is technology helpful or harmful to the arts essay

April 18 Dear iSchool juniors: You will be okay

April 2 Mortal Kombat 1: Everything you need to know

April 2 Kids Online Safety Act: Will it help society?

March 7 Movie review: “Don’t Worry Darling”

February 8 What has iSchool been listening this fall and winter?

January 19 Ronaldo vs. Messi – Differences and Similarities

January 19 What iSchoolers are wearing: Updated version!

January 19 The true cost of fast fashion

January 16 What motivates you to work?

January 11 New teachers at the iSchool

The iNews Network

Arts & Entertainment

How has technology affected the arts?

Street art also goes underground into the subways– here are some stickers on a generator in the Essex Street station in Lower Manhattan.

Roxana Boitel , reporter for Arts ans Entertainment January 17, 2019

Each year technology improves. More and more devices are made to help people complete their everyday tasks. As technology improves, other areas, such as the arts are impacted.

Technology has impacted the arts greatly. It has opened up so many opportunities for artists and has expanded the number of techniques artists are able to access. Artists can now “paint” on an iPad just as well as they can on canvas with a paintbrush and paint.   

Artists give their opinion on how technology has changed the arts, and how they have rely on technology. Ms. Coughlin, who teaches theater production at the iSchool, explains how she has relied on technology, and how she has noticed the impact it has made in theater production. Ms. Teresa, a dance teacher at the Hamilton Heights elementary school, explains how technology has impacted her experience as an artist.

“I love dance because it is non-technological, but technology has improved my teaching practice and made it easier to share the world of dance with my students and to share what my students are learning about dance with the world.” Ms. Teresa shares how she was able to share her passion with her students more efficiently with the use of technology and how it has given her students more exposure to many dance styles.

Way before technology, or even before basic art materials were invented, art was drawn in caves. This was called cave art .“ Seventeen thousand years ago, humans painted realistic images of bulls, bison, stags, horses and other animals on the walls of the caves of Lascaux, in France. They made stencils of their hands, too.” Comparing ancient art to the knowledge and techniques we have now, it is clear that technology has made a drastic impact on art.

Thanks to technology we are presented with so much knowledge, and so many new techniques. “Graphic design, computer-generated paintings, photoshop, digitally created music, e-books, 3D printing – to name but a few!  Technology has undoubtedly affected art across various mediums.” The website Art Thou explains all the ways art has adapted to technology. “Techniques, such as video software and digital colours are a far cry from the traditional tools of the paintbrush and charcoal.”

Along with these outstanding benefits, technology has also had negative impacts on the arts. Some view digital art as an inauthentic version of the discipline. Art Thou says“Famous paintings are being reproduced and altered by graphic designers and computer hackers at an increasing rate.”  By constantly altering and reproducing art, the originality of an art piece, such as the Mona Lisa, could be taken away.

It is also possible that digital art can take away the creative aspect of art. Art Thou explains how this is possible: “the huge array of tweaking and fine-tuning options open up limitless horizons for artists to express themselves more creatively and accurately, technology has however arguably dampened the flame of creativity as artists are absorbed in the enormous technological capabilities.”

In an interview, Ms. Teresa, a dance teacher, opens up about how technology has impacted the way she teaches her classes. “ I use technology all the time when I am teaching dance. I use Bluetooth to connect to my laptop to play my music. I use a streaming service called Spotify to research music and create playlists.” Something so essential to dancing is made easy by the use of technology.

Technology also makes it easier for people to learn. Ms. Teresa talks about a program she uses that helps her do that: “I watch professional development videos on a member website called Leap N Learn which  I use to plan my pre-ballet lessons.”

Ms. Coughlin, a theater production teacher, explains how technology impact her area of focus. She says, “In theater production, we primarily rely on stage lights, speakers and audio equipment. Sound and lighting play an important role in making a play come alive for the audience. Technology can be an amazing tool to enhance performance arts. Simple lighting can change the tone of a scene, and music and sound effects can create shifts in mood, from scary to silly to sad, with subtle alterations.”  

Technology has also impacted the music industry .“The experience of music is now so closely intertwined with modern technology that many of the ways we currently enjoy music wouldn’t exist without the use of technology.”

The arts were practiced even before technology was used. Technology simply has enhanced the arts and opened many more opportunities for artists. With technology the possibilities are endless. More people are exposed to the arts then ever before. Music, drawing, dance and theater have all changed, and although technologies can have it’s complications, they have changed for the better.

Roxana Boitel is a reporter for iNews. She is a freshman at the iSchool. When she's not at school, she enjoys hanging out with her friends and family....

• Polls Archive

Mortal Kombat 1: Everything you need to know

What has iSchool been listening this fall and winter?

Rainy day activities in NYC

“Gilmore Girls”: The best fall show?

Halloween in NYC: Costumes, movies, fun!

Music: A great piece of our lives

Billboard Hot 100 reviews

Fun museum events in NYC!

How “The Lego Movie” gained success

A supposedly good girl and her guide to murder: Unpacked

The Student News Site of NYC iSchool

Greater Good Science Center • Magazine • In Action • In Education

Relationships Articles & More

What makes technology good or bad for us, how technology affects our well-being partly depends on whether it strengthens our relationships..

Everyone’s worried about smartphones. Headlines like “ Have smartphones destroyed a generation? ” and “ Smartphone addiction could be changing your brain ” paint a bleak picture of our smartphone addiction and its long-term consequences. This isn’t a new lament—public opinion at the advent of the newspaper worried that people would forego the stimulating pleasures of early-morning conversation in favor of reading the daily .

Is the story of technology really that bad? Certainly there’s some reason to worry. Smartphone use has been linked to serious issues, such as dwindling attention spans , crippling depression , and even increased incidence of brain cancer . Ultimately, though, the same concern comes up again and again: Smartphones can’t be good for us, because they’re replacing the real human connection of the good old days.

Everyone’s heard how today’s teens just sit together in a room, texting, instead of actually talking to each other. But could those teenagers actually be getting something meaningful and real out of all that texting?

The science of connection

A quick glance at the research on technology-mediated interaction reveals an ambivalent literature. Some studies show that time spent socializing online can decrease loneliness , increase well-being , and help the socially anxious learn how to connect to others. Other studies suggest that time spent socializing online can cause loneliness , decrease well-being , and foster a crippling dependence on technology-mediated interaction to the point that users prefer it to face-to-face conversation.

It’s tempting to say that some of these studies must be right and others wrong, but the body of evidence on both sides is a little too robust to be swept under the rug. Instead, the impact of social technology is more complicated. Sometimes, superficially similar behaviors have fundamentally different consequences. Sometimes online socialization is good for you, sometimes it’s bad, and the devil is entirely in the details.

This isn’t a novel proposition; after all, conflicting results started appearing within the first few studies into the internet’s social implications, back in the 1990s. Many people have suggested that to understand the consequences of online socialization, we need to dig deeper into situational factors and circumstances. But what we still have to do is move beyond recognition of the problem to provide an answer: When, how, and why are some online interactions great, while others are dangerous?

The interpersonal connection behaviors framework

As a scientist of close relationships, I can’t help but see online interactions differently from thinkers in other fields. People build relationships by demonstrating their understanding of each other’s needs and perspectives, a cyclical process that brings them closer together. If I tell you my secrets, and you respond supportively, I’m much more likely to confide in you again—and you, in turn, are much more likely to confide in me.

This means that every time two people talk to each other, an opportunity for relationship growth is unfolding. Many times, that opportunity isn’t taken; we aren’t about to have an in-depth conversation with the barista who asks for our order. But connection is always theoretically possible, and that’s true whether we’re interacting online or face-to-face.

Close relationships are the bread and butter of happiness—and even health. Being socially isolated is a stronger predictor of mortality than is smoking multiple cigarettes a day . If we want to understand the role technology plays in our well-being, we need to start with the role it plays in our relationships.

And it turns out that the kind of technology-mediated interactions that lead to positive outcomes are exactly those that are likely to build stronger relationships. Spending your time online by scheduling interactions with people you see day in and day out seems to pay dividends in increased social integration . Using the internet to compensate for being lonely just makes you lonelier; using the internet to actively seek out connection has the opposite effect .

“The kind of technology-mediated interactions that lead to positive outcomes are exactly those that are likely to build stronger relationships”

On the other hand, technology-mediated interactions that don’t really address our close relationships don’t seem to do us any good—and might, in fact, do us harm. Passively scrolling through your Facebook feed without interacting with people has been linked to decreased well-being and increased depression post-Facebook use.

That kind of passive usage is a good example of “ social snacking .” Like eating junk food, social snacking can temporarily satisfy you, but it’s lacking in nutritional content. Looking at your friends’ posts without ever responding might make you feel more connected to them, but it doesn’t build intimacy.

Passive engagement has a second downside, as well: social comparison . When we compare our messy lived experiences to others’ curated self-presentations, we are likely to suffer from lowered self-esteem , happiness, and well-being. This effect is only exacerbated when we consume people’s digital lives without interacting with them, making it all too easy to miss the less photogenic moments of their lives.

Moving forward

The interpersonal connection behaviors framework doesn’t explain everything that might influence our well-being after spending time on social media. The internet poses plenty of other dangers—for two examples, the sense of wasting time or emotional contagion from negative news. However, a focus on meaningful social interaction can help explain decades of contradictory findings. And even if the framework itself is challenged by future work, its central concept is bound to be upheld: We have to study the details of how people are spending their time online if we want to understand its likely effects.

In the meantime, this framework has some practical implications for those worried about their own online time. If you make sure you’re using social media for genuinely social purposes, with conscious thought about how it can improve your life and your relationships, you’ll be far more likely to enjoy your digital existence.

This article was originally published on the Behavioral Scientist . Read the original article .

About the Author

Jenna Clark

Jenna Clark, Ph.D. , is a senior behavioral researcher at Duke University's Center for Advanced Hindsight, where she works to help people make healthy decisions in spite of themselves. She's also interested in how technology contributes to our well-being through its effect on our close personal relationships.

You May Also Enjoy

This article — and everything on this site — is funded by readers like you.

Become a subscribing member today. Help us continue to bring “the science of a meaningful life” to you and to millions around the globe.

How Does Technology Help Contemporary Artists with Their Art?

There is this widespread notion that it must be pretty tough for an artist to create artworks these days. After all, technology has heavily dominated the world in the 21st century, and how can art compete with that? Especially when art is an old field and technology is a new field that’s already taking the world by storm. For a lot of people, they think that the answer is crystal clear: it’s a losing battle for art, considering that technology is the obvious winner.

To be fair, that assumption has some sense to it, even if it’s a tiny one. It is true that technology rules the world right now. But one thing that people always forget to consider is the fact that art doesn’t exist in a vacuum — yes, it has been around for millennia, literally speaking, and the primary reason why it has continued to last so long is because of the fact that it adapts . No matter what time period it is, what country, or what social climate — art will always find a way to integrate its surroundings to its trends. In other words, the real world helps shape art in a way.

So, with that said, it’s more accurate to say that technology is more a friend to art than a foe. But the question remains: how exactly does technology help contemporary artists with their art, especially now in 2019 and onwards? Here are two answers to that question:

More Art Supplies for Artists to Work With

Because of technology, there’s now been a rapid and constant rise in new things. There are inventions of various software and products left and right, and for every invention, there will always be innovations. In other words, there is always a constant stream of something new , and of course, art benefits from that.

As you’re all aware, a lot of the art supplies artists use are pretty traditional: paint, paintbrush, canvas, pencil, and many more. But with technology, their art supplies now go beyond the traditional ones. There are now gadgets like tablets and digital pens and software applications like Adobe Photoshop, and all these will help artists in creating digital art. These will also help the artists make the process of creating an artwork a lot less stressful.

Before, artists always had to make sure that every painstaking stroke or movement is the right one to avoid mistakes and to correctly portray what they wanted their painting or sketch to show, but right now, artists can modify their artwork with a click of the mouse. It lessens the hassle for the artist without damaging their creativity.

Basically, technology helps broaden the horizons of an artist’s creativity while also limit the problems that they might encounter. It makes the production of art a lot less demanding, and as a result, artists now have more time to contemplate and expand their creativity. And honestly, that is a serious win for art.

Related article:  Ten Wonderful Art Supply Stores You Will Find in Canada

More Accessible to the Masses

In the past, in order for someone to be able to view an artist’s work, they have to visit a gallery or a museum. And for a lot of people, that fact is a deal-breaker, because 1) it requires effort to go out of the house and travel miles just to visit the nearest museum and 2) more often than not, it also requires money because art galleries and museums have an entrance fee. As a result, people will choose to stay at home since it will save not only their energy but also their money.

This can be a problem for artists. You see, creating art is a job, so of course, they’d want to make money off of it, but if your artworks are all locked away in a museum, then only a few people are able to view them. And what is the point of making art when not everyone is able to see and enjoy your artwork?

Thankfully, technology is here to save the day. With the rise of social media, artists can now make their artworks visible to millions of viewers for free. And in addition to that, social media have also increased the engagement between the artists and their audience, making art a more participatory experience. As a result, the audiences of art are now more diverse.

That is such a good thing because artists will get the recognition and visibility that they deserve, and this will hopefully lead them to more profit. And plus, more people will be able to view and enjoy their artworks. What a beautiful thing, indeed.

The Takeaway

Contrary to popular belief, technology is not an enemy to art — if anything, it’s actually an ally. So, to artists out there, use technology to your heart’s content in the production of your own art, and you might be surprised to discover just how much this tool is actually going to help you in the end.

• http://www.midanmasr.com/en/article.aspx?articleID=200
• https://www.pewinternet.org/2013/01/04/section-6-overall-impact-of-technology-on-the-arts/

Contact GIA Sign Up for GIA News & Updates Become A GIA Member

450 Lexington Ave, Unit 4501 | New York, NY | [email protected]

Technology and the Performing Arts Field: Usage and Issues

Suzanne Callahan

The world is constantly evolving in how it uses technology. In consequence, the arts field has struggled, adapted, and sometimes excelled in its own utilization of technology. To capture and better understand these trends, The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation commissioned a study of technology usage in the arts field to learn about organizations’ practices and needs. This report combines a comprehensive survey of the arts field with more recent in-depth qualitative research.

In late 2008, a survey was administered to the memberships of five discipline-based arts service organizations: the Association of Performing Arts Presenters (APAP), Dance/USA (D/USA), the League of American Orchestras (LAO), OPERA America, and Theater Communications Group (TCG). Information collected from the survey provided a rich resource of information about organizations’ range of experiences and attitudes towards technology. Newer qualitative research was conducted through case studies and interviews. A combined analysis seeks to present the survey information in its full depth and nuance, and augment it with up-to-date material that reveals the sometimes profound changes that organizations have undergone in their use of technology since the survey.

Within the research, the experiences of non-profit arts organizations are examined, with special consideration to questions about their trials and successes: What are the most prevalent technological barriers that organizations face? How do these barriers affect their management practices—and what kind of toll do they take on staff and boards? In what ways have arts organizations demonstrated creativity, resilience and leadership in adapting to technology use? And what are possible solutions and programs that would support the field?

In order to better understand the true circumstances of arts organizations, the analysis identifies eight key themes that recurred among all of these sources. These themes are presented visually to convey a sense of their relative prevalence and importance in responses. Then, each key theme is explored individually, to reveal the detail and trends that the surveys conveyed and to incorporate the new research (case studies and interviews), which updates and illuminates the survey responses.

The themes and highlights that emerged from this analysis hint at future directions for technology research in the non-profit arts field and better prepare Mellon and service organizations to design responses to the field’s technology needs.

• DACA/Undocumented
• First Generation, Low Income
• International Students
• Students of Color
• Students with disabilities
• Undergraduate Students
• Master’s Students
• PhD Students
• Faculty/Staff
• Family/Supporters
• Career Fairs
• Post Jobs, Internships, Fellowships
• Build your Brand at MIT
• Recruiting Guidelines and Resources
• Connect with Us
• Career Advising
• Distinguished Fellowships
• Employer Relations
• Graduate Student Professional Development
• Prehealth Advising
• Student Leadership Opportunities
• Academia & Education
• Architecture, Planning, & Design
• Arts, Communications, & Media
• Business, Finance, & Fintech
• Computing & Computer Technology
• Data Science
• Energy, Environment, & Sustainability
• Life Sciences, Biotech, & Pharma
• Manufacturing & Transportation
• Health & Medical Professions
• Social Impact, Policy, & Law
• Getting Started & Handshake 101
• Exploring careers
• Networking & Informational Interviews
• Connecting with employers
• Resumes, cover letters, portfolios, & CVs
• Finding a Job or Internship
• Post-Graduate and Summer Outcomes
• Professional Development Competencies
• Preparing for Graduate & Professional Schools
• Preparing for Medical / Health Profession Schools
• Interviewing
• New jobs & career transitions
• Career Prep and Development Programs
• Employer Events
• Outside Events for Career and Professional Development
• Events Calendar
• Career Services Workshop Requests
• Early Career Advisory Board
• Peer Career Advisors
• Student Staff
• Mission, Vision, Values and Diversity Commitments
• News and Reports

How Technology is Changing the Art World

• Share This: Share How Technology is Changing the Art World on Facebook Share How Technology is Changing the Art World on LinkedIn Share How Technology is Changing the Art World on X

Art history shows that artists have always sought new art forms and unconventional mediums to express their artistic principles. Various avant-garde movements that started mushrooming in the early20th century fundamentally challenged the traditional perception of art. Artists emerging from these progressive movements introduced new non-artistic materials, like books, magazines, cloths, household items, and many other everyday objects as perfect art mediums, stating that true artists can make artworks out of anything. This is how mixed media art was born, marking an exciting new era in the evolution of art.

The development of technology has continued walking hand-in-hand with progressive artistic concepts and has changed the way art is created and shared, enabling groundbreaking artists and their innovative expressions to gain expanded access to whole new audience groups beyond the conventional boundaries of the art world. We could only ask ourselves whether Andy Warhol’s vast oeuvre would have developed in the same direction if it had not been for silk-screen printing technology and readily available cameras?

Read More on ArtDex

ARTS & CULTURE

7 ways technology is changing how art is made.

Technology is redefining art in strange, new ways. Works are created by people moving through laser beams or from data gathered on air pollution

Randy Rieland

Where would the Impressionists have been without the invention of portable paint tubes that enabled them to paint outdoors?  Who would have heard of Andy Warhol without silkscreen printing? The truth is that technology has been providing artists with new ways to express themselves for a very long time.

Still, over the past few decades, art and tech have become more intertwined than ever before, whether it’s through providing new ways to mix different types of media, allowing more human interaction or simply making the process of creating it easier.  

Case in point is a show titled “Digital Revolution” that opened earlier this summer in London’s Barbican Centre. The exhibit, which runs through mid-September, includes a “Digital Archaeology” section which pays homage to gadgets and games that not that long ago dazzled us with their innovation. (Yes, an original version of Pong is there, presented as lovable antiquity.) But the show also features a wide variety of digital artists who are using technology to push art in different directions, often to allow gallery visitors to engage with it in a multi-dimensional way.

Here are seven examples, some from “Digital Revolution," of how technology is reshaping what art is and how it’s produced:

Kumbaya meets lasers

Let’s start with lasers, the brush stroke of so much digital art. One of the more popular exhibits in the London show is called “Assemblance,” and it’s designed to encourage visitors to create light structures and floor drawings by moving through colored laser beams and smoke. The inclination for most people is to work alone, but the shapes they produce tend to be more fragile. If a person nearby bumps into their structure, for instance, it’s likely to fall apart. But those who collaborate with others—even if it’s through an act as simple as holding hands—discover that the light structures they create are both more resilient and more sophisticated. “Assemblance,” says Usman Haque, one of the founders of Umbrellium, the London art collective that designed it, has a sand castle quality to it—like a rogue wave, one overly aggressive person can wreck everything.

And they never wet the rug

Another favorite at “Digital Revolution” is an experience called “Petting Zoo.” Instead of rubbing cute goats and furry rabbits, you get to cozy up to snake-like tubes hanging from the ceiling. Doesn’t sound like fun? But wait, these are very responsive tubes, bending and moving and changing colors based on how they read your movements, sounds and touch. They might pull back shyly if they sense a large group approaching or get all cuddly if you’re being affectionate. And if you’re just standing there, they may act bored. The immersive artwork, developed by a design group called Minimaforms, is meant to provide a glimpse into the future, when robots or even artificial pets will be able to read our moods and react in kind.

Now this is a work in progress

If Rising Colorspace, an abstract artwork painted on the wall of a Berlin gallery, doesn't seem so fabulous at first glance, just give it a little time. Come back the next day and it will look at least a little different. That’s because the painting is always changing, thanks to a wall-climbing robot called a Vertwalker armed with a paint pen and a software program instructing it to follow a certain pattern.

The creation of artists Julian Adenauer and Michael Haas, the Vertwalker—which looks like a flattened iRobot Roomba —is constantly overwriting its own work, cycling through eight colors as it glides up vertical walls for two to three hours at a time before it needs a battery change. “The process of creation is ideally endless,” Haas explains.

The beauty of dirty air

Give Russian artist Dmitry Morozov some credit—he’s devised a way to make pollution beautiful, even if his purpose is to make us aware of how much is out there. First, he built a device, complete with a little plastic nose, that uses sensors which can measure dust and other typical pollutants, including carbon monoxide, formaldehyde and methane. Then, he headed out to the streets of Moscow. 

The sensors translate the data they gather into volts and a computing platform called Arduino translates those volts into shapes and colors, creating a movie of pollution. Morozov’s device then grabs still images from the movie and prints them out. As irony would have it, the dirtier the air, the brighter the image. Exhaust smoke can look particularly vibrant.

Paper cuts you can love

Eric Standley, a professor at Virginia Tech, is one artist who doesn’t use technology to make the creation process simpler. Actually, it’s just the reverse. He builds stained glass windows, only they’re made from paper precisely cut by a laser. He starts by drawing an intricate design, then meticulously cuts out the many shapes that, when layered over one another, form a 3-D version of his drawing. One of his windows might comprise as many as 100 laser-cut sheets stacked together. Standley says the technology allows him to feel more, not less, connected to what he’s creating. As he explains in the video above, “Every efficiency that I gain through technology, the void is immediately filled with the question, 'Can I make it more complex?'” 

And now, a moving light show

It’s one thing to project laser light onto a stationary wall or into a dark sky, now pretty much standard fare at public outdoor celebrations. But in an art project titled “Light Echoes,” digital media artist Aaron Koblin and interactive director Ben Tricklebank executed the concept on a much larger scale. One night last year, a laser they mounted on a crane atop a moving train projected images, topographical maps and even lines of poetry into the dark Southern California countryside. Those projections left visual “echoes" on the tracks and around the train, which they captured through long-exposure photography.  

Finding your inner bird

Here’s one last take from the “Digital Revolution” show. An art installation developed by video artist Chris Milk called “Treachery of the Sanctuary,” it’s meant to explore the creative process through interactions with digital birds. That’s right, birds, and some are very angry. The installation is a giant triptych, and gallery visitors can stand in front of each of the screens. In the first, the person’s shadow reflected on the screen disintegrates into a flock of birds. That, according to Milk, represents the moment of creative inspiration. In the second, the shadow is pecked away by virtual birds diving from above. That symbolizes critical response, he explains. In the third screen, things get better—you see how you’d look with a majestic set of giant wings that flap as you move. And that, says Milk, captures the instant when a creative thought transforms into something larger than the original idea.

Get the latest Travel & Culture stories in your inbox.

Randy Rieland | | READ MORE

Randy Rieland is a digital media strategist and contributing writer in innovations for Smithsonian.com.

National Endowment for the Arts

• Grants for Arts Projects
• Challenge America
• Research Awards
• Partnership Agreement Grants
• Creative Writing
• Translation Projects
• Volunteer to be an NEA Panelist
• Manage Your Award
• Recent Grants
• Arts & Human Development Task Force
• Arts Education Partnership
• Blue Star Museums
• Citizens' Institute on Rural Design
• Creative Forces: NEA Military Healing Arts Network
• GSA's Art in Architecture
• Independent Film & Media Arts Field-Building Initiative
• Interagency Working Group on Arts, Health, & Civic Infrastructure
• International
• Mayors' Institute on City Design
• Musical Theater Songwriting Challenge
• National Folklife Network
• NEA Big Read
• NEA Research Labs
• Poetry Out Loud
• Save America's Treasures
• Shakespeare in American Communities
• Sound Health Network
• United We Stand
• American Artscape Magazine
• NEA Art Works Podcast
• National Endowment for the Arts Blog
• States and Regions
• Accessibility
• Arts & Artifacts Indemnity Program
• Arts and Health
• Arts Education
• Creative Placemaking
• Equity Action Plan
• Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)
• Literary Arts
• Native Arts and Culture
• NEA Jazz Masters Fellowships
• National Heritage Fellowships
• National Medal of Arts
• Press Releases
• Upcoming Events
• NEA Chair's Page
• Leadership and Staff
• What Is the NEA
• Publications
• National Endowment for the Arts on COVID-19
• Open Government
• Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
• Office of the Inspector General
• Civil Rights Office
• Appropriations History
• Make a Donation

“Funder Perspective: Broadening Support for Arts and Technology”

By eleanor savage.

Photo courtesy of Eleanor Savage

The global pandemic has highlighted and amplified technology’s central place in every aspect of our daily lives. But what is not so visible is the vital role of artists in the development and shaping of social and cultural tools and in world-building through technology. The National Endowment for the Arts’ Tech as Art: Supporting Artists Who Use Technology as a Creative Medium provides a timely exploration of this diverse sphere of artists, including essential information on the role of grantmakers. I invite a deeper conversation around expanding support for this imaginative and innovative work.

Many future-facing conversations in the philanthropic sector are centering on arts and technology. Grantmakers in the Arts’ 2020 virtual convening, Power, Practice, Resilience Remix’d , opened with a visionary keynote featuring Ruha Benjamin , Salome Asega , and Sage Crump , all of whom are creatively engaged with technology, sciences, and cultural work. The conversation, titled “Building the Future We Want,” highlighted the big questions that technology-centered artists such as Sasha Constanza-Chock and so many others are asking around the use of technology and who has input into its design and implementation.

Panelists praised Costanza-Chock’s book, Design Justice: Community-Led Practices to Build the Worlds We Need , for championing how design might be led by marginalized communities and dismantle structural inequality, advance collective liberation, and bolster ecological survival. They also recognized the work of Allied Media , a Detroit-based media network that models and supports collaborative technology-based initiatives, including the Design Justice Network’s network principles , a guide for collaborative, creative practices; Consentful Technologies , a community-developed guide for generating digital applications with consent; and A People’s Guide to AI (artificial intelligence), a demystifying of AI.

What this keynote conversation also raised was the issue of insufficient financial support for arts and technology, even in this moment when these artists, networks, and communities are creating vibrant new ways to construct experience and change narratives. Rather than just creating cool new apps or gadgets, they are modeling collaboratively built, non-hierarchical community power; making data visible and meaningful; providing resilient solutions; and building values-based tools, systems, and practices rooted in justice, consent, racial equity, accessibility, and open-source sharing of resources and knowledge. Technology-centered artists are leading critical work that challenges the tech industry around uses of surveillance, artificial intelligence, data tracking, cultural bias, digital divides, corporate mining, and monetization of hardware and software, and raises the stakes for developing ethical approaches to technology.

The vital nature of this work calls on funders to reconsider traditional frameworks of support and respond in ways that are as expansive and adaptable as the work itself.

Since the early 1990s, I have worked with artists in this sphere, in a production capacity at Walker Art Center and in a funding capacity at Jerome Foundation, and I can attest to the complex and dynamic learning journey. I hear from many colleagues in philanthropy that they don’t know how to categorize the work and find it hard to fit into traditional arts-funding frameworks. The wide-ranging creative approaches are experimental, process-oriented, time-based, participatory, collaborative, performative, immersive, virtual, interactive, modular, and variable.

The work is genre-defying and genre-expanding, continually adaptive and purposefully questioning. There are constantly new tools, new technologies, new expressions, though artists are rigorously building upon known areas of practice sourced from multiple sectors, within and outside of the arts. Such art eludes categorization, doesn’t follow a linear path, and can involve messy and uncertain processes. This universe of artists requires funders to step outside their comfort zones, trading the probability of success for greater potential impact.

I urge funders to be fearless in establishing an inclusive and equitable environment to better support this dynamic ecosystem of future-facing artists: embrace the values that support this work; make a concerted effort to build authentic relationships with the artists, organizations, and networks involved. It is important to engage with the artists and arts leaders involved to collaboratively build responsive and adaptable grant strategies, programs, guidelines, and direct funding to the priorities identified by this sector. These shifts of funder mindset, while focused on arts and technology, benefit artists across all sectors.

How do we make the leap to fund arts and technology? Rather than a program or strategy or theory of change, we need to look at core grantmaking values to prioritize the tech-centered sphere. Jerome Foundation’s values of “ innovation and risk ” define our priority of support for artists and organizations that are deepening and expanding as well as questioning and innovating traditional aesthetics, practices, and expression within and across artistic disciplines. Our value of “humility” centers artists and organizations as the best authorities to define their needs and challenges, and directs us to support those entities who embrace their roles as part of a larger community of artists and citizens and who consciously work with a sense of purpose, whether aesthetic, social, or both. Our value of “diversity” compels us to support a diverse range of artistic disciplines and forms created in a variety of contexts and for different audiences.

In a quick scan of other funders of the tech-centered universe, I found the following:

• “ curiosity” as a charge to be open to new ideas and forms;
• support for art with the “capacity to transform” communities;
• artistic excellence defined as authenticity, inclusion, and the “ integration of technology” in all aspects of the creative process;
• work that fosters “change and change-making” as priorities;
• “participatory” grantmaking that engages those most impacted;
• “inclusion, access, and equity” for all communities to all forms of art.

This list is greatly aligned with the ethos and creative expressions of artists working with technology. With the call for radical change (across all arts sectors) for funders to take immediate action to address issues of inequity, transparency, accountability, representation, lack of relationship, and cultural gatekeeping rooted in capitalism, colonialism, and systemic racism, there is much to learn from this realm of visionaries who are actively engaged in alternatives to these systems.

How do we move to relationship-based partnerships ? To be in relationship with artists and arts leaders in any community requires program staff to be rigorous in learning about artists, experiencing the work, and understanding how they are creating and where they are finding support. We know the systems of support are different by geographic region and by location—rural, remote, or urban. Artists who are Black, Indigenous, Native American or people of color (BIPOC); artists with disabilities; LGBTQ; and women tech-centered artists are impacted by the biases pervasive in every sector, though the arts and technology sector is much more diverse than the tech sector. There is no singular path to support for tech-centered artists, but given the values of this sector, the nuanced paths are discoverable. Practitioners are actively creating their own means of distribution and are freely sharing information and creating open access to their ecosystem, such as artist/technologist Amelia Winger-Bearskin ’s Wampum.codes and LaJuné McMillian’s Black Movement Project (BMP).

How do we center those most impacted in designing supportive grantmaking processes? “Nothing about us, without us, is for us,” the rallying call from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, is a refrain that helps focus this idea. Participatory and equitable grantmaking practices shift the decision-making from funders to the tech-centered arts community, which has the most knowledge and experience to inform the grant process, as well as accountability to their community. This changes the funder role from arbiter to facilitator and gives agency to the artists and arts leaders involved. The community develops the grant strategies and guidelines, shapes the application process and materials, and implements the grant-selection process and funding decisions, whether by panel, nomination, lottery, or some other process.   Jerome Foundation involves artists in every aspect of the organization—on our board, staff, and selection panels. We engage artists to inform the development of our programs. We are constantly adjusting our applications and work sample parameters based on feedback from artists. Our goal is to provide a process in which artists feel they can be their authentic selves and share materials that best communicate their work to panelists. In navigating the question of artistic disciplines, we invite artists to share how they self-define and what words they use to describe their work. Tech-centered art-making is a compendium of intersections: from a filmmaker exposing coded bias ( Shalini Kantayya ); to an immersive theater artist ( Janani Balasubramanian ) collaborating with astrophysicists on a project integrating new media, augmented and virtual reality, film, and literary fiction; to a composer ( Kathy McTavish ) working to humanize AI; to a creative technologist and media artist ( LaJune McMillian ) creating open-source motion-capture databases.

What are meaningful and generative funding levels? Funder expectations around appropriate levels of funding must be considered. Work with technology is complex, requiring access to skills, experience, and equipment that is expensive and rarely mastered by one person. The ethos of this sphere is collaborative and work with specialists is a necessity. Projects that authentically engage community members in the design, development, and implementation of a technology-based project will likely have an extended timeline and require considerable compensation for participation. Immersive digital performance experiences require a scale of production beyond what is typical for more traditionally staged theatrical works. Access to the tools and technology and time for coding or data-gathering are cost-prohibitive without institutional support. The call from this sector (and all arts sectors) is for increased flexibility: multiyear fellowships for artists or collectives/collaboratives; flexible general operating support for organizations; and support for field research, convenings, development of infrastructure, and collaborative initiatives that help create open-source tools, code, and practices.

Extending funding to commercial entities should be initiated and informed by artists and arts leaders because there is great risk for exploitation by profit-driven companies. The interest from the tech field in working with artists is strong. Artists are making a clear push to maintain their work in a democratized, non-capitalist space. Funders should beware of the interest by big and small tech companies to monetize this work. A simple rule of thumb: fund the artists and arts organizations directly rather than an intermediary. Give artists the agency to decide if they want to work with a tech company.

Artists working with technology are fostering integrated approaches to creating and experiencing art, addressing social and cultural issues, defining equitable and justice-based ways of working, and developing tools that help us adapt and thrive in the face of many challenges. Artists in this expansive and fluid sphere deserve the same respect and recognition for their work as that bestowed on older, more familiar forms. Funders must begin to prioritize this sphere, through relationship, partnership, funding, and advocacy. The call from artists is for radical trust and radical change. We are all witness to their radical vision and radical practice. I call on funders to respond with radical investment!

Eleanor Savage (pronoun flexible) is program director at Jerome Foundation , living on the ancestral, traditional and contemporary lands of the Dakota Oyate (also called Minneapolis, Minnesota). As a white butch, civic-minded, anti-racist advocate, Savage has focused their work in the field of arts philanthropy on racial equity and undoing racism.

Savage acknowledges this essay is directly informed by the work of artists of color, and specifically by Black and Native American women, transgender, queer, and butch artists. Additionally, Savage credits the Twin Cities Theaters of Color Coalition, the Minnesota Racial Equity Funders Collaborative, the Minnesota Artist Coalition -Radical Shifts initiative, Penumbra Center for Racial Healing , Grantmakers in the Arts and justice-minded artists, arts leaders, and philanthropic colleagues far and wide for ongoing learnings and accountability around racial equity and anti-racism practice.

Stay Connected to the National Endowment for the Arts

• ❮ Back
• Partners and Accreditation
• Work For LCCA
• Policies and Regulations
• Quality & Standards
• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate Courses
• Living in London
• Publications
• Industry News
• Student Work
• Student Life
• Graphic Design
• Foundation Art & Design
• Hospitality
• Application Process
• Interview Guide
• Portfolio Advice

How is technology impacting art creation in 2022?

Graphic design.

Any art history student would tell you that art forms have always borrowed ideas and inspiration from their time and environment to evolve. From illustrations of patron saints and gods in the Middle Ages to the trending Non-Fungible Token (NFTs) images in 2022, art creation has changed dramatically.

Industrialisation and technological development have also revolutionised the way art is created and shared across the world. Today, art has moved on from easels and canvases to digital screens and design software.

This blog delves into the impact of technology on the art world and the rise of digital art. You can also explore some of the most popular tech tools and software that can help you with art creation as a digital artist.

How has digital technology changed the art world?

Art critics once assumed that digitisation could threaten the existence of the art industry. On the contrary, there have been several positive effects of technology on art creation globally.

Here are some ways in which digital technology has impacted the principles of art in the modern world.

• Tech is making art institutions more efficient : Many art and auction houses state that technology has helped them become more efficient in managing their operations. Digital resources like the internet and online advertising have helped them move art pieces faster and generate a buzz around them.
• It has made it possible to access art by breaking down geographical constraints : Digital technology has made viewing, owning and appreciating art accessible for more people. With digital prints and art being substantially cheaper and available across the world, the art world is now accessible to anyone with a smartphone or working internet.
• Tech has introduced new audiences to the art world : Art creation today draws heavily from pop-culture references and current affairs. As a result, more young people can relate to pieces of work and are interested in investing in art. This is a huge divergence from earlier times when art was seen as a status symbol for the rich.

How has digital technology changed art creation in 2022?

Digital technologies have become the backbone for creating tangible pieces of art today. 3D images, virtual reality (VR), artificial intelligence and computer graphic techniques are enabling modern artists to make their own interpretation of art forms and push beyond the barriers of the art world.

Technology has also impacted other aspects of art creation and distribution. For instance, art pieces were once the monopoly of established auction houses which restricted their access to the common public.

With the rise of social media and illustration apps like Pinterest, digital prints of classics are popping up everywhere. Online stores and e-commerce websites are selling art prints and merchandise by thousands of artists which is also encouraging new people to make a career as full-time artists.

What are the latest tech tools that can help you create digital art?

If you are an aspiring digital artist, there is an arsenal of technological tools and software that can help you create digital art. It all boils down to what you want to create—different digital art forms like textual images, manga drawing, and comic illustrations have specific tools dedicated to them.

You can also find a lot of diversity when it comes to the price of the design tools from free open-source options to professional tools with premium prices. Here is our selection of some of the most popular technology art and illustration software available in 2022.

• Adobe Photoshop : Adobe Photoshop has become the industry standard when it comes to digital art creation, so much so that photoshop has now become a verb! If you are an aspiring digital artist, you will likely be expected to know your way around the programme. You can use Photoshop on a wide range of devices and utilise an impressive library of plug-ins for extra features.
• Affinity Photo : Affinity Photo may be the best alternative to Photoshop, especially if you don’t want a costly monthly subscription. It is on par with Photoshop when it comes to design elements and features and even allows you to work on more than 100-megapixel images.
• Corel Painter 2022 : Corel Painter is good graphic design software for digital artists. It allows you to make your work seem as ‘real’ as possible. The new version has overcome a previous problem of taxing computer hardware and can now run on any system.
• Rebelle 4 : If you are into digital paintings, you can create art seamlessly with Rebelle 4. The software mimics the way paint behaves in the real world and allows you to create realistic digital paintings. You get access to more than 170 brush presets and an array of impasto and watercolour effects.
• Procreate : Procreate is an impressive digital art tool for iPad users. It is packed with plenty of tools and plug-ins which makes it easy to create art. Its numerous features include typography tools, masks and blend modes, and over 130 customisable brush presets.

Other trending digital art tools include Krita, TwistedBrush Pro Studio, Medibang Paint Pro, Paintstorm Studio, and Black Ink. Some more alternatives include Clip Studio Paint Pro, ArtWeaver 7, and ArtRage 6.

While art foundation courses in London are popular choices among aspiring artists, a well-designed graphic design programme is the best way to gain mastery over these tools. You will learn about different aspects of digital art creation such as typography, colour wheel, and design elements and how to utilise them for digital storytelling through your artwork.

The London College of Contemporary Arts (LCCA) offers a great BA (Hons) Graphic Design programme that can provide you with a solid foundation for art and creative technology . The course gives you access to top-of-the-range art software, design studios, and industry connections.

This graphic design degree is awarded by the prestigious University for the Creative Arts. The course will also help you learn how to convey specific ideas through art and design and build a successful career within the creative industry.

Click here to apply for this graphic designing programme at LCCA today.

Enquire Now

Please complete the form and we will contact you as soon as possible.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• Experts Predict More Digital Innovation by 2030 Aimed at Enhancing Democracy
• 2. Tech is (just) a tool

Table of Contents

• 1. The innovations these experts predict by 2030
• 3. Power dynamics play a key role in problems and innovation
• 4. It’s all just history repeating itself
• 5. Tech causes more problems than it solves
• 6. The net effects in 10 years will be negligible
• About this canvassing of experts
• Acknowledgments

Many of these experts pointed out that technology is neither inherently helpful nor harmful. It is simply a tool. They said the real effects of technology depend upon how it is wielded. It can be used to inspire and catalyze change just as easily as it can be used in ways that are detrimental to society. Technology’s influence in the world is highly dependent upon extraneous factors. These factors can be much more important than tech evolution itself in determining what the future holds.

A pioneering technology editor and reporter for one of the world’s foremost global news organizations wrote, “I don’t believe technology will be the driver for good or bad in social and civil innovation. It can be a catalyst because it has always been a strong factor in organizing people and resources, as we saw early on with ‘flash mobs’ and have seen used to deleterious effect in the disinformation operations of Russian agents that sought to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. I believe the social and civic innovation that can rein in excesses of surveillance capitalism, of Big Brother tech such as the abuse of facial recognition and other biometrics for social control, can only come from moral leadership. Tech is a tool. Artificial intelligence and genetic engineering are technologies. How we choose to use these tools, the ethical choices we as human societies make along the way, will define us.”

This section includes a broad selection of comments about digital technologies as a tool for social and civic innovation. They are organized under four subthemes: Factors other than technology per se will determine digital technologies’ effects; technology can be used as a tool for good; technology can be used as a tool for ill; and deeper human/social forces are shaping the future of democracy.

Factors other than technology will determine digital technologies’ effects

Tools are made to be used. How they are used, who uses them and what they are used for determines their impact. Some of these analysts referred to the impact of revolutionary technologies of the past and the ways they were used to affect change.

The inability for algorithmic-driven tools to understand the social context means they do not have the capacity to drive civic innovation without significant human intervention. Mutale Nkonde

David Bray , executive director for the People-Centered Internet Coalition, commented, “The benefits or harms are determined by how we humans choose to use tools and technologies. Fire can be used to cook a meal and thus be helpful. Fire can also be used to harm or destroy. Rocks can help build shelter. Rocks can also be used to injure someone. So, the bigger questions worth asking involve how we humans, both individually and in communities, choose to use technologies. Ideally, we will use them to uplift individuals. Also, tech doesn’t operate in a vacuum. Human laws and narratives also influence outcomes. Our tool use is connected to our use of narratives, laws and technologies to distribute power. Starting with the beginning of history, we used fire and stone tools to make the transition from a nomadic lifestyle to one where we began to settle and plant crops. Our use of tools help give rise to civilization, including the advancement of writing, development of calendars for crops, and the start of navigation of the seas. …

“While some civilizations generated social order through sheer physical force imposed upon other humans, compelling obedience, other civilizations generated social order through an initial system of laws that sought to protect communities from the greed, envy, or other hurtful elements of others. Such a system of laws was not developed for purely altruistic reasons. The same system of laws solidified the power of rulers and included different forms of taxation over the labor of their subjects. Laws and the legal process of humans distributed power, and in several cases of early civilizations, solidified the power of community members to compel or oblige other humans to perform certain actions. Laws and the legal process also enabled humans to coexist more peacefully in larger groupings insofar that the distribution of power did not motivate any part of the community to revert to sheer physical force to change this distribution.

“As human communities grew, so did their use of tools and development of more advanced tools such as metal tools and weapons, bows and arrows, and later both gunpowder and flintlock firearms. Such tools as technological developments had the effect of expanding civilizations and disrupting the distribution of power within societies. … Certain technological developments, like railroads or radio, allowed certain individuals to aggregate power or allowed the distribution of communications across communities that challenged the distribution of power. For some civilizations, these technologies helped highlight discrimination against groups of humans in societies and prompt civil rights laws. The same technologies however also allowed a mob mentality that failed to uplift humanity in ways that were intended, such as Nazi Germany’s use of ‘People’s Radio’ sets leading up to and during World War II that created dangerous echo chambers of thought during that dangerous time period.”

Mutale Nkonde , adviser on artificial intelligence, Data & Society, and fellow, Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society, “Technology alone is a tool. The inability for algorithmic-driven tools to understand the social context means they do not have the capacity to drive civic innovation without significant human intervention.”

Jeanne Dietsch , a New Hampshire state senator and pioneer innovator of affordable robotics, wrote, “Technological innovation creates tools that are used to achieve the ends of those who create and/or can access it. The values of those people, the relative power of people seeking democracy vs. oligarchy, will determine how technology is used. This question asks us to make political and economic projections. I do not believe that anyone can accurately do that. We are in the midst of a chaotic equation and the butterfly effect may determine the outcome.”

Robert Cannon , senior counsel for a major U.S. government agency and founder of Cybertelecom, a not-for-profit educational project focused on internet law and policy, said, “I can observe, as I did previously, that people want to have scapegoats and will accuse technology of horrors – when in fact it is PEOPLE who have the need for the scapegoat – while the tech just marches on – and in fact has been very positive.”

Srinivasan Ramani , Internet Hall of Fame member and pioneer of the internet in India, wrote, “I do not believe that we can simplify the issues by asking if technology would be bad or good. The horrors perpetrated upon millions of people in the name of a science, ‘eugenics’ for furthering social objectives is very well documented. The good or bad is not in technology. It is in us.”

Marius Oosthuizen , board member for the Association of Professional Futurists, Johannesburg, South Africa, observed, “Technology is value-neutral. However, in the adoption or implementation of technology, enormous value assumptions and value judgements are made. These are then entrenched and systematised, institutionalised and embedded in social norms over time. Technology will be curtailed, rolled back and counteracted with innovations that society finds unbearable or undesirable. This will take the form of peer-to-peer review systems, accountability and transparency systems, and the development of ‘ethical algorithms’ that seek to systematise societal values and norms, appropriate to particular communities. There will not be a one-size-fits-all solution, but rather enclaves of evolutionary and counter-evolutionary technology adaptation and adoption towards more socially desirable ends.”

[the Internet of Things]

John Leslie King , a professor of information science at the University of Michigan, wrote, “People know how to leverage communication technologies. Not surprisingly, they leverage them for their own ends. There will be surprises and what appear to be setbacks, but the net effect over time will be lots of experimentation that will affect things on the margin.”

Arthur Asa Berger , a professor emeritus of communications at San Francisco State University, responded, “Innovation is a two-edged sword: It can be used for negative purposes (new viruses, for example) or positive purposes (diagnose medical problems using smartphones.) The development of Twitter is now used as a propaganda tool by the president – a negative innovation as I see things. The internet can also be used to create flash mobs for protesters of the political order or champions of it. So, a good deal depends on the ingenuity of those using innovations for their own purposes.”

Andrew Lippman , senior research scientist and associate director at MIT’s Media Lab, wrote, “There are social reforms that would be good, such as changing Section 230 of the Communications Act that relieves ‘platform’ companies of responsibility for what is done on those fora. While the law might have been a good idea when it was passed, it needs updating and better application. If a company processes the information that is contributed or selectively distributes it, then they are not a simple platform, they are exerting editorial control. Also, there are technologies that can protect privacy and personal data if we choose to use them. We have not done so in the past, but one never knows. Working against this is the network effect – large companies such as Facebook have a potentially overwhelming advantage. Society may change its attitude toward that as well.”

Paul Lindner , a technologist who has worked for several leading innovative technology companies, commented, “Technology both harms and helps. To predict its outcome, we need to answer Shoshana Zuboff’s questions of ‘who knows, who decides and who decides who decides.’ If the answer for this is the citizenry then yes, technology can have a positive impact. If it’s a smaller set of actors, then technology will increasingly be used as a form of control. Andrew Feenberg states it well: ‘What human beings are and will become is decided in the shape of our tools no less than in the action of statesmen and political movements. The design of technology is thus an ontological decision fraught with political consequences. The exclusion of the vast majority from participation in this decision is profoundly undemocratic.’”

Lawrence Wilkinson , chairman at Heminge & Condell and founding president of Global Business Network, the pioneering scenario-planning futures group, predicted, “I expect a Hegelian dance between tech as a contributor/enabler of change and tech (and tech companies) as a preventer of change.”

Michael Pilos , chief marketing officer at FirePro, London, said, “I am betting on humans using the tools at their disposal in creative and (mostly) constructive ways. Surely some people can use the web to damage humanity and/or themselves, but 99.9% of humans use it to learn, love, share and communicate. I am bullish on humans and the logical learning curve!”

Kevin Gross , an independent technology consultant, commented, “Technology has the potential to assist social and civic innovation, but such innovation is often perceived as a threat to those that control the technology who will work to dampen such uses of their technology.”

Roger E.A. Farmer , research director for the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, London, professor of economics at the University of Warwick, and author of “Prosperity for All,” wrote, “Like all technologies, social media advances have the power to create great good but also great evil. The manipulation of the internet in China by the Chinese government is an example of the use of technology by an autocratic state to suppress individual freedoms. In the U.S. the technology is controlled not by the government, but by a small number of private individuals. Concentration of the ability to shape culture is a powerful tool that can shape the social fabric.”

I am betting on humans using the tools at their disposal in creative and (mostly) constructive ways. Michael Pilos

Frank Kaufmann , president of the Twelve Gates Foundation, responded, “All tools that support and enhance natural human capacities and human qualities can do no other than enhance the chance for improvement. The dangers lie in unethical, impoverished tech geniuses with no sound basis for the power their capacities afford, and subsequently, the lack of ethics then gets replicated in tech structures. Protection against these real dangers cannot come purely from tech but can be enhanced by using tech constructively.”

Glenn Grossman , a consultant of banking analytics at FICO, observed, “Technology is a tool. People will harness it for needs. I can see contributions to improve our social norms along with possible harmful actions. Look what China is doing with its social norms score. I don’t agree, but technology is looking to help them with this score. It can also lead to changes like a revolution if the score is used improperly.”

Predrag Tosic , a researcher of multi-agent systems and artificial intelligence and faculty at Whitworth University, said, “There is already a fairly broad consensus that rapid rise of genetics, AI and other technologies raises new complex ethical and other challenges, which require broad debate over new social norms, laws and regulations. Example: If a self-driving car kills a pedestrian, who is to be held accountable? I expect public debate, and then new legislation and the rise of new social norms to mature and progress along those lines. A major concern: Technology and its multifaceted impact on our lives are traveling at a much faster pace in recent decades than the response by policymakers and legislatures. Again, broad public awareness and debate of emerging moral, legal and other issues are the key.”

Puruesh Chaudhary , a futurist based in Pakistan, said, “Communities of interest are more likely to benefit from social and civic innovation. The scale, however, will only be possible if there’s significant national consciousness around the interest. These interests as we’ve seen evolve are mostly around different cultures, traditions, beliefs and norms.”

Daniel Rogers , expert on disinformation and co-founder, Global Disinformation Initiative, wrote, “The problems catalyzing ‘techlash’ won’t be solved by technology. Perhaps there will be places where technology will help, or be used to implement solutions, but fundamentally these problems will be solved by policy, diplomacy and civil society interventions. I remain cautiously optimistic that human resiliency will prevail before these problems destroy our ability to solve them, but only time will tell for sure. Some examples of the kind of interventions we could hope for would be strong privacy regulation at the federal level, antitrust actions against large tech platform players, strong diplomatic interventions in the areas of cybersecurity and counter-disinformation, and civil society interventions within the tech community around issues such as content moderation and platform governance standards.”

Regulation could play a key role in determining tech’s effects

Several experts suggest that regulation of tech and tech companies will play a significant role in determining technology’s effects.

Warren Yoder , longtime director of the Public Policy Center of Mississippi, now an executive coach, responded, “In the West the GAAF platform monopolies (Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook – Netflix is no longer in the list) have grown to a size they are stifling innovation without adding significant social value. But the EU and U.S. governments are finally addressing the issue. While it is too soon to be certain, I expect action to breakup or regulate them to have a positive effect, allowing new social and civic innovation.”

Michael Muller , a researcher for a top global technology company focused on human aspects of data science and ethics and values in applications of artificial intelligence, said, “I hope that the democracies can develop a major tech effort to identify malicious tech activity and to counter that malicious tech activity swiftly and effectively. Of course, I would prefer to see this done as an international effort – perhaps as a form of mutual defense, like NATO or the UN. I suspect that it will require separate funding and governance bodies in the U.S., EU and probably the UK, as well as the struggling Asian democracies and of course Australia and New Zealand. Perhaps these regional efforts can nonetheless meet and exchange innovations through an international body. ‘A harm to one is a harm to all.’”

Kenneth R. Fleischmann , an associate professor at the School of Information at the University of Texas, Austin, wrote, “We will have to find ways to regulate social media use; they will need to build trade associations to self-regulate, or else governments will need to step in. Individuals may not need to respect laws and boundaries, but companies do need to be based somewhere, and if they do not comply, countries can block them. Given the complex and contentious nature of ‘truth,’ however, it will be easy to portray regulation as biased censorship; thus, provenance will be key, and the key thing will not be to determine the ‘truth’ of content, but instead the authentic identities of those who post the content.”

James Gannon , a cybersecurity and internet governance expert based in Europe, said, “I think that in 2030 the journey will still be ongoing, as defined in the Tunis Agreement laws apply online as well as offline. However, this is an untenable position for governments to take in the modern era, where the internet is borderless (I do not believe there will be a Balkanisation of the internet or fragmentation of it). NGOs and civil Society have yet to come up with a common position to move forward on these strategic-level topics. I think that progress on tactical issues will drive society to more common positions and thus over the next decade progress will be made.”

Emmanuel Edet , a legal adviser at the National Information Technology Development Agency, Nigeria, wrote, “I think the social norms for the use of the internet and other technology will improve basically because of the human need to survive. It will come through consensus building and government exercising its primary role of citizen protection.”

Sharon Sputz , executive director of strategic programs at the Columbia University Data Science Institute, responded, “New laws and policies will be needed to protect citizens from the misuse of technology. One example is around ensuring the use of machine learning systems do not have bias or unfair outcomes.”

James Hochschwender , futurist and consultant with Expansion Consulting, said, “Some success in social and civic innovation will be achieved by 2030, but that success will require legislation and enforcement thereof to protect citizens rights over transparent data sharing with full rights to opt out of the same, as is being done in Europe already to a much greater degree than in the U.S. Also, it will require two other things in order to be positive innovation: 1) the elimination of digital monopoly and oligarchies through application of effective antitrust legislation; 2) a massive effort to educate inclusively the entire population about positive and negative uses of the internet and 5G technologies and corresponding digital tools. And finally, social and civic innovation will require substantial reduction of corporate and deep-pockets lobbying that has excessive influence of legislative branches of government.”

However, some experts are concerned about what regulation might look like and if it will be a step in the right direction.

Bill Dutton , a professor of media and information policy at Michigan State University, said, “The focus on harms noted in your questions are one aspect of a growing dystopian perspective on the internet that is essentially top led, and not driven by users of the internet as much as by the press, politicians and academia. Unfortunately, the focus on potential harms will foster a great deal of inappropriate regulatory responses that will slow technological and social innovation in significant ways.”

Clifford Lynch , director of the Coalition for Networked Information, commented, “I believe (or at least hope) that over the next decade we will see a number of efforts – regulatory, legislative, legal, and in evolving social norms – that attempt to deal with at least some of the problems of the current networked digital environment. These problems are hard, and right now we don’t really know what the right solutions are in most cases. We have train wrecks like GDPR and the ‘right to be forgotten’ in Europe, for example; well-intentioned but horribly flawed. One very fruitful approach is to move away from regulating data collection towards punishing bad uses of data. It’s also important to note that while you can regulate relatively ‘good’ actors (for example, most commercial entities), when we are dealing with adversarial or criminal behaviors (for example information warfare campaigns) this is not going to be very effective. And you’ll see a technology arms race that at least currently seems very asymmetric, with advantage to the aggressors rather than the defenders.”

[National Security Agency]

Jean Russell , co-director at Commons Engine, focused on building tools and capacity for a commons-based economy, wrote, “I hope regulation becomes a last resort, but yes, I do think we will continue forming coalitions/unions/cooperatives for human dignity for our digital world. I also believe we are growing the awareness and tools to better assert rights for privacy, dignity and freedom.”

Social and civic innovations, including changes in norms, may be key in shaping technology

While this study posed to experts the question of how humans’ uses of technology will influence innovation, several of the experts in this canvassing suggested that the process moves in the other direction: that is, innovation influences technology. They said future innovations will include tools made in reaction to social and civic needs and in response to the problems caused by people’s current uses of digital technologies.

Ibon Zugasti , futurist, strategist and director at Prospektiker, wrote, “Social innovation platforms will contribute to faster and better technology development.”

Nick Tredennick , an engineer, technology innovator and administrator, vice president of Jonetix Corporation, commented, “Social and cultural norms that have developed over the centuries are the framework with which technological progress operates. It’s the difference between the carrier and the signal. Social and cultural norms are the carrier and technology progress is the signal; they should not be mixed.”

Stephan G. Humer , a lecturer expert in digital life at Hochschule Fresenius University of Applied Sciences, Berlin, commented, “The ingenuity and creativity of unexpected actors has always been stronger than the unintended side effects of technical development. I see no sign that the negative aspects will prevail in the case of digitisation. So far, the internet has brought more positive than negative aspects, and this has come mainly from inspired users and improved institutions.”

James Sigaru Wahu , an assistant professor of media, culture and communication at New York University and fellow at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center, wrote, “Most people still place technology use at the center of the conversation. This is evidenced in the framing of the question. The issue shouldn’t be whether tech use will hamper social and civic innovation but rather how social and civic innovation will curtail overreliance on technology while democratizing and unbiasing technologies and their use.”

A postdoctoral scholar studying the relationship between governance, public policy and computer systems said, “Technology is constituted of society, reflecting the needs and prevailing ideas present during its development. It also creates needs for social and civic innovation, which create needs for technological innovation in a virtuous cycle. Society creates tools which solve perceived problems and then adapts around those tools to make them useful as perceptions of the true problems change and mature. There is a lag between when the technologies are created and brought into the world and when new norms are developed and broadly understood enough to gain normative force. For example, as the ability to circulate information has been democratized, the monopoly of journalists on creating broadly disseminated media has broken, giving way to a world where everyone can create on an equal footing. But this has caused a breakdown in the norms around information dissemination: In the past, journalists would attempt to convey the truth, even if that effort had a particular political or social bent or bias. Today, anyone can disseminate any information, true or not. As a result, those used to truth in journalistic products can be surprised by ‘fake news’ – misleading information dressed in the trappings of traditional journalism. However, those who understand the fluidity of new media also understand that there is a higher burden placed on speakers for establishing the veracity of their claims, and also understand how to cross-check those claims with the world as understood or with other tools such as search engines or social validation. Risks balance benefits here, too.”

Technology could be used as a tool for good

These experts shared many ideas as to how technology will or should be used for the betterment of humanity, from improving education to enhancing people’s social lives. Some emphasized the need to do a better job of harnessing technology for good, expressing concern that the alternative is unthinkable.

Mike Roberts , Internet Hall of Fame member and pioneer CEO of ICANN, confidently predicted, “We are in a technology-fueled Age of Innovation. ‘Technology got us into this mess and technology will get us out of it.’”

Engaged citizens and residents can use social media tools to gather support, promote causes and point out problems. Ben Shneiderman

John Battelle , co-founder and CEO of Recount Media and editor-in-chief and CEO, NewCo, commented, “Technology is how we communicate. So, if we are to make any progress, we’ll use technology. And I’m an optimist, so while my response in a previous survey question as to the likely near-future of democracy equivocated, the lens of history will mark the next 10 years as fundamental to overall progress across a historical timeframe.”

Ben Shneiderman , a distinguished professor of computer science and founder of the Human Computer Interaction Lab at the University of Maryland, said, “Social and civic innovation through community, consumer, business and other grassroots organizations will emerge, even as platform owners and government agencies make related efforts to control and regulate malicious actors. Additional sources of innovation could be professional societies, academic researchers, journalists and community leaders. Engaged citizens and residents can use social media tools to gather support, promote causes and point out problems. I see many opportunities for improvement.”

Bryan Alexander , a futurist and consultant at the intersection of technology and learning, wrote, “Technology remains a tool for social organization and it will keep playing that role as we organize flash mobs through mixed reality and hack AIs to plan demonstrations. The techlash can go in a variety of directions, including an anti-AI movement a la Frank Herbert’s ‘ Dune .’ But the digital world has progressed too far for most to withdraw completely. Few are willing to go full Unabomber. Instead, people will loudly retreat from one digital platform and move to another or write about how much they despise Silicon Valley on a shiny new iPad or show their fine handwritten letter over Instagram.”

Michael R. Nelson , senior fellow and director of Technology and International Affairs program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, commented, “Digital technologies are empowering local and state governments with tools and information that previously were only available to large national government agencies and offices. In many countries, that has meant that the number of employees working for national governments has shrunk as programs previously run by national governments are put under the control of institutions that are closer to the citizen. In some cases, functions that were previously run by governments are being run by private companies. In some cases, decentralization and privatization has made room for more experimentation and innovation, lower costs and more customized services for citizens. Local and state governments are sharing best practices and lesson learned – often using online collaboration tools and video conferencing.”

Jeff Jarvis , Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at City University of New York, wrote, “It would be a mistake to connect all these questions to internet technology alone, both because technological determinism would be misplaced and because there are so many other factors at work (and because predictions are meaningless). The question, again, is not about technology’s impact on people but on people’s use of technology. Will we be able to come together as social and political entities to negotiate reversal of climate change, retraining of the workforce facing change, reducing the anxiety we put especially your children through and so on? Those are nearly eternal questions. The internet is just one new factor in a complex mess of considerations.”

Adam Powell , senior fellow at the USC Annenberg Center on Communication Leadership and Policy, wrote, “Historically we have mastered technologies – gunpowder, nuclear – so I am optimistic we can do this, too. Yes, I believe innovation can make significant positive changes – except for the industry itself, because there is so little incentive to do so. Maybe DuckDuckGo and Firefox can show the way.”

Matt Larsen , CEO at Vistabeam, said, “I am hopeful that technology can help some groups find more common ground. It will be a difficult challenge to overcome many of the potential negative issues, but there is a lot of potential process improvement for social and civic groups that utilize technology.”

Alan Inouye , senior director of public policy and government, American Library Association, said, “Today, there are nearly infinite opportunities to provide input – if you only have the time. I foresee a time when we’ll have agents (use of artificial intelligence technology) that provide this input or make requests on our behalf. You’re having a discussion with your travel partner and you are queried about a comment to Trip Advisor. You say yes and it is generated automatically. Ditto if you are discussing the state of STEM learning and you are advised that senator has a bill – would you care to send a comment to her office? If you reply yes, it is done automatically on your behalf. The next level agent takes these actions automatically based on your preferences.”

[internet and communications technology]

Janet Salmons , a consultant with Vision2Lead, said, “I hope that the more that people come to rely on technology, the more they will see the need for parameters and improved practices. These could include social norms as well as policies and regulations. I also hope that the more that people understand what technology can and can’t do they will make decisions about its place in their lives. For example, electronic communication is valuable when we’re apart but does not replace the human touch or the nonverbal communications needed at significant life moments. Will social norms move away from the practice of staring at a screen to read a post from someone, somewhere, while ignoring the actual person whose eyes might convey a more meaningful message? Electronic voting might seem like a cool idea until we see how unregulated use of these tools allows for vulnerabilities that make our votes meaningless. Will people insist on mechanisms that make democracy more viable or let big corporations, special interests, anarchists or foreign entities decide who runs the country? Will people insist on some right to protection of private data or let companies buy and sell every digital footprint? I hope for social and civic innovations that celebrate and balance the best of both worlds, technologic and human. Education, health care, the workplace benefit from flexibility and access to information offered by technologies but are inadequate without human interaction. Access to unlimited information is only helpful when we have the ability to make meaning. I feel that attention to digital literacy is critical to innovations that will be positive for social and civic life in democracies.”

Gary L. Kreps , a distinguished professor of communication and director of the Center for Health and Risk Communication at George Mason University, wrote, “Open access to relevant information will inevitably spur social innovations and public collaborations. The ongoing evolution of new and powerful channels for digital communication will provide increased opportunities for information sharing and creative development of new and relevant social applications.”

Joshua New , senior policy analyst for the Center for Data Innovation at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, predicted, “Connected and data-driven technologies can dramatically reduce barriers to social and civic innovation, such as challenges related to accessing human capital, network building, fundraising and advocacy. One particularly likely result of this will be the creation of significantly more decentralized social and civic innovations. Whereas the social and civic innovations of the past have relied on local communities, technology can allow for the connection of people with similar needs across local, state and even national boundaries.”

Matt Belge , founder and president of Vision and Logic, said, “Digital tools such as Facebook, email, websites and sharing sites are easy for the average person to access and use to organize others. They are much easier to use and access than previous-generation tools such as printing presses and television stations. For this reason, I expect that small groups with limited funds will have better access to organizing themselves than in previous generations. The downside is that these same tools can be manipulated by wealthy corporations and individuals as well as governments. We’ve already seen examples of that in the 2016 U.S. elections, when foreign, well-funded trolls attempted, and to some extent succeeded, in manipulating points of view. However, on the whole, the masses now have more access to tools that help them organize and get their ideas out than they have ever had in the past. For this reason, I am cautiously optimistic about the future of democracy, although it is being severely tested at the time when I write these words.”

Gina Glantz , political strategist and founder of GenderAvenger, commented, “Digital communication, decision-making and technological innovation will have been an everyday experience virtually since birth for emerging leaders. Social innovation that allows technology to create human bonds and community action – begun by dating apps and the emergence of social-change organizations such as Indivisible – are bound to grow. Despite all the pitfalls accompanying issues of privacy and detrimental outside interference, the development of tools that create opportunities for the exchange of intergenerational experiences and the exposure and discussion of competing ideas is essential. There is no stopping technology. It must be harnessed for good.”

Jon Lebkowsky , CEO, founder and digital strategist at Polycot Associates, wrote, “Pessimism here is not an option: We have to leverage the aspects of technology that will support social and civic innovation and suppress the detrimental aspects that have emerged recently. One question: Who is the ‘we’ that will take effective action, and what actions might we take? Regulation is not enough: We must encourage broad and popular commitment to innovation and civic values. A first step to doing this is to overcome the noise and distraction promulgated by social media as a market for attention.”

There is no stopping technology. It must be harnessed for good. Gina Glantz

Gary Arlen, president of Arlen Communications, said, “BOTH options are likely. Tech will be used BOTH to encourage and to attack civic/social innovation. Cryptocurrency is one example, as we move beyond the cash/credit system. Despite its supposed protections, crypto will be hacked in some way, and some people will suffer, if only from inability to use/understand the tech. Yet, its ultimate value – as well as the entire blockchain infrastructure – will prove very valuable for all kinds of secure transactions. I expect the march of tech will NOT be positive for many individuals.”

Amy Sample Ward , a director with the Nonprofit Technology Network, said, “Innovations are a response to a challenge, and we face many social and civil challenges now and will in the years to come. Interestingly, some of those challenges are the current technologies themselves. The internet in general, smartphones, applications are all tools that could fuel new ideas, and likely new technologies.”

Marc Brenman , managing partner of IDARE LLC, said, “Technology will influence social and civic innovation in both good and bad ways. We cannot predict what those new technologies will be. Perhaps science fiction writers can. We can extrapolate current developments. One technological development affects another; for example, climate change, global warming and ocean rise create the need for new technologies. But we may not be able to ‘technologize’ our way out of these problems. … The only improvements in the human condition that I see as a result of technology involve health. People will become more bionic. Genetic engineering will increase. Diagnosis will improve. Privacy will continue to erode.”

Shannon Ellis , an expert in data science and teaching professor, at the University of California, San Diego, said, “Note that the internet can remain free while data, information and systems can be regulated. There is space for both. I see the most potential for positive changes in social and civic innovation in the protection of individual privacy when it comes to their data. I look to the right to be forgotten and the ability to know where one’s data is being shared as critical in this space. As for social media and mental and physical health in this space, I think a lot still remains to be seen to see if there will be a positive outcome here.”

Peter Lunenfeld , professor of design, media arts and digital humanities at the University of California, Los Angeles, and author of “Tales of the Computer as Culture Machine,” wrote, “We will use technology to solve the problems the use of technology creates, but the new fixes will bring new issues. Every design solution creates a new design problem, and so it is with the ways we have built our global networks. Highly technological societies have to be iterative if they hope to compete, and I think that societies that have experienced democracy will move to curb the slide to authoritarianism that social media has accelerated. Those curbs will bring about their own unintended consequences, however, which will start the cycle anew.”

Matt Colborn , a freelance writer and futurist based in Europe, said, “Technology will BOTH contribute and prevent social and civic innovation. The main issue is that I think constant tech use is addling people’s brains, destroying attention spans and preventing critical thought. I’ve seen a number of instances where critical thought seems to drop to zero on the internet. One problem is that in virtual space, reality falls away, and only opinion is real. The potential for civic innovation is significant, but only if tech is seen as a facilitator and not the be all and end all. Actually, the main innovations shouldn’t be in technology (we’re awash with those) but in the social, economic and political spheres. Brian Martin has suggested a social experiment, with comparable funding to technology, where new political, social arrangements are tested small scale and scaled up. New tech could help facilitate this in an ancillary role. … One this is done, it will be more obvious where tech innovation will help, not the other way round.”

Technology can be used as a tool for ill purpose

Many of these experts describe how technology can be harnessed for malicious purposes. From damage caused by anonymous bad actors online to the market-driven systems built by powerful companies , these experts warn that many current uses of tech can be harmful.

The overriding emphasis on attention, money and control makes social and civic innovation difficult. Deana A. Rohlinger

Kenneth A. Grady , an adjunct professor and affiliate of the Center for Legal Innovation at the Michigan State University, commented, “The Industrial Age was fundamentally different from the Information Age in at least one key respect that affects how social and civic innovation will proceed: data. Today, those who have abundant data are positioned to influence social and civic innovation in ways that were not possible during the Industrial Age. Through tools such as targeted social media, gerrymandering, lobbying and PACs, those who hold the data can do far more to control the outcome of change efforts than their peers could 100 years ago. In some ways, this comes down to trust – citizens do not know who to trust for information. Those who have superior tools to influence that trust can do more to affect social and civic innovation.”

Deana A. Rohlinger , a professor of sociology at Florida State University whose expertise is political participation and politics, said, “It is possible that technology could contribute to social and civic innovation, but I am not terribly optimistic because of the tendency to monetize attention and the ability of stakeholders to cloak their identities in virtual spaces. First, social and civic change is less about involving people in causes and connecting them to one another in meaningful ways and more about getting attention (and funds) for initiatives and causes. This shift means that community roots are not very deep, and, ultimately, we need people and technology working together to affect change. Second, not all social and civic efforts are designed to help people. Astroturf groups such as Working Families for Walmart intentionally work against innovation and corporate change. In recent years, astroturf groups have increasingly attached themselves to legitimate organizations in an effort to maintain control over virtual spaces (e.g., telecom companies giving money to civic groups and asking them to oppose net neutrality in return). The overriding emphasis on attention, money and control makes social and civic innovation difficult.”

J.A. English-Lueck , a distinguished fellow at the Institute for the Future, co-founder of the Silicon Valley Cultures Project, observed, “Social movements are the most impactful of the mechanisms for cultural change, and communication’s technologies can accelerate such movements’ ability to gather members. New technologies that enhance immersion and empathy, such as artificial reality and virtual reality, are particularly powerful. It is important to remember that social movements that foment change do not all head in the same direction. For example, civil rights activists and white supremacists coexist and represent radically different perspectives on the dilemma of multicultural America. The dark side of the change-fomenting technologies is the fragmentation that will unfold as different communities deepen their commitment to a particular form of change and the distances between communities broaden.”

Marshall Ganz , senior lecturer in public policy at Harvard University, said, “The options in this question are constructed very problematically. Innovation and improvement are not the same things. Many ‘innovations’ have done far more social damage – in the short run and in the long run – because of the weakness in our moral and political capacity to turn these innovations to constructive social purpose. So, of course, there will be innovation. Whether it turns out to be positive or negative depends in large part on who hold the power to make choices about its use and how wise those choices are. We have to look at the power question in order to evaluate possibilities.”

Forget the tool and focus on the root cause of change; human nature is shaping the future

Many of these experts say that change is coming but technology use is not the thing to watch. Technology may be used while the change is unfolding or by activists who want to produce it, but technology is not the root cause of the change. From political shifts to climate change, the experts in this canvassing suggest many tumultuous areas that will play a role in the changes that will occur in the coming decade. In many cases, these experts assert that human element will be essential in deciding the type of change these noteworthy areas will produce.

danah boyd , principal researcher at Microsoft Research and founder of Data & Society, wrote, “Technology will be used by those who are thoughtful about social innovation, but it won’t actually serve as the driving factor. When we talk about the opportunities for social innovation, we have to culturally contextualize ourselves. I’m going to start with the U.S.: Technology in the U.S. is caught up in American late-stage (or financialized) capitalism where profitability isn’t the goal; perpetual return on investment is. Given this, the tools that we’re seeing developed by corporations reinforce capitalist agendas. Innovation will require pushing past this capitalist infrastructure to achieve the social benefits and civic innovation that will work in the United States. China is a whole other ball of wax.”

Serge Marelli , an IT professional based in Luxembourg who works on and with the net, wrote “Technology is just a tool. Technology will not ‘create’ any (magical) solution to mitigate misuse of the same technology. Compare this with our miserable failure to mitigate the effects of pollution and global warming. We know what is necessary, but we humans as a group find ourselves unable to effect change. We are facing the powers of huge companies and lobbies who are looking for short-term economic rentability (growth) whereas Humanity and politics should look for long-term sustainability. We could use technology and the rule of law to reduce the negative influence of technology, or of companies or of lobbies. We haven’t done it in the past 30 years – how and why should we suddenly change this? (Even though I believe such a change is more than necessary, our survival, survival of our societies and of our civilisation depend on such a change.)”

Barry Parr , technology marketer at Delphix, previously an innovator and analyst in online journalism, commented, “Civic and social innovation depends on spheres that are less influenced by technology and more by people and money: health care, social insurance, increased democracy, accountability, antitrust.”

Richard Lachmann , professor of political sociology at the State University of New York, Albany, said, “So far the internet and other technologies have had a marginal effect or at best reinforced existing developments. Journalistic coverage for the Arab Spring, for example, way underplayed the role of the Muslim Brotherhood or labor unions and instead gave an exaggerated heroic role to Twitter or to a single Google employee in Egypt. We now see, thanks to the work of real Middle Eastern specialists, that these early stories were misleading and, as much U.S. journalism does, strained to give pride of place to American individuals, corporations or technology. Real social and civic innovation comes from real social interactions between live individuals who create or revive organizations such as political parties, unions, churches and social movements.”

Sanoussi Baahe Dadde , a self-employed internet consultant, observed, “We must understand that as the population of the world grows we are getting better scientists, young leaders with the motivation to enact lasting development, creative people and so many wonderful things. … So I think there is success in social and civic innovation.”

Real social and civic innovation comes from real social interactions between live individuals who create or revive organizations such as political parties, unions, churches and social movements. Richard Lachmann

Dick Hardt , an entrepreneur and speaker on digital life and politics, said, “Some technologies will have a positive impact on social and civic innovation. Other technologies will have a negative impact. In the end, the technology will not be a major factor in social and civic innovation. New thinking and observations will be the major factor in social and civic innovation.”

Richard Jones, an entrepreneur based in Europe, said, “Today’s adults have to embrace responsibility for things with ramifications beyond their understanding or control. Insurance was a concept developed to address changes at one time faced on new investment and activity as was clean air legislation. It seems similar innovation is required to address the vulnerability of people to issues beyond their control. I wish I had a crystal ball! I know subject/citizen pressure will call for platforms to fix bias, propaganda, lies and a whole range of perceived problems. Currently I’m concerned this constrains free speech and thereby makes ‘approved think’ troubling. The whole edifice is built on shaky foundations so whether the pressure resolves itself positively is just my stab at whether it’ll be resolved or fail.”

Sam Punnett, futurist and consultant at FAD Research, said, “I don’t believe technology use through social and civic innovation will ‘significantly’ reduce challenges of the digital age. I believe it will address some problems and create others. Digital affairs will continue to be a disruptive force. Credibility of media, disruption of financial business in banking and insurance, cyber and ransom attacks of institutions, all will continue to challenge society’s capacity to adapt. Our ability to deal with digital age problems should improve with an evolution in leadership away from pre-internet incumbents. While it is difficult to be optimistic, I am compelled to be so. There is quite a gap in social and civic innovation between my own country, Canada and the United States. In my opinion the U.S. has regressed with its current administration and failed to keep up with the rest of the developed world during previous administrations in the areas of social and civic innovation. The problem is political, centering around vision and leadership. Having grown up in the U.S. I have confidence that America can change course.”

Prepare for changes in democracy

Some respondents to this canvassing believe a tipping point is at hand in government and civic behavior. They said the realities of 2030 will be determined by the changes that emerge from this tipping point.

Kevin Carson , an independent scholar on issues of post-capitalist and post-state transition, wrote, “Once we experience a leftward demographic tipping point we’ll be well underway into a decades-long post-capitalist and post-carbon transition. Relatively near-term reforms might include universal basic income, modern monetary theory and a rollback of the kind of maximalist ‘intellectual property’ legislation that is at the core of most economic rent extraction by corporations. I also expect the proliferating municipalist experiments in Barcelona, Madrid, Bologna, Preston, Jackson, etc., and the commons-based local economic models they are developing (land trusts, stakeholder cooperative utilities and services, etc.) to be the most significant seeds that the successor society will grow from. Governments will become more platform-like on the partner state model.”

Tony Patt , a professor of climate policy at ETH Zurich and author of “Transforming Energy: Solving Climate Change with Technology Policy,” said, “We are emerging from a period of several decades dominated by neoliberal political beliefs during which it was assumed that the private sector – firms motivated primarily by profits – would make the critical decisions for the organization of society and the meeting of human wants and needs. This was not a good time for social and civic innovation, which is about leadership coming from other types of human organisations: public agencies steered by democratic governance and nonprofit organisations steered by a desire for social development and justice. We are reawakening to the need for these two latter sets of institutions to play a critical role in shaping society. As we wake up, I believe we will realize that it has been a mistake to leave the management of data – including social-networking data – to the for-profit private sector, and that leaving it to the private sector can create sharp divides in society. In previous generations we created institutions like public libraries, public and nonprofit schools and universities, even postal services, to manage the information and data of the data in a manner that met other societal objectives. These will be a model for the future. I haven’t thought hard about what the institutions will look like.”

Jerry Michalski , founder of REX, the Relationship Economy eXpedition, wrote, “Useful civic technology already exists in programs like Taiwan’s pol.is , the Enspiral Network’s Loomio and OpenPlans . The problem is that these solutions are nascent and not yet contagious. Just as LinkedIn ate the modern resume and Facebook ate our social lives, what if a new platform became more credible than voting? We don’t need better voting every four years; we need credible, distributed, ongoing collaboration among citizens.”

Knowledge of issues is needed to form solutions

Two experts expect that greater emphasis will be placed in better identifying the most vital issues and then informing people of these issues. These experts emphasize a growing focus on discussions and connections. Others are not sure, though, that this type of change will come soon.

Paul Jones , founder and director of ibiblio and a professor of information science at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, wrote, “Identifying problems and challenges is the first step toward solutions to those problems. We will require and acquire a consensus as to management of the data and tools that can bind us and serve us. One thing that has become quickly obvious is that as we continue the irregular and rocky path to becoming truly global, common problems and best practice solutions – while somewhat local – will be part of our discussions. … Relatives and friends half a world away connect us to a more global sense. Not just in the case of disasters or riots, but in the mundane ways our lives are enriched through recipes, entertainments, sports and the urge to travel. People knowing people and in communication with people creates greater communities. Not perfect communities, but overall more connections and commonalities. Expect more global movements and more local movements connected globally.”

Bebo White , internet pioneer and longtime leader of the International World Wide Web conference, wrote, “Relief must come in order for much of the using population to retain faith in the value of the technology. It would be very hard for a general user population to differentiate which technological tools can be trusted and which not. For example, for a general, nontechnical user, why should they trust Wikipedia and not trust Facebook?”

Amali De Silva-Mitchell , a futurist and consultant participating in multi-stakeholder, global internet governance processes, commented, “Social innovation that is effective for social change is critical. However, it is possible there may be a lot of money spent on talk but no action. Talk, however, is essential to have even the minimal foundation for social innovation. It will be worrying if there is no real impact of the majority of voices which are listened to through data collections but brushed over by civil society going after safe funding and by elected officials not seeing a future vision and working only in the present. We require real champions for advocating issues and carrying them to term who will have freedom of expression and no brush over. We have to take care of quick and major shifts due to populism by all parties in the absence of good risk-management practices being upheld or glossed over. Too much of broad-brush stroke policy can also be an issue.”

Climate change is a pressing threat that will shape society

Several experts spoke to how climate change will factor into social and civic innovation in the coming decade.

Tim Bray , a technology leader who has worked for Amazon, Google and Sun Microsystems, wrote, “If we are to survive the incoming environmental devastation, we will be forced willy-nilly to bring all our human capabilities to bear on what amounts to a war footing. Imminent existential threats tend to sweep mercenary self-interests aside and focus the mind on making the best use of the tools available to us, obviously including internet-based social and civic technologies. Among other things, the malignant technology choices that have helped get us into this mess should have become thoroughly discredited.”

We will see tools for collective action at both global and local scales; tools for sharing information and resources, for fact-checking and rooting out malicious actors. Daniel Estrada

Barbara Simons , past president of the Association for Computing Machinery, commented, “The bottom line is that climate change will dominate everything else. I would hope that people will finally start addressing climate change as the enormous threat that it is, but it’s hard to keep up hope with all that is happening today.”

Daniel Estrada , a digital humanities and ethics lecturer at New Jersey Institute of Technology, said, “A changing environment, in the form of mass migration, food and water shortages and other health and governance emergencies, will impose a demand for social and civic change. These emergencies will require people to organize networks of support online. We will see tools for collective action at both global and local scales; tools for sharing information and resources, for fact-checking and rooting out malicious actors. We will also see increasing use of AI technologies, both as tools of oppression and as tools to resist digital oppression. The new laws banning facial-recognition technologies and requiring bot disclosure give some hints of the legal and political landscape to come.”

Denise N. Rall , an academic researcher of popular culture at Southern Cross University, New South Wales, Australia, predicted, “Social and civic innovation will be held hostage to environmental degradation and the global scramble among the economic powers to secure scarcer and scarcer resources.”

Social changes in the technology industry are looming

Several experts see change beginning to occur within tech companies. They expect that, depending upon the real-world results of these turning points, wider-reaching changes may occur.

Loren DeJonge Schulman , deputy director of studies and senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, previously senior adviser to national security adviser Susan Rice, said, “As technology companies grow in size, we should expect to see social movements WITHIN companies have increasing effect (e.g., the anti-war/anti-military backlash against Project Maven ), not only within companies themselves but externally. This path is fraught with potential upsides and downsides, but the political norms and values of tech workers will begin to have as much sway as, for example, Texas textbooks do in shaping American society.”

Tom Dietterich , director of intelligent systems at Oregon State University, commented, “I predict that the service providers on ‘sharing’ platforms, such as Uber, Lyft, Airbnb, etc., will form ‘digital unions’ (or similar organizations) and that, with the help of legislation and regulation, they will level the playing field between the companies and the service providers. We are already seeing some digital-enabled strikes (Lyft drivers organizing via social media). This will promote a negotiation over the prices that the companies are charging. An interesting question is how the customers (riders on Uber, renters on Airbnb) will be engaged. Will they support these job actions? I suspect they will, because they have more direct contact with the service providers than they do with the companies. In the policy space, we are already seeing the crowdsourcing of data collection in cities. I predict we will also see the crowdsourcing of data analysis and auditing to support policymaking and policy execution. We will need to empower the public to audit the automated decision-making processes of government and corporations. Social media platforms will need to change to reduce the risk of ‘cognitive infections’ that spread misinformation. At this point, we need much more research to develop policy ideas and counter measures. I think we should treat this from a public health perspective.”

Marcus Foth , a professor of urban informatics at Queensland University of Technology, said, “People usually do not put up with societal issues and challenges and in turn seek to address such challenges. There is emerging evidence that the planetary health, climate emergency and societal challenges we are facing today are contributing to the rise of social and civic innovation already. Examples I am thinking of include: A labour union for tech workers in Silicon Valley type of platform companies: https://techworkerscoalition.org . Blockchain technology for good: https://www.blockchainforgood.com . Privacy-by-design and autonomy-by-design policy responses to tech and data ethics challenges.”

Sasha Costanza-Chock , an associate professor of civic media at MIT, wrote, “On the bright side, there is a growing movement among technologists to rethink the ways we develop and deploy technology. Unfolding movements like #TechWontBuildIt are based on tech workers’ desire to hold their companies accountable for harmful activities. There is increasing interest in how to co-design technologies together with marginalized communities, as reflected in the emergence of groups like the Design Justice Network . Newer generations of technologists are deeply invested in how social justice values might be reflected in the companies and products they dedicate their time to.”

Evan Selinger , a professor of philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology, commented, “Tech worker movements are a promising form of resistance that seems to be picking up momentum. Not too long ago, it seemed reasonable to expect that a hyper-competitive labor market would have left tech workers too afraid to speak out and challenge management on ethical, legal, and political issues. When a key message of capitalism is that everyone is fundamentally replaceable, fear easily dominates the workforce and manifests in chilled speech and action. Fortunately, we’re seeing promising signs that conscience is not so easily suppressed and solidarity is achievable.”

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Trust, Facts & Democracy

Most Popular

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

Argumentative Essay

Argumentative Essay About Technology

Last updated on: Apr 25, 2024

Make Your Argumentative Essay About Technology Unbeatable: Examples and Tips

By: Barbara P.

15 min read

Reviewed By: Melisa C.

Published on: Mar 9, 2023

Are you feeling overwhelmed by the task of writing an argumentative essay about technology? Don't worry – you're not alone. 

Technology is a vast and rapidly evolving field, making it a challenging topic to tackle. But fear not!  With the right structure, examples, and tips, you'll be equipped to create a persuasive and captivating essay that will impress your readers.

In this blog, we're here to guide you through the process, providing you with engaging examples and essential guidelines. With our help, you'll be able to create an argument that is both persuasive and well-supported by evidence.

So read on and make sure your argumentative essay about technology is unbeatable! 

On this Page

How to Write an Argumentative Essay About Technology?

Now you know what argumentative essays about technology are and why they're important? 

Let's look at how to write a compelling argument. 

Pick a Title

The title of your essay should capture the attention of your reader and summarize the main points of your argument. 

Think carefully about how you want to frame your argument in order to create an effective title. It should be short and catchy, but also accurately reflect the main arguments or ideas in your essay. 

Form an Outline 

After deciding on a title for your essay, it’s important to form an outline of the key points and arguments you will make in each paragraph. This will help keep you organized during the writing process and ensure that all of your ideas are connected. 

Make sure there is good flow between each section so that readers can follow along easily. 

Here is an outline template for argumentative essay about technology:

Write an Introduction 

Your introduction is where you set up the context for your essay and explain what it is that you will be arguing throughout the rest of the text. 

Include relevant background information, as well as any interesting facts or anecdotes that could help engage readers from the beginning. 

Be sure to end with a thesis statement that clearly lays out which side you are taking in this debate and what evidence will be used to support it.

Write Body Paragraphs 

Your body paragraphs are where most of your research comes into play! 

Ensure these paragraphs contain detailed evidence from reliable sources that supports each point being made in each paragraph. 

Additionally, be sure to use transition words throughout these sections so that readers can follow along easily from one point to another.  

Write a Conclusion

Your conclusion should briefly outline the key points and evidence used throughout your paper. While reiterating why this particular topic is so important and relevant today. 

Your conclusion should leave readers with something thought-provoking! 

Perhaps something they hadn’t considered before rather than just summarizing everything they have already read in previous paragraphs.

Looking for guidance on crafting powerful arguments? Look no further than our argumentative essay guide! 

Check out this informative video to learn how to construct a persuasive argumentative essay!

Examples of Argumentative Essay About Technology

Now that you know how to write an argumentative essay about technology, let's look at some examples.

These examples will help you get a better understanding of the argumentative essay structure and what types of arguments you can make. 

Argumentative Essay About Advantages and Disadvantages of Technology

Let’s take a look:

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That's our Job!

Argumentative Essay On Technology And Society

Here is a short argumentative essay on technology and society: 

Example of a Research-Based Argumentative Essay About Technology

Argumentative essay examples are a great way to gain a better understanding of how technology is affecting our lives - both positively and negatively. 

To help illustrate this argument, this essay will look at the evidence for an argumentative essay about technology.

Here are some additional examples for you to get inspired!

Argumentative Essay About Technology And Social Media

Argumentative Essay About Technology In Education

Argumentative Essay About Technology A Friend Or A Foe

Argumentative Essay About Technology Make Us Alone

Is Technology Good Or Bad Argumentative Essay

5 Paragraph Argumentative Essay About Technology

If you're searching for the determination to create a persuasive essay, our blog of argumentative essay examples is just what you need!

Good Argumentative Essay About Technology Topics

When writing argumentative essays about technology, it's important to identify a topic that is relevant and argumentative.

The following are some good argumentative essay topics related to technology: 

• Will AI bring more benefits or risks to society?
• Is social media a positive or negative influence on society?
• How can individuals and organizations better protect themselves from cyber threats?
• Should individuals have more control over their personal data online?
• Will automation lead to mass unemployment or create new job opportunities?
• Is VR technology more beneficial for entertainment or educational purposes?
• Should governments have the authority to regulate and censor online content?
• What are the advantages and disadvantages of widespread 5G implementation?
• Is the use of biometric data for identification and security purposes ethical?
• How can technology be effectively integrated into classrooms to enhance learning outcomes?

Want to write an essay that will grab your readers' attention? Explore our blog for more thrilling argumentative essay topics !

Summarizing it all,  argumentative essay examples about technology can help to illustrate the argument for or against its use in our lives. By exploring various argumentative essay topics related to technology, you can gain a better understanding of the benefits and drawbacks of its use. 

So, take a look at the argumentative essay topics provided above and create your argumentative essay today! 

And if you are still seeking help with your argumentative essay, contact our essay writer today!

Our argumentative essay writer has the knowledge and experience to write the best argumentative essay for you. 

So request “ write my paper ” today and we guarantee that your essay will be well-structured, argumentative, and insightful. 

So don't hesitate - to contact our argumentative essay writing service today! 

Take your writing to the next level with our essay writer AI . It's simple, it's easy, and it'll help you write better essays.

Literature, Marketing

Dr. Barbara is a highly experienced writer and author who holds a Ph.D. degree in public health from an Ivy League school. She has worked in the medical field for many years, conducting extensive research on various health topics. Her writing has been featured in several top-tier publications.

Was This Blog Helpful?

Keep reading.

• How to Craft an Outstanding Argumentative Essay?

• 300+ Compelling Argumentative Essay Topics for Thought-Provoking Essays

• How to Write an Argumentative Essay About Sports: Tips Included

• A Comprehensive Guide to Crafting a Winning Argumentative Essay about Abortion

• How to Write An Argumentative Essay About Global Warming - Examples and Topics!

• 7 Examples of Arguments for Climate Change To Inspire Your Essay

• Writing an Argumentative Essay About Mental Health: Get Examples and Topics

• Tips and Examples for Writing an Engaging Argumentative Essay About Social Media

• Crafting an Argumentative Essay About Wearing a Mask: Examples and Tips

• Creating a Perfect Argumentative Essay Outline

• Crafting an Argumentative Essay About Gun Control: Examples and Tips

• Get Inspired by the Best Argumentative Essay Examples

• Different Types of Arguments - Explore The Power of Persuasion

People Also Read

• personal statement writing
• types of research
• research paper outline
• informative speech outline
• analytical essay

Burdened With Assignments?

Advertisement

• LEGAL Privacy Policy

© 2024 - All rights reserved

The Enlightened Mindset

Exploring the World of Knowledge and Understanding

Welcome to the world's first fully AI generated website!

Exploring the Pros and Cons of Technology: Is Technology Helpful or Harmful?

By Happy Sharer

Introduction

Technology has quickly become an integral part of our lives. From smartphones to smart homes, we are surrounded by devices that make life easier. But how does this technology affect us? This article will explore the impact of technology on society, education, workplace productivity, and mental health in order to determine whether it is helpful or harmful.

Examining the Pros and Cons of Technology in Our Lives

The impact of technology on our lives can be both positive and negative. Let’s take a closer look at some of the benefits and drawbacks of technology.

Benefits of Technology

There are many ways in which technology has improved our lives. For one, it has made communication much easier. We can now stay in touch with friends and family all over the world via video chat and instant messaging. Additionally, technology has made it easier to access information. We can find out almost anything we need to know with a quick Google search.

Technology has also enabled us to work remotely and connect with colleagues from anywhere in the world. This has allowed companies to expand their reach and hire talented people from around the globe. Furthermore, technology has helped to streamline processes and increase efficiency in the workplace.

Disadvantages of Technology

However, there are some potential downsides to technology. For one, it has created an “always-on” lifestyle where it is difficult to disconnect from work and social media. This can lead to feelings of stress and anxiety as well as difficulty sleeping. Additionally, technology has enabled cyber criminals to more easily steal personal data and commit fraud.

Furthermore, technology can be distracting. With so much to do online, it can be hard to focus on what’s important. Finally, technology can be expensive. Many people find themselves spending too much money on the latest gadgets and apps.

Exploring the Positive and Negative Effects of Technology on Education

Technology has had a major impact on education. Let’s explore some of the ways in which it has changed the way we learn.

Improved Access to Educational Resources

One of the biggest benefits of technology in education is improved access to educational resources. Students can now access textbooks, lectures, and other materials online. This makes it easier for students to stay up to date with the latest developments in their field of study.

Additionally, technology has opened up new opportunities for learning. Online courses, MOOCs, and virtual classrooms have made it possible for anyone to access high-quality education regardless of their location or financial situation.

Increased Pressure on Students

On the other hand, technology has also put increased pressure on students. With the rise of social media and online learning platforms, students are expected to stay on top of their studies at all times. Moreover, technology has made it easier for students to cheat, which can lead to lower standards of academic integrity.

Analyzing the Impact of Technology on Workplace Productivity

Technology has also had a major impact on the workplace. Here, we’ll explore some of the ways in which it has changed the way we work.

Improved Communication and Collaboration

Technology has greatly improved communication and collaboration in the workplace. With tools such as video conferencing and online chat, teams can stay connected no matter where they are located. Additionally, cloud-based software has allowed teams to share documents and work collaboratively on projects in real time.

Potential for Distractions

However, technology can also be a distraction in the workplace. Social media, online games, and streaming services can be tempting distractions that take away from productive work time. Additionally, technology can make it harder for employees to disconnect from work. This can lead to burnout and decreased job satisfaction.

Investigating the Effects of Technology on Mental Health and Well-Being

Finally, let’s take a look at how technology affects our mental health and well-being.

Benefits of Technology on Mental Health

Research suggests that technology can have a positive effect on mental health. For example, a study conducted by the University of Pennsylvania found that using social media can help reduce feelings of loneliness and depression (Duggan, Ellison, Lampe, & Lenhart, 2015). Furthermore, technology can be used to improve access to mental health services and provide support to those in need.

Risks of Technology on Mental Health

At the same time, there are some potential risks associated with technology. A study conducted by the American Psychological Association found that heavy use of social media can lead to feelings of anxiety and depression (APA, 2017). Additionally, technology can make it difficult to disconnect from work, leading to feelings of burnout and stress.

In conclusion, technology can be both helpful and harmful. On the one hand, it has improved access to educational resources, enabled remote work, and provided a platform for connecting with others. On the other hand, it can lead to increased pressure on students, workplace distractions, and mental health issues. Ultimately, it is up to each individual to decide how to use technology in a way that is beneficial for them.

Summary of Findings

This article explored the positive and negative effects of technology on society, education, workplace productivity, and mental health. It examined both the pros and cons of technology to determine if it is helpful or harmful. While technology can be beneficial in many ways, it can also lead to increased pressure on students, workplace distractions, and mental health issues.

Final Recommendations

To ensure that technology is used in a beneficial way, it is important to be mindful of how it is used. Individuals should strive to use technology in a way that allows them to stay connected with others while also taking time to disconnect from work and digital devices. Additionally, employers should create policies that allow employees to unplug and take breaks from technology during the workday.

(Note: Is this article not meeting your expectations? Do you have knowledge or insights to share? Unlock new opportunities and expand your reach by joining our authors team. Click Registration to join us and share your expertise with our readers.)

Hi, I'm Happy Sharer and I love sharing interesting and useful knowledge with others. I have a passion for learning and enjoy explaining complex concepts in a simple way.

Related Post

Efficiency at your fingertips: enhancing workflows with servicenow integration, global ruby on rails dev outsourcing: leveraging expertise, trading crypto in bull and bear markets: a comprehensive examination of the differences, leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Expert Guide: Removing Gel Nail Polish at Home Safely

Making croatia travel arrangements, make their day extra special: celebrate with a customized cake.

THE MAIN FOUR

A forum for open student discussion.

• Polls Archive

Rise in technology: Is it helpful or harmful towards society?

By Managing Editor: Amber Lee Carnahan

“I think the amount of technology we have now can be both harmful and helpful,” says Daniel Bonello, a senior at Howell High School. “It depends on what you’re using your technology for and how much you are using it on a daily basis.”

According to a study discussed in the Washington Post, teens today spend more than seven and a half hours consuming media, which includes social networking, playing video games, watching television, and surfing the Web. Additionally, time spent on a mobile phone has increased drastically. Pew Internet and American Life Project conducted a study in 2011 which showed that more than three quarters of teens own cell phones, an increase of 45 percent of teens who owned cell phones in 2004.

“I do think that the technology we have now is helpful to society because it helps us with everyday things,” says Ben Breneman, a junior at HHS. “The advantages of technologies are easy communications, entertainment, and an easier life.”

With the added aspect of texting, the way communication works has changed. TeenInk states that teens have become more attached to their technology. Most teens would prefer to text someone rather than speak to them directly. Texting is instantaneous, while real conversations take time and energy to engage in. However, the advanced technology of cell phones isn’t all bad. It aids students and adults when they need to contact someone on the spot, or in case an emergency comes up.

HHS senior Briana Resinger says, “Without technology, many of us would not be able to communicate with other people around the country or the world as quickly. Now it isn’t impossible, but with inventions like Skype we can see them face to face. It has also helped keep children safe being able to contact a parent with a cellphone or advancements in technology with their car.”

It’s crucial to recognize that advances in technology didn’t merely take place in the development of fancy cell phones and the higher dependence on social media. The span of technology is wide and its uses wider.

“I find that it [technology] is more helpful because of the vast amounts of information at our fingertips,” says Resinger. “We can instantly educate ourselves on important matters. The advances in technology for a medicinal purpose are also helpful. Without much of that we’d be at a different place in society.”

Our society has been greatly influenced by advances in medicine and science. Technology has helped improve the quality of life, while also helping to reach out to underprivileged countries and share technology. In reality, the effects of an abundance of technology depend solely on how people choose to use it.

“The positives of technology are that they can help us complete nearly any task,” says Bonello. “We can communicate with friends and family easier, accomplish tasks faster and more efficiently, and it is also a nearly infinite hub for entertainment.”

Technology has grown tremendously over the years, and it will continue to grow. Whether the new advancements will be in health, communication, or simply entertainment, the effect will rely on how the technology is accepted and used. With advances in technology, there’s a lot we’ll be able to do. With enough focus and common sense, the rise in technology can remain in a positive light.

• social networking
• technological advances
• video games
• washington post

• Previous Article
• Next Article

Promises and Pitfalls of Technology

Politics and privacy, private-sector influence and big tech, state competition and conflict, author biography, how is technology changing the world, and how should the world change technology.

[email protected]

• Split-Screen
• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• Open the PDF for in another window
• Guest Access
• Get Permissions
• Cite Icon Cite
• Search Site

Josephine Wolff; How Is Technology Changing the World, and How Should the World Change Technology?. Global Perspectives 1 February 2021; 2 (1): 27353. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2021.27353

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

Technologies are becoming increasingly complicated and increasingly interconnected. Cars, airplanes, medical devices, financial transactions, and electricity systems all rely on more computer software than they ever have before, making them seem both harder to understand and, in some cases, harder to control. Government and corporate surveillance of individuals and information processing relies largely on digital technologies and artificial intelligence, and therefore involves less human-to-human contact than ever before and more opportunities for biases to be embedded and codified in our technological systems in ways we may not even be able to identify or recognize. Bioengineering advances are opening up new terrain for challenging philosophical, political, and economic questions regarding human-natural relations. Additionally, the management of these large and small devices and systems is increasingly done through the cloud, so that control over them is both very remote and removed from direct human or social control. The study of how to make technologies like artificial intelligence or the Internet of Things “explainable” has become its own area of research because it is so difficult to understand how they work or what is at fault when something goes wrong (Gunning and Aha 2019) .

This growing complexity makes it more difficult than ever—and more imperative than ever—for scholars to probe how technological advancements are altering life around the world in both positive and negative ways and what social, political, and legal tools are needed to help shape the development and design of technology in beneficial directions. This can seem like an impossible task in light of the rapid pace of technological change and the sense that its continued advancement is inevitable, but many countries around the world are only just beginning to take significant steps toward regulating computer technologies and are still in the process of radically rethinking the rules governing global data flows and exchange of technology across borders.

These are exciting times not just for technological development but also for technology policy—our technologies may be more advanced and complicated than ever but so, too, are our understandings of how they can best be leveraged, protected, and even constrained. The structures of technological systems as determined largely by government and institutional policies and those structures have tremendous implications for social organization and agency, ranging from open source, open systems that are highly distributed and decentralized, to those that are tightly controlled and closed, structured according to stricter and more hierarchical models. And just as our understanding of the governance of technology is developing in new and interesting ways, so, too, is our understanding of the social, cultural, environmental, and political dimensions of emerging technologies. We are realizing both the challenges and the importance of mapping out the full range of ways that technology is changing our society, what we want those changes to look like, and what tools we have to try to influence and guide those shifts.

Technology can be a source of tremendous optimism. It can help overcome some of the greatest challenges our society faces, including climate change, famine, and disease. For those who believe in the power of innovation and the promise of creative destruction to advance economic development and lead to better quality of life, technology is a vital economic driver (Schumpeter 1942) . But it can also be a tool of tremendous fear and oppression, embedding biases in automated decision-making processes and information-processing algorithms, exacerbating economic and social inequalities within and between countries to a staggering degree, or creating new weapons and avenues for attack unlike any we have had to face in the past. Scholars have even contended that the emergence of the term technology in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries marked a shift from viewing individual pieces of machinery as a means to achieving political and social progress to the more dangerous, or hazardous, view that larger-scale, more complex technological systems were a semiautonomous form of progress in and of themselves (Marx 2010) . More recently, technologists have sharply criticized what they view as a wave of new Luddites, people intent on slowing the development of technology and turning back the clock on innovation as a means of mitigating the societal impacts of technological change (Marlowe 1970) .

At the heart of fights over new technologies and their resulting global changes are often two conflicting visions of technology: a fundamentally optimistic one that believes humans use it as a tool to achieve greater goals, and a fundamentally pessimistic one that holds that technological systems have reached a point beyond our control. Technology philosophers have argued that neither of these views is wholly accurate and that a purely optimistic or pessimistic view of technology is insufficient to capture the nuances and complexity of our relationship to technology (Oberdiek and Tiles 1995) . Understanding technology and how we can make better decisions about designing, deploying, and refining it requires capturing that nuance and complexity through in-depth analysis of the impacts of different technological advancements and the ways they have played out in all their complicated and controversial messiness across the world.

These impacts are often unpredictable as technologies are adopted in new contexts and come to be used in ways that sometimes diverge significantly from the use cases envisioned by their designers. The internet, designed to help transmit information between computer networks, became a crucial vehicle for commerce, introducing unexpected avenues for crime and financial fraud. Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter, designed to connect friends and families through sharing photographs and life updates, became focal points of election controversies and political influence. Cryptocurrencies, originally intended as a means of decentralized digital cash, have become a significant environmental hazard as more and more computing resources are devoted to mining these forms of virtual money. One of the crucial challenges in this area is therefore recognizing, documenting, and even anticipating some of these unexpected consequences and providing mechanisms to technologists for how to think through the impacts of their work, as well as possible other paths to different outcomes (Verbeek 2006) . And just as technological innovations can cause unexpected harm, they can also bring about extraordinary benefits—new vaccines and medicines to address global pandemics and save thousands of lives, new sources of energy that can drastically reduce emissions and help combat climate change, new modes of education that can reach people who would otherwise have no access to schooling. Regulating technology therefore requires a careful balance of mitigating risks without overly restricting potentially beneficial innovations.

Nations around the world have taken very different approaches to governing emerging technologies and have adopted a range of different technologies themselves in pursuit of more modern governance structures and processes (Braman 2009) . In Europe, the precautionary principle has guided much more anticipatory regulation aimed at addressing the risks presented by technologies even before they are fully realized. For instance, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation focuses on the responsibilities of data controllers and processors to provide individuals with access to their data and information about how that data is being used not just as a means of addressing existing security and privacy threats, such as data breaches, but also to protect against future developments and uses of that data for artificial intelligence and automated decision-making purposes. In Germany, Technische Überwachungsvereine, or TÜVs, perform regular tests and inspections of technological systems to assess and minimize risks over time, as the tech landscape evolves. In the United States, by contrast, there is much greater reliance on litigation and liability regimes to address safety and security failings after-the-fact. These different approaches reflect not just the different legal and regulatory mechanisms and philosophies of different nations but also the different ways those nations prioritize rapid development of the technology industry versus safety, security, and individual control. Typically, governance innovations move much more slowly than technological innovations, and regulations can lag years, or even decades, behind the technologies they aim to govern.

In addition to this varied set of national regulatory approaches, a variety of international and nongovernmental organizations also contribute to the process of developing standards, rules, and norms for new technologies, including the International Organization for Standardization­ and the International Telecommunication Union. These multilateral and NGO actors play an especially important role in trying to define appropriate boundaries for the use of new technologies by governments as instruments of control for the state.

At the same time that policymakers are under scrutiny both for their decisions about how to regulate technology as well as their decisions about how and when to adopt technologies like facial recognition themselves, technology firms and designers have also come under increasing criticism. Growing recognition that the design of technologies can have far-reaching social and political implications means that there is more pressure on technologists to take into consideration the consequences of their decisions early on in the design process (Vincenti 1993; Winner 1980) . The question of how technologists should incorporate these social dimensions into their design and development processes is an old one, and debate on these issues dates back to the 1970s, but it remains an urgent and often overlooked part of the puzzle because so many of the supposedly systematic mechanisms for assessing the impacts of new technologies in both the private and public sectors are primarily bureaucratic, symbolic processes rather than carrying any real weight or influence.

Technologists are often ill-equipped or unwilling to respond to the sorts of social problems that their creations have—often unwittingly—exacerbated, and instead point to governments and lawmakers to address those problems (Zuckerberg 2019) . But governments often have few incentives to engage in this area. This is because setting clear standards and rules for an ever-evolving technological landscape can be extremely challenging, because enforcement of those rules can be a significant undertaking requiring considerable expertise, and because the tech sector is a major source of jobs and revenue for many countries that may fear losing those benefits if they constrain companies too much. This indicates not just a need for clearer incentives and better policies for both private- and public-sector entities but also a need for new mechanisms whereby the technology development and design process can be influenced and assessed by people with a wider range of experiences and expertise. If we want technologies to be designed with an eye to their impacts, who is responsible for predicting, measuring, and mitigating those impacts throughout the design process? Involving policymakers in that process in a more meaningful way will also require training them to have the analytic and technical capacity to more fully engage with technologists and understand more fully the implications of their decisions.

At the same time that tech companies seem unwilling or unable to rein in their creations, many also fear they wield too much power, in some cases all but replacing governments and international organizations in their ability to make decisions that affect millions of people worldwide and control access to information, platforms, and audiences (Kilovaty 2020) . Regulators around the world have begun considering whether some of these companies have become so powerful that they violate the tenets of antitrust laws, but it can be difficult for governments to identify exactly what those violations are, especially in the context of an industry where the largest players often provide their customers with free services. And the platforms and services developed by tech companies are often wielded most powerfully and dangerously not directly by their private-sector creators and operators but instead by states themselves for widespread misinformation campaigns that serve political purposes (Nye 2018) .

Since the largest private entities in the tech sector operate in many countries, they are often better poised to implement global changes to the technological ecosystem than individual states or regulatory bodies, creating new challenges to existing governance structures and hierarchies. Just as it can be challenging to provide oversight for government use of technologies, so, too, oversight of the biggest tech companies, which have more resources, reach, and power than many nations, can prove to be a daunting task. The rise of network forms of organization and the growing gig economy have added to these challenges, making it even harder for regulators to fully address the breadth of these companies’ operations (Powell 1990) . The private-public partnerships that have emerged around energy, transportation, medical, and cyber technologies further complicate this picture, blurring the line between the public and private sectors and raising critical questions about the role of each in providing critical infrastructure, health care, and security. How can and should private tech companies operating in these different sectors be governed, and what types of influence do they exert over regulators? How feasible are different policy proposals aimed at technological innovation, and what potential unintended consequences might they have?

Conflict between countries has also spilled over significantly into the private sector in recent years, most notably in the case of tensions between the United States and China over which technologies developed in each country will be permitted by the other and which will be purchased by other customers, outside those two countries. Countries competing to develop the best technology is not a new phenomenon, but the current conflicts have major international ramifications and will influence the infrastructure that is installed and used around the world for years to come. Untangling the different factors that feed into these tussles as well as whom they benefit and whom they leave at a disadvantage is crucial for understanding how governments can most effectively foster technological innovation and invention domestically as well as the global consequences of those efforts. As much of the world is forced to choose between buying technology from the United States or from China, how should we understand the long-term impacts of those choices and the options available to people in countries without robust domestic tech industries? Does the global spread of technologies help fuel further innovation in countries with smaller tech markets, or does it reinforce the dominance of the states that are already most prominent in this sector? How can research universities maintain global collaborations and research communities in light of these national competitions, and what role does government research and development spending play in fostering innovation within its own borders and worldwide? How should intellectual property protections evolve to meet the demands of the technology industry, and how can those protections be enforced globally?

These conflicts between countries sometimes appear to challenge the feasibility of truly global technologies and networks that operate across all countries through standardized protocols and design features. Organizations like the International Organization for Standardization, the World Intellectual Property Organization, the United Nations Industrial Development Organization, and many others have tried to harmonize these policies and protocols across different countries for years, but have met with limited success when it comes to resolving the issues of greatest tension and disagreement among nations. For technology to operate in a global environment, there is a need for a much greater degree of coordination among countries and the development of common standards and norms, but governments continue to struggle to agree not just on those norms themselves but even the appropriate venue and processes for developing them. Without greater global cooperation, is it possible to maintain a global network like the internet or to promote the spread of new technologies around the world to address challenges of sustainability? What might help incentivize that cooperation moving forward, and what could new structures and process for governance of global technologies look like? Why has the tech industry’s self-regulation culture persisted? Do the same traditional drivers for public policy, such as politics of harmonization and path dependency in policy-making, still sufficiently explain policy outcomes in this space? As new technologies and their applications spread across the globe in uneven ways, how and when do they create forces of change from unexpected places?

These are some of the questions that we hope to address in the Technology and Global Change section through articles that tackle new dimensions of the global landscape of designing, developing, deploying, and assessing new technologies to address major challenges the world faces. Understanding these processes requires synthesizing knowledge from a range of different fields, including sociology, political science, economics, and history, as well as technical fields such as engineering, climate science, and computer science. A crucial part of understanding how technology has created global change and, in turn, how global changes have influenced the development of new technologies is understanding the technologies themselves in all their richness and complexity—how they work, the limits of what they can do, what they were designed to do, how they are actually used. Just as technologies themselves are becoming more complicated, so are their embeddings and relationships to the larger social, political, and legal contexts in which they exist. Scholars across all disciplines are encouraged to join us in untangling those complexities.

Josephine Wolff is an associate professor of cybersecurity policy at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. Her book You’ll See This Message When It Is Too Late: The Legal and Economic Aftermath of Cybersecurity Breaches was published by MIT Press in 2018.

Recipient(s) will receive an email with a link to 'How Is Technology Changing the World, and How Should the World Change Technology?' and will not need an account to access the content.

Subject: How Is Technology Changing the World, and How Should the World Change Technology?

(Optional message may have a maximum of 1000 characters.)

Citing articles via

Email alerts, affiliations.

• Special Collections
• Review Symposia
• Info for Authors
• Info for Librarians
• Editorial Team
• Emerging Scholars Forum
• Open Access
• Online ISSN 2575-7350
• Copyright © 2024 The Regents of the University of California. All Rights Reserved.

Stay Informed

Disciplines.

• Ancient World
• Anthropology
• Communication
• Criminology & Criminal Justice
• Film & Media Studies
• Food & Wine
• Browse All Disciplines
• Browse All Courses
• Book Authors
• Booksellers
• Instructions
• Journal Authors
• Journal Editors
• Media & Journalists
• Planned Giving

About UC Press

• Press Releases
• Seasonal Catalog
• Acquisitions Editors
• Customer Service
• Exam/Desk Requests
• Media Inquiries
• Print-Disability
• Rights & Permissions
• UC Press Foundation
• © Copyright 2024 by the Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Privacy policy    Accessibility

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

• Find a Doctor
• Patients & Visitors
• ER Wait Times
• For Medical Professionals
• Piedmont MyChart

• Medical Professionals
• Find Doctors
• Find Locations

Receive helpful health tips, health news, recipes and more right to your inbox.

Sign up to receive the Living Real Change Newsletter

Technology: Helpful or harmful?

Popular technology devices, like smartphones, laptops and tablets, offer a convenient way to juggle career, friends and family – all while on the go. As helpful as technology can be when maintaining a busy schedule, there are potential harmful side effects from sleeping next to your Blackberry or spending hours on your laptop.

Ruth Gronde, a Piedmont ergonomic therapist, says she sees patients with technology-related pain in their neck, back, wrists, hands, elbows and more. She shared the following tips for safely handling the devices you reach for throughout the day.  

How to prevent computer mouse-related injuries

Surprisingly, it’s not the keyboard that causes the most stress on the hands, wrists and arms – it’s the computer mouse.

“Most of the calls I get at my office are related to the computer mouse,” says Gronde. “Repetitive overuse of the mouse can cause hand pain, tendinitis, carpal tunnel syndrome , tennis elbow and nerve compression, depending on the pressure on the underside of the wrist.”

She especially sees these injuries in workers who use software applications that require frequent mouse use. To reduce your chances of injury, follow these tips:

The mouse should be placed close to the keyboard within easy reach.

When using a mouse, make sure your elbow is not bending more than 90 degrees. Adjust the height of your chair and keyboard tray to make sure your mouse is near elbow height.

Place your mouse directly in line with your elbow so you do not have to angle your arm to use it.

Avoid propping up your arm on your chair’s armrest or on your desk surface when using the mouse. Keep your arm relaxed at your side and your hand relaxed on the mouse.

Don’t rest your hand on the mouse when you’re not using it. Take the opportunity to stretch and shake out your hand.

Alternate using the mouse with using keystrokes whenever possible.

If you must use your mouse for long periods of time, consider switching to your non-dominant hand occasionally.

How to prevent laptop-related injuries

“Unless you’re using your laptop frequently as a portable device, set it up as a regular PC,” advises Gronde. “The monitor should be directly opposite your eyes. Attach an external keyboard and mouse to keep proper alignment.”

Try these tips to reduce your chance of injury :

The screen should be perpendicular to your line of vision. Sitting in your chair, extend your arm straight forward. Your fingertips should barely touch your computer monitor. Adjust the distance if the monitor is too close or too far away.

Adjust the computer so your keyboard is at elbow height and you can keep your wrists straight while typing.

Take stretch breaks every 20 to 30 minutes.

Maintain a neutral position in your neck and back. Avoid hunching over or twisting to the side for long periods of time.

Follow the 20/20/20 rule to avoid blurred vision at the end of the day: Every 20 minutes, look away from your computer for 20 seconds at something at least 20 feet away. If your eyes feel dry during computer work, consider using rewetting drops to maintain comfort.

How to prevent smartphone-related injuries

The overuse of smartphones can lead to thumb pain, which “can be an aggravation of underlying arthritis or tendinitis from overuse of the thumbs.”

In fact, experts have coined the term “Blackberry Thumb,” as frequent emailing can lead to pain in the muscles at the base of the thumb and wrist. Try these tips to reduce your chances of injury:

Use a computer instead of your smartphone for emailing whenever possible, especially if you are typing a long message.

Use typing shortcuts on your smartphone to reduce the amount of time you spend typing a message.

Choose a smartphone that has a full keyboard to reduce the amount of taps you need to write a message or email.

Give your thumbs a break and use your other fingers when typing.

Use the pad of your finger to type, not the tip of your fingernail.

Hold the device in a vertical position to reduce the distance your thumbs must reach to key in a text message or email.  

Whether making a call on your cell phone or desk phone, use a hands-free option, such as Bluetooth, speakerphone or a headset. Bending your elbow for extended periods of time while talking on the phone can lead to cubital tunnel syndrome, or what orthopaedic surgeons call “cell phone elbow.”

If you must hold your phone to your ear, switch hands frequently.

Avoid holding the phone between your shoulder and your ear while you type, as this can cause neck and arm pain. Maintain good posture and neutral alignment when talking on the phone.

By following these ergonomically friendly rules, you can reduce your chances of long-term injuries that could require surgery. Luckily, Gronde says most technology-related pain is reversible through behavior modification.

“You can change your posture and patterns of use to reverse a condition,” she says. 

Need to make an appointment with a Piedmont physician? Save time,  book online .

• how to prevent technology-related injuries

Related Stories

Schedule your appointment online

Schedule with our online booking tool

*We have detected that you are using an unsupported or outdated browser. An update is not required, but for best search experience we strongly recommend updating to the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Internet Explorer 11+

Share this story

Download the Piedmont Now app

• Indoor Hospital Navigation
• Find & Save Physicians
• Online Scheduling

Download the app today!

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 16 February 2024

Is it harmful or helpful? Examining the causes and consequences of generative AI usage among university students

• Muhammad Abbas 1 ,
• Farooq Ahmed Jam 2 , 3 &
• Tariq Iqbal Khan 4  

International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education volume  21 , Article number:  10 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

32k Accesses

1 Citations

159 Altmetric

Metrics details

While the discussion on generative artificial intelligence, such as ChatGPT, is making waves in academia and the popular press, there is a need for more insight into the use of ChatGPT among students and the potential harmful or beneficial consequences associated with its usage. Using samples from two studies, the current research examined the causes and consequences of ChatGPT usage among university students. Study 1 developed and validated an eight-item scale to measure ChatGPT usage by conducting a survey among university students (N = 165). Study 2 used a three-wave time-lagged design to collect data from university students (N = 494) to further validate the scale and test the study’s hypotheses. Study 2 also examined the effects of academic workload, academic time pressure, sensitivity to rewards, and sensitivity to quality on ChatGPT usage. Study 2 further examined the effects of ChatGPT usage on students’ levels of procrastination, memory loss, and academic performance. Study 1 provided evidence for the validity and reliability of the ChatGPT usage scale. Furthermore, study 2 revealed that when students faced higher academic workload and time pressure, they were more likely to use ChatGPT. In contrast, students who were sensitive to rewards were less likely to use ChatGPT. Not surprisingly, use of ChatGPT was likely to develop tendencies for procrastination and memory loss and dampen the students’ academic performance. Finally, academic workload, time pressure, and sensitivity to rewards had indirect effects on students’ outcomes through ChatGPT usage.

Introduction

"The ChatGPT software is raising important questions for educators and researchers all around the world, with regards to fraud in general, and particularly plagiarism," a spokesperson for Sciences Po told Reuters (Reuters, 2023 ).

“I don’t think it [ChatGPT] has anything to do with education, except undermining it. ChatGPT is basically high-tech plagiarism…and a way of avoiding learning.” said Noam Chomsky, a public intellectual known for his work in modern linguistics, in an interview (EduKitchen & January21, 2023 ).

In recent years, the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has significantly influenced various aspects of higher education. Among these AI technologies, ChatGPT (OpenAI, 2022) has gained widespread popularity in academic settings for a variety of uses such as generation of codes or text, assistance in research, and the completion of assignments, essays and academic projects (Bahroun et al., 2023 ; Stojanov, 2023 ; Strzelecki, 2023 ). ChatGPT enables students to generate coherent and contextually appropriate responses to their queries, providing them with an effective resource for their academic work. However, the extensive use of ChatGPT brings a number of challenges for higher education (Bahroun et al., 2023 ; Chan, 2023 ; Chaudhry et al., 2023 ; Dalalah & Dalalah, 2023 ).

Scholars have speculated that the use of ChatGPT may bring many harmful consequences for students (Chan, 2023 ; Dalalah & Dalalah, 2023 ; Dwivedi et al., 2023 ; Lee, 2023 ). It has the potential to harmfully affect students' learning and success (Korn & Kelly, 2023 ; Novak, 2023 ) and erode their academic integrity (Chaudhry et al., 2023 ). Such lack of academic integrity can damage the credibility of higher education institutions (Macfarlane et al., 2014 ) and harm the achievement motivation of students (Krou et al., 2021 ). However, despite the increasing usage of ChatGPT in higher education, very rare empirical research has focused on the factors that drive its usage among university students (Strzelecki, 2023 ). In fact, majority of the prior studies consist of theoretical discussions, commentaries, interviews, reviews, or editorials on the use of ChatGPT in academia (e.g., Cooper, 2023 ; Cotton et al., 2023 ; Dwivedi et al., 2023 ; King, 2023 ; Peters et al., 2023 ). For example, we have a very limited understanding of the key drivers behind the use of ChatGPT by university students and how ChatGPT usage affects their personal and academic outcomes. Similarly, despite many speculations, very limited research has empirically examined the beneficial or harmful effects of generative AI usage on students’ academic and personal outcomes (e.g., Yilmaz & Yilmaz, 2023a , 2023b ). Even these studies provide contradictory evidence on whether ChatGPT is helpful or harmful for students.

Therefore, an understanding of the dynamics and the role of generative AI, such as ChatGPT, in higher education is still in its nascent stages (Carless et al., 2023 ; Strzelecki, 2023 ; Yilmaz & Yilmaz, 2023a ). Such an understanding of the motives behind ChatGPT usage and its potentially harmful or beneficial consequences is critical for educators, policymakers, and students, as it can help the development of effective strategies to integrate generative AI technologies into the learning process and control their misuse in higher education (Meyer et al., 2023 ). For the same reasons, scholars have called for future research to delve deeper into the positives and negatives of ChatGPT in higher education (Bahroun et al., 2023 ; Chaudhry et al., 2023 ; Dalalah & Dalalah, 2023 ).

Taken together, the current study has several objectives that aim to bridge these gaps and significantly contribute to the body of knowledge and practice in higher education. First, responding to the call of prior research on the development of ChatGPT usage scale (Paul et al., 2023 ), we develop and validate a scale for ChatGPT usage in study 1. Next, we conduct another study (i.e., study 2) to investigate several theoretically relevant factors—such as academic workload, time pressure, sensitivity to rewards, and sensitivity to quality—which may potentially affect the use of ChatGPT by university students. In addition, concerns have been raised regarding the impact of ChatGPT on students' academic performance and creativity. For example, scholars consider the use of ChatGPT as “deeply harmful to a social understanding of knowledge and learning” (Peters et al., 2023 , p. 142) and having the potential to “kill creativity and critical thinking” (Dwivedi et al., 2023 , p. 25). However, empirical evidence regarding the harmful or beneficial consequences of ChatGPT usage remains largely unavailable. Therefore, we investigate the effects of ChatGPT usage on students' procrastination, memory retention/loss, and academic performance (i.e., CGPA). Together, this research aims to provide valuable insights for educators, policymakers, and students in understanding the factors that encourage the use of ChatGPT by students and the beneficial or deleterious effects of such usage in higher education.

Literature and hypotheses

Academic workload and use of chatgpt.

Academic workload refers to the number of academic tasks, responsibilities, and activities that students are required to complete during a specific period, usually a semester. The workload encompasses the volume and complexity of assignments or projects (Bowyer, 2012 ). Students are put under high stress when they have an excessive amount of academic work to complete (Yang et al., 2021 ).

Studies indicate that overburdened students are more likely to rely on unethical means to complete their academic tasks instead of relying on their own abilities and learning. For example, Devlin and Gray ( 2007 ) found that students engage in unethical academic practices such as cheating and plagiarism when they are exposed to heavy workload. Similarly, Koudela-Hamila et al. ( 2022 ) found a significantly positive relationship between academic workload and academic stress among university students. In another study, Hasebrook et al. ( 2023 ) found that individuals were more likely to accept and adopt technology when their workload was high. Consistently, when students are faced with high workload, they look for ways to cope with this demanding situation. As a result, they use easy means or shortcuts (e.g., ChatGPT) to cope with such stressful situations (i.e., heavy workload). Consequently, we suggest:

Hypothesis 1

Workload will be positively related to the use of ChatGPT.

Time pressure and use of ChatGPT

Time pressure is described as the perception that an impending deadline is becoming closer and closer (Carnevale & Lawler, 1986 ). Under time pressure, individuals use simple heuristics in order to complete tasks (Rieskamp & Hoffrage, 2008 ). Under high time pressure, students may consider the available time as insufficient to accomplish the assignments, and therefore they may rely on ChatGPT to complete these tasks. Preliminary research indicates that time pressure to complete academic tasks encourages plagiarism among students (Koh et al., 2011 ). Devlin and Gray ( 2007 ) also found that students engage in cheating and plagiarism under time pressure to complete their academic tasks. Similarly, those students who are exposed to time pressure adopt a surface learning approach (Guo, 2011 ), which indicates that the students may use shortcuts such as ChatGPT to complete their tasks within deadlines. Therefore, we argue that under high levels of time pressure, students are more likely to use ChatGPT for their academic activities. Consequently, we suggest:

Hypothesis 2

Time pressure will be positively related to the use of ChatGPT.

Sensitivity to rewards and use of ChatGPT

Sensitivity to rewards is the degree to which a student is worried or concerned about his or her academic rewards such as grades. As far as the relationship between sensitivity to rewards and ChatGPT usage is concerned, prior research does not help to make a clear prediction. For example, on the one hand, it is possible that students with higher sensitivity to rewards may be more inclined to use ChatGPT, as they perceive it as a means to obtain better academic results. They may see ChatGPT as a resource to enhance their academic performance and get good grades. Evidence indicates that individuals, who are highly sensitive to rewards or impulsive, have a tendency to engage in risky behaviors such as texting on their cell phones while driving (Hayashi et al., 2015 ; Pearson et al., 2013 ). This indicates that students, who are reward sensitive, may engage in risky behaviors such as the misuse of ChatGPT for academic activities or plagiarism.

On the other hand, it is also possible that students who are highly worried about their rewards may not use ChatGPT for the fear of losing their grades. Since the use of ChatGPT for academic activities is usually considered as an unethical mean (Dalalah et al., 2023 ; Dwivedi et al., 2023 ), highly reward sensitive individuals may be more cautious about using technologies that their teachers perceive as ethically questionable or could jeopardize their academic integrity and grades. Consequently, we suggest competing hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3a

Sensitivity to rewards will be positively related to the use of ChatGPT.

Hypothesis 3b

Sensitivity to rewards will be negatively related to the use of ChatGPT.

Sensitivity to quality and use of ChatGPT

Sensitivity to quality or quality consciousness refers to the extent to which students are perceptive when evaluating the standard and excellence of their educational activities. This sensitivity involves the students’ consciousness of the quality of learning they are having (Olugbara et al., 2020 ) or the quality of contents (e.g., assignments or projects) they are working on. We suggest that students, who are sensitive to the quality of the contents, are more likely to use different tools to enhance the quality of their academic work.

ChatGPT can be used by quality-conscious students for numerous reasons. Students, who are sensitive to quality, may want to ensure excellence, accuracy, and reliability in their work—and they may recognize the potential benefits of using ChatGPT to meet their expectations for high-quality academic work (Haensch et al., 2023 ; Yan, 2023 ). Similarly, students high in sensitivity to quality often pay great attention to grammar, style, and language precision. ChatGPT can assists in refining their written work by providing suggestions for sentence structure, word choice, and grammar (Abbas, 2023 ; Dwivedi et al., 2023 ). Therefore, students with a strong sensitivity to quality are more likely to use ChatGPT in order to enhance the quality of their academic work (e.g., assignments, projects, essays, or presentations), as compared to those who are not sensitive to quality. Consequently, we suggest:

Hypothesis 4

Sensitivity to quality will be positively related to the use of ChatGPT.

Use of ChatGPT and procrastination

Procrastination occurs when people “voluntarily delay an intended course of action despite expecting to be worse off for the delay” (Steel, 2007 , p. 66). Some individuals are predisposed to put off doing things until later (i.e., chronic procrastinators), whereas others only do so in certain circumstances (Rozental et al., 2022 ). Academic procrastination, which refers to the practice of routinely putting off academic responsibilities to the point that the delays become damaging to performance, is an important issue both for students and educational institutions (Svartdal & Løkke, 2022 ).

Studies suggest that procrastination occurs very frequently in students (Bäulke & Dresel, 2023 ) and it may be influenced by a variety of environmental and personal factors (Liu et al., 2023 ; Steel, 2007 ). We argue that the use of generative AI may influence the tendencies for procrastination among students. Using short-cuts, which may help students to complete the academic tasks without putting much efforts, will eventually make the students habitual. As a result, these short cuts—such as the use of ChatGPT—may cause procrastination among students. For example, a student who is addicted to ChatGPT usage may believe that he or she can complete an academic assignment or a project within less time and without putting much efforts. Such feelings of having control over the tasks are likely to encourage the students to delay those tasks till the last moment, thereby resulting in procrastination. More recent evidence also indicates that ChatGPT usage may cause laziness among students (Yilmaz & Yilmaz, 2023a ). Consequently, we suggest:

Hypothesis 5

Use of ChatGPT will be positively related to procrastination.

Use of ChatGPT and memory loss

Memory loss refers to a condition or a state in which an individual experiences difficulty in recalling information or events from the past (Mateos et al., 2016 ). Scholars indicate that cognitive, emotional, or physical conditions affect memory functioning among individuals (Fortier-Brochu et al., 2012 ; Schweizer et al., 2018 ). We argue that excessive use of ChatGPT may result in memory loss among students. Continuous use of ChatGPT for academic tasks may develop laziness among the students and weaken their cognitive skills (Yilmaz & Yilmaz, 2023a ) leading to a memory loss.

Over time, overreliance on generative AI tools for academic tasks, instead of critical thinking and mental exertion, may damage memory retention, cognitive functioning, and critical thinking abilities (Bahrini et al., 2023 ; Dwivedi et al., 2023 ). Active learning, which involves active cognitive engagement with the content, is crucial for memory consolidation and retention (Cowan et al., 2021 ). Since ChatGPT can quickly respond to any questions asked by a user (Chan et al., 2023 ), students who excessively use ChatGPT may reduce their cognitive efforts to complete their academic tasks, resulting in poor memory.

Related evidence demonstrates that daily mental training helps to improve cognitive functions among individuals (Uchida & Kawashima, 2008 ). Similarly, fast simple numerical calculation training (FSNC) was associated with improvements in performance on simple processing speed, improved executive functioning, and better performance in complex arithmetic tasks (Takeuchi et al., 2016 ). Moreover, Nouchi et al. ( 2013 ) found that brain training games helped to boost working memory and processing speed in young adults. Therefore, the extensive use of ChatGPT may yield an absence of such cognitive trainings, thereby leading to memory loss among students. Consequently, we suggest:

Hypothesis 6

Use of ChatGPT will be positively related to memory loss.

Use of ChatGPT and academic performance

Academic performance refers to the level of accomplishment that a student demonstrates in his or her educational pursuits. The objective measure of a student’s academic performance is indicated by cumulative grade point average (CGPA), which is a grading system used in educational institutions to measure a student's overall academic performance in a specific period, usually a semester.

If students effectively leverage the insights gained from ChatGPT to improve their understanding of a subject, it may positively influence their academic performance. However, if they rely solely on ChatGPT without putting in the necessary efforts, critical thinking, and independent study, it may harm their academic performance. Over-reliance on external sources, including generative AI tools, without personal engagement and active learning, can hinder the development of essential skills and the depth of knowledge required for academic success (Chan et al., 2023 ). Therefore, students who habitually use ChatGPT may end up demonstrating poor academic performance. Consequently, we suggest:

Hypothesis 7

Use of ChatGPT will be negatively related to academic performance.

The mediating role of ChatGPT usage

We further suggest that ChatGPT usage will mediate the relationships of workload, time pressure, sensitivity to quality, and sensitivity to rewards with students’ outcomes. Specifically, students who experience heavy workload and time pressure to complete their academic tasks are likely to engage in ChatGPT usage to cope with these stressful situations. In turn, reliance on ChatGPT may lead to delays in the accomplishment of the tasks (i.e., procrastination) because the students may believe that they can complete the tasks at any time without putting much efforts. Similarly, the excessively reliance on ChatGPT, as a substitute for their critical thinking and problem-solving skills, may hinder their ability to develop a deeper understanding of the subject matter, which can harmfully impact their academic performance (Abbas, 2023 ). Further, the high use of ChatGPT for academic tasks could potentially lead to reduced mental engagement, thereby exacerbating the risk of memory impairment (Bahrini et al., 2023 ; Dwivedi et al., 2023 ).

Moreover, ChatGPT usage will mediate the relationships of rewards sensitivity and quality sensitivity with procrastination, memory loss, and academic performance. The fear of losing marks (i.e., reward sensitivity) and the consciousness towards quality of academic work (i.e., sensitivity to quality), may influence the use of ChatGPT. In turn, the excessive (or less) use of ChatGPT may affect students’ procrastination, memory loss, and academic performance. Together, we suggest:

Hypothesis 8

Use of ChatGPT will mediate the relationships of workload with procrastination, memory loss, and academic performance.

Hypothesis 9

Use of ChatGPT will mediate the relationships of time pressure with procrastination, memory loss, and academic performance.

Hypothesis 10

Use of ChatGPT will mediate the relationships of sensitivity to rewards with procrastination, memory loss, and academic performance.

Hypothesis 11

Use of ChatGPT will mediate the relationships of sensitivity to quality with procrastination, memory loss, and academic performance.

Methods (Study 1)

Chatgpt usage scale development procedures.

Item generation: We used scale development procedures proposed in prior research (Hinkin, 1998 ). We first defined ChatGPT usage as the extent to which students use ChatGPT for various academic purposes including completion of assignments, projects, or preparation of exams. Based on this definition, initially 12 items were developed for further scrutiny.

Initial item reduction: Following the guidelines of Hinkin ( 1998 ), we performed an item-sorting process during the early stages of scale development. In order to establish content validity of the ChatGPT usage scale, we conducted interviews from five experts of the relevant field. The experts were asked to evaluate each item intended to measure ChatGPT usage. The experts agreed that 10 of the 12 items measured certain aspects of the academic use of ChatGPT by the students. Based on the content validity, these 10 items were finalized for further analyses.

Sample and data collection

The 10-item scale for the use of ChatGPT was distributed among 165 students from numerous university across Pakistan. The responses were taken on a 6-point Likert type scale with anchors ranging from 1 = never to 6 = always. A cover letter clearly communicated that the participation was voluntary, and the student could decline participation at any point during data collection. The respondents were also ensured complete confidentiality of their responses. The sample consisted of 53.3% males. The average age was 23.25 year (S.D = 4.22). Around 85% universities were from public sector and the remaining belonged to private sector. Similarly, around 59% students were enrolled in business studies, 6% were enrolled in computer sciences, 9% were enrolled in general education, 5% were enrolled in psychology, 4% were enrolled in English language, 4% were enrolled in public administration, 9% were enrolled in sociology, and 4% were enrolled in mathematics. Furthermore, around 74% were enrolled in bachelor’s programs, 22% were enrolled in master’s programs, and 4% were enrolled in doctoral programs.

Exploratory factor analysis

Next, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to determine the factor structure of the proposed scale (Field, 2018 ; Hinkin, 1998 ). Principal component analysis (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994 ) was used for extraction and the varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization was used as a rotation method. To ascertain the number of variables, the parameters of eigenvalue > 1 and the total percentage of variance explained > 50% were used. The results revealed that the Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant ( p  < 0.001) and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) sampling adequacy was 0.878 ( p  < 0.001), which was greater than the threshold value of 0.50, thereby considered acceptable for sample adequacy (Field, 2018 ). Further, factor loadings and communalities above 0.5 are usually considered acceptable (Field, 2018 ). As shown in Table  1 , the results revealed that item 4 and item 9 had low factor loadings and communalities.

We then dropped these two items and conducted another EFA on the remaining eight items. As presented in Table  2 , all 8 items exceeded the threshold criteria. Also, a one-factor structure accounted for 62.65% of the cumulative variance with all item loadings above 0.50. Therefore, the final scale to measure use of ChatGPT consisted of eight items. The Cronbach’s alpha (CA) for the 8-item scale was α = 0.914 and the composite reliability (CR) was 0.928. These scores of CA and CR exceeded the threshold value of 0.7, thereby indicating construct reliability (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994 ). Finally, as shown in Table  2 , the average variance extracted (AVE) score was 0.618, which was above the threshold value of 0.5, thus indicating convergent validity (Hair et al., 2019 ). Together, these results established good reliability and validity of the 8-item scale to measure ChatGPT usage.

Methods (Study 2)

Sample and data collection procedures.

The objective of study 2 was to further validate the 8-item ChatGPT scale developed in study 1. In addition, we tested the study’s hypotheses in study 2. Figure  1 presents the theoretical framework of study 2. The study used a time-lagged design, whereby the data were collected using online forms in three phases with a gap of 1–2 weeks after each phase. The data were collected from individuals who were currently enrolled in a university.

Theoretical framework of the study

We used procedural and methodological remedies recommended by scholars (see, Podsakoff et al., 2012 ) to address issues related to common method bias. First, we clearly communicated to our participants that their involvement was voluntary, and they retained the right to decline participation at any point during data collection. In addition, we ensured complete confidentiality of their responses, emphasizing that there were no right or wrong responses to the questions. Finally, we used a three-wave time-lagged design to keep a temporal separation between predictors and outcomes (Podsakoff et al., 2012 ). In each phase, the students were asked to assigned a code initially generated by them so that the survey forms for each respondent could be matched. Moreover, ethical clearance and approvals from the ethics committees of the authors' institutions were also obtained. Since English is the official language in all educational institutions, the survey forms were distributed in English. Past research has also used English language for survey research (e.g., Abbas & Bashir, 2020 ; Fatima et al., 2023 ; Malik et al., 2023 ).

In the first phase, around 900 participants were contacted to fill the survey on workload, time pressure, sensitivity to quality, sensitivity to rewards, and demographics. At the end of the first phase, a total of 840 surveys were received. In the second phase, after 1–2 weeks, the same respondents were contacted to fill the survey on the use of ChatGPT. Around 675 responses were received at the end of the second phase. Finally, another two weeks later, these 675 respondents were contacted again to collect data on memory loss, procrastination, and academic performance. At the end of the third phase, around 540 survey forms were returned. After removing surveys which contained missing data, the final sample size consisted of 494 complete responses which were then used for further analyses.

Of these 494 respondents, 50.8% were males and the average age of the respondents was 22.16 (S.D. = 3.47) years. Similarly, 88% of the respondents belonged to public sector and 12% belonged to private sector universities. Around 65% students were enrolled in business studies, 3% were enrolled in computer sciences, 12% were enrolled in general education, 1% were studying English language, 9% were studying public administration, and 10% were studying sociology. Finally, around 74% were enrolled in bachelor’s programs, 24% were enrolled in master’s programs, and 2% were enrolled in doctoral programs.

All variables, except for the use of ChatGPT, were measured on a 5-point Likert type scale with anchors ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Use of ChatGPT was measured on a 6-point Likert type scale with anchors ranging from 1 = never to 6 = always. The complete items for all measures are presented in Table  3 .

Academic workload: A 4-item scale by Peterson et al. ( 1995 ) was adapted to measure academic workload. A sample item included, ‘I feel overburdened due to my studies.’

Academic time pressure: A 4-item scale by Dapkus ( 1985 ) was adapted to measure time pressure. A sample item was, ‘I don’t have enough time to prepare for my class projects.’

Sensitivity to rewards: We measured sensitivity to rewards with a 2-item scale. The items included, ‘I am worried about my CGPA’ and ‘I am concerned about my semester grades.’

Sensitivity to quality: Sensitivity to quality was measured with a 2-item scale. The items were, ‘I am sensitive about the quality of my course assignments’ and ‘I am concerned about the quality of my course projects.’

Use of ChatGPT: We used the 8-item scale developed in study 1 to measure the use of ChatGPT. A sample item was, ‘I use ChatGPT for my academic activities.’

Procrastination: A 4-item scale developed by Choi and Moran ( 2009 ) was used to measure procrastination. A sample item included, ‘I’m often running late when getting things done.’

Memory loss: We used a 3-item scale to measure memory loss. A sample item was, ‘Nowadays, I can’t retain too much in my mind.’

Academic performance: We used an objective measure of academic performance to avoid self-report or social desirability bias. Each student reported his or her latest CGPA. The CGPA score ranges between 1 = lowest to 4 = highest. Since CGPA for each respondent was obtained as a single score, there was no need to calculate its reliability or validity.

Analyses and results (Study 2)

We used partial least squares (PLS) method to validate the measurements and test the hypotheses, as PLS is a second-generation structural equation modeling (SEM) technique that estimates relationships among latent variables by taking measurement errors into account and it is considered as a superior technique (Hair et al., 2017 ). The program utilizes bootstrapping approaches which entails the process of resampling from the dataset to provide standard errors and confidence intervals, yielding a more precise assessment of the model's stability (Hair et al., 2017 , 2019 ). Further, partial least squares (PLS) are often favored in situations with limited sample numbers and non-normal distributions (Hair et al., 2019 ).

Measurement model

The measurement model is presented in Fig.  2 . In the measurement model, first, we ran all the constructs together and examined the commonly used indicators of standardized factor loading, CA, CR, and AVE. The measurement model exhibited adequate levels of validity and reliability. As shown in Table  3 , the standardized factor loadings for each item of each measure were above the threshold level of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2019 ). Similarly, CA and CR scores for each measure were above 0.70 and the AVE also surpassed 0.5. All scores exceeded the cut-off criteria, thereby establishing reliability and convergent validity of each construct (Hair et al., 2019 ).

Measurement indicators outer-loadings and AVE (Study 2)

Furthermore, discriminant validity ensures that each latent construct is distinct from other constructs. As per Fornell and Larcker's ( 1981 ) criteria, discriminant validity is established if the squared root of the AVE for each construct is larger than the correlation of that construct with other constructs. As shown in Table  4 , the squared root of the AVE for each construct (the value along the diagonal presented in bold) exceeded the correlation of that construct with other constructs, thereby establishing discriminant validity of all constructs. Similarly, Henseler et al. ( 2015 ) consider Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio as a better tool to establish discriminate validity, as a large number of researchers have also used it (e.g., Hosta & Zabkar, 2021 ). HTMT values below 0.85 are considered good to establish discriminant validity (Henseler et al., 2015 ). As shown in Table  4 , all of the HTMT values were below the threshold, thereby establishing discriminant validity among the study’s constructs.

Furthermore, in order to test multicollinearity, we calculated variance inflation factor (VIF), which should be less than 5 to rule out the possibility of multicollinearity among the constructs (Hair et al., 2019 ). In all analyses, VIF scores were less than 5, indicating that multicollinearity was not a problem.

Structural model

We then tested the study’s hypotheses for direct and indirect effect using bootstrapping procedures with 5,000 samples in SmartPLS (Hair et al., 2017 ). The structural model is presented in Fig.  3 .

Structural model (Study 2)

As presented in Table  5 , the findings revealed that workload was positively related to the use of ChatGPT ( β  = 0.133, t  = 2.622, p  < 0.01). Those students who experienced high levels of academic workload were more likely to engage in ChatGPT usage. This result supported hypothesis 1. Similarly, time pressure also had a significantly positive relationship with the use of ChatGPT ( β  = 0.163, t  = 3.226, p  < 0.001), thereby supporting hypothesis 2. In other words, students who experienced high time pressure to accomplish their academic tasks also reported higher use of ChatGPT. Further, the effect of sensitivity to rewards on the use of ChatGPT was negative and marginally significant ( β  = − 0.102, t  = 1.710, p  < 0.10), thereby suggesting that students who are more sensitive to rewards are less likely to use ChatGPT. These results supported hypothesis 3b instead of hypothesis 3a. Finally, we found that sensitivity to quality was not significantly related to the use of ChatGPT ( β  = 0.033, t  = 0.590, n.s ). Thus, hypothesis 4 was not supported.

Consistent with hypothesis 5, the findings further revealed that the use of ChatGPT was positively related to procrastination ( β  = 0.309, t  = 6.984, p  < 0.001). Those students who frequently used ChatGPT were more likely to engage in procrastination than those who rarely used ChatGPT. Use of ChatGPT was also found to be positively related to memory loss ( β  = 0.274, t  = 6.452, p  < 0.001), thus hypothesis 6 was also supported. Students who frequently used ChatGPT also reported memory impairment. Furthermore, use of ChatGPT was found to have a negative effect on academic performance (i.e., CGPA) of the students ( β  = − 0.104, t  = 2.390, p  < 0.05). Students who frequently used ChatGPT for their academic tasks had poor CGPAs. These findings rendered support for hypothesis 7.

Table 6 presents the results for all indirect effects. As shown in Table  6 , workload had a positive indirect effect on procrastination (indirect effect = 0.041, t  = 2.384, p  < 0.05) and memory loss (indirect effect = 0.036, t  = 2.333, p  < 0.05) through the use of ChatGPT. Students who experienced higher workload were more likely to use ChatGPT which in turn developed the habits of procrastination among them and caused memory loss. Similarly, workload had a negative indirect effect on academic performance (indirect effect = − 0.014, t  = 1.657, p  < 0.10) through the use of ChatGPT. In other words, students who experienced higher workload were more likely to use ChatGPT. As a result, the extensive use of ChatGPT dampened their academic performance. These results supported hypothesis 8.

In addition, time pressure had a positive indirect effect on both procrastination (indirect effect = 0.050, t  = 2.607, p  < 0.01) and memory loss (indirect effect = 0.045, t  = 2.574, p  < 0.01), through an increased utilization of ChatGPT. Students facing higher time constraints were more inclined to use ChatGPT, ultimately fostering procrastination habits and experiencing memory issues. Similarly, time pressure had a negative indirect effect on academic performance (indirect effect = − 0.017, t  = 1.680, p  < 0.10), mediated by the increased use of ChatGPT. Thus, students experiencing greater time pressure were more likely to rely heavily on ChatGPT, consequently leading to a dampening of their academic performance. Together, these results supported hypothesis 9.

Furthermore, sensitivity to rewards had a negative indirect relationship with procrastination (indirect effect = − 0.032, 1.676, p  < 0.10) and memory loss (indirect effect = − 0.028, t  = 1.668, p  < 0.10) through the use of ChatGPT. Students who were sensitive to rewards were less likely to use ChatGPT and thus experience lower levels of procrastination and memory loss. However, the findings revealed that the indirect effect of sensitivity to rewards on academic performance was insignificant (indirect effect = 0.011, t  = 1.380, p  = 0.168). These findings supported hypothesis 10 for procrastination and memory loss only. Finally, the indirect effects of sensitivity to quality on procrastination (indirect effect = 0.010, t  = 0.582, n.s ), memory loss (indirect effect = 0.009, t  = 0.582, n.s ), and academic performance (indirect effect = − 0.003, t  = 0.535, n.s ) through the use of ChatGPT were all insignificant. Therefore, hypothesis 11 was not supported.

Overall discussion

Major findings.

The recent emergence of generative AI has brought about significant implications for various societal institutions, including higher education institutions. As a result, there has been a notable upswing in discussions among scholars and academicians regarding the transformative potential of generative AI, particularly ChatGPT, in higher education and the risks associated with it (Dalalah & Dalalah, 2023 ; Meyer et al., 2023 ; Peters et al., 2023 ; Yilmaz & Yilmaz, 2023a ). Specifically, the dynamics of ChatGPT are still unknown in the context that no study, to date, has yet provided any empirical evidence on why students’ use ChatGPT. The literature is also silent on the potential consequences, harmful or beneficial, of ChatGPT usage (Dalalah & Dalalah, 2023 ; Paul et al., 2023 ) despite a ban in many institutions across the globe. Responding to these gaps in the literature, the current study proposed workload, time pressure, sensitivity to rewards, and sensitivity to quality as the potential determinants of the use of ChatGPT. In addition, the study examined the effects of ChatGPT usage on students’ procrastination, memory loss, and academic performance.

The findings suggested that those students who experienced high levels of academic workload and time pressure to accomplish their tasks reported higher use of ChatGPT. Regarding the competing hypotheses on the effects of sensitivity to rewards on ChatGPT usage, the findings suggested that the students who were more sensitive to rewards were less likely to use ChatGPT. This indicates that rewards sensitive students might avoid the use ChatGPT for the fear of getting a poor grade if caught. Surprisingly, we found that sensitivity to quality was not significantly related to the use of ChatGPT. It appears that quality consciousness might not determine the use of ChatGPT because some quality conscious students might consider the tasks completed by personal effort as having high quality. In contrast, other quality conscious students might consider ChatGPT written work as having a better quality.

Furthermore, our findings suggested that excessive use of ChatGPT can have harmful effects on students’ personal and academic outcomes. Specifically, those students who frequently used ChatGPT were more likely to engage in procrastination than those who rarely used ChatGPT. Similarly, students who frequently used ChatGPT also reported memory loss. In the same vein, students who frequently used ChatGPT for their academic tasks had a poor CGPA. The mediating effects indicated that academic workload and time pressure were likely to promote procrastination and memory impairment among students through the use of ChatGPT. Also, these stressors dampened students’ academic performance through the excessive use of ChatGPT. Consistently, the findings suggested that higher reward sensitivity discouraged the students to use ChatGPT for their academic tasks. The less use of ChatGPT, in turn, helped the students experience lower levels of procrastination and memory loss.

Theoretical implications

The current study responds to the calls for the development of a novel scale to measure the use of ChatGPT and an empirical investigation into the harmful or beneficial effects of ChatGPT in higher education for a better understand of the dynamics of generative AI tools. Study 1 uses a sample of university students to develop and validate the use of ChatGPT scale. We believe that the availability of the new scale to measure the use of ChatGPT may help further advancement in this field. Moreover, study 2 validates the scale using another sample of university students from a variety of disciplines. Study 2 also examines the potential antecedents and consequences of ChatGPT usage. This is the first attempt to empirically examine why students might engage in ChatGPT usage. We provide evidence on the role of academic workload, time pressure, sensitivity to rewards, and sensitivity to quality in encouraging the students to use ChatGPT for academic activities.

The study also contributes to the prior literature by examining the potential deleterious consequences of ChatGPT usage. Specifically, the study provides evidence that the excessive use of ChatGPT can develop procrastination, cause memory loss, and dampen academic performance of the students. The study is a starting point that paws path for future research on the beneficial or deleterious effects of generative AI usage in academia.

Practical implications

The study provides important implications for higher education institutions, policy makers, instructors, and students. Our findings suggest that both heavy workload and time pressure are influential factors driving students to use ChatGPT for their academic tasks. Therefore, higher education institutions should emphasize the importance of efficient time management and workload distribution while assigning academic tasks and deadlines. While ChatGPT may aid in managing heavy academic workloads under time constraints, students must be kept aware of the negative consequences of excessive ChatGPT usage. They may be encouraged to use it as a complementary resource for learning instead of a tool for completing academic tasks without investing cognitive efforts. In the same vein, encouraging students to keep a balance between technological assistance and personal effort can foster a holistic approach to learning.

Similarly, policy makers and educators should design curricula and teaching strategies that engage students' natural curiosity and passion for learning. While ChatGPT's ease of use might be alluring, fostering an environment where students derive satisfaction from mastering challenging concepts independently can mitigate overreliance on generative AI tools. Also, recognizing and rewarding students for their genuine intellectual achievements can create a sense of accomplishment that may supersede the allure of quick AI-based solutions. As also noted by Chaudhry et al. ( 2023 ), in order to discourage misuse of ChatGPT by the students, the instructors may revisit their performance evaluation methods and design novel assessment criteria that may require the students to use their own creative skills and critical thinking abilities to complete assignments and projects instead of using generative AI tools.

Moreover, given the preliminary evidence that extensive use of ChatGPT has a negative effect on a students’ academic performance and memory, educators should encourage students to actively engage in critical thinking and problem-solving by assigning activities, assignments, or projects that cannot be completed by ChatGPT. This can mitigate the adverse effects of ChatGPT on their learning journey and mental capabilities. Furthermore, educators can create awareness among students about the potential pitfalls of excessive ChatGPT usage. Finally, educators and policy makers can develop interventions that target both the underlying causes (e.g., workload, time pressure, sensitivity to rewards) and the consequences (e.g., procrastination, memory loss, and academic performance). These interventions could involve personalized guidance, skill-building workshops, and awareness campaigns to empower students to leverage generative AI tools effectively while preserving their personal learning.

Limitations and future research directions

Like other study, this study also has some limitations. First, although we used a time-lagged design, as compared to cross-sectional designs used by prior research (e.g., Strzelecki, 2023 ), we could not completely rule out the possibility of reciprocal relationships. For example, it is also possible that ChatGPT usage may also help lessen the subsequent perceptions of workload. Future research may examine these causal mechanisms using a longitudinal design. Second, in order to provide a deeper understanding of generative AI usage, future studies may examine how personality factors, such as trust propensity and the Big Five personality traits, relate to ChatGPT usage. Also, an understanding of how these traits shape perceptions of ChatGPT's reliability, trustworthiness, and effectiveness may shed light on the dynamics of user-machine interactions in the context of generative AI.

Moreover, our finding regarding the insignificant effect of quality consciousness on ChatGPT usage warrants further investigation. While some quality conscious students might consider personal effort as a condition to produce quality work, other quality conscious individuals might believe that ChatGPT can help achieve quality in academic tasks. Perhaps, some contextual moderators (e.g., propensity to trust generative AI) may play their role in determining the effects of quality consciousness on ChatGPT usage. In the same vein, fear of punishment may also discourage the use of ChatGPT for plagiarism. As noted by an anonymous reviewer, future studies may probe the benefits associated with the use of generative AI and also compare the dynamics of ChatGPT usage across numerous fields of knowledge (e.g., computer sciences, social sciences) or across gender to examine any differential effects. Finally, future research may probe the effects of ChatGPT usage on students' learning and health outcomes. By investigating how ChatGPT usage impacts cognitive skills, mental health, and learning experiences among students, researchers can contribute to the growing discourse on the role of generative AI in higher education.

Availability of data and materials

The data associated with this research is available upon a reasonable request.

Abbas, M. (2023). Uses and misuses of ChatGPT by academic community: an overview and guidelines. SSRN . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4402510

Article   Google Scholar  

Abbas, M., & Bashir, F. (2020). Having a green identity: does pro-environmental self-identity mediate the effects of moral identity on ethical consumption and pro-environmental behavior? Studia Psychologica, 41 (3), 612–643. https://doi.org/10.1080/02109395.2020.1796271

Bahrini, A., Khamoshifar, M., Abbasimehr, H., Riggs, R. J., Esmaeili, M., Majdabadkohne, R. M., & Pasehvar, M. (2023). ChatGPT: Applications, opportunities, and threats. In 2023 Systems and Information Engineering Design Symposium (SIEDS) (pp. 274–279).

Bahroun, Z., Anane, C., Ahmed, V., & Zacca, A. (2023). Transforming Education: A comprehensive review of generative artificial intelligence in educational settings through bibliometric and content analysis. Sustainability, 15 (17), 12983. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151712983

Bäulke, L., & Dresel, M. (2023). Higher-education course characteristics relate to academic procrastination: A multivariate two-level analysis. Educational Psychology, 43 (4), 263–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2023.2219873

Bowyer, K. (2012). A model of student workload. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34 (3), 239–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2012.678729

Carless, D., Jung, J., & Li, Y. (2023). Feedback as socialization in doctoral education: Towards the enactment of authentic feedback. Studies in Higher Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2242888

Carnevale, P. J. D., & Lawler, E. J. (1986). Time pressure and the development of integrative agreements in bilateral negotiations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 30 (4), 636–659. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002786030004003

Chan, C. K. Y. (2023). A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20 (1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00408-3

Chan, M. M. K., Wong, I. S. F., Yau, S. Y., & Lam, V. S. F. (2023). Critical reflection on using ChatGPT in student learning: Benefits or potential risks? Nurse Educator . https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000001476

Chaudhry, I. S., Sarwary, S. A. M., El Refae, G. A., & Chabchoub, H. (2023). Time to revisit existing student’s performance evaluation approach in higher education sector in a new era of ChatGPT—a case study. Cogent Education, 10 (1), 2210461. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2210461

Choi, J. N., & Moran, S. V. (2009). Why not procrastinate? Development and validation of a new active procrastination scale. The Journal of Social Psychology, 149 (2), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.149.2.195-212

Cooper, G. (2023). Examining science education in ChatGPT: An exploratory study of generative artificial intelligence. Journal of Science Education and Technology . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-023-10039-y

Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2023). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International . https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148

Cowan, E. T., Schapiro, A. C., Dunsmoor, J. E., & Murty, V. P. (2021). Memory consolidation as an adaptive process. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28 (6), 1796–1810. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-021-01978-x

Dalalah, D., & Dalalah, O. M. A. (2023). The false positives and false negatives of generative AI detection tools in education and academic research: The case of ChatGPT. The International Journal of Management Education, 21 (2), 100822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100822

Dapkus, M. A. (1985). A thematic analysis of the experience of time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49 (2), 408–419. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.2.408

Devlin, M., & Gray, K. (2007). In their own words: A qualitative study of the reasons Australian university students plagiarize. Higher Education Research & Development, 26 (2), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360701310805

Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., Albanna, H., & Wright, R. (2023). “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71 , 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642

EduKitchen. (2023). Chomsky on ChatGPT, Education, Russia, and the unvaccinated [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgxzcOugvEI&t=1182s

Fatima, S., Abbas, M., & Hassan, M. M. (2023). Servant leadership, ideology-based culture and job outcomes: A multi-level investigation among hospitality workers. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 109 , 103408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2022.103408

Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (5th ed.). SAGE.

Google Scholar  

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (3), 382–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800313

Fortier-Brochu, É., Beaulieu-Bonneau, S., Ivers, H., & Morin, C. M. (2012). Insomnia and daytime cognitive performance: A meta-analysis. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 16 (1), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2011.03.008

Guo, X. (2011). Understanding student plagiarism: An empirical study in accounting education. Accounting Education, 20 (1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2010.534577

Haensch, A., Ball, S., Herklotz, M., & Kreuter, F. (2023). Seeing ChatGPT through students’ eyes: An analysis of TikTok data. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv: 2303.05349. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.05349

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) . Publications, SAGE.

Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31 (1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203

Hasebrook, J. P., Michalak, L., Kohnen, D., Metelmann, B., Metelmann, C., Brinkrolf, P., et al. (2023). Digital transition in rural emergency medicine: Impact of job satisfaction and workload on communication and technology acceptance. PLoS ONE, 18 (1), e0280956. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280956

Hayashi, Y., Russo, C. T., & Wirth, O. (2015). Texting while driving as impulsive choice: A behavioral economic analysis. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 83 , 182–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.07.025

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8

Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1 (1), 104–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100106

Hosta, M., & Zabkar, V. (2021). Antecedents of environmentally and socially responsible sustainable consumer behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 171 (2), 273–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04416-0

King, M. R. (2023). A conversation on artificial intelligence, chatbots, and plagiarism in higher education. Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering, 16 (1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12195-022-00754-8

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Koh, H. P., Scully, G., & Woodliff, D. R. (2011). The impact of cumulative pressure on accounting students’ propensity to commit plagiarism: An experimental approach. Accounting & Finance, 51 (4), 985–1005. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-629X.2010.00381.x

Korn, J., & Kelly, S. (January). New York City public schools ban access to AI tool that could help students cheat . Retrieved from https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/05/tech/chatgpt-nyc-school-ban/index.html

Koudela-Hamila, S., Santangelo, P. S., Ebner-Priemer, U. W., & Schlotz, W. (2022). Under which circumstances does academic workload lead to stress? Journal of Psychophysiology, 36 (3), 188–197. https://doi.org/10.1027/0269-8803/a000293

Krou, M. R., Fong, C. J., & Hoff, M. A. (2021). Achievement motivation and academic dishonesty: A meta-analytic investigation. Educational Psychology Review, 33 , 427–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09557-7

Lee, H. (2023). The rise of ChatGPT: Exploring its potential in medical education. Anatomical Sciences Education . https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2270

Liu, L., Zhang, T., & Xie, X. (2023). Negative life events and procrastination among adolescents: The roles of negative emotions and rumination, as well as the potential gender differences. Behavioral Sciences, 13 (2), 176. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13020176

Macfarlane, B., Zhang, J., & Pun, A. (2014). Academic integrity: A review of the literature. Studies in Higher Education, 39 (2), 339–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2012.709495

Malik, M., Abbas, M., & Imam, H. (2023). Knowledge-oriented leadership and workers’ performance: Do individual knowledge management engagement and empowerment matter? International Journal of Manpower . https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-07-2022-0302

Mateos, P. M., Valentin, A., González-Tablas, M. D. M., Espadas, V., Vera, J. L., & Jorge, I. G. (2016). Effects of a memory training program in older people with severe memory loss. Educational Gerontology, 42 (11), 740–748.

Meyer, J. G., Urbanowicz, R. J., Martin, P. C., O’Connor, K., Li, R., Peng, P. C., Bright, T. J., Tatonetti, N., Won, K. J., Gonzalez-Hernandez, G., & Moore, J. H. (2023). ChatGPT and large language models in academia: Opportunities and challenges. BioData Mining, 16 (1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13040-023-00339-9

Nouchi, R., Taki, Y., Takeuchi, H., Hashizume, H., Nozawa, T., Kambara, T., Sekiguchi, A., Miyauchi, C. M., Kotozaki, Y., Nouchi, H., & Kawashima, R. (2013). Brain training game boosts executive functions, working memory and processing speed in the young adults: A randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE, 8 (2), e55518. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055518

Novak, D. (2023). Why US schools are blocking ChatGPT? 17 January 2023. Retrieved from https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/why-us-schools-are-blocking-chatgpt/6914320.html

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Olugbara, C. T., Imenda, S. N., Olugbara, O. O., & Khuzwayo, H. B. (2020). Moderating effect of innovation consciousness and quality consciousness on intention-behaviour relationship in E-learning integration. Education and Information Technologies, 25 , 329–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09960-w

Paul, J., Ueno, A., & Dennis, C. (2023). ChatGPT and consumers: Benefits, pitfalls and future research agenda. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 47 (4), 1213–1225. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12928

Pearson, M. R., Murphy, E. M., & Doane, A. N. (2013). Impulsivity-like traits and risky driving behaviors among college students. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 53 , 142–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.01.009

Peters, M. A., Jackson, L., Papastephanou, M., Jandrić, P., Lazaroiu, G., Evers, C. W., Cope, B., Kalantzis, M., Araya, D., Tesar, M., Mika, C., & Fuller, S. (2023). AI and the future of humanity: ChatGPT-4, philosophy and education–Critical responses. Educational Philosophy and Theory . https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2023.2213437

Peterson, M. F., Smith, P. B., Akande, A., Ayestaran, S., Bochner, S., Callan, V., Cho, N. G., Jesuino, J. C., D’Amorim, M., Francois, P.-H., Hofmann, K., Koopman, P. L., Leung, K., Lim, T. K., Mortazavi, J., Radford, M., Ropo, A., Savage, G., Setiad, B., Sinha, T. N., Sorenson, R., & Viedge, C. (1995). Role conflict, ambiguity, and overload: A 21-nation study. Academy of Management Journal, 38 (2), 429–452. https://doi.org/10.5465/256687

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63 , 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

Reuters. (2023). Top French university bans use of ChatGPT to prevent plagiarism . Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/technology/top-french-university-bans-use-chatgpt-prevent-plagiarism-2023-01-27/

Rieskamp, J., & Hoffrage, U. (2008). Inferences under time pressure: How opportunity costs affect strategy selection. Acta Psychologica, 127 (2), 258–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.05.004

Rozental, A., Forsström, D., Hussoon, A., & Klingsieck, K. B. (2022). Procrastination among university students: Differentiating severe cases in need of support from less severe cases. Frontiers in Psychology . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.783570

Schweizer, S., Kievit, R. A., Emery, T., & Henson, R. N. (2018). Symptoms of depression in a large healthy population cohort are related to subjective memory complaints and memory performance in negative contexts. Psychological Medicine, 48 (1), 104–114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291717001519

Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133 (1), 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65

Stojanov, A. (2023). Learning with ChatGPT 3.5 as a more knowledgeable other: An autoethnographic study. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20 (1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00404-7

Strzelecki, A. (2023). To use or not to use ChatGPT in higher education? A study of students’ acceptance and use of technology. Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2209881

Svartdal, F., & Løkke, J. A. (2022). The ABC of academic procrastination: Functional analysis of a detrimental habit. Frontiers in Psychology, 13 , 1019261. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1019261

Takeuchi, H., Nagase, T., Taki, Y., Sassa, Y., Hashizume, H., Nouchi, R., & Kawashima, R. (2016). Effects of fast simple numerical calculation training on neural systems. Neural Plasticity, 2016 , 940634. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/5940634

Uchida, S., & Kawashima, R. (2008). Reading and solving arithmetic problems improves cognitive functions of normal aged people: A randomized controlled study. Age, 30 , 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11357-007-9044-x

Yan, D. (2023). Impact of ChatGPT on learners in a L2 writing practicum: An exploratory investigation. Education and Information Technologies . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11742-4

Yang, C., Chen, A., & Chen, Y. (2021). College students’ stress and health in the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of academic workload, separation from school, and fears of contagion. PLoS ONE, 16 (2), e0246676. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246676

Yilmaz, R., & Yilmaz, F. G. K. (2023a). Augmented intelligence in programming learning: Examining student views on the use of ChatGPT for programming learning. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 1 (2), 100005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2023.100005

Yilmaz, R., & Yilmaz, F. G. K. (2023b). The effect of generative artificial intelligence (AI)-based tool use on students’ computational thinking skills, programming self-efficacy and motivation. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4 , 100147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100147

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

There was no funding received from any institution for this study.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

FAST School of Management, National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences, Islamabad, Pakistan

Muhammad Abbas

Global Illuminators, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Farooq Ahmed Jam

Department of Science & Technology Studies, Faculty of Science, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Institute of Management Sciences, The University of Haripur, Haripur, Pakistan

Tariq Iqbal Khan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

MA contributed to the conceptualization of the idea, theoretical framework, methodology, analyses, and the writeup. FAJ and TIK contributed to the data collection, methodology, analyses, and the write-up. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Muhammad Abbas .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The research was explicitly approved by the ethical review committee of the authors’ university. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution.

Informed consent

Participants were informed about the study’s procedures, risks, benefits, and other aspects before their participation. Only those who gave their consent were allowed to participate in the research.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they do not have any competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Abbas, M., Jam, F.A. & Khan, T.I. Is it harmful or helpful? Examining the causes and consequences of generative AI usage among university students. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 21 , 10 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00444-7

Download citation

Received : 14 September 2023

Accepted : 22 January 2024

Published : 16 February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00444-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Time pressure
• Sensitivity to quality
• Sensitivity to rewards
• ChatGPT usage
• Procrastination
• Memory loss
• Academic performance

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

We Don’t See What Climate Change Is Doing to Us

By R. Jisung Park

Dr. Park is an environmental and labor economist and assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of “Slow Burn: The Hidden Costs of a Warming World.”

Many of us realize climate change is a threat to our well-being. But what we have not yet grasped is that the devastation wreaked by climate change comes not just from headline-grabbing catastrophes but also from the subtler accumulation of innumerable slow and unequal burns that are already underway — the nearly invisible costs that may not raise the same alarm but that, in their pervasiveness and inequality, may be much more harmful than commonly realized. Recognizing these hidden costs will be essential as we prepare ourselves for the warming that we have ahead of us.

Responsibility for mitigating climate change on the local level lies in part with public institutions not only in encouraging emissions reductions but also in facilitating adaptation. Public discourse around climate change too often misses the central role that local institutions play in this latter function, how much of the realized pain locally depends on not simply the physical phenomena of climate change per se but also how they interact with human systems — economic, educational, legal and political.

Let’s start with heat, which is killing more people than most other natural disasters combined. Research shows that record-breaking heat waves are only part of the story. Instead, it may be the far more numerous unremarkably hot days that cause the bulk of societal destruction, including through their complex and often unnoticed effects on human health and productivity. In the United States, even moderately elevated temperatures — days in the 80s or 90s Fahrenheit — are responsible for just as many excess deaths as the record triple-digit heat waves, if not more, according to my calculations based on a recent analysis of Medicare records.

In some highly exposed and physically demanding industries, like mining, a day in the 90s can increase injury risk by over 65 percent relative to a day in the 60s. While some of these incidents involve clear cases of heat illness, my colleagues and I have found that a vast majority appear to come from ostensibly unrelated accidents, like construction workers falling off ladders and manufacturing workers mishandling hazardous machinery. In California, our research shows, heat might have routinely caused 20,000 workplace injuries per year, only a tiny fraction of which were officially recorded as heat-related.

A growing body of literature links temperature to cognitive performance and decision making. Research shows that hotter days lead to more mistakes, including among professional athletes ; more local crime ; and more violence in prisons , according to working papers. They also correspond with more use of profanity on social media , suggesting that even an incrementally hotter world is likely to be a nontrivially more irritable, error-prone and conflictual one.

Children are not immune. In research using over four million student test scores from New York City, I found that, from 1999 to 2011, students who took their high school Regents exams on a 90-degree day were 10 percent less likely to pass their subjects relative to a day in the 60s. In other research, my colleagues Joshua Goodman, Michael Hurwitz and Jonathan Smith and I found that across the country, hotter school years led to slower gains on standardized exams like the Preliminary SAT exams. It may not seem a huge effect, on average: roughly 1 percent of learning lost per one-degree-hotter school year temperatures. Probably hardly noticeable in any given year. But because these learning effects are cumulative, they may have significant consequences.

And that’s just heat. Researchers are bringing to light the more subtle yet cumulatively damaging effects of increased wildfires and other natural disasters. The hidden consequences of wildfire smoke may cut even deeper than the more visible death and destruction caused by the flames. Tallying the downstream economic and health costs of smoke exposure, researchers have estimated in a not-yet-published paper that increased wildfire smoke due to climate change may cause more than 20,000 additional deaths per year nationwide by 2050. Very few of these will be officially categorized as having been caused by wildfires, because they will have been the result of the cumulative influence of worsened air quality and weakened health over the course of many weeks and months. Research now suggests that wildfire smoke can adversely affect fetal health , student learning and workers’ earnings as well.

Since even noncatastrophic climate change may be more subtly damaging and inequality amplifying than we used to think, local interventions are essential to help us prepare for the warming that is to come.

At present, our social and economic systems are not well prepared to adjust to the accumulating damage wreaked by climate change, even though much of what determines whether climate change hurts us depends on the choices we make as individuals and as a society. Whether a hot day leads to mild discomfort or widespread mortality comes down to human decisions — individual decisions such as whether to install and operate air-conditioning and collective decisions around the pricing and availability of insurance, the allocation of hospital beds or the procedures and norms governing how and when people work.

Recent research indicates that how temperature affects human health depends greatly on the adaptations that happen to be at play locally. For instance, a day above 85 degrees in the coldest U.S. ZIP codes has nearly 10 times the effect on elderly mortality relative to in the warmest ZIP codes. In other words, a string of such days in a place like Seattle will lead to a much higher increase in the mortality rate than in a place like Houston, even though both places have similar income levels. In rural India , institutional factors like access to banking may affect how many lives are ultimately lost because of heat; heat can reduce crop yields, leaving subsistence farmers dependent on financing sources to keep them afloat.

In our research of heat and learning , we found that the adverse effects of a one-degree-hotter school year are two to three times as large for Black and Hispanic students, who are less likely to have working air-conditioning at school or at home even within a given city, and are virtually nonexistent in schools and neighborhoods with high levels of home and school air-conditioning. We estimate that hotter temperatures may already be responsible for 5 percent of racial academic achievement gaps. Without remedial investments, climate change is likely to widen these gaps. With a shift in focus to these subtler social costs, we can devise and carry out more effective strategies. But right now, adaptation efforts remain highly fragmented and are often focused on more visibly salient climate hazards, like storm surges .

And, of course, an empirically nuanced understanding of climate damages makes it even clearer that reducing emissions aggressively makes cost-benefit sense not only because we want to insure against total ecological breakdown (cue “extinction rebellion” and “tipping points”) but also because the economic costs of even noncatastrophic warming may be considerable. Recent Environmental Protection Agency estimates that incorporate just some of these cumulative impacts suggest that a single ton of carbon dioxide sets in motion $190 worth of future social costs, which means that technologies that can reduce such emissions at a lower per-ton cost are most likely worth pursuing.

Climate change is a complex phenomenon whose ultimate costs will depend not only on how quickly we transition away from fossil fuels but also on how well we adapt our social and economic systems to the warming we have in store. A proactive stance toward adaptation and resilience may be useful from the standpoint of safeguarding one’s own physical and financial security, whether as a homeowner or the head of a Fortune 500 company. It may be vital for ensuring that the ladders of economic opportunity are not deteriorating for those attempting to climb its lower rungs.

R. Jisung Park is an environmental and labor economist and assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of “Slow Burn: The Hidden Costs of a Warming World.”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .