Scholarship on technological change in academe suggests that the adoption of instructional technologies will erode professional control. Researchers have documented the pervasiveness of new technologies, but neither demonstrate how technological change is experienced by faculty nor collect data that permit assessment of consequences for professional control. Drawing on a sample of interviews with forty-two professors at three research-intensive universities, this research makes two contributions to existing research. First, in contrast to existing depictions of technological change in higher education, the findings reveals that academics perceive instructional technologies to have limited value in enhancing education and that technology use is rarely motivated by pedagogical innovation. Second, the study suggests that a relationship between technological change and “unbundling” of the academic role may be overstated. These data indicate that technological change threatens professional autonomy through exclusion from decision-making processes, increased workloads, and delimited teaching and research roles.
AshbyEric. 1974. Adapting Universities to a Technological Society. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
2.
BennettJohn. 1977. “Iron Workers in Woods Run and Johnstown: The Union Era, 1865-1895.” PhD diss., University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
3.
BravermanHarry. 1974. Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press.
4.
DelFaveroMariettaBrayNathaniel. 2010. “Herding Cats and Big Dogs: Tensions in the Faculty-Administrator Relationship.”Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research25: 477–541.
5.
DuderstadtJamesAtkinsDanielHouwelingDouglas Van. 2002. Higher Education in the Digital Age: Technology Issues and Strategies for American Colleges and Universities. Wesport: Praeger.
6.
FosterAndrea. 2007. “Where Worlds are Born.”Chronicle of Higher Education53 (44): A26.
7.
GumportPatricia,ChunMarc. 1999. “Technology and Higher Education: Opportunities and Challenges for the New Era.” In American Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century: Social, Political, and Economic Challenges, edited by AltbachP.BerdahlR.GumportP., 370–95. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
8.
GreenKenneth. 2002. The 2002 Campus Computing Survey. Encino, CA: Campus Computing Project. www.campuscomputing.net (accessed August 13, 2009).
9.
HansonChad. 2008. “Curriculum, Technology, and Higher Education.”Thought and Action 24: 71–78.
10.
HiddingaAnja,PlumeStuart. 1992. “Technology, Science, and Obstetric Practice: The Origins and Transformation of Cephalopelvimetry”. Science, Technology, & Human Values17 (2): 154–79.
11.
LinCanchu,HaLouisa. 2009. “Subcultures and Use of Communication Information Technology in Higher Education Institutions.”The Journal of Higher Education80 (5): 564–90.
12.
MarxKarl. 1906. Capital. Vol. I. Chicago, IL: Kerr.
13.
MeyerJohn,RowanBrian. 1977. “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony.”American Journal of Sociology83 (2): 340–63.
14.
MeyerKatrina A.XuYonghong Jade. 2007. “A Bayesian analysis of the institutional and individual factors influencing faculty technology use.”Internet and Higher Education 10 (3): 184–95.
15.
MossbergerKarenTolbertCarolineStansburyMary. 2003. Virtual Inequality. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
16.
NobleDavid. 1979. “Social Choice in Machine Design: The Case of Automatically Controlled Machine Tools.” In Case Studies of the Labor Process, edited by ZimbalistA., 374–402. New York: Monthly Review Press.
17.
NovekJoel. 2002. “IT, Gender, and Professional Practice: Or, Why an Automated Drug Distribution System was Sent Back to the Manufacturer.”Science, Technology, & Human Values27 (3): 379–403.
18.
PaulsonKaren. 2002. “Reconfiguring Faculty Roles for Virtual Settings.”The Journal of Higher Education73 (1): 123–40.
19.
PerrinConstance. 1998. “Operating as Experimenting: Synthesizing Engineering and Scientific Values in Nuclear Power Production.”Science, Technology, & Human Values23 (1): 98–128.
20.
PersellCaroline Hodges. 2002. “Digital Technologies and Competing Models of Higher Education.” In The Mcdonaldization of Higher Education, edited by HayesD.WynyardR., 71–83. Westportand London: Bergin and Garvey.
21.
RhoadesGary. 1996. Managed Professionals: Unionized Faculty and Restructuring of Academic Labor. Albany: State University of New York Press.
22.
RhoadesGaryMaitlandChristine. 2000. “Negotiating Technology: Support Personnel in Higher Education.”Journal of Collective Negotiations in the Private Sector29 (3): 207–19.
SchusterJackFinkelsteinMartin. 2006. The American Faculty: The Restructuring of Academic Work and Careers. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
25.
SimonHerbert. 1965. The Shape of Automation: For Men and Management. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
26.
SmithVernonRhoadesGary. 2006. “Community College Faculty and Web-Based Classes.”Thought and Action21: 97–110.
27.
Tomlinson-KeaseyCarol. 2002. “Becoming Digital: The Challenge of Weaving Technology Throughout Higher Education.” In The Future of the City of Intellect: The Changing American University, edited by BrintS..133–58Stanford: Stanford University Press.
28.
TornatzkyLouisFleischerMitchell. 1990. The Processes of Technological Innovation. Lexington: Lexington Books.
29.
TrowMartin. 1997. “The Development of Information Technology in American Higher Education.”Daedulus 126 (4): 293–314.
30.
US Department of Education. 2001. The National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, 1999. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
31.
US Department of Education. 2005. The National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, 2004. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
