show the many major inventions that rapidly followed one after the other.

The long-term perspective that this chart provides makes it clear just how unusually fast technological change is in our time.

You can use this visualization to see how technology developed in particular domains. Follow, for example, the history of communication: from writing to paper, to the printing press, to the telegraph, the telephone, the radio, all the way to the Internet and smartphones.

Or follow the rapid development of human flight. In 1903, the Wright brothers took the first flight in human history (they were in the air for less than a minute), and just 66 years later, we landed on the moon. Many people saw both within their lifetimes: the first plane and the moon landing.

This large visualization also highlights the wide range of technology’s impact on our lives. It includes extraordinarily beneficial innovations, such as the vaccine that allowed humanity to eradicate smallpox , and it includes terrible innovations, like the nuclear bombs that endanger the lives of all of us .

What will the next decades bring?

The red timeline reaches up to the present and then continues in green into the future. Many children born today, even without further increases in life expectancy, will live well into the 22nd century.

New vaccines, progress in clean, low-carbon energy, better cancer treatments – a range of future innovations could very much improve our living conditions and the environment around us. But, as I argue in a series of articles , there is one technology that could even more profoundly change our world: artificial intelligence (AI).

One reason why artificial intelligence is such an important innovation is that intelligence is the main driver of innovation itself. This fast-paced technological change could speed up even more if it’s driven not only by humanity’s intelligence but also by artificial intelligence. If this happens, the change currently stretched out over decades might happen within a very brief time span of just a year. Possibly even faster. 4

I think AI technology could have a fundamentally transformative impact on our world. In many ways, it is already changing our world, as I documented in this companion article . As this technology becomes more capable in the years and decades to come, it can give immense power to those who control it (and it poses the risk that it could escape our control entirely).

Such systems might seem hard to imagine today, but AI technology is advancing quickly. Many AI experts believe there is a real chance that human-level artificial intelligence will be developed within the next decades, as I documented in this article .

Technology will continue to change the world – we should all make sure that it changes it for the better

What is familiar to us today – photography, the radio, antibiotics, the Internet, or the International Space Station circling our planet – was unimaginable to our ancestors just a few generations ago. If your great-great-great grandparents could spend a week with you, they would be blown away by your everyday life.

What I take away from this history is that I will likely see technologies in my lifetime that appear unimaginable to me today.

In addition to this trend towards increasingly rapid innovation, there is a second long-run trend. Technology has become increasingly powerful. While our ancestors wielded stone tools, we are building globe-spanning AI systems and technologies that can edit our genes.

Because of the immense power that technology gives those who control it, there is little that is as important as the question of which technologies get developed during our lifetimes. Therefore, I think it is a mistake to leave the question about the future of technology to the technologists. Which technologies are controlled by whom is one of the most important political questions of our time because of the enormous power these technologies convey to those who control them.

We all should strive to gain the knowledge we need to contribute to an intelligent debate about the world we want to live in. To a large part, this means gaining knowledge and wisdom on the question of which technologies we want.

Acknowledgments: I would like to thank my colleagues Hannah Ritchie, Bastian Herre, Natasha Ahuja, Edouard Mathieu, Daniel Bachler, Charlie Giattino, and Pablo Rosado for their helpful comments on drafts of this essay and the visualization. Thanks also to Lizka Vaintrob and Ben Clifford for the conversation that initiated this visualization.

Appendix: About the choice of visualization in this article

The recent speed of technological change makes it difficult to picture the history of technology in one visualization. When you visualize this development on a linear timeline, then most of the timeline is almost empty, while all the action is crammed into the right corner:

In my large visualization here, I tried to avoid this problem and instead show the long history of technology in a way that lets you see when each technological breakthrough happened and how, within the last millennia, there was a continuous acceleration of technological change.

The recent speed of technological change makes it difficult to picture the history of technology in one visualization. In the appendix, I show how this would look if it were linear.

It is, of course, difficult to assess when exactly the first stone tools were used.

The research by McPherron et al. (2010) suggested that it was at least 3.39 million years ago. This is based on two fossilized bones found in Dikika in Ethiopia, which showed “stone-tool cut marks for flesh removal and percussion marks for marrow access”. These marks were interpreted as being caused by meat consumption and provide the first evidence that one of our ancestors, Australopithecus afarensis, used stone tools.

The research by Harmand et al. (2015) provided evidence for stone tool use in today’s Kenya 3.3 million years ago.

References:

McPherron et al. (2010) – Evidence for stone-tool-assisted consumption of animal tissues before 3.39 million years ago at Dikika, Ethiopia . Published in Nature.

Harmand et al. (2015) – 3.3-million-year-old stone tools from Lomekwi 3, West Turkana, Kenya . Published in Nature.

Evidence for controlled fire use approximately 1 million years ago is provided by Berna et al. (2012) Microstratigraphic evidence of in situ fire in the Acheulean strata of Wonderwerk Cave, Northern Cape province, South Africa , published in PNAS.

The authors write: “The ability to control fire was a crucial turning point in human evolution, but the question of when hominins first developed this ability still remains. Here we show that micromorphological and Fourier transform infrared microspectroscopy (mFTIR) analyses of intact sediments at the site of Wonderwerk Cave, Northern Cape province, South Africa, provide unambiguous evidence—in the form of burned bone and ashed plant remains—that burning took place in the cave during the early Acheulean occupation, approximately 1.0 Ma. To the best of our knowledge, this is the earliest secure evidence for burning in an archaeological context.”

This is what authors like Holden Karnofsky called ‘Process for Automating Scientific and Technological Advancement’ or PASTA. Some recent developments go in this direction: DeepMind’s AlphaFold helped to make progress on one of the large problems in biology, and they have also developed an AI system that finds new algorithms that are relevant to building a more powerful AI.

Cite this work

Our articles and data visualizations rely on work from many different people and organizations. When citing this article, please also cite the underlying data sources. This article can be cited as:

BibTeX citation

Reuse this work freely

All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license . You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited.

The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution.

All of our charts can be embedded in any site.

Our World in Data is free and accessible for everyone.

Help us do this work by making a donation.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 12 February 2024

Education reform and change driven by digital technology: a bibliometric study from a global perspective

• Chengliang Wang 1 ,
• Xiaojiao Chen 1 ,
• Teng Yu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5198-7261 2 , 3 ,
• Yidan Liu 1 , 4 &
• Yuhui Jing 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  256 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

9149 Accesses

3 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Development studies
• Science, technology and society

Amidst the global digital transformation of educational institutions, digital technology has emerged as a significant area of interest among scholars. Such technologies have played an instrumental role in enhancing learner performance and improving the effectiveness of teaching and learning. These digital technologies also ensure the sustainability and stability of education during the epidemic. Despite this, a dearth of systematic reviews exists regarding the current state of digital technology application in education. To address this gap, this study utilized the Web of Science Core Collection as a data source (specifically selecting the high-quality SSCI and SCIE) and implemented a topic search by setting keywords, yielding 1849 initial publications. Furthermore, following the PRISMA guidelines, we refined the selection to 588 high-quality articles. Using software tools such as CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and Charticulator, we reviewed these 588 publications to identify core authors (such as Selwyn, Henderson, Edwards), highly productive countries/regions (England, Australia, USA), key institutions (Monash University, Australian Catholic University), and crucial journals in the field ( Education and Information Technologies , Computers & Education , British Journal of Educational Technology ). Evolutionary analysis reveals four developmental periods in the research field of digital technology education application: the embryonic period, the preliminary development period, the key exploration, and the acceleration period of change. The study highlights the dual influence of technological factors and historical context on the research topic. Technology is a key factor in enabling education to transform and upgrade, and the context of the times is an important driving force in promoting the adoption of new technologies in the education system and the transformation and upgrading of education. Additionally, the study identifies three frontier hotspots in the field: physical education, digital transformation, and professional development under the promotion of digital technology. This study presents a clear framework for digital technology application in education, which can serve as a valuable reference for researchers and educational practitioners concerned with digital technology education application in theory and practice.

Similar content being viewed by others

A bibliometric analysis of knowledge mapping in Chinese education digitalization research from 2012 to 2022

Digital transformation and digital literacy in the context of complexity within higher education institutions: a systematic literature review

Education big data and learning analytics: a bibliometric analysis

Introduction.

Digital technology has become an essential component of modern education, facilitating the extension of temporal and spatial boundaries and enriching the pedagogical contexts (Selwyn and Facer, 2014 ). The advent of mobile communication technology has enabled learning through social media platforms (Szeto et al. 2015 ; Pires et al. 2022 ), while the advancement of augmented reality technology has disrupted traditional conceptions of learning environments and spaces (Perez-Sanagustin et al., 2014 ; Kyza and Georgiou, 2018 ). A wide range of digital technologies has enabled learning to become a norm in various settings, including the workplace (Sjöberg and Holmgren, 2021 ), home (Nazare et al. 2022 ), and online communities (Tang and Lam, 2014 ). Education is no longer limited to fixed locations and schedules, but has permeated all aspects of life, allowing learning to continue at any time and any place (Camilleri and Camilleri, 2016 ; Selwyn and Facer, 2014 ).

The advent of digital technology has led to the creation of several informal learning environments (Greenhow and Lewin, 2015 ) that exhibit divergent form, function, features, and patterns in comparison to conventional learning environments (Nygren et al. 2019 ). Consequently, the associated teaching and learning processes, as well as the strategies for the creation, dissemination, and acquisition of learning resources, have undergone a complete overhaul. The ensuing transformations have posed a myriad of novel issues, such as the optimal structuring of teaching methods by instructors and the adoption of appropriate learning strategies by students in the new digital technology environment. Consequently, an examination of the principles that underpin effective teaching and learning in this environment is a topic of significant interest to numerous scholars engaged in digital technology education research.

Over the course of the last two decades, digital technology has made significant strides in the field of education, notably in extending education time and space and creating novel educational contexts with sustainability. Despite research attempts to consolidate the application of digital technology in education, previous studies have only focused on specific aspects of digital technology, such as Pinto and Leite’s ( 2020 ) investigation into digital technology in higher education and Mustapha et al.’s ( 2021 ) examination of the role and value of digital technology in education during the pandemic. While these studies have provided valuable insights into the practical applications of digital technology in particular educational domains, they have not comprehensively explored the macro-mechanisms and internal logic of digital technology implementation in education. Additionally, these studies were conducted over a relatively brief period, making it challenging to gain a comprehensive understanding of the macro-dynamics and evolutionary process of digital technology in education. Some studies have provided an overview of digital education from an educational perspective but lack a precise understanding of technological advancement and change (Yang et al. 2022 ). Therefore, this study seeks to employ a systematic scientific approach to collate relevant research from 2000 to 2022, comprehend the internal logic and development trends of digital technology in education, and grasp the outstanding contribution of digital technology in promoting the sustainability of education in time and space. In summary, this study aims to address the following questions:

RQ1: Since the turn of the century, what is the productivity distribution of the field of digital technology education application research in terms of authorship, country/region, institutional and journal level?

RQ2: What is the development trend of research on the application of digital technology in education in the past two decades?

RQ3: What are the current frontiers of research on the application of digital technology in education?

Literature review

Although the term “digital technology” has become ubiquitous, a unified definition has yet to be agreed upon by scholars. Because the meaning of the word digital technology is closely related to the specific context. Within the educational research domain, Selwyn’s ( 2016 ) definition is widely favored by scholars (Pinto and Leite, 2020 ). Selwyn ( 2016 ) provides a comprehensive view of various concrete digital technologies and their applications in education through ten specific cases, such as immediate feedback in classes, orchestrating teaching, and community learning. Through these specific application scenarios, Selwyn ( 2016 ) argues that digital technology encompasses technologies associated with digital devices, including but not limited to tablets, smartphones, computers, and social media platforms (such as Facebook and YouTube). Furthermore, Further, the behavior of accessing the internet at any location through portable devices can be taken as an extension of the behavior of applying digital technology.

The evolving nature of digital technology has significant implications in the field of education. In the 1890s, the focus of digital technology in education was on comprehending the nuances of digital space, digital culture, and educational methodologies, with its connotations aligned more towards the idea of e-learning. The advent and subsequent widespread usage of mobile devices since the dawn of the new millennium have been instrumental in the rapid expansion of the concept of digital technology. Notably, mobile learning devices such as smartphones and tablets, along with social media platforms, have become integral components of digital technology (Conole and Alevizou, 2010 ; Batista et al. 2016 ). In recent times, the burgeoning application of AI technology in the education sector has played a vital role in enriching the digital technology lexicon (Banerjee et al. 2021 ). ChatGPT, for instance, is identified as a novel educational technology that has immense potential to revolutionize future education (Rospigliosi, 2023 ; Arif, Munaf and Ul-Haque, 2023 ).

Pinto and Leite ( 2020 ) conducted a comprehensive macroscopic survey of the use of digital technologies in the education sector and identified three distinct categories, namely technologies for assessment and feedback, mobile technologies, and Information Communication Technologies (ICT). This classification criterion is both macroscopic and highly condensed. In light of the established concept definitions of digital technology in the educational research literature, this study has adopted the characterizations of digital technology proposed by Selwyn ( 2016 ) and Pinto and Leite ( 2020 ) as crucial criteria for analysis and research inclusion. Specifically, this criterion encompasses several distinct types of digital technologies, including Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), Mobile tools, eXtended Reality (XR) Technologies, Assessment and Feedback systems, Learning Management Systems (LMS), Publish and Share tools, Collaborative systems, Social media, Interpersonal Communication tools, and Content Aggregation tools.

Methodology and materials

Research method: bibliometric.

The research on econometric properties has been present in various aspects of human production and life, yet systematic scientific theoretical guidance has been lacking, resulting in disorganization. In 1969, British scholar Pritchard ( 1969 ) proposed “bibliometrics,” which subsequently emerged as an independent discipline in scientific quantification research. Initially, Pritchard defined bibliometrics as “the application of mathematical and statistical methods to books and other media of communication,” however, the definition was not entirely rigorous. To remedy this, Hawkins ( 2001 ) expanded Pritchard’s definition to “the quantitative analysis of the bibliographic features of a body of literature.” De Bellis further clarified the objectives of bibliometrics, stating that it aims to analyze and identify patterns in literature, such as the most productive authors, institutions, countries, and journals in scientific disciplines, trends in literary production over time, and collaboration networks (De Bellis, 2009 ). According to Garfield ( 2006 ), bibliometric research enables the examination of the history and structure of a field, the flow of information within the field, the impact of journals, and the citation status of publications over a longer time scale. All of these definitions illustrate the unique role of bibliometrics as a research method for evaluating specific research fields.

This study uses CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and Charticulator to analyze data and create visualizations. Each of these three tools has its own strengths and can complement each other. CiteSpace and VOSviewer use set theory and probability theory to provide various visualization views in fields such as keywords, co-occurrence, and co-authors. They are easy to use and produce visually appealing graphics (Chen, 2006 ; van Eck and Waltman, 2009 ) and are currently the two most widely used bibliometric tools in the field of visualization (Pan et al. 2018 ). In this study, VOSviewer provided the data necessary for the Performance Analysis; Charticulator was then used to redraw using the tabular data exported from VOSviewer (for creating the chord diagram of country collaboration); this was to complement the mapping process, while CiteSpace was primarily utilized to generate keyword maps and conduct burst word analysis.

Data retrieval

This study selected documents from the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) in the Web of Science Core Collection as the data source, for the following reasons:

(1) The Web of Science Core Collection, as a high-quality digital literature resource database, has been widely accepted by many researchers and is currently considered the most suitable database for bibliometric analysis (Jing et al. 2023a ). Compared to other databases, Web of Science provides more comprehensive data information (Chen et al. 2022a ), and also provides data formats suitable for analysis using VOSviewer and CiteSpace (Gaviria-Marin et al. 2019 ).

(2) The application of digital technology in the field of education is an interdisciplinary research topic, involving technical knowledge literature belonging to the natural sciences and education-related literature belonging to the social sciences. Therefore, it is necessary to select Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) as the sources of research data, ensuring the comprehensiveness of data while ensuring the reliability and persuasiveness of bibliometric research (Hwang and Tsai, 2011 ; Wang et al. 2022 ).

After establishing the source of research data, it is necessary to determine a retrieval strategy (Jing et al. 2023b ). The choice of a retrieval strategy should consider a balance between the breadth and precision of the search formula. That is to say, it should encompass all the literature pertaining to the research topic while excluding irrelevant documents as much as possible. In light of this, this study has set a retrieval strategy informed by multiple related papers (Mustapha et al. 2021 ; Luo et al. 2021 ). The research by Mustapha et al. ( 2021 ) guided us in selecting keywords (“digital” AND “technolog*”) to target digital technology, while Luo et al. ( 2021 ) informed the selection of terms (such as “instruct*,” “teach*,” and “education”) to establish links with the field of education. Then, based on the current application of digital technology in the educational domain and the scope of selection criteria, we constructed the final retrieval strategy. Following the general patterns of past research (Jing et al. 2023a , 2023b ), we conducted a specific screening using the topic search (Topics, TS) function in Web of Science. For the specific criteria used in the screening for this study, please refer to Table 1 .

Literature screening

Literature acquired through keyword searches may contain ostensibly related yet actually unrelated works. Therefore, to ensure the close relevance of literature included in the analysis to the research topic, it is often necessary to perform a manual screening process to identify the final literature to be analyzed, subsequent to completing the initial literature search.

The manual screening process consists of two steps. Initially, irrelevant literature is weeded out based on the title and abstract, with two members of the research team involved in this phase. This stage lasted about one week, resulting in 1106 articles being retained. Subsequently, a comprehensive review of the full text is conducted to accurately identify the literature required for the study. To carry out the second phase of manual screening effectively and scientifically, and to minimize the potential for researcher bias, the research team established the inclusion criteria presented in Table 2 . Three members were engaged in this phase, which took approximately 2 weeks, culminating in the retention of 588 articles after meticulous screening. The entire screening process is depicted in Fig. 1 , adhering to the PRISMA guidelines (Page et al. 2021 ).

The process of obtaining and filtering the necessary literature data for research.

Data standardization

Nguyen and Hallinger ( 2020 ) pointed out that raw data extracted from scientific databases often contains multiple expressions of the same term, and not addressing these synonymous expressions could affect research results in bibliometric analysis. For instance, in the original data, the author list may include “Tsai, C. C.” and “Tsai, C.-C.”, while the keyword list may include “professional-development” and “professional development,” which often require merging. Therefore, before analyzing the selected literature, a data disambiguation process is necessary to standardize the data (Strotmann and Zhao, 2012 ; Van Eck and Waltman, 2019 ). This study adopted the data standardization process proposed by Taskin and Al ( 2019 ), mainly including the following standardization operations:

Firstly, the author and source fields in the data are corrected and standardized to differentiate authors with similar names.

Secondly, the study checks whether the journals to which the literature belongs have been renamed in the past over 20 years, so as to avoid the influence of periodical name change on the analysis results.

Finally, the keyword field is standardized by unifying parts of speech and singular/plural forms of keywords, which can help eliminate redundant entries in the knowledge graph.

Performance analysis (RQ1)

This section offers a thorough and detailed analysis of the state of research in the field of digital technology education. By utilizing descriptive statistics and visual maps, it provides a comprehensive overview of the development trends, authors, countries, institutions, and journal distribution within the field. The insights presented in this section are of great significance in advancing our understanding of the current state of research in this field and identifying areas for further investigation. The use of visual aids to display inter-country cooperation and the evolution of the field adds to the clarity and coherence of the analysis.

Time trend of the publications

To understand a research field, it is first necessary to understand the most basic quantitative information, among which the change in the number of publications per year best reflects the development trend of a research field. Figure 2 shows the distribution of publication dates.

Time trend of the publications on application of digital technology in education.

From the Fig. 2 , it can be seen that the development of this field over the past over 20 years can be roughly divided into three stages. The first stage was from 2000 to 2007, during which the number of publications was relatively low. Due to various factors such as technological maturity, the academic community did not pay widespread attention to the role of digital technology in expanding the scope of teaching and learning. The second stage was from 2008 to 2019, during which the overall number of publications showed an upward trend, and the development of the field entered an accelerated period, attracting more and more scholars’ attention. The third stage was from 2020 to 2022, during which the number of publications stabilized at around 100. During this period, the impact of the pandemic led to a large number of scholars focusing on the role of digital technology in education during the pandemic, and research on the application of digital technology in education became a core topic in social science research.

Analysis of authors

An analysis of the author’s publication volume provides information about the representative scholars and core research strengths of a research area. Table 3 presents information on the core authors in adaptive learning research, including name, publication number, and average number of citations per article (based on the analysis and statistics from VOSviewer).

Variations in research foci among scholars abound. Within the field of digital technology education application research over the past two decades, Neil Selwyn stands as the most productive author, having published 15 papers garnering a total of 1027 citations, resulting in an average of 68.47 citations per paper. As a Professor at the Faculty of Education at Monash University, Selwyn concentrates on exploring the application of digital technology in higher education contexts (Selwyn et al. 2021 ), as well as related products in higher education such as Coursera, edX, and Udacity MOOC platforms (Bulfin et al. 2014 ). Selwyn’s contributions to the educational sociology perspective include extensive research on the impact of digital technology on education, highlighting the spatiotemporal extension of educational processes and practices through technological means as the greatest value of educational technology (Selwyn, 2012 ; Selwyn and Facer, 2014 ). In addition, he provides a blueprint for the development of future schools in 2030 based on the present impact of digital technology on education (Selwyn et al. 2019 ). The second most productive author in this field, Henderson, also offers significant contributions to the understanding of the important value of digital technology in education, specifically in the higher education setting, with a focus on the impact of the pandemic (Henderson et al. 2015 ; Cohen et al. 2022 ). In contrast, Edwards’ research interests focus on early childhood education, particularly the application of digital technology in this context (Edwards, 2013 ; Bird and Edwards, 2015 ). Additionally, on the technical level, Edwards also mainly prefers digital game technology, because it is a digital technology that children are relatively easy to accept (Edwards, 2015 ).

Analysis of countries/regions and organization

The present study aimed to ascertain the leading countries in digital technology education application research by analyzing 75 countries related to 558 works of literature. Table 4 depicts the top ten countries that have contributed significantly to this field in terms of publication count (based on the analysis and statistics from VOSviewer). Our analysis of Table 4 data shows that England emerged as the most influential country/region, with 92 published papers and 2401 citations. Australia and the United States secured the second and third ranks, respectively, with 90 papers (2187 citations) and 70 papers (1331 citations) published. Geographically, most of the countries featured in the top ten publication volumes are situated in Australia, North America, and Europe, with China being the only exception. Notably, all these countries, except China, belong to the group of developed nations, suggesting that economic strength is a prerequisite for fostering research in the digital technology education application field.

This study presents a visual representation of the publication output and cooperation relationships among different countries in the field of digital technology education application research. Specifically, a chord diagram is employed to display the top 30 countries in terms of publication output, as depicted in Fig. 3 . The chord diagram is composed of nodes and chords, where the nodes are positioned as scattered points along the circumference, and the length of each node corresponds to the publication output, with longer lengths indicating higher publication output. The chords, on the other hand, represent the cooperation relationships between any two countries, and are weighted based on the degree of closeness of the cooperation, with wider chords indicating closer cooperation. Through the analysis of the cooperation relationships, the findings suggest that the main publishing countries in this field are engaged in cooperative relationships with each other, indicating a relatively high level of international academic exchange and research internationalization.

In the diagram, nodes are scattered along the circumference of a circle, with the length of each node representing the volume of publications. The weighted arcs connecting any two points on the circle are known as chords, representing the collaborative relationship between the two, with the width of the arc indicating the closeness of the collaboration.

Further analyzing Fig. 3 , we can extract more valuable information, enabling a deeper understanding of the connections between countries in the research field of digital technology in educational applications. It is evident that certain countries, such as the United States, China, and England, display thicker connections, indicating robust collaborative relationships in terms of productivity. These thicker lines signify substantial mutual contributions and shared objectives in certain sectors or fields, highlighting the interconnectedness and global integration in these areas. By delving deeper, we can also explore potential future collaboration opportunities through the chord diagram, identifying possible partners to propel research and development in this field. In essence, the chord diagram successfully encapsulates and conveys the multi-dimensionality of global productivity and cooperation, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of the intricate inter-country relationships and networks in a global context, providing valuable guidance and insights for future research and collaborations.

An in-depth examination of the publishing institutions is provided in Table 5 , showcasing the foremost 10 institutions ranked by their publication volume. Notably, Monash University and Australian Catholic University, situated in Australia, have recorded the most prolific publications within the digital technology education application realm, with 22 and 10 publications respectively. Moreover, the University of Oslo from Norway is featured among the top 10 publishing institutions, with an impressive average citation count of 64 per publication. It is worth highlighting that six institutions based in the United Kingdom were also ranked within the top 10 publishing institutions, signifying their leading position in this area of research.

Analysis of journals

Journals are the main carriers for publishing high-quality papers. Some scholars point out that the two key factors to measure the influence of journals in the specified field are the number of articles published and the number of citations. The more papers published in a magazine and the more citations, the greater its influence (Dzikowski, 2018 ). Therefore, this study utilized VOSviewer to statistically analyze the top 10 journals with the most publications in the field of digital technology in education and calculated the average citations per article (see Table 6 ).

Based on Table 6 , it is apparent that the highest number of articles in the domain of digital technology in education research were published in Education and Information Technologies (47 articles), Computers & Education (34 articles), and British Journal of Educational Technology (32 articles), indicating a higher article output compared to other journals. This underscores the fact that these three journals concentrate more on the application of digital technology in education. Furthermore, several other journals, such as Technology Pedagogy and Education and Sustainability, have published more than 15 articles in this domain. Sustainability represents the open access movement, which has notably facilitated research progress in this field, indicating that the development of open access journals in recent years has had a significant impact. Although there is still considerable disagreement among scholars on the optimal approach to achieve open access, the notion that research outcomes should be accessible to all is widely recognized (Huang et al. 2020 ). On further analysis of the research fields to which these journals belong, except for Sustainability, it is evident that they all pertain to educational technology, thus providing a qualitative definition of the research area of digital technology education from the perspective of journals.

Temporal keyword analysis: thematic evolution (RQ2)

The evolution of research themes is a dynamic process, and previous studies have attempted to present the developmental trajectory of fields by drawing keyword networks in phases (Kumar et al. 2021 ; Chen et al. 2022b ). To understand the shifts in research topics across different periods, this study follows past research and, based on the significant changes in the research field and corresponding technological advancements during the outlined periods, divides the timeline into four stages (the first stage from January 2000 to December 2005, the second stage from January 2006 to December 2011, the third stage from January 2012 to December 2017; and the fourth stage from January 2018 to December 2022). The division into these four stages was determined through a combination of bibliometric analysis and literature review, which presented a clear trajectory of the field’s development. The research analyzes the keyword networks for each time period (as there are only three articles in the first stage, it was not possible to generate an appropriate keyword co-occurrence map, hence only the keyword co-occurrence maps from the second to the fourth stages are provided), to understand the evolutionary track of the digital technology education application research field over time.

2000.1–2005.12: germination period

From January 2000 to December 2005, digital technology education application research was in its infancy. Only three studies focused on digital technology, all of which were related to computers. Due to the popularity of computers, the home became a new learning environment, highlighting the important role of digital technology in expanding the scope of learning spaces (Sutherland et al. 2000 ). In specific disciplines and contexts, digital technology was first favored in medical clinical practice, becoming an important tool for supporting the learning of clinical knowledge and practice (Tegtmeyer et al. 2001 ; Durfee et al. 2003 ).

2006.1–2011.12: initial development period

Between January 2006 and December 2011, it was the initial development period of digital technology education research. Significant growth was observed in research related to digital technology, and discussions and theoretical analyses about “digital natives” emerged. During this phase, scholars focused on the debate about “how to use digital technology reasonably” and “whether current educational models and school curriculum design need to be adjusted on a large scale” (Bennett and Maton, 2010 ; Selwyn, 2009 ; Margaryan et al. 2011 ). These theoretical and speculative arguments provided a unique perspective on the impact of cognitive digital technology on education and teaching. As can be seen from the vocabulary such as “rethinking”, “disruptive pedagogy”, and “attitude” in Fig. 4 , many scholars joined the calm reflection and analysis under the trend of digital technology (Laurillard, 2008 ; Vratulis et al. 2011 ). During this phase, technology was still undergoing dramatic changes. The development of mobile technology had already caught the attention of many scholars (Wong et al. 2011 ), but digital technology represented by computers was still very active (Selwyn et al. 2011 ). The change in technological form would inevitably lead to educational transformation. Collins and Halverson ( 2010 ) summarized the prospects and challenges of using digital technology for learning and educational practices, believing that digital technology would bring a disruptive revolution to the education field and bring about a new educational system. In addition, the term “teacher education” in Fig. 4 reflects the impact of digital technology development on teachers. The rapid development of technology has widened the generation gap between teachers and students. To ensure smooth communication between teachers and students, teachers must keep up with the trend of technological development and establish a lifelong learning concept (Donnison, 2009 ).

In the diagram, each node represents a keyword, with the size of the node indicating the frequency of occurrence of the keyword. The connections represent the co-occurrence relationships between keywords, with a higher frequency of co-occurrence resulting in tighter connections.

2012.1–2017.12: critical exploration period

During the period spanning January 2012 to December 2017, the application of digital technology in education research underwent a significant exploration phase. As can be seen from Fig. 5 , different from the previous stage, the specific elements of specific digital technology have started to increase significantly, including the enrichment of technological contexts, the greater variety of research methods, and the diversification of learning modes. Moreover, the temporal and spatial dimensions of the learning environment were further de-emphasized, as noted in previous literature (Za et al. 2014 ). Given the rapidly accelerating pace of technological development, the education system in the digital era is in urgent need of collaborative evolution and reconstruction, as argued by Davis, Eickelmann, and Zaka ( 2013 ).

In the domain of digital technology, social media has garnered substantial scholarly attention as a promising avenue for learning, as noted by Pasquini and Evangelopoulos ( 2016 ). The implementation of social media in education presents several benefits, including the liberation of education from the restrictions of physical distance and time, as well as the erasure of conventional educational boundaries. The user-generated content (UGC) model in social media has emerged as a crucial source for knowledge creation and distribution, with the widespread adoption of mobile devices. Moreover, social networks have become an integral component of ubiquitous learning environments (Hwang et al. 2013 ). The utilization of social media allows individuals to function as both knowledge producers and recipients, which leads to a blurring of the conventional roles of learners and teachers. On mobile platforms, the roles of learners and teachers are not fixed, but instead interchangeable.

In terms of research methodology, the prevalence of empirical studies with survey designs in the field of educational technology during this period is evident from the vocabulary used, such as “achievement,” “acceptance,” “attitude,” and “ict.” in Fig. 5 . These studies aim to understand learners’ willingness to adopt and attitudes towards new technologies, and some seek to investigate the impact of digital technologies on learning outcomes through quasi-experimental designs (Domínguez et al. 2013 ). Among these empirical studies, mobile learning emerged as a hot topic, and this is not surprising. First, the advantages of mobile learning environments over traditional ones have been empirically demonstrated (Hwang et al. 2013 ). Second, learners born around the turn of the century have been heavily influenced by digital technologies and have developed their own learning styles that are more open to mobile devices as a means of learning. Consequently, analyzing mobile learning as a relatively novel mode of learning has become an important issue for scholars in the field of educational technology.

The intervention of technology has led to the emergence of several novel learning modes, with the blended learning model being the most representative one in the current phase. Blended learning, a novel concept introduced in the information age, emphasizes the integration of the benefits of traditional learning methods and online learning. This learning mode not only highlights the prominent role of teachers in guiding, inspiring, and monitoring the learning process but also underlines the importance of learners’ initiative, enthusiasm, and creativity in the learning process. Despite being an early conceptualization, blended learning’s meaning has been expanded by the widespread use of mobile technology and social media in education. The implementation of new technologies, particularly mobile devices, has resulted in the transformation of curriculum design and increased flexibility and autonomy in students’ learning processes (Trujillo Maza et al. 2016 ), rekindling scholarly attention to this learning mode. However, some scholars have raised concerns about the potential drawbacks of the blended learning model, such as its significant impact on the traditional teaching system, the lack of systematic coping strategies and relevant policies in several schools and regions (Moskal et al. 2013 ).

2018.1–2022.12: accelerated transformation period

The period spanning from January 2018 to December 2022 witnessed a rapid transformation in the application of digital technology in education research. The field of digital technology education research reached a peak period of publication, largely influenced by factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic (Yu et al. 2023 ). Research during this period was built upon the achievements, attitudes, and social media of the previous phase, and included more elements that reflect the characteristics of this research field, such as digital literacy, digital competence, and professional development, as depicted in Fig. 6 . Alongside this, scholars’ expectations for the value of digital technology have expanded, and the pursuit of improving learning efficiency and performance is no longer the sole focus. Some research now aims to cultivate learners’ motivation and enhance their self-efficacy by applying digital technology in a reasonable manner, as demonstrated by recent studies (Beardsley et al. 2021 ; Creely et al. 2021 ).

The COVID-19 pandemic has emerged as a crucial backdrop for the digital technology’s role in sustaining global education, as highlighted by recent scholarly research (Zhou et al. 2022 ; Pan and Zhang, 2020 ; Mo et al. 2022 ). The online learning environment, which is supported by digital technology, has become the primary battleground for global education (Yu, 2022 ). This social context has led to various studies being conducted, with some scholars positing that the pandemic has impacted the traditional teaching order while also expanding learning possibilities in terms of patterns and forms (Alabdulaziz, 2021 ). Furthermore, the pandemic has acted as a catalyst for teacher teaching and technological innovation, and this viewpoint has been empirically substantiated (Moorhouse and Wong, 2021 ). Additionally, some scholars believe that the pandemic’s push is a crucial driving force for the digital transformation of the education system, serving as an essential mechanism for overcoming the system’s inertia (Romero et al. 2021 ).

The rapid outbreak of the pandemic posed a challenge to the large-scale implementation of digital technologies, which was influenced by a complex interplay of subjective and objective factors. Objective constraints included the lack of infrastructure in some regions to support digital technologies, while subjective obstacles included psychological resistance among certain students and teachers (Moorhouse, 2021 ). These factors greatly impacted the progress of online learning during the pandemic. Additionally, Timotheou et al. ( 2023 ) conducted a comprehensive systematic review of existing research on digital technology use during the pandemic, highlighting the critical role played by various factors such as learners’ and teachers’ digital skills, teachers’ personal attributes and professional development, school leadership and management, and administration in facilitating the digitalization and transformation of schools.

The current stage of research is characterized by the pivotal term “digital literacy,” denoting a growing interest in learners’ attitudes and adoption of emerging technologies. Initially, the term “literacy” was restricted to fundamental abilities and knowledge associated with books and print materials (McMillan, 1996 ). However, with the swift advancement of computers and digital technology, there have been various attempts to broaden the scope of literacy beyond its traditional meaning, including game literacy (Buckingham and Burn, 2007 ), information literacy (Eisenberg, 2008 ), and media literacy (Turin and Friesem, 2020 ). Similarly, digital literacy has emerged as a crucial concept, and Gilster and Glister ( 1997 ) were the first to introduce this concept, referring to the proficiency in utilizing technology and processing digital information in academic, professional, and daily life settings. In practical educational settings, learners who possess higher digital literacy often exhibit an aptitude for quickly mastering digital devices and applying them intelligently to education and teaching (Yu, 2022 ).

The utilization of digital technology in education has undergone significant changes over the past two decades, and has been a crucial driver of educational reform with each new technological revolution. The impact of these changes on the underlying logic of digital technology education applications has been noticeable. From computer technology to more recent developments such as virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and artificial intelligence (AI), the acceleration in digital technology development has been ongoing. Educational reforms spurred by digital technology development continue to be dynamic, as each new digital innovation presents new possibilities and models for teaching practice. This is especially relevant in the post-pandemic era, where the importance of technological progress in supporting teaching cannot be overstated (Mughal et al. 2022 ). Existing digital technologies have already greatly expanded the dimensions of education in both time and space, while future digital technologies aim to expand learners’ perceptions. Researchers have highlighted the potential of integrated technology and immersive technology in the development of the educational metaverse, which is highly anticipated to create a new dimension for the teaching and learning environment, foster a new value system for the discipline of educational technology, and more effectively and efficiently achieve the grand educational blueprint of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (Zhang et al. 2022 ; Li and Yu, 2023 ).

Hotspot evolution analysis (RQ3)

The examination of keyword evolution reveals a consistent trend in the advancement of digital technology education application research. The emergence and transformation of keywords serve as indicators of the varying research interests in this field. Thus, the utilization of the burst detection function available in CiteSpace allowed for the identification of the top 10 burst words that exhibited a high level of burst strength. This outcome is illustrated in Table 7 .

According to the results presented in Table 7 , the explosive terminology within the realm of digital technology education research has exhibited a concentration mainly between the years 2018 and 2022. Prior to this time frame, the emerging keywords were limited to “information technology” and “computer”. Notably, among them, computer, as an emergent keyword, has always had a high explosive intensity from 2008 to 2018, which reflects the important position of computer in digital technology and is the main carrier of many digital technologies such as Learning Management Systems (LMS) and Assessment and Feedback systems (Barlovits et al. 2022 ).

Since 2018, an increasing number of research studies have focused on evaluating the capabilities of learners to accept, apply, and comprehend digital technologies. As indicated by the use of terms such as “digital literacy” and “digital skill,” the assessment of learners’ digital literacy has become a critical task. Scholarly efforts have been directed towards the development of literacy assessment tools and the implementation of empirical assessments. Furthermore, enhancing the digital literacy of both learners and educators has garnered significant attention. (Nagle, 2018 ; Yu, 2022 ). Simultaneously, given the widespread use of various digital technologies in different formal and informal learning settings, promoting learners’ digital skills has become a crucial objective for contemporary schools (Nygren et al. 2019 ; Forde and OBrien, 2022 ).

Since 2020, the field of applied research on digital technology education has witnessed the emergence of three new hotspots, all of which have been affected to some extent by the pandemic. Firstly, digital technology has been widely applied in physical education, which is one of the subjects that has been severely affected by the pandemic (Parris et al. 2022 ; Jiang and Ning, 2022 ). Secondly, digital transformation has become an important measure for most schools, especially higher education institutions, to cope with the impact of the pandemic globally (García-Morales et al. 2021 ). Although the concept of digital transformation was proposed earlier, the COVID-19 pandemic has greatly accelerated this transformation process. Educational institutions must carefully redesign their educational products to face this new situation, providing timely digital learning methods, environments, tools, and support systems that have far-reaching impacts on modern society (Krishnamurthy, 2020 ; Salas-Pilco et al. 2022 ). Moreover, the professional development of teachers has become a key mission of educational institutions in the post-pandemic era. Teachers need to have a certain level of digital literacy and be familiar with the tools and online teaching resources used in online teaching, which has become a research hotspot today. Organizing digital skills training for teachers to cope with the application of emerging technologies in education is an important issue for teacher professional development and lifelong learning (Garzón-Artacho et al. 2021 ). As the main organizers and practitioners of emergency remote teaching (ERT) during the pandemic, teachers must put cognitive effort into their professional development to ensure effective implementation of ERT (Romero-Hall and Jaramillo Cherrez, 2022 ).

The burst word “digital transformation” reveals that we are in the midst of an ongoing digital technology revolution. With the emergence of innovative digital technologies such as ChatGPT and Microsoft 365 Copilot, technology trends will continue to evolve, albeit unpredictably. While the impact of these advancements on school education remains uncertain, it is anticipated that the widespread integration of technology will significantly affect the current education system. Rejecting emerging technologies without careful consideration is unwise. Like any revolution, the technological revolution in the education field has both positive and negative aspects. Detractors argue that digital technology disrupts learning and memory (Baron, 2021 ) or causes learners to become addicted and distracted from learning (Selwyn and Aagaard, 2020 ). On the other hand, the prudent use of digital technology in education offers a glimpse of a golden age of open learning. Educational leaders and practitioners have the opportunity to leverage cutting-edge digital technologies to address current educational challenges and develop a rational path for the sustainable and healthy growth of education.

Discussion on performance analysis (RQ1)

The field of digital technology education application research has experienced substantial growth since the turn of the century, a phenomenon that is quantifiably apparent through an analysis of authorship, country/region contributions, and institutional engagement. This expansion reflects the increased integration of digital technologies in educational settings and the heightened scholarly interest in understanding and optimizing their use.

Discussion on authorship productivity in digital technology education research

The authorship distribution within digital technology education research is indicative of the field’s intellectual structure and depth. A primary figure in this domain is Neil Selwyn, whose substantial citation rate underscores the profound impact of his work. His focus on the implications of digital technology in higher education and educational sociology has proven to be seminal. Selwyn’s research trajectory, especially the exploration of spatiotemporal extensions of education through technology, provides valuable insights into the multifaceted role of digital tools in learning processes (Selwyn et al. 2019 ).

Other notable contributors, like Henderson and Edwards, present diversified research interests, such as the impact of digital technologies during the pandemic and their application in early childhood education, respectively. Their varied focuses highlight the breadth of digital technology education research, encompassing pedagogical innovation, technological adaptation, and policy development.

Discussion on country/region-level productivity and collaboration

At the country/region level, the United Kingdom, specifically England, emerges as a leading contributor with 92 published papers and a significant citation count. This is closely followed by Australia and the United States, indicating a strong English-speaking research axis. Such geographical concentration of scholarly output often correlates with investment in research and development, technological infrastructure, and the prevalence of higher education institutions engaging in cutting-edge research.

China’s notable inclusion as the only non-Western country among the top contributors to the field suggests a growing research capacity and interest in digital technology in education. However, the lower average citation per paper for China could reflect emerging engagement or different research focuses that may not yet have achieved the same international recognition as Western counterparts.

The chord diagram analysis furthers this understanding, revealing dense interconnections between countries like the United States, China, and England, which indicates robust collaborations. Such collaborations are fundamental in addressing global educational challenges and shaping international research agendas.

Discussion on institutional-level contributions to digital technology education

Institutional productivity in digital technology education research reveals a constellation of universities driving the field forward. Monash University and the Australian Catholic University have the highest publication output, signaling Australia’s significant role in advancing digital education research. The University of Oslo’s remarkable average citation count per publication indicates influential research contributions, potentially reflecting high-quality studies that resonate with the broader academic community.

The strong showing of UK institutions, including the University of London, The Open University, and the University of Cambridge, reinforces the UK’s prominence in this research field. Such institutions are often at the forefront of pedagogical innovation, benefiting from established research cultures and funding mechanisms that support sustained inquiry into digital education.

Discussion on journal publication analysis

An examination of journal outputs offers a lens into the communicative channels of the field’s knowledge base. Journals such as Education and Information Technologies , Computers & Education , and the British Journal of Educational Technology not only serve as the primary disseminators of research findings but also as indicators of research quality and relevance. The impact factor (IF) serves as a proxy for the quality and influence of these journals within the academic community.

The high citation counts for articles published in Computers & Education suggest that research disseminated through this medium has a wide-reaching impact and is of particular interest to the field. This is further evidenced by its significant IF of 11.182, indicating that the journal is a pivotal platform for seminal work in the application of digital technology in education.

The authorship, regional, and institutional productivity in the field of digital technology education application research collectively narrate the evolution of this domain since the turn of the century. The prominence of certain authors and countries underscores the importance of socioeconomic factors and existing academic infrastructure in fostering research productivity. Meanwhile, the centrality of specific journals as outlets for high-impact research emphasizes the role of academic publishing in shaping the research landscape.

As the field continues to grow, future research may benefit from leveraging the collaborative networks that have been elucidated through this analysis, perhaps focusing on underrepresented regions to broaden the scope and diversity of research. Furthermore, the stabilization of publication numbers in recent years invites a deeper exploration into potential plateaus in research trends or saturation in certain sub-fields, signaling an opportunity for novel inquiries and methodological innovations.

Discussion on the evolutionary trends (RQ2)

The evolution of the research field concerning the application of digital technology in education over the past two decades is a story of convergence, diversification, and transformation, shaped by rapid technological advancements and shifting educational paradigms.

At the turn of the century, the inception of digital technology in education was largely exploratory, with a focus on how emerging computer technologies could be harnessed to enhance traditional learning environments. Research from this early period was primarily descriptive, reflecting on the potential and challenges of incorporating digital tools into the educational setting. This phase was critical in establishing the fundamental discourse that would guide subsequent research, as it set the stage for understanding the scope and impact of digital technology in learning spaces (Wang et al. 2023 ).

As the first decade progressed, the narrative expanded to encompass the pedagogical implications of digital technologies. This was a period of conceptual debates, where terms like “digital natives” and “disruptive pedagogy” entered the academic lexicon, underscoring the growing acknowledgment of digital technology as a transformative force within education (Bennett and Maton, 2010 ). During this time, the research began to reflect a more nuanced understanding of the integration of technology, considering not only its potential to change where and how learning occurred but also its implications for educational equity and access.

In the second decade, with the maturation of internet connectivity and mobile technology, the focus of research shifted from theoretical speculations to empirical investigations. The proliferation of digital devices and the ubiquity of social media influenced how learners interacted with information and each other, prompting a surge in studies that sought to measure the impact of these tools on learning outcomes. The digital divide and issues related to digital literacy became central concerns, as scholars explored the varying capacities of students and educators to engage with technology effectively.

Throughout this period, there was an increasing emphasis on the individualization of learning experiences, facilitated by adaptive technologies that could cater to the unique needs and pacing of learners (Jing et al. 2023a ). This individualization was coupled with a growing recognition of the importance of collaborative learning, both online and offline, and the role of digital tools in supporting these processes. Blended learning models, which combined face-to-face instruction with online resources, emerged as a significant trend, advocating for a balance between traditional pedagogies and innovative digital strategies.

The later years, particularly marked by the COVID-19 pandemic, accelerated the necessity for digital technology in education, transforming it from a supplementary tool to an essential platform for delivering education globally (Mo et al. 2022 ; Mustapha et al. 2021 ). This era brought about an unprecedented focus on online learning environments, distance education, and virtual classrooms. Research became more granular, examining not just the pedagogical effectiveness of digital tools, but also their role in maintaining continuity of education during crises, their impact on teacher and student well-being, and their implications for the future of educational policy and infrastructure.

Across these two decades, the research field has seen a shift from examining digital technology as an external addition to the educational process, to viewing it as an integral component of curriculum design, instructional strategies, and even assessment methods. The emergent themes have broadened from a narrow focus on specific tools or platforms to include wider considerations such as data privacy, ethical use of technology, and the environmental impact of digital tools.

Moreover, the field has moved from considering the application of digital technology in education as a primarily cognitive endeavor to recognizing its role in facilitating socio-emotional learning, digital citizenship, and global competencies. Researchers have increasingly turned their attention to the ways in which technology can support collaborative skills, cultural understanding, and ethical reasoning within diverse student populations.

In summary, the past over twenty years in the research field of digital technology applications in education have been characterized by a progression from foundational inquiries to complex analyses of digital integration. This evolution has mirrored the trajectory of technology itself, from a facilitative tool to a pervasive ecosystem defining contemporary educational experiences. As we look to the future, the field is poised to delve into the implications of emerging technologies like AI, AR, and VR, and their potential to redefine the educational landscape even further. This ongoing metamorphosis suggests that the application of digital technology in education will continue to be a rich area of inquiry, demanding continual adaptation and forward-thinking from educators and researchers alike.

Discussion on the study of research hotspots (RQ3)

The analysis of keyword evolution in digital technology education application research elucidates the current frontiers in the field, reflecting a trajectory that is in tandem with the rapidly advancing digital age. This landscape is sculpted by emergent technological innovations and shaped by the demands of an increasingly digital society.

Interdisciplinary integration and pedagogical transformation

One of the frontiers identified from recent keyword bursts includes the integration of digital technology into diverse educational contexts, particularly noted with the keyword “physical education.” The digitalization of disciplines traditionally characterized by physical presence illustrates the pervasive reach of technology and signifies a push towards interdisciplinary integration where technology is not only a facilitator but also a transformative agent. This integration challenges educators to reconceptualize curriculum delivery to accommodate digital tools that can enhance or simulate the physical aspects of learning.

Digital literacy and skills acquisition

Another pivotal frontier is the focus on “digital literacy” and “digital skill”, which has intensified in recent years. This suggests a shift from mere access to technology towards a comprehensive understanding and utilization of digital tools. In this realm, the emphasis is not only on the ability to use technology but also on critical thinking, problem-solving, and the ethical use of digital resources (Yu, 2022 ). The acquisition of digital literacy is no longer an additive skill but a fundamental aspect of modern education, essential for navigating and contributing to the digital world.

Educational digital transformation

The keyword “digital transformation” marks a significant research frontier, emphasizing the systemic changes that education institutions must undergo to align with the digital era (Romero et al. 2021 ). This transformation includes the redesigning of learning environments, pedagogical strategies, and assessment methods to harness digital technology’s full potential. Research in this area explores the complexity of institutional change, addressing the infrastructural, cultural, and policy adjustments needed for a seamless digital transition.

Engagement and participation

Further exploration into “engagement” and “participation” underscores the importance of student-centered learning environments that are mediated by technology. The current frontiers examine how digital platforms can foster collaboration, inclusivity, and active learning, potentially leading to more meaningful and personalized educational experiences. Here, the use of technology seeks to support the emotional and cognitive aspects of learning, moving beyond the transactional view of education to one that is relational and interactive.

Professional development and teacher readiness

As the field evolves, “professional development” emerges as a crucial area, particularly in light of the pandemic which necessitated emergency remote teaching. The need for teacher readiness in a digital age is a pressing frontier, with research focusing on the competencies required for educators to effectively integrate technology into their teaching practices. This includes familiarity with digital tools, pedagogical innovation, and an ongoing commitment to personal and professional growth in the digital domain.

Pandemic as a catalyst

The recent pandemic has acted as a catalyst for accelerated research and application in this field, particularly in the domains of “digital transformation,” “professional development,” and “physical education.” This period has been a litmus test for the resilience and adaptability of educational systems to continue their operations in an emergency. Research has thus been directed at understanding how digital technologies can support not only continuity but also enhance the quality and reach of education in such contexts.

Ethical and societal considerations

The frontier of digital technology in education is also expanding to consider broader ethical and societal implications. This includes issues of digital equity, data privacy, and the sociocultural impact of technology on learning communities. The research explores how educational technology can be leveraged to address inequities and create more equitable learning opportunities for all students, regardless of their socioeconomic background.

Innovation and emerging technologies

Looking forward, the frontiers are set to be influenced by ongoing and future technological innovations, such as artificial intelligence (AI) (Wu and Yu, 2023 ; Chen et al. 2022a ). The exploration into how these technologies can be integrated into educational practices to create immersive and adaptive learning experiences represents a bold new chapter for the field.

In conclusion, the current frontiers of research on the application of digital technology in education are multifaceted and dynamic. They reflect an overarching movement towards deeper integration of technology in educational systems and pedagogical practices, where the goals are not only to facilitate learning but to redefine it. As these frontiers continue to expand and evolve, they will shape the educational landscape, requiring a concerted effort from researchers, educators, policymakers, and technologists to navigate the challenges and harness the opportunities presented by the digital revolution in education.

Conclusions and future research

Conclusions.

The utilization of digital technology in education is a research area that cuts across multiple technical and educational domains and continues to experience dynamic growth due to the continuous progress of technology. In this study, a systematic review of this field was conducted through bibliometric techniques to examine its development trajectory. The primary focus of the review was to investigate the leading contributors, productive national institutions, significant publications, and evolving development patterns. The study’s quantitative analysis resulted in several key conclusions that shed light on this research field’s current state and future prospects.

(1) The research field of digital technology education applications has entered a stage of rapid development, particularly in recent years due to the impact of the pandemic, resulting in a peak of publications. Within this field, several key authors (Selwyn, Henderson, Edwards, etc.) and countries/regions (England, Australia, USA, etc.) have emerged, who have made significant contributions. International exchanges in this field have become frequent, with a high degree of internationalization in academic research. Higher education institutions in the UK and Australia are the core productive forces in this field at the institutional level.

(2) Education and Information Technologies , Computers & Education , and the British Journal of Educational Technology are notable journals that publish research related to digital technology education applications. These journals are affiliated with the research field of educational technology and provide effective communication platforms for sharing digital technology education applications.

(3) Over the past two decades, research on digital technology education applications has progressed from its early stages of budding, initial development, and critical exploration to accelerated transformation, and it is currently approaching maturity. Technological progress and changes in the times have been key driving forces for educational transformation and innovation, and both have played important roles in promoting the continuous development of education.

(4) Influenced by the pandemic, three emerging frontiers have emerged in current research on digital technology education applications, which are physical education, digital transformation, and professional development under the promotion of digital technology. These frontier research hotspots reflect the core issues that the education system faces when encountering new technologies. The evolution of research hotspots shows that technology breakthroughs in education’s original boundaries of time and space create new challenges. The continuous self-renewal of education is achieved by solving one hotspot problem after another.

The present study offers significant practical implications for scholars and practitioners in the field of digital technology education applications. Firstly, it presents a well-defined framework of the existing research in this area, serving as a comprehensive guide for new entrants to the field and shedding light on the developmental trajectory of this research domain. Secondly, the study identifies several contemporary research hotspots, thus offering a valuable decision-making resource for scholars aiming to explore potential research directions. Thirdly, the study undertakes an exhaustive analysis of published literature to identify core journals in the field of digital technology education applications, with Sustainability being identified as a promising open access journal that publishes extensively on this topic. This finding can potentially facilitate scholars in selecting appropriate journals for their research outputs.

Limitation and future research

Influenced by some objective factors, this study also has some limitations. First of all, the bibliometrics analysis software has high standards for data. In order to ensure the quality and integrity of the collected data, the research only selects the periodical papers in SCIE and SSCI indexes, which are the core collection of Web of Science database, and excludes other databases, conference papers, editorials and other publications, which may ignore some scientific research and original opinions in the field of digital technology education and application research. In addition, although this study used professional software to carry out bibliometric analysis and obtained more objective quantitative data, the analysis and interpretation of data will inevitably have a certain subjective color, and the influence of subjectivity on data analysis cannot be completely avoided. As such, future research endeavors will broaden the scope of literature screening and proactively engage scholars in the field to gain objective and state-of-the-art insights, while minimizing the adverse impact of personal subjectivity on research analysis.

Data availability

The datasets analyzed during the current study are available in the Dataverse repository: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/F9QMHY

Alabdulaziz MS (2021) COVID-19 and the use of digital technology in mathematics education. Educ Inf Technol 26(6):7609–7633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10602-3

Arif TB, Munaf U, Ul-Haque I (2023) The future of medical education and research: is ChatGPT a blessing or blight in disguise? Med Educ Online 28. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2023.2181052

Banerjee M, Chiew D, Patel KT, Johns I, Chappell D, Linton N, Cole GD, Francis DP, Szram J, Ross J, Zaman S (2021) The impact of artificial intelligence on clinical education: perceptions of postgraduate trainee doctors in London (UK) and recommendations for trainers. BMC Med Educ 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02870-x

Barlovits S, Caldeira A, Fesakis G, Jablonski S, Koutsomanoli Filippaki D, Lázaro C, Ludwig M, Mammana MF, Moura A, Oehler DXK, Recio T, Taranto E, Volika S(2022) Adaptive, synchronous, and mobile online education: developing the ASYMPTOTE learning environment. Mathematics 10:1628. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10101628

Article   Google Scholar  

Baron NS(2021) Know what? How digital technologies undermine learning and remembering J Pragmat 175:27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.01.011

Batista J, Morais NS, Ramos F (2016) Researching the use of communication technologies in higher education institutions in Portugal. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0571-6.ch057

Beardsley M, Albó L, Aragón P, Hernández-Leo D (2021) Emergency education effects on teacher abilities and motivation to use digital technologies. Br J Educ Technol 52. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13101

Bennett S, Maton K(2010) Beyond the “digital natives” debate: towards a more nuanced understanding of students’ technology experiences J Comput Assist Learn 26:321–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00360.x

Buckingham D, Burn A (2007) Game literacy in theory and practice 16:323–349

Google Scholar  

Bulfin S, Pangrazio L, Selwyn N (2014) Making “MOOCs”: the construction of a new digital higher education within news media discourse. In: The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 15. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i5.1856

Camilleri MA, Camilleri AC(2016) Digital learning resources and ubiquitous technologies in education Technol Knowl Learn 22:65–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-016-9287-7

Chen C(2006) CiteSpace II: detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 57:359–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20317

Chen J, Dai J, Zhu K, Xu L(2022) Effects of extended reality on language learning: a meta-analysis Front Psychol 13:1016519. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1016519

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Chen J, Wang CL, Tang Y (2022b) Knowledge mapping of volunteer motivation: a bibliometric analysis and cross-cultural comparative study. Front Psychol 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.883150

Cohen A, Soffer T, Henderson M(2022) Students’ use of technology and their perceptions of its usefulness in higher education: International comparison J Comput Assist Learn 38(5):1321–1331. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12678

Collins A, Halverson R(2010) The second educational revolution: rethinking education in the age of technology J Comput Assist Learn 26:18–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00339.x

Conole G, Alevizou P (2010) A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in higher education. Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, UK: the Open University, retrieved 17 February

Creely E, Henriksen D, Crawford R, Henderson M(2021) Exploring creative risk-taking and productive failure in classroom practice. A case study of the perceived self-efficacy and agency of teachers at one school Think Ski Creat 42:100951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100951

Davis N, Eickelmann B, Zaka P(2013) Restructuring of educational systems in the digital age from a co-evolutionary perspective J Comput Assist Learn 29:438–450. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12032

De Belli N (2009) Bibliometrics and citation analysis: from the science citation index to cybermetrics, Scarecrow Press. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12032

Domínguez A, Saenz-de-Navarrete J, de-Marcos L, Fernández-Sanz L, Pagés C, Martínez-Herráiz JJ(2013) Gamifying learning experiences: practical implications and outcomes Comput Educ 63:380–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.020

Donnison S (2009) Discourses in conflict: the relationship between Gen Y pre-service teachers, digital technologies and lifelong learning. Australasian J Educ Technol 25. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1138

Durfee SM, Jain S, Shaffer K (2003) Incorporating electronic media into medical student education. Acad Radiol 10:205–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1076-6332(03)80046-6

Dzikowski P(2018) A bibliometric analysis of born global firms J Bus Res 85:281–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.054

van Eck NJ, Waltman L(2009) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping Scientometrics 84:523–538 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

Edwards S(2013) Digital play in the early years: a contextual response to the problem of integrating technologies and play-based pedagogies in the early childhood curriculum Eur Early Child Educ Res J 21:199–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293x.2013.789190

Edwards S(2015) New concepts of play and the problem of technology, digital media and popular-culture integration with play-based learning in early childhood education Technol Pedagogy Educ 25:513–532 https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939x.2015.1108929

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Eisenberg MB(2008) Information literacy: essential skills for the information age DESIDOC J Libr Inf Technol 28:39–47. https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.28.2.166

Forde C, OBrien A (2022) A literature review of barriers and opportunities presented by digitally enhanced practical skill teaching and learning in health science education. Med Educ Online 27. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2022.2068210

García-Morales VJ, Garrido-Moreno A, Martín-Rojas R (2021) The transformation of higher education after the COVID disruption: emerging challenges in an online learning scenario. Front Psychol 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.616059

Garfield E(2006) The history and meaning of the journal impact factor JAMA 295:90. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.1.90

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Garzón-Artacho E, Sola-Martínez T, Romero-Rodríguez JM, Gómez-García G(2021) Teachers’ perceptions of digital competence at the lifelong learning stage Heliyon 7:e07513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07513

Gaviria-Marin M, Merigó JM, Baier-Fuentes H(2019) Knowledge management: a global examination based on bibliometric analysis Technol Forecast Soc Change 140:194–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.006

Gilster P, Glister P (1997) Digital literacy. Wiley Computer Pub, New York

Greenhow C, Lewin C(2015) Social media and education: reconceptualizing the boundaries of formal and informal learning Learn Media Technol 41:6–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2015.1064954

Hawkins DT(2001) Bibliometrics of electronic journals in information science Infor Res 7(1):7–1. http://informationr.net/ir/7-1/paper120.html

Henderson M, Selwyn N, Finger G, Aston R(2015) Students’ everyday engagement with digital technology in university: exploring patterns of use and “usefulness J High Educ Policy Manag 37:308–319 https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080x.2015.1034424

Huang CK, Neylon C, Hosking R, Montgomery L, Wilson KS, Ozaygen A, Brookes-Kenworthy C (2020) Evaluating the impact of open access policies on research institutions. eLife 9. https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.57067

Hwang GJ, Tsai CC(2011) Research trends in mobile and ubiquitous learning: a review of publications in selected journals from 2001 to 2010 Br J Educ Technol 42:E65–E70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01183.x

Hwang GJ, Wu PH, Zhuang YY, Huang YM(2013) Effects of the inquiry-based mobile learning model on the cognitive load and learning achievement of students Interact Learn Environ 21:338–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2011.575789

Jiang S, Ning CF (2022) Interactive communication in the process of physical education: are social media contributing to the improvement of physical training performance. Universal Access Inf Soc, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-022-00911-w

Jing Y, Zhao L, Zhu KK, Wang H, Wang CL, Xia Q(2023) Research landscape of adaptive learning in education: a bibliometric study on research publications from 2000 to 2022 Sustainability 15:3115–3115. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043115

Jing Y, Wang CL, Chen Y, Wang H, Yu T, Shadiev R (2023b) Bibliometric mapping techniques in educational technology research: a systematic literature review. Educ Inf Technol 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12178-6

Krishnamurthy S (2020) The future of business education: a commentary in the shadow of the Covid-19 pandemic. J Bus Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.034

Kumar S, Lim WM, Pandey N, Christopher Westland J (2021) 20 years of electronic commerce research. Electron Commer Res 21:1–40

Kyza EA, Georgiou Y(2018) Scaffolding augmented reality inquiry learning: the design and investigation of the TraceReaders location-based, augmented reality platform Interact Learn Environ 27:211–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1458039

Laurillard D(2008) Technology enhanced learning as a tool for pedagogical innovation J Philos Educ 42:521–533. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.2008.00658.x

Li M, Yu Z (2023) A systematic review on the metaverse-based blended English learning. Front Psychol 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1087508

Luo H, Li G, Feng Q, Yang Y, Zuo M (2021) Virtual reality in K-12 and higher education: a systematic review of the literature from 2000 to 2019. J Comput Assist Learn. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12538

Margaryan A, Littlejohn A, Vojt G(2011) Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies Comput Educ 56:429–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.004

McMillan S(1996) Literacy and computer literacy: definitions and comparisons Comput Educ 27:161–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360-1315(96)00026-7

Mo CY, Wang CL, Dai J, Jin P (2022) Video playback speed influence on learning effect from the perspective of personalized adaptive learning: a study based on cognitive load theory. Front Psychology 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.839982

Moorhouse BL (2021) Beginning teaching during COVID-19: newly qualified Hong Kong teachers’ preparedness for online teaching. Educ Stud 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2021.1964939

Moorhouse BL, Wong KM (2021) The COVID-19 Pandemic as a catalyst for teacher pedagogical and technological innovation and development: teachers’ perspectives. Asia Pac J Educ 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2021.1988511

Moskal P, Dziuban C, Hartman J (2013) Blended learning: a dangerous idea? Internet High Educ 18:15–23

Mughal MY, Andleeb N, Khurram AFA, Ali MY, Aslam MS, Saleem MN (2022) Perceptions of teaching-learning force about Metaverse for education: a qualitative study. J. Positive School Psychol 6:1738–1745

Mustapha I, Thuy Van N, Shahverdi M, Qureshi MI, Khan N (2021) Effectiveness of digital technology in education during COVID-19 pandemic. a bibliometric analysis. Int J Interact Mob Technol 15:136

Nagle J (2018) Twitter, cyber-violence, and the need for a critical social media literacy in teacher education: a review of the literature. Teach Teach Education 76:86–94

Nazare J, Woolf A, Sysoev I, Ballinger S, Saveski M, Walker M, Roy D (2022) Technology-assisted coaching can increase engagement with learning technology at home and caregivers’ awareness of it. Comput Educ 188:104565

Nguyen UP, Hallinger P (2020) Assessing the distinctive contributions of simulation & gaming to the literature, 1970-2019: a bibliometric review. Simul Gaming 104687812094156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878120941569

Nygren H, Nissinen K, Hämäläinen R, Wever B(2019) Lifelong learning: formal, non-formal and informal learning in the context of the use of problem-solving skills in technology-rich environments Br J Educ Technol 50:1759–1770. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12807

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Moher D (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg 88:105906

Pan SL, Zhang S(2020) From fighting COVID-19 pandemic to tackling sustainable development goals: an opportunity for responsible information systems research Int J Inf Manage 55:102196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102196

Pan X, Yan E, Cui M, Hua W(2018) Examining the usage, citation, and diffusion patterns of bibliometric mapping software: a comparative study of three tools J Informetr 12:481–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.03.005

Parris Z, Cale L, Harris J, Casey A (2022) Physical activity for health, covid-19 and social media: what, where and why?. Movimento, 28. https://doi.org/10.22456/1982-8918.122533

Pasquini LA, Evangelopoulos N (2016) Sociotechnical stewardship in higher education: a field study of social media policy documents. J Comput High Educ 29:218–239

Pérez-Sanagustín M, Hernández-Leo D, Santos P, Delgado Kloos C, Blat J(2014) Augmenting reality and formality of informal and non-formal settings to enhance blended learning IEEE Trans Learn Technol 7:118–131. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2014.2312719

Pinto M, Leite C (2020) Digital technologies in support of students learning in Higher Education: literature review. Digital Education Review 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2020.37.343-360

Pires F, Masanet MJ, Tomasena JM, Scolari CA(2022) Learning with YouTube: beyond formal and informal through new actors, strategies and affordances Convergence 28(3):838–853. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856521102054

Pritchard A (1969) Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics 25:348

Romero M, Romeu T, Guitert M, Baztán P (2021) Digital transformation in higher education: the UOC case. In ICERI2021 Proceedings (pp. 6695–6703). IATED https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2021.1512

Romero-Hall E, Jaramillo Cherrez N (2022) Teaching in times of disruption: faculty digital literacy in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2022.2030782

Rospigliosi PA(2023) Artificial intelligence in teaching and learning: what questions should we ask of ChatGPT? Interactive Learning Environments 31:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2180191

Salas-Pilco SZ, Yang Y, Zhang Z(2022) Student engagement in online learning in Latin American higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review. Br J Educ Technol 53(3):593–619. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13190

Selwyn N(2009) The digital native-myth and reality In Aslib proceedings 61(4):364–379. https://doi.org/10.1108/00012530910973776

Selwyn N(2012) Making sense of young people, education and digital technology: the role of sociological theory Oxford Review of Education 38:81–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2011.577949

Selwyn N, Facer K(2014) The sociology of education and digital technology: past, present and future Oxford Rev Educ 40:482–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2014.933005

Selwyn N, Banaji S, Hadjithoma-Garstka C, Clark W(2011) Providing a platform for parents? Exploring the nature of parental engagement with school Learning Platforms J Comput Assist Learn 27:314–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00428.x

Selwyn N, Aagaard J (2020) Banning mobile phones from classrooms-an opportunity to advance understandings of technology addiction, distraction and cyberbullying. Br J Educ Technol 52. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12943

Selwyn N, O’Neill C, Smith G, Andrejevic M, Gu X (2021) A necessary evil? The rise of online exam proctoring in Australian universities. Media Int Austr 1329878X2110058. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878x211005862

Selwyn N, Pangrazio L, Nemorin S, Perrotta C (2019) What might the school of 2030 be like? An exercise in social science fiction. Learn, Media Technol 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1694944

Selwyn, N (2016) What works and why?* Understanding successful technology enabled learning within institutional contexts 2016 Final report Appendices (Part B). Monash University Griffith University

Sjöberg D, Holmgren R (2021) Informal workplace learning in swedish police education-a teacher perspective. Vocations and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-021-09267-3

Strotmann A, Zhao D (2012) Author name disambiguation: what difference does it make in author-based citation analysis? J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 63:1820–1833

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Sutherland R, Facer K, Furlong R, Furlong J(2000) A new environment for education? The computer in the home. Comput Educ 34:195–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360-1315(99)00045-7

Szeto E, Cheng AY-N, Hong J-C(2015) Learning with social media: how do preservice teachers integrate YouTube and Social Media in teaching? Asia-Pac Educ Res 25:35–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-015-0230-9

Tang E, Lam C(2014) Building an effective online learning community (OLC) in blog-based teaching portfolios Int High Educ 20:79–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.12.002

Taskin Z, Al U(2019) Natural language processing applications in library and information science Online Inf Rev 43:676–690. https://doi.org/10.1108/oir-07-2018-0217

Tegtmeyer K, Ibsen L, Goldstein B(2001) Computer-assisted learning in critical care: from ENIAC to HAL Crit Care Med 29:N177–N182. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-200108001-00006

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Timotheou S, Miliou O, Dimitriadis Y, Sobrino SV, Giannoutsou N, Cachia R, Moné AM, Ioannou A(2023) Impacts of digital technologies on education and factors influencing schools' digital capacity and transformation: a literature review. Educ Inf Technol 28(6):6695–6726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11431-8

Trujillo Maza EM, Gómez Lozano MT, Cardozo Alarcón AC, Moreno Zuluaga L, Gamba Fadul M (2016) Blended learning supported by digital technology and competency-based medical education: a case study of the social medicine course at the Universidad de los Andes, Colombia. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-016-0027-9

Turin O, Friesem Y(2020) Is that media literacy?: Israeli and US media scholars’ perceptions of the field J Media Lit Educ 12:132–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

Van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2019) VOSviewer manual. Universiteit Leiden

Vratulis V, Clarke T, Hoban G, Erickson G(2011) Additive and disruptive pedagogies: the use of slowmation as an example of digital technology implementation Teach Teach Educ 27:1179–1188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.06.004

Wang CL, Dai J, Xu LJ (2022) Big data and data mining in education: a bibliometrics study from 2010 to 2022. In 2022 7th International Conference on Cloud Computing and Big Data Analytics ( ICCCBDA ) (pp. 507-512). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/icccbda55098.2022.9778874

Wang CL, Dai J, Zhu KK, Yu T, Gu XQ (2023) Understanding the continuance intention of college students toward new E-learning spaces based on an integrated model of the TAM and TTF. Int J Hum-Comput Int 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2291609

Wong L-H, Boticki I, Sun J, Looi C-K(2011) Improving the scaffolds of a mobile-assisted Chinese character forming game via a design-based research cycle Comput Hum Behav 27:1783–1793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.03.005

Wu R, Yu Z (2023) Do AI chatbots improve students learning outcomes? Evidence from a meta-analysis. Br J Educ Technol. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13334

Yang D, Zhou J, Shi D, Pan Q, Wang D, Chen X, Liu J (2022) Research status, hotspots, and evolutionary trends of global digital education via knowledge graph analysis. Sustainability 14:15157–15157. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215157

Yu T, Dai J, Wang CL (2023) Adoption of blended learning: Chinese university students’ perspectives. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10:390. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215157

Yu Z (2022) Sustaining student roles, digital literacy, learning achievements, and motivation in online learning environments during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability 14:4388. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084388

Za S, Spagnoletti P, North-Samardzic A(2014) Organisational learning as an emerging process: the generative role of digital tools in informal learning practices Br J Educ Technol 45:1023–1035. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12211

Zhang X, Chen Y, Hu L, Wang Y (2022) The metaverse in education: definition, framework, features, potential applications, challenges, and future research topics. Front Psychol 13:1016300. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1016300

Zhou M, Dzingirai C, Hove K, Chitata T, Mugandani R (2022) Adoption, use and enhancement of virtual learning during COVID-19. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10985-x

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Zhejiang Provincial Social Science Planning Project, “Mechanisms and Pathways for Empowering Classroom Teaching through Learning Spaces under the Strategy of High-Quality Education Development”, the 2022 National Social Science Foundation Education Youth Project “Research on the Strategy of Creating Learning Space Value and Empowering Classroom Teaching under the background of ‘Double Reduction’” (Grant No. CCA220319) and the National College Student Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program of China (Grant No. 202310337023).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Educational Science and Technology, Zhejiang University of Technology, Zhejiang, China

Chengliang Wang, Xiaojiao Chen, Yidan Liu & Yuhui Jing

Graduate School of Business, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Minden, Malaysia

Department of Management, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Beihang University, Beijing, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: Y.J., C.W.; methodology, C.W.; software, C.W., Y.L.; writing-original draft preparation, C.W., Y.L.; writing-review and editing, T.Y., Y.L., C.W.; supervision, X.C., T.Y.; project administration, Y.J.; funding acquisition, X.C., Y.L. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. All authors have read and approved the re-submission of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuhui Jing .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

Ethical approval was not required as the study did not involve human participants.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not required as the study did not involve human participants.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Wang, C., Chen, X., Yu, T. et al. Education reform and change driven by digital technology: a bibliometric study from a global perspective. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 256 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02717-y

Download citation

Received : 11 July 2023

Accepted : 17 January 2024

Published : 12 February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02717-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

A meta-analysis of learners’ continuance intention toward online education platforms.

• Chengliang Wang

Education and Information Technologies (2024)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Visual Life

• Creative Projects
• Write Here!

Karunaratne, Indika & Atukorale, Ajantha & Perera, Hemamali. (2011). Surveillance of human- computer interactions: A way forward to detection of users' Psychological Distress. 2011 IEEE Colloquium on Humanities, Science and Engineering, CHUSER 2011. 10.1109/CHUSER.2011.6163779.

June 9, 2023 / 1 comment / Reading Time: ~ 12 minutes

The Digital Revolution: How Technology is Changing the Way We Communicate and Interact

This article examines the impact of technology on human interaction and explores the ever-evolving landscape of communication. With the rapid advancement of technology, the methods and modes of communication have undergone a significant transformation. This article investigates both the positive and negative implications of this digitalization. Technological innovations, such as smartphones, social media, and instant messaging apps, have provided unprecedented accessibility and convenience, allowing people to connect effortlessly across distances. However, concerns have arisen regarding the quality and authenticity of these interactions. The article explores the benefits of technology, including improved connectivity, enhanced information sharing, and expanded opportunities for collaboration. It also discusses potential negative effects including a decline in in-person interactions, a loss of empathy, and an increase in online anxiety. This article tries to expand our comprehension of the changing nature of communication in the digital age by exposing the many ways that technology has an impact on interpersonal interactions. It emphasizes the necessity of intentional and thoughtful communication techniques to preserve meaningful connections in a society that is becoming more and more reliant on technology.

Introduction:

Technology has significantly transformed our modes of communication and interaction, revolutionizing the way we connect with one another over the past few decades. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has acted as a catalyst, expediting this transformative process, and necessitating our exclusive reliance on digital tools for socializing, working, and learning. Platforms like social media and video conferencing have emerged in recent years, expanding our options for virtual communication. The impact of these changes on our lives cannot be ignored. In this article, we will delve into the ways in which technology has altered our communication and interaction patterns and explore the consequences of these changes for our relationships, mental well-being, and society.

To gain a deeper understanding of this topic, I have conducted interviews and surveys, allowing us to gather firsthand insights from individuals of various backgrounds. Additionally, we will compare this firsthand information with the perspectives shared by experts in the field. By drawing on both personal experiences and expert opinions, we seek to provide a comprehensive analysis of how technology influences our interpersonal connections. Through this research, we hope to get a deeper comprehension of the complex interactions between technology and people, enabling us to move mindfully and purposefully through the rapidly changing digital environment.

The Evolution of Communication: From Face-to-Face to Digital Connections:

In the realm of communication, we have various mediums at our disposal, such as face-to-face interactions, telephone conversations, and internet-based communication. According to Nancy Baym, an expert in the field of technology and human connections, face-to-face communication is often regarded as the most personal and intimate, while the phone provides a more personal touch than the internet. She explains this in her book Personal Connections in the Digital Age by stating, “Face-to-face is much more personal; phone is personal as well, but not as intimate as face-to-face… Internet would definitely be the least personal, followed by the phone (which at least has the vocal satisfaction) and the most personal would be face-to-face” (Baym 2015).  These distinctions suggest that different communication mediums are perceived to have varying levels of effectiveness in conveying emotion and building relationships. This distinction raises thought-provoking questions about the impact of technology on our ability to forge meaningful connections. While the internet offers unparalleled convenience and connectivity, it is essential to recognize its limitations in reproducing the depth of personal interaction found in face-to-face encounters. These limitations may be attributed to the absence of nonverbal cues, such as facial expressions, body language, and tone of voice, which are vital elements in understanding and interpreting emotions accurately.

Traditionally, face-to-face interactions held a prominent role as the primary means of communication, facilitating personal and intimate connections. However, the rise of technology has brought about significant changes, making communication more convenient but potentially less personal. The rise of phones, instant messaging, and social media platforms has revolutionized how we connect with others. While these digital tools offer instant connectivity and enable us to bridge geographical distances, they introduce a layer of blockage that may impact the depth and quality of our interactions. It is worth noting that different communication mediums have their strengths and limitations. Phone conversations, for instance, retain a certain level of personal connection through vocal interactions, allowing for the conveyance of emotions and tones that text-based communication may lack. However, even with this advantage, phone conversations still fall short of the depth and richness found in face-to-face interactions, as they lack visual cues and physical presence.

Internet-based communication, on the other hand, is considered the least personal medium. Online interactions often rely on text-based exchanges, which may not fully capture the nuances of expression, tone, and body language. While the internet offers the ability to connect with a vast network of individuals and share information on a global scale, it may not facilitate the same depth and authenticity that in-person or phone conversations can provide. As a result, establishing meaningful connections and building genuine relationships in an online setting can be challenging. Research and observations support these ideas. Figure 1. titled “Social Interaction after Electronic Media Use,” shows the potential impact of electronic media on social interaction (source: ResearchGate). This research highlights the need to carefully consider the effects of technology on our interpersonal connections. While technology offers convenience and connectivity, it is essential to strike a balance, ensuring that we do not sacrifice the benefits of face-to-face interactions for the sake of digital convenience.

Figure 1:  Increased reliance on electronic media has led to a noticeable decrease in social interaction.

The Limitations and Effects of Digital Communication

In today’s digital age, the limitations and effects of digital communication are becoming increasingly evident. While the phone and internet offer undeniable benefits such as convenience and the ability to connect with people regardless of geographical distance, they fall short in capturing the depth and richness of a face-to-face conversation. The ability to be in the same physical space as the person we’re communicating with, observing their facial expressions, body language, and truly feeling their presence, is something unique and irreplaceable.

Ulrike Schultze, in her thought-provoking TED Talk titled “How Social Media Shapes Identity,” delves further into the impact of digital communication on our lives by stating, “we construct the technology, but the technology also constructs us. We become what technology allows us to become” (Schultze 2015). This concept highlights how our reliance on digital media for interaction has led to a transformation in how we express ourselves and relate to others.

The influence of social media has been profound in shaping our communication patterns and interpersonal dynamics. Research conducted by Kalpathy Subramanian (2017) examined the influence of social media on interpersonal communication, highlighting the changes it brings to the way we interact and express ourselves (Subramanian 2017). The study found that online communication often involves the use of abbreviations, emoticons, and hashtags, which have become embedded in our online discourse. These digital communication shortcuts prioritize speed and efficiency, but they also contribute to a shift away from the physical action of face-to-face conversation, where nonverbal cues and deeper emotional connections can be fostered.

Additionally, the study emphasizes the impact of social media on self-presentation and identity construction. With the rise of platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, individuals have a platform to curate and present themselves to the world. This online self-presentation can influence how we perceive ourselves and how others perceive us, potentially shaping our identities in the process. The study further suggests that the emphasis on self-presentation and the pressure to maintain a certain image on social media can lead to increased stress and anxiety among users.

Interviews:

I conducted interviews with individuals from different age groups to gain diverse perspectives on how technology and social media have transformed the way we connect with others. By exploring the experiences of a 21-year-old student and an individual in their 40s, we can better understand the evolving dynamics of interpersonal communication in the digital age. These interviews shed light on the prevalence of digital communication among younger generations, their preference for convenience, and the concerns raised by individuals from older age groups regarding the potential loss of deeper emotional connections.

When I asked the 21-year-old classmate about how technology has changed the way they interact with people in person, they expressed, “To be honest, I spend more time texting, messaging, or posting on social media than actually talking face-to-face with others. It’s just so much more convenient.” This response highlights the prevalence of digital communication among younger generations and their preference for convenience over traditional face-to-face interactions. It suggests that technology has significantly transformed the way young people engage with others, with a greater reliance on virtual interactions rather than in-person conversations. Additionally, the mention of convenience as a driving factor raises questions about the potential trade-offs in terms of depth and quality of interpersonal connections.

To gain insight from an individual in their 40s, I conducted another interview. When asked about their experiences with technology and social media, they shared valuable perspectives. They mentioned that while they appreciate the convenience and accessibility offered by technology, they also expressed concerns about its impact on interpersonal connections. They emphasized the importance of face-to-face interactions in building genuine relationships and expressed reservations about the potential loss of deeper emotional connections in digital communication. Additionally, they discussed the challenges of adapting to rapid technological advancements and the potential generational divide in communication preferences.

Comparing the responses from both interviews, it is evident that there are generational differences in the perception and use of technology for communication. While the 21-year-old classmate emphasized convenience as a primary factor in favor of digital communication, the individual in their 40s highlighted the importance of face-to-face interactions and expressed concerns about the potential loss of meaningful connections in the digital realm. This comparison raises questions about the potential impact of technology on the depth and quality of interpersonal relationships across different age groups. It also invites further exploration into how societal norms and technological advancements shape individuals’ preferences and experiences.

Overall, the interviews revealed a shift towards digital communication among both younger and older individuals, with varying perspectives. While convenience and connectivity are valued, concerns were raised regarding the potential drawbacks, including the pressure to maintain an idealized online presence and the potential loss of genuine connections. It is evident that technology and social media have transformed the way we communicate and interact with others, but the interviews also highlighted the importance of maintaining a balance and recognizing the value of face-to-face interactions in fostering meaningful relationships.

I have recently conducted a survey with my classmates to gather insights on how technology and social media have influenced communication and interaction among students in their daily lives. Although the number of responses is relatively small, the collected data allows us to gain a glimpse into individual experiences and perspectives on this matter.

One of the questions asked in the survey was how often students rely on digital communication methods, such as texting, messaging, or social media, in comparison to engaging in face-to-face conversations. The responses indicated a clear trend towards increased reliance on digital communication, with 85% of participants stating that they frequently use digital platforms as their primary means of communication. This suggests a significant shift away from traditional face-to-face interactions, highlighting the pervasive influence of technology in shaping our communication habits.

Furthermore, the survey explored changes in the quality of interactions and relationships due to the increased use of technology and social media. Interestingly, 63% of respondents reported that they had noticed a decrease in the depth and intimacy of their connections since incorporating more digital communication into their lives. Many participants expressed concerns about the difficulty of conveying emotions effectively through digital channels and the lack of non-verbal cues that are present in face-to-face interactions. It is important to note that while the survey results provide valuable insights into individual experiences, they are not representative of the entire student population. The small sample size limits the generalizability of the findings. However, the data collected does shed light on the potential impact of technology and social media on communication and interaction patterns among students.

Expanding on the topic, I found an insightful figure from Business Insider that sheds light on how people utilize their smartphones (Business Insider). Figure 2. illustrates the average smartphone owner’s daily time spent on various activities. Notably, communication activities such as texting, talking, and social networking account for a significant portion, comprising 59% of phone usage. This data reinforces the impact of digital communication on our daily lives, indicating the substantial role it plays in shaping our interactions with others.  Upon comparing this research with the data, I have gathered, a clear trend emerges, highlighting that an increasing number of individuals primarily utilize their smartphones for communication and interaction purposes.

Figure 2: The breakdown of daily smartphone usage among average users clearly demonstrates that the phone is primarily used for interactions.

The Digital Make Over:

In today’s digital age, the impact of technology on communication and interaction is evident, particularly in educational settings. As a college student, I have witnessed the transformation firsthand, especially with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The convenience of online submissions for assignments has led to a growing trend of students opting to skip physical classes, relying on the ability to submit their work remotely. Unfortunately, this shift has resulted in a decline in face-to-face interactions and communication among classmates and instructors.

The decrease in physical attendance raises concerns about the potential consequences for both learning and social connections within the academic community. Classroom discussions, collaborative projects, and networking opportunities are often fostered through in-person interactions. By limiting these experiences, students may miss out on valuable learning moments, diverse perspectives, and the chance to establish meaningful connections with their peers and instructors.

Simon Lindgren, in his thought-provoking Ted Talk , “Media Are Not Social, but People Are,” delves deeper into the effects of technology and social media on our interactions. Lindgren highlights a significant point by suggesting that while technology may have the potential to make us better individuals, we must also recognize its potential pitfalls. Social media, for instance, can create filter bubbles that limit our exposure to diverse viewpoints, making us less in touch with reality and more narrow-minded. This cautionary reminder emphasizes the need to approach social media thoughtfully, seeking out diverse perspectives and avoiding the pitfalls of echo chambers. Furthermore, it is crucial to strike a balance between utilizing technology for educational purposes and embracing the benefits of in-person interactions. While technology undoubtedly facilitates certain aspects of education, such as online learning platforms and digital resources, we must not overlook the importance of face-to-face communication. In-person interactions allow for nuanced non-verbal cues, deeper emotional connections, and real-time engagement that contribute to a more comprehensive learning experience.

A study conducted by Times Higher Education delved into this topic, providing valuable insights. Figure 3. from the study illustrates a significant drop in attendance levels after the pandemic’s onset. Undeniably, technology played a crucial role in facilitating the transition to online learning. However, it is important to acknowledge that this shift has also led to a decline in face-to-face interactions, which have long been regarded as essential for effective communication and relationship-building. While technology continues to evolve and reshape the educational landscape, it is imperative that we remain mindful of its impact on communication and interaction. Striking a balance between digital tools and in-person engagement can help ensure that we leverage the benefits of technology while preserving the richness of face-to-face interactions. By doing so, we can foster a holistic educational experience that encompasses the best of both worlds and cultivates meaningful connections among students, instructors, and the academic community.

Figure 3:  This graph offers convincing proof that the COVID-19 pandemic and the extensive use of online submission techniques are to blame for the sharp reduction in in-person student attendance.

When asked about the impact of online submissions for assignments on physical attendance in classes, the survey revealed mixed responses. While 73% of participants admitted that the convenience of online submissions has led them to skip classes occasionally, 27% emphasized the importance of in-person attendance for better learning outcomes and social interactions. This finding suggests that while technology offers convenience, it also poses challenges in maintaining regular face-to-face interactions, potentially hindering educational and social development, and especially damaging the way we communicate and interact with one another. Students are doing this from a young age, and it comes into huge effect once they are trying to enter the work force and interact with others. When examining the survey data alongside the findings from Times Higher Education, striking similarities become apparent regarding how students approach attending classes in person with the overall conclusion being a massive decrease in students attending class which hinders the chance for real life interaction and communication. the convenience and instant gratification provided by technology can create a sense of detachment and impatience in interpersonal interactions. Online platforms allow for quick and immediate responses, and individuals can easily disconnect or switch between conversations. This can result in a lack of attentiveness and reduced focus on the person with whom one is communicating, leading to a superficial engagement that may hinder the establishment of genuine connections.

Conclusion:

Ultimately, the digital revolution has profoundly transformed the way we communicate and interact with one another. The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated this transformation, leading to increased reliance on digital tools for socializing, working, and learning. While technology offers convenience and connectivity, it also introduces limitations and potential drawbacks. The shift towards digital communication raises concerns about the depth and quality of our connections, as well as the potential loss of face-to-face interactions. However, it is essential to strike a balance between digital and in-person engagement, recognizing the unique value of physical presence, non-verbal cues, and deeper emotional connections that face-to-face interactions provide. By navigating the digital landscape with mindfulness and intentionality, we can harness the transformative power of technology while preserving and nurturing the essential elements of human connection.

Moving forward, it is crucial to consider the impact of technology on our relationships, mental well-being, and society. As technology continues to evolve, we must be cautious of its potential pitfalls, such as the emphasis on self-presentation, the potential for increased stress and anxiety, and the risk of forgetting how to interact in person. Striking a balance between digital and face-to-face interactions can help ensure that technology enhances, rather than replaces, genuine human connections. By prioritizing meaningful engagement, valuing personal interactions, and leveraging the benefits of technology without compromising the depth and quality of our relationships, we can navigate the digital revolution in a way that enriches our lives and fosters authentic connections.

References:

Ballve, M. (2013, June 5). How much time do we really spend on our smartphones every day? Business Insider. Retrieved April 27, 2023. https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-time-do-we-spend-on-smartphones-2013-6

Baym, N. (2015). Personal Connections in the Digital Age (2nd ed.). Polity.

Karunaratne, Indika & Atukorale, Ajantha & Perera, Hemamali. (2011). Surveillance of human-       computer interactions: A way forward to detection of users’ Psychological Distress. 2011 IEEE Colloquium on Humanities, Science and Engineering, CHUSER 2011.             10.1109/CHUSER.2011.6163779.  https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Social-interaction-vs-electronic-media-use-Hours-per-day-of-face-to-face-social_fig1_254056654

Lindgren, S. (2015, May 20). Media are not social, but people are | Simon Lindgren | TEDxUmeå . YouTube. Retrieved April 27, 2023, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ5S7VIWE6k

Ross, J., McKie, A., Havergal, C., Lem, P., & Basken, P. (2022, October 24). Class attendance plummets post-Covid . Times Higher Education (THE). Retrieved April 27, 2023, from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/class-attendance-plummets-post-covid

Schultze, U. (2015, April 23). How social media shapes identity | Ulrike Schultze | TEDxSMU . YouTube. Retrieved April 27, 2023, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSpyZor-Byk

Subramanian, Dr. K .R. “Influence of Social Media in Interpersonal Communication – Researchgate.” ResearchGate.Net , www.researchgate.net/profile/Kalpathy-Subramanian/publication/319422885_Influence_of_Social_Media_in_Interpersonal_Communication/links/59a96d950f7e9b2790120fea/Influence-of-Social-Media-in-Interpersonal-Communication.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2023 .

And So It Was Written

Author: Anonymous

Published: June 9, 2023

Word Count: 3308

Reading time: ~ 12 minutes

Edit Link: (emailed to author) Request Now

ORGANIZED BY

Articles , Published

MORE TO READ

Add yours →.

• What Does Ois Stands For - Quant RL

Provide Feedback Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

A TRU Writer powered SPLOT : Visual Life

Blame @cogdog — Up ↑

​What is digital transformation? Everything you need to know about how technology is changing business

What is digital transformation?

At the most basic level, digital transformation involves using digital technologies to change a business process to become more efficient or effective. The idea is to use technology not just to replicate an existing service in a digital form, but to use technology to transform that service into something significantly better.

It sounds simple but digital transformation can be a long, expensive and complicated process that doesn't always go according to plan.

Special Feature

Digital transformation: trends and insights for success.

Digital transformation projects are about driving fundamental change across customer experience, tech and business culture. This ZDNet special report brings you the latest trends and insights you need to succeed.

What are the key areas of digital transformation?

Every definition of digital transformation is different, depending on the industry and the particular project. But the main components will likely include rethinking business models, changing the underlying technology stack, innovating with customer experience and also potentially even remaking company culture.

What does digital transformation involve?

Digital transformation can involve many different technologies, but the hottest topics right now are  cloud computing , the  Internet of Things , big data, and  artificial intelligence . During the next few years, we can expect increased attention on some hyped-up tech topics, including the metaverse, and blockchain and digital currencies.

However, it's not just about the technology: changing business processes and corporate culture are just as vital to the success of these initiatives. Digital transformation projects are often a way for large and established organisations to compete with nimbler, digital-only rivals. These projects tend to be large in scope and ambition but are not without risks.

While digital transformation is one of the most commonly used phrases in the IT industry, definitions vary. What everyone can agree on is that, beneath the hype, the fluff and the confusion, digital transformation involves some pretty important changes to business culture.

What is included in a digital transformation project?

Digitalisation is not, as is commonly suggested, simply the implementation of more technology systems and services. A genuine digital transformation project involves fundamentally rethinking business models and processes, rather than tinkering with or enhancing traditional methods. 

This creative requirement remains a tough ask for business leaders. Most organisations do not have a problem generating new ideas, but  many firms fail when it comes to implementing fresh business models  or turning good ideas into organisational objectives, according to research from Cass Business School.

This gap between innovation and execution helps explain why digitalisation and disruption have traditionally been seen as the preserve of nimble start-ups. But it doesn't have to be this way – there are great examples of digital transformation in the enterprise sector, too. 

Digital transformation examples 

The transition of legacy systems to cloud platforms is an oft-cited example of digital transformation. By moving older systems to the cloud, it becomes easier for organisations to update and change applications in response to new user demands. In this case, digital transformation is helping to support nimble and flexible IT operations – it is, in short, making an existing process much more efficient and effective.

Using technology to change or remove an inefficient working process is another good example of digital transformation. Think, for example, of the digitisation of paper records. By using technology to transform how an organisation records its information, it becomes possible to search digital records and run reports in a way that would have been unthinkable or at least unmanageable in an era of paper records. 

While digital transformation often involves using cloud-based platforms and services, it can also involve the adoption of emerging technologies. We can expect to hear more about these kinds of use cases as the metaverse moves from the lab to the real world. Such is the level of hype that  40% more companies mentioned 'metaverse'  in their company filing documents during the first quarter of 2022, according to researcher GlobalData.

Some progress is already being made. Think of a retailer allowing customers to use virtual reality apps to visualise its furniture from the comfort of their home. In this case, digitisation transforms the traditional physical retail interaction into a virtual relationship, where customers can try and then buy products at a distance. 

• Metaverse: Momentum is building, but companies are still staying cautious
• Flexible learning: How hybrid teaching is changing the classroom forever
• The CIO's biggest challenge? It's nothing to do with technology
• The developer's dream? This company's tech workspace brings Agile development to life

How important is digital transformation?

For those who weren't convinced about the positive benefits of digital transformation, the power of digitisation won over many doubters during the coronavirus pandemic. 

When lockdown and social distancing started, it was digital transformation – and the IT departments that carried out the work – that helped businesses carry on functioning as normally as possible in the most challenging of conditions. IT teams had to spin up technology solutions to the challenges that businesses faced overnight.

Digital transformation strategies were fast-forwarded at breakneck speed. Executive teams that might once have hesitated over the implementation of a multi-year investment in video-conferencing and collaborative technologies tasked their IT departments with establishing remote-working strategies in days or even hours. 

CIOs and their IT teams stepped up and delivered – from the support of home working to the provision of online learning and onto the establishment of new online e-commerce channels and even the creation of whole new business models:

• Proven infrastructure, new laptops and re-imaged older kit helped one city  get its office staff remote working in super-fast time .
• This university  fast-forwarded a five-year digital transformation strategy  and got 22,000 people working remotely in a week.
• The R&A, organisers of The Open golf tournament made innovative use of video and data to create  a virtual tournament between golf's all-time best players .

The general consensus from experts around the tech industry is that the rapid digital transformation pushed by CIOs and their teams  helped change the perception of IT for good . Rather than being seen primarily as a service to other functions, such as sales and finance, technology is now recognised as a critical factor for long-term business success.

What digital transformation trends are happening now?

With digital transformation proving its worth in challenging times, the aim now is for organisations to find new technology projects to get their teeth stuck into.

Analyst Gartner says  CEOs know they must accelerate the adoption of digital business  and are seeking more direct digital routes to connect with their customers. But with an eye on economic risks, bosses want to be efficient and protect margins and cash flow. Current digital transformation trends include:

• Cloud computing – On-demand IT has been the centre of digital transformation efforts for the past couple of years but that doesn't mean the work is done. While many organisations aim for a cloud-first approach, few have moved their systems 100% to the cloud. Legacy tech remains a major hindrance to modernisation.
• Data and AI – Companies have spent the past few years collecting huge amounts of information. The task now is to break down silos, to bring data together and to apply insight in ways that improve customer experiences and decision-making processes. Expect investment in artificial intelligence and machine learning to grow significantly. 
• Automation – Executives are finally beginning to see investments in robotic process automation pay dividends. Whether it's reducing software-coding demands or introducing bots to deal with service requests, companies will use automation to remove repetitive tasks and allow staff to focus on work that produces value.
• Customer experiences – From allowing professionals to work productively from home to providing new ways to help clients connect with the business, companies are going to spend big on developing great experiences for customers. Expect investments in the metaverse to become important here, too.
• Cybersecurity – Underlying all these digital transformation efforts is a continued requirement to invest in IT defence mechanisms. Gartner points to the rise of the cybersecurity mesh, which enables stand-alone security solutions to work together and improve an organisation's overall security posture. 

What are the criticisms of digital transformation?

While most experts can agree that digitisation involves using technology to make a process more efficient or effective, just about every project that involves using technology gets badged as a digital transformation initiative.

Digital transformation has become the go-to marketing phrase for almost any adoption of new technology. In fact, the phrase is applied so broadly that it is in danger of becoming meaningless. Such is its ubiquity that it's no surprise when an attention-craving organisation badges its new app or even something as mundane as a laptop refresh programme as a 'digital transformation initiative'.

Tech workers also express cynicism about grand talk of digital. No IT professional spends their working day digitally transforming rather than coding, programming, and developing. For their part, CIOs will tell you the implementation of technology is simply the conduit to help the business meet its objectives, whether that's selling more widgets, making more money or raising customer satisfaction levels.

To critics, digital transformation simply offers tech vendors another opportunity to rebrand their offerings: it's not uncommon to see systems and services being sold as a golden bullet for digital transformation. Such hype is just more fuel for detractors who feel that digital transformation is simply a solution searching for a problem.

None of this criticism should come as a shock. Even back in 2017, analyst Gartner warned that over-selling meant  digital transformation was fast-approaching the trough of disillusionment . Five years later and critics would say we're now at the bottom of that trough.

• How to make meetings effective and useful: 6 ways to actually get stuff done  
• Your next digital transformation project should look very different
• How to talk about tech: Five ways to get people interested in your new project
• Project management: Four ways CTOs can make a difference

What else could we call digital transformation?

One way to help silence the critics would be to find another name for digital transformation. If we stop using the term blindly, and instead focus on what we're trying to achieve with technology, then we might find a more useful moniker.

That's something that resonates with the CIO community: almost every IT chief will tell you that their organisation is running business transformation, not technology transformation, projects. Other industry commentators suggest culling the phrase digital transformation and creating a slightly modified alternative, such as 'digital landscape', 'underlying digital environment' or 'data-led plumbing'. 

The big problem with all these alternative names is that they mean even less than digital transformation. For all its inherent faults, we all have a perception of what digital transformation means, even if it's just relying a lot more on the cloud and pushing technology into areas that were previously dominated by manual means.

Yes, the concept of digital transformation has its flaws, but – in some ways – the IT industry should just be pleased that the business has begun to recognise the great work that the technology team is undertaking, regardless of what it's called. 

Remember that the rest of the business tends to have a problem with big IT concepts. Take the example of the phrase 'cloud computing', which used to be met with nonplussed expressions from non-IT execs 10-plus years ago. Now, the cloud is a broadly understood and accepted term. 

Cloud found its footing by proving its value – and so it is with digital transformation. The business has seen the value of digital transformation in recent years and now it wants a whole lot more in the future.

• What is an enterprise architect? Everything you need to know about the role and where it's going next
• What is a chief digital officer? Everything you need to know about the CDO explained
• What is a Chief Data Officer? Everything you need to know about the CDO role
• Management skills: Five ways building your network will help you get ahead

Why does digital transformation matter?

Beneath the buzzwords, there lies a crucial concept: digitalisation is helping smart businesses to change the established economic order – and the effects are everywhere. 

From Amazon's influence over retailing to Facebook's impact on publishing and onto fleet-of-foot FinTechs that are destabilising banking and insurance operations, traditional firms are being challenged by nimble, digital-savvy operators. 

Consultant McKinsey reports that  many executives believe their companies' business models are becoming obsolete . Only 11% believe their current business models will be economically viable through 2023, while another 64% say their companies need to build new digital businesses to help them get there.

It's also important to recognise that digital transformation is more than simply an IT concern. Line-of-business units are crucial to identifying where digitisation can create big benefits. As the Harvard Business review suggests, without a more fundamental business transformation,  digitisation on its own is a road to nowhere .

• Digital transformation: This is why CIOs need to stay brave and keep on innovating
• The first 100 days: Setting the agenda as the CIO
• Remote work and tech jobs: How CIOs are changing their priorities
• The office of the future is about people not places

Can you give me an example of what digital transformation looks like?

Beauty company Avon International has used a direct-selling model for 130 years. The company normally sells its products through reps who call at clients' doors and collect orders from a paper brochure. But that model was all-but-impossible to continue during the coronavirus crisis and lockdown. 

The solution to this challenge came in  the form of a rapid digital transformation  that allowed reps to carry on selling. The IT team focused first on putting in place a mechanism that allowed reps to ensure that the orders they were taking – through WhatsApp, a text message, an email, or a phone call – were delivered directly to Avon's customers rather than by hand.

As the company had 60 different enterprise resource planning systems around the world and more than 200 back-office systems, changing the delivery address meant modifying a range of ordering and invoicing processes. The team implemented that new approach on top of its legacy platforms in 30 markets in just six weeks.

SEE:  Digital transformation: Keeping e-commerce moving even when everyone is stuck at home

Avon also started to develop a stronger e-commerce platform, such as via mobile and web. Sales through e-commerce channels grew by six times in the first three weeks following lockdown. The company also started to produce digital brochures that could be updated far more easily and shared through social channels. 

Today, 30% of the company's sales contacts are made online in the UK, up from less than 10% before the pandemic. By finding ways to maintain sales and beef-up its e-commerce channels, Avon kept its customers served and its reps busy, gaining new clients along the way. 

In short, digital transformation has helped to change the company's business model – and that's going to last forever. Chief executive Angela Cretu has said  the company wants to become fully "omni-channel" , linking different methods of selling from stores to the doorstep, over the next few years.

How much does digital transformation cost?

Global spending on the digital transformation of business practices and products  will reach $1.8 trillion in 2022 , an increase of 17.6% over 2021, says tech analyst IDC. The researcher expects a five-year annual growth rate through 2025 of 16.6%

"As organisations accelerate their pursuit of a digital-first strategy, they are channelling these investments into both internal operations and external direct engagement," says  Craig Simpson , senior research manager at IDC. "The investments in internal operations are largely focused on improving efficiency and resilience while customer experience transformation has become a digital transformation priority for many companies."

Gartner also reports that tech spending will increase across the board for most IT organisations through 2022 and beyond. The analyst projects  global IT spending will total $4.4 trillion in 2022 , an increase of 4% from 2021. 

Something to note, though: digitisation is far from easy. The  average enterprise has more than 200 technology solutions  in its tech stack across the organisation, according to Futurum Research. The advisory firm's analysis suggests the vast majority of digital transformation initiatives don't consider the user and ultimately result in inefficient adoption. 

• Digital transformation: Allocating your budget for the biggest business impact
• The CIO's next priority: Using the tech budget for growth
• Innovation is hard. Here are five ways to make it easier
• The CIO's new challenge: Making the case for the next big thing

How long does digital transformation take?

Digital transformation projects have traditionally been associated with multi-year strategies. Here, CIOs have worked with their peers to think about how technology might help their organisations react to the threat of digital disruption. They've then created a long-term business strategy that uses technology to help the organisation meets its aims.

The problem with many of those long-term strategies is that they've taken too long to come to fruition. Incumbents might be good at creating spot digitisation projects, such as moving systems to the cloud or creating new digital channels to market, but they're much slower when it comes to transforming the whole business to support new operating models.

In an age where fleet-of-foot digital challengers can move into a new sector almost overnight, then multi-year strategies are simply too slow. The multiple challenges associated to dealing with a global pandemic, new geopolitical tensions and macro-economic pressures have shown that flexibility and agility are the watchwords for modern digital strategies. 

McKinsey reflects on the fact that most  companies' adoption of digital technologies sped up by three to seven years in a span of months  during the pandemic. That increase in pace is having a lasting impact. The consultant says what was considered best-in-class speed for business change four or five years ago is now seen as slower than average. 

This need for speed has an impact on digital transformation strategies. Instead of talking about five-year plans, boards demand constant iteration. For many organisations, that shift has required a new Agile way of working.

• Management skills: Four ways to make great decisions quickly
• Want to create a successful data strategy? Here's where you need to start
• People management: Four ways to create an organisation that your team loves
• Data scientist vs data engineer: How demand for these roles is changing

What's the relationship between Agile and digital transformation? 

Digital transformation is  as much about establishing the right cultural change programme  as it is about introducing new tech. Digitisation needs organisations to work out quickly what their business needs and how they're going to get there. For many managers, the best way to find these answers is by adopting Agile methods.

Agile management  has its origins in software development , but as Harvard Business Review suggests, it has spread far  beyond its product development and manufacturing roots . While Agile won't be applied the same way in every organisation, the basic principles – decentralised decision making, cross-organisation teams and cross-team empowerment – are likely to resonate with most business leaders.

Experienced digital leaders suggest the big benefit of an Agile approach is cultural. By working in small, cross-organisation groups to explore challenges and deliver solutions, IT staff and line-of-business professionals can iterate around a problem and apply digital systems and services quickly. 

• Agile management, agile leadership: The secret of making better decisions, faster
• First it was Agile software development, now Agile management is remaking the workplace
• The IT skills gap is a giant problem. Help fix it with these smart management moves
• Here comes your next cloud-computing headache - legacy IT  

How is digital transformation supporting the shift to hybrid working?

Companies have already invested a lot of cash in cloud and collaboration technologies. These services will prove crucial in the coming years, as organisations attempt to find ways to support a hybrid mix of at-home and in-office knowledge workers.

Evidence so far suggests that managing this shift is from easy. While many professionals have now got used to working from home – and  research suggests they're more productive, too  – their bosses are not always quite as keen to see them detached from the corporate HQ. Finding a successful middle ground between home and office working will be crucial.

Managers will need to continue investing their digital transformation cash in technologies to help create the hybrid workplace of the future. Worldwide spending on public cloud services is  forecast to grow 20.4% in 2022 to total $494.7 billion , up from $410.9 billion in 2021, according to Gartner.

• Six ways to stay productive when working remote  
• Remote workers want new benefits. This is how employers are responding
• How companies are navigating remote work and the return to the office
• 'Striking a balance': How one company is rethinking the office for hybrid work

Who is in charge of digital transformation?

As the traditional guardians of technology investment, CIOs tend to have a big say in digital change projects. Yet CIOs are far from the only executives with a role in digital transformation management, and the pressure for change has led to the rise of other C-suite specialists, such as chief digital officers (CDOs).

Analyst firms fanned the flames by suggesting the appointment of CDOs could hasten the demise of the traditional IT leadership role.  Gartner originally claimed  a quarter of businesses would have a digital chief by 2015, and  IDC said  60% of CIOs would be replaced by CDOs by 2020. Today, those predictions look way off beam. 

What no one can deny, however, is the ever-increasing role of business professionals in IT purchasing decisions. Rather than the IT department going off and buying systems that it thinks their organisation needs, modern business operations rely on all kinds of people identifying their key challenges and then thinking about – or even going out and buying – technological solutions to these problems.

Cloud computing makes it far easier for professionals in any department to buy IT services on-demand. When requirements change, professionals can scale these services up or down depending on demand – with or without the say-so of the tech team.

Yet the game is far from up for CIOs when it comes to digital transformation. While line-of-business employees are good at buying discrete digital technologies, CIOs have the experience of integrating systems and services. Effective digital transformation usually requires a close working relationship between CIOs and their line-of-business colleagues. 

With companies now looking to get more from recent digital transformation projects, even greater focus will be placed on the tech leadership capabilities of CIOs – and that means building even stronger bonds with the chief executive and the rest of the C-suite.

As Boots UK CIO Richard Corbridge says, tech chiefs need to think very carefully about what they do next: "For me, that's about being a transformation agent – it's about being the person stood next to the executive committee, taking the things that we must do to transform this business and translating that into what digital can do to help us get there quicker, more efficiently, safer, or to help us make more money."

• What is a CIO? Everything you need to know about the Chief Information Officer explained
• The CIO has a new set of priorities and problems: Here's what's on their to-do list
• What is an IT manager? Everything you need to know, from IT manager salaries to how the job is changing
• What is a Chief Technology Officer? Everything you need to know about the CTO

When does digital transformation stop?

It doesn't. Many people make the mistake of thinking of digital transformation as a discrete project. As Forrester suggests,  true transformation is a journey, not a destination . Digital transformation remains a slippery concept that involves the delivery of value to the business and its customers in new – and perhaps unexpected – ways.

Just as digital transformation constantly changes, so do its constituent elements. Right now, most business transformation activities involve the innovative use of data, whether that involves analytics, IoT, artificial intelligence or machine learning. In many ways, as digital transformation has evolved it has become more about data-led change than anything else.

So the form of digital transformation continues to evolve, meaning the process of defining digitalisation remains complex and contested. The one thing we can be sure of is that transformation – in whatever form it takes – is here to stay, which means IT professionals and their business peers must build a sustainable strategy for change.

Technology and moral change: the transformation of truth and trust

• Original Paper
• Open access
• Published: 20 August 2022
• Volume 24 , article number  35 , ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• John Danaher   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5879-3160 1 &
• Henrik Skaug Sætra 2  

15k Accesses

14 Citations

38 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Technologies can have profound effects on social moral systems. Is there any way to systematically investigate and anticipate these potential effects? This paper aims to contribute to this emerging field on inquiry through a case study method. It focuses on two core human values—truth and trust—describes their structural properties and conceptualisations, and then considers various mechanisms through which technology is changing and can change our perspective on those values. In brief, the paper argues that technology is transforming these values by changing the costs/benefits of accessing them; allowing us to substitute those values for other, closely-related ones; increasing their perceived scarcity/abundance; and disrupting traditional value-gatekeepers. This has implications for how we study other, technologically-mediated, value changes.

Similar content being viewed by others

Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches / sixth edition

Chatgpt: towards ai subjectivity.

Digital transformation as an interaction-driven perspective between business, society, and technology

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Technologies can have profound effects on social moral systems. Consider the stirrup. According to Lynn White Jr’s classic study Medieval Technology and Social Change , the invention of the stirrup was the primary technological facilitator of the development of the feudal system (White Jr, 1962 ). The feudal system created a new social moral system in which mounted knights were seen to be the most valuable and respected contributors to aristocratic armies. They were to be supported and sustained by large estates that gave them the food and material resources they required. New norms of social hierarchy, chivalry and property rights emerged as a result.

How could the humble stirrup be responsible for all this? Prior to the invention of the stirrup, mounted warriors were not particularly effective fighters. They relied on their own strength to maintain their stability on top of a horse. They could occasionally throw a spear or slash a sword, but they could do little more. They were vulnerable to attack, rarely able to carry both a weapon and a shield. The stirrup changed all that by stabilising the warrior and enabling him to fuse himself and the horse into a single fighting unit. Suddenly mounted knights could provide the decisive difference between defeat and victory. White’s thesis is, of course controversial, and some claim he overstates the role of the stirrup in founding the feudal system. But it seems safe to say that the stirrup did transform the power of mounted cavalry and this had knock-on implications for military decision-making and social power relations. Footnote 1

If the invention of the stirrup could have such a profound and transformative effect on the medieval social value system, what might contemporary digital technologies (ICT, AI and robotics in particular) be doing to our current value systems? Is there any way to systematically investigate and anticipate these potential transformations? These are important questions and an emerging field of scholarship is dedicated to answering them (e.g. Danaher, 2021 ; Hoepster, 2022 ; Klenk et al., 2022 ; Nickel et al., 2021 ; van de Poel, 2021 ; van de Poel & Kudina, 2022 ; Swierstra et al., 2009 ; Verbeek, 2012 , 2013 ). We aim to contribute to this emerging field through case studies: we identify two core human values, describe their structural properties and conceptualisations and then consider various mechanisms through which technology is changing and might in the future change our perspective on those values.

The paper is divided into three main parts. First, we consider the nature of social moral change and why it is important to study potential future changes to social morality. Second, we outline some basic mechanisms through which technology can effect moral change. Third, we discuss two core human values—truth and trust—and consider the various ways in which digital technologies, particularly AI and robotics, are and might be transforming how we think about them.

The bulk of this article is taken up with the case studies. You might wonder how we arrived at them. One answer is simply that we have studied them closely in our previous work (refs omitted). As a result, their selection is the product of our scholarly histories. But that is not the only reason. There are important connections between these values. For instance, they are both, in part, epistemic values, relating to how we acquire or forgo the need for knowledge. They both have instrumental and intrinsic value. And they are related to one another: truth is related to trust insofar as trust is often needed when we lack direct access to truth; and trust is related to truth insofar as some people argue that we can forgo trust when we have direct access to the truth. Some technologies promise to replace the need for trust with direct access to truth; contrariwise some technologies undermine access to the truth (and our capacity to form true beliefs) and thus increase the need for trust. Studying the interrelationship between these two values is, we will suggest, particularly illuminating when it comes to understanding how technology impacts social morality.

Why study future moral change?

Why should we care about the relationship between technology and moral change? To answer that question we need to consider exactly what it is that we are inquiring into.

First, what is social moral change? Put simply, it is change in people’s moral beliefs and practices. According to most philosophical accounts, the study of morality has two main branches to it: the inquiry into what is good/bad and the inquiry into what is right/wrong (Ross, 1930 ). The first inquiry covers all the things we think are morally valuable—i.e. worth pursuing, promoting and cherishing—as well as the things we think are morally disvaluable—i.e. worth ignoring, undermining and minimising. Valuable things (might) include freedom, love, happiness, achievement, beauty, truth and so on. Disvaluable things might include slavery, hate, sadness, failure, ugliness, falsehood and so on. The second inquiry covers all the actions we think we are morally required to perform—i.e. our obligations and duties—as well as the actions we are permitted to perform and forbidden to perform. Changes in social morality are thus characterised by changes in what people believe to be good/bad or right/wrong. For example, where once upon a time most people thought that slavery was permissible (and also perhaps even good, all things considered), most people now accept that it is impermissible (and bad, all things considered). This is a classic example of a social moral transformation (Appiah, 2010 ).

The careful reader will note that the focus here is on changes in social morality and not changes to ideal morality. As Calhoun notes, the majority of moral philosophers think that their job is to inquire into the nature of ideal morality (Calhoun, 2015 ). Ideal morality consists of the things that are actually good or bad and right or wrong, irrespective of what people believe or do. Some, but not all, theories of ideal morality hold that what is moral (i.e. actually good and actually right) is invariant across time and space. It is not the kind of thing that can change. But social morality is very different. It consists in people’s beliefs about what is good or bad and right or wrong. This can and does change, irrespective of what ideal morality might be. The focus in this paper is on changes in social morality.

One concern you might have about this inquiry is whether we can meaningfully distinguish between changes to moral beliefs and practices and changes to other kinds of belief and practice. There are two aspects to this concern. On the one hand, you might be concerned about drawing the line between an occasional or ephemeral change in behaviour or belief and a genuine change in social morality. People sometimes behave or believe differently in different contexts. For example, many of us, when under pressure, lie to our friends. When challenged about this, we might even provide some moral justification of our behaviour (according to some moral psychologists this is common—see Haidt ‘Emotional tale and cognitive dog’). Later, on reflection, we might agree that we did something wrong. Surely the original temporary change in behaviour (and associated moral belief) cannot constitute a change in social morality? But, if not, where do we draw the line? When does a change become sufficiently sticky and sustained to constitute a change in social morality? On the other hand, you might be concerned about the number of people or institutions that have to get onboard with a change in behaviour and belief for it to become a moral change. After all, compliance with moral norms is never complete. Some people murder, rape and steal. Some even believe they are doing the right thing. Nevertheless, most of us, most of the time, recognise these as moral transgressions.

We have no easy answers to these concerns. Social scientists have long-noted that it is hard to draw the line between the moral and the non-moral. For instance, there is a rich literature on the distinction between moral and social norms, with several competing accounts and little agreement on what, exactly, distinguishes the two (refs. Bicchieri, Elster, article about both). Do moral norms have a specific type of content, or a elicit a specific type of emotional/cognitive reaction? Is it a bit of both? It’s hard to say. When it comes to changes in social morality, the easiest test would be to say that a belief or practice counts as moral when (enough) people use moral language to represent and describe it and moralised emotions (pride, guilt, shame etc.) to respond to it and evaluate it. If we say that education is ‘good’, giving money to charity is ‘right’, murder is ‘wrong’ (and so forth), and if we respond to people by praising, blaming or shaming them for engaging in those acts or pursuing those ends, then it seems clear that we think those states of affairs and actions belong to the moral realm. If we make systematic changes to how we apply moral language and moral emotions, then it is safe to say that this constitutes a change to social morality. Although there are some moral theories that allow for a purely subjective determination of good/bad and right/wrong (e.g. ethical egoism), and hence a purely subjective application of moral language and emotions, most moral theories assume that these things are matters of either objective fact or widespread social consensus, even though there may be dispute as to what counts as objective fact and how widespread the social consensus has to be.

It is likely, then, that the borderline between a moral and a non-moral change will always be a fuzzy one. Nevertheless, in what follows, whenever we claim that a change in social belief and practice constitutes a change in social morality, we assume that this requires (a) a systemic pattern of behavioural and cognitive changes (i.e. not merely accidental or temporary); (b) that is observed across a sufficiently wide population (and not just one or two individuals); and (c) that is commonly described using moralised language (the language or good/bad or right/wrong) and evaluated in terms of moral emotions. Some of the changes we describe below will be purely speculative (things that might occur in the future) and based on emerging trends; some will be less speculative and based on observable patterns in contemporary life. To support our claims that these constitute changes to social morality, we will appeal to philosophical and ethical commentary on these changes that suggest they satisfy properties (a)–(c) and, wherever possible, empirical, particularly psychological, studies of these changes that suggest they satisfy properties (a)–(c).

There are practical and moral reasons to want to study changes to social morality, so defined. Practically speaking, we care about the future. We make decisions now that will affect ourselves and others in the future. If we build a road through some idyllic countryside, we know that this can have consequences for social organisation for decades, perhaps even millennia into the future. It is important to anticipate these changes in order to work out the long-term costs and benefits of the project. Changes to our moral beliefs and practices are just another kind of change that can impact the long-term costs and benefits of our projects. Anticipating and planning for those changes is important if we are to get a reasonable picture of whether the project is worth it. This is why an increasing number of researchers think that responsible innovation and design must include some consideration of possible future value changes (Kudina & Verbeek, 2019 ; van de Poel 2019; Verbeek, 2012 ).

Morally speaking, the idea that future generations might have different moral beliefs and practices to our own can be both uplifting and concerning. If there are things we currently value that might be threatened by future changes to social morality, we may have reason to campaign against those changes. For example, many people value privacy but are concerned that ICT and AI is slowly corroding people’s attachment to privacy (Debrabander, 2020 ; Hartzog, 2018 ). This gives them a moral reason to limit this corrosion and they acquire this reason, in part, because they are willing to anticipate and plan for possible changes to social morality. Similarly, a fundamental tenet of conservatism as a political ideology is the notion that human fallibility provides good reason to be wary of radical change, that there is a certain wisdom in the existing order of things that we cannot necessarily fully grasp but that we should nevertheless respect (Burke, 1790 ). Society, as Edmund Burke argued, is in fact a partnership between us, those that are to come, and those that came before us, and he believed this is so because without such a partnership we would not obtain the required level of insight to develop society itself, but also science, art, and the virtues (Burke, 1790 ). Contrariwise, the fact that social moral beliefs change over time might make us more cautious and less convinced about our current moral attachments. Some of our ancestors may have believed that slavery was a good thing. We now think their judgment was in error. Do any of our current moral beliefs fall into a similar category? Could technological changes disrupt and harm our capacity to function as moral agents in the present, due to the moral uncertainty they create? Some authors have argued that we should take this possibility seriously (Danaher, 2021 ; Nickel, 2020 ; Williams, 2015 ). We can do this by anticipating and possibly getting ahead of future changes to social morality (Anthis & Paez, 2021 ).

In short, changes to social morality are changes to people’s beliefs and practices about what is good or bad or right or wrong. It is important to study future changes in social morality for both practical and moral reasons.

Technology and mechanisms of moral change

How do changes to people’s moral beliefs and practices come about? There are many causal factors potentially at play. The proximate mechanisms underlying social moral change are likely to be psychological and neurological in nature (Churchland, 2019 ). But these proximate mechanisms are likely to be influenced by a whole range of more distal mechanisms of moral change. At an abstract level, we could divide those mechanisms into two main classes: material and ideological. Material mechanisms of change concern the interaction people have with their physical environments: how they obtain the resources they need to survive and so on. Ideological mechanisms of change concern the cultural forces changing how people think about their interactions with the world. This can include ideas shared via cultural institutions such as educational institutions and legal institutions. This contrast between material and ideological mechanisms of change is a prominent one in history and the social sciences, but it encompasses a wide variety of theoretical mechanisms of social change (see, for example, the debates about the history of economic growth discussed in Koyama and Rubin ( 2022 )).

This article is not going to address all possible mechanisms of moral change. It is, instead, going to focus on technology as a mediator of moral change. Our goal is to show how technologies might affect future moral beliefs and practices with respect to the values of truth and trust. It is useful to have an organising framework in place at the outset to guide our interpretation and analysis of these case studies. Peter Paul Verbeek’s theory of technological moral mediation is one useful starting point (Verbeek, 2012 ). In a series of books and papers, Verbeek has argued that technology mediates our moral relationship to the world. These ideas have been developed and expanded by others (e.g. Kudina, 2019 ; Swiestra et al., 2012 ). As Verbeek puts it himself:

technologies-in-use help to establish relations between human beings and their environment. In these relations, technologies are not merely silent ‘intermediaries’ but active ‘mediators’ …By organizing relations between humans and world, technologies play an active, though not a final, role in morality. (Verbeek, 2013 , pp. 77–78)

Verbeek’s work suggests that there are at least two distinct forms of technological moral mediation: (i) pragmatic mediation and (ii) hermeneutic mediation.

Pragmatic moral mediation arises whenever technology affects the decision problems we face. An ordinary human life is full of decisions. Many of these decisions are morally charged. We choose among outcomes with different moral values and between actions that might be morally obligatory, forbidden or permissible. Technology affects our choices in at least two ways. First, technology can add or subtract options from our decision problems. The invention of the cell phone, for example, has given us new opportunities for connection. Whereas once upon a time we would have to wait until we reached the nearest payphone to call a friend, we can now reach out to anyone at any time. This creates new moral choices: would I be bothering the other person if I called them at night? Should I call my partner to let them know that I am okay? Is it okay to ignore a phonecall or text message? Second, technology can affect the costs and benefits of morally charged actions. For example, the invention of cheap and highly effective forms of contraception has, according to some scholars, affected our social moral norms around extramarital sex: by reducing the risks of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, contraception has made people far more willing to engage in extramarital sex and this has in turn reduced the social taboo associated with this practice (Adshade, 2013 ; Greenwood, 2020 ).

Hermeneutic moral mediation is different. It arises whenever technology changes how we interpret and understand some aspect of the world and/or our relationship to it. This happens at the level of moral perceptions, concepts and metaphors. Technologies can enable us to see things in a new light and this can alter our moral beliefs and practices. For instance, Verbeek argues that the invention of obstetric ultrasound can change our moral perception of the foetus in utero. By presenting the foetus to us as an entity separate from its mother, ultrasound encourages us to see the foetus as an independent moral being, capable of bearing moral rights and as an object for therapeutic interventions during prenatal care. Some people already had that perception of the foetus in utero, of course, but obstetric ultrasound made it more vivid and salient for more people. Similarly, the invention of smartphones and social media may be changing our perception of the value of our everyday experiences, particularly our social experiences with friends and colleagues. Instead of viewing these experiences as being primarily valuable in and of themselves, people may now see them as being primarily instrumentally valuable: as content to be recorded, shared and possibly monetised. This seems to be true, in particular, of people who make their living as social media influencers and lifestyle bloggers (see, for example, the ethnographic and qualitative studies of such individuals by Arrigada and Bishop ( 2021 ), Duffy and Kang ( 2020 ), Hund and McGuigan ( 2019 ), and Abidin ( 2016 )). The technology has enabled this reinterpretation of the moral value of everyday experiences.

These two mechanisms of moral change are concerned with what we might call the first-order effects of technology on social morality: how technology affects particular moral decision problems (the options available to us; their costs and benefits) and particular moral perceptions (how we interpret events, actions and states of affairs through moralised concepts and ideas). In practice, technological change can lead to second and third (and so on) order effects on social morality. Consider, once more, the example of the stirrup. Following White’s argument, the first order effect of the stirrup was a straightforward instance of pragmatic moral mediation: it gave military leaders the option of using highly effective mounted knights to deliver decisive victories in combat. So effective were they that the moral case for their use became overwhelming: a military leader who failed to use them would not be doing their duty to king and country. But this led to second and third order social moral changes. An entire social-legal institution was established to support the creation and maintenance of mounted knights—the feudal system. This social-legal system came with its own set of moral beliefs and practices concerning social hierarchy, property rights and honour. Being on the lookout for these second and third order effects might be particularly valuable when it comes to anticipating future moral changes.

Stephen Barley’s research on technology in the workplace provides a useful framework for understanding some of these higher-order effects (Barley, 2020 ). Using the dramaturgical theory of social relations (according to which social interactions can be understood to follow scripts, and take place on ‘stages’ with actors playing certain roles), Barley argues that the most socially transformative technologies are ones that disrupt social scripts and the relationships between different social roles. The stirrup and the feudal system is a good example of this. It greatly elevated the social power and status of mounted knights and thus their legal rights and entitlements relative to other social roles. Other technologies can have a more equalising effect between different social roles. For instance, in an ethnographic study, Barley argues that the internet has had an equalising effect on the relationship between car salespeople and customers. In particular, it made it easier for customers to find information about their preferred make and model, compare prices and extract themselves from unpleasant price negotiations. This resulted in significant behavioural and normative changes in car selling. In particular it made the salespeople more honest and transparent in their interactions with customers and less likely to engage in ‘sharp’ bargaining practices, such as creating a sense of urgency about the need to close a deal. It also resulted in a shift in how car dealers understood the value of what they were doing: the sales ‘game’ shifted from being about making large margins of profit on each individual sale, to being about the speed and volume of sales (Barley, 2020 , ch 2).

In the remainder of this article, we will consider how these different mechanisms of moral change might play out when it comes to the relationships between technology and the human values of truth and trust. Our analysis will follow a common pattern. We will start by detailing the values, describing their different dimensions and the moral beliefs and practices that tend to be associated with them. Then we will consider various ways in which emerging technologies might be affecting those values. Finally, we will consider the future trajectory of those values: will they survive? Will they be radically transformed? Or will we stop valuing them altogether? The goal here is not to predict the future but, rather, to imagine plausible potential future scenarios. We do this through concrete examples, as opposed to abstract theories.

In presenting these case studies, we assume a form value pluralism and value scarcity. In other words, we assume there are many valuable things and that truth and trust are just two among those (others, include, health, pleasure, education, friendship and so on). We allude to this value pluralism at several points. We also assume that, because time, attention and resources are scarce, people often have to trade-off between different values. To use economic language, we assume that there is an ‘opportunity cost’ inherent in many value-related decisions that people make: in choosing to pursue or promote some values they often have to ignore or deprioritise others. These two assumptions—value pluralism and scarcity—affect our case studies because we believe that changes in how people prioritise or compromise between different values, provided they are sufficiently systematic and widespread, constitute a kind of change in social morality. It is also worth noting that since our case studies concern changes in existing values, we will not discuss how technology might facilitate the identification of new values. For instance, some people argue that the value of ‘sustainability’ is a relatively new value that has emerged as a result of increased awareness of the environmental impact of technologies (Poel & Taebi, 2022 ). This may well be true but it is a limitation of our case study method that we are not going to identify such possibilities.

The transformation of truth

Understanding the value of truth.

Let's consider, first, the value of truth and how it is affected by technology. Truth is generally understood to be both intrinsically and instrumentally valuable (Horwich, 2006 ). There is, for instance, a widely-endorsed view among philosophers that having true beliefs about the world is intrinsically valuable, irrespective of the content of those beliefs (Whiting, 2013 ). So, for instance, knowing that the Earth will eventually be destroyed by the Sun might be depressing, but it is true and it is good to know that it is true. There is also a widely endorsed view that having true beliefs is instrumentally valuable. True beliefs enable you to accomplish your goals and plan your actions. Having the true belief that it is raining outside is more practically valuable than having the false belief that it is not. At least with the true belief you are more likely to bring an umbrella with you when you leave your house.

These claims need to be finessed. Truth is valuable but, consistent with value pluralism, it is not the only thing that is valuable. Physical health, social intimacy, mental stability (among many other things) are also valuable. Sometimes there can be a tension between these values and truth. These tensions have surfaced in the debate about the intrinsic value of truth. Critics of that position will, for instance, argue that there is little value in accumulating trivial truths. There may be a fact of the matter when it comes to the total number of blades of grass on the lawn outside my window, and I could spend a long time counting them all, but people would surely question the value of acquiring such a trivial true belief. Some people respond to this by arguing that acquiring true beliefs about significant or important matters is intrinsically valuable, but acquiring them about trivial matters is not (Whiting, 2013 , 225ff). The problem with this response is that it is not clear where to draw the line between significant and insignificant truths. Some, seemingly trivial and useless truths can turn out to be useful (Flexner, 1939 ). Alternatively, some people address the trivial truth problem by simply reemphasising that truth is just one among many values and we have to weigh the benefits of acquiring true beliefs against the potential costs to other values. If it would take too much time and energy to count those blades of grass, and if the cost to physical and mental wellbeing would be high, then perhaps it is best not to do so. This can create problems when it comes to the intrinsic and instrumental benefits of truth. Sometimes true beliefs hinder or scupper our plans. There is, for instance, a lot of psychological research on the value of positive illusions (Bortolotti, 2018 ; Jefferson et al., 2017 ). The practical importance of this research is disputed but there does seem to be some evidence suggesting that people that are unrealistically optimistic about their health or personal circumstances score more highly on certain measures of well-being and, even more starkly, on certain health outcomes (Murray & Holmes, 1997 ; Schiavon et al., 2017 ; Taylor & Brown, 1994 ). The tension between truth and other values is something that technological change can exacerbate. This increased tension can lead to more people trading the value of truth off against some other, to them more important, value such as personal happiness or autonomy.

To understand how this happens, it is worth considering the psychology of truth. If, given the option, will humans seek out true beliefs instead of false ones? The available evidence is mixed. There is some tendency to seek out true beliefs and, as noted, such beliefs can often be practically necessary, but our commitment to the truth is fickle and not absolute. Decades of research in cognitive science and psychology suggest that there is a significant bias in most people’s brains that means they do not focus on persuasion and confirmation more than the acquisition of true beliefs (Stanovich, 2021 ). In other words, there is a tendency within most people to engage in motivated reasoning and to confirm their existing beliefs and values. They tend to overlook, or explain away, anything that calls those beliefs and values into question. They are keen to persuade others of their beliefs and values and to form tribal loyalties and cohesive identities (Mercier & Sperber, 2017 ). They are less quick to identify and embrace unwelcome truths. Obviously, these are general patterns, not universal truths, and there is some criticism of and calls for a broadening of Mercier and Sperber’s theory of reasoning (for example Prochownik ( 2019 ), Mascarenhas ( 2019 ), and Dogramaci ( 2020 )), some of which has been addressed by the authors themselves in Replies to critics (Mercier & Sperber, 2019 ). There is individual variation—some people are not so keen to conform—and there is social variation—some societies incentivise and reward the gadflies (we discuss some emerging sub-communities with these properties below). Furthermore, in some cases, external reality serves as an ultimate sanity check on the irrational or illusory beliefs of individuals or groups: if there is some readily confirmable fact of the matter, it is possible for someone to point this out to a group that is otherwise sustaining a false belief. In other words, it is possible to speak truth to power.

Our main claim here is that technological change can modulate our commitment to seeking the truth and thus change how we prioritise and compromise in relation to its value. To understand how this happens, it is worth considering the age-old question: What is truth? To be clear, answering this metaphysical question is not essential to the aims of this article, nor would it be possible to give a compelling answer in a short space. Nevertheless, it is worth surveying some possible answers to get a better sense of how technology can affect the value of truth (for more details, see Glanzberg, 2021 ). The classic model of truth is the correspondence model (David, 2020 ). On this model, our beliefs are true if they correspond to some objective reality. If I believe that the emperor is not wearing any clothes and it turns out that he is not wearing any clothes, then my belief is true. If he is wearing clothes, it is false. Though it is not without its philosophical problems, this correspondence model often serves well for simple, everyday factual disputes. It becomes more problematic when we are dealing with abstract, theoretical beliefs and/or moral or aesthetic beliefs, which don't obviously map onto some external objective reality. This is why some people prefer an ‘epistemic norms’ model of truth. Footnote 2 This view claims that true beliefs or propositions are those that have passed some validation test that has been agreed upon by a community of epistemic peers (e.g. it is been experimentally replicated, not falsified; it is supported by logically valid arguments and so on).

These views have been debated and refined by philosophers over millennia. Most people, of course, do not think about truth in the rarefied and technical terms of philosophers. There is a limited amount of empirical work on how ordinary people understand the metaphysics of truth. Many philosophers that defend the correspondence theory of truth do so in the belief that it captures the ‘folk’ conception of truth (Barnard & Ulatowski, 2013 ), but pioneering empirical work by Arne ( 1938 ; Asay, forthcoming) and more recent work by Barnard and Ulatowski ( 2013 , 2019 ), as well as Reuter and Brun ( 2022 ) puts this in doubt. Although non-philosophers do often say things consistent with the correspondence theory, their commitment to it seems to vary depending on the context and nature of the truth claim. For instance, their implicit theory of truth may be different depending on whether they are presented with a claim about mathematical truth or social truth (Barnard & Ulatowski, 2013 , 2019 ). This suggests, in turn, that people may lean into an ‘epistemic norms’ model of truth, assuming that what counts as a truth varies depending on the epistemic norms of different disciplines and communities.

Fortunately, we do not need to pick and choose between these metaphysical models here. Our claims about the impact of technology on the value of truth work with both models. What is crucial, however, is that in order to say that a community or individual values truth, there must be (a) some commitment, among the members of that group, to acquiring true beliefs and (b) some agreed epistemic process for confirming or validating beliefs. Checking that beliefs correspond to an external reality may often be the most obvious way to validate them, but not be the only way to do so. Our central claim is that technology can affect the value of truth by affecting both our commitment to truth and the processes we follow for confirming true beliefs (an idea also supported by the empirical work of Reuter and Brun ( 2022 )).

This brings us to one last preliminary point. Since commitment to truth depends on a commitment to certain epistemic processes for generating and validating propositions, it follows that commitment to the value of truth often entails commitment to values that support these epistemic processes. For instance, commitment to the value of free speech is often justified because of its link to the truth. John Stuart Mill's famous defence of free speech, in chapter 2 of On Liberty ( 1859 ), is the classic statement of this position. But free speech is not the only value connected to truth. In his book The Constitution of Knowledge , Jonathan Rauch outlines a set of values that people committed to the process of acquiring true beliefs ought to and tend to affirm (Rauch, 2021 , ch. 4). They include the value of science and experimentation , objectivity , fallibilism (that truth claims are defeasible and capable of being proved wrong), accountability (if you get something wrong or violate the epistemic norms of the community, you are held to account for this), pluralism and free inquiry (you welcome curiosity, new propositions and truth claims), civility (you prefer to resolve factual disputes through shared epistemic processes and not violence), institutionalism (you value fact-checkers and gatekeepers for their role in validating propositions) and so on. We could quibble about the inclusion of some items on this list but it is a plausible survey of some of the values that are connected to the value of truth. The challenge, however, is that although these values are connected to truth they are also dissociable from it. Some of them can be valued for other reasons. For instance, we can value civility and accountability for reasons other than their role in sustaining our commitment to the truth. This too is an important point when it comes to assessing the impact of technology on the value of truth.

How technology affects the value of truth

So how does technology affect the value of truth? Limiting our focus to digital information technologies, three things appear to be happening at the moment that affect our commitment to truth. First, digital information technology is giving people (and governments and corporations) the power to create more information and, perhaps more crucially, more disinformation . This limits our capacity to agree upon what is true and confirm or validate truth claims. There are a number of different technological mechanisms underlying this trend. One is simply the volume of information that is being generated and shared via digital networks. A lot of this information may be factual but the sheer volume is overwhelming our traditional processes for validating and checking whether the information is true. This has happened before—the creation of the printing press led to a similar information deluge—but not at the same scale or speed. In addition to this, a number of technologies now allow people to create hyperrealistic fake information. Deepfake technologies (audiovisual images created through generative adversarial networks) are the most widely-discussed examples of this. This fake information can fool our traditional validation processes. This can lead to an increased number of false beliefs or, at the very least, an increased amount of scepticism about our capacity to access the truth (Fallis, 2021 ; Rini, 2020 ).

Second, digital infrastructures seem to amplify and promote information for reasons other than its connection with the truth. This is where technology intersects with psychology and social institutions. As noted previously, there is a tendency in human psychology to engage in motivated reasoning, to seek out information that confirms our existing beliefs, to generate and sustain tribal loyalties. Information technology allows us to do more of that. We can live inside filter bubbles that reinforce existing beliefs and identities. It's easier for us to avoid unpleasant truths than ever before—the social gadfly pointing out that the emperor has no clothes cannot pierce the filter bubble or make us care about his ‘alternative’ facts. Social institutions are also facilitating this move away from truth. The online economy is largely an attentional economy where capturing attention is the main goal, not generating and sustaining true beliefs (Nelson-Field, 2020 ; Williams, 2019 ; Wu, 2016 ). This has had significant impacts on some traditional fact-checking institutions such as journalism. Although there are many good fact-checking journalists and online media organisations, they struggle in the face of increasingly tribal media organisations that do a better job of capturing our attention. The current political economy also does not help. Many democratic institutions reward politicians and parties that appeal to tribal loyalties and 'populism', not truth. A number of countries around the world, with longstanding political institutions that are intended to provide checks and balances against these forms of populism, are now struggling to maintain those checks and balances. Recent experiences in the US are the most prominent, but not the only examples of this (Gurri, 2018 ; Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018 ; Runciman, 2018 ).

Third, there are also impressive developments in virtual reality and augmented reality (extended reality or XR) technologies. These technologies allow people to create and enter alternative computer-generated worlds or to layer computer-generated information on top of physical reality. Although no one would currently be fooled into thinking that these computer-generated realities are equivalent to physical reality, they are becoming increasingly immersive and realistic, and they do give people the option of 'escaping' into an alternative reality if they find some aspect of physical reality unwelcome. In other words, technology is giving people the power to create or join a virtual or extended reality that matches their own beliefs and preferences (Chalmers, 2022 ). In a sense, then, if these technologies develop to a sufficient degree, people will get to choose their own truths by choosing their own reality and creating their own ‘facts’.

What impact is this having on the value of truth? What impact is it likely to have going forward? We think there are two significant impacts that are worth highlighting and monitoring. First, these technologies are weakening the instrumental value of accessing or being committed to truth. It is increasingly difficult to sort fact from fiction in planning our actions and achieving our goals; it is also increasingly unnecessary. Technology gives us the means to bend some aspects of reality to our will or to enter into an alternative reality that better matches our preferences. The sanity check of external reality is, consequently, losing its motivational salience. It doesn’t matter whether the emperor is wearing new clothes, or not. If he isn’t, you can create an alternative version of reality in which he is. This enables people to deprioritise the value of seeking truth in their daily lives—to trade it off against other values. Since many people's commitment to the truth is already unstable and fickle, it's likely that they will avail of this opportunity. They will seek out things that make them feel good or happy, that allow them to express their autonomy and creativity, or solidify their tribal identities, instead of seeking out the truth. This is likely, in turn, to corrode many of the values associated with truth. Free inquiry and free speech, accountability for telling the truth, civility in resolving epistemic disputes—each of these values is likely to be less compelling if the instrumental value of seeking the truth is weakened.

We already see some evidence of this happening. Free speech and free inquiry have always been contested but they are now highly contested largely on the grounds that they pose a threat to other values including sense of self and identity cohesion. For instance, many attempts to regulate or limit speech on university campuses (a lot of which is perceived to be in tension with the value of free speech) is defended in terms of the need to protect particular identity groups from speech that threatens their sense of identity (several of the essays in Riley ( 2020 ) highlight this phenomenon with specific reference to examples from the recent campus free speech wars). Online discourse also appears to reward those that signal in-group loyalty by expressing outrage against others (Crockett, 2017 ; Brady et al . , 2021 ). This reinforces tribal identities at the expense of mutual understanding. The value of civility appears to be under threat as a result. Seeking common ground is less important than maintaining standing within a group. Accountability for telling the truth also appears to be dissipating. Donald Trump's ability to flood the information channels with lies and falsehoods, while suffering very few consequences, seems to exemplify this, though there are many other examples. All that said, as noted above, these related values are not necessarily connected with truth. So one potential consequence of these technological changes that we are witnessing is that people will continue to prioritise and promote these values but do so for other reasons. This might lead to subtle shifts in how we understand and enforce truth-related values. For instance, free speech might be valued for its role in creating and forming identities, and not for its connection with truth. Accountability might be valued for its role in naming and shaming people that do not conform to certain group norms, and not for its role in keeping people honest and focused on the truth.

What about technology's impact on the intrinsic value of truth? Ironically, to the extent that technology makes truth more elusive and difficult to validate, it may increase its perceived intrinsic value and salience. As something becomes more scarce, people often end up attaching more value to it. For some people, the scarcity or difficulty associated with accessing a value might make it more appealing and beneficial than alternative more common values. And, indeed, there is some evidence to suggest that such people exist and are forming their own group identities around their commitment to the value of truth. Certain academic institutions would profess this value system. But there are also online communities of rationalists that dedicate a lot of time and attention to pursuing the truth and, crucially, avoiding the mistakes of motivated reasoning and other psychological biases that draw us away from true beliefs. Julia Galef's book The Scout Mindset can be seen as a manifesto for this value system (Galef, 2021 ). Not only does Galef celebrate the importance of acquiring true beliefs and avoiding motivated reasoning, she also argues that the alleged benefits of trading the commitment to truth off against other values are less appealing than they first seem. For instance, she critiques empirical studies that suggest that positive illusions can be beneficial, arguing that these benefits are overstated and that the instrumental value of truth is still quite high. Although she does not frame her book in these terms, it is possible to see it as a reaction to the impact of technology on the value of truth. The increased scarcity of truth makes it seem more intrinsically valuable than it might otherwise have been. This increased perceived intrinsic value of truth may have knock-on consequences for other values. Epistemic elites, who promise us access to truth or the ability to sort truth from falsehood, may increase in power. For instance, digital auditors who have the ability to identify deepfakes, may (at least among those that still care about truth) be more sought after and more influential. This can have an impact on other values, such as trust. In order to continue to care about truth people may find that they have to place an increased amount of trust in an epistemic elite. This epistemic elite will then need to work to maintain this trust. This may be difficult to do if technology is also impacting on the value of trust. We discuss these potential impacts below.

What are the general lessons we can draw from this? Well, for one thing, digital information technologies are giving us new options that challenge our commitment to the value of truth. Where once it might have been necessary to try to calibrate your beliefs to some shared external reality or some shared set of epistemic norms, this is becoming less necessary as a result of technology. This is an example of pragmatic moral mediation: technology creates new options and new value dilemmas/tradeoffs. The costs of committing to falsity are being reduced; the benefits of committing to truth are not keeping pace. At the same time, these new options affect the perceived scarcity of truth and hence, among some people at least, increase its perceived intrinsic value. This can be seen as an example of hermeneutic moral mediation: the informational infrastructure makes truth seem more morally valuable than it once was. This is, in turn, having an effect on the power of social institutions and organisations that control the flow of information and disinformation. The capacity to speak truth to power is ebbing away; the need to be accountable for truth is disintegrating. Recording police brutality has much less impact in a world of hyperrealistic fake information. Anything that is dissonant to some prevailing orthodoxy can be discounted; anything that is consistent with it can be amplified. If some organisations have an advantage when it comes to wielding the disinformation apparatus, their power will grow. Governments and large technology companies are the obvious example of this. If the infrastructure of disinformation is more widely dispersed, informational anarchy will tend to reign. It would be difficult for truth to sustain its perceived instrumental value in such a world.

Understanding the value of trust

Let’s start, once again, by considering the nature of true as a value. Trust is an integral part of all human activity. In the absence of certainty or immediate person access to the truth we have to choose—consciously or not—who, what and when to trust. We have to trust that others keep their promises; we have to trust authorities to protect our interests; we have to trust an advisor when we are not sure what to do.

Like truth, trust has an important instrumental value. It saves us time and effort, allows us to rely on others to get things done, gives us peace of mind, fosters meaningful intimate relationships, and so forth. In a broader perspective, trust undergirds all human sociality (Churchland, 2011 ; Sætra, 2021b ), and trust shapes interactions between strangers in different societies, and the relationships between citizens and their governments. It could be said, then, that trust is the keystone in our broader value system by facilitating productive cooperation and coordination. If we can trust others, we can enhance our autonomy, happiness, mental well-being, health, relationships and so on. In addition to these instrumental benefits, however, trust also has an important intrinsic value arising from its expressive function in human social relations (Sætra, 2021b ). Trust is a way of signaling respect to another person. If we trust someone, we are respecting their honesty, their competence, and their status as a co-equal moral citizen. Given this, it is common to view trust as a necessarily interpersonal value: as something that defines the bond between two or more people (Hawley, 2014 , 2019). But trust seems to extend beyond human affairs as well. People are inclined to state, for example, that they trust their car, their TV, their phone (Nguyen, 2019 ). Critics might argue that this is the result of a naive form of anthropomorphism (Reeves & Nass, 1996 ), and concept creep, and does not involve genuine trust; defenders of this practice argue that it can (Nguyen, 2019 ; Nickel, 2013 ).

So the boundaries of trust are contested and this raises an obvious question when it comes to technology: Can we trust machines? If not, can we substitute the value of trust for some related value in machines? Are these values, in effect, the same thing? To illustrate the problem, consider another value that is closely related to trust: reliability . One might say that someone who is trustworthy is also reliable. They conform to our expectations; they follow a pattern. But reliability works in both positive and negative directions: someone can be reliably good or reliably bad. Trustworthiness does not seem to work like this: it is seen as a good thing (Hawley, 2014 ). So can we trust machines or merely rely on them? Most people accept that trust is, in part, an expectation of (positive) reliability. This implies that trust can be extended to machines. But some have argued that there are distinct reasons underlying that extension of trust to others that exclude machines. For instance, Levine and Schweitzer ( 2015 ) argue that there are two sub-types of trust: benevolence-based and integrity-based trust. Trust based on benevolence indicates that the trustee has a reputation for goodness and that they have an inherent desire to help the trustor; trust based on integrity indicates that the trustor believes that the trustee will adhere to “acceptable ethical principles, such as honesty and truthfulness” (Levine & Schweitzer, 2015 , p. 99). These two types of trust give rise to distinct reasons for expecting some other actor to do as expected: because they have some goodwill toward you or because they are committed to certain ethical principles. Empirical evidence suggests that the two types of trust don’t always go together. Prosocial lies, for example, tend to promote benevolence-based trust when intentions are perceived as good, while simultaneously undermining integrity-based trust. Prosocial liars, for example, have been shown to be perceived as more moral than strictly honest individuals (Levine & Schweitzer, 2014 ). This is where many will argue that machines are no longer able to take part in relationships in which the concept of trust applies (Sætra, 2021b ). Few would argue that a garbage compressor is benevolent just because it does as expected, and we suspect that equally few would laud its honesty or decency for doing so. It could, however, be the case that people expect various machines to be able to adhere to a set of codified ethical principles and hence have a kind of integrity-based trust..

While the garbage compressor is a relatively easy case, what about a sophisticated robot? Imagine a robot with cutting edge artificial intelligence (AI) and robotic technology. The robot is a social robot, and designed to interact efficiently with human beings through dialogue and mimicking various other human traits and characteristics (Sætra, 2020 ). You can talk to this robot, the robot may be programmed to want what is best for you, to live up to its word, and to act in ways indicative of goodness in human beings. It may seem, in other words, to be benevolent and to be committed to ethical interactions. Is it possible to have a trusting relationship with such a robot? The answer could go in one of two ways, depending on our understanding of the metaphysical grounding of the properties required for benevolence and integrity. One approach, epitomised by Danaher ( 2020 ) and his stance of ‘ethical behaviourism’ would maintain that if the robot looks and acts like it has benevolence or integrity, then it probably has those properties. A trusting relationship is possible based on performance alone. An alternative, and perhaps more common, approach would see machines as little more than the instruments of human actions (Sætra, 2021a ). When we remove the veil of complexity introduced by modern AI and its ability to imitate us, we see that these machines are in principle no different from simple machines such as the garbage compressor (Sætra, 2021a ). While robots can speak, and can appear to be both funny, loving, and benevolent, this is no more than the result of sophisticated programming and a simulacra of the actions required to be benevolent or have integrity. If we see benevolence and integrity as more than mere surface appearance, and as requiring a more meaningful form of autonomy and more complex motivation, machines—even sophisticated ones—can be argued to be incapable of this. Consequently, whatever reliance we are placing in machines cannot be confused with trust.

This is related to the emerging literature on overtrust (perhaps more properly called over-reliance or distorted reliance). This is a disvalue as opposed to a value. This concept applies to our overly optimistic perception of all machines’ capabilities (Lee & See, 2004 ) and could entail that overtrust occurs when I believe my garbage compressor is more reliable than it actually is. This is a disvalue if such overtrust is placed in machines that can jeopardize human safety (Parasuraman & Riley, 1997 ), such as overly relying on a machine that is supposed to filter poison gases. Recent literature, however, focuses in particular on how humans tend to overtrust robots , in particular and more so than other technologies, because of their uncertain place in our ontological schemes (Robinette et al., 2016 ; Wagner et al., 2018 ). Overtrusting robots might entail relying on them without appropriate justification, but it might also involve overestimating their intrinsic capacities. In other words, thinking they are proper objects of trust, capable of benevolence and integrity, when, in fact, they are not.

In short, then, trust is an important instrumental and intrinsic value, primarily associated with human social interactions. That said, the boundaries of trust are contested and it is not clear whether it applies beyond human interactions. Trust is often confused with similar, related, values such as reliability. And when taken to an extreme—overtrust—trust can shift from being valuable to being disvaluable.

How technology affects the value of trust

Technology can affect the conceptual understanding of the value of trust (and hence its perceived prevalence and relevance in our society), and it can also affect how, why, and when humans trust other humans. This leads to a number of impacts on how we promote, pursue and perceive the value of trust. Some of these impacts result in trust being replaced by increased reliance on machines; some result in trust being redistributed between humans and machines; some result in a changed understanding of the value of trust in social life. Let’s consider several examples.

First, trust in humans could be replaced by reliance in machines and, in some cases, result in increased distrust of humans. Imagine you are a visitor to a foreign city. You do not know where your hotel is and you are looking for directions. Who can you trust? You might be inclined to trust the person with the tour guide sign as opposed to the person next to him, who looks like a tourist just as yourself. However, had the tour guide not been there, you would perhaps have placed your trust in your co-tourist. New technologies can disrupt this pattern of trusting relationships. In at least some of its applications, AI has become so advanced that machines are today more capable than human beings at providing valuable information in a fast and efficient way (e.g. accurate maps/directions; translations). This leads to a situation in which fellow humans or human experts—previously the best source of truth in a range of cases—are no longer the most accessible or reliable source of expertise. When visiting a new city many people will rely on digital maps and AI recommender systems instead of fellow humans. It’s faster and more efficient and avoids awkward social encounters. Similarly, when evaluating a Chess or Go game, even human experts will defer to the judgements of advanced AI systems over their own.

This redistribution of trust is more fundamental than it might at first seem. It’s not just that some humans may be seen as untrustworthy; it’s that all humans may be perceived as untrustworthy. We have always known that humans are fallible but there is a difference between being the best there is, but fallible, and simply being the best human , when machines exceed our capabilities. If machines are consistently more reliable and accurate than humans in certain domains, this will change who we trust in situations where reliable computers are available, reducing trust in humans and substituting it with reliance on machines. It might also simultaneously create a sense of distrust in human abilities in general, and an unwillingness to trust humans even when no machine is readily available, or when no machine exists which exceeds humans at the particular capability or knowledge area in question.

While this goes for trust in cognitive abilities, it might also apply to trust relating to the performance of physical and mechanical tasks. That both machines and other animals surpass us in strength is nothing new, but machines are every day being applied to new settings, and just as they surpass humans at playing chess, machines tend to surpass humans in more serious domains of life as well. In healthcare, for example, AI is now being used to diagnose dementia and in robot surgery (Ding et al., 2019 ). If the most capable surgeon, for example, is now a robot, who will trust a human surgeon? These considerations are speculative, and technologists often overstate the ability of medical AI and surgical robots, but the future redistribution of trust, away from even expert humans, is plausible based on what has happened in other domains such as chess.

Another way in which technology might affect trust is when machines allegedly reduce or eliminate the need for trust in other humans altogether. Examples of such technologies could include improved lie detectors, and facial and emotion recognition software (Zhang et al., 2020 ). While some argue that, for example, computer vision-enabled emotion recognition is little more than modern physiognomy or phrenology (Stark & Hutson, 2021 ), others are already using AI that detects frustration and (allegedly) identifies basic emotions (Zhang et al., 2020 ). While such systems might be biased and far from perfect, this need not matter much from the perspective of evaluating technology’s effect on trust. If such systems work reasonably well, that might be enough. In fact, even if they don’t work at all, but people believe they work, that might be enough to change our attitude toward the value of trust. Whenever people think that they can refer to some form of software, for example, to detect whether someone is lying, the need to trust people is radically reduced. Recent empirical work on algorithmic decision-making systems seems to confirm this trend. For instance, a series of studies by Bigman et al., ( 2022 ), found that people are likely to less outraged at discriminatory algorithmic decisions because they are more likely believe that algorithmic systems make unbiased decisions, and hence more likely to trust their outputs.

This, paradoxically, could increase the perceived intrinsic value of trust in humans. If you are willing to trust someone, even when a technological alternative to a human exists, this suggests that you must really respect them. The value of the expressive signal goes up. This is similar to the effect of digital technology on the intrinsic value of truth. But it may also reduce our tendency to value trust in general. “Trust-free” technologies such as blockchains (Hawlitschek et al., 2018 ), are particularly relevant in this context. Ostensibly, the creators and boosters of this technology promote it as an alternative to trust: we replace our trust in human intermediaries (such as banks and payment companies) with an acceptance of the consensus algorithm of a blockchain infrastructure. However, whether this results in truly a trust-free technology is highly disputed (de Filippi et al., 2020 ). Some argue that the blockchain simply results in the redistribution of trust, away from traditional third-party intermediaries towards those that own and control the blockchain infrastructure. What applies for blockchain could also apply to other, allegedly trust-free technologies: reliance on them could simply redistribute trust away from one group of humans and onto another, technically literate group that understands the technologies in question. This is similar to the phenomenon we previously mentioned in relation to epistemic elites and the detection of deepfakes. Either way, technology can have a profound impact on social networks, role-related duties, and power relationships in society. It does so by undermining and disrupting the power of traditional trust networks, either by eliminating the need for trust in humans (and replacing it with reliance on machines) or redistributing trust onto different groups of humans (technological elites) or technology itself.

Yet another mechanism of change is related to the use of deceptive machines, such as social robots that are designed to mimic or copy human behavioural cues (Sætra, 2021b ). Even if one is unwilling to accept that social robots are inherently deceptive, they are at the very least interacting with human beings in ways that trigger psychological response mechanisms that were previously reserved to other humans (Sætra, 2020 ). All humans have become who they are today through a lifetime of learning from interaction with human beings. Some might have grown up in a very safe environment and learnt to trust indiscriminately, while others may have had a more challenging life and have ended up hardly trusting anyone at all. What happens if this social learning involves many interactions with robots? One concern might be that we learn something different when we interact with robots than when we interact with humans (Sætra, 2020 ). Unless one is willing to argue that machines perfectly mimic human beings, in the myriad of subtle and fundamental ways in which human social interaction occurs, this argument represents a reasonably likely effect of robots on our social behaviour. But this can have profound impacts on trust as well. Sætra ( 2021b ) argues that if trust, as a relational concept does not apply to robots, and is not assumed to apply to them, having lots of social interactions shaped by robots might, once again, entail downplaying the role of trust in general in human society. Rather than trust being seen as an essential or core instrumental social value (the glue that binds together cooperative relations) it may be seen as unnecessary and discardable. We can drop trust in favour of reliance and still unlock many of the same values. But since reliance is a different kind of value, which does not share the same intrinsic expressive content as trust, we may lose an important intrinsic social value, namely, that of respect for others, and this may have a negative impact on the perceived value of relationships more generally.

Two additional consequences of robot deception are relevant in light of the preceding considerations. First, if one assumes that human beings learn from their experiences, as we do, whenever an individual recognizes that they have been deceived, this might lead to this person being less trustful in future interactions. However, not all individuals will recognize that they have been deceived and so some may continue to be as trusting as ever before. This will result in a differential distribution of trust in society: some will see the rise of social robots as a threat to trust and a reason for mistrust; some will continue as before. Society may polarise into those that disvalue trust and become more suspicious of everything around them, and those that continue to trust (perhaps even overtrust) humans and other technologies. Secondly, a more speculative concern relates to the potential long-term evolutionary changes that might follow in a situation where those least likely to trust (both humans and technology) are most successful. In an evolutionary time frame, this might lead to a situation in which humans as a species will be characterised by a less trustful nature (Sætra, 2020 ). The work of behavioural scientists such as Michael Tomasello, for instance, suggest that humans are innately trusting and cooperative, much more so than our primate cousins. Although this is partly a learnt behaviour, it also seems to be partly genetic (Tomasello, 2016 ). Over a long enough timescale of interactions with robots, this innate disposition to trust may be eroded. In the meantime, there is plenty of scope for robots (and, perhaps more importantly their manufacturers) to exploit the innate disposition to trust.

Finally, technology might change trust by changing our moral perception of ourselves and others. This could happen through the phenomenon of ‘robotomorphy’ (Sætra, 2021c ), which is a form of hermeneutic moral mediation. Anthropomorphism describes how we attribute human qualities to other entities, such as robots. Robotomorphy is a companion concept which describes how we also tend to attribute robot qualities to human beings. Seeing ourselves as machines has a very long history, and goes back to philosophers such as Hobbes ( 1946 [1651]) and Le Mettrie ( 1912 [1747]), who established and used a mechanistic philosophy to argue that humans are little more than advanced machines. Fast forward to the modern era, and there is no shortage of scientists that liken the human brain to a computer (Piccini & Bahar, 2013 ), and no shortage of fiction writers that use intelligent machines explore the nature of the human condition (Cave et al., 2020 ). But metaphors are dangerous. They can mislead or misrepresent reality in both significant and subtle ways. The danger of robotomorphy is that the more we see ourselves as a kind of machine, the less need there is for the concept of trust. As already discussed, we might rely on machines, but trust has usually been used to refer to something deeper and exclusive to being with a mind, intentions, drives, and not least a free will. Trust is something that entails a certain element of the unknowable and mystical. Increased robotomorphy might dispel this mystery and change trust in human beings into something more akin to a question of whether or not we can rely on each other just as we rely on a car or a dishwasher.

Conclusion: lessons learned

Having examined our two case studies, it remains to consider whether or not there are similarities in how technology affects trust and truth, and if there are general lessons to be learned here about how technology may impact values in the future.

The two values we have considered are structurally similar and interrelated. They are both intrinsically and instrumentally valuable. They are both epistemic and practical in nature: we value truth and trust (at least in part) because they give us access to knowledge and help us to resolve the decision problems we face on a daily basis. We also see, in both case studies, similar mechanisms of value change at work. The most interesting, to our minds, are the following:

Technology changes the costs associated with accessing certain values, making them less or more important as a result Digital disinformation technology increases the cost of finding out the truth, but reduces the cost of finding and reinforcing a shared identity community; reliable AI and robotics gives us an (often cheaper and more efficient) substitute for trust in humans, while still giving us access to useful cognitive, emotional and physical assistance.

Technology makes it easier, or more attractive to trade off or substitute some values against others Digital disinformation technology allows us to obviate the need for finding out the truth and focus on other values instead; reliable machines allow us to substitute the value of reliability for the value of trust. This is a function of the plural nature of values, their scarcity, and the changing cost structure of values caused by technology.

Technology can make some values seem more scarce (rare, difficult to obtain), thereby increasing their perceived intrinsic value Digital disinformation makes truth more elusive, thereby increasing its perceived value which, in turn, encourages some moral communities to increase their fixation on it; robots and AI make trust in humans less instrumentally necessary, thereby increasing the expressive value of trust in others.

Technology can disrupt power networks, thereby altering the social gatekeepers to value to the extent that we still care about truth, digital disinformation increases the power of the epistemic elites that can help us to access the truth; trust-free or trust-alternative technologies can disrupt the power of traditional trusted third parties (professionals, experts etc.) and redistribute power onto technology or a technological elite.

We also see, in both cases, first and second-order value effects. Technologies first impact on how we make decisions in relation to certain values, the metaphors or concepts we use to understand those values, and then on our relationships with one another, our perceived duties to one another and the power we hold over one another. For instance, we choose to rely on machines rather than trust humans, this leads us to question the nature of trust and whether it can be applied to machines, and it also affects how we interact with fellow humans and the perceived (and actual) power of humans and technology. It’s plausible to assume that similar mechanisms of value change will be at work in other case studies.

There are also important overlaps and synergies to consider in relation to the technological disruption of both values. We have not commented on these in much depth in the foregoing analysis; we have, instead, treated the two case studies as being largely independent, occasionally noting connections between. It is worth noting the synergies and overlaps in more detail now. First, and most obviously, there is an interesting tension between the two values and the possible effect of technology on them. We have argued that digital technology undermines the search for truth both by potentially altering the objective reality to which we are trying to conform our beliefs, increasing the volume of information and disinformation, and undermining the epistemic processes we use to verify our beliefs. We have argued that machines, particularly AI and robotics, replace the need for trust in humans with reliance in machines. But if machines are seen as tools of disinformation, it could well be that we are reluctant to rely on them in the stead of humans. We may trust an expert chess AI, but not an (alleged) expert political policy AI. In other words, the disruptive effect of technology on one value (truth) may block the disruptive effect of technology on another value (trust). It could also work the other way, of course. Increased reliance in machines, particularly in cognitive affairs, could undermine the disinformation effects of technology on truth. If we are convinced that the machines are the path to enlightenment, then perhaps truth can retain its instrumental and intrinsic social value (at the expense of trust in humans).

These are complicated matters. One meta-lesson of our two case studies is that in a world of plural values, and plural technologies, the impact of technology on moral change can be complex and interactive. Technology rarely affects one value in isolation from the others. Greater scrutiny of these complex and interactive effects would be beneficial if we are to improve our ability to anticipate and plan for technology-induced moral change.

For a similar story of how a single technology resulted in significant social change, see Pelto ( 1973 ) on the impact of the snowmobile on the Arctic communities.

Roughly, what we have in mind with this term is a ‘pragmatic’ approach to truth, whereby what counts as a ‘true’ proposition depends on the epistemic norms within a relevant community/discourse. For more, see Capps 2019 .

Abidin, C. (2016). Please subscribe!: Influencers, social media, and the commodification of everyday life. Doctor of Philosophy, The University of Western Australia. https://doi.org/10.26182/5ddc899d698cb

Adshade, M. (2013). Dollars and sex: How economics influences sex and love . Chronicle Books.

Google Scholar  

Anthis, J. R., & Paez, E. (2021). Moral circle expansion: A promising strategy to impact the far future. Futures, 130 , 102756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2021.102756

Article   Google Scholar  

Appiah, K. A. (2010). The Honor Code: How moral revolutions happen . WW Norton.

Arriagada, A., & Bishop, S. (2021). Between commerciality and authenticity: The imaginary of social media influencers in the platform economy. Communication, Culture and Critique, 14 (4), 568–586. https://doi.org/10.1093/ccc/tcab050

Asay, J. (forthcoming). Arne Næss’s experiments in truth. _ Erkenntnis _. https://philpapers.org/rec/ASAANE

Barley, S. (2020). Work and technological change . OUP.

Book   Google Scholar  

Barnard, R., & Ulatowski, J. (2019). Does anyone really think that ⌜φ⌝ is true if and only if φ? In A. Aberdein & M. Inglis (Eds.), Advances in experimental philosophy of logic and mathematics (pp. 145–171). Bloomsbury Academic.

Barnard, R., & Ulatowski, P. (2013). Truth, correspondence and gender. Review Philosophical Psychology, 4 , 621–638.

Bigman, Y. E., Wilson, D., Arnestad, M. N., Waytz, A., & Gray, K. (2022). Algorithmic discrimination causes less moral outrage than human discrimination. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General . https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001250

Bortolotti, L. (2018). Optimism, agency, and success. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 21 , 521–535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-018-9894-6

Brady, W. J., et al. (2021). How social learning amplifies moral outrage expression in online social networks. Science Advances, 7 (33), eabe5641. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abe5641

Burke, E. (1790). Reflections on the revolution in France . J. Dodsley.

Calhoun, C. (2015). Moral aims: Essays on the importance of getting it right and practicing morality with others . Oxford University Press.

Capps, J. (2019). The pragmatic theory of truth. In  The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2019 Edition ), (E. N. Zalta, Ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/truth-pragmatic/

Cave, S., Dihal, K., & Dillon, S. (Eds.). (2020). AI narratives: A history of imaginative thinking about intelligent machines . Oxford University Press.

Chalmers, D. (2022). Reality+ . Penguin.

Churchland, P. S. (2011). Braintrust: What neuroscience tells us about morality . Princeton University Press.

Churchland, P. S. (2019). Conscience: The origins of moral intuition . WW Norton.

Crockett, M. J. (2017). Moral outrage in the digital age. Nature Human Behaviour, 1 (11), 769–771.

Danaher, J. (2020). Welcoming robots into the moral circle: A defence of ethical behaviourism. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26 (4), 2023–2049.

Danaher, J. (2021). Axiological futurism: The systematic study of the future of values. Futures, 132 , 102780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2021.102780

David, M. (2020). The correspondence theory of truth. In  The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2020 Edition ) (E. N. Zalta, Ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/truth-correspondence/

Debrabander, F. (2020). Life after privacy: Reclaiming democracy in a surveillance society . Cambridge University Press.

Ding, Y., Sohn, J. H., Kawczynski, M. G., Trivedi, H., Harnish, R., Jenkins, N. W., et al. (2019). A deep learning model to predict a diagnosis of Alzheimer disease by using 18F-FDG PET of the brain. Radiology, 290 (2), 456–464.

Dogramaci, S. (2020). What is the function of reasoning? On Mercier and Sperber’s argumentative and justificatory theories. Episteme, 17 (3), 316–330.

Duffy, A., & Kang, H. Y. P. (2020). Follow me, I’m famous: travel bloggers’ self-mediated performances of everyday exoticism. Media, Culture & Society, 42 (2), 172–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443719853503

Fallis, D. (2021). The epistemic threat of deepfakes. Philosophy & Technology, 34 , 623–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00419-2

Filippi, P. D., Mannan, M., & Reijers, W. (2020). Blockchain as a confidence machine: The problem of trust & challenges of governance. Technology in Society, 62 , 101284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101284

Flexner, A. (1939). The usefulness of useless knowledge. Harpers, 179 , 544.

Galef, J. (2021). The scout mindset . Piatkus.

Glanzberg, M. (2021). Truth. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2021 Edition), (E. N. Zalta Ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/truth/

Greenwood, J. (2020). Evolving households: The imprint of technology on life . MIT Press.

Gurri, M. (2018). The revolt of the public . Stripe Press.

Hartzog, W. (2018). Privacy’s blueprint: The battle to control the design of new technologies . Harvard University Press.

Hawley, K. (2014). Trust, distrust and commitment. Nous, 48 (1), 1–20.

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Hawlitschek, F., Notheisen, B., & Teubner, T. (2018). The limits of trust-free systems: A literature review on blockchain technology and trust in the sharing economy. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 29 , 50–63.

Hobbes, T. (1946[1651]). Leviathan . Basil Blackwell.

Hopster, J. (2022). Future value change: Identifying realistic possibilities and risks. Prometheus , forthcoming, https://philpapers.org/archive/HOPFVC.pdf

Horwich, P. (2006). The value of truth. Nous, 40 (2), 347–360.

Hund, E., & McGuigan, L. (2019). A shoppable life: Performance, selfhood, and influence in the social media storefront. Communication, Culture and Critique, 12 (1), 18–35. https://doi.org/10.1093/ccc/tcz004

Jefferson, A., Bortolotti, L., & Kuzmanovic, B. (2017). What is unrealistic optimism? Consciousness and Cognition, 50 , 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.10.005

Klenk, M., et al. (2022). Recent work on moral revolutions. Analysis, 82 (2), 354–366. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anac017

Koyama, M., & Rubin, J. (2022). How the world became rich . Polity Press.

Kudina, O. (2019). The technological mediation of morality: Value dynamism, and the complex interaction between ethics and technology. PhD Thesis, University of Twente. https://doi.org/10.3990/1.9789036547444

Kudina, O., & Verbeek, P.-P. (2019). Ethics from within: Google glass, the Collingridge dilemma, and the mediated value of privacy. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 44 (2), 291–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243918793711

La Mettrie, J. J. O. (1996[1748]). La Mettrie: Machine man and other writings. Cambridge University Press.

Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46 (1), 50–80.

Levine, E. E., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2014). Are liars ethical? On the tension between benevolence and honesty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 53 , 107–117.

Levine, E. E., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2015). Prosocial lies: When deception breeds trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 126 , 88–106.

Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How Democracies Die . Viking.

Mascarenhas, MascarenhasS. (2019). Review of Mercier and Sperber’s the enigma of reason. Teorema: Revista Internacional De Filosofía, 38 (1), 97–106.

Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2017). The enigma of reason . Harvard University Press.

Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2019). Replies to critics. Teorema: Revista Internacional De Filosofía, 38 (1), 139–156.

Mill, J. S. (1859). On liberty . Parker and Son.

Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (1997). A leap of faith? Positive illusions in romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23 (6), 586–604.

Naess, A. (1938).“Truth” as conceived by those who are not professional philosophers (Skrifter Utgitt avDet Norske Videnskaps-Akademi I Oslo Il. Hist.-Filos. Klass 1938 No. 4). I Kommisjon HosJacob Dybwad.

Nelson-Field, K. (2020). The attention economy and how media works: Simple truths for marketers . Palgrave-Macmillan.

Nguyen, C. T. (2019). Trust as an unquestioning attitude. Oxford studies in epistemology, forthcoming. https://philarchive.org/rec/NGUTAA

Nickel, P. J. (2013). Trust in technological systems. In M. J. de Vries, S. O. Hansson, & A. W. M. Meijers (Eds.), Norms in technology: Philosophy of engineering and technology. (Vol. 9). Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Nickel, P. J. (2020). Disruptive innovation and moral uncertainty. NanoEthics, 14 (3), 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-020-00375-3

Nickel, P., Kudina, O., & Van de Poel, I. (2021). Moral Uncertainty in technomoral change: Bridging the explanatory gap. Perspectives in Science . https://doi.org/10.1162/posc_a_00414

Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39 (2), 230–253.

Pelto, P. J. (1973). The snowmobile revolution: technology and social change in the Arctic . Waveland Press.

Piccinini, G., & Bahar, S. (2013). Neural computation and the computational theory of cognition. Cognitive Science, 37 (3), 453–488.

Prochownik, K. (2019). Three questions about the social function of reason. Teorema: Revista Internacional De Filosofía, 38 (1), 77–86.

Rauch, J. (2021). The constitution of knowledge . Brookings Institution Press.

Reeves, B., & Nass, C. I. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places . Cambridge University Press.

Reuter, K., & Brun, G. (2022). Empirical studies on truth and the project of re-engineering truth. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly . https://doi.org/10.1111/papq.12370

Riley, C. L. (Ed.). (2020). The free speech wars . Manchester University Press.

Rini, R. (2020). Deepfakes and the epistemic backdrop. The Philosophers’ Imprint, 20 (24), 1–16.

Robinette, P., Li, W., Allen, R., Howard, A. M., & Wagner, A. R. (2016, March). Overtrust of robots in emergency evacuation scenarios. In 2016 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction ( HRI ) (pp. 101–108).

Ross, W. D. (1930). The right and the good . Clarendon Press.

Runciman, D. (2018). How democracy ends . Profile Books.

Sætra, H. S. (2020). The parasitic nature of social AI: Sharing minds with the mindless. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science , 54 (2), 308.

Sætra, H. S. (2021a). Confounding complexity of machine action: A Hobbesian account of machine responsibility. International Journal of Technoethics . https://doi.org/10.4018/IJT.20210101.oa1

Sætra, H. S. (2021b). Social robot deception and the culture of trust. Paladyn: Journal of Behavioural Robotics . https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2021-0021

Sætra, H. S. (2021c). Robotomorphy: Becoming our creations. AI and Ethics . https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00092-x

Schiavon, C. C., et al. (2017). Optimism and hope in chronic disease: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 7 , 2022. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02022

Stanovich, K. (2021). The bias that divides us . MIT Press.

Stark, L., & Hutson, J. (2021). Physiognomic artificial intelligence. SSRN . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3927300

Swierstra, T., Stemerding, D., & Boenink, M. (2009). Exploring techno-moral change: The case of the obesitypill. In P. Sollie & M. Düwell (Eds.), Evaluating new technologies. The international library of ethics, law and technology. (Vol. 3). Dordrecht: Springer.

Swierstra, T., & Waelbers, K. (2012). Designing a good life: A matrix for the technological mediation of morality. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18 (1), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-010-9251-1

Taylor, S., & Brown, J. D. (1994). Positive illusions and well-being revisited: Separating fact from fiction. Psychological Bulletin, 116 (1), 21–27.

Tomasello, M. (2016). A natural history of morality . Harvard University Press.

van de Poel, I. (2021). Design for value change. Ethics and Information Technology, 23 , 27–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-018-9461-9

van de Poel, I., & Kudina, O. (2022). Understanding technology-induced value change: A pragmatist proposal. Philosophy & Technology 35, 40 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00520-8

van de Poel, I., & Taebi, B. (2022). Value change in energy systems. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 47 (3), 371–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439211069526 .

Verbeek, P. P. (2012). Moralizing technology: Understanding and designing the morality of things . University of Chicago Press.

Verbeek, P.-P. (2013). The moral status of technical artefacts. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7914-3_5

Wagner, A. R., Borenstein, J., & Howard, A. (2018). Overtrust in the robotic age. Communications of the ACM, 61 (9), 22–24.

White, L., Jr. (1962). Medieval technology and social change . OUP.

Whiting, D. (2013). The good and the true (or the bad and the false). Philosophy, 88 (2), 219–242. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0031819113000260

Williams, E. G. (2015). The possibility of an ongoing moral catastrophe. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 18 (5), 971–982. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-015-9567-7

Williams, J. (2019). Stand out of our light: Freedom and resistance in the attention economy . Cambridge University Press.

Wu, T. (2016). The attention merchants . Knopf.

Zhang, J., Yin, Z., Chen, P., & Nichele, S. (2020). Emotion recognition using multi-modal data and machine learning techniques: A tutorial and review. Information Fusion, 59 , 103–126.

Download references

Open Access funding provided by the IReL Consortium.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Law, NUI Galway, University Road, Galway, Ireland

John Danaher

Department of Computer Science and Communication, Ostfold University College, Halden, Norway

Henrik Skaug Sætra

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Danaher .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Danaher, J., Sætra, H.S. Technology and moral change: the transformation of truth and trust. Ethics Inf Technol 24 , 35 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-022-09661-y

Download citation

Accepted : 19 July 2022

Published : 20 August 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-022-09661-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Moral change
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Home — Essay Samples — Science — Evolution — The Evolution of Technology

The Evolution of Technology

• Categories: Dependence on Technology Evolution

About this sample

Words: 640 |

Published: Dec 18, 2018

Words: 640 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Technology Essay: Hook Examples

• The Digital Revolution: In the 21st century, technology has reshaped every facet of our lives. This essay delves into the profound impact of the digital revolution, from smartphones to artificial intelligence, and how it continues to shape our world.
• From Stone Tools to Silicon Chips: Human history is marked by technological advancements. Join us as we journey through time, exploring the milestones that have propelled humanity from the Stone Age to the Information Age.
• The Ethical Crossroads: Advancements in technology bring forth ethical dilemmas. This essay examines the ethical challenges posed by emerging technologies, from genetic engineering to surveillance, and the need for responsible innovation.
• Technology in Education: Education is undergoing a digital transformation. Explore how technology is revolutionizing classrooms, expanding access to knowledge, and reshaping the way we learn.
• The Future Unveiled: What does the future hold in the realm of technology? In this essay, we’ll peer into the crystal ball of tech trends, from quantum computing to space exploration, and envision the world that awaits us.

Works Cited

• Feeney, A. (2019). Overcoming Fear: Finding the Courage to Face Your Fears and Embrace Change. John Wiley & Sons.
• Seligman, M. E. (2006). Learned optimism: How to change your mind and your life. Vintage.
• Adams, S. K. (2019). How to Overcome Fear and Find Your Courage: Overcoming Fear, Gaining Confidence, Building Trust, and Improving Self Esteem. Independently Published.
• Brown, B. (2012). Daring Greatly: How the Courage to Be Vulnerable Transforms the Way We Live, Love, Parent, and Lead. Avery.
• Knaus, W. J. (2006). Fearless: Imagine Your Life Without Fear. American Management Association.
• Chansky, T. E. (2014). Freeing your child from anxiety: Powerful, practical solutions to overcome your child’s fears, worries, and phobias. Harmony.
• Lerner, H. G. (2015). Fear and other uninvited guests: Tackling the anxiety, fear, and shame that keep us from optimal living and loving. HarperCollins.
• Rappaport, J. (2017). The Courage Habit: How to Accept Your Fears, Release the Past, and Live Your Courageous Life. New Harbinger Publications.
• McGrath, C. (2018). The Psychology of Fear in Organizations: How to Transform Anxiety into Well-being, Productivity and Innovation. Kogan Page.
• Gilbert, E. (2019). Big Magic: Creative Living Beyond Fear. Riverhead Books.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Information Science and Technology Science

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 620 words

2 pages / 811 words

1 pages / 464 words

2 pages / 1090 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Evolution

Modern technology enables us to prenatally diagnose birth defects of genetic disor- ders inherited from the family. Examples of these disorders are the abnormal growth of the body, mental retardation and other conditions which [...]

Uneven distribution of mineral deposits through space and time reflect evolution of the earth in terms of hydrosphere-atmosphere, changes in global heat flow and trends in plate tectonic settings and (Barley & Groves, 1992; [...]

Prejudice and racism are used interchangeably, but have totally independent meanings. Prejudice was the preconceived idea that is grounded on observations of facts or experience. Cultural racism was defined as the belief of the [...]

The Plate Tectonic theory explains the formation of Mountains because of folding, faulting, and Convergent Plate Boundaries. Folding is a fold in a layer of rock and is a type of deformation. This happens when the rock layers [...]

Women’s fashion in the 1920s changed the way women lived. It also changed how people saw women. Women’s clothing has changed a lot throughout the years (Hearst Media, LLC). Flappers in the 1920s cropped their hair, made up their [...]

Humans are curious creatures and finding out where they come from is one way to satisfy their curiosity. This leads to the discovery of a logical reason known as evolution. Evolution gives answers to how we advance as humans by [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

• Technology Essay

Essay on Technology

The word "technology" and its uses have immensely changed since the 20th century, and with time, it has continued to evolve ever since. We are living in a world driven by technology. The advancement of technology has played an important role in the development of human civilization, along with cultural changes. Technology provides innovative ways of doing work through various smart and innovative means. 

Electronic appliances, gadgets, faster modes of communication, and transport have added to the comfort factor in our lives. It has helped in improving the productivity of individuals and different business enterprises. Technology has brought a revolution in many operational fields. It has undoubtedly made a very important contribution to the progress that mankind has made over the years.

The Advancement of Technology:

Technology has reduced the effort and time and increased the efficiency of the production requirements in every field. It has made our lives easy, comfortable, healthy, and enjoyable. It has brought a revolution in transport and communication. The advancement of technology, along with science, has helped us to become self-reliant in all spheres of life. With the innovation of a particular technology, it becomes part of society and integral to human lives after a point in time.

Technology is Our Part of Life:

Technology has changed our day-to-day lives. Technology has brought the world closer and better connected. Those days have passed when only the rich could afford such luxuries. Because of the rise of globalisation and liberalisation, all luxuries are now within the reach of the average person. Today, an average middle-class family can afford a mobile phone, a television, a washing machine, a refrigerator, a computer, the Internet, etc. At the touch of a switch, a man can witness any event that is happening in far-off places.  

Benefits of Technology in All Fields: 

We cannot escape technology; it has improved the quality of life and brought about revolutions in various fields of modern-day society, be it communication, transportation, education, healthcare, and many more. Let us learn about it.

Technology in Communication:

With the advent of technology in communication, which includes telephones, fax machines, cellular phones, the Internet, multimedia, and email, communication has become much faster and easier. It has transformed and influenced relationships in many ways. We no longer need to rely on sending physical letters and waiting for several days for a response. Technology has made communication so simple that you can connect with anyone from anywhere by calling them via mobile phone or messaging them using different messaging apps that are easy to download.

Innovation in communication technology has had an immense influence on social life. Human socialising has become easier by using social networking sites, dating, and even matrimonial services available on mobile applications and websites.

Today, the Internet is used for shopping, paying utility bills, credit card bills, admission fees, e-commerce, and online banking. In the world of marketing, many companies are marketing and selling their products and creating brands over the internet. 

In the field of travel, cities, towns, states, and countries are using the web to post detailed tourist and event information. Travellers across the globe can easily find information on tourism, sightseeing, places to stay, weather, maps, timings for events, transportation schedules, and buy tickets to various tourist spots and destinations.

Technology in the Office or Workplace:

Technology has increased efficiency and flexibility in the workspace. Technology has made it easy to work remotely, which has increased the productivity of the employees. External and internal communication has become faster through emails and apps. Automation has saved time, and there is also a reduction in redundancy in tasks. Robots are now being used to manufacture products that consistently deliver the same product without defect until the robot itself fails. Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning technology are innovations that are being deployed across industries to reap benefits.

Technology has wiped out the manual way of storing files. Now files are stored in the cloud, which can be accessed at any time and from anywhere. With technology, companies can make quick decisions, act faster towards solutions, and remain adaptable. Technology has optimised the usage of resources and connected businesses worldwide. For example, if the customer is based in America, he can have the services delivered from India. They can communicate with each other in an instant. Every company uses business technology like virtual meeting tools, corporate social networks, tablets, and smart customer relationship management applications that accelerate the fast movement of data and information.

Technology in Education:

Technology is making the education industry improve over time. With technology, students and parents have a variety of learning tools at their fingertips. Teachers can coordinate with classrooms across the world and share their ideas and resources online. Students can get immediate access to an abundance of good information on the Internet. Teachers and students can access plenty of resources available on the web and utilise them for their project work, research, etc. Online learning has changed our perception of education. 

The COVID-19 pandemic brought a paradigm shift using technology where school-going kids continued their studies from home and schools facilitated imparting education by their teachers online from home. Students have learned and used 21st-century skills and tools, like virtual classrooms, AR (Augmented Reality), robots, etc. All these have increased communication and collaboration significantly. 

Technology in Banking:

Technology and banking are now inseparable. Technology has boosted digital transformation in how the banking industry works and has vastly improved banking services for their customers across the globe.

Technology has made banking operations very sophisticated and has reduced errors to almost nil, which were somewhat prevalent with manual human activities. Banks are adopting Artificial Intelligence (AI) to increase their efficiency and profits. With the emergence of Internet banking, self-service tools have replaced the traditional methods of banking. 

You can now access your money, handle transactions like paying bills, money transfers, and online purchases from merchants, and monitor your bank statements anytime and from anywhere in the world. Technology has made banking more secure and safe. You do not need to carry cash in your pocket or wallet; the payments can be made digitally using e-wallets. Mobile banking, banking apps, and cybersecurity are changing the face of the banking industry.

Manufacturing and Production Industry Automation:

At present, manufacturing industries are using all the latest technologies, ranging from big data analytics to artificial intelligence. Big data, ARVR (Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality), and IoT (Internet of Things) are the biggest manufacturing industry players. Automation has increased the level of productivity in various fields. It has reduced labour costs, increased efficiency, and reduced the cost of production.

For example, 3D printing is used to design and develop prototypes in the automobile industry. Repetitive work is being done easily with the help of robots without any waste of time. This has also reduced the cost of the products. 

Technology in the Healthcare Industry:

Technological advancements in the healthcare industry have not only improved our personal quality of life and longevity; they have also improved the lives of many medical professionals and students who are training to become medical experts. It has allowed much faster access to the medical records of each patient. 

The Internet has drastically transformed patients' and doctors’ relationships. Everyone can stay up to date on the latest medical discoveries, share treatment information, and offer one another support when dealing with medical issues. Modern technology has allowed us to contact doctors from the comfort of our homes. There are many sites and apps through which we can contact doctors and get medical help. 

Breakthrough innovations in surgery, artificial organs, brain implants, and networked sensors are examples of transformative developments in the healthcare industry. Hospitals use different tools and applications to perform their administrative tasks, using digital marketing to promote their services.

Technology in Agriculture:

Today, farmers work very differently than they would have decades ago. Data analytics and robotics have built a productive food system. Digital innovations are being used for plant breeding and harvesting equipment. Software and mobile devices are helping farmers harvest better. With various data and information available to farmers, they can make better-informed decisions, for example, tracking the amount of carbon stored in soil and helping with climate change.

Disadvantages of Technology:

People have become dependent on various gadgets and machines, resulting in a lack of physical activity and tempting people to lead an increasingly sedentary lifestyle. Even though technology has increased the productivity of individuals, organisations, and the nation, it has not increased the efficiency of machines. Machines cannot plan and think beyond the instructions that are fed into their system. Technology alone is not enough for progress and prosperity. Management is required, and management is a human act. Technology is largely dependent on human intervention. 

Computers and smartphones have led to an increase in social isolation. Young children are spending more time surfing the internet, playing games, and ignoring their real lives. Usage of technology is also resulting in job losses and distracting students from learning. Technology has been a reason for the production of weapons of destruction.

Dependency on technology is also increasing privacy concerns and cyber crimes, giving way to hackers.

FAQs on Technology Essay

1. What is technology?

Technology refers to innovative ways of doing work through various smart means. The advancement of technology has played an important role in the development of human civilization. It has helped in improving the productivity of individuals and businesses.

2. How has technology changed the face of banking?

Technology has made banking operations very sophisticated. With the emergence of Internet banking, self-service tools have replaced the traditional methods of banking. You can now access your money, handle transactions, and monitor your bank statements anytime and from anywhere in the world. Technology has made banking more secure and safe.

3. How has technology brought a revolution in the medical field?

Patients and doctors keep each other up to date on the most recent medical discoveries, share treatment information, and offer each other support when dealing with medical issues. It has allowed much faster access to the medical records of each patient. Modern technology has allowed us to contact doctors from the comfort of our homes. There are many websites and mobile apps through which we can contact doctors and get medical help.

4. Are we dependent on technology?

Yes, today, we are becoming increasingly dependent on technology. Computers, smartphones, and modern technology have helped humanity achieve success and progress. However, in hindsight, people need to continuously build a healthy lifestyle, sorting out personal problems that arise due to technological advancements in different aspects of human life.

Essay on Technological Advancement

Students are often asked to write an essay on Technological Advancement in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Technological Advancement

What is technological advancement.

Technological advancement refers to the development of new and innovative technologies that improve our lives, making things easier and faster. It encompasses a wide range of fields, such as communication, transportation, medicine, and energy.

How does technological advancement impact our lives?

What are the benefits of technological advancement.

Technological advancement brings numerous benefits to society. It enhances productivity, leading to economic growth and improved living standards. It also creates new jobs and opportunities, especially in the tech industry. Additionally, technological advancements improve education and access to information, enabling people to learn and stay informed.

What are the challenges associated with technological advancement?

While technological advancement offers many benefits, it also presents challenges. One concern is the potential loss of jobs due to automation and artificial intelligence. Another challenge is the digital divide, where certain populations lack access to technology and its benefits. Ethical considerations also arise, such as privacy concerns and the potential misuse of technology.

250 Words Essay on Technological Advancement

What is technological advancement.

Technological advancement refers to the development of new and improved technologies that make people’s lives easier, more convenient, and more efficient. It involves the creation of new products, processes, and systems that address various challenges and improve the way people live and work.

Benefits of Technological Advancement

Technological advancement has brought many benefits to society. It has improved communication, transportation, healthcare, and education. For example, the internet has made it possible for people to connect with others around the world instantly. Mobile phones have made it easy for people to stay in touch with friends and family members who live far away.

Challenges of Technological Advancement

While technological advancement has many benefits, it also comes with some challenges. One challenge is that new technologies can be expensive, and not everyone can afford them. Another challenge is that new technologies can sometimes be harmful to the environment. For example, the use of fossil fuels to generate electricity releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which contributes to climate change.

The Future of Technological Advancement

It is likely that technological advancement will continue to accelerate in the years to come. This will bring both benefits and challenges. It is important to be aware of both the potential benefits and challenges of new technologies so that we can make informed decisions about how to use them.

Technological advancement is a complex and ever-changing field. It has the potential to improve people’s lives in many ways, but it also comes with some challenges. It is important to be aware of both the benefits and challenges of new technologies so that we can use them wisely.

500 Words Essay on Technological Advancement

A transformative power: technological advancement, communication and connectivity.

The advent of the internet has revolutionized communication and connectivity. Social media platforms, instant messaging, and video conferencing have made it possible to stay connected with friends and family across vast distances. The world has become a smaller place, fostering global collaboration and understanding.

Medical Breakthroughs

Technological advancements have also led to significant breakthroughs in healthcare. Medical imaging techniques, such as X-rays and MRI scans, have enabled early detection and more accurate diagnosis of diseases. Advanced treatments like robotic surgery and targeted drug therapies have improved patient outcomes and enhanced the quality of life for millions.

Education and Knowledge Access

Technology has democratized access to education and knowledge. Online learning platforms and digital resources have made it possible for individuals to learn at their own pace, regardless of their geographic location or socioeconomic status. Access to vast amounts of information has fostered a culture of curiosity and lifelong learning.

Industrial and Business Evolution

Challenges and ethical considerations.

While technological advancements have brought immense benefits, they also pose challenges and raise ethical considerations. The rapid pace of change can lead to job displacement and the need for continuous upskilling. Moreover, the increasing reliance on technology can result in privacy concerns, data security breaches, and the spread of misinformation. Navigating these challenges and addressing ethical implications requires careful consideration and responsible action.

Technology’s Impact on Society

Technological advancement has profoundly impacted society, both positively and negatively. It has facilitated access to information, improved communication, and enhanced healthcare. However, it has also raised concerns about job displacement, privacy, and the spread of misinformation. Addressing these challenges and harnessing technology’s potential for good requires collaboration among individuals, governments, and industries.

Technological advancement is a continuous journey, marked by both challenges and opportunities. It has transformed the way we live, work, and communicate, and its impact will continue to shape our future. As technology advances, it is essential to embrace its benefits while addressing its potential drawbacks responsibly and ethically. By doing so, we can ensure that technological advancements contribute to a more equitable, sustainable, and prosperous world.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• The exponential growth of solar power will change the world

An energy-rich future is within reach

Your browser does not support the <audio> element.

I t is 70 years since AT&T ’s Bell Labs unveiled a new technology for turning sunlight into power. The phone company hoped it could replace the batteries that run equipment in out-of-the-way places. It also realised that powering devices with light alone showed how science could make the future seem wonderful; hence a press event at which sunshine kept a toy Ferris wheel spinning round and round.

Today solar power is long past the toy phase. Panels now occupy an area around half that of Wales, and this year they will provide the world with about 6% of its electricity—which is almost three times as much electrical energy as America consumed back in 1954. Yet this historic growth is only the second-most-remarkable thing about the rise of solar power. The most remarkable is that it is nowhere near over.

To call solar power’s rise exponential is not hyperbole, but a statement of fact. Installed solar capacity doubles roughly every three years, and so grows ten-fold each decade. Such sustained growth is seldom seen in anything that matters. That makes it hard for people to get their heads round what is going on. When it was a tenth of its current size ten years ago, solar power was still seen as marginal even by experts who knew how fast it had grown. The next ten-fold increase will be equivalent to multiplying the world’s entire fleet of nuclear reactors by eight in less than the time it typically takes to build just a single one of them.

Solar cells will in all likelihood be the single biggest source of electrical power on the planet by the mid 2030s. By the 2040s they may be the largest source not just of electricity but of all energy. On current trends, the all-in cost of the electricity they produce promises to be less than half as expensive as the cheapest available today. This will not stop climate change, but could slow it a lot faster. Much of the world—including Africa , where 600m people still cannot light their homes—will begin to feel energy-rich. That feeling will be a new and transformational one for humankind.

To grasp that this is not some environmentalist fever dream, consider solar economics. As the cumulative production of a manufactured good increases, costs go down. As costs go down, demand goes up. As demand goes up, production increases—and costs go down further. This cannot go on for ever; production, demand or both always become constrained. In earlier energy transitions—from wood to coal, coal to oil or oil to gas—the efficiency of extraction grew, but it was eventually offset by the cost of finding ever more fuel.

As our essay this week explains, solar power faces no such constraint. The resources needed to produce solar cells and plant them on solar farms are silicon-rich sand, sunny places and human ingenuity, all three of which are abundant. Making cells also takes energy, but solar power is fast making that abundant, too. As for demand, it is both huge and elastic—if you make electricity cheaper, people will find uses for it. The result is that, in contrast to earlier energy sources, solar power has routinely become cheaper and will continue to do so.

Other constraints do exist. Given people’s proclivity for living outside daylight hours, solar power needs to be complemented with storage and supplemented by other technologies. Heavy industry and aviation and freight have been hard to electrify. Fortunately, these problems may be solved as batteries and fuels created by electrolysis gradually become cheaper.

Another worry is that the vast majority of the world’s solar panels, and almost all the purified silicon from which they are made, come from China. Its solar industry is highly competitive, heavily subsidised and is outstripping current demand—quite an achievement given all the solar capacity China is installing within its own borders. This means that Chinese capacity is big enough to keep the expansion going for years to come, even if some of the companies involved go to the wall and some investment dries up.

In the long run, a world in which more energy is generated without the oil and gas that come from unstable or unfriendly parts of the world will be more dependable. Still, although the Chinese Communist Party cannot rig the price of sunlight as OPEC tries to rig that of oil, the fact that a vital industry resides in a single hostile country is worrying.

It is a concern that America feels keenly, which is why it has put tariffs on Chinese solar equipment. However, because almost all the demand for solar panels still lies in the future, the rest of the world will have plenty of scope to get into the market. America’s adoption of solar energy could be frustrated by a pro-fossil-fuel Trump presidency, but only temporarily and painfully. It could equally be enhanced if America released pent up demand, by making it easier to install panels on homes and to join the grid—the country has a terawatt of new solar capacity waiting to be connected. Carbon prices would help, just as they did in the switch from coal to gas in the European Union.

The aim should be for the virtuous circle of solar-power production to turn as fast as possible. That is because it offers the prize of cheaper energy. The benefits start with a boost to productivity. Anything that people use energy for today will cost less—and that includes pretty much everything. Then come the things cheap energy will make possible. People who could never afford to will start lighting their houses or driving a car. Cheap energy can purify water, and even desalinate it. It can drive the hungry machinery of artificial intelligence. It can make billions of homes and offices more bearable in summers that will, for decades to come, be getting hotter.

But it is the things that nobody has yet thought of that will be most consequential. In its radical abundance, cheaper energy will free the imagination, setting tiny Ferris wheels of the mind spinning with excitement and new possibilities.

This week marks the summer solstice in the northern hemisphere. The Sun rising to its highest point in the sky will in decades to come shine down on a world where nobody need go without the blessings of electricity and where the access to energy invigorates all those it touches. ■

For subscribers only: to see how we design each week’s cover, sign up to our weekly  Cover Story newsletter .

This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the headline “The solar age”

Leaders June 22nd 2024

Ai will transform the character of warfare, emmanuel macron’s project of reform is at risk, how to tax billionaires—and how not to, javier milei’s next move could make his presidency—or break it, india should liberate its cities and create more states.

From the June 22nd 2024 edition

Discover stories from this section and more in the list of contents

More from Leaders

Nigel Farage’s claim that NATO provoked Russia is naive and dangerous

It is also a wilful misreading of history

Technology will make war faster and more opaque. It could also prove destabilising

A snap election in France reveals the flimsiness of his legacy

It doesn’t need more government. It needs more governments

Radical experiments with the currency could spell disaster

Closing loopholes would be a better bet than a levy on unrealised capital gains

Please use another Browser

It looks like you are using a browser that is not fully supported. Please note that there might be constraints on site display and usability. For the best experience we suggest that you download the newest version of a supported browser:

Internet Explorer , Chrome Browser , Firefox Browser , Safari Browser

Please allow JavaScript

This page requires JavaScript in order to be fully functional and displayed correctly. Please enable JavaScript and reload the site.

Siemens technology drives transformation of sustainable city of the future in Berlin

Combining the real and the digital worlds, Siemens technology will form the backbone of sustainable infrastructure for Siemensstadt Square.

Transforming buildings into smart, efficient and sustainable assets

Efficient and renewable energy usage for a carbon neutral future, electrifying transport for emission free mobility, for this press release.

• PDF Download

Follow us on X

• @siemens_press
• @Siemens_Infra

Natalie Hodges

Siemens Smart Infrastructure

+44 780 882 6229

[email protected]

Contact Siemens

Follow our global channels, change region.

Modern Technology’s Impact on Society Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Disadvantages and advantages of technology.

Modern technology has changed the world beyond recognition. Thanks to technology in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, advances have been made that have revolutionized our lives. Modern man can hardly imagine his life without machines. Every day, new devices either appear, or existing ones are improved. Technology has made the world a better place, bringing people additional conveniences and opportunities for healthy living through advances in science. I believe that the changes that technology has brought to our lives are incredibly positive in many areas.

One of the fields where computing and the Web have introduced improvements is education. Machines can keep large volumes of information in a tiny space, reducing entire library shelves of literature to a single CD-ROM of content (Garsten & Wulff, 2020). The Web also acts as a huge learning tool, linking together data sites and enabling inquisitive individuals to seek out just about any subject conceivable. A single personal computer can hold hundreds of instructional programs, visual and audio tutorials, and provide learners with exposure to an immense quantity of content. In the classroom, virtual whiteboards are replacing conventional whiteboards, allowing teachers to provide interactive content for students and play instructional movies without the need for a projector.

Advanced technology has also dramatically and favorably changed the medical care sector. Developments in diagnostic instruments allow doctors to detect hidden diseases, improving the likelihood of successful therapy and saving lives. Advances in drugs and vaccines have been extremely influential, nearly eradicating diseases such as measles, diphtheria, and smallpox, which once caused massive epidemics (Garsten & Wulff, 2020). Modern medicine allows patients to treat chronic diseases that were once debilitating and life-threatening, such as diabetes and hypertension. Technological advances in medicine have helped improve the lives of people around the world. In addition, the latest technology has dramatically increased the productivity of various techniques.

The computers’ capability to resolve complicated mathematical calculations enables them to accelerate any problem that involves metrics or other calculations. Simulating physical processes on a computer can save time and money in any production situation, giving engineers the ability to simulate any design. Modern technology in transportation allows large distances to be traveled quickly. Electric trains, airplanes, cars, and even rockets are used for this purpose (Garsten & Wulff, 2020). In this way, technology brings positive change for people who love to travel.

Despite all the positive changes, there are also disadvantages to the active development of technology. For example, more and more people are becoming dependent on the computer, TV, or cell phone. They ignore their household chores, studies, or work and spend all their time in front of a laptop or TV screen (Garsten & Wulff, 2020). Because of this, people may become inactive and less willing to work, hoping that technology will do everything for them.

In conclusion, I believe that despite some of the disadvantages, the advantages of gadgets are much more significant. Modern technology saves time and allows people to enjoy life. Moreover, new technologies in medicine also contribute to a longer life expectancy of the population and the cure of diseases that were previously beyond the reach of doctors. In addition to medicine, technology has brought significant positive changes to the fields of communication, education, and engineering. Therefore, I believe that the positive impact of technological progress on human lives cannot be denied.

Garsten, C., & Wulff, H. (2020). New technologies at work: People, screens, and social virtuality . Routledge. Web.

• Interactive Smartboard: Advantages & Disadvantages
• Quality Improvement Initiative
• Integration of the Modern Technological Solutions Into the Academic Field
• The Covid-19 Registry Importance
• Impact of Computer Technology on Economy and Social Life
• Technology Effect on the Disappearance of Specific Jobs
• Modern Communication Impacted by Technology
• Human Existence in Age of Informational Knowledge Work
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, May 30). Modern Technology's Impact on Society. https://ivypanda.com/essays/modern-technologys-impact-on-society/

"Modern Technology's Impact on Society." IvyPanda , 30 May 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/modern-technologys-impact-on-society/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Modern Technology's Impact on Society'. 30 May.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Modern Technology's Impact on Society." May 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/modern-technologys-impact-on-society/.

1. IvyPanda . "Modern Technology's Impact on Society." May 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/modern-technologys-impact-on-society/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Modern Technology's Impact on Society." May 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/modern-technologys-impact-on-society/.

INCITE sets sail in support of industrial transformation

JRC leads initiative to assess innovative technologies for a greener and more competitive industry. 

The Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) is launching in Seville (Spain) INCITE, the European Innovation Centre for Industrial Transformation and Emissions . Key representatives of industry and the financial sector, experts, innovators, Commission’s senior officials and policymakers are meeting today to kick-start INCITE’s activities and discuss its priorities. 

Watch the livestreamed inauguration  

INCITE will assess the maturity of innovative technologies linked to decarbonisation, resource efficiency, circular economy and depollution, looking at both environmental and economic aspects. By doing so, INCITE aims to help EU industry meet zero pollution objectives while boosting its competitiveness.  

INCITE will cover all the industrial sectors under the Industrial Emissions Directive , with an initial focus on energy-intensive industries, such as steel, cement and chemicals production.  

Accelerating the take-up of breakthrough technologies for industrial transformation 

EU industry needs to keep providing the commodities for citizens and the materials, technologies and infrastructure needed for rolling out cleaner energy solutions, while also reducing its environmental impact.   

INCITE’s experts will scan breakthrough green technologies with a strong potential to lower the environmental impact of industrial activities. INCITE will assess the technology-readiness level of these technologies and their performance improvement potential against environmental objectives and cost effectiveness.  

Techniques considered ready for use will be incorporated in the Sevilla Process , the mechanism that has supported public authorities in granting industrial operating permits in the EU for the last 25 years.  

The Sevilla Process has a solid track record in reducing pollutants: emissions to air have decreased by 40%-75% 1 in the last 15 years for example. The creation of INCITE, addressing not only pollution but also decarbonisation, circular economy and resource efficiency, is a strategic innovation in the revised Industrial Emissions Directive.  

Providing accessible and independent technical assessments  

Experts from INCITE will collect information on innovative industrial techniques from key stakeholders and set up an online information platform that will be openly accessible to e.g. industry, finance institutions, technology providers, permitting authorities and research and technology organisations for submitting information on innovative techniques.  

INCITE will publish its findings in JRC technical reports and curate the information in such a way that it will: 

• ease the administrative burden for Member States related to permitting of installations; 
• help direct national and/or EU funding towards the most promising technologies; 
• facilitate the verification process carried out by public or private investors during the industrial transition.  

INCITE will also provide a forum for the industrial transformation community to exchange ideas and best practices and to promote a collaborative culture by organising sectoral workshops.  

Industry can strongly benefit from access to transparent and reliable information. Small businesses, in particular, face challenges in obtaining a clear understanding of transformative technologies relevant to their industries. Data and forward-looking information are also useful for large EU industries to drive the green transition.  

Assessing environmental performance in all its dimensions 

To support the green transition, accessible information on the environmental impacts brought about by new technologies is key.  

INCITE’s experts will transparently assess innovative techniques to check whether they are ready for use at an industrial scale, cost-effective, energy and resource efficient. They will also consider whether they provide significant environmental benefits, looking at the environmental performance of demonstration plants equipped with new innovative techniques.  

The information will be sourced, assessed and checked in a dialogue with industry, innovators, research organisations technology providers, public authorities and environmental NGOs.   

Guiding investment decisions 

The technical assessments provided by INCITE can help inform investment decisions in innovative technologies needed to advance Europe’s transition towards a cleaner, carbon neutral, more circular and competitive economy by 2050. 

Industry’s challenges: the examples of iron, steel and cement 

Projected demand for iron and steel is expected to grow in the coming years due to economic growth, urbanisation, infrastructure investments and the increasing use of steel products in emerging industries, such as renewable energy and electric vehicles. 

Globally, as in the EU, iron and steel is mostly produced using coal-fired blast furnaces, leading to substantial greenhouse gas emissions. A number of new production techniques are being scaled up, such as hydrogen-based production, and have the potential to be a game-changer in the decarbonisation process. The first iron production plant to run on hydrogen in Sweden is planned for 2026 2 .  

Another example is the cement sector, which is currently responsible for 7-8% of annual CO 2 emissions worldwide, with demand forecast to increase in the coming years. The need to develop new production techniques will be central to achieving a net-zero future for the cement sector. These are likely to include electrification of lower heat precalciners and kilns, new production methods such as producing clinker by mechanical activation, or novel alternative binder chemistries. While many new technologies are being developed, very few of them are yet in a position to be widely implemented at scale. Consequently, the full environmental impact of these emerging technologies is not yet known. 

Co-creating industrial change 

INCITE is a forward-looking initiative that will combine a technical approach with open dialogues on innovation starting with sectors such as cement, iron and steel, chemicals, glass, metals and ceramics. All with the objective of accelerating the adoption of innovative technologies and reduce environmental impact of industrial activities.   

To be effective, INCITE needs as broad an outreach as possible. Everyone with a stake in industrial transformation is welcome to join this new community. 

• Industrial transformations

More news on a similar topic

• News announcement
• 20 March 2024

• General publications
• 19 December 2023

• 15 December 2023

• 14 December 2023

Share this page

Technology, jobs, and the future of work

The world of work is in a state of flux, which is causing considerable anxiety—and with good reason. There is growing polarization of labor-market opportunities between high- and low-skill jobs, unemployment and underemployment especially among young people, stagnating incomes for a large proportion of households, and income inequality. Migration and its effects on jobs has become a sensitive political issue in many advanced economies. And from Mumbai to Manchester, public debate rages about the future of work and whether there will be enough jobs to gainfully employ everyone.

The development of automation enabled by technologies including robotics and artificial intelligence brings the promise of higher productivity (and with productivity, economic growth), increased efficiencies, safety, and convenience. But these technologies also raise difficult questions about the broader impact of automation on jobs, skills, wages, and the nature of work itself.

Many activities that workers carry out today have the potential to be automated. At the same time, job-matching sites such as LinkedIn and Monster are changing and expanding the way individuals look for work and companies identify and recruit talent. Independent workers are increasingly choosing to offer their services on digital platforms including Upwork, Uber, and Etsy and, in the process, challenging conventional ideas about how and where work is undertaken.

For policy makers, business leaders, and workers themselves, these shifts create considerable uncertainty, alongside the potential benefits. This briefing note aims to provide a fact base on the multiple trends and forces buffeting the world of work drawing on recent research by the McKinsey Global Institute and others.

Table of contents

Developments in employment, income, and skills

How automation and technology are affecting work, the challenges of digitization—and possible solutions.

Challenges in labor markets are growing, household incomes in advanced economies have been stagnating, and there are increasing skill gaps among workers.

Labor markets are under strain, and talent is underutilized

Unemployment and underemployment are high around the world. In the United States and the 15 core European Union countries (EU-15), there are 285 million adults who are not in the labor force—and at least 100 million of them would like to work more. Some 30 to 45 percent of the working-age population around the world is underutilized—that is, unemployed, inactive, or underemployed. This translates into some 850 million people in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, Brazil, China, and India alone. Most attention is paid to the unemployed portion of this number, and not enough to the underemployed and the inactive portions, which make up the majority of untapped human potential.

Almost 75 million youth are officially unemployed. Women represent one of the largest pools of untapped labor: globally, 655 million fewer women are economically active than men. In a “best-in-region” scenario in which all countries match the rate of improvement in gender gaps (in labor force participation, hours worked, and sector mix of employment) of the best-performing country in their region, $12 trillion more of annual GDP would be realized in 2025 , equivalent in size to the current GDP of Japan, Germany, and the United Kingdom combined.

Household incomes in advanced economies have stagnated or fallen, fueling public disgruntlement

The vast majority of people derive incomes from jobs. In the United States, Western Europe, and across advanced economies, market incomes (from wages and capital) stagnated or fell for about two-thirds of households in 2005–14, a period marked by deep recession and slow recovery after the 2008 financial crisis. This was the first time incomes stopped advancing on such a scale since the stagflation era of the 1970s, and it may have helped stir popular opposition to globalization. The recession was a leading cause of the abrupt end to income advancement, but other longer-run factors also contributed, including a decline in the share of national income that is paid to workers, the so-called wage share. This has fallen across advanced economies despite rising productivity, suggesting a decoupling between productivity and incomes.

The decline is due in part to the growth of corporate profits as a share of national income, rising capital returns to technology investments, lower returns to labor from increased trade, rising rent incomes from home ownership, and increased depreciation on capital. Policy makers in the affected countries took action during the downturn to compensate for the income squeeze, in the former of lower taxes and higher transfers, but these were largely one-off measures to buoy disposable income in response to the recession, and not sustainable.

Globalization has brought numerous benefits, including lifting millions of people in emerging economies into the consuming class. But it also has had an impact in some sectors like manufacturing in advanced economies, with some jobs moving offshore. Better support could have been provided to help affected workers build new skills and transition into new sectors or occupations.

A survey we conducted in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States showed a significant proportion of those whose incomes stagnated are worried about their children’s economic prospects—a sharp departure after many decades in which it was an article of faith that every generation would enjoy higher living standards than their parents. Middle-income households have been the most affected, and young and less educated people are especially vulnerable. Across all age groups, medium- and low-skill workers have done worse than those with a college education. Many blame governments, global institutions, corporations, and establishment “elites” around the world, and the principles of free trade and open borders are under attack.

Getting practical about the future of work

Skills, jobs, and locations do not always match, limiting income-earning opportunities for many.

Educational systems have not kept pace with the changing nature of work, resulting in many employers saying they cannot find enough workers with the skills they need. In a McKinsey survey of young people and employers in nine countries, 40 percent of employers said lack of skills was the main reason for entry-level job vacancies. Sixty percent said that new graduates were not adequately prepared for the world of work. There were gaps in technical skills such as STEM subject degrees but also in soft skills such as communication, teamwork, and punctuality. Conversely, even those in work may not be realizing their potential. In a recent global survey of job seekers conducted by LinkedIn, 37 percent of respondents said their current job does not fully utilize their skills or provide enough challenge.

Some of the mismatching is locational: where there is demand for work, there may not be available and qualified workers to be found. This geographic mismatch can be seen across regions within countries, and between countries.

Cross-border migration fills some skill gaps but can create tensions

Cross-border migration has been a natural consequence of a world in which people do not find attractive work opportunities in their country of origin, at a time when other economies are not adequately filling their skills gaps. Migration boosts global productivity , but its consequences are often feared by native workers, who face labor market disconnects and a lack of well-paid jobs.

In 2015, approximately 247 million people lived in a country not of their birth—a number that has almost tripled in the past 50 years. Most have gravitated to places where they believe they will find better jobs . More than 90 percent have moved voluntarily, and about half have moved from developing to developed countries. In the period 2000 to 2014, migration has provided about 40 percent of labor force growth in Canada, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Migrants made an absolute contribution to global output of roughly $6.7 trillion, or 9.4 percent of global GDP in 2015. However, migrant workers, on average, earn wages that are 20 to 30 percent lower than those of comparable native-born workers. More effective integration approaches could lay the groundwork for economic gains of up to $1 trillion globally, benefiting both economies and individuals.

In the context of challenging labor market conditions, popular sentiment has moved against immigration. Surveys conducted by MGI suggest that a significant proportion of middle- and low-income groups in advanced economies who are experiencing flat or falling real incomes are pessimistic about the future and likely to hold particularly negative views about immigrants.

Back to top

New technologies have the potential to upend much of what we know about the way people work. But disruption is an opportunity as well as a challenge—given the promise of digital talent platforms and new options for independent work, for example.

Many activities that workers carry out today have the potential to be automated

Technological change has reshaped the workplace continually over the past two centuries since the Industrial Revolution, but the speed with which automation technologies are developing today, and the scale at which they could disrupt the world of work, are largely without precedent.

MGI research on the automation potential of the global economy, focusing on 46 countries representing about 80 percent of the global workforce, has examined more than 2,000 work activities and quantified the technical feasibility of automating each of them. The proportion of occupations that can be fully automated using currently demonstrated technology is actually small—less than 5 percent. An additional important finding is that even if whole occupations are not automated, partial automation (where only some activities that make up an occupation are automated) will affect almost all occupations to a greater or lesser degree. The impact will be felt not just by factory workers and clerks but also by landscape gardeners and dental lab technicians, fashion designers, insurance sales representatives, and even CEOs.

We find that about 60 percent of all occupations have at least 30 percent of activities that are technically automatable , based on currently demonstrated technologies. This means that most occupations will change, and more people will have to work with technology. Highly skilled workers working with technology will benefit. While low-skilled workers working with technology will be able to achieve more in terms of output and productivity, these workers may experience wage pressure, given the potentially larger supply of similarly low-skilled workers, unless demand for the occupation grows more than the expansion in labor supply.

On a global scale, we calculate that the adaptation of currently demonstrated automation technologies could affect 50 percent of the world economy , or 1.2 billion employees and $14.6 trillion in wages. Just four countries—China, India, Japan, and the United States—account for just over half of these totals. There are sizable differences in automation potential between countries, based mainly on the structure of their economies, the relative level of wages, and the size and dynamics of the workforce.

As machines evolve and acquire more advanced performance capabilities that match or exceed human capabilities, the adoption of automation will pick up. However, the technical feasibility to automate does not automatically translate into the deployment of automation in the workplace and the automation of jobs. Technical potential is only the first of several elements that must be considered. A second element is the cost of developing and deploying both the hardware and the software for automation. The supply-and-demand dynamics of labor are a third factor: if workers with sufficient skills for the given occupation are in abundant supply and significantly less expensive than automation, this could slow the rate of adoption. A fourth to be considered are the benefits of automation beyond labor substitution—including higher levels of output, better quality and fewer errors, and capabilities that surpass human ability.

Finally, regulatory and social issues, such as the degree to which machines are acceptable in any particular setting, must also be weighed. It is for these various reasons that go beyond purely technical feasibility of automation that our estimates for “whole-job” automation are lower than other estimates. Our scenarios suggest that it may take at least two decades before automation reaches 50 percent of all of today’s work activities, taking into account regions where wages are relatively low.

Technology can help labor markets: Digital talent platforms improve matching between workers and jobs

Digital talent platforms have the potential to improve the ways workers and jobs are matched, creating transparency and efficiency in labor markets, and potentially raising GDP. They can raise labor participation and working hours; evidence from around the world suggests that some people would work more hours if they could. A US survey, for example, reports that three-quarters of stay-at-home mothers would be likely to work if they had flexible options. Even if a small fraction of inactive youth and adults use these platforms to work a few hours per week, the economic impact would be significant.

With their powerful search capabilities and sophisticated screening algorithms, online talent platforms can also speed the hiring process and cut the time individuals spend searching between jobs, reducing unemployment. By aggregating data on candidates and job openings across entire countries or regions, they may address some geographic mismatches and enable matches that otherwise would not have come about.

Finally, online talent platforms help put the right people in the right jobs, thereby increasing their productivity along with their job satisfaction. They can draw people who are engaged in informal work into formal employment, especially in emerging economies. Both of these effects could increase output per worker, raising global GDP.

Digitally-enabled independent work is on the rise

While independent work is nothing new (and self-employment is still the predominant form of work in emerging economies), the digital enablement of it is. MGI research finds that 20 to 30 percent of the working age population in the United States and the European Union is engaged in independent work . Just over half of these workers supplement their income and have traditional jobs, or are students, retirees, or caregivers. While 70 percent choose this type of work, 30 percent use it out of necessity because they cannot find a traditional job at all, or one that meets their income and flexibility needs. The proportion of independent work that is conducted on digital platforms, while only about 15 percent of independent work overall, is growing rapidly, driven by the scale, efficiency, and ease of use for workers and customers that these platforms enable. Such platforms include Uber, Etsy, Didi, and others. While those who pursue independent work (digitally enabled or not) out of preference are generally satisfied; those who pursue it out of necessity are unsatisfied with the income variability and the lack of benefits typically associated with traditional work. Policy makers and innovators will need to grapple with solutions to these challenges.

Not to be forgotten—technology creates new jobs and income possibilities

Even while technologies replace some jobs, they are creating new work in industries that most of us cannot even imagine, and new ways to generate income. One-third of new jobs created in the United States in the past 25 years were types that did not exist, or barely existed, in areas including IT development, hardware manufacturing, app creation, and IT systems management. The net impact of new technologies on employment can be strongly positive. A 2011 study by McKinsey’s Paris office found that the Internet had destroyed 500,000 jobs in France in the previous 15 years—but at the same time had created 1.2 million others, a net addition of 700,000, or 2.4 jobs created for every job destroyed. The growing role of big data in the economy and business will create a significant need for statisticians and data analysts; we estimate a shortfall of up to 250,000 data scientists in the United States alone in a decade.

Digital technology also can enable new forms of entrepreneurial activity. Workers in small businesses and self-employed occupations can benefit from higher income earning opportunities. A new category of knowledge-enabled jobs will become possible as machines embed intelligence and knowledge that less-skilled workers can access with a little training. In India, for example, Google is rolling out the Internet Saathi (Friends of the Internet) program in which rural women are trained to use the Internet, and then become local agents who provide services in their villages through Internet-enabled devices. The services include working as local distributors for telecom products (phones, SIM cards, and data packs), field data collectors for research agencies, financial-services agents, and paratechnicians who help local people access government schemes and benefits through an Internet-based device.

We have yet to reach the full potential of digitization across the global economy. Making sure that digital gains are accessible to all could provide significant value. And though other challenges, too, remain, they could be addressed by exploring several solution spaces—for instance, through evolving education systems or by pursuing public-private partnerships to stimulate investment in enabling infrastructure.

We are only starting to capture the opportunities from digitizing economies at the sector and company level

Digital technologies are creating major new opportunities for workers and companies, in both advanced and developing economies, but there are significant variations within and across countries and sectors. Our use of the term digitization (and our measurement of it), encompasses:

• Digitization of assets, including infrastructure, connected machines, data, and data platforms;
• Digitization of operations, including processes, payments and business models, and customer and supply chain interactions; and
• Digitization of the workforce, including worker use of digital tools, digitally skilled workers, and new digital jobs and roles.

In measuring each of these various aspects of digitization, we find relatively large disparities even among big companies Based on these measures, a few sectors are highly digitized—for example, financial services, media, and the tech sector itself. These tend to be among the sectors with the highest productivity growth and wage growth. Many others are much less digitized, including healthcare, education, and even retail. These tend to be the largest share of the economy in terms of GDP and the lowest-productivity sectors. Similarly, companies are digitizing unevenly.

Companies that are digital leaders in their sectors have faster revenue growth and higher productivity than their less-digitized peers. Their profits and margins can increase three times as fast, and workers within these companies enjoy double the wage growth. Digitization will continue to change how companies organize work, as well as the mix of work in any given sector. All this will require ongoing adaptation and transition by workers in terms of skills, activities, companies, and even the sectors they work in.

Clearly, we are still in the early stages of how sectors and companies use digital technologies, and there is considerable unevenness. From country to country, too, there are significant divergences. Overall, for example, we estimate that the United States has captured only 18 percent of its potential from digital technologies, while Europe has captured only 12 percent . Emerging economies are even further behind, with countries in the Middle East and Brazil capturing less than 10 percent of their digital potential.

More than half the world’s population is still offline, limiting the potential to benefit from digital

Rapid technology adoption can unlock huge economic value, even as it implies major need for retraining and redeployment of labor. In India, for example, digital technologies provide the foundation for many innovations that could contribute $550 billion to $1 trillion of economic impact per year in 2025. However, the value of digitization that is captured depends on how many people and businesses have access to it.

More than four billion people, or over half of the world’s population, is still offline . About 75 percent of this offline population is concentrated in 20 countries, including Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Tanzania, and is disproportionately rural, low income, elderly, illiterate, and female. The value of connecting these people is significant, and as they enter the global digital economy, the world of work will transform in fundamental ways and at an unprecedented pace. Access to the technology alone is not enough; even in countries where a large majority of the population has access, the literacy and skills needed to capture digital gains are sometimes limited.

How to positively affect the future of work: Solution spaces

The disruptions to the world of work that digital technologies are likely to bring about could pose significant challenges to policy makers and business leaders, as well as workers. There are several solution spaces to consider:

References and further reading

McKinsey Global Institute research reports are available on www.mckinsey.com/mgi . For this briefing note, we have drawn on the following reports:

“ A future that works: Automation, employment, and productivity ,” McKinsey Global Institute, January 2017

“ People on the move: Global migration’s impact and opportunity ,” McKinsey Global Institute, December 2016

“ Independent work: Choice, necessity, and the gig economy ,” McKinsey Global Institute, October 2016

“ Where machines could replace humans, and where they can’—yet ,” McKinsey Quarterly, July 2016

“ Digital America: A tale of the haves and have-mores ,” McKinsey Global Institute, December 2015

“ The four fundamentals of automation ,” McKinsey Quarterly , November 2015

“ The power of parity: How advancing women’s equality can add $12 trillion to global growth ,” McKinsey Global Institute, September 2015

“ A labor market that works: Connecting talent with opportunity in the digital age ,” McKinsey Global Institute, June 2015

“ Offline and falling behind: Barriers to Internet adoption ,” McKinsey & Company, October 2014

Other reading:

Autor, David, “ Why are there still so many jobs? The history and future of workplace automation ,” Journal of Economic Perspectives , Summer 2015

Autor, David, David Dorn, and Gordon Hanson, “ Untangling trade and technology: Evidence from local labor markets ,” The Economic Journal , May 2015

Brynjolffson, Erik and Andrew McAfee, The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies , WW Norton, 2014

Furman, Jason, “ Is this time different? The opportunities and challenges of artificial intelligence ,” remarks at AI conference in New York, July 7, 2016

Milanovic, Branko, Global inequality: A new approach for the age of globalization , Harvard University Press, 2016

Sundararajan, Arun, The sharing economy: The end of employment and the rise of crowd,   MIT Press, 2016

• Evolve education systems and learning for a changed workplace. Policy makers working with education providers (traditional and nontraditional) could do more to improve basic STEM skills through the school systems, put a new emphasis on creativity as well as critical and systems thinking, and foster adaptive and life-long learning.
• Determine how the private sector can drive training. Companies face gaps in skills they need in a more technology-enabled workplace. They could benefit from playing a more active role in education and training, including providing better information about needs to learners and the education and training ecosystem, and proving better learning opportunities themselves.
• Create incentives for private-sector investment to treat human capital like other capital. Through tax benefits and other incentives, policy makers can encourage companies to invest in human capital, including job creation, learning and capability building, and wage growth.
• Explore public-private partnerships to stimulate investment in enabling infrastructure. The lack of digital infrastructure is holding back digital benefits in many economies, both developing and developed; public-private partnerships could help address market failures.
• Rethink incomes. If automation (full or partial) does result in a significant reduction in employment or greater pressure on wages, some ideas such as universal basic income, conditional transfers, and adapted social safety nets could be considered and tested.
• Rethink transition support and safety nets for workers affected. As work evolves at higher rates of change between sectors, locations, activities, and skill requirements, many workers will need assistance adjusting. Many best-practice approaches to transition safety nets are available and should be adopted and adapted, and new approaches considered and tested.
• Embrace technology-enabled solutions. Such solutions, including richer information signals, can be used in the labor market to improve matching and access and bridge skills gaps. Policy makers will need to address issues such as benefits and variability that these digital platforms can raise.
• Focus on job creation. Accelerate the creation of jobs in general through stimulating investment in businesses, and accelerate the creation of digital jobs in particular—and digitally enabled opportunities to earn income—including through new forms of entrepreneurship.
• Innovate how humans work alongside machines. Greater interaction will raise productivity but require different and often higher skills, new technology interfaces, different wage models in some cases, and different types of investments by businesses and workers to acquire skills.
• Capture the productivity benefits of technology. These can be harnessed to create the economic growth, surpluses, and demand for work that create room for creative solutions and ultimately benefit all.

This briefing note was originally prepared for the Fortune + Time Global Forum in Vatican City in December 2016; it was updated in May 2017.

Stay current on your favorite topics

James Manyika is director of the McKinsey Global Institute and a senior partner in McKinsey’s San Francisco office. MGI partners Michael Chui , Anu Madgavkar , and Susan Lund contributed to this briefing note.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

How work will change in the next economy

Where machines could replace humans—and where they can’t (yet)

Independent work: Choice, necessity, and the gig economy

• Explore Ciena

Our solutions

Our solutions power the world’s most adaptive networks to address ever-increasing digital demands for richer, more connected experiences for all users

EXPLORE OUR SOLUTIONS

Access and aggregation, open line systems, enterprise edge, secure networking, operations and automation.

• Network transformation

Drive next-generation business services at the network edge

• Universal aggregation
• 4G/5G converged xHaul
• 5G automation

Evolve your metro network to become more simple, scalable, and sustainable

• Coherent routing
• Metro optical architectures
• On-demand wave services

Maximize capacity and operational efficiencies with our innovative, flexible long-haul solutions

• High-capacity switching and transport
• Submarine networking

Gain more visibility and optimize your photonic network assets with our intelligent open line systems

• Programmable photonics

Accelerate your edge service revenue, including high-value cloud networking and security services, with our comprehensive enterprise edge solutions

• Secure access service edge
• Edge routing and switching

Mitigate security risks and ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data

• Data security and encryption
• Quantum secure communications

Simplify network and services management with intelligent automation and software-defined control

• Multi-layer network control
• Intelligent automation

Accelerate your network transformation with our industry-leading experts, field-proven analytical tools, and tailored approach and methodology

Navigator Network Control Suite

See clearly, act with insight. Discover multi-layer optimization from one point of control.

Our solutions 
by industry

• Education (K-12)
• Federal government
• Regional service provider
• Research and education
• State and local government
• Transportation

Our insights

Network innovation insights from the experts

SELECT A TOPIC:

• Routing and switching
• Next Gen Metro and Edge

More choices to converge your network: Introducing new members of the WaveRouter Family

The WaveRouter family is getting bigger, by going smaller. Ciena’s Joe Marsella explains how you can now get the benefits of WaveRouter in more capacities and form factors to converge your metro networks.

WaveLogic 6 Extreme - Evolving to 1.6Tb/s Networking

Joe Shapiro, Vice President PLM, explains the business benefits of evolving to 1.6T technology with Ciena's WaveLogic 6 Extreme for network providers. Learn more about the technology that delivers unrivaled high bandwidth connectivity and the performance required with next-generation 800G routing data paths and associated wholesale services.

Episode 75: Pushing the limits of connectivity with Vocus

On this episode of the Ciena Insights Podcast, Jarrod Nink, Chief Operating Officer at Vocus offers an insider's perspective to how the Australian network provider is capitalizing on this surging demand for bandwidth.

Intelligent Data - Driven Operations with AIOps

CSPs are looking to use AIOps to broaden the scope of network management and improve operational efficiency at each stage of the network lifecycle, by combining big data with AI/machine learning (ML).

Our company

We’re a global leader in optical and routing systems, services, and automation software

• About Ciena
• Corporate Governance
• Sustainability

Our success is rooted in people

Our commitments to diversity, social impact, well-being, and sustainability, empower our people to improve their lives and lift those around them.

Press Release

Ciena reports fiscal fourth quarter 2023 financial results, customer story, dish expands first-of-its-kind cloud-native 5g network with blue planet’s automation platform, investor relations.

Connect with us

• Contact sales
• Contact support
• Executive Briefing Center

General Inquiries

North America: 1-800-921-1144

International: +44 20 7012 5555

North America: 1-800-207-3714

Global offices

North and South America

• United States

Europe, Middle East, and Africa

• Middle East
• Netherlands

Asia Pacific

• South Korea

TDC NET Upgrades Optical Transport Network to 800G with Ciena

New network based on Ciena WaveLogic 5 technology enables TDC NET to bring new services to market in a sustainable and secure way

Danish digital infrastructure provider TDC NET will deploy Ciena ’s (NYSE: CIEN) converged packet optical solutions to upgrade its metro and long-haul networks with 800G technology. The network upgrades will enable TDC NET to sustainably launch new, advanced services that support its net-zero emissions goal by reducing power consumption compared to its existing DWDM platform.

TDC NET will deploy a modern OTN network based on Ciena’s 6500 family of Packet Optical platforms, powered by WaveLogic 5 Extreme programmable 800G technology and WaveLogic 5 Nano 100G-400G coherent pluggable transceivers. Ciena’s portfolio of solutions will help TDC NET scale its network to meet future needs with a technology roadmap that can support higher capacity requirements over the long-term.

“By upgrading our network with Ciena we can offer our customers a full suite of modern digital services both nationally and internationally,” said Robert Dogonowski, Chief Commercial Officer of TDC NET. “We wanted a vendor that could support our network transformation without disrupting service and allow us to remain in control of the customer experience. The Ciena team has been collaborative throughout the process, and we are excited by what Ciena’s technology can do for our network.”

Anders Grand, Senior Director and General Manager, Ciena, added: “Leading service providers like TDC NET know the importance of being able to sustainably scale their networks. With Ciena’s WaveLogic technology, TDC NET can offer 800 Gb/s connectivity to its customers while also providing important savings in power usage to reach its climate targets.”

TDC NET will utilize a range of Ciena products and services to upgrade its network. These include:

• 6500 Family of Platforms and O-NID s that enable sustainable OTN network evolution from the edge to the core with scalability, flexibility, and multi-layer programmability.
• WaveLogic 5 Extreme to efficiently support up to 800 Gb/s speeds and 400GE client connectivity across any distance.
• WaveLogic 5 Nano coherent pluggables that offer power- and space-efficient connectivity up to 400 Gb/s.
• Coherent ELS edge-optimized open line system (OLS) for cost-efficient delivery of 100G to 800G coherent DWDM.
• Navigator Network Control Suite that provides end-to-end visibility and assurance from a single point of control.

About Ciena Ciena (NYSE: CIEN) is a global leader in networking systems, services, and software. We build the most adaptive networks in the industry, enabling customers to anticipate and meet ever-increasing digital demands. For three-plus decades, Ciena has brought our humanity to our relentless pursuit of innovation. Prioritizing collaborative relationships with our customers, partners, and communities, we create flexible, open, and sustainable networks that better serve all users—today and into the future. For updates on Ciena, follow us on  LinkedIn ,  Twitter , the  Ciena Insights blog , or visit  www.ciena.com .

Note to Ciena Investors You are encouraged to review the Investors section of our website, where we routinely post press releases, SEC filings, recent news, financial results, and other announcements. From time to time we exclusively post material information to this website along with other disclosure channels that we use. This press release contains certain forward-looking statements that are based on our current expectations, forecasts, information and assumptions. These statements involve inherent risks and uncertainties.  Actual results or outcomes may differ materially from those stated or implied, because of risks and uncertainties, including those detailed in our most recent annual and quarterly reports filed with the SEC. Forward-looking statements include statements regarding our  expectations, beliefs, intentions or strategies and can be identified by words such as "anticipate," "believe," "could," "estimate," "expect," "intend," "may," "should," "will," and "would" or similar words. Ciena assumes no obligation to update the information included in this press release, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

Maximize your 6500 network investment with new te ...

Ciena’s Mayank Chauhan provides a quick overview of the latest technology advancements on Ciena’s 6500 D/S-Series platforms, enab ...

Unleashing the power of managed operations for ne ...

Managing your network operations can be complex, costly, and time-consuming, but what if there was a better way? Phil Corey, Seni ...

White Papers

Comparing broadband network architectures in the ....

This whitepaper provides a comprehensive analysis of the economic viability of various broadband network architectures in the evo ...

Network Transformation Suite

Your network infrastructure underpins business growth. Changes must be well planned and executed to ensure that you meet business ...

Oracle to invest over $1 bln on AI, cloud computing in Spain

• Medium Text

Sign up here.

Reporting by Juby Babu in Mexico City; Editing by Vijay Kishore

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. New Tab , opens new tab

Technology Chevron

Microsoft hit with EU antitrust charge over Teams app, risks hefty fine

Microsoft faces a hefty antitrust fine after the European Commission on Tuesday accused it of illegally linking its chat and video app Teams with its Office product, giving it an unfair advantage over rivals such as Slack.