Jon Clark's study of the effect of the modernization of a telephone exchange on exchange maintenance work and workers is...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
Jon Clark's study of the effect of the modernization of a telephone exchange on exchange maintenance work and workers is a solid contribution to a debate that encompasses two lively issues in the history and sociology of technology: technological determinism and social constructivism.
Clark makes the point that the characteristics of a technology have a decisive influence on job skills and work organization. Put more strongly, technology can be a primary determinant of social and managerial organization. Clark believes this possibility has been obscured by the recent sociological fashion, exemplified by Braverman's analysis, that emphasizes the way machinery reflects social choices. For Braverman, the shape of a technological system is subordinate to the manager's desire to wrest control of the labor process from the workers. Technological change is construed as the outcome of negotiations among interested parties who seek to incorporate their own interests into the design and configuration of the machinery. This position represents the new mainstream called social constructivism.
The constructivists gain acceptance by misrepresenting technological determinism: technological determinists are supposed to believe, for example, that machinery imposes appropriate forms of order on society. The alternative to constructivism, in other words, is to view technology as existing outside society, capable of directly influencing skills and work organization.
Clark refutes the extremes of the constructivists by both theoretical and empirical arguments. Theoretically he defines "technology" in terms of relationships between social and technical variables. Attempts to reduce the meaning of technology to cold, hard metal are bound to fail, for machinery is just scrap unless it is organized functionally and supported by appropriate systems of operation and maintenance. At the empirical level Clark shows how a change at the telephone exchange from maintenance-intensive electromechanical switches to semielectronic switching systems altered work tasks, skills, training opportunities, administration, and organization of workers. Some changes Clark attributes to the particular way management and labor unions negotiated the introduction of the technology, whereas others are seen as arising from the capabilities and nature of the technology itself. Thus Clark helps answer the question: "When is social choice decisive and when are the concrete characteristics of technology more important?"
The primary purpose of the passage is to
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Jon Clark's study of the effect of the modernization of a telephone exchange on exchange maintenance work and workers is a solid contribution to a debate that encompasses two lively issues in the history and sociology of technology: technological determinism and social constructivism. | What it says: A researcher named Clark studied how upgrading telephone equipment affected workers and their jobs. His study helps with an ongoing debate about two competing theories. What it does: Introduction - sets up the main topic and tells us this involves a debate between two sides Source/Type: Author's assessment of Clark's work Connection to Previous Sentences: This is our starting point - establishes the framework Visualization: Debate = Two sides arguing Side A: Technological determinism Side B: Social constructivism Clark's study: Evidence that will help resolve this debate Reading Strategy Insight: The author immediately signals this is about a debate with two clear sides. Expect the passage to explain each side and show how Clark's study fits in. What We Know So Far: There's a debate with two sides, Clark did a study about telephone workers What We Don't Know Yet: What the two sides actually believe, what Clark found |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To explain how one researcher's study helps resolve a major debate in technology studies by showing that both sides have valid points.
Summary of Passage Structure:
The author builds their explanation by walking us through a debate and showing how new research provides a balanced solution:
- First, the author introduces a debate between two competing theories about technology and society, then presents Clark's position that technology strongly influences how work is organized.
- Next, the author explains the opposing view (social constructivism) which argues that social choices and negotiations determine how technology gets designed, and notes this view has become mainstream.
- Then, the author describes how Clark fights back against extreme social constructivism using both theoretical arguments (defining technology as involving both social and technical elements) and real-world evidence from his telephone exchange study.
- Finally, the author shows that Clark's research found both social factors and technological features mattered, helping answer when each type of factor is more important.
Main Point:
Clark's study is valuable because instead of taking extreme sides in the technology debate, it shows that sometimes social choices matter more and sometimes technology features matter more - the key is figuring out when each factor is more important.
3. Question Analysis:
This question asks us to identify the primary purpose of the entire passage - the author's main goal in writing this piece. We need to look at the overall structure and what the author is trying to accomplish, not just individual details.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
From our passage analysis, we can see a clear structure:
- The author introduces a debate between technological determinism and social constructivism
- The author explains how social constructivism became mainstream by misrepresenting technological determinism
- The author describes how Clark fights back with both theoretical and empirical arguments
- The author shows that Clark's study found a nuanced middle ground that validates both perspectives
Key insights from our analysis:
- The passage is organized around Clark's challenge to the "extremes of the constructivists"
- The author presents Clark's work as providing a "solid contribution" that helps resolve the debate
- Clark's study is portrayed as successfully showing when social factors matter more versus when technological factors matter more
- The conclusion states Clark "helps answer the question" about when each type of factor is decisive
Prethinking:
The author's primary purpose appears to be explaining how Clark's research successfully challenges the dominant social constructivist view by providing evidence that technology sometimes does determine social organization. The passage structure moves from explaining the debate, to showing how constructivists gained dominance, to demonstrating how Clark's work provides a successful counter-challenge with both theoretical and empirical evidence. This suggests the correct answer should focus on Clark's challenge to constructivism being successful or valuable.
Why It's Wrong:
- The passage doesn't advocate for any particular attitude toward technological change
- The author maintains neutrality while describing Clark's research rather than advocating
- The focus is on resolving a theoretical debate, not promoting attitudes toward change
Common Student Mistakes:
- Did Clark's positive findings about technology mean the author wants us to be more positive about technological change?
→ The author is describing Clark's research objectively, not advocating for any particular attitude - Since the passage shows technology can determine social organization, isn't that promoting a positive view?
→ Explaining how technology works isn't the same as advocating we should feel positively about it
Why It's Wrong:
- While the telephone exchange study is mentioned, it's used as evidence for a larger theoretical point
- The passage spends most of its time on the debate between theoretical positions, not workplace implications
- Employee implications are just one small part of Clark's broader argument about technology's role
Common Student Mistakes:
- Since the passage mentions how work tasks and skills changed, isn't that the main focus?
→ Those details support Clark's theoretical argument; they're evidence, not the primary purpose - The passage starts by mentioning effects on workers, so isn't that the main topic?
→ The opening introduces Clark's study as contributing to a theoretical debate, not focusing on worker implications
Why It's Right:
- The passage structure clearly shows Clark challenging the constructivist mainstream
- Clark's work is presented as a "solid contribution" that helps resolve the debate
- The author describes how Clark "refutes the extremes of the constructivists" with both theoretical and empirical evidence
- The conclusion shows Clark's challenge was successful in providing a nuanced answer to the debate
Key Evidence: "Clark refutes the extremes of the constructivists by both theoretical and empirical arguments" and "Thus Clark helps answer the question: 'When is social choice decisive and when are the concrete characteristics of technology more important?'"
Why It's Wrong:
- The passage portrays Clark as representing technological determinism, not challenging it
- Clark defends technological determinism against constructivist misrepresentation
- The author shows constructivists challenging determinism, not the other way around
Common Student Mistakes:
- Since Clark takes a middle position including social factors, isn't he challenging pure technological determinism?
→ Clark is refining technological determinism, not challenging it; he's responding to constructivist misrepresentations - Doesn't Clark's nuanced view contradict traditional technological determinism?
→ The passage shows Clark defending determinism against "extremes," not rejecting the core position
Why It's Wrong:
- While Clark's study involves real situations, the passage doesn't suggest this should be a general approach
- The focus is on Clark's specific contribution to resolving the debate, not recommending methodology
- The author describes what Clark did rather than suggesting what others should do
Common Student Mistakes:
- Since Clark used empirical evidence from real workplace situations, isn't the author recommending this approach?
→ Describing Clark's successful methodology isn't the same as recommending it for future research - Doesn't the passage show that studying real situations gives better answers than pure theory?
→ The passage focuses on what Clark accomplished, not on prescribing research methods for others