The term "technology transfer" is discussed as an important concept for social workers. Social work, clinical psychology, etc. are shown to be a form of social technology which can be compared to agricultural, biomedical, and physical technology. Social work practice is seen as use of one such social technology and social work education is seen as transfer of such technology.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
See, for example Pranab Chatterjee and Henry Ireys, ''Technology Transfer: Views from some Social Science Disciplines." Social Development Issues, 3, 3 (Fall 1979), pp. 54-75.
2.
In organizational theory and management science, it is known that an organization's (or a profession's) technological needs, or the way it uses its current technology, may well determine its organizational structure. Perrow, for example, argued how the structural and goal changes in a hospital could be attributed to changing technology. With the increase of technological specificity, there seem to be subsequent changes in levels and styles of authority, the staff and line ratio, and program output. See Charles Perrow, Hospitals: Technology, structure, and goals, in James March, ed., Handbook of Organizations, Chicago, Rand McNally, 1966; and Charles Perrow, A Framework for the Comparative Analysis of Organizations, American Sociological Review, 32 (April 1967), pp. 194-208.
3.
See, for example, Richard S. Eckans, Appropriate Technologies for Developing Countries. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1977.
4.
See T. Heller , Review. Technology and Culture , 12, 2 ( 1971), pp. 370-372.
5.
Airlie House Conference on Transfer of Technology, Warrenton, Virginia, April, 1966; reported in Spencer, D. and Woroniak, A. (Eds.), The Transfer of Technology to Developing Countries. N.Y.: Praeger, 1967. Conference on Technology Transfer and Innovation Washington, D.C., May 15-17, 1966; reported in National Science Foundation, Proceedings of a Conference on Technology Transfer and Innovation, NSF 67-5, Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966. M.I.T. Conference on the Human Factor in the Transfer of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., May 18-20 1966; reported in Grulser, W. and Marquis, D. (eds.) Factors in the Transfer of Technology, Camhridge M.I.T. Press, 1969. More recently, two other conferences devoted mainly to economic issues in technology transfer were Seminar on the Transfer of Technology, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OCED), Istambul, Turkey, October 5-9, 1970; reported in Hawthorne, E., Transfer of Technology, Paris: OECD Publications, 1972; and the Battelle Conference on Technology Transfer, 1973; reported in Manning, G. (ed.) Technology Transfer: Successes and Failures. San Francisco: San Francisco Press, 1974. Finally, for the U.S Senate's view of technology transfer see Policy Planning for Technology Transfer, A Report of the Subcommittee on Science and Technology, 90th Congress, 1st Session, Senate Document No. 15, April 6, 1967. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.
6.
Strassman, W.Technological Change and Economic Development . Itahaca: Cornell University Press , 1968, p. 5. 7. Hibken, T.The point-4 program. Foreign Commerce Weekly, Nov. 27, 1950.
7.
Brooks, H.National Science Policy and Technology Transfer, in NSF , Proceedings on Technological Transfer and Innovation, 1966, p. 54.
8.
Ibid.
9.
Foster, G.Traditional Cultures: And the Impact of Technological Change. N.Y.: Harper, 1962, pp. 9-10.
10.
Lerner, D.The Transformation of Institutions in Hamilton (ed.) The Transfer of Institutions, Durham: Duke University Press, 1964 , pp. 7-8.
11.
Spencer and Woroniak, op. cit., p.4.
12.
Salin E.The Schumpeteiran Theory and continental thought in Spencer and Woroniack , op. cit., Chapter 3.
13.
Myers, S.Summary of the Proceedings in NSF, op. cit., pp. 1-8.
14.
Gruber, W. The Development and Utilization of Technology in Industry in Gruber and Marquis, op. cit., Chapter 3.
15.
Spencer and Woroniak, op. cit., p. 8.
16.
Murphy, J.Retrospect and Prospect in Spencer and Woroniak, op. cit., pp. 6-29.
17.
Michaelis, M.Environment for innovation in NSF, op. cit., pp. 76-80.
18.
Murphy, op. cit., p. 7.
19.
Ruttan and Hayami, op. cit.
20.
See McClelland D.The Achieving Society. Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1961.
21.
McClelland, D.The Role of Achievement Orientation in the Transfer of Technology. In Gruber, W. and Marquis, D. (eds.) Factors in the Transfer of Technology. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1969, p. 67.
22.
See Francis J. Turner, (ed.), Social Work Treatment. New York: Free Press, 1979.
23.
Arden Melzer and Marie Haug, Staff Development and Differential Recruitment . Social Work, 19 (July 1974), pp. 467-476.
24.
John E. Mayer and Noel Timms, The Client Speaks: Working Class Impressions of Casework. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1970. p. 7.
25.
See, for example, the Leafleu and Brochures of Organizational Development Institute, 11234 Walnut Ridge Road, Chesterland, Ohio, 44026.
26.
See Daniel P. Moynihan.Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding. New York: Free Press, 1969.
27.
Pranab Chatterjee , Toward A Typoiogical Paradigm of Community Organization . Indian Journal of Social Work, 36 (April 1975), pp. 1-14.
