No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Influence of Print on Social and Cultural Change
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 November 2008
Extract
Tracing the sociocultural influence of any technology is fraught with problems. First, many of the influences cited are likely to be too large and diffuse to be tested under experimental conditions in the laboratory. Second, the technology is likely to be, at most, an accessory to many other influencing factors rather than a singular cause. Third, insofar as the technology can be isolated as a factor of influence, the direction of the influence is often two way. The technology may cause changes in sociocultural states, but existing sociocultural states are also likely to result in the technology being used and evolved in unanticipated ways.
- Type
- Language and Technology
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996
References
UNANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bazerman, C. and Paradis, J. (eds.) 1991. Texts and the professions. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Beniger, J. R. 1986 The control revolution: Technological and economic origins of the information society. Cambridge MA: Havard University Press.Google Scholar
Bolter, J. 1991. Writing space: The computer, hypertext, and the history of writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Brandt, D. 1990. Literacy as involvement: The acts of writers, readers, and texts. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Carley, K. 1990. Group stability: A sociocultural-cognitive approach. In Lawler, E., Markovsky, B., Ridgeway, C. and Walker, H. (eds.) Advances in group processes. Greenwich CT: JAI. 1–44Google Scholar
Eisenstein, E. 1979. The printing press as an agent of change: Communication and cultural transformations in early modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [2 Volumes.]Google Scholar
Geisler, C. 1994. The nature of expertise in academic writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kaufer, D. and Carley, K.. 1994. Some concepts and axioms about communication: Proximate and at a distance. Written Communication. 11.8–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufer, D. and Geisler, C.. 1989. Novelty in academic writing. Written Communication. 8.286–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraut, R., Egido, C. and Galegher, J.. 1990. Patterns of contact and communication in scientific research collaboration. In Galegher, J., Kraut, R. and Egido, C. (eds.) Intellectual teamwork: Social and technological foundations of cooperative work. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 149–172.Google Scholar
Lyons, H. 1968. The royal society 1660–1940: A history of its administration under its charters. New York: Greenwood.Google Scholar
MacRoberts, M. H. and MacRoberts, B. R.. 1986. Quantitative measures of communication in science: A study of the formal level. Social Studies of Science. 16.151–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nystrand, M. 1989. A social-interactive model of writing. Written Communication. 6. 66–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, W. and Dimaggio, P.. 1991. The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roediger, H. L. 1987. The role of journal editors in the scientific process. In Jackson, D. N. and Rushton, J. P. (eds.) Scientific execellence: Origins and assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 227.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. 1988. Scientific genius: A psychology of science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Small, H. G. 1978. Cited documents as concept symbols. Social Studies of Science. 8.327–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, J. H. 1988. A theory of social interaction. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar