Often computers are viewed as machines that run algorithms. This view of computers covers a vast range of devices, from simple computers that perform limited and specific computations (for example, a computer found in a wristwatch) to supercomputers, which are groups of computers linked together in homogeneous and heterogeneous clusters and serving a vast array of computational needs. In between these extremes are a variety of machines from personal computers to embedded devices dedicated to serving a variety of functions. Let us call the perspective of computers as machines that run algorithms “mechanistic.” Through the mechanistic lens, the computer is an artifact, coming from the Latin words arte, which means “skill” or “craft,” and facere, which means to do or make. An artifact is that thing is skillfully or artfully made; and the computer, then, is a skillfully made machine for purposes of computation.

While the mechanistic view is irrefutable, it is also incomplete because it fails to consider contextual definitions of technology. One way of seeing the context of computing is to broaden the definition to consider the initial need for the innovation, as well as the consequent processes such as the conceptualization, design, development, implementation, use, diffusion, adaptation, evolution, maintenance, and disposal of computing. We will call this view the “social context influencing technology” perspective, shown in figure 1. This view assumes that such innovation processes arise from social needs and therefore positions computing as intrinsically social and humanistic. This view also suggests that technology occurs in a social milieu – a context – wherein the context is a set of interrelated conditions including social, cultural, and physical elements that form an environment, a circumstance, if you will. For example, in a society that where efficiency and productivity are highly valued norms, one would expect to see different technology innovations and adoptions in contrast to a society that is less concerned with efficiency and productivity (Bimber, 1990). The environment and its constituent elements in which technology is conceived, designed, developed, implemented, used, evolved, and so on, become factors that shapes how technology is conceived, designed, developed, implemented, used, evolved, etc.

An excellent example of how social context shapes technology innovation is provided in an article by Cowhey, Aronson and Richards (2009) that describes how political climate changed the US Information and Communication Technology Architecture. The social context that Cowhey, Aronson and Richards describe highlights how the division of powers, the majoritarian electoral system and federalism made it possible for a formulation of strong competition policy. The effects of this on the ICT architecture were threefold: (1) it enabled the architectural principle of “modularity” as multiple companies entered the marketplace making a “portion” of the goods that today comprise the Internet; (2) it created multiple network infrastructures for telecommunications, which is in contrast to other countries that either tried to retain a monopoly infrastructure or purposefully limit the number of competitors, and (3) it propelled both a particular architecture for computing (intelligence at the edge of the network) and the full realization of the potential benefits of the Internet (Cowhey, Aronson, and Richards, 2009).