Volume XXXV, 2009No. 1 Fall 2009

Promoting Excellence in Preparation and Excellence in Practice

The future is here

A refereed publication of The International Honor Society for Professions in Technology.

Editor-in-ChiefDominick E. Fazarro

Department of Agriculturaland Industrial Sciences

Sam Houston State UniversityBox 2088

Huntsville, TX 77341-2088936.294.1228

fax: 936.294.1232DEF003@shsu.edu

Associate EditorMark R. Miller

Department of Human ResourceDevelopment and Technology

The University of Texas at Tyler3900 University Blvd.

Tyler, Texas 75799903.566.7186

fax: 903.565.5650mark_miller@uttyler.edu

Stephanie AtkinsonUniversity of SunderlandFaculty of Education and SocietyCity Campus Forster Building, Chester RoadSunderland, Tyne & Wear U.K. SR1 3SDe.stephanie.atkinson@btinternet.com

Karen BirchCT Community CollegesCollege of Technology/RegionalCenter for Next GenerationManufacturing(representing the Board of Directors)

Wan-Lee ChengChung Yuan Christian UniversityChung Li, Taiwan 320Republic of China+886 3 265 1000wlcheng@sfsu.edu

John DakersFaculty of EducationUniversity of Glascow11 Eldon StreetGlascow, Scotland G3 6NHfax: 44 (0) 141 330 5451j.dakers@educ.gla.ac.uk

Marie KraskaEducational Foundations, Leadership,and TechnologyAuburn University4036 Haley CenterAuburn University, AL 36849-5221334.844.4460fax: 334.844.3072kraskamf@auburn.edu

Sam C. ObiDepartment of TechnologySan Jose State UniversityOne Washington SquareSan Jose, CA 95192-0061408.924.3218fax: 408.924.3198sobi@email.sjsu.edu

Xeushu SongDepartment of TechnologyNorthern Illinois UniversityDekalb, IL 60115-2854815.753.1349fax: 815.753.3702q20xxs1@corn.cso.niu.edu

Luke SteinkeSchool of TechnologyEastern Illinois University600 Lincoln AvenueCharleston, IL 61920217.581.6271fax: 217.581.6607lsteinke@eiu.edu

Staff for this Issue

EditorialConsultantLee Meiser

PublisherBarry D. Piersol

Office ManagerSusan Pickens

Art & LayoutKnape Designs

The Journal of Technology Studies (JTS) (ISSN 1071-6048) is the flagship, peer-reviewed journal of Epsilon Pi Tau, Inc., a nonprofit, academic and professional honorsociety. Headquarters and editorial offices are located at the Technology Building,Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403-0296. Use this address orjots@bgsu.edu for subscription matters or purchases.

Copyright 2009 by Epsilon Pi Tau, Inc.

The opinions expressed by the journal’s authors are not necessarily those of the Boardof Directors, staff, or members of Epsilon Pi Tau.

Two print issues per year are mailed to all members of the society upon request and toacademic and general libraries around the globe. Issues that are published online only,the aforementioned printed issues, and past issues are available online atscholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTS.

The journal is currently indexed in Current Index to Journals of Education (USA),International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS) (UK), and the InternationalVocational Education and Training and Research Database at http://www.ncver.edu.au(Australia).

Separate articles or complete issues are also available in a variety of media forms fromNational Archive Publishing Company, P.O. Box 1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346,EBSCO Publishing, 10 Estes Street, Ipswich, MA 01938-0682, USA, and ERIC, 65515th Street NW Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005, USA.

The JTS welcomes original manuscripts from scholars worldwide focused on the depthand breadth of technology as practiced and understood past, present, and future. EpsilonPi Tau, as perhaps the most comprehensive honor society among the technology profes-sions, seeks to provide up-to-date and insightful information to its increasingly diversemembership as well as the broader public. Authors need not be members of the societyin order to submit manuscripts for consideration. Contributions from both academicsand practitioners are equally welcome.

A general guide to the breadth of topics of potential interest to our readers can be gainedby consideration of the 17 subclasses within “Technology” of the classification schemeof the Library of Congress, USA <lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/lcco/lcco_t.pdf>. Thisincludes engineering and allied disciplines, informatics in its many manifestations,industrial technology, and education in and about technology.

Authors are strongly urged to consult the journal’s “Guidelines for Authors,” included inthis publication, or available at the society’s Web site (www.eptglobal.org) or providedupon request. It provides additional details on the breadth and nature of topics of interest,the journal’s scholarly writing standards, submission guidelines, and review and publica-tion processes.

Printed in the United States of America by Kennedy Printing Company, Findlay, Ohio.

Board of Directors

A refereed publication of The International Honor Society for Professions in Technology.

The Journal of Technology Studies

Region 1 (The nations of Europe, theEastern Provinces of Canada, and theNortheastern United States)Thomas P. BellDepartment of Industry and TechnologyP.O. Box 1002Millersville UniversityMillersville, PA 17551717.871.2301fax: 717.872.3318thomas.bell@millersville.edu

Region 2 (The nations of Africa, theCaribbean Islands, and the SoutheasternUnited States)Kevin R. HowellDepartment of TechnologyAppalachian State UniversityW Kerr Scott HallBoone, NC 28608828.262.3114howellkr@appstate.edu

Region 3 (All members-at-large, theCanadian Province of Ontario, andthe North Central United States)Todd D. MyersRuss College of Engineering and TechnologyIndustrial Tech. Dept.Ohio University124b Stocker CenterAthens, OH 45701740.593.1455myerst2@ohio.edu

Region 4 (The nations of Central andSouth America, the Northern Territory and Central Provinces of Canada, and the Central United States)Charles V. SchwabIowa State UniversityAgricultural and Biosystems Engineering

Department220 Industrial Education IIAmes, IA 50011-3130Grand Forks, ND 58202-7118515.294.4131fax: 515.294.1123cvschwab@iastate.edu

Region 5 (Australia, the island nations ofthe Pacific and Indian Oceans, the nationsof Asia, the Yukon Territory and WesternProvinces of Canada, and the WesternUnited States)Sam C. ObiDepartment of Aviation andTechnologySan Jose State UniversityOne Washington SquareSan Jose, CA 95192408.924.3218fax: 408.924.3198sobi@email.sjsu.edu

Associate Executive Director for Information and CommunicationKatrina BurtTechnology BuilidingBowling Green State UniversityBowling Green, OH 43403419.352.2425fax: 419.372.9502jots@bgsu.edu

Executive DirectorBarry D. PiersolTechnology BuildingBowling Green State UniversityBowling Green, Ohio 43403419.372.0378fax: 419.372.9502ept@bgsu.edu

Editorial Board

Front Cover Photo: "Courtesy of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept. ofEnergy."

Email submissions should be sent to jots@bgsu.edu.Paper submissions should be sent to:Journal of Technology StudiesEpsilon Pi Tau, Technology BuildingBowling Green State UniversityBowling Green, OH 43403-0296

1

Table of ContentsVolume XXXV, Number 1, Fall 2009

3 Nanotechnology Education:Contemporary Content andApproaches

Jeremy V. Ernst

9 Nano Revolution – Big Impact:How EmergingNanotechnologies Will Changethe Future of Education andIndustry in America (andMore Specifically inOklahoma) An AbbreviatedAccount

Steven E Holley

20 Simulation of a Start-up Manufacturing Facility forNanopore Arrays

Dennis W. Field

25 Bio-based Nanocomposites:An Alternative to TraditionalComposites

Jitendra S. Tate, Adekunle T. Akinola,and Dmitri Kabakov

33 A Guide for the SafeHandling of Engineered andFabricated Nanomaterials

Wanda L. Greaves-Holmes

40 Potential Ambient Energy-Harvesting Sources andTechniques

Faruk Yildiz

49 Technology Transfer Issuesand a New TechnologyTransfer Model

Hee Jun Choi

58 “A Way of Revealing”:Technology and Utopianismin Contemporary Culture

Alex Hall

67 Technology Teachers’ BeliefsAbout Biotechnology and ItsInstruction in South Korea

Hyuksoo Kwon and Mido Chang

76 Examining the Nature ofTechnology GraduateEducation

Nathan Hartman, Marvin Sarapin, GaryBertoline, and Susan Sarapin

83 The 2008 Paul T. Hiser Award

84 Guidelines for the Journal of Technology Studies

This issue of the Journal of TechnologyStudies is addressing a topic that has been char-acterized as the most important technology sincesemiconductors and the future of manufacturingopportunities over the next few decades. Whilethis possibly is an overstatement, nanotechnolo-gy is creating numerous, exciting possibilities. Itis very early in the development of the technolo-gy. In some areas, the development of nanotech-nology is just approaching where semiconduc-tors were when Intel introduced the 4044 micro-processor! A growing future lies close by withlimits beyond imagination. This is a critical timein the evolution of this technology.

This issue of the Journal of TechnologyStudies is a beginning step in creating an under-standing of the needs for the appropriate appli-cations of nanotechnology.

Walt Trybula, Ph.D., -Director

Nanomaterial Applications Center (NAC), Texas

State University, USA

The multi-disciplinary aspect of nanotech-nology is providing an opportunity to breakdown the traditional walls between disciplinesthat exist at research institutions. Conveyingconcepts, providing hands-on experiences anddenoting practical applications are challengesthat every educator faces. These challenges areparticularly significant when the technology orsubject is new – which is the case fornanoscience. Researchers, educators, industry,and government are all on unfamiliar groundwhen dealing with nanoscience. By workingtogether, sharing information and discoveries themap of that terrain will be efficiently map –however it will be a long and arduous process.This special topic journal issue is a step in theright direction.

Deb Newberry

Director-Nano-Link Regional Center

Rosemount, MN

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

Journal of Technology StudiesForewords by:Dr. Walt Trybula-Director Nanomaterials Application Center (NAC), Texas StateUniversity and Deb Newberry-Director-Nano-Link Regional Center, Rosemount, MN

2

Nanotechnology Education: Contemporary Content and ApproachesJeremy V. Ernst

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

3

AbstractNanotechnology is a multidisciplinary field

of research and development identified as a majorpriority in the United States. Progress in scienceand engineering at the nanoscale is critical fornational security, prosperity of the economy, andenhancement of the quality of life. It is anticipat-ed that nanotechnology will be a major transition-al force that possesses the potential to changesociety. Rapid and continued advancement in thefield of nanotechnology is accelerating thedemand for specific professional knowledge andskill. These lines of technological discovery andimprovement continue to unlock new content for classroom incorporation.

Contemporary approaches and practices tofurther engage learners and enhance their abili-ties to apply nanoscale-related content knowl-edge must be continually developed in order forthe United States to solidify itself as the primarybuilder of nanotechnology research and develop-ment. Steadfast development of new technolo-gies leading to continual transformation of soci-ety serves as a strong indicator that current edu-cational practices should be altered in order to prepare knowledgeable and engaged citizens.The use of three-dimensional graphics, virtualreality, virtual modeling, visualizations, andother information and communication technolo-gies can assist in reinforcing nano-associatedscientific and technological concepts.

IntroductionHigh-level content of pressing importance

addressed through contemporary approaches isan identified necessity in educational systems.Development and innovation are critical compo-nents of education in the United States; theypromote the maturity of an educated, skilled, andcreative general public. Emerging technologies,such as medical technologies, biotechnologies,and especially nanotechnologies represent pros-perous areas for the workforce and the economy,and therefore, they can be a driving force incareer and technical education. According totrend analysis, the future will be largely domi-nated by amplified use of nanotechnologies(The National Academies, 2006). Longitudinalanalysis leaves little uncertainty that nanotech-

nology will guide a key transformation with asignificant impact on society (Mnyusiwalla,Daar, & Singer, 2003).

Although there has been a steady growth inglobal nanotechnology, this dominating trend isespecially true for the United States. TheNational Academies (2006) indicates that 33percent of all nanotechnology patents awardedfrom 1990 to 2004 were granted to researchersin the United States. Japan was second, with 19percent of the worldwide patents during thesame period of time.

Shelley (2006) indicates that determinedresearch and development for targetednanoscience and nanotechnology has resulted indiscovery and application now culminating inmarketable products and new commercial appli-cations. As more products (e.g., sunscreens, cosmetics, clothing, upholstery, paint, bodyworkof vehicles, computer components) utilize nan-otechnologies, it is only a matter of time untilnanotechnology infiltrates consumer productsholistically. Shelley (2006) further identifies thelimitless possibilities that applying nanotechnol-ogy presents. He asserts that the span and reachof nanotechnology should become and remain aprimary consideration not only in governmentand commerce but also in education. This con-sideration stems from nanotechnology’s applica-tion to energy, medical, and information tech-nology, which are both essential and developingcomponents of today’s society. The purpose ofthis article is to introduce nanotechnology/nan-otechnology education, its societal and econom-ic significance and its importance as an area ofstudy. Also provided are examples and recom-mendations on the implementation of nanotech-nology into teacher-preparation programs.

Literature ReviewThe National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (as cited in Mnyusiwalla, Daar,& Singer, 2003) identifies the field of nanotech-nology as focusing on the formation of purpose-ful materials, devices, and systems through themanagement of matter on the nanometer scale,and the utilization of new occurrences andattributes at the scale. Lakhtakia (2006) indicates that nanotechnology is not a solitary

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

4

method; neither does it engage a precise varietyof resources. Instead, nanotechnology encom-passes all facets of the fabrication of devicesand systems by influencing material at thenanoscale. In education and the sciences,advances in nanotechnology and technology as awhole are blurring the lines between disciplines(Schank, Krajcik, & Yunker, 2007).

Nanotechnology is truly a multidisciplinaryfield that includes individuals from chemistry,physics, biology, materials science, and engi-neering all working in a collaborative manner tobetter understand and apply knowledge ofobjects that meet the scale classification (Clark& Ernst, 2005). Advancements in bioengineer-ing, instrumentation, materials science, andmanufacturing diminish the distinguishing char-acteristics of science and technological disci-plines (Jacobs, 1996). Rapid discovery, develop-ment, and advancement have resulted in rela-tionships among science, technology, and socie-ty becoming increasingly stronger.Unfortunately, schools find it difficult to mod-ernize curricula given the pace of innovation(Fourez, 1997).

Progress in science and engineering at thenanoscale are critical for national security, pros-perity of the economy, and enhancement of lifequality for society as a whole. The NationalScience Foundation has identified that a majoroutcome goal of the United States is the devel-opment of “a diverse, competitive, and globallyengaged U.S. workforce of scientists, engineers,technologists and well-prepared citizens (2004,p. II-7).” It has been projected that approximate-ly two million workers will be required world-wide during the next decade. Many science,engineering, and technology disciplines con-verge at the nanoscale, because they consist ofmany common principles and tools of investiga-tion (Rocco, 2002). By 2015, it is predicted thatnano-related goods and services will be a mar-ket in excess of one trillion dollars (Ratner &Ratner, 2003). Thus, nano businesses willbecome the fastest growing industry in history,outranking the telecommunications and informa-tion technology industries combined.

Nanotechnology will have an impact onwar, crime, terrorism, law enforcement, andcommercial goods (Wilson, Kannangara, Smith,Simmons, & Raguse, 2002). The military has abroad interest in nanotechnology, which spansoptical systems, nanorobotics, nanomachines,

smart weapons, nanoelectronics, virtual reality,armors, energy-absorbing materials, and bio-nano devices. Quite possibly the most importantareas of research and development concerningnanotechnologies are nano-optics and nano pho-tonics. Advancement in these areas has potentialto create new industrial and manufacturingprocesses and uncover new ways to maintain aclean and sustainable environment. Althoughmuch of the benefit of nanotechnology is antici-pated, applications of nanotechnology are not allcategorized as futuristic. Manufacturers are cur-rently producing products with nanoproperties.Many materials in current use are products ofnano-related research, such as stain repellents,water repellents, and dental fillers. Much of theinvention and innovation in nanotechnology isdependent on associated processes. In order tomanufacture at a smaller and smaller level,instruments and chemicals must be used withextreme precision. Industrial and manufacturingprocess applications of nanotechnologies repre-sent the foundation of further discovery. Theseapplications that merge biology, chemistry, med-icine, and fabrication are broad-based areas thatexhibit great potential for cross-disciplinaryapproaches to education.

Heightened need for targeted knowledgeand skill will most certainly have an imprint onthe educational system at all levels. The identi-fied “blurring” of disciplines plays much intothe emerging structure of an integrated systemsapproach in technology education classroomsacross the country. Shields and Rodgers (2005)identified the need for heightened awareness ofexperimental technologies for technology educa-tion students. The competencies identified intheir study are students’ abilities to recognizethe ramifications of green energy, efficient vehi-cles, biometrics, and nanotechnology, many ofwhich demonstrate a direct relationship.

A key challenge for nanotechnology devel-opment is the education and training of anew generation of skilled workers in themultidisciplinary perspectives necessary forrapid progress of the new technology. Theconcepts at the nanoscale (atomic, molecu-lar and supermolecular levels) should pene-trate the education system in the nextdecade in a manner similar to the way themicroscopic approach made inroads in thelast 50 years. Furthermore, interdisciplinaryconnections reflecting unity in nature needto be promoted. Such education and training

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

5

must be introduced at all levels, fromkindergarten to continuing education, fromscientists to nontechnical audiences thatmay decide the use of technology and itsfunding. (Roco, 2002, pp. 1247-1248)

Technological discovery and improvementcontinues to unlock new content to incorporateinto the classroom. Elevated subject matter andclassroom experiences that feature cutting-edgeapproaches are essential to develop knowledgeand motivate students at the K-12 level(Sweeney, 2006). Sweeney further identifies thatfuture progression in nanoscale science andengineering will rely on the content and qualityof education in the K-12 classroom. Schank,Wise, Stanford, and Rosenquist (2009) conclud-ed from a recent study that suitable preparationand guidance for teachers, paired with well-designed and engaging nanoscience curricularactivities are necessary to facilitate student con-cepts of the fundamental principles that presideover the performance of particles on thenanoscopic scale.

Curricular activities that incorporate real-world examples can enhance students’ attitudesabout science and emerging ideas. Jones, Andre,Superfine, and Taylor found in a 2003 study thatstudents can increase their understanding ofwhat the nanoscale is through development ofhigh-quality three-dimensional graphics and uti-lization of virtual reality software. In a 2006National Science Foundation project,Chizmeshya, Drucker, Sharma, and Carpenteridentified that direct and virtual microscopypractice by students establishes scale knowledgeat the nano level and provides a constructivesource for computer modeling experiments. Thisgrouping provides an opening for students totake part directly in nanoscale materials researchat an appropriate age and with suitable content.

Scale remains one of the most difficult con-cepts for students to grasp regarding nanotech-

nology. Relating nanometers to customary unitsof measure provides a minimal level of aware-ness of actual nanoscale objects. However, therelation of visible and tangible objects that stu-dents perceive as extremely small can accentuatethis knowledge for students. Table 1 is an exam-ple that standardized units as well as tangible,visible, or represented objects as comparisons tothe nanoscale.

Approaching scale through exponentialmeans with a graphical representational basis isalso an effective mode for approaching this typeof material (Wiebe, Clark, Ferzli, & McBroom,2003). Clark and Ernst (2005) report findings ofa three-year study linking science and technolo-gy concepts through the creation of visualiza-tions. The study involved the creating, piloting,and field testing 12 instructional units for tech-nology education in grades 6 through 12 (typi-cally ages 11-18). The intent of forming instruc-tional units in the US educational system is toorganize information on a topic into lessons,taking into consideration time, materials, andpreparations. The instructional units cover topicson agricultural and related biotechnologies,medical technologies, nanotechnologies, andprinciples of visualization related to fields stud-ied in pre-engineering curricula. Study data indi-cates that students who participated in theinstructional units involving the creation of visu-alizations significantly increased their knowl-edge in the identified content areas.

Implications for Teacher Preparation

Universities are beginning to include nan-otechnology (i.e., content and practice) in theirtechnology education teacher-preparation curric-ula. One specific program that includes a coursepartially dedicated to nanotechnology and itsapplication is the Technology, Engineering, andDesign Education Program at North CarolinaState University in Raleigh: It is titled“Emerging Issues in Technology.” In this course,students explore contemporary medical, environ-mental, and biotechnological topics. They com-plete associated learning activities, experimenta-tion/data collection exercises, and modelingprojects. The medical technology sequence con-sists of disease prevention and medical imagingtechnologies, investigating pasteurization, irradi-ation, sterilization, water treatment, sanitation,immunization, computerized axial tomography,ultrasound technology, magnetic resonanceimaging, and endoscope technology.

One meter = One billion (1,000,000,000) nanometers

One inch = 25,400,000 nanometers

A human hair = approximately 50,000 nanometers in diameter

Bacteria (single-celled microorganisms) = from a few hundred to 1,000 nanometers across

10 hydrogen atoms in a line = 1 nanometer

Note: Table information courtesy of the VisTE Project

Table 1. Comparisons to theNanoscale

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

6

The environmental sequence is composed ofgraphical weather patterns, Earth observationsystems, green power, sustainability, cradle tocradle design, and renewable energy resources.The biotechnology sequence consists of DNAtechnology, gene detection, enzyme replace-ment, cell culture, and associated nanotechnolo-gies. A major portion of the biotechnologysequence is dedicated to the study of nanotech-nology. Table 2 highlights the targeted areas of

study within nanotechnology, the proportionalemphasis dedicated to the specific unit, and thecontent of each area.

The nanotechnology unit represents approx-imately 30 percent of the Emerging Issues inTechnology course. Additionally, the TechnologyEngineering and Design Education Programoffers courses in Mechatronics, ScientificVisualization, and Technical Animation. TheMechatronics course expands on nanorobotics

exploration through computerized control sys-tems, controllers, automated machines, androbots. The Scientific Visualization offeringenhances computer graphics application as aproblem-solving tool. Ranges of software pack-ages are utilized to assist in the solution of con-ceptual and theoretical problems. In theTechnical Animation course students must con-struct 3-D objects, spaces, and environments.The Scientific Visualization and Technical

Animation courses greatly contribute to the nan-otechnology modeling and simulation require-ments in the Emerging Issues in Technologycourse. An animation still of an atomic force microscope used to manipulate atoms is shownin Figure 1. Nanomanipulation, or the ability tomove atoms individually and arrive at predeter-mined arrangements, is an important first step inrealizing the potential of nanotechnology.

Nanomanipulation is just one aspect of nanotechnology that can be enhanced withapplication when interwoven throughout course-work in teacher-preparation programs.

A key to implementing the study of nan-otechnology content and processes into a tech-nology education teacher-preparation program isto provide an integrated and spiraling sequenceof course offerings. These offerings should grad-ually build upon one another and establish lay-ered content knowledge and performance-basedapplication that merges identified systems-basedbenchmarks in a logical and connected flow.Additionally, visual examples and simulatedreal-world applications should be used where

Nano Topics Proportion Content

Microscale and Nanoscale 15% “Nano” and nanometer, English expression, magnitude as a number and exponent, relative size

Carbon Forms 8% Physical properties, oxidation state, compounds, carbon form uses

Modeling and Simulation 15% Data structuring, process structuring with choice of3DS applications, Flash applications, Truespace applications

Water Purification 8% Contaminants, microfiltration, porous nanoparticles,nanotubes

Nanorobotics 6% Biosensors, control design, controlled manipulation,bio-uses

Biomedical Applications 12% Drug delivery, bio-machines, biosensors

Future Application 12% Fuel cells, solar cells, nanofibre armour

Risks and Benefits 12% Security, health, environment

Nano Ethics 12% Public safety, regulation, standards

Figure 1. Nanomanipulation AnimationStill (Image courtesy of the VisTEProject)

Table 2. Areas of Study Within Nanotechnology

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

7

possible to enhance students’ engagement andunderstanding in technology teacher education.The use of intrinsically motivating approaches,such as visual and kinesthetic learning methods,creativity strategies, problem-based learning,and learning through design are particularlyeffective methods for reinforcing STEM-basedmaterial (Clark & Ernst, 2007). Problem-basedand project-based approaches to student learningalso have been shown to improve the under-standing of basic concepts and to encouragedeep and creative learning despite academiccontent area (Powers & DeWaters, 2004). Theidentification of ideas derived from mathematicsand science enables instructional sequences tovisibly reinforce applications of concepts, skills,and principles through identified content. In thiscase, chemistry, physics, biology, materials sci-ence, and engineering are all disciplines centralto the study, experimentation, and further devel-opment of nanotechnologies.

ConclusionSteadfast development of new technologies

leading to continual transformation of societyserves as a strong indicator that current educa-tional practices should be altered in order to pre-pare knowledgeable and engaged citizens.Contemporary approaches and practices to fur-ther engage learners and enhance their abilitiesto apply nanoscale-related content knowledge atthe highest level must be developed continually,in order for the United States to solidify itself asthe primary mover of nanotechnology researchand development.

Modeling and visualizations reinforce associated scientific and technological concepts.The use of these associated communicationtechnologies heightens student involvement andstrengthens individual technological and scien-tific knowledge and abilities while providingstudents with an opportunity to gain a firmgrasp of engineering principles behind the tech-nologies (Newhagen, 1996). Implementingenhanced instructional tools and methods intechnology and science classrooms in a coordi-nated structure has the potential to build contentunderstanding of not only nanotechnology, butmany of the “blurred” areas identified bySchank, Krajcik, and Yunker in their 2007 work.A true multidisciplinary approach that incorpo-rates computer graphics and applications hasbeen demonstrated to be effective in classroominstruction associated with nanoscience and nan-otechnology (Chizmeshya, Drucker, Sharma, &Carpenter, 2006; Jones, Andre, Superfine, &Taylor, 2003; Clark & Ernst, 2006), but thisapproach has much more to offertechnology/science and education as a whole ifits proponents are provided adequate tools andsupport on a larger scale.

Dr. Jeremy V. Ernst is an assistant professor

in the Department of Math, Science, and

Technology Education at North Carolina State

University, Raleigh. He is a member of the

Gamma Tau chapter of Epsilon Pi Tau.

References

Chizmeshya, A. V. G., Drucker, J., Sharma, R., & Carpenter, R.W. (2006). Real time nanostructureimaging for teaching nanoscience, and nanotechnology. Boston, MA: Material Research Society(0931-KK03-07).

Clark, A. C. & Ernst, J. V. (2005). Supporting technological literacy through the integration of engi-neering, mathematic, scientific, and technological concepts. Published Proceedings of the AmericanSociety for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Session 146. Chicago, IL.

Clark, A. C. & Ernst, J. V. (2007). A model for the integration of science, technology, engineering, andmathematics. The Technology Teacher, 66(4), 24-26.

Fourez, G. (1997). Scientific and technological literacy as a social practice. Social Studies of Science,27, 903-936.

Jacobs, J. A. (1996). Designing the very small: Micro and nanotechnology. The Technology Teacher,55(8), 22-27.

Jones, M. G., Andre, T., Superfine, R., & Taylor, R. (2003). Learning at the nanoscale: The impact ofstudents’ use of remote microscopy on concepts of viruses, scale, and microscopy. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 40(3), 303-322.

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

8

Lakhtakia, A. (2006). Priming pre-university education for nanotechnology. Current Science, 90(1),37-40.

Mnyusiwalla, A., Daar, A. S., & Singer, P. A. (2003). “Mind the gap”: science and ethics in nanotech-nology. Nanotehcnology. 14, R9-R13.

National Science Foundation. (2004). National science foundation fy 2004 performance and account-ability report. Arlington, VA: Author.

Newhagen, J. E. (1996). Why communication researchers should study the Internet: A dialogue.Journal of Communication, 46 (1), 4-13.

Powers, S. E. & DeWaters, J. (2004). Creating project-based learning experiences university-k-12partnerships. Published Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Frontiersin Education Conference, Session F3D. Savannah, GA.

Ratner, M. & Ratner, D. (2003). Nanotechnology: A gentle introduction to the next big idea. UpperSaddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Roco, M.C. (2002). Nanoscale science and engineering education activities in the United States.Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 4, 271-274.

Schank, P., Krajcik, J., & Yunker, M. (2007). Can nanoscience be a catalyst for educational reform?.In F. Allhoff, P. Lin, & J. Moor (Eds.), Nanoethics: The ethical and social implications of nanotech-nology. (pp. 277-290). Wiley.

Schank, P., Wise, P., Stanford, T., & Rosenquist, A. (2009). Can high school students learnnanosciene? An evlaluation of the viability and impact of the nanosense curriculum. Menlo Park,CA: SRI International.

Shelley, T. (2006). Nanotechnology: New promises, new dangers. New York: Zed Books.

Shields, C. J. & Rodgers, G. E. (2005). Incorporating experimental technologies in the middle leveltechnology education classroom. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 42(4), 72-80.

Sweeney, A.E. (2006). Teaching and learning in nanoscale science and engineering: A focus on socialand ethical issues and k-16 science education. Material Research Society (0931-KK03-05). Boston,MA.

The National Academies. (2006). A matter of size (National Academy of Science Publication)Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Wiebe, E. N., Clark, A. C., Ferzli, M., and McBroom, R. (2003). The VisTE Project: Visualization forimproved technological and scientific literacy. Published Proceedings of the American Society forEngineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Session 2438. Nashville, TN.

Wilson, M., Kannangara, K, Smith, G., Simmons, M., & Raguse, B. (2002). Nanotechnology: Basicscience and emerging technologies. Washington, DC: Chapman and Hall/CRC.

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

9

AbstractScientists are creating new and amazing

materials by manipulating molecules at theultra- small scale of 0.1 to 100 nanometers.Nanosize super particles demonstrate powerfuland unprecedented electrical, chemical, andmechanical properties. This study examines hownanotechnology, as the multidisciplinary engi-neering of novel nanomaterials into atomicallyprecise products, is expected to disrupt mostindustries.

Past industrial revolutions, driven by waterpower, internal combustion power, electricalpower, and computer power, have greatly affect-ed our economy and forever changed the courseof society. Nanotechnology represents morepotential power than all previous technologiescombined. The primary methodology of thisstudy involved comparing the current literatureon developments in nanotechnology to the his-torical development of electricity to assess if thenanotech revolution is reaching a true “criticalmass,” based on acceleration of technologicalchange today and at other times in history. Datawas collected from technical and business bookson nanotechnology, testimonies from scientistsbefore Congress, policy letters from thePresident’s Office of Science and Technology,presentations at major nanotech conferences,perspective surveys from the international to thelocal level, studies on the dangers and regulationof nanotechnology, and studies on the generaland scientific educational landscape of America.

Although nanotechnology is growing innational academic intensity, is gathering publicrecognition, and is based on patentable science,Oklahoma and the West South-Central Regionreceived only 9.6 percent of nanotech funding(NSF Award DMI-0450666, 2005). This studyestablishes recommendations for business andacademic planning with specific strategies,goals, and objectives for community collegeworkforce education in Oklahoma.

IntroductionThe discovery and utilization of basic

enabling technologies such as fire, wheels,

alchemy, electricity, magnetism, metallurgy, andcombustion were watershed events in the destinyof humankind. These technologies incrementallychanged the thinking about reach of life andrichness of life on this planet. The next water-shed event is rapidly swelling as scientists dis-cover how to manipulate matter at the molecularlevel to produce materials with extraordinaryproperties that have never before existed or beenunderstood. These hyper-functional materials,characterized at the nano scale, have the poten-tial to overwhelm all the collective contributionsof past technologies. “Nanotechnologies willeventually disrupt, transform, and create wholeindustries” (Morse, 2004). Not just the industriallandscape will change dramatically but "becauseof nanotechnology, we will see more change inour civilization in the next thirty years than wedid during all of the twentieth century" (Uldrich& Newberry, 2003). Although nanotechnologyhas been only a buzzword for the masses, it isapproaching “critical mass” for the next“Industrial Revolution.”

Study Purpose

Because nanotechnology reflects a multidis-ciplinary convergence of physics, chemistry,biology, and engineering, the definitions, predic-tions, and concerns for this emergingscience/technology are biased in many direc-tions. The purpose of this study is to bring intofocus the many perspectives that nanotechnolo-gy has already created by establishing a consen-sus of technical facts, realistic timelines, eco-nomic potentials, security interests, and ethicalissues. Nanotechnology is like a gathering stormthat represents very intense yet diverse interestfor all stakeholders. Like the tracking of a devel-oping hurricane that is headed for land, thisstudy intends to track the gathering forces ofnanotechnology that are building toward thenext “Industrial Revolution.” The study alsoaddresses the major impact of how the nano revolution will change the educational andindustrial landscape for America, specifically inthe rural sector. No industry will go untouched:transportation, agriculture, chemicals, plastics,electronics, computers, cosmetics, healthcare,

Nano Revolution – Big Impact: How EmergingNanotechnologies Will Change the Future of Educationand Industry in America (and More Specifically inOklahoma) An Abbreviated AccountSteven E. Holley

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

10

medicine, and many more will benefit from this“Fantastic Voyage” to the center of matter.Nanoscale technology is not just another steptoward miniaturization; it is a qualitatively newscale that requires new ways of thinking.

Study Objectives

1. Identify socio-technical relationshipsbetween past Industrial Revolutions andthe development of nanotechnology from1959 to present.

2. Establish present and pending socio-technical impacts of nanotechnology onAmerican educational and business insti-tutions.

3. Investigate the knowledge, attitudes, andplanning of business professionals con-cerning the impact of nanotechnology inOklahoma through a Chamber ofCommerce sponsored survey.

Study Significance This study is important for addressing the

nonscientists on scientific issues that may verywell affect their employment, health, education,finances, and security. Because of striking diver-sity among scientists, those outside the researchcommunity have a significant gap in practicalknowledge, which leads to unsettling confusionover nanotechnology buzzwords and futuristicpredictions. This study is also important for clar-ifying the socio-technical impact of a rapidlygrowing yet still technically cloudedscience/technology. Putting nanotechnology towork will require investing in a new generationof highly skilled technologists. This study willbe significant for defining educational objec-tives that applied science colleges should con-sider to supply nanotechnologists for emergingnano product commercialization and for micro-level companies that are migrating to nano level.

Impact Survey Questions

The Oklahoma Nanotechnology ImpactSurvey (ONIS) was developed to further test thethesis that nanotechnology will significantlyaffect Oklahoma business and education. Toinvestigate the knowledge, attitudes, and plan-ning of business professionals concerning theirview of how nanotechnology has and willimpact the state of Oklahoma, the ONIS wasprovided as a project to the Oklahoma StateChamber of Commerce whose findings wereshared with the Oklahoma Center for

Advancement of Science and Technology(OCAST). The ONIS was disseminated to adatabase of 4,542 Oklahoma businesses. The sixsurvey categories are (1) interest & knowledge,(2) economic effects, (3) strategic planning, (4)Oklahoma perception, (5) regulation, and (6)state support. Survey results for 2006 and 2007are located athttp://www.oknano.com/pdf/ONIS.pdf andhttp://www.oknano.com/pdf/NanoSurvey07.pdf.

Study Rationale

“The ability to build anything we candesign, by manipulating molecules under directcomputer control, will be a jolt to the system”(Treder, 2004). That jolt will be seen as techni-cal and social developments from nanotechnolo-gy that include: novel production methods andnew products with advanced properties; nano-factories that replicate more nano-factories in anexponential proliferation of manufacturing;rapid and low cost prototyping that greatlyreduces product time to market; very low costraw material and capital investment require-ments that can introduce major discontinuitiesfor the economy; and portability and secrecy ofmajor manufacturing capability that can disruptsocial norms and national security.

Consistent with the “jolt to the system”view, the rationale of this study is driven by fiveconcerns: (1) Core values need to be evaluatedbased on the overwhelming properties of nan-otechnology. (2) Strategic planning needs toalign with the acceleration of nanotechnologydevelopment. (3) Markets and security threatsneed to be developed based on global competi-tiveness in nanotechnology. (4) Ethical applica-tions of nanotechnology should be at the fore-front of policy making decisions in business,education, and government as continuedresearch and development reveals the ever grow-ing potential of nanotechnology. (5) Educationaland business models need to lead not follownanotechnology developments.

Review of the Literature & SurveyWhat is the History and Nature of Nanotechnology?

Nanotechnology was an unexplored scien-tific frontier until 1959, when theoretical physi-cist Richard Feynman invited fellow scientists toconsider the possibility of manipulating matterat the molecular and atomic levels to build ultra-small machines and information storage devices.Though Feynman was convinced that physicswould allow for atoms and molecules to be

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

11

individually controlled and manipulated, he didnot know what tools would be required and hedid not know the amazing materials that wouldresult to form new atomic structures (Keiper,2003). Because nanotechnology is growing rap-idly and gaining momentum, it does not share aunified conceptual understanding across all dis-ciplines and that creates a problem in definingit. “Definitions of nanotechnology are as broadas its applications” (ENA, 2004, p. 7).

Nanotechnology results from deliberatedesign and processes, but some confusion andcontroversy complicate an accurate definition bythe fact that there are naturally occurring nano-size materials residual in industrial processes.Some differences in definition are of only aca-demic interest, but “the way nanotechnology isdefined in a regulatory context can make a sig-nificant difference in what is regulated, how it isregulated, and how well a regulatory programworks” (Davies, 2005, p. 7).

The National Nanotechnology Initiative(NNI) encourages a strict definition of nan-otechnology by including only activities at theatomic, molecular, and supramolecular levels, inthe length scale of approximately 1 – 100 nmrange that create materials, devices, and systemswith fundamentally new properties and func-tions because of their small structure. The NNIdefinition focuses on new contributions thatwere not previously possible because of novelphenomena, properties, and functions at thenanoscale. The abilities to measure, control, andmanipulate matter at the nanoscale in order tochange those properties and functions are thehallmark of nanotechnology (Roco, 2003).

Nanotechnology is developing a very disrup-tive nature. In fact the view of industry experts isthat “It's hard to think of an industry that isn'tgoing to be disrupted by nanotechnology”(Uldrich & Newberry, 2003). This view of a per-vasive invasion is reflected in the studies andpresentations of Smalley (1999), Murdock(2002), Roco (2003), Bordogna (2003), Treder(2004), and Dareing and Thundat (2005). Oneway to keep the disruptive potential of nanotech-nology in perspective is to ponder the disruptionthat would occur if electricity were suddenlyunavailable. Utilities, transportation, communica-tions, commerce, education, much of the coun-try’s infrastructure, and almost all products thatwe use on a daily basis would cease to operate.

Products enabled by nanotechnology willevolve, but as Treder (2004) points out – “withall that change compressed into just a fewyears.” Bordogna (2003) is also certain that nan-otechnology is not just transformational but“with nano, change is about to go ballistic.”Emerging nanotech businesses that preventhealth problems from occurring will displacebusinesses that supply cures and treatments fordiseases. Similarly, if nanotechnology identifiesmolecules responsible for depression and assistsin binding new drugs to modify those moleculesthen Eli Lilly who manufactures antidepressantdrugs like Prozac might find that nanotechnolo-gy has disrupted their business (Uldrich &Newberry, 2003).

“Nano has been called a ‘general purposetechnology’ to capture the expectation that – likeelectricity – nanotechnology will enable andreconfigure a wide range of technologies, touch-ing most sectors of the economy” (Bordogna,2003). The disruptive properties of nanotechnol-ogy extend beyond the science because mostpeople do not comprehend its transformativenature and how rapid transformations could takeplace. Cross-discipline communications is a dif-ficult and common behavioral science problemthat nanotechnology could also address by creat-ing technological synergy that has never beforeexisted (Phoenix, 2003). This opportunity forsynergy was recognized by Smalley (1999)when he stated that “Nanoscience is an opportu-nity to energize the interdisciplinary connectionsbetween biology, chemistry, engineering, materi-als, mathematics, and physics in education.”

At the very highest levels of government, theNational Nanotechnology Initiative has a veryaggressive and disruptive vision that targets K-12,universities, vocational, and public domains fornanoscience and nanotechnology education. Inthe National Nanotechnology Initiative StrategicPlan prepared by the National Science andTechnology Council, co-chairs Russell and Bond(2004, p. I) set four goals to accomplish the NNIvision: (1) “Maintain a world-class research anddevelopment program aimed at realizing the fullpotential of nanotechnology; (2) Facilitate transfer of new technologies into products foreconomic growth, jobs, and other public benefit;(3) Develop educational resources, a skilledworkforce, and the supporting infrastructure andtools to advance nanotechnology; (4) Supportresponsible development of nanotechnology.”

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

12

How is Nanotechnology Perceived by the GeneralPublic?

Based on their study, Cobb and Macoubrie(2004, p. 395) conclude that “perception andknowledge are important parts of public under-standing of science.” Their National ScienceFoundation-funded survey conducted at NorthCarolina State University in 2004 found that 80to 85 percent of the general public in Americahad not heard anything or at most very littleabout nanotechnology. The “OklahomaNanotechnology Impact Survey” (ONIS), which was conducted online and at businessconferences during April of 2006, found that 92percent of Oklahoma citizens were generally notinformed about nanotechnology as perceived byOklahoma business professionals. According to a “European NanoBusiness Survey” (2004), 87percent of European citizens were either notmuch or not at all informed about nanotechnolo-gy (ENA, 2004). The European NanoBusinessAssociation (ENA) survey was biased withrespondents from companies that had an interestin nanotechnology.

In 2005, the Project on EmergingNanotechnologies published results of a studyentitled “Informed Public Perceptions ofNanotechnology and Trust in Government.” The report reveals that American consumers areeager to learn more about nanotechnology, andthey are generally optimistic about the possibili-ties that nanotechnology will improve their quality of life. The public is most interested inmajor medical advances, particularly new andimproved treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s,and diabetes (Rejeski, 2005). When Oklahomabusiness professionals were asked if nanotech-nology will have a significant effect on the livesof Oklahoman citizens, a high percentage (78%)agreed that it would. The tension betweenacknowledging lack of knowledge and anticipat-ing significant impact is striking and begs thequestion of how uninformed citizens may reactto unfolding events that nanotechnology willengender, both real and perceived.

Public perception of nanotechnologydepends on democracy and outreach to citizens.Roco (2003) recommends fostering publicawareness and understanding of nanoscale sci-ence and engineering through development ofmedia projects and exhibits that address benefitsas well as unexpected consequences. Even witha negative public perception of nanotechnology,a majority of Oklahoma business professionals

would continue to utilize nanotech products. Asimilar question in the ENA (2004) survey indi-cated that 74 percent of Europeans businesseswould not change their attitude about using nan-otechnology, even if there was negative publicperception.

What Risks Are Associated with NanoscaleMolecular Manipulating?

Nanoscale agents that are produced bymolecular manipulation can be introduced intoconsumer products to achieve certain benefits,but the penetrating properties of ultra small sizealso introduces certain and to-date unpredictablerisks. As Germany’s Federal Institute for RiskAssessment is investigating 97 cases of intoxica-tion from a cleaning product called “MagicNano,” America’s counterpart, the Food andDrug Administration, announced plans for dis-cussions on nanotechnology materials beingused in drugs, foods, cosmetics, and medicaldevices (Associated Press, 2006). Environmentalsituations are endless, ranging from the distribu-tion of nano dust on American highways asnano-enhanced tires wear down to the eventualpollution of ground water because of the unstop-pable mobility of nano size materials (Brown,2002). Medical risk studies by SouthernMethodist University and the University ofRochester have shown that carbon buckyballs(C60 hexagonal spheres) and other nanoscalematerials can enter and be absorbed by thebrain; however, the levels of damage and therequired exposure rates are still under study(Feeder, 2004).

In most every public discourse on nanotech-nology, including testimonies before the U.S.Congress and statements from the ExecutiveOffice of The President of the United States, the ethical and social concerns are elevated to a“high priority” status, yet, few decisions seem to reflect the urgency (NSF Award ESI-9730727,2000; Roco, 2003; Davies, 2005; Marburger &Bolten, 2005). Policies become an afterthoughtrather than being fully integrated into the plan-ning process. As Rejeski (2005) stated, “Ourapproach to social and ethical issues has largelyinvolved an ‘outsourcing’ model where the scientists do the science and ‘ethics’ are dealtwith in separate institutions and centers.” Manynanotech companies already fear public reactionbecause of the current lack of regulation(Davies, 2005). Rejeski (2005, p. 64) recom-mends that we “create a Nano Safety ReportingSystem where concerned people working with

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

13

nanotechnologies in laboratories, companies, orin shipping and transport situations can sharesafety issues and concerns.”

In spite of the looming risks, the initialreactions to nanotechnology by Americans havethus far been mostly positive. Most Americanshave a positive view of science and expect thebenefits of nanotechnology to be more prevalentthan the risks. When the potential benefits ofnanotechnology are seen as new and better waysto overcome human diseases, people feel morehopeful about the technology. The greatest riskspeople express are the loss of personal privacydue to possible nano surveillance and the inabil-ity of business leaders to minimize nanotechnol-ogy threats to human health (Cobb & Macoubrie2004). Americans do have trust in regulatoryagencies as shown from a study by the 2005Woodrow Wilson Center’s “Project on EmergingNanotechnologies.” The internet can also pro-vide opportunities to inform and involve thepublic (Davies, 2005).

What Economic Forces Will Drive NanotechnologyCommercialization?

Joseph Finkelstein (1992, p. XV) wrote:“We are at the beginning of a Third IndustrialRevolution that will reshape not only our indus-trial processes but also bring with it greatchanges that will affect all our lives for the nextcentury.” Twelve years later, Mike Treder (2004,November), Director for the Center forResponsible Nanotechnology, wrote: “The com-bined impacts of nanotechnology will equal theIndustrial Revolutions of the last two centuries –but with all that change compressed into just afew years.” Treder’s (2004) view is that we havebeen in the Fourth Industrial Revolution since1950 and that we are now on the eve of the FifthIndustrial Revolution that is driven by nanotechnology.

Industrial revolutions have been observed todevelop in three stages: one sector of the econo-my undergoes rapid change, then this sectorgrows more rapidly than the rest of the econo-my, and finally this advanced sector affects therate of development in all other sectors (Mokyr,1985). Restating this model in modern termswould say that first a technology emerges rapid-ly, then the technology matures having specificsocio-economic benefits, and finally this tech-nology becomes so disruptive that it affects allother technologies that define our socio- eco-nomic system. The first stage is marked by inno-

vators’ research, the second stage is marked byinvestors’ forecasts, and the third stage ismarked by consumers’ adaptation.

Cloth weaving had been unchanged forthousands of years until flying shuttle technolo-gy emerged in 1733. This technology maturedwith the inventions of the spinning jenny in1764, the power loom in 1785, and the cottongin in 1793. By the early 1800s this collectivetechnology was developed and became disrup-tive to the textile industry. Consumers preferredthe high performance, low cost, and patternoptions that mechanically woven fabrics provid-ed. Hand weavers were displaced with violentopposition yet the textile revolution was evidentand irrevocable (CBS News, 1997).

The difficulty of judging when and how anindustrial revolution unfolds is complicated bythe “failures to anticipate future development ofnew technologies” (Alcaly, 2003, p.66).Actually, enabling technologies can precede orfollow the basic science that contains the latentpotential of the industrial revolution. The strik-ing phenomenon of failing to see latent potentialis seen repeatedly over decades in the statementsof some very high profile industry leaders, forexample: (1) Western Union refused AlexanderGraham Bell’s telephone patent for just$100,000.00, insisting that the telegraph wouldnever be replaced; (2) The British journal,Engineering, wrote that Thomas Edison’s electric light was “unworthy of the attention ofpractical or scientific men” (Clarke, 1962, p. 2);(3) Thomas Watson, Chairman of IBM, stated in 1943 that he thought “there is a world marketfor maybe five computers” (National ResearchCouncil, 2006, p. 13); (4) Again in 1968, IBM’sAdvanced Computing Systems Division ques-tioned the microchip saying “What is it goodfor?”; and (5) Ken Olson, President, Chairman,and Founder of Digital Equipment Companystated in 1977, “There is no reason anyonewould want a computer in their home” (Clarke,1962, p. 13).

Industrial revolutions are by definitionbenchmarks in technology that forever changethe landscape of national wealth, social norms,and technical education. Alcaly (2003) points outthat “we underestimate the time it took for thetechnologies to establish a critical standing in theeconomy.” Dr. Joseph Bordogna, DeputyDirector and Chief Operating Officer for theNational Science Foundation, includes electricity,

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

14

information technology, and communications asthe most disruptive revolutions of the past centu-ry (Bordogna, 2003). A technology with anenormous disruptive potential usually has a longformative delay and is implemented with greatdifficulty and opposition. “As with informationtechnologies, and for many of the same reasons,it took almost half a century before electricpower had a significant impact on productivitygrowth” (Alcaly, 2003, p. 68). Hughes (2001, p.15) also identifies electricity as a major compo-nent of the Second Industrial Revolution andfurther explains the reason why technologicaldeterminism stalls: “While correctly anticipatingmomentous changes, they frequently erred inanticipating the nature of those changesalthough they thought their predictions werevalue-free, they unwittingly imposed their valuesupon the technological future.”

Perhaps it was the delayed impact of electri-fication that shadowed its significance as per-haps the greatest enabling technology of alltime. Initially, most of the power increases tookplace in cities and “it took until 1956 for farmhomes to have the same percentage of electricservice (98 percent) as non-farm homes”(Milham & Ossiander, 2000, p. 1). In explainingwhy electrification took so long, Alcaly (2003,p. 68) writes that “Electrification of Americanhomes and industry did not gather ‘real momen-tum’ until after World War I, when central gen-erating capacity expanded widely and rates fellsubstantially, reflecting advances that had beenmade in producing electric power, extensiveconstruction of new generating plants, and scaleeconomics.”

The correlation between technologies andindustrial revolutions is certain but fixing causa-tion can be problematic. More complex yet isdefining cause and effect relationships betweeneducation and industrial revolutions. There hasbeen much debate as to whether industrial revo-lutions expose the effectiveness of education orthe serious lack of it. Nanotechnology is enter-ing the marketplace at an ever-increasing pace.As of March 8, 2006, the Project on EmergingNanotechnologies had counted 212 product linesthat use nanotechnology.

What Emerging Nanotechnologies Will Redefine theOklahoma Workforce?

In a report on essential nanotechnologystudies, the Center for ResponsibleNanotechnology indicated “that a tenfold

improvement (one order of magnitude) is suffi-cient for a new product or method to displaceexisting ones” (Phoenix, 2003, p. 43). Newcompanies that manufacture products in a“nanofactory” will greatly exceed the tenfoldcriterion and would displace existing companiesthat are not quick to change. This reflects thedisruptive nature of nanotechnology on busi-nesses, the workforce, and the economy, espe-cially with manufactured products (Phoenix,2003). For this reason, “push strategies” forsmall businesses and nano start-ups should beencouraged. “Push strategies” involve govern-ments at all levels offering small nano business-es of 8-10 persons with useful technical assis-tance that addresses environmental, health, orsafety issues and possibly financial support(Rejeski, 2005). If small nano businesses cannotsustain the financial burden of risk and capitalinvestment overhead, then most start-ups maynot market their own products. They will seeklarge company partners who can utilize theirnanotech developments to improve existingcommercial products (Davies, 2005). A commonproblem is that many large companies do notwant to talk openly about their nanotechnologyinvolvements. These companies do not want toput their resources and assets at risk with uncer-tainties concerning public reaction and govern-ment regulatory intentions (Rejeski 2005).

Any industry involved in R&D will need along-term view and patience to develop aroadmap for their involvement in nanotechnolo-gy. For example, in 1947 when the transistorwas developed, its cost was known, but it wouldhave been impossible at that time to predict thecost of that transistor within an integrated circuitcontaining thousands of transistors in the year2001. Predicting the actual cost of devices, cir-cuits, and networks fabricated at the nano scaleseveral decades from now is impossible, but likethe transistor, it will likely be low enough formass production. Because very few small start-ups or even large companies can afford to spenddecades pursuing future bonanzas without near-term profits, universities and national laborato-ries need to provide the interdisciplinaryresearch to establish the groundwork for themost profound breakthroughs in nanoscale tech-nology. This type of research and partnershipsare not what most universities currently foster(“Small Wonders, Endless Frontiers,” 2002).

There is good reason for Oklahoma to makechanges since the state’s economy has grown

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

15

slowly compared to neighboring states.Salehezadeh and Kickham (2002, p. 2) stated ina gnosis report for the Oklahoma Department ofHuman Services that while employment hasbeen growing in Oklahoma at the 11th highestrate nationally, “the highest proportion ofemployment is in low-paying jobs.” The topthree employment sectors in Oklahoma are serv-ices (38%), retail trade (19%), and manufactur-ing (13%). The services sector is first inemployment but near the bottom in averageweekly wages because these jobs require little orno formal training or education. Manufacturingis third in employment and also third in averageweekly wages, preceded only by mining jobsand public service jobs (transportation, commu-nication, utilities). Within an eight-state region,Oklahoma is next to last in college degrees andhouseholds with computers and internet access.Oklahoma also falls below the national averagein technology and education. It is no wonderthat over the last decade the purchasing power ofthe average worker in the two largest Oklahomacounties has decreased. According to the gnosisreport, Oklahoma has “failed to adapt, to evolv-ing economic imperatives.” The report refer-ences Peter Drucker who as early as 1969 beganurging the anticipation of “knowledge workers”in a postindustrial society. The report concludesthat “investment in education and training wouldtherefore appear to be a strategy worth consider-ing, as would strategies that improve capital pro-ductivity (Salehezadeh & Kickham, 2002, p. 1).The Oklahoma Nanotechnology Initiative maybe the very strategy for improving productivityand increasing real income for the workforce byincreasing the number of “knowledge workers”in the state.

How Will Nanotechnology Impact StrategicPlanning for the Oklahoma Business Community?

Since only 22 percent of business profes-sionals are well informed about nanotechnology,perhaps it is not surprising that less than 20 per-cent of them are making any adjustments totheir strategic business plans for the comingnanotechnology impact. When the business pro-fessionals were asked if they evaluate emergingtechnologies for strategic planning, over 50 per-cent agreed that they were proactive. At thistime it is apparent that nanotechnology has notbeen one of the emerging technologies that theyinclude. This will likely change in the futuresince a high percentage of business profession-als are interested in learning more about nan-

otechnology, and 74 percent agree that nan-otechnology will have a significant impact onthe Oklahoma economy.

When Oklahoma business professionals areasked about nanotechnology hiring decisions,the neutral responses rise to nearly 50 percent.This may be attributed to the modest 22 percentwho are well informed about nanotechnology.The 22 percent who see a pending need toincrease both the nano technologist and the nonscientific workforce create a significant concernto plan for workforce training.

When business professionals were askedabout their attitudes in the face of potentiallynegative nanotech situations, the neutralresponses were again the majority of percent-ages. Most may feel that they are just not wellenough informed to make a sound judgment. Ofthose who did make a decision, most of themdisagreed that regulation or negative public per-ception would change their business. The groupwas about split over the issue of diminishedcompetition without changes to the nanotechrevolution. This could clearly reflect the attitudeof how nanotechnology may impact differentindustry categories.

The attitudes toward investing in nanotech-nology seem very positive in Oklahoma withvery few in disagreement. A much higher per-centage of business professionals are willing toinvest in a nanotech start-up business than thepercentage of them that are well informed aboutthe technology. This may indicate that positivepublic perception is more influential for invest-ment than actual knowledge about the science.

What Reforms Are Needed To IntegrateNanotechnology into America’s EducationalInstitutions?

Historically, when the security or economyof the United States has been threatened, leadershave responded with successful educationalreforms. After World War II, President FranklinD. Roosevelt commissioned a team to reviewand recommend reforms that were needed in sci-entific research and education for the futurewell-being of our country. Only a decade later,the Soviet Union launched the first earth-orbit-ing satellite, and America responded withunprecedented educational reform in scienceand mathematics, focused on developing youth-ful talent in science and engineering (Jackson,2004).

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

16

Following these educational reforms in the1940s and 1960s, the National Commission onExcellence in Education in the 1980s againurged reform for science education in its reportcalled, “A Nation at Risk.” Educators then took ahard look at what had been passing for scienceeducation and began making commitments to dothings differently (NSF Award ESI-9730727,2000). Despite these efforts, a quiet crisis wasdeveloping in the United States with a rapidlygrowing imbalance between supply and demandof technically skilled workers that threatened tojeopardize the nation’s leadership position andsecurity. According to the BEST (BuildingEngineering and Science Talent) report, “thesame wheels are being re-invented and the samemistakes made on a daily basis in every part ofthe country” (Jackson, 2004, p. 5).

Due to poor forecasting of America’s needfor scientists and engineers, the NationalScience Foundation’s credibility was put inquestion by Rep. Howard Wolpe, Chairman ofthe Subcommittee on Investigations andOversight of the House Committee on Science,Space, and Technology. NASA’s administrationalso testified before the House ScienceCommittee that not only was NASA disadvan-taged in competing for technical talent but con-firmed the general competitive problems due toa lack of scientists and engineers (Teitelbaum,2002).

The NSF Award ESI-9730727 (2000) con-cluded that integrated science is a valuable andviable educational reform alternative because:

• Integration engages a greater diversity ofstudents

• Integration presents the unifying conceptsand principles of science

• Integration reflects the reality of the natu-ral world

• Integration encourages comprehensivethinking about a complex world.

Integrated science unifies concepts andprinciples of science, making science seem rele-vant and connected to life. Project-based prob-lem solving blurs the boundaries of the sciencesand encourages students to investigate a range ofdisciplines and concepts based on the student’s“need to know.” Answering “why” and “how”

questions about broad themes and unifying prin-ciples provides a rich context for a creativelearning experience.

Another pedagogy for student-focusedlearning is “design education.” Design educationinvolves students in the process and methods ofrealizing an engineering artifact. This integratedand interactive education provides students withthe hands-on design-build-operate experience tounderstand engineering concepts (Vest, 1995).Sheppard and Jenison (1996), writers for theInternational Journal of Engineering, concludedthat students should understand the “how to” ofgenerating design specifications, going fromdesign specifications to final artifact, establish-ing objectives and criteria, investigating alterna-tives, synthesizing, analyzing, constructing, test-ing, and evaluating. The Accreditation Board forEngineering and Technology (ABET) requiresengineering students to accomplish a major andmeaningful integrated engineering design expe-rience that brings together the fundamental con-cepts of mathematics, basic sciences, thehumanities and social sciences, and communica-tion skills.

In his position as Subcommittee Chairmanof Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology(NSET) of the National Science and TechnologyCouncil (NSTC) and Senior Advisor forNanotechnology, National Science Foundation,Dr. M. C. Roco urges unifying science and edu-cation by integrating research and education. Inhis “The Future of the National NanotechnologyInitiative” presentation to the NSET, Roco statesthat systemic changes are needed to make everylaboratory a place of learning as well as researchand particularly undergraduate nanotechnologyeducation. His vision of integrated interdiscipli-nary or unified sciences includes “developmentand dissemination of new teaching modules fornanoscale science and engineering that can beused in existing undergraduate courses, particu-larly during first and second year studies.” Andto “introduce nanoscale science and technologythrough a variety of interdisciplinary approachesinto undergraduate education, particularly in thefirst two collegiate years” (Roco, 2003, p. 30).

ConclusionsNanotechnology is a catch-all word that has

come to mean everything through the collectiveperspectives of people in multiple disciplinesboth technical and business, including the problem of calling things nano that are not in

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

17

order to capitalize on the veiled mystery of asupercharged technology. This catch-all phenom-enon is unfortunate but understandable sincenanotechnology is not a product nor is it a disci-pline-specific application like biotechnology.

Nanotechnology is a “general purpose”technology that enhances all other technologiesvery much like the generation of electricity.Batteries as a source of electricity are not usefulunless they are installed in a product to powerthe application, and the usefulness of nanotech-nology is measured by the power it brings tomany applications. Nanotechnology is anempowering catalyst that unlocks latent andunique properties in existing elements throughmolecular manipulation using scanning probemicroscopy, crystalline growth, and high tem-perature processes. New materials that resultfrom nanotechnology have a “general purpose”utility value for combining with other materialsto optimize physical, thermal, magnetic, electri-cal, and optical properties or for creating

devices that operate at the cellular level for bio-logical and medical applications. Previous “general purpose” technologies (e.g., electricitygeneration, internal combustion, and advancedmaterials) have changed the very infrastructureof our country and the fabric of our society.

More of the study details, results, findings,conclusions, recommendations, and supportingdocuments are included in the 130-page report,“Nano Revolution: Big Impact” and it is avail-able from steve.holley@okstste.edu. A two-yearAAS degree program in “Nano-scientificInstrumentation” based on this study is beingdeveloped under a NSF ATE grant that can bereviewed athttp://www.osuit.edu/academics/engineering_technologies/nanotechnology/ .

Steven E. Holley is a Principle Investigator

for the Oklahoma Nanotechnology Education

Initiative at the Oklahoma State University

Institute of Technology, Okmulgee

References

Alcaly, R. (2003). The new economy. New York: Farra, Straus and Giroux.

Associated Press (2006, April 14). FDA plans to discuss molecules. The Oklahoman, p. 8A.

Bordogna, J. (2003, December). Nano transformation: A future of our making. Paper presented to theIEEE International Electron Devices Meeting, Washington, DC. Retrieved Jan. 2006 from,nsf.gov/news/speeches/bordogna/03/jb031208nano_ieee.jsp

Brown, D. (2002, March 8). U.S. regulators want to know whether nanotech can pollute. Small TimesMedia. Retrieved Feb. 2006, from smalltimes.com/print_doc.cfm?doc_id=3231

CBS News (Producer), & Randall, T. (Narrator). (1997). The second revolution [Video recording].BFA Educational Media. (Available from The Phoenix Learning Group, 2349 Chaffee Drive, St.Louis, MO 63146)

Cobb, M. D., & Macoubrie, J. (2004). Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits, andtrust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6(4), 395-405.

Clarke, C. (1962). Profiles of the future. New York: Harper and Row.

Dareing, D., & Thundat, T. (2005). Mighty mites. Mechanical Engineering, 127(9), 34.

Davies, J. C. (2005). Managing the effects of nanotechnology. Paper presented to the Woodrow WilsonInternational Center for Scholars, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington, DC.Retrieved Apr. 2006, from nanotechproject.org.

European NanoBusiness Association. (2004). The 2004 European NanoBusiness survey: “Use it orlose it.” Brussels, Belgium. Retrieved Jan. 2010, from, http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=09859.

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

18

Feeder, B. J. (2004, March 29). Study raises concerns about carbon particles. The New York Times.Retrieved Feb. 2006, fromquery.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E06E7DD1E30F93AA15750C0A9629C8B63

Finkelstein, (1989). Windows on a new world: The third industrial revolution, Greenwood Press.

Finkelstein, J. (1992). The American economy: From the great crash to the third industrial revolution.Arlington Heights, IL: Harlan Davidson.

Hughes, T. (2001). Through A glass darkly: Anticipating the future of technology- enabled education.Educause Review, 36(4), 15.

Jackson, S. A. (2004, April). The quite crisis: Falling short in producing American scientific andtechnical talent. Paper presented to the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics NCTMAnnual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA.

Keiper, A. (2003). The nanotechnology revolution. The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology &Society, (2), 17-34.

Marburger, J., & Bolten J. (2005, July). Memorandum for the heads of executive departments andagencies. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, and Office ofScience and Technology Policy, Document No. M-05-18. Retrieved Jan. 2010, from,http://www.ostp.gov/pdf/ostp_omb_guidancememo_fy07.pdf

Milham, S., & Ossiander, E. M. (2000). Historical evidence that residential electrification caused theemergence of the childhood leukemia peak. Medical Hypotheses, Harcourt Pub. Ltd. Retrieved Jan.2010, from https://www.blockemf.com/catalog/pdfs/historical_leukemia.pdf

Mokyr, J. (1985). The economics of the industrial revolution. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.

Morse, G. (2004). You don’t have a nanostrategy? Harvard Business Review, 82(2), 32.

Murdock, S. (2002, October). A disruptive technology with the potential to create new winners andredefine industry boundaries. Paper presented to the Nanobusiness Roadmap for IndustryConference, Chicago, IL.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983, April). A nation at risk. United States Department of Education, Washington, DC. Retrieved Jan 2009, fromhttp://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.htm

National Research Council, ICT Fluency and High Schools: A Workshop Summary. S. Marcus,Rapporteur. Planning Commitee on ITC Fluency and High School Graduation Outcomes. Board onScience Education, Washington, DC: The National Academic Press, 2006, p. 13.

NSF Award DMI-0450666 (2005, June). 2005 NCMS survey of nanotechnology in the U.S. manufac-turing industry. National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, Ann Arbor, MI.

NSF Award ESI-9730727 (2000). Making sense of integrated science: A guide for high schools.Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. Colorado Springs, CO.

Phoenix, C. (2003). Thirty essential nanotechnology studies. Center for Responsible Nanotechnology.Retrieved Jan. 2010, from crnano.org/studies.htm

Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. (2005, September). Inventory of nanotechnology consumerproducts. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC. Retrieved Jan. 2010from: http://www.nanotechproject.org/publications/archive/informed_public_perceptions/

Rejeski, D. (2005, November). Environmental and safety impacts of nanotechnology: What research isneeded? Paper presented to the United States House of Representatives Committee on Science,Washington, DC.

Roco, M. C. (2003, November). The future of the national nanotechnology initiative. Paper presentedto the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee, Boston, MA.

Russell, R., & Bond, P. (2004, December). National nanotechnology initiative strategic plan. Reportprepared by the National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Technology,Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology.

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

19

Salehezadeh, Z., & Kickham, K. (2002). Oklahoma and the new economy: Are the fundamentalsthere? Office of Planning, Policy, and Research, Oklahoma Department of Human Services, GnosisReport, 1(2).

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

20

AbstractSimulation is a powerful tool in developing

and troubleshooting manufacturing processes,particularly when considering process flows formanufacturing systems that do not yet exist.Simulation can bridge the gap in terms of settingup full-scale manufacturing for nanotechnologyproducts if limited production experience is anissue. An effective use of simulation software isidentified when analyzing a typical manufactur-ing process flow for anodic aluminum oxide(AAO) nanopore arrays. Simulation models,using the ProModel simulation software, weredeveloped based on production flows, projectedprocess times, and equipment. An attempt wasmade to realistically estimate process times andcapacities, however model outputs, in terms ofquantitative values, were found less importantthan the activities involved in setting up the mod-els. The ability of simulation to help link theoryand practice in the classroom may be useful inleading students toward higher levels of intellec-tual behavior as educators strive to build stu-dents’ abilities to apply, analyze, evaluate, andcreate, rather than simply to remember andunderstand.

Manufacturing Simulation

Simulation is a powerful tool in developingand troubleshooting manufacturing processes,particularly when considering process flows formanufacturing systems that do not yet exist. Asnoted by Mebrahtu, Walker, and Mileham (2004,p. 245): “The lack of clear understanding of thedynamics and interaction of components of mod-ern manufacturing systems calls for the use ofsimulation as an essential support tool.”Simulation can bridge the gap in terms of settingup full-scale manufacturing for nanotechnologyproducts when limited production experience isan issue. Rohrer (1997) also supports the notionthat simulation provides one of the best methodsof validating system design if the manufacturingsystem being modeled does not yet exist.

This project involved an analysis of a typicalmanufacturing process flow for anodic aluminumoxide (AAO) nanopore arrays. Models using theProModel simulation software were developedbased on production flows, projected process

times, and equipment. Boundary values forprocess flows, times, and equipment capacitieswere derived from discussions with nanotechnol-ogy researchers and from reading publishedreports (Argonne National Laboratory, 2004; Ba& Li, 2000; Hu, Gong, Chen, Yuan, Saito,Grimes, & Kichambare, 2001; Jessensky, Müller,& Gösele, 1998; Knaack, Redden, & Onellion,2004; Liang, Chik, Yin, Xu, 2002; Nam, Seo,Park, Bae, Nam, Park, & Ha, 2004; Nasirpouri,Ghorbani, Irajizad, Saedi, Nogaret, 2004; Zhang,Chen, Li, & Saito, 2005). Regarding quantitativevalues, however, model outputs were found lessimportant than the activities involved in settingup the models, as powerful “what if ” capabilityin the software allows process times, capacities,and yields to be easily updated.

BackgroundNanotechnology refers to applications

involving products or materials with one or morefeatures in the one to one-hundred nanometersrange. For comparative purposes, most individualatoms are between one-tenth and one-half of ananometer in diameter.

Initially, the technologies and process flowsinvolved in the production of AAO nanoporearrays are discussed. These arrays offer cost-effective approaches to create nanoscale featuresover large areas, and they can be applied to thedevelopment and production of other nanotech-nology devices, including sensors, memorydevices, and filtration and flow membranes.

The base simulation model is then defined,and the advanced simulation software is exploredincluding, among other things, the impact ofequipment downtimes, alternative process flowsbased on variable attributes, and IF-THEN-ELSEoperation logic, custom graphics, and costs.

The successful scale up of manufacturingfor nanoscale structures and devices is not aneasy task. In a report published by the Oak RidgeNational Laboratory titled “Nanoscale Science,Engineering and Technology ResearchDirections,” the authors observed that: “Thislinking from molecular interactions to nanostruc-tures to functional systems is a fundamental

Simulation of a Start-up Manufacturing Facility forNanopore Arrays Dennis W. Field

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

21

challenge of the first order, both scientificallyand technologically” (n.d. p.70).

Research in nanotechnology is well under-way; however, commercial manufacturing opera-tions for nanotechnology products are just begin-ning to emerge. For example, Thomas Swan &Co announced the United Kingdom’s first com-mercial manufacturing process for high-puritysingle-wall carbon nanotubes in April 2004(AZoNano, 2005).

Anodic Aluminum Oxide Nanopore Arrays

Several products associated with developingtechnologies were investigated and one, AAOnanopore arrays, was selected around which todevelop a manufacturing flow simulation model.AAO nanopore arrays are hexagonally orderedpores fabricated from aluminium using electro-chemical processing. The pores can have diame-ters from 12 nm to 0.1 µm and depths in excessof 60 µm. The pore diameters are controlled bythe choice of anodizing voltage and electrolyte.Nanopore arrays can be used to create nanoscalefeatures over large areas, and they can be appliedin the development and production of other nan-otechnology devices. The potential to use thesearrays as a springboard technology to enablecost-effective development of other devicesmakes them particularly valuable. The processflow for AAO nanopore arrays (see Figure 1) iswell documented in a number of previously ref-erenced journal articles and abstracts describing,with some variation, the array fabrication.

Using the references, a generic example ofan AAO array fabrication process involving thefollowing steps was developed. A flowchart ofthe process is shown in Figure 2. It should be

noted that for purposes of the simulation, processtimes were important, but other process specifi-cations (for example, solution type, temperature,anodizing voltage, and concentrations) did notplay a role in the analysis and were not included.More specific process details can be found in thereference list.

1. Prepare the substrate. Possible optionsinclude aluminium foil, or glass sub-strates coated with either (a) molybde-num or (b) indium tin oxide and alumini-um films. Subsequent process flow isdependent on the type of substrate, andthese options are reflected in the softwaresimulation.

2. Clean the substrate surface. This couldinclude using a simple solvent or, forsome types of substrates, an electropolish.

3. Oxidize the aluminium at a constant volt-age in an oxalic acid solution at low tem-perature for approximately 21 hours.

4. Remove the initial anodic oxide layer—parts of which are typically distorted—bydipping in an acid mixture at an elevatedtemperature for 20 hours. This yields atextured pattern of concave depression onthe aluminium surface.

5. Complete a second anodization of thetextured aluminium for approximately 20minutes. Use the same experimental con-ditions as the first anodization. Thisprocess results in the ordered holes (seenin Figure 1) fabricated from each con-cave depression.

6. Remove the bottom part of the anodicporous alumina membrane by etching itin solution for a short period of time (lessthan one minute) to form a through-holemembrane.

Simulation Software

The AAO process flow served as a vehicleto explore various simulation software capabili-ties. The model included “locations,” which wereused to identify and define specific pieces ofequipment and buffers, that is “entities” used todefine the various products to be processed, and“resources” that covered human resourcesinvolved in the process flows. Eleven pieces ofequipment and three buffer queues were defined.The equipment included a distribution station to

Figure 1. AAO Template. The PoreDiameter is Approximately 75 nm at200,000 Magnification

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

22

initiate the process flow, three metallization systems (thermal, sputtering, and e-beam), anelectropolish station, two anodization and twoetch stations, a cleaning station, and a scanningelectron microscope. The three entities created tomodel the three substrates used in this simulationwere glass, glass with a thin film of indium tinoxide, and aluminum foil. The three resourcesincluded two production operators and one repairand maintenance (R&M) technician. Processingtimes input to the model ranged from a minimumof one minute for the second etch process to 21hours for the first anodization. As it turns out,the buffers were not needed during the simula-tion because the arrival times of the various sub-strates exceeded the cycle time of the longestprocess (first anodization); however, it wasthought that they might be useful in the future ifarrival or processing times or capacities wouldchange. Multiple graphics for the same entitywere used to indicate changes in state; that is, asthe substrates moved through the manufacturingprocess flow, the graphic was changed to reflectthe various stages of completion of the part. Thefollowing advanced simulation software capabili-ties were analyzed: (a) the impact of equipmentdowntimes, (b) alternative process flows basedon variable attributes, and (c) IF-THEN-ELSEoperation logic, costs, and custom graphics. Anexample of the basic simulation model is shownin Figure 3. Equipment, resources, buffers, andresource and process paths can be seen in the

model.

ResultsEquipment Downtime

Downtime was associated with three piecesof equipment during their operation. The sputter-ing system was subject to random usage down-time with a normal distribution, N(_ = 40 hr, _ =5 hr), simulating unexpected equipment failure,while both the e-beam evaporator and the ther-mal evaporator experienced clock downtimes—at100 hours and 20 hours respectively—simulatingscheduled periodic maintenance. In all cases, arepair and maintenance technician was assignedto bring the equipment back to working order.The repair time distributions for the sputteringsystem and the e-beam evaporator were normallydistributed, N(_ = 120 min, _ = 30 min) and N(_= 60 min, _ = 10 min) respectively. The repairtime distribution for the thermal evaporator wasinput as a triangular distribution, T(30 min, 75min, 90 min). The output statistics showed a 0.30percent downtime associated with the sputteringsystem. The R&M technician was “used” onaverage 245 times during a 4,000-hour simula-tion. Since the e-beam was serviced every 100hours, the technician visited it 40 times duringthe simulation. The thermal evaporator requiredservice every 20 hours, or 200 times on averageduring a simulation. The usage of the sputteringsystem was estimated as follows: Approximately53 indium tin oxide parts were processed, and 50percent of these parts required 3 hours in thesputtering system during a simulation run.Approximately 54 glass parts were processed,and 50 percent of these parts required 4 hours inthe sputtering system during a simulation run.Together, these two parts required approximately

Figure 2. AAO Process Flow

START

SELECTBASE

ALUMINIUMDEPOSIT

MOLYBDENUMSPUTTERDEPOSIT

CLEANELECTROPOLISH

1ST

ANODIZATION ETCH2ND

ANODIZATION

ETCHRINSE

&DRY

SEMCHARACTERIZATION

STOP

GLASSWITHITO

THERMAL

E-BEAM

ALUMINIUMFOIL

GLASS WITHMOLY

SPUTTER

Figure 3. Simulation Model of AAONanopore Array Fabrication

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

23

188 hours of sputtering time over the course of a4,000-hour simulation. Since the sputtering sys-tem went down on average every 40 hours ofoperation, it was reasonable for it to require serv-ice 5 times over the course of this simulation(188/40 = 4.7) for a total of 245 service calls tothe R&M technician for the three machines.

Alternative Process Flows

Multiple numbered routes were establishedwith operation logic statements defining whichroute entities would follow. This action tookplace at the glass distribution and glass sputterprocess steps. An attribute was set to 1, 2, or 3according to a user-defined distribution in which50 percent of the parts were assigned a 1, 30 per-cent of the parts were assigned a 2, and 20 per-cent of the parts were assigned a 3. Once theattribute was set, the part was processed accord-ing to a unique set of operation logic statements.Using IF-THEN-ELSE operation logic, entitiesreceived differing processing instructions includ-ing route, processing time, and entity graphicbased on entity attributes and user-defined distri-butions. This action also took place at the glassdistribution and sputter process steps. For exam-ple, if the attribute = 1, the processing time inthe sputtering system was 4 hours, the entitygraphic was switched to state 3, and the entitywent directly to the pre-etch queue from thesputtering system (Route 3). Additionally, thecounter for parts having both molybdenum andaluminum sputtered was incremented by one.The counters were enabled through the use ofvariables. Variables were set up to count thenumber of parts being processed through thethree metallization systems (sputtering, e-beam,and thermal). Six variables were represented: (1)a molybdenum film coated with sputtered alu-minum, (2) a molybdenum film coated with alu-minum deposited using an e-beam evaporator,(3) a molybdenum film coated with aluminumdeposited using a thermal evaporator, (4) an indi-um tin oxide film coated with sputtered alu-minum, (5) an indium tin oxide film coated withaluminum deposited using an e-beam evaporator,and (6) an indium tin oxide film coated with alu-minum deposited using a thermal evaporator. Asa part passed through one of the metallizationsystems, the related variable was incremented byone. Counters displayed the running totals duringthe simulation.

Costs

Location costs, resource costs, and entitycosts were entered into the model. Data entry

was straightforward and took very little time.Again, considering that each of these costs mayvary significantly depending on the characteris-tics of the facilities and processes being mod-eled, the final outputs were judged less importantthan the model-building process.

Custom Graphics

Rather than creating multiple entities foreach state change, an entity can have multiplegraphics that may be invoked as part of an opera-tion statement. This yields a more realistic simu-lation, as a person can “build” the graphic muchas he or she builds the product as it flowsthrough the process. Multiple graphics were usedfor all the products simulated. The four graphicsassociated with the glass substrate were as fol-lows: Graphic 1 represents a bare glass substrate;Graphic 2 represents the glass substrate with athin film of molybdenum added to the glass sur-face. Graphic 3 indicates that an aluminum filmhas been added to the molybdenum-coated sub-strate, and Graphic 4 is the finished form withthe aluminum film converted to an AAO filmfollowing the anodization process.

SummaryAll planned learning objectives were accom-

plished with this project. Apart from spendingsignificant time working through the TrainingWorkbook (ProModel Corporation, 2003) andthe User Guide (ProModel Corporation, 2004)for the simulation software, only one difficultywas encountered and not resolved. Initially, themodel was intended to have one anodization sta-tion and one etch station. The material was toflow from one to the other and then return for asecond cycle; however, once material progressedto the etch station, it was blocked from returningto the anodize station by a subsequent incomingpart, and the part at the anodization station wasblocked from moving to the etch station by thepart waiting to return to the anodization station.There were no apparent easy ways to schedulecyclical activity among locations using the“Move Logic,” so additional anodization andetch stations were created. Once that conflict wasresolved, the model ran well.

Implications for Technology Programs

Using simulation software is a well advisedpractice for students studying manufacturingmethods. In terms of advanced manufacturingand the manufacture of emerging products—forexample, in the nanotechnology field—the soft-ware is an excellent vehicle to encourage

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

24

students and others to learn in detail the equip-ment, people, and processes involved in opera-tions. Additionally, in many technology programslearning objectives related to manufacturing bestpractices have been added to the curricula.Ultimately, simulation offers students the oppor-tunity in a classroom setting to better understandthe relationship between theory and practice ineach of these areas. Researchers can considerwhere and how improvements in product andprocess flows can impact a variety of key metrics. Metrics, such as cycle time, costs, andefficiencies in equipment and labor, can beinvestigated and observed as changes are made

to the model. Bottlenecks can be located andtracked. The ability of simulation to help linktheory and practice may be useful in leading stu-dents toward higher levels of intellectual behav-ior. Educators should strive to build students’abilities to apply, analyze, evaluate, and create,rather than simply to remember and perhapsunderstand. Simulation has a role to play in help-ing build these abilities.

Dr. Dennis W. Field is a Professor in the

Department of Technology at Eastern Kentucky

University, Richmond. He is a member of the

Alpha Xi chapter of Epsilon Pi Tau.

References

Argonne National Laboratory. (2004). Novel nanostructures wired into the future. Retrieved onDecember 3, 2005 at http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/Frontiers/2004/b10excell.html.

AZoNano. (2005). Carbon nanotube manufacturing on a commercial scale—ready for mass-markets.Retrieved September 21, 2009 fromhttp://www.azonano.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1108#_The_UK%E2%80%99s_First_Production%20Plant%20for

Ba, L., & Li, W. S. (2000). Influence of anodizing conditions on the ordered pore formation in anodicalumina. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 33. 2527-2531.

Hu, W., Gong, D., Chen, Z., Yuan, L., Saito, K., Grimes, C. A., & Kichambare, P. (2001). Growth ofwell-aligned carbon nanotube arrays on silicon substrates using porous alumina film as a nanotem-plate. Applied Physics Letters, 79(19). 3083-3085.

Jessensky, O., Müller, F., & Gösele, U. (1998). Self-organized formation of hexagonal pore arrays inanodic alumina. Applied Physics Letters, 72(10). 1173-1175.

Knaack, S. A., Redden, M., & Onellion, M. (2004). AAO nanopore arrays: A practical entrée tonanostructures. American Journal of Physics, 72(7). 856-859.

Liang, J., Chik, H., Yin, A., & Xu, J. (2002). Two-dimensional lateral superlattices of nanostructures:Nonlithographic formation by anodic membrane template. Journal of Applied Physics, 91(4). 2544

Mebrahtu, H., Walker, R., & Mileham, T. (2004, February). Performance enhancement using anexpert mechanism in a manufacturing simulator. Proceedings of the Institution of MechanicalEngineers—Part B—Engineering Manufacture, 218(2), 245-249. Retrieved September 20, 2009,doi:10.1243/095440504322886578

Nam, W., Seo, H., Park, S. C., Bae, C. H., Nam, S. H., Park, S. M., & Ha, J. S. (2004). Fabrication ofnanodot arrays on Si by pulsed laser deposition using anodic aluminium oxide nanopore membraneas a mask. Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, 43(11A). 7794

Nasirpouri, F., Ghorbani, M., Irajizad, A., Saedi, A. M., & Nogaret, A. (2004, September). Growthsequences of highly ordered nano-porous anodic aluminium oxide. Paper presented at the meetingTNT 2004: Trends in Nanotechnology, Segovia, Spain.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory. (n.d.). Nanoscale science, engineering and technology research direc-tions. Retrieved September 21, 2009 from http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/reports/files/NSET_rpt.pdf

ProModel Corporation. (2003). ProModel basic course training workbook. Orem, UT: Author

ProModel Corporation. (2004). ProModel user guide. Orem, UT: Author

Rohrer, M. (1997, May). Seeing is believing. IIE Solutions, 29(5), 24. Retrieved September 20, 2009,from Academic Search Premier database.

Zhang, H., Chen, Z., Li, T., & Saito, K. (2005). Fabrication of a one-dimensional array of nanoporeshorizontally aligned on a Si substrate. Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, 5. 1745-1748.

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

25

AbstractPolymer matrix composites (PMC), often

referred to as fiber reinforced plastics (FRP),consist of fiber reinforcement (E-glass, S2-glass, aramid, carbon, or natural fibers) andpolymer matrix/resin (polyester, vinyl ester,polyurethane, phenolic, and epoxies). E-glass/polyester and E-glass/vinyl ester compos-ites are extensively used in the marine, sports,transportation, military, and construction indus-tries. These industries primarily use low-costopen molding processes, such as manual/spraylay-up. Polyester and vinyl ester resin systemsproduce styrene emissions. Because of the strin-gent EPA regulations on styrene emissions,composite manufacturers are interested in usinglow-cost closed molding processes, such as vac-uum-assisted resin transfer molding (VARTM)and styrene-free resin systems such as non-foamand full-density polyurethanes (PUR).Polyurethanes are polymers created by additionof polyisocyanates and polyols. The polyol com-ponent in polyurerhane can be produced fromsoybean oil. This study demonstrates that withthe proper addition of nanoparticles, mechanicalproperties of soy-based polyurethane can beenhanced. These nanomodified soy-basedpolyurethane/glass composites manufactured byusing the low-cost VARTM process providealternatives to traditional glass/polyester andglass/vinyl ester composites. These compositeswill be more environmental friendly for two rea-sons: (a) Polyurethane does not produce styreneemission, thereby, resulting in a safer work placeand (b) Polyol is made from a renewableresource (soybean oil).

IntroductionComposite materials are everywhere in our

daily lives. Many products on the market containcomposite materials or structures, such as ply-wood, golf clubs, canoes, and coated knives.Although the term composite is very broad andrefers to the combination of two or more materi-als at the macroscopic level, this article refers toa composite as a fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP)or polymer matrix composite (PMC).Reinforcement typically is fibers and the matrixis a thermoset resin. Polymer matrix is mostcommonly referred to as resin. In about 90

percent of these composites fiberglass is usedfor reinforcement, and either polyester or vinylester is used as a matrix. The open moldingtechnique is used for 65 percent of the compos-ites manufactured, whereas the remaining 35percent of the composites are manufacturedthrough closed molding. In open molding, mate-rials are exposed to the atmosphere during thefabrication, whereas in closed molding, materi-als are closed in a two-sided mold or in a vacu-um bag. Figures 1-4 display popular applicationsof PMCs. Figure 1 shows a small house builtusing glass fiber-reinforced phenolic sandwichcomposites panels. These DURA-SIP™ com-posite panels are strong, lightweight, fire resist-ant, UV light resistant, and impervious to water,mold, and insects (DuraSip, 2009). Figure 2 isan illustration of a boat made of glass fiber-rein-forced composite (Solemar, Inc., 2009). Figure 3shows wind turbine blades made of glass rein-forced composites (ENERCON GmbH, 2009).PMCs, especially those that are glass reinforced,dominate the wind turbine blade market becauseof their superior fatigue resistance characteris-tics, high specific stiffness, and ability to bemade into complex shapes. As shown in Figure4, Boeing uses high performance carbon fiber-reinforced composites for the fuselage section ofits new 787 Dreamliner (Boeing, 2009).

The method used in this research, vacuum-assisted resin transfer molding (VARTM) is aclosed molding process. VARTM uses vacuumpressure to infuse resin into fibers. This methodcan reduce styrene emissions to the open air.Styrene is a volatile organic compound (VOC),and its emission is restricted by EPA regulationsin the composites industry (U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, 2009).

Bio-based Nanocomposites: An Alternative to Traditional CompositesJitendra S. Tate, Adekunle T. Akinola, and Dmitri Kabakov

Figure 1. Small House Built UsingSandwich Composites (DuraSip, 2009)

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

26

Most of the resins used for composites arepetroleum based; however, some of them can bereplaced by environmentally friendly materials,such as soy-based polyurethane. In general, suchnatural materials have inferior properties whencompared to traditional petroleum-based materi-als. Polymer nanocomposites consist of poly-meric materials and reinforced nanoscale materi-als (nanoparticle). The nanoparticle has at leastone dimension in a nanometer scale. Polymernanocomposites show major improvements inmechanical properties, gas barrier properties,thermal stability, and fire retardancy (Koo,2006).

Researchers have used different nanoparti-cles, for example, nanoclays, predispersednanosilica, nanoalumina, multi-wall carbon nan-otubes (MWCNT), carbon nanofibers (CNF),nano SiC particles, and HNT™ (HalloysiteNanotubes), in liquid thermoset resins toenhance mechanical/thermal properties(Akinyede, Kelkar, Mohan, & Sankar, 2009;Chisholm, Jeelani, Mahfuz, Rangari, & Rodgers,2004; Grimmer & Dharan, 2009; Karapappaset,Kostopoulos, Tsotra, & Valounliotis, 2009;Manjunatha, Kinloch, Sprenger, & Taylor, 2009;Xu & Vas, 2008; Ye, Chen, Wu, & Ye, 2004;Zhou, Pervin, & Jeelani, 2007; Njuguna,Alcock, & Pielichowski, 2007). Some of thesenanoparticles such as MWCNT and CNF areexpensive, and their use in large-scale compos-ites production is limited. Nanoclays are inex-pensive, but their dispersion in liquid thermosetresins is a challenge. A typical method used fornanoclay dispersion in liquid thermoset is highshear mixing. Implementation of such a methodon a large scale is expensive and adds process-ing cost. These researchers propose to use low-cost halloysite nanotubes (HNT) that are natu-rally available. It can be dispersed uniformlyusing simple centrifugal mixing (Tate,Adenkunle, Patel, & Massingill, 2009).Researchers have shown remarkable improve-ment in mechanical performance by addingHNT to composites, as discussed in the sectionon HNT.

The composites industry is very large,approaching $25 billion per year. America main-tains a leading position globally in compositesmanufacturing and research. Biobased nanocom-posites are the future of this industry; therefore,this topic should capture the attention of bothprofessionals and the general public.

Figure 2. Boat Made of Glass FiberReinforced Composite (Solemar, Inc.,2009)

Figure 3. Wind Turbine Blades (ENER-CON GmbH, 2009)

Figure 4. Boeing 787 Fuselage(Boeing, 2009)

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

27

Thermoset Polyurethane Resin

Polyurethanes (PUR) are thermoset prod-ucts with the addition of polyisocyanates andpolyols. PUR is a tough polymer useful in coat-ings, structural foams, and composites. Polyolscan be fossil oil based or, vegetable oil based.Through this research, we suggest the feasibilityof using a soybean oil-based polyol as a compo-nent of PUR composites.

Applications and Properties of PUR Composites

Polyurethanes have been used extensivelymainly because they exhibit excellent abrasionresistance, toughness, low temperature flexibili-ty, chemical and corrosion resistance, and awide range of mechanical strength. Two-compo-nent polyurethane (2K-PUR) systems are espe-cially attractive because they offer flexibility informulation, which enables customization fordemanding end-use requirements.

Polyurethane can be used to produce vari-ous forms—from flexible to rigid structures—with negligible emission. PUR foam compositeshave been used primarily for automotive interiorand exterior parts, such as pickup truck boxes,load floors, package shelves, and inner doorpanels. Non-foamed, full-density PUR compos-ite systems are beginning to be used for applica-tions such as window lineal, bathtubs, electriclight poles, and large parts for trucks and off-road vehicles (Sherman, 2006). The followingare the major advantages of PUR composites.

1. Composites manufactured from PURresins have superior tensile strength,impact resistance, and abrasion resist-ance compared with composites basedon unsaturated polyester and vinyl esterresins (Connolly, King, Shidaker, &Duncan, 2005, 2006).

2. Cure times are much faster than forpolyester spray-up—about 20 minutesversus 2 to 4 hours in non-automotiveapplications (Sherman, 2006).

3. They contain no styrene and therefore donot generate large amounts of VOCs.

Soy-based Polyurethane

In recent years, there has been interest indeveloping materials and products based on bio-based resources. The principal drivers forthis include environmental, regulatory, and economical factors. A recent study indicates that

soy-based polyols have a 25 percent lower totalenvironmental impact compared to petroleum-based polyols; the use of soy polyols will resultin reductions in net CO2 contributions to globalwarming, smog formation, ecological toxicity,and fossil fuel depletion (Pollock, 2004).

Soy-based polyol has been mainly used incoatings, adhesives, sealants, and foams. Mannariand Massingill (2006) investigated soy-basedpolyols used in coating applications. However,few attempts have been made to use it in rein-forced composites. Dwan'Isa, Misra, and Drzal(2004) have reported that, bio-based polyurethanefrom soybean oil-derived polyol and diisocyanateon reinforcement with glass fibers adds signifi-cantly to the mechanical properties of the baseresin. Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) showsthe improved thermal stability of the bio-basedpolyurethane with the reinforcement of glassfiber. Husic, Javni, and Petrovic (2005) illustratedthat mechanical properties (such as tensile andflexural strength, tensile and flexural modulus ofsoypolyol-based composites) were comparable tocomposites based on a petrochemical polyol.They futher indicated that because soy-basedpolyurethanes offer better thermal, oxidative, andhydrolytic stability compared to petrochemical-based polyurethanes, they could become a viablealternative to the petrochemical urethane matrixresins for composites. In this research, soybeanoil-based polyol was supplied by Arkema, Inc.under trade name Vikol®-1. The aliphatic poly-isocynate component was petroleum based, and itwas supplied by Bayer Material Science, Inc.under the trade name Desmodur® Z4470BA. Theaddition of soy-based polyol and polyisocynate inproper proportion will result in thermoset soy-based polyurethane resin.

Nanomodifications of Soy-based Polyurethane

The introduction of inorganic nanoparticlesas additives into polymer systems results inpolymer nanocomposites (PNC). When such ananomodified polymer is used to make a rein-forced composite, it is called “reinforced poly-mer nanocomposite.” In this research, soy-basedpolyurethane was modified using Halloysitenanotubes (HNT).

Halloysite Nanotubes (HNT™)

HNT are naturally formed in the Earth overmillions of years by the surface weathering ofaluminosilicate materials and are composed ofaluminum, silicon, hydrogen, and oxygen.Halloysite nanotubes are ultra-tiny hollow tubes

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

28

(diameters typically are smaller than 100 nm(10-7 m) and lengths typically range from about0.5 to 1.2 microns). The functional characteris-tics desired for specific applications can be con-trolled through the selection of the diameter andthe length of the HNT. These diameters typicallyrange from about 40 nm to 200nm, and theycome in a variety of lengths, allowing for a widerange of applications. Halloysite nanotubes canbe coated with metallic and other substances toachieve a wide variety of electrical, chemical,and physical properties (NaturalNano, Inc,2009). HNT technology is abundant and inex-pensive; its polar surface can be readily modi-fied. It is a potential alternative to expensivecarbon nanotubes for nanocomposites, whenmechanical properties are concerned (Ye et al.,2007).

Researchers and engineers have investigatedHalloysite as an excellent polymer modifierbecause of the properties associated with it.Halloysite is a useful constituent of many poly-meric composites for the purpose of mechanicaland thermal improvement, including thosewhere the polymer is a coating likepolyurethane, a film, a molded part, fiber, foam,or even in a copolymer (Li, Liu, Ou, Guo, &Yang, 2008). Monomer is a simple compoundthat can be joined to form long chain-like struc-tures called polymers. Copolymers are polymersthat consist of two or more monomers.

Ye et al. (2007) found that the morphologyof the HNT was geometrically similar to multi-walled carbon nanotubes. These researchersblended epoxy with HNT in different loadingsof 0.8, 1.6, and 2.3 wt percent. The resultsdemonstrated that blending epoxy with 2.3 wtpercent HNT increased the impact strength byfour times without scarifying flexural modulus,strength, and thermal stability.

In the last 3-4 years, researchers havereported improvement in mechanical and ther-mal properties for thermoplastics nanocompos-ites and elastomeric nanocomposites using HNT( Li et al., 2008; Ye et al., 2007). However, thereare very few attempts made to use HNT in rein-forced composites. In this research, soy-basedpolyurethane is modified using HNT with dif-ferent loadings.

ExperimentationFull-density polyurethane was modified

using HNT nanoparticles. This nanomodified

polyurethane was used to manufacture E-glassreinforced composites using the low-cost vacu-um assisted resin transfer molding (VARTM)process. The composites were mechanicallycharacterized in compression, flexure, and inter-laminar shear loading.

Material system

Table 1 displays the material system forglass-reinforced composites. E- glass woven rov-ing fabrics (Rovcloth® 1854) was supplied byFiberglas Industries, Inc. Soy-based polyol(Vikol®-1) was manufactured and supplied byArkema, Inc. Aliphatic polyisocynate(Desmodur® Z4470BA) was supplied by Bayer,Inc. Aliphatic polyisocynate has better resistanceto ultraviolet (UV) radiation. HNT were sup-plied by NaturalNano, Inc. Soy-based polyol andpolyisocynates were mixed in a 1:1 equivalentratio to produce non-foam and full- density ther-moset polyurethane resin. Dibutyltin dilaurate(DBTL) was used as a catalyst. . Three differentloadings of HNT 0.8, 1.6, and 2.4 wt percentwere used in making composite panels.

Dispersion of Nanoparticles

Uniform dispersion of nanoparticles in liquid polymer is essential for improvement inmechanical/thermal properties. Planetary cen-trifugal mixers (THINKY® Model ARE-250)had successfully been used by Air ForceResearch Lab (AFRL) researchers to effectivelydisperse carbon nanofibers without damage inthe liquid polymers for EMI applications (AirForce Reseach Laboratory, 2007). These mixersalso can be used to de-gas due to fast centrifugalmotion. In this research, the THINKY® ModelARV-310 was used for dispersion and de-gassing. HNT were dispersed in soy-based poly-ol using the THINKY mixer for three minutes at2000 rpm without vacuum. To this nanomodi-fied polyol was added aliphatic polyisocynate ina 1:1 equivalent ratio. This mixture was runthrough the THINKY mixer maintaining 28.5”

Material Brand Name, Description

Reinforcement Rovcloth® 1854, E-glass woven roving

Nanoparticle Untreated HNT

Polyol Vikol®-1, Soybased polyol

Isocynate Desmodur® Z4470BA, aliphatic polyisocynate

Catalyst Dibutyltin dilaurate (DBTL)

Table 1. Material System of Bio-basedNanocomposites

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

29

vacuum for one minute at 2000 rpm fordegassing.

There is always suspicion about the healthhazards while handling dry nanoparticles.Nanoparticles can be easily absorbed into thebody either through the skin or by inhaling thembecause of their small size. Special care must betaken when handling and storing dry nanoparti-cles. According to protocol, dry nanoparticlesare not handled in open air. Containers arestored and opened only in a glove box and pre-mixed with liquid resin and then transported forfurther processing. When nanoparticles aremixed in liquid resin they impose less harm.

VARTM manufacturing process

The VARTM process is an attractive andaffordable method of fabricating compositeproducts. It can produce high-quality complexand large-scale components. As shown in Figure5, a complex structural aerospace part was pro-duced using the VARTM process by V SystemComposites (V System Composites, 2009).Figure 6 shows a huge and complex boat hullbeing manufactured using VARTM (AdvancedProjects Group, 2009). The major requirementof a resin system for VARTM is that the viscosi-ty should be in the range of 100 to 1000 cP inorder for the resin to flow throughout the fabric.Viscosity plays a major role in the VARTMprocess.

During the VARTM manufacturing process,dry fabric is placed into a tool and vacuumbagged in conjunction with the resin distributionline, the vacuum distribution line, and the distri-bution media. A low viscosity resin is drawn intothe fabric through the aid of a vacuum. Resindistribution media ensures resin infiltration in

the thickness direction of composite panels. Thekey to successful resin infiltration of the fabricis the design and placement of the resin distribu-tion media which allows complete wet-out of thefabric and eliminates voids and dry spots.Properly designed and properly placed resin dis-tribution media eliminate “race tracking” andresin leakage around the fabric (Seemann, 1990,1994). Figure 7 ilustrates how different baggingmaterials are laid in the VARTM process (Tate,2004). Figure 8 explains the step-by-stepprocess of laying different bagging materials.

The soy-based polyol had a room tempera-ture viscosity of 780cP. There was no consider-able increase in viscosity with 0.8 wt percentloading of HNT. Viscosity increased to 1080 cPwith 2.4 wt percent of HNT loading. The com-posites panels of 300mm _ 200mm size with 8layers of E-glass woven roving were producedusing VARTM at room temperature. The panelswere kept in a mold for 24 hours (green cure),followed by post cure at room temperature forseven days and then another cure at 120 ºC for

Figure 5. Complex 3D StructuralAerospace Part (V SystemComposites, 2009)

Figure 7. Schematic of the VARTMProcess

Figure 8. VARTM Process at SmallScale - from Material Arrangement toResin Infusion and Demolding

Figure 6. Huge Boat HullManufactured Using VARTM(Advanced Projects Group, 2009)

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

30

three hours. The overall fiber percentage ofVARTM manufactured composites was found tobe 53 percent. Water-jet cutting of the compositewas used to ensure minimal damage at the edgesof the panels.

Mechanical Testing

Earlier research indicates that mechanicalproperties of soy-based polyurethane/E-glasscomposites are quite comparable to traditionalpolyester/E-glass and vinyl ester/E-glass com-posites (Tate, Massingill, Patel, Rikka, &Arabie, 2007; Tate, Massingill, Patel, & Konga,2008). Table 2 summarizes the results.

Interlaminar shear strength (ILSS) and compressive strength are matrix dominant prop-erties. Flexural properties are also affected bymatrix material. The major interest of this studywas to evaluate the effect of nanomodificationsof matrix on matrix-dominant properties ofcomposites. Therefore, ILSS, compressivestrength, flexural strength, and flexural modulusof nanomodified composites were evaluated.

Five specimens in each category were test-ed. Compression tests were performed accordingto ASTM D 6641/D 6641M titled “Standard TestMethod for Determining the CompressiveProperties of Polymer Matrix CompositeLaminates Using a Combined LoadingCompression (CLC) Test Fixture” to evaluatecompressive strength. Flexure tests were per-formed according to ASTM D 790-92 entitled“Standard Test Methods for Flexural Propertiesof Unreinforced and Reinforced Plastics andElectrical Insulating Materials” to evaluate flex-ural strength and modulus. Short-Beam testswere performed according to ASTM D 2344/D2344M entitled “Standard Test Method forShort-Beam strength of Polymer MatrixComposite Materials and their Laminates” toevaluate interlaminar shear strength (ILSS).

Results and DiscussionTable 3 displays average mechanical proper-

ties of HNT-modified PU/E-glass composites.For 0.8 wt percent loaded HNT modified com-posites, flexural strength and modulus wereincreased by 6 percent and 28 percent, respec-tively. ILSS, a measure of fiber/matrix adhesion,improved by 82 percent with this loading. UCSdecreased with increases in wt percent loadingof HNT. UCS decreased by 8 percent for 0.8 wtpercent loading. Overall, 0.8 wt percent loadingof HNT showed considerable improvement inoverall performance of composites.

ConclusionsThe addition of HNT™ in soy-based

polyurethane/E-glass composites improvesmechanical performance considerably. Three different loadings were studied for HNT, 0.8, 1.6,and 2.4 wt percent. Viscosity of polyurethanewas observed at 780 cP for 0.8wt percent HNT,which increased to 1080 cP for 2.4wt percentHNT loading. The VARTM process was usedsuccessfully with this low-viscosity resin at roomtemperature. Low viscosity of nanomodifiedpolyurethane makes it a perfect choice for thelow-cost VARTM process. The vacuum planetarycentrifugal mixer is an efficient, economical, and

Property Rovcloth® 1854 Rovcloth® 1854 Rovcloth® 1854

E-glass woven E-glass woven E-glass wovenroving/vinyl ester roving/biobased PU roving/polyester

(Shivakumar, 2006) (Tate et al., 2007, 2008) (Fiber Glass Industries, 2009)

Vf 60 40 40

UTS, MPa 512.5 385.4 267.5

E, GPa 29.2 20.82 22.2

vxy 0.16 - 0.17

Note: Vf – Fiber Volume Percentage; UTS – Ultimate Tensile Strength; E – Tensile Modulus; vxy in-plane Poisson’s ratio

Table 2. Properties of E-Glass/Vinyl Ester; E-glass/Biobased PU; and E-Glass/Polyester

Table 3. Mechanical Properties ofHNT Modified Polyurethane/E-Glass

Composites

HNT wt % 0 0.8 1.6 2.4

Vf, % 50 52 55 56

UCS (MPa) 82.6 75.7 61.29 81.28

Fs (MPa) 149.13 158.85 138.32 139.53

Ef (GPa) 9.84 12.60 11.33 10.47

ILSS (MPa) 14.28 26.00 14.36 21.86

Note: UCS – Ultimate Compressive Strength; Fs – Flexural strength; Ef – Flexural modulus; ILSS – Interlaminar shear strength

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

31

a fast method of uniformly dispersing HNT inpolyol. For 0.8 wt percent loaded HNT modifiedcomposites, flexural strength, flexural modulus,and ILSS were increased by 6 percent, 28 per-cent, and 82 percent, respectively. ILSS is ameasure of fiber/matrix adhesion. This researchsuggested that fiber/matrix adhesion can beimproved by modifying polyurethane with HNT,which in turn improves the mechanical proper-ties. Thus, nanomodified soy-basedpolyurethane/glass composites manufacturedusing the VARTM process provide alternativesto traditional glass/polyester and glass/vinylester composites. These composites will be more environmental friendly for two reasons: (a) polyurethane doesn’t produce styrene emis-sion thus making workplace safe and (b) the

polyol component is made from soybean oil,which is a renewable resource.

Dr. Jitendra S. Tate is an Assistant Professor

in the Ingram School of Engineering at Texas

State University, San Marcos.

Adekunle T. Akinola is a graduate student in

the Ingram School of Engineering at Texas State

University, San Marcos

Dmitri Kabakov is a graduate student in the

Ingram School of Engineering at Texas State

University, San Marcos

References

Advanced Projects Group. (2009). VARTM infusion. Retrieved October 1, 2009, fromhttp://www.futuremediacreations.com/technoire/vartm.htm

Air Force Reseach Laboratory. (2007, Winter). Air Force scientists identifying method for electromag-netic interference shielding materials. Materials Technology Highlights, Winter 2007,1-4.

Akinyede, O., Mohan, R., Kelkar, A., & Sankar, J. (2009). Static and fatigue behavior ofepoxy/fiber-glass composites hybridized with alumina nanoparticles. Journal of Composite Materials, 0:0021998308101294v1

Boeing. (2009). Boeing: Multimedia - image gallery - 787 dreamliner. Retrieved December 8, 2009,from http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/commercial/787/k63211-1.html

Chisholm, N., Mahfuz, H., Rangari, V., Rodgers, R., & Jeelani, H. (2004). Synthesis & mechanicalcharacterization of carbon/epoxy composites reinforced with SiC nano particles. NSTI-Nanotech, 3:302-307.

Connolly, M., King, J., Shidaker, T., & Duncan, A. (2006). Processing and characterization of pultruded polyurethane composites. Retrieved October 1, 2009, from http://www.huntsman.com/pu/Media/EPTApaper_March2006.pdf

Connolly, M., King, J., Shidaker, T., & Duncan, A. (2005). Pultruding polyurethane composite pro-files: Practical guidelines for injection box design, component metering equipment and processing.Composites 2005 Convention and Trade Show (pp. 1-9). Columbus: ACMA.

DuraSip. (2009). DuraSip phenolic resin-fiberglass laminate Sheets and panels. Retrieved October 1,2009, from http://www.durasip.com/

Dwan'Isa, J.-P., Mohanty, A. K., Misra, M., & Drzal, L. (2004). Biobased polyurethane and its composite with glass fiber. Journal of Material Science (39), 2081-2087.

ENERCON GmbH. (2009). ENERCON GmbH ~ Energy for the world. Retrieved October 1, 2009,from http://www.enercon.de/en/_home.htm

Fiber Glass Industries. (2009). FGI cloth calculator. Retrieved October 1, 2009, fromhttp://www.fiberglassindustries.com/Engineering/Strength/FabricStrength.html

Grimmer, C. S., & Dharan, C. K. (2009). High-cycle fatigue life extension of glass fiber/polymercomposites with carbon nanotubes. Journal of Wuhan University of Technology-Mater, 167-173.

Husic, S., Javni, I., & Petrovich, Z. S. (2005). Thermal and mechanical properties of glass reinforcedsoy-based polyurethane composites. Composites Science and Technology, 65 (1), 19-25.

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

32

Karapappas, P., Valounliotis, A., Tsotra, P., & Kostopoulos, V. (2009). Enhanced fracture propertiesofcarbon reinforced composites by the addition of multi-wall carbon nanotubes. Journal ofComposite Materials, 43: 977-985

Koo, J. (2006). Polymer Nanocomposites. In J. Koo (Ed.), Polymer nanocomposites (p. 9). New York:McGraw Hill.

Li, C., Liu, J., Ou, X., Guo, B., & and Yang, Z. (2008). Polymer-modified halloysite composite nan-otubes. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 110 (6), 3638-3646.

Manjunatha, C. M., Taylor, A. C., Kinloch, A. J., & Sprenger, S. (2009). The cyclic-fatigue behaviourof an epoxy polymer modified with micron-rubber and nano-silica. Journal of Material Science,44: 4487–4490.

Mannari, V. M., & Massingill, J. L. (2006). Two-component high-solid polyurethane coating systemsbased on soypolyols. Journal of Coating Technology and Research, 3 (2), 151-157.

NaturalNano, Inc. (2009). NaturalNano, Inc. - Halloysite nanotubes. Retrieved October 1, 2009, fromhttp://www.naturalnano.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view &id=17&Itemid=45

Njuguna, J., Pielichowski, K., & Alcock, R. (2007). Epoxy-based fibre reinforced nanocomposites.Journal of Advanced Engineering Materials, 9 (10).

Pollock, J. W. (2004). Soy vs. petro polyols: A life cycle comparison. Paper presented at the GlobalPlastics Environmental Conference. Anaheim, CA

Seemann, W. H. (1990, 1994). Patent No. 4,902,215. U.S.

Seemann, W. H. (1994). Patent No. 5,316,462. U.S.

Sherman, L. M. (2006, March). Feature – polyurethane composites – new alternative to polyester &vinylester. Retrieved October 1, 2009, from Plastics Technology Online – The Premier Source ofTechnical and Business Information for Plastics Processors: http://www.ptonline.com/arti-cles/200603fa2.html

Shivakumar, K. N. (2006). Carbon/vinyl ester Composites for enhanced performance in marine appli-cations. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites, 25 (10), 1101-1116.

Solemar, Inc. (2009). SOLEMAR – Passione per lo stile. Retrieved October 1, 2009, fromhttp://www.solemar-nautica.com/uk/prodotti/

Tate, J. S. (2004). Performance evaluation and modeling of braided composites. Greensboro, NC,USA 27411: PhD Dissertation, NC A & T State University,.

Tate, J. S., Adenkunle, T., Patel, P., & Massingill, J. (2009). Nano-modified soy-based polyurethane/e-glass composites: Mechanical and Thermal Properties. SAMPE 09 (p. B106). Baltimore: SAMPE.

Tate, J. S., Massingill, J., Patel, P., & Konga, S. (2008). Enhancement in mechanical properties byimproving fiber/matrix adhesion in bio-based polyurethane/e-glass composites. SAMPE. LongBeach, CA: SAMPE.

Tate, J. S., Massingill, J., Patel, P., Rikka, P., & Arabie, S. (2007). Mechanical characterization of bio-based polyurethane/e-glass composites. SAMPE. Cincinnati: SAMPE.

U.S. Government Printing Office. (2009). Rule and implementation information for reinforced plasticcomposites production. Retrieved December 8, 2009, from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rpc/fr21ap03.pdf

V System Composites. (2009). Advanced composite component manufacturing, engineering anddesign. Retrieved October 1, 2009, from http://www.vsystemcomposites.com

Xu, Y., & Vas, H. S. (2008). Mechanical properties of carbon fiber reinforced epoxy/clay nanocom-posites. Journal of Composites Science and Technology, 68: 854-861.

Ye, Y., Chen, H., Wu, J., & Ye, L. (2007). High impact strength epoxy nanocomposites with naturalnanotubes. Polymer, 48 (21), 6426-6433.

Zhou, Y., Pervin, F., & Jeelani, S. (2007). Effect vapor grown carbon nanofiber on thermal andmechanical properties of epoxy. Journal of Material Science, 42: 7544-7553.

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

33

AbstractIn the absence of scientific clarity regarding

the potential health effects of occupational expo-sure to nanoparticles, there is a need for guid-ance in making decisions about hazards, risks,and controls (Schulte & Salmanca-Buentello,2007). Presently, no guiding principles havebeen universally accepted for personal protectiveequipment that is worn to prevent exposure tonanomaterials. The purpose of this article is tosurvey the literature and determine if researchhas been completed that validates whether or notoccupational exposure to nanomaterials is poten-tially hazardous to the health of humans.

IntroductionThe science of nanotechnology is the

manipulation of matter on a near-atomic scale toproduce new structures, materials, and devices(NIOSH, 2005b). Nanotechnology andnanosciences are global technologies that canpossibly transform the world’s economy and itsworkforce. Work places (such as research labo-ratories, production or operation facilities) inwhich nanomaterials are engineered, processed,used, disposed of or recycled are areas of con-cern, because in these areas workers are initiallyexposed to nanomaterials.

Every aspect of nanotechnology is catchingthe attention of governments and businessorganizations worldwide. The National ScienceFoundation (NSF, 2007) predicts that nano-relat-ed goods and services could be a $1 trillionmarket in 2015 and will employ 2 million peo-ple, 1 million of which will be in the UnitedStates (Roco & Bainbridge, 2001). Saniei et al.(2007) believe nanotechnology will be one ofthe fastest growing industries in history, evenlarger than the combined telecommunicationsand information technology industries that start-ed at the beginning of the technology boom in1998.

Further, the 2008 National NanotechnologyInitiative (NNI) budget request for nanotechnol-ogy research and development was over $1.44billion, an increase of 13 percent from 2007(The National Science Foundation, 2009b). Thegrowth in NNI investments during the past seven

years, along with a total cumulative funding forthe NNI since its inception of $8.3 billion,reflects the consistent, strong support of theUnited States government for nanotechnology(National Science Foundation, 2009c).

Via the universal commercialization ofnanosciences, nanotechnology and nanomaterialshave dramatically improved the effectiveness ofmore than 660 existing consumer and industrialproducts (Woodrow Wilson International Centerfor Scholars, 2009). Additionally, nanotechnolo-gy has substantially affected the growth of newapplications, ranging from disease identificationand management to remediation of the environ-ment (e.g., superior drug development andexpansion, extremely hard nanocoatings, waterdecontamination, enhanced information andcommunication technologies, and the productionof stronger, lighter materials).

The research for this paper was conductedby summarizing information reported in scholar-ly, peer-reviewed journals, scientific databases,expert interviews, relevant conferences, andworkshops. Other sources of information includ-ed national and international governmental andprivate organizations whose members researchenvironmental health and safety regarding theworkplace.

An innovative and relatively new area ofresearch called nanotoxicology, investigates thedistinctive biokinetics and toxicological poten-tial of engineered and fabricated nanomaterials.Engineered nanomaterials are generally indenti-fied as ultrafine particulate matter measuringbetween 1– 100 nm in one dimension. The ten-dency of these nanoparticles of different shapes(e.g., geodesic spherical domes, crystallinestructures, rods, tubes), different chemistries(e.g., carbon, silicon, gold, cadmium (and othermetals), possessing different surface characteris-tics and exhibiting distinctly different propertiesfrom their original bulk materials respectively(due to varying mass, charges, solubility, andporosity) to translocate from the location ofdeposit in the respiratory tract to extra pul-monary organs such as the brain, heart, liver,and bone marrow are being researched,

A Guide for the Safe Handling of Engineered andFabricated NanomaterialsWanda L. Greaves-Holmes

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

34

examined, and evaluated using various multidis-ciplinary approaches. These findings have beenanticipated. Numerous epidemiological researchstudies have documented that acute adversehealth effects (e.g., cardiovascular disease) canbe related to exposure to ambient airborne parti-cles. Additionally, scientific investigators affirmthat ill effects are associated with molecularcomposition and physical attributes of small par-ticle substances. Case in point: pulmonary expo-sure to minute quartz particles impairs endothe-lium and pulmonary muscle and tissues; howev-er, the identical particles slightly coated withclay are less detrimental to the respiratory sys-tem. Moreover, the long, thin fibers of asbestospose a major risk to humans when inhaled. Yet,if these fibers are pulverized into tiny particleswith the exact chemical composition, the dangeris appreciably reduced. Scientists suggests thatsynthetic carbon molecules (Carbon 60 mole-cules also known as buckminsterfullerene,fullerene or buckyballs) have a high potential ofbeing accumulated in animal tissue, but the mol-ecules appear to break down in sunlight, perhapsreducing their possible environmental dangers(Purdue University, 2008).

In the October 2008 issue of ScienceDaily,a featured article highlighted a toxicology studythat concluded that some types of nanomaterials(Carbon 60 molecules) can be harmful to animalcells and other living organisms (University ofCalgary, 2008). Particle physics scientists andresearchers of fine atmospheric pollutants, ultra-fine nanoparticulate matter released in to theatmosphere can remain airborne for a significantperiod of time, be inhaled repeatedly, and thencollect in all regions of the respiratory systemwith over one third of the nanoparticles beingdeposited in the deepest regions of the lungs.Further, investigators have discovered evidencethat indicates nanoparticles can dissolve in thecell membranes, pass into cells, thereby crossingthe blood–brain barrier, reform as particles, andalter the cell functions (University of Calgary,2008).

A 2006 publication distributed by NIOSHentitled, Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology:Managing the Health and Safety ConcernsAssociated with Engineered Nanomaterials,states that inhalation is the most common routeof exposure to airborne particles in the work-place. Inhalation is the process by which nano-materials and oxygen in the air can be brought

into the lungs and into close contact with theblood, which then absorbs it and carries it to allparts of the body. At the same time the bloodgives up waste matter (such as carbon dioxide),which is carried out of the lungs when exhaled.Investigators also discovered evidence that indi-cates nanoparticles can dissolve in the cell mem-branes and pass into cells, thereby crossing theblood–brain barrier, reform as particles, andalter the cell functions (University of Calgary,2008).

Humans have several defense methods toeradicate unwanted foreign objects. One processinvolves chemical decomposition for solubleparticles and the other mechanism is physicaltranslocation, (i.e., transporting particles fromone place to another, for insoluble or low-solu-bility particles). Soluble ultrafine dusts will dis-solve and will not be discussed here, because itseffects are highly variable, depending on thecomposition of the dust. By translocation, insol-uble or low-solubility particles deposited in thepulmonary system are eliminated from the respi-ratory system by transporting them elsewhere inthe body. The mucociliary escalator eliminatesthe coarsest particles, which normally aredeposited in the upper lungs, mainly in the tra-cheobronchial region. The tracheobronchialmucous membranes are covered with ciliatedcells that form an escalator and expel the mucuscontaining the particles into the digestive sys-tem. Normally this is an efficient mechanismthat eliminates particles from the respiratorytract in less than 24 hours (Kreyling et al.,2002). In the alveolar region, the macrophageswill take up the insoluble particles by phagocy-tosis, a mechanism whereby the macrophageswill surround the particles, digest them if theycan, and proceed slowly to the mucociliary esca-lator to eliminate them. This is a relatively slowprocess, with a half-life of about 700 days inhumans (Oberdorster, Oberdoster, & Oberdoster,2005). However, the efficiency of phagocytosisis heavily dependent on particle shape and size.

Several studies seem to show that unag-glomerated ultrafine particles deposited in thealveolar region are not phagocyted efficiently bythe macrophages (particularly particles with adiameter of less than 70 nm). However, themacrophages are very efficient for coarser parti-cles in the one to three micrometer range(Tabata and Ikada, 1988). The often inefficientuptake of ultrafine and nanometric dusts by

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

35

macrophages can lead to a major accumulationof particles if exposure is continued and togreater interaction of these particles with thealveolar epithelial cells. Studies have shown thatsome ultrafine particles can pass through theepithelium and reach the interstitial tissues(Ferin, Oberdorster, & Penney, 1992; Kreyling& Scheuch, 2000, Kreyling et al., 2002; Borm,2002; Borm, Schims, & Albrecht, 2004). Thisphenomenon seems more prevalent in higherspecies, such as dogs and monkeys, than it doesin rodents (Kreyling & Scheuch, 2000; Nikula,Snipes, Barr, Griffith, Henderson, & Mauderly,1997).

For the workforce, either insoluble or low-solubility nanoparticles in biological fluid arethe greatest cause for concern. Due to theirminuscule size, scientist have found thatnanoparticles posses unique properties. Certaintypes of nanoparticles can pass through thebody’s natural defense systems and be transport-ed through the body in insoluble form.Therefore, random nanoparticulate matter canterminate in the bloodstream after penetratingthe respiratory or gastrointestinal membranes.These particles circulate to different organs andthen collect at specific sites. Certain particlesjourney along the olfactory nerves and enter thebrain, whereas other types penetrate through cellwalls and reach the nucleus of the cell. Theseunusual characteristics could be beneficial asvectors to transmit medication to specific bodysystems, including the brain. The aforemen-tioned scenario could be repeated and have atoxic effect on the health of workers not utiliz-ing personal protective equipment (PPE.)Usually, in the field of toxicology, the detrimen-tal effects are normally associated with theamount of the substance to which an organism,an animal, or a human is exposed. The greaterthe mass absorbed, the greater the effect. Wheninvestigators studied the behavior or a nanoparti-cle, it was evident that the measured effects arenot related to the mass of the product, whichcontradicts the classical interpretation of toxicitymeasurement. Study results are unambiguous,and demonstrate that at equal mass, nanoparti-cles are more toxic than products of the samechemical composition but of greater size.

Although several authors found a good cor-relation between the specific surface and thetoxic effects, a consensus seems to be emergingin the scientific community that several factorscan contribute to the toxicity of nanoparticles;

thus, it is currently impossible, with our limitedknowledge, to weigh the significance of each ofthese factors or predict the precise toxicity ofeach new product.

According to The Institut de recherchéRobert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail(IRSST, 2008), published studies link theobserved effects to different nanoparticle param-eters: specific surface, number of particles, sizeand granulometric distribution, concentration,surface dose, surface coverage, degree ofagglomeration of the particles and pulmonarydeposition site, the “age” of the particles, sur-face charge, shape, porosity, crystalline struc-ture, electrostatic attraction potential, particlesynthesis method, hydrophilic/hydrophobic char-acter and postsynthesis modifications (graftingof organic radicals or surface coverage to pre-vent aggregation). The presence of certain con-taminants, such as metals, can also favor the for-mation of free radicals and inflammation, whilethe chemical composition and delivery of sur-face components, nanoparticles colloidal andsurface properties, compartmentation in the lungpassages and biopersistence are other factorsthat add a dimension of complexity to under-standing the health effects of nanoparticles and their toxicity (IRSST, 2008).

The slow dissolution of certain nanoparticlesor nanoparticle components in the body canbecome a major factor in their toxicity. Thesevarious factors will influence the functional, toxicological, and environmental impact ofnanoparticles. Several effects have already beenshown in animals. Among these, toxic effectshave been identified in several organs (heart,lungs, kidneys, reproductive system), as well asgenotoxicity and cytotoxicity. For example, someparticles cause granulomas, fibrosis, and tumour-al reactions in the lungs. Thus, titanium dioxide,a substance recognized as having low toxicity,shows high pulmonary toxicity on the nanoscalein some studies and no (or almost no) effects inother studies. In general, the toxicological dataspecific to nanoparticles remains limited, oftenrendering quantitative risk assessment difficultdue to the small number of studies for most sub-stances, the short exposure periods, the differentcomposition of the nanoparticles tested (diame-ter, length, and agglomeration), or the oftenunusual exposure route in the work environment.Additional studies (absorption, biopersistence,carcinogenicity, translocation to other tissues ororgans, etc.) are necessary for quantitative

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

36

assessment of the risk associated with inhalationexposure and percutaneous exposure of workers(Ostiguy, Soucy, Lapointe, Woods, Menard, &Trottier, 2008).

Although major trends could emerge thatshow that nanomaterials are harmless tohumans, this author suggests that precautionsshould be established. Presently, there are nouniversally standardized, published guidelines orregulations for the safe handling of engineerednanomaterials. Research is inconclusive as towhether or not engineered nanoparticles maypose risk to human health because of variouscompositions, sizes, and ability to cross mam-mal’s cell membranes. Engineered nanomaterialsmay exhibit higher toxicity due to their sizecompared to larger particles of the same compo-sition. Current information about risks associat-ed with nanoparticle exposure is limited. Untilirrefutable evidence is available regarding therisks associated with nanomaterials, voluntaryprecautions for the workplace are highly recom-mended.

Risk assessments and control strategies fornanotechnology research will be based on themost current toxicological data, exposure assess-ments, and exposure control information avail-able from The National Institute forOccupational Safety and Health (NIOSH),Nanosafe of the United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA), The Institut derecherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécuritédu travail (IRSST), and the National Institutes ofHealth (NIH), which were used to formulatethese voluntary guidelines. “Approaches to SafeNanotechnology: A Informational Exchange”published by NIOSH (2006), Nanosafe’s proce-dures, (2008), and the European Agency forSafety and Health at Work literature (2009),suggest the following workplace practices,which may decrease the risk of human exposureto nanomaterials.

Manufacturing Controls Strict control of airborne nanoparticles can

be accomplished by using conventional captureexhaust ventilation, such as chemical fumehoods. Glove box containment is another effec-tive method. Passing capture exhaust through aHEPA filter will provide protection againstrelease of nanoparticles into the environment.Some actions that would require manufacturingcontrols include the following:

1. Working with nanomaterial in a liquidmedia during pouring or agitation, whichcould release aerosols size nanoparticles.

2. Fabricating nanoparticles.

3. Handling nanomaterials powder.

4. Maintenance or cleaning of equipmentused to produce nanomaterials.

Preventing inhalation, skin exposure, andingestion are paramount if workers are to worksafely with nanomaterials. This involves follow-ing standard procedures that should be followedfor any particulate material with known oruncertain toxicity. Because nanoparticles are sominute, these particles follow airstreams moreeasily than do larger particles. Control of air-borne exposure to nanoparticles can be accom-plished mainly by using engineering controlsthat are similar to those used for generalaerosols and vapors. Nanomaterials can be easi-ly collected and retained in standard ventilatedenclosures, such as fume hoods. Additionally,nanoparticles are readily collected by HEPA fil-ters. Respirators with HEPA filters are sufficientprotection for nanoparticles in case of immensespills. Many nanomaterials are synthesized inenclosed reactors or glove boxes. These enclo-sures are under vacuum or exhaust ventilation,which prevent exposure during the actual syn-thesis. Inhalation exposure could occur duringadditional processing of materials removed fromreactors; this processing should be done in fumehoods. In addition, maintenance on reactor parts,which could release residual particles in the airshould be done in fume hoods. Another process,the synthesis of particles using sol-gel chem-istry, should be carried out in ventilated fumehoods or glove boxes. Good work practices willhelp minimize exposure to nanomaterials. Thesework practices are consistent with good labora-tory practices in general, for example,

1. Avoiding direct contact with nanomateri-als, especially when airborne or in liquidmedia during a pouring and/or mixingprocess with a high degree of agitation.

2. Wearing FFP3 type masks or poweredrespirators incorporating helmetsequipped with H14 high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters.

3. Installing and using efficient exhaustsystems with particle filtration and

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

37

ventilation system filters to minimizefree-flowing airborne ultrafine particles.

4. Using a sturdy glove with good integrityis imperative when working with dry,ultrafine particulate matter. Using twopairs of disposable nitrile gloves isstrongly recommended.

5. Wearing protective eye wear (e.g., safetygoggles).

6. Wearing protective clothing and safetyshoes.

7. Utilizing ULPA filters (United LightningProtection Association) to minimizecombustion.

8. Prohibiting storage or consumption offood or drink in areas where nanomateri-als are handled.

9. Prohibiting application of cosmetics, etc.in areas where nanomaterials are handled.

10. Requiring all employees to wash theirhands before leaving the work area andafter removing protective gloves.

11. Removing lab coats, which can easilybecome contaminated, before leavingthe lab or workplace.

12. Making sure that workers avoid touch-ing their face or other exposed skinafter working with nanomaterials andprior to hand washing.

13. Labeling all containers with nanomate-rials consistent with existing laboratoryrequirements.

14. Cleaning of any areas where nanomate-rials could be must be done via wetwiping or HEPA vacuuming. Drysweeping or using compressed air isprohibited.

15. Disposing of contaminated cleaningmaterials must comply with hazardouswaste disposal policies.

Fire and Explosions

Other potential safety concerns regardingnanoparticles are fires and explosions, whichcan happen if large quantities of dust are gener-

ated during production. This is expected tobecome more of a concern when reactions arescaled up to pilot plant or production levels.Scientific evidence concludes that carbonaceousand metal dusts can burn and explode if an oxidant such as air and an ignition source arepresent.

Conclusion Nanotechnology is a dynamic and rapidly

growing field that offers the promise of techno-logically based innovations that will substantial-ly improve the quality of life for all humans. Thepreliminary data currently available on someproducts reveals that engineered nanoparticlesmust be handled with care and that workers’exposure must be minimized, because effectsfrom such particles are extremely variable fromone product to another. Therefore, a comprehen-sive understanding of the possible drawbacks ofnanotechnology is critical to realizing the signif-icant benefits of nanotechnology. The majorityof the initial nanomaterials research has focusedon the probable hazards and risks of nanotech-nology-based manufacturing. Although, toxico-logical research for nanotechnology is in itsformative years, concerns about potential risksto the health and safety of workers will requiredefinitive answers.

Researchers’ questions should be focusedon manufacturing practices, procedures, andcontrols for the present and future uses of nan-otechnology. Yet another area of interest is theenvironment. What is the fate of the environ-ment when nanomaterials are disposed? Whatdoes “appropriate” disposal mean as it relates tothe field of nanotechnology? What is obvious;however, is that the nanotechnology manufactur-ing industry must identify, develop, and imple-ment an optimum approach for protecting bothits employees and the public at large. One prom-ising option indicates that researchers may beable to “engineer out” unacceptable levels oftoxicity in nanomaterials. If this undertakingcomes to fruition, then the industry will be ableto minimize the potentially negative implicationsto its workers and the environmental impact ofnanomaterial-based manufacturing and products.

According to the documents previouslyreviewed, toxic effects on living organisms aswell as the unique physicochemical characteris-tics of nanomaterials validate the immediate useof personal protective equipment, etc. to limitexposure and protect the health of potentially

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

38

exposed individuals. The introduction of strictuniversally standardized guidelines and proce-dures to prevent any risk of occupational diseasein researchers, students, or workers who synthe-size, transform, or use nanoparticles should beintroduced immediately. A scientific approach tothe identification, assessment, and mitigation ofthe risks posed by nanomaterial manufacturing

and commercialization will protect the public,the environment, and industry, thereby ensuringthat the benefits of nanotechnology are sharedby all.

Wanda L. Greaves-Holmes is a doctoral

student at the University of Central Florida,

Orlando.

References

Borm, P. (2002, August 21). Toxicology of ultrafine particles. In Ultrafine aerosols at workplace.BIA-Workshop, BG Institute for Occupational Safety and health, Sankt Augustin, Germany.

Borm, P., Schins, R., & Albrecht, C. (2004). Inhaled particles and lung cancer part b: Paradigms andrisk assessment. International Journal of Cancer, 110(1), 3-14.

Ferin, J., Oberdorster, G., & Penney, D. P. (1992). Pulmonary retention of ultra-fine and fine particlesin rats. American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology, 6, 535-542.

Genaidy, A., & Karwowski, W. (2006). Nanotechnology occupational and environmental health and safety: Education and research needs for an emerging interdisciplinary field of study. HumanFactors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 16(3). Retrieved fromhttp://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112636867/issue

Hebert, P. (2006). Taking action on nanotech environmental, health and safety risks (Lux Research).Retrieved from http://www.luxresearchinc.com/press/RELEASE_EHS2006.pdf, Institute ofOccupational Medicine. (2004). Nanoparticles: An occupational hygiene review A Voluntary Guide18

Kreyling, W., & Scheuch, G. (2000). Clearance of particles deposited in the lungs. In J. Heyder & P.Gehr (Eds.), Particle lung interactions (pp. 323-376). New York: Marcel Dekker.

Kreyling, W., Semmler, M., Erbe, F., Mayer, P., Takenaka, S., Schulz, H., et al. (2002). Translocationof ultrafine insoluble iridium particles from lung epithelium to extrapulmonary organs is sizedependent but very low. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 65, 1513-1530.

Lux Research. (2004). The nanotech report (Lux Research). Retrieved from http://www.luxresearchinc.com/tnr2004

Maynard, A. (2006). Nanotechnology: A research strategy for addressing risk (The Pew CharitableTrusts No. 3).

Nanosafe. (2008, October). First results for safe procedures for handling nanoparticles. NationalScience and Technology Council Committee on Technology. (2009). The national nanotechnologyinitiative research and devlopment in technology and industry: Supplement to the president's 2010budget (National Science and Technology Council Committee on Technology). Retrieved from AVoluntary Guide 19 http://www.nano.gov/NNI_2010_budget_supplement.pdf

National Science Foundation. (2007). The national science foundation (NSF) survey on nanotechnologygovernance.

National Science Foundation. (2009a, October 19). The national science foundation (NSF) gap analysis of nanotechnology regulations. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/nano/activities/../5../swami.pdf

National Science Foundation. (2009b, October 19). The national science foundation (NSF) nanotechnology.

National Science Foundation. (2009c, October 19). The national science foundation (NSF) survey onnanotechnology governance.

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

39

Nikula, K., Snipes, M., Barr, E., Griffith, W., Henderson, R., & Mauderly, J. (1995). Comparative pulmonary toxicities and carcinogenicities of chronically inhaled diesal exhaust and carbon black inf344 rats. Fundamental Applications of Toxicology, 25, 80-94.

NIOSH. (2006). Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology: An Informational Exchange with NIOSH (U.S.National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health). Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/nanotech/safenano/pdfs/approaches_to_safe_nanotechnology_28november2006_updated.pdf

NIOSH. (2005b). Determination of particulate filter penetration to test against liquid particulates fornegative pressure, air-purifying respirators standard testing procedure (National Institute forOccupational Safety and Health No. 1.1). Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/stps/pdfs/RCT-APR-0051%2052%2053%2054%2055%2056.pdf A Voluntary Guide 20

NIOSH. (2006). Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology (U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safetyand Health). Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/nanotech/safenano/pdfs/approaches_to_safe_nanotechnology_28november2006_updated.pdf

NIOSH. (2007). Progress toward safe nanotechnology in the workplace (National Institute forOccupational Safety and Health). Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2007-123/pdfs/2007-123.pdf

NIOSH. (2009, October 9). Nanotechnology at NIOSH. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/nanotech/

NNIN. (2009, October 19). National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nnin.org/

Oberdorster, G., Oberdotster, E., & Oberdotster, J. (2005). Nanotoxicology: An Emrging DisciplineEvolving from Studies of Ultrafine Particles. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113, 823-839.

OECD. (2006). Report of the OECD workshop on the safety of manufactured nanomaterials: Building cooperation, co-ordination and communication (Organization for Economic Co-Operationand Development). Retrieved from http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2008doc.nsf/LinkTo/NT000034C6/$FILE/JT03248749.

Ostiguy, C., Soucy, B., Lapointe, G., Woods, C., Ménard, L., & Trottier, M. (2008). Health effects of nanoparticles - second edition (IRSST). Retrieved from http://www.irsst.qc.ca/en/_publica-tionirsst_100418.html PubMed. (2009, October 19). National center for biotechnology information(NCBI). Retrieved A Voluntary Guide 21 from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed Purdue University. (2008, September 19). 'Buckyballs' have high potential toaccumulate in living tissue. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080918171148.htm

Roco, M., & Bainbridge, W. (2001, March). Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechonolo-gy. In NSET workshop. National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA.

Saniei, M., Zahedi, L., Shahraz, S., Jafari, M., E., S. et al. (2007). Biotechnology and intellectualproperty rights: Ethical dilemma in iran 2nd National Bioethics Conference. Bangalore, India:Indian Journal of Medical Ethics.

Schulte, P., & Salmanca-Buentello, F. (2007, January). Ethical and scientific issues of nanotechnolo-gy. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(1).

Swiss Re. (2009, October 19). Nanotechnology - small matter, many unknowns. Retrieved fromhttp://www.swissre.com/pws/research%20publications/risk%20and%20expertise/risk%20percep-tion/nanotechnology_small_matter_many_ unknowns_pdf_page.html

Tabata, Y., & Ikada, Y. (1988). Effect of the size and surface charge of polymer microspheres on theirphagocytosis by macrophages. Biomaterials, 9, 356-362.

University of Calgary. (2008, May 27). Nanotechnology risks: How buckyballs hurt cells.ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080527091910.htm

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. (2009, October 19). The nanotechnology consumer products inventory. Retrieved from http://www.nanotechproject.org/consumerproducts

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

40

AbstractAmbient energy harvesting is also known as

energy scavenging or power harvesting, and it isthe process where energy is obtained from theenvironment. A variety of techniques are avail-able for energy scavenging, including solar andwind powers, ocean waves, piezoelectricity, ther-moelectricity, and physical motions. For exam-ple, some systems convert random motions,including ocean waves, into useful electricalenergy that can be used by oceanographic moni-toring wireless sensor nodes for autonomoussurveillance. Ambient energy sources are classi-fied as energy reservoirs, power distributionmethods, or power-scavenging methods, whichmay enable portable or wireless systems to becompletely battery independent and self sustain-ing. The students from different disciplines, suchas industrial technology, construction, designand development and electronics, investigatedthe effectiveness of ambient energy as a sourceof power. After an extensive literature review,students summarized each potential ambientenergy source and explained future energy-har-vesting systems to generate or produce electricalenergy as a support to conventional energy stor-age devices. This article investigates recent stud-ies about potential ambient energy-harvestingsources and systems.

IntroductionToday, sustaining the power requirement for

autonomous wireless and portable devices is animportant issue. In the recent past, energy stor-age has improved significantly. However, thisprogress has not been able to keep up with thedevelopment of microprocessors, memory stor-age, and wireless technology applications. Forexample, in wireless sensor networks, battery-powered sensors and modules are expected tolast for a long period of time. However, conduct-ing battery maintenance for a large-scale net-work consisting of hundreds or even thousandsof sensor nodes may be difficult, if not impossi-ble. Ambient power sources, as a replacementfor batteries, come into consideration to mini-mize the maintenance and the cost of operation.Power scavenging may enable wireless andportable electronic devices to be completelyself-sustaining, so that battery maintenance can

be eventually removed. Researchers have per-formed many studies in alternative energysources that could provide small amounts ofelectricity to electronic devices, and this will beexplained in another section of this article.

Energy harvesting can be obtained from dif-ferent energy sources, such as mechanical vibra-tions, electromagnetic sources, light, acoustic,airflow, heat, and temperature variations. Energyharvesting, in general, is the conversion ofambient energy into usable electrical energy.When compared with energy stored in commonstorage elements, such as batteries, capacitors,and the like, the environment represents a rela-tively infinite source of available energy.

Systems continue to become smaller, yetless energy is available on board, leading to ashort run-time for a device or battery life.Researchers continue to build high-energy den-sity batteries, but the amount of energy availablein the batteries is not only finite but also low,which limits the life time of the systems.Extended life of the electronic devices is veryimportant; it also has more advantages in sys-tems with limited accessibility, such as thoseused in monitoring a machine or an instrumentin a manufacturing plant used to organize achemical process in a hazardous environment.The critical long-term solution should thereforebe independent of the limited energy availableduring the functioning or operating of suchdevices. Table 1 compares the estimated powerand challenges of various ambient energysources in a recent study by Yildiz, Zhu, Pecen,and Guo (2007). Values in the table were derivedfrom a combination of published studies, experi-ments performed by the authors, theory, andinformation that is commonly available in text-books. The source of information for each tech-nique is given in the third column of the table.Though this comparison is not comprehensive, itdoes provide a broad range of potential methodsto scavenge and store energy from a variety ofambient energy sources. Light, for instance, canbe a significant source of energy, but it is highlydependent on the application and the experienceto which the device is subjected. Thermal ener-gy, in contrast, is limited because temperature

Potential Ambient Energy-Harvesting Sources andTechniquesFaruk Yildiz

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

41

differences across a chip are typically low.Vibration energy is a moderate source, butagain, it is dependent on the particular applica-tion, as cited by Torres and Rincon-Mora(2005).

Ambient Energy Sources

Ambient energy harvesting, also known asenergy scavenging or power harvesting, is theprocess where energy is obtained and convertedfrom the environment and stored for use in elec-tronics applications. Usually this term is appliedto energy harvesting for low power and smallautonomous devices, such as wireless sensornetworks, and portable electronic equipments. A variety of sources are available for energyscavenging, including solar power, ocean waves,piezoelectricity, thermoelectricity, and physicalmotions (active/passive human power). Forexample, some systems convert randommotions, including ocean waves, into usefulelectrical energy that can be used by oceano-graphic monitoring wireless sensor nodes forautonomous surveillance.

The literature review shows that no singlepower source is sufficient for all applications,and that the selection of energy sources must beconsidered according to the application charac-teristics. Before going into details, a generaloverview of ambient energy sources are present-ed, and summarized the resources according totheir characteristics:

• Human Body: Mechanical and thermal(heat variations) energy can be generatedfrom a human or animal body by actionssuch as walking and running;

• Natural Energy: Wind, water flow, oceanwaves, and solar energy can provide limitless energy availability from theenvironment;

• Mechanical Energy: Vibrations frommachines, mechanical stress, strain fromhigh-pressure motors, manufacturingmachines, and waste rotations can be captured and used as ambient mechanicalenergy sources;

• Thermal Energy: Waste heat energy variations from furnaces, heaters, andfriction sources;

• Light Energy: This source can be dividedinto two categories of energy: indoorroom light and outdoor sunlight energy.Light energy can be captured via photosensors, photo diodes, and solar photovoltaic (PV) panels; and

• Electromagnetic Energy: Inductors, coils,and transformers can be considered asambient energy sources, depending onhow much energy is needed for the application.

Table 1. Comparison of Power Density of Energy Harvesting Methods

Energy Source Power Density & Performance Source of Information

Acoustic Noise 0.003 µW/cm3 @ 75Db (Rabaey, Ammer, Da Silva Jr,0.96 µW/cm3 @ 100Db Patel, & Roundy, 2000)

Temperature Variation 10 µW/cm3 (Roundy, Steingart, Fréchette, Wright, Rabaey, 2004)

Ambient Radio Frequency 1 µW/cm2 (Yeatman, 2004)

Ambient Light 100 mW/cm2 (direct sun) Available100 _W/cm2 (illuminated office)

Thermoelectric 60 _W/cm2 (Stevens, 1999)

Vibration 4 _W/cm3 (human motion—Hz) (Mitcheson, Green, Yeatman,(micro generator) 800 _W/cm3 (machines—kHz) & Holmes, 2004)

Vibrations (Piezoelectric) 200 µW/cm3 (Roundy, Wright, & Pister, 2002)

Airflow 1 µW/cm2 (Holmes, 2004)

Push buttons 50 _J/N (Paradiso & Feldmeier, 2001)

Shoe Inserts 330 µW/cm2 (Shenck & Paradiso, 2001)

Hand generators 30 W/kg (Starner & Paradiso, 2004)

Heel strike 7 W/cm2 (Yaglioglu, 2002)(Shenck & Paradiso, 2001)

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

42

Additionally, chemical and biologicalsources and radiation can be considered ambientenergy sources. Figure 1 shows a block diagramof general ambient energy-harvesting systems.The first row shows the energy-harvestingsources. Actual implementation and tools areemployed to harvest the energy from the sourceare illustrated in the second row. The third rowshows the energy-harvesting techniques fromeach source. The research efforts are employedby the above listed sources to explore in generalhow practical devices that extract power fromambient energy sources are. A broad review ofthe literature of potential energy-scavengingmethods has been carried out by the authors.The result of this literature review is categorizedfor each source, and follows in the next few sections of this paper.

Mechanical Energy HarvestingAn example of electric power generation

using rotational movement is the self-powered,battery-less, cordless wheel computer mousecited by Mikami, Tetsuro, Masahiko, Hiroko(2005). The system is called Soc and is designedas an ultra low power wireless interface forshort-range data communication as a wirelessbattery-less mouse. The system was designeduniquely to capture rotational movements by thehelp of the mouse ball to generate and harvestelectric power. The electric generator is poweredthrough exploiting rolling energy by draggingthe mouse. The energy-harvesting system was

intended to power the electronic system of amouse device, such as the ultra low power RFtransmitter and microcontroller. The experimen-tal results of the study showed that the mouseonly needed 2.2mW energy to operate. The totalenergy captured using an energy-harvesting sys-tem was bigger than 3mW, which was enoughfor the wireless mouse operations in a transmitrange of one meter.

Another example of mechanical energy har-vesting is an electrets-based electrostatic microgenerator, which was proposed by Sterken,Fiorini, Baert, Puers, and Borghs (2003). In thissystem, a micro machined electrostatic converterconsisted of a vibration sensitive variable capac-itor polarized by an electret. A general multidomain model was built and analyzed in the

same study, and it showed that power generationcapabilities up to 50µw for a 0.1cm2 surface areawere attainable.

Mechanical Vibrations

Indoor operating environments may havereliable and constant mechanical vibrationsources for ambient energy scavenging. Forexample, indoor machinery sensors may haveplentiful mechanical vibration energy that can bemonitored and used reliably. Vibration energy-harvesting devices can be either electromechani-cal or piezoelectric. Electromechanical harvest-ing devices, however, are more commonly

Figure 1. Ambient Energy Systems

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

43

researched and used. Roundy, Wright, andRabaey (2004) reported that energy withdrawalfrom vibrations could be based on the movementof a spring-mounted mass relative to its supportframe. Mechanical acceleration is produced byvibrations that, in turn, cause the mass compo-nent to move and oscillate. This relative disloca-tion causes opposing frictional and dampingforces to be applied against the mass, therebyreducing and eventually extinguishing the oscil-lations. The damping force energy can be con-verted into electrical energy via an electric field(electrostatic), magnetic field (electromagnetic),or strain on a piezoelectric material. These ener-gy conversion schemes can be extended andexplained under the three listed subjects becausethe nature of the conversion types differs even ifthe energy source is vibration. In the sectionbelow, the main differences of the three sourcesare discussed.

Electromagnetic

This technique uses a magnetic field to con-vert mechanical energy to electrical energy(Amirtharajah & Chandrakasan, 1998). A coilattached to the oscillating mass is made to passthrough a magnetic field, which is establishedby a stationary magnet, to produce electric ener-gy. The coil travels through a varying amount ofmagnetic flux, inducing a voltage according toFaraday's law. The induced voltage is inherentlysmall and therefore must be increased to becomea viable source of energy. (Kulah & Najafi,2004). Techniques to increase the induced volt-age include using a transformer, increasing thenumber of turns of the coil, or increasing thepermanent magnetic field (Torres & Rincón-Mora, 2005). However, each of these parametersis limited by the size constraints of themicrochip as well as its material properties.

Piezoelectric

This method alters mechanical energy intoelectrical energy by straining a piezoelectricmaterial (Sodano, Inman, & Park, 2004). Strainor deformation of a piezoelectric material causescharge separation across the device, producingan electric field and consequently a voltage dropproportional to the stress applied. The oscillatingsystem is typically a cantilever beam structurewith a mass at the unattached end of the lever,which provides higher strain for a given inputforce (Roundy & Wright, 2004). The voltageproduced varies with time and strain, effectivelyproducing an irregular AC signal on the average.Piezoelectric energy conversion produces

relatively higher voltage and power density levelsthan the electromagnetic system. Moreover,piezoelectricity has the ability of some elements,such as crystals and some types of ceramics, togenerate an electric potential from a mechanicalstress (Skoog, Holler, & Crouch, 2006). Thisprocess takes the form of separation of electriccharge within a crystal lattice. If the piezoelectricmaterial is not short circuited, the appliedmechanical stress induces a voltage across thematerial. There are many applications based onpiezoelectric materials, one of which is the elec-tric cigarette lighter. In this system, pushing thebutton causes a spring-loaded hammer to hit apiezoelectric crystal, and the voltage that is pro-duced injects the gas slowly as the current jumpsacross a small spark gap. Following the sameidea, portable sparkers used to light gas grills,gas stoves, and a variety of gas burners havebuilt-in piezoelectric based ignition systems.

Electrostatic (Capacitive)

This method depends on the variable capacitance of vibration-dependent varactors.(Meninger, Mur-Miranda, Amirtharajah,Chandrakasan, & Lang, 2001). A varactor, orvariable capacitor, which is initially charged,will separate its plates by vibrations; in this way,mechanical energy is transformed into electricalenergy. Constant voltage or constant currentachieves the conversion through two differentmechanisms. For example, the voltage across avariable capacitor is kept steady as its capaci-tance alters after a primary charge. As a result,the plates split and the capacitance is reduced,until the charge is driven out of the device. Thedriven energy then can be stored in an energypool or used to charge a battery, generating theneeded voltage source. The most striking featureof this method is its IC-compatible nature, giventhat MEMS (Micro-electromechanical system)variable capacitors are fabricated through rela-tively well-known silicon micro-machining tech-niques. This scheme produces higher and morepractical output voltage levels than the electro-magnetic method, with moderate power density.

In a study conducted to test the feasibilityand reliability of the different ambient vibrationenergy sources by Marzencki (2005), three dif-ferent vibration energy sources (electrostatic,electromagnetic, and piezoelectric) were investi-gated and compared according to their complex-ity, energy density, size, and encountered prob-lems. The study is summarized in Table 2.

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

44

Thermal (Thermoelectric) Energy Harvesting

Thermal gradients in the environment aredirectly converted to electrical energy throughthe Seebeck (thermoelectric) effect, as reportedby Disalvo (1999) and Rowe (1999).Temperature changes between opposite seg-ments of a conducting material result in heatflow and consequently charge flow since mobile,high-energy carriers diffuse from high to lowconcentration regions. Thermopiles consisting ofn- and p-type materials electrically joined at thehigh-temperature junction are therefore con-structed, allowing heat flow to carry the domi-nant charge carriers of each material to the lowtemperature end, establishing in the process avoltage difference across the base electrodes.The generated voltage and power is relative tothe temperature differential and the Seebeckcoefficient of the thermoelectric materials.Large thermal gradients are essential to producepractical voltage and power levels (Roundy,Wright, & Rabaey, 2004). However, temperaturedifferences greater than 10°C are rare in a microsystem, so consequently such systems generatelow voltage and power levels. Moreover, natural-ly occurring temperature variations also can pro-vide a means by which energy can be scavengedfrom the environment with high temperature.Stordeur and Stark (1997) have demonstrated athermoelectric micro device, which is capable ofconverting 15 _W/cm3 from 10 °C temperaturegradients. Although this is promising and, withthe improvement of thermoelectric research,could eventually result in more than 15 _W/cm3,situations in which there is a static 10 °C tem-perature difference within 1 cm3 are, however,very rare, and assume no losses in the conver-sion of power to electricity.

One of the latest designs of thermoelectricenergy harvester is the thermoelectric generator(TEG) designed and introduced by PacificNorthwest National Laboratory (2007). Thisnew thermoelectric generator is used to convertenvironmental (ambient) thermal energy intoelectric power for a variety of applications that

necessitates low power use. This thermoelectricenergy harvester includes an assembly of verysmall and thin thermocouples in a unique con-figuration that can exploit very small (>2°C)temperature variations that are occurring natu-rally in the environment of the application suchas ground to air, water to air, or skin to air inter-faces. The body of the TEG consisted of reliableand stable components that provided mainte-nance free, continuous power for the lifetime ofthe application claimed by the manufacturer.Depending on the temperature range, the TEG’selectrical output can be changed from a fewmicrowatts to hundreds of milliwatts and moreby modifying the design. Applications of thisenergy-harvesting design are diverse, includingautomotive performance monitoring, homelandand military security surveillance, biomedicine,and wilderness and agricultural management. Itis also documented that the thermoelectric ener-gy harvester may be appropriate for many otherstand-alone, low-power applications, dependingon the nature of the application.

In addition to PNNL’s patent-pending ther-moelectric generator, Applied Digital SolutionsCorporation has developed and presented a ther-moelectric generator as a commercial product(PNNL, 2007). This thermoelectric generator iscapable of producing 40mw of power from 5∞C temperature variations using a device that is0.5 cm2 in area and a few millimeters thick(Pescovitz, 2002). This device generates about1V output voltage, which can be enough forlow- power electronic applications. Moreover,the thermal-expansion-actuated piezoelectricgenerator has also been proposed as a method toconvert power from ambient temperature gradi-ents to electricity by Thomas, Clark and Clark(2005).

Pyroelectricity Energy HarvestingThe “pyroelectric effect” converts tempera-

ture changes into electrical voltage or current(Lang, 2005). Pyroelectricity is the capability ofcertain materials to generate an electrical poten-tial when they are either heated or cooled. As a

Table 2. Comparison of Vibration Energy-Harvesting Techniques

Electrostatic Electromagnetic Piezoelectric

Complexity of process flow Low Very High High

Energy density 4 mJ cm-3 24.8 mJ cm-3 35.4 mJ cm-3

Current size Integrated Macro Macro

Problems Very high voltage and need Very low output Low output of adding charge source voltages voltages

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

45

result of the temperature change, positive andnegative charges move to opposite ends throughmigration (polarized) and thus, an electricalpotential is established. Pryroelectric energy-harvesting applications require inputs with timevariances which results in small power outputsin energy-scavenging applications. One of themain advantages that pyroelectric energy har-vesting has over thermoelectric energy harvest-ing is that most of the pyroelectric materials orelements are stable up to 1200 ∞C or more.Stability allows energy harvesting even fromhigh temperature sources with increasing ther-modynamic efficiency.

Light Energy (Solar Energy) Harvesting

A photovoltaic cell has the capability ofconverting light energy into electrical energy(Kasap, 2001; Raffaelle, Underwood, Scheiman,Cowen, Jenkins, Hepp, Harris, & Wilt, 2000).Each cell consists of a reverse biased pn+ junc-tion, in which the light crosses with the heavilyconservative and narrow n+ region. Photonswhere the light energy exists are absorbed with-in the depletion region, generating electron-holepairs. The built-in electric field of the junctionimmediately separates each pair, accumulatingelectrons and holes in the n+ and p regions,respectively, establishing an open circuit voltage.With a load connected, accumulated electronstravel through the load and recombine withholes at the p-side, generating a photocurrentthat is directly proportional to the light intensityand independent of the cell voltage. Severalresearch efforts, have been conducted so farhave demonstrated that photovoltaic cells canproduce sufficient power to maintain a microsystem. Moreover, a three-dimensional diodestructure constructed on absorbent silicon sub-strate helps increase efficiency by significantlyincreasing the exposed internal surface area ofthe device (Sun, Kherani, Hirschman, Gadeken,& Fauchet, 2005). Overall, photovoltaic energyconversion is a well-known integrated circuitcompatible technology that offers higher poweroutput levels, when compared with the otherenergy-harvesting mechanisms. Nevertheless, itspower output is strongly dependent on environ-mental conditions; in other words, varying lightintensity.

Acoustic Noise

Acoustic noise is the result of the pressurewaves produced by a vibration source. A humanear detects and translates pressure waves intoelectrical signals. Generally a sinusoidal wave isreferred to as a tone, a combination of several

tones is called a sound, and an irregular vibra-tion is referred to as noise. Hertz (Hz) is the unitof sound frequency; 1 Hz equals 1 cycle, or onevibration, per second. The human ear can per-ceive frequencies between 20 Hz and 20 000 Hz.Acoustic power and acoustic pressure are typesof acoustic noise. Acoustic power is the totalamount of sound energy radiated by a soundsource over a given period of time, and it is usu-ally expressed in Watts. For acoustic pressure,the reference is the hearing threshold of thehuman ear, which is taken as 20 microPa. Theunit of measure used to express these relativesound levels is the Bel or decibel (1 Bel equals10 decibels). The Bel and decibel are logarith-mic values that are better suited to represent awide range of measurements than linear values(Rogers, Manwell, & Wright, 2002).

Rare research attempts have been made ofharvesting acoustic noise from an environmentwhere the noise level is high and continuous, totransfer it into electrical energy. For example, aresearch team at the University of Florida exam-ined acoustic energy conversion. They reportedanalysis of strain energy conversion using a fly-back converter circuit (Horowitz et al. 2002).The output of a vibrating PZT piezoceramicbeam is connected to an AC to DC flyback con-verter, which is estimated to provide greater than80 percent conversion efficiency at an inputpower of 1 mW and 75% efficiency at an inputpower of 200 µW (Kasyap, Lim, et al. 2002). Itwas finalized that there is far too insufficientamount of power available from acoustic noiseto be of use in the scenario being investigated,except for very rare environments with extreme-ly high noise levels.

Human Power

Researchers have been working on manyprojects to generate electricity from active/pas-sive human power, such as exploiting, cranking,shaking, squeezing, spinning, pushing, pumping,and pulling (Starner & Paradiso, 2004). Forexample some types of flashlights were poweredwith wind-up generators in the early 20th centu-ry (US patent 1,184,056, 1916). Later versionsof these devices, such as wind-up cell phonechargers and radios, became available in thecommercial market. For instance, Freeplay’s (acommercial company) wind-up radios make 60turns in one minute of cranking, which allowsstoring of 500 Joules of energy in a spring. Thespring system drives a magnetic generator and

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

46

efficiently produces enough power for about anhour of play.

A battery-free wireless remote control forZenith televisions was another human-powereddevice. The design, called “Space Commander”,was introduced by Robert Adler in 1956. Thesystem consisted of a set of buttons that hit alu-minum material to produce ultrasound. The pro-duced ultrasound energy was decoded at the tel-evision to turn it on, change channels and mutethe volume (Adler, Desmares, & Spracklen,1982). Adler’s “Space Commander” design wasthen replaced by the active infrared remote con-trols and is being used in many current remotecontrol systems.

Another similar architecture, developed byParadiso and Feldmeier (2001) is a piezoelectricelement, which was comprised of a resonantlymatched transformer and conditioning electron-ics. This system was actuated when hit by a but-ton, and it produced about 1mJ at 3V per 15Npush. The generated power was enough to run adigital encoder and radio that was able to trans-mit over 50 feet. Materials used for this devicewere off-the-shelf components, which enabledplacing compact digital controllers independent-ly without any battery or wire maintenance.

An average human body burns approxi-mately 10.5 MJ every day, which is equal toabout 121W of power dissipation. Power dissi-pation occurs in the average human body eitheractively or passively in daily life motions, mak-ing the human body and motions an attractiveambient energy source. Researchers have pro-posed and conducted several studies to capturepower from the human body. For exampleStarner has researched and investigated some ofthese energy- harvesting techniques to powerwearable electronics (Starner, 1996). MITresearchers considered these studies and sug-gested that the most reliable and exploitableenergy source occurs at the foot during heelstrikes when running or walking (Shenck &Paradiso, 2001). This research initiated thedevelopment of piezoelectric shoe inserts capa-ble of producing an average of 330 µW/cm2while an average person is walking. The firstapplication of shoe inserts was to power a lowpower wireless transceiver mounted to the shoesoles. The ongoing research efforts mostlyfocused on how to get power from the shoe,where the power is generated, to the point ofinterest or application. Such sources of power

are considered as passive power sources in thatthe person is not required to put extra effort togenerate power because power generation occurswhile the person is doing regular daily activities,such as walking or running. Another group ofpower generators can be classified as activehuman-powered energy scavengers. These typesof generators require the human to perform anaction that is not part of the normal human per-formance. For instance, Freeplay has self-pow-ered products that are powered by a constant-force spring that the user must wind up to oper-ate the device (FreePlay Energy, 2007). Thesetypes of products are very useful because oftheir battery-free systems.

For an RFID (Radio frequency identifica-tion) tag or other wireless device worn on theshoe, the piezoelectric shoe insert offers a goodsolution. However, the application space forsuch devices is extremely limited, and as men-tioned previously, they are not very applicable tosome of the low-powered devices, such as wire-less sensor networks. Active human power,which requires the user to perform a specificpower-generating motion, is common and maybe referred to separately as active human-pow-ered systems (Roundy, 2003).

ConclusionIn conclusion, several currently developed,

and overlooked ideas and options exist, andthese can provide new energy resources toportable or wireless electronics devices withinthe energy-harvesting systems. The possibilityof overall dependence on ambient energyresources may remove some constraints requiredby the limited reliability of standard batteries.Ambient energy harvesting can also provide anextended lifespan and support to conventionalelectronics systems. Students involved in thispaper learned different ambient energy-harvest-ing, conversion, and storage systems. Studentsagreed to start a new research identify variousambient energy sources and design unique ener-gy-harvesting systems.

Dr. Faruk Yildiz is an assistant professor in

the Department of Agricultural and Industrial

Sciences at Sam Houston State University,

Huntsville Texas. He is a Member-at-large of

Epsilon Pi Tau.

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

47

References

Adler, R., Desmares, P., & Spracklen, J. (1982). Ultrasonic remote control for home receivers, IEEETrans. Consumer Electronics, 28 (1), 123–128.

Amirtharajah, R., & Chandrakasan, A. P. (1998). Self-powered signal processing using vibration-based power generation. IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, 33 (5), 687-695.

DiSalvo, F. J. (1999). Thermoelectric cooling and power generation. Science, 285, 703-706.

FreePlay energy, (2007). Retrieved October 5, 2009, from http://www.freeplayenergy.com/products.

Holmes, A. S. (2004). Axial-flow microturbine with electromagnetic generator: Design, CFD simula-tion, and prototype demonstration. Proceedings of 17th IEEE International Micro ElectroMechanical Systems Conf. (MEMS 04), IEEE Press, 568–571.

Horowitz, S., Kasyap, A., Liu, F., Johnson, D., Nishida, T., Ngo, K., Sheplak, M., & Cattafesta, L.(2002). Technology development for self-powered sensors. Proceedings of 1st Flow ControlConference, St Louis.

Kasap, S.O. (2001). Optoelectronics and photonics: Principles and practices, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Kasyap, A., Lim, J. S., Johnson, D., Horowitz, S., Nishida, T., Ngo, K., Sheplak, M., & Cattafesta, L.(2002). Energy reclamation from a vibrating piezoceramic composite beam. Proceedings of 9th Int.Conference on Sound and Vibration, Orlando.

Kulah, H., & Najafi, K. (2004). An electromagnetic micro power generator for low-frequency envi-ronmental vibrations. 17th IEEE International Conference on Micro Eletro Mechanical Systems(MEMS), 237-240.

Lang, S. B. (2005). Pyroelectricity: From ancient curiosity to modern imaging tool. Changes in thenet dipole moment of certain materials form the basis for a broad range of IR detectors. RetrievedOctober 5, 2009, from http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-8/p31.html

Marzencki, M. (2005). Vibration energy scavenging. European Commission research Project VIBES(IST-1-507911) of the 6th STREP Framework Program.

Meninger, S., Mur-Miranda, J. O., Amirtharajah, R., Chandrakasan, A. P., & Lang, J. H. (2001).Vibration-to-electric energy conversion. IEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI)Systems, 9 (1), 64-76.

Mitcheson, P. D., Green, T. C., Yeatman, E. M., & Holmes, A. S. (2004). Analysis of optimized micro-generator architectures for self-powered ubiquitous computers. Imperial College of ScienceTechnology and Medicine. Exhibition Road, London, SW7 2BT.

Mikami, S., Tetsuro, M., Masahiko, Y., & Hiroko, O. (2005). A wireless-Interface SoC powered byenergy harvesting for short-range data communication. IEEE 0-7803-9162-4/05 2005.

Paradiso, J., & Feldmeier, M. (2001). A compact, wireless, self-powered pushbutton controller. ubi-comp: Ubiquitous Computing.

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). Available technologies (2007). Patent Pending,Battelle Number(s): 12398-E, 13664-B, Retrieved October 6, 2009, from http://availabletechnolo-gies.pnl.gov/technology.asp?id=85

Pescovitz, D. (2002). The power of small technology. Smalltimes, 2 (1).

Rabaey, J. M., Ammer, M. J., Da Silva Jr, J. L., Patel, D., & Roundy, S. (2000). Picoradio supports adhoc ultra-low power wireless networking. IEEE Computer, pp. 42–48.

Raffaelle, R., Underwood, J., Scheiman, D., Cowen, J., Jenkins, P., Hepp, A. F., Harris J., & Wilt, D.M. (2000). Integrated solar power systems. 28th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, 1370-1373.

Roundy, S. J. (2003). Energy scavenging for wireless sensor nodes with a focus on vibration to elec-tricity Conversion. A dissertation, The University of California, Berkeley.

Roundy, S., Steingart, D., Fréchette, L., Wright, P. K., & Rabaey, J. (2004). Power sources for wirelessnetworks. Proceedings of 1st European Workshop on Wireless Sensor Networks (EWSN '04), Berlin,Germany.

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

48

Roundy, S., & Wright, P. K., & Pister, K. S. (2002). Micro-electrostatic vibration-to-electricity converters. Proceedings of the ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Expo.

Roundy, S., Wright, P. K., & Rabaey, J. (2003). A study of low level vibrations as a power source forwireless sensor nodes. Computer Communications, 26, 1131-1144.

Roundy, S., Wright, P. K., & Rabaey J. (2004). Energy scavenging for wireless sensor networks withspecial focus on vibrations. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Roundy, S., & Wright, P. K. (2004). A piezoelectric vibration based generator for wireless electronics.Smart Materials and Structures, 13, 1131-1142

Rogers, A., L., Manwell, J. F., & Wright, S. (2002) PE, Wind turbine acoustic noise. RenewableEnergy Research Laboratory, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University ofMassachusetts at Amherst.

Rowe, D. M. (1999). Thermoelectrics, an environmentally-friendly source of electrical power.Renewable Energy, 16,1251-1256.

Shenck, N. S., Paradiso, J. A. (2001). Energy scavenging with shoe-mounted piezoelectrics, IEEEMicro, 21, 30-41.

Starner, T., & Paradiso, J. A. (2004). Human-generated power for mobile electronics. In C. Piguet(Ed). Low-power electronics design, chapter 45, 1–35, CRC Press, New York, NY.

Stevens, J. (1999). Optimized thermal design of small thermoelectric generators. Proceedings of 34thIntersociety Energy Conversion Eng. Conference. Society of Automotive Engineers, 1999-01-2564.

Sodano, H. A., Inman, D.J., & Park, G. (2004). A review of power harvesting from vibration usingpiezoelectric materials. The Shock and Vibration Digest, 36 (3), 197-205.

Skoog, D. A., Holler, J. F., & Crouch, S. R. (2006). Principles of Instrumental Analysis. (6th ed).Florence, KY: Cengage Learning, Brooks Cole.

Starner, T. (1996). Human-powered wearable computing. IBM Systems Journal, 35 (3), 618-629.

Stordeur, M., & Stark, I. (1997). Low power thermoelectric generator – Self-sufficient energy supplyfor micro systems. 16th International Conference on Thermoelectrics, 575 – 577.

Sterken, T., Fiorini, P., Baert, K., Puers, R., & Borghs, G. (2003). An electret-based electrostatic µ- generator. IEEE 0-7803-7731-1/03.

Self Contained Generating and Lighting Unit, (1916). US patent 1,184,056, Patent and TrademarkOffice, 1916.

Sun, W., Kherani, N. P., Hirschman, K. D., Gadeken, L. L., & Fauchet, P.M. (2005). A three-dimen-sional porous silicon p-n diode for betavoltaics and photovoltaics. Advanced Materials, 17, 1230-1233.

Thomas, J., Clark, J. W., & Clark, W. W. (2005). Harvesting energy from piezoelectric material. IEEECS. University of Pittsburgh, 1536-1268.

Torres, E. O., Rincón-Mora, G. A. (2005). Energy-harvesting chips and the quest for everlasting life.IEEE Georgia Tech Analog and Power IC Design Lab.

Yaglioglu, O. (2002). Modeling and design considerations for a micro-hydraulic piezoelectric powergenerator. Master’s thesis, Department of Electrical Eng. and Computer Science, MIT.

Yildiz, F., Zhu, J., & Pecen, R., Guo, L. (2007). Energy scavenging for wireless sensor nodes with afocus on rotation to electricity conversion. American Society of Engineering Education, AC 2007-2254:

Yeatman, E.M. (2004). Advances in power sources for wireless sensor nodes. Proceedings ofInternational Workshop on Wearable and Implantable Body Sensor Networks, Imperial College,20–21. Exhibition Road, London, SW7 2BT.

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

49

The following are major issues that shouldbe considered for efficient and effective technol-ogy transfer: conceptions of technology, techno-logical activity and transfer, communicationchannels, factors affecting transfer, and modelsof transfer. In particular, a well-developed modelof technology transfer could be used as a frame-work for facilitating a technology transferprocess. There are many popular models of tech-nology transfer; examples include the appropri-ability model, the dissemination model, theknowledge utilization model, the contextual collaboration model, the material transfer model,the design transfer model, and the capacitytransfer model (Rogers, 2003; Ruttan & Hayami,1973; Sung & Gibson, 2005; Tenkasi &Mohrman, 1995). According to the appropriabil-ity model, purposive attempts to transfer tech-nologies are unnecessary, because good tech-nologies sell themselves. Regarding the dissemi-nation model, the perspective is that transferprocesses can be successful when experts trans-fer specialized knowledge to a willing recipient.The knowledge utilization model emphasizesstrategies that effectively deliver knowledge tothe recipients. A contextual collaboration modelis based on the constructivist idea that knowl-edge cannot be simply transmitted, but it shouldbe subjectively constructed by its recipients. Thematerial transfer model focuses on the simpletransfer of new materials, such as machinery,seeds, tools, and the techniques associated withthe use of the materials. According to the designtransfer model, transfer of designs, such as blue-prints and tooling specifications, should accom-pany the technology itself for effective technolo-gy transfer. The capacity transfer model empha-sizes the transfer of knowledge, which providesrecipients with the capability to design and pro-duce a new technology on their own.

These models were developed and used tomake technology transfer successful. A success-ful transfer of technology, however, might not beguaranteed simply by using a particular model.In addition, the previously mentioned models oftechnology transfer tend to be fragmented ratherthan integrated. This implies that a new modelof technology transfer should be developed thatincludes novel and macro viewpoints.

Accordingly, this article will propose a new inte-grated model of technology transfer that reflectsrecipients’ perspectives by considering the keycomponents for enhancing technology transfer.In order to achieve this purpose, this paper firstfocused on understanding implications that arenecessary to identifying the main componentsfor effective technology transfer by reviewingand analyzing the main issues related to technol-ogy transfer.

Technology Concepts, Technological Activity, andTechnology Transfer

Defining technology is paramount becauseit helps to identify phenomena related to tech-nology transfer. Since the 1960s, many scholarshave tried to understand the real meaning oftechnology using different underlying philoso-phies (DeVore, 1987; Frey, 1987; Galbraith,1967; Mitcham, 1980; Skolimowski, 1966). Thedefinitions or meanings of technology theseauthors proposed were unique, according to theircontext, philosophy, economy, or other variables.This implies that it might not be that simple todefine technology because technology is situa-tion and value specific. However, the concept oftechnology should be outlined in order to under-stand what is being transferred in a technologytransfer process. Two approaches have been usedto comprehend technology: one is to definetechnology in a way of capturing the platonicessence in a few sentences by differentiatingtechnology from science, and the other is to pro-vide characterizations of technology. Scholars,such as Skolimowski (1966), Galbraith (1967),and DeVore (1987) might be the representativesof the former approach. Skolimowski (1966)defined technology as a form of human knowl-edge and a process of creating new realities. Heargued that science is concerned with what is,but technology is concerned with what is to be.Later, Galbraith (1967) defined technology asthe systematic application of scientific or otherorganized knowledge to practical tasks. Thisdefinition is notable because it emphasizes thesystematic and practical aspects of technology.DeVore (1987), a major scholar, made an effortto define technology. He argued that technologyshould create the human capacity to “do,” and it should be used to create new and useful

Technology Transfer Issues and a New TechnologyTransfer ModelHee Jun Choi

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

50

products, devices, machines, or systems. He alsoemphasized the relationship between technologyand social purpose. He contended that technolo-gy has always been situated directly in the socialmilieu and conditioned by values, attitudes, andeconomic factors; thus, the goal of technology isthe pursuit of knowledge and know-how for spe-cific social ends.

In contrast, some scholars criticized definingtechnology in a few sentences. They argued forproviding characterizations of technology. Frey(1987) could be considered the most typicaladvocator of this approach. In 1987, he character-ized technology as four elements: object, process,knowledge, and volition. Technology as object isregarded as the concept of physical embodiments,involving tools, machines, consumer products,instruments, or any objects that have intentionallybeen created to extend practical human possibili-ties. Moreover, technology as an object may betangible and focused on efficiency. Technology asprocess is concerned with how to use or developthe object effectively. From the systems perspec-tive, technology as process would be a means toimprove the system’s performance. Skolimowski(1966) also supported this knowledge viewpointwhen he stated that technology is a form ofhuman knowledge. According to Mitcham(1980), volition, which incorporates aims, inten-tions, desires, and choices, provides links to tietogether the three aspects of technology: object,process, and knowledge. All technologies areinfluenced by human intention. In other words,when, how, and why technology will be useddepends on human intention and will.Consequently, technology as volition emphasizesthe human element and culture within technology.

According to DeVore (1987), the range oftechnological activity includes everything fromproblem identification to the design and imple-mentation of solutions. This involves not onlytechnical or physical elements but also humanelements. Savage and Skerry (1990) argued thatthe ultimate outcome of technological activity isthe solution derived from the problem-solvingactivity undertaken by humans through the useof technological processes and resources. Themodel of technology activity that Johnson, Gatz,and Hicks (1997) proposed seems to be basedon the open-systems model composed of inputs,transformations, outputs, environment, and feed-back. Their model consists of inputs, personalproblem solving environment, outputs, andimpacts of social context. They regarded the

ultimate outcome of a technology activity as theextension of human capabilities through the cre-ation of artifact, knowledge, and process. Thisview is very important because it implies thattechnology can be used to improve both systemand individual performance; thus, it can be atool for Human Resource Development (HRD)interventions.

Markert’s (1993) definition of technologytransfer is the most typical - she defined tech-nology transfer as the development of a technol-ogy in one setting that is then transferred for usein another setting. However, this definition doesnot reflect a deep comprehension of technologytransfer, because it is mostly focused on differ-entiating technology development from utiliza-tion. To overcome the disadvantage of this defi-nition, Johnson, Gatz, and Hicks (1997) tried tointerpret technology transfer through a holisticperspective that included both the movement oftechnology from the site of origin to the site ofuse and issues concerning the ultimate accept-ance and use of the technology by the end user.They argued that recognizing the end user’sneeds and the context where the technology willbe used is essential for the successful transfer oftechnology. Technology transfer is not the sameprocess and perception for everybody.Universities, corporations, federal labs, anddeveloping countries have different roles andinterests in technology transfer. For example,universities, as a provider of technology, viewtechnology transfer as a means for serving acommunity through knowledge sharing. On theother hand, technology transfer is regarded as away to obtain competitive advantages throughperformance improvements in corporations thatare the recipients of this technology. Like this,the perception of technology transfer in each sitewould be different. According to Frey (1987),technology can be an object, a process, orknowledge that is created by human intention. Inmost cases, technology tends to be the integra-tion of all three components: object, process,and knowledge. Therefore, a provider of tech-nology should try to transfer the integration ofall components that make up that technology,not just one component.

Diffusion of Technology Innovations

According to Rogers (2003), diffusion is theprocess by which an innovation is communicat-ed through certain channels over time among themembers of a social system and by which alter-ation occurs in the structure and function of a

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

51

social system as a kind of social change.Diffusion is an extremely critical process for thepractical use of innovation and reinvention. Inother words, diffusion plays a pivotal role inhelping the adopters fully take advantage of aninnovation and to modify that innovation. Thus,the comprehension of the major issues in thediffusion process is essential for making tech-nology transfer successful.

Diffusion consists of four key elements:innovation, communication channels, time, anda social system (Mahajan & Peterson, 1985;Rogers, 2003). The issues of diffusion can beanalyzed based on the main elements in the dif-fusion. According to Rogers (2003), innovationshave five common characteristics that help toexplain the rates of adoption; these can be rela-tive advantage, compatibility, complexity, triala-bility, and observability. He argued that thegreater relative advantage, compatibility, triala-bility, and observability and the less complex theperceptions of an innovation are, the faster therate of adoption. Change agents need to use thisimplication to speed up the rate of diffusion andto make the potential adopters recognize theneed for change.

In the diffusion process of innovations, theinformation exchange occurs through a varietyof communication channels, such as massmedia, interpersonal channels, or interactivecommunication (e.g., via the Internet). Moreeffective communication occurs when two ormore individuals are similar (i.e., homophilous).However, some degree of heterophily, the degreeto which two or more individuals who interactare different in certain attributes, is usually pres-ent in communication about innovations(Rogers, 2003). It is important for change agentsor HRD professionals to recognize these het-erophilous aspects in order to enhance a mutualunderstanding for the innovation.

Diffusion occurs within a social system, andthe social system constitutes a boundary withinwhich an innovation is diffused (Mahajan &Peterson, 1985; Rogers, 2003). The social sys-tem has structure, giving stability and regularityto individual behavior in a system (e.g., asnorms). The social structure of a system canfacilitate or impede the diffusion of innovationsin the system. For example, it might be very dif-ficult for Catholic countries to adopt a newmedical method for abortion. People whose reli-gion is Catholic regard abortion as one of the

biggest sins. Thus, the norm in Catholic coun-tries would be reluctance to acknowledge abor-tion-on-demand. Consequently, the social struc-ture of Catholic countries might impede the dif-fusion of a new medical method for abortion. Inaddition, the social system can influence thetypes of innovation decision: optional innovationdecisions, collective innovation decisions, andauthority innovation decisions; it can also influ-ence the consequences of an innovation that arethe changes that occur to an individual or to asocial system as a result of the adoption orrejection of an innovation (e.g., desirable vs.undesirable, direct vs. indirect, and anticipatedvs. unanticipated). This implies that changeagents should understand the social system forplanning the diffusion process effectively andefficiently.

Hall and Loucks (1978) developed theConcerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM)based on the following assumptions about inno-vation adoption: (a) change is a process, not anevent; (b) the individual is the primary target forchange; (c) change is a highly personal experi-ence; (d) individuals involved in change gothrough various stages; and (e) facilitators mustknow at what point their clients are in thechange process. CBAM consists of seven stages:awareness, informational, personal, manage-ment, consequence, collaboration, and refocus-ing. These stages of concern about the innova-tion provide a key diagnostic tool for determin-ing the content and delivery of individual devel-opment activities. Individuals with differentkinds of concerns will be present in a group. Forenhancing a diffusion process, individuals’ con-cerns must be reduced. The most prevailingmeasure of stages of concern might be a 35-itemstages of concern questionnaire (SoCQ) devel-oped by Hall, George, and Rutherford (1977).Many researchers have often used it to measurethe intensity of each stage of concern (Liu &Huang, 2005). Such use implies that the ques-tionnaire is reliable and valid enough to provideboth meaningful data and information for plan-ning change strategies. Consequently, HRD pro-fessionals will be able to access guideline forchange interventions by using CBAM.

Technological improvement tends to alter-nate between short episodes of intensive changeactivity and longer periods of routine use (Tyre& Orlikowski, 1993). Managing the timing ofadoptions consciously and carefully can be a

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

52

critical benefit for an organization pursuing bothchange and efficiency. Thus, managers need todevise plans for (a) creating opportunities foradoption, (b) utilizing those opportunities, and(c) exploiting periods of regular use of technolo-gies for generating new insights and ideas.These plans will be helpful in tailoring newtechnologies to fit their organizational andstrategic context.

Diffusion of innovations should be conduct-ed in a two-way direction because it is a collabo-rative and context-specific process based on amutual understanding about an innovation. Thus,adopters of technology should actively partici-pate in customizing technology to fit theirunique situation by considering both positiveand negative aspects of technology. In addition,generators of technology should try to transferresources and capabilities needed in order touse, modify, and generate technology to itsadopters so that diffusion will be successful.

Technology Transfer, Organizations, and Culture

The three main aspects of technology prac-tice are cultural, organizational, and technical(Pacey, 1986). Both the concept of maintenanceand these three aspects of technology should beconsidered when making a technology transfersuccessful. However, most people tend to con-sider only the technical aspects, such as knowl-edge, skills, techniques, machines, andresources, in the technology transfer process.This lack of insight could be one of the biggestobstacles to making the technology transfer suc-cessful. Without a thorough analysis of bothorganizational and cultural issues related totechnology, successful technology transfer can-not be expected.

Technological advances tend to increasecomplexity and uncertainty, make end usersdependent on specialized experts, and build newknowledge hurdles for potential adopters. Incases of the diffusion of complex productiontechnologies, knowledge and technical know-how become important barriers to diffusion.Most organizations delay in-house adoption ofcomplex technology until they obtain sufficienttechnical know-how to both implement andoperate it successfully. Reinvention and learn-ing-by-doing might be responses to the difficul-ty or incompleteness of technical knowledgetransfer between donor and recipient organiza-tions (Attewell, 1992). Technical know-how isrelatively immobile, and it must be recreated by

user organizations. As a result, the burden ofdeveloping technical know-how through organi-zational learning becomes a hurdle to adoptingnew technology. Given such hurdles, the rela-tionships between donor and recipient organiza-tions in a network go beyond selling and buyingequipment. Service is an alternative to adoptingor not adopting a technology. In such a case,consumers obtain the benefits of a new technol-ogy by having someone else provide it as a serv-ice, rather than by taking on the formidable taskof organizing the technology in-house for them-selves (Attewell, 1992). In such scenarios,knowledge barriers are lowered and the processof technology diffusion is accelerated.Organizations that have already experienced thebenefits of a technology via a service providerconstitute a pool of already-primed potentialadopters that are likely to adopt technologies in-house once knowledge issues or other barriersare removed (Attewell, 1992). Consequently, atransition will occur from service to self-service.In other words, shifts from market services toin-house deployment result from a progressivelowering of know-how barriers.

Lowering knowledge and technical know-how barriers could be achieved by the efforts ofboth donors and recipients of technology. Donororganizations must innovate, not just in theirdesign of products, but especially in the devel-opment of novel organizational mechanisms forreducing the knowledge or learning burden uponrecipient organizations. Recipient organizationsshould try to create and accumulate technicalknow-how regarding complex, uncertain, andchanging technologies. This implies that HRDprofessionals should capitalize on a learningorganization strategy as a framework for thesuccessful transfer of technology. A learningorganization focuses on the values of continuouslearning, knowledge creation and sharing, sys-tematic thinking, a culture of learning, flexibili-ty and experimentation, and a people-centeredview (Watkins & Marsick, 1993). This strategyis regarded as one of the most effective organi-zational strategies to use for adopting changingtechnologies. If the learning organizationexpands the concept of learning from the indi-vidual level to the team and organization level,this can help organizations effectively and effi-ciently create and accumulate technical know-how. Such a strategy for learning will contributeto enhancing the implementation of technologytransfer as well as organizational performance

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

53

by increasing learning and innovation. In addi-tion, HRD professionals should try to create anenvironment that can induce the motives of bothorganizations and individuals to adopt new tech-nologies for successful technology transfer. Todo so, HRD professionals should strive to pro-vide their potential users with opportunities toobserve the benefits of new technologies.

Many post-World War II technical aidefforts by the United States and others failedbecause donor countries ignored and misunder-stood both natural and cultural environments,assuming that all countries should follow thesame pattern of industrialization (Pursell, 1993).The failure of these technical aid efforts led toappropriate technology movement; people real-ized that many useful technologies in donorcountries might be detrimental in other countriesand under other circumstances. Appropriatetechnology is primarily an innovation strategyaimed at achieving a good fit between technolo-gies and the contexts in which they are intendedto operate (Pursell, 1993). Values within thecontext play a pivotal role in determining theappropriate technology. In other words, appro-priate technology aims at endogenous technolog-ical development within local communities andregions as a fresh approach to the problems oftechnology, society, and environment.Consequently, appropriate technology movementcontributes to the importance of the contextsthat involve cultural and natural environments ina technology transfer process.

People tend to maintain their own valuesand identities. This tendency led to the emer-gence of a variety of cultures. The beliefs, ideas,and customs that are shared and accepted bypeople in a society are based on cultural vari-ables. Cultures often influence how technologyis used in the technology transfer process. Thisfact is clearly supported by the case study fortransfer of Western management concepts andpractice from developed countries to Malawi.The aim of the case study was to relate findingsto the education and training of managers inMalawi and consider their appropriateness(Jones, 1995). The finding recommended thatWestern management ideas must be criticallyexamined in light of Malawian socioculturalrealities (Jones, 1995). This implies that tech-nologies must be tailored to fit the culture ofend users in order for technology transfer to besuccessful.

Factors Affecting Technology Transfer

Technology transfer implies the movementof physical structure, knowledge, skills, organi-zation, values, and capital from the site of gen-eration to the receiving site (Mittelman & Pasha,1997). The invisible aspects of technology, suchas knowledge, skills, and organization, might bemuch more critical than the physical aspects forthe successful transfer of technology. The caseof the “Green Revolution” in India shows thattechnology is a form of knowledge created byhumans, and knowledge transfer occurs as theoutcome of a set of learning experiences(Parayil, 1992). This illustration implies thateducation and training play an important role infacilitating the movement of invisible aspects oftechnology. In other words, the capacity toassimilate, adapt, modify, and generate technolo-gy could be obtained through education andtraining.

The significance of education and trainingis also found in the cases of Japanese industrial-ization and Indonesian farm mechanization. Inthe early stage of Japanese industrialization, sci-ence and engineering universities and companyschools contributed to facilitating the transfer ofa marine steam turbine generator by providingcapabilities for learning the new technology(Matsumoto, 1999). The capability of Japanesecompanies, acquired through education, made itpossible to actively seek out new technology forthe purpose of gaining competitive advantages,despite the economic risks.

On the contrary, Indonesian farmers failedto transfer agricultural machines for farm mecha-nization because of the lack of education, train-ing, and other political and compatibility issues(Moon, 1998). Technology transfer should almostalways involve modifications to suit new condi-tions. This implies that the unsuccessful transferof agricultural machines in Indonesia resultedfrom the recipients’ lack of absorptive capacityto assimilate and modify it rather than thedonors’ lack of sensitivity to local context for fit-ting the needs of end users. Technology is a pas-sive resource whose effectiveness depends onhumans. Consequently, one of the most criticalcomponents for effective technology transfer is aperson’s ability to learn new technology, whichcan be gained through extended education.

Although education is regarded as a criticaland necessary factor for facilitating the transferof technology, it is not sole factor for successful

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

54

technology transfer. Another important factorcould be effective planning for facilitating thattransfer of technology. The plan should includeconcrete ways that recipients and donors cancollaborate during the technology transferprocess. Collaboration might be based on will-ingness for technology transfer from both therecipient and the donor. Without a strong will-ingness for technology transfer on both sides, itis impossible to assimilate, adopt, and generatenew technology.

In the international technology transfer con-text, most technology transfers are primarilyguided by the profit motive. A donor countryseems reluctant to transfer knowledge or capaci-ty to a recipient country without the hope forprofit. The article entitled “Technology Transfer:A Third World Perspective” provides a greatimplication about the issue. Third World coun-tries embarked on a massive but passive impor-tation of technology (Akubue, 2002). Manyrecipient countries in the Third World adoptedthese innovations without modification. Akubue(2002) further notes that arrangements like thiscould be the result of a strategy of the donorcountries aimed at making Third World coun-tries continuously rely on them for maintainingthe new technology. Through this strategy oftechnology transfer, the donor country mightalso gain an additional advantage over purchas-ing raw material, such as oil or gaining politicalinfluence in the recipient country, in addition toprofiting from technology maintenance.

A critical test of technology transfers iswhether they stimulate further innovations with-in the recipient country. Third World countriesshould be able to achieve technology transferthat stimulates further innovations through anelaborate plan. The plan should include the bestways to benefit both a recipient country and adonor country equally. This plan might promptwillingness of both the recipient and donorsides, which would result in strengthening col-laboration for facilitating technology transfer.

A New Model of Technology Transfer

A country’s competitive advantagesincreasingly lie in its capabilities to generatefurther innovations and to use effectively newtechnology, which is generally a function of thecapacity of its population to absorb new tech-nologies and incorporate them into the produc-tion process (Kolfer & Meshkati, 1987). Thisimplies that a successful transfer of technology

has a large impact on the advancement of anation and it significantly depends on the capac-ity of people to assimilate, adapt, modify, andgenerate new technology. Consequently, educa-tional infrastructure to develop “human capital”is the basic component for a successful technol-ogy transfer. After accumulating a high qualityof human capital, a recipient of technologyshould develop an elaborate plan to increase thewillingness of both the recipient and the donorof technology transfer. This plan could facilitatethe transfer of technology by strengthening thecollaboration between the donor and the recipi-ent. Lastly, the recipient should be able to gener-ate new innovations based on the successfultransfer of technology. This model can beshaped as shown in Figure 1.

This figure is titled “the role shifting modelof technology transfer” because its ultimate goalis to generate new innovations. This modeldepicts how recipients of technology in 2009can be tomorrow’s donors of technology: Itshows the conditions that enable fruit to ripen orin other words, new innovations. Thus, a highlevel of continuing education and trainingresults in the role of fertilizing or helping anapple tree (technology transfer) grow well. Inaddition, elaborate plans for collaborationbetween recipients and donors help achieve suc-cessful technology transfer as either sun or rainis helpful for the growth of a tree. Consequently,farmers who are recipients of technology will beable to produce a plenty of fruit (new innova-tions) based on a high level of continuing educa-tion and training (fertilizer) and elaborate plansthat play a role of sun and rain.

South Korea’s successful transfer of tech-nology for its national economic developmentmight have followed the role-shifting model of

Apple: New Innov ationsHighQualityof HumanCapital

Sun:Elaborate

Plans

TechnologyTransfer

Fertilizer: Education & Training

Figure 1. The role shifting model oftechnology transfer

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

55

technology transfer. South Korea transformeditself from an agrarian society to one of theworld’s most highly industrialized nations. TheSouth Korean economy has grown remarkablythrough strong government support and engagedpeople (i.e., high quality of human capital) sincethe early 1960s. Koreans have tried to accumu-late a high quality of human capital througheducation because Korea has few naturalresources. Koreans regarded the export of itsindustries as the only means to get above pover-ty the early 1960s. As a result, government andbusiness leaders together fashioned a strategy oftargeting export-oriented industries for develop-ment in the early 1960s. The strategy involvedplans for the successful transfer of technologythat generates new innovations. This strategywas implemented in a series of economic devel-opment plans. Textiles and light manufacturingwere the first targeted industries, followed in the1970s by such heavy industries as iron and steeland chemicals. Later, the focus shifted to theautomotive and electronics industries.

In the early stage of industrialization, Koreamade concrete plans that included multiple stepsfor the transfer of technology due to strong gov-ernment support. In addition, Korea possessedenough highly educated citizens to assimilate,adapt, modify, and generate this new technology.These factors made technology transfer in Koreasuccessful, and they ultimately helped to achieveits remarkable economic growth. As a result,Korea became a donor of technology in high-tech fields, such as electronic, information tech-nology, and communication.

Summary and Recommendations

For effective technology transfer, a providerof technology must first change the adopters’perception and willingness for the acceptance oftechnology by understanding their cultural andsocial values before transferring the informationon technology. During this process, informalcommunication and relationships are veryimportant (Johnson et al., 1997). Formal com-munication should precede informal communi-cation in order to build credibility or obtain trustfrom the adopters of technology. The solid for-mal communication would be able to make theinformal communication more effective.

The transfer of technology should be con-ducted as two-way communication, not one-waycommunication, because it is a collaborative andcontext-specific process based on a mutual

understanding about an innovation. Providers oftechnology must play a key role in facilitatingthe transfer process by helping the adopterreconstruct technology, based on the given situa-tion. Transferring technology helps the adoptersreinvent innovation that is suitable for their envi-ronment. Thus, providers of technology shouldtry to transfer to its adopters all resources andcapabilities needed to use, modify, and generatethe technology. In addition, adopters of technol-ogy should actively participate in customizingtechnology to fit their unique situation by con-sidering both the positive and negative aspectsof technology.

HRD professionals in donor organizationsshould create strategies to recognize the com-plex and distinctive realities of the contextswhere technologies are intended to operate forthe effective transfer of technology. One of thestrategies might involve development of cross-cultural training. HRD professionals in donororganizations should conduct an elaborate andthorough context analysis in order to makecross-cultural training for technology transfereffective and efficient. In the process of contextanalysis, HRD professionals should thoroughlyinvestigate the compatibility of technology,dimensions of cultural differences betweendonor and recipient organizations or countries,economical and political issues, and physicalconstraints affecting the use of technology.

In contrast, HRD professionals in recipientorganizations should develop a transformationallearning program for successful technologytransfer. Transformational change at the organi-zation level might be the result of double-loopor transformational learning that requires learn-ers to change their mental schema in a funda-mental way (Argyris, 1982). In other words, anyorganizational change cannot be made without atransformational change process. Therefore,transformational learning is vitally important forthe successful transfer of technology in therecipient organizations. This implies that HRDprofessionals (i.e., change agents) should devel-op a transformational learning program to makea technology transfer process effective and efficient.

The successful transfer of technology canbe achieved by generating new innovations.Technology transfer should not be seen as anend in itself. It is a means to increase the rate oftechnological innovation and to stimulate new

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

56

innovation. Thus, today’s recipients can betomorrow’s donors through a successful transferof technology. To be a donor of technology, therecipients of technology should first possess thecapacity to assimilate, adapt, and modify theimported technology through education andtraining. At the same time, the recipients shouldbe more sensitive to technology cycles by con-tinuously anticipating technology requirementsas opposed to responding to them. This notionfor recipients of technology to become anticipa-tory, not reactionary, is aligned with identifyingemerging knowledge, skills, organizations,

values, and trends. It can be a way to achieve theultimate goal of technology transfer, which isactually developing new technology.

AcknowledgementThis study was supported by the 2009

Hongik University Research Fund.

Dr. Hee Jun Choi is an Assistant Professor

in the Department of Education at Hongik

University, Seoul, Korea

References

Akubue, A. I. (2002). Technology transfer: A third world perspective. The Journal of TechnologyStudies, 28(1), 14-21.

Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, learning, and action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Attewell, P. (1992). Technology diffusion and organizational learning: The case of business computing.Organization Science, 3(1), 1-19.

DeVore, P. W. (1987). Technology and science. In E. N. Israel & R. T. Wright (Eds.), Conducting technical research (pp. 27-45). Mission Hills, CA: Glencoe.

Frey, R. E. (1987). Is there a philosophy of technology? Paper presented at the 74th Mississippi ValleyIndustrial Teacher Education Conference, Chicago, IL.

Galbraith, J. K. (1967). The new industrial state. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Hall, G. E., George, A. A., & Rutherford, W. L. (1977). Measuring stages of concern about the inno-vation: A manual for use of the SoC questionnaire. Austin: Research and Development Center forTeacher Education, University of Texas.

Hall, G. E., & Loucks, S. (1978). Teacher concerns as a basis for facilitating and personalizing staffdevelopment. Teachers College Record, 80(1), 36-53.

Johnson, S. D., Gatz, E. F., & Hicks, D. (1997). Expanding the content base of technology education:Technology transfer as a topic of study. Journal of Technology Education, 8(2), 35-49.

Jones, M. L. (1995). Management development: An African focus. In M. Mendenhall & G. Oddou(Eds.), Readings and cases in international human resource management (pp. 234-247). South-Western College Publishing.

Kolfer, V. L., & Meshkati, N. (1987). Transfer of technology: Factors for success, In M. J. Marquardt(Ed.), Corporate culture: International HRD perspectives (pp. 70-85). Alexandria, VA: AmericanSociety for Training and Development.

Liu, Y., & Huang, C. (2005). Concerns of teachers about technology integration in the USA. EuropeanJournal of Teacher Education, 28 (1), 35-47.

Mahajan, V., & Peterson, R. A. (1985). Models for innovation diffusion. Beverly Hills, CA: SagePublications.

Markert, L. R. (1993). Contemporary technology: Innovations, issues, and perspectives. (Chapter 8,pp. 231-253). South Holland, IL: Goodheart-Willcox.

Matsumoto, M. (1999). Reconsidering Japanese industrialization: Marine turbine transfer atMitsubishi. Technology and Culture, 40(1), 74-97.

Mitcham, C. (1980). Philosophy of technology. In P. T. Durbin (Ed.), A guide to the culture of science,technology, and medicine (pp. 282-363). New York: Free Press.

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

57

Mittelman, J. H., & Pasha, M. K. (1997). Out from underdevelopment revisited: Changing globalstructures and the remaking of the Third World. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Moon, S. M. (1998). Takeoff or self-sufficiency? Ideologies of development in Indonesia, 1957-1961.Technology and Culture, 39(2), 187-212.

Pacey, A. (1986). The culture of technology. (Chapter 1, pp. 1-12). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Parayil, G. (1992). The green revolution in India: A case study of technological change. Technologyand Culture, 33(4), 737-756.

Pursell, C. (1993). The rise and fall of the appropriate technology movement in the United States,1965-1985. Technology and Culture, 34(3), 629-637.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovation (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.

Ruttan, V. W., & Hayami, Y. (1973). Technology transfer and agricultural development. Technologyand Culture, 14(2), 199-151.

Savage, E., & Skerry, L. (1990). A conceptual framework for technology education. Reston, VA:International Technology Education Association.

Skolimowski, H. (1966). The structure of thinking in technology. Technology and Culture, 7(3), 371-383.

Sung, T., & Gibson, D. V. (2005). Knowledge and technology transfer grid: Empirical assessment.International Journal of Technology Management, 29(3/4), 216-230

Tenkasi, R. V., & Mohrman, S. A. (1995). Technology transfer as collaborative learning. In T. E.Backer, S. L. David, & G. Soucy (Eds.), Reviewing the behavioral science knowledge base on tech-nology transfer (pp. 147-167). Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health.

Tyre, M. J., & Orlikowski, W. J. (1993, Fall). Exploiting opportunities for technological improvementin organizations. Sloan Management Review, 13-26.

Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization: Lessons in the art andscience of systematic change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

58

AbstractAlthough technology was once viewed liter-

ally as a means of bringing about utopian socie-ty, its means to that end was exhausted in theminds of many when it fostered the nuclearattacks on Japan in 1945. Since then, not onlyhas technology lost its utopian verve, but it alsohas been viewed by some quite pessimistically.Nevertheless, technology does provide anavenue for utopian cultural production, whoseutopian energy must often be rescued by readersand scholars using the Blochian utopianhermeneutic. In this way technology is asHeidegger described it—“a way of revealing,”that is, the tool that brings the carving out fromwithin the rock. This article argues that althoughtechnology has come to be viewed by some pes-simistically in the years since Hiroshima andNagasaki, it is now experiencing a utopian ren-aissance in that it allows for utopian culturalproduction to be widespread as never before.This is occurring thanks to new technology-facilitated genres such as the Alternate RealityGame, the mass audiences tuned in to Internetavenues for utopian production, and the contin-ued improvement of older technologies such asfilm and television. Technology cannot be theimpetus for ideal change by itself, no matterhow embraced such a concept might have beenupon the introduction of the telegraph or theInternet, but it has brought about new methodsof injecting new energy into culture, which canonly serve to benefit society as a whole.

“A Way of Revealing”: Technology and Utopianismin Contemporary Culture

“Technology is a way of revealing. If wegive heed to this, then another whole realm forthe essence of technology will open itself up tous. It is the realm of revealing, i.e., of truth.”

—Martin Heidegger

Despite the many views of technology asso-ciated with utopian thinking, one important rolethat technology plays is its facilitation of idealis-tic cultural production—literature, music, visualarts, media. This role can be as simple as thetools that allowed prehistoric man to create cavepaintings, or as advanced as contemporary

cultural production platforms (e.g., the Internetand film technologies). If the hermeneuticemployed by subscribers to the philosophy ofErnst Bloch is accepted, then utopian potentialcan be found in any cultural product. Since mostcultural production is dependent upon technolo-gy in one way or another, then it hardly seems astretch to grant technology some credit in thearea of utopian potential, despite what it leavesto be desired in others. Still, the history of tech-nology’s relationship with utopianism is quitecomplicated, especially with regard to technolo-gy as a means to a socially utopian end.

Enlightenment thinkers saw technology asone of several means of bringing about a perfectworld, but they also recognized its inherent neg-ative possibilities. Technological utopian visionsflourished; however, technology remained anobject of considerable debate, especially in thewake of the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima andNagasaki, Japan in 1945, and throughout theCold War. At this point, technology all butentirely ceased to be the means to utopia it hadonce been credited as, and in fact became quitethe opposite in the minds of many, among themHerbert Marcuse. Nevertheless, technologyresulted in significant gains in the areas of cul-tural production, which allowed for utopianvisions to be explored, even if an application ofan interpretation of a perfect world was neces-sary for them to be recognized. Today, technolo-gy remains that which allows for cultural pro-duction to communicate messages of hope,which exemplifies Martin Heidegger’s (1977)idea of technology as “a way of revealing” (p.12), but technology cannot be the locus forutopian change by itself. In spite of this, newtechnological innovations might be evidence of akind of technological utopian renaissance withincultural studies, as new technology-facilitatedgenres (e.g., Alternate Reality Games, massaudiences tuned into Internet avenues for utopi-an production), and the continued improvementof older technologies, (e.g., film and television)build on technology’s arsenal of cultural produc-tion outlets.

Technology and Utopianism: A Brief History

A look at attitudes toward technology and

“A Way of Revealing”:Technology and Utopianism in Contemporary CultureAlex Hall

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

59

utopianism from Thomas More to theEnlightenment (and, indeed, beyond) shows thecomplicated correlation between the two in his-tory. M. Keith Booker (1994) credited Morewith including in Utopia “ ‘natural science’among the pursuits that bring moral and culturalimprovement to the citizens of his ideal society,”and noted that “science has been linked to utopi-an thinking since the very beginnings of modernscience in the seventeenth century” (p. 5). If sci-ence and technology are “interdependent,” asWalter L. Fogg (1975, p. 61) pointed out, thenBooker’s observation holds true for the relation-ship between technology and utopianism as well.

Though More’s Utopia appeared in the six-teenth century, it defined a literary genre, ofwhich Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis is a part.Booker (1994) called New Atlantis “one of themost optimistic imaginative projections of thebeneficial impacts that science and technologymight have on human society” (p. 5), whereasFogg (1975) considered Bacon a “thinker whosaw the potentialities of modern science” and“the growth of scientific knowledge as an histor-ical moment, a collective, incremental enter-prise, a revolution in which man would controlnature, reform his fundamental conception ofthings, and bring about peace and plenty onearth,” calling him “the prime example of autopian who firmly believed that the practicalapplication of the new science and technologymeant the progress of mankind” (pp. 61-62). Itis worth noting that Nell Eurich (1967), in herScience in Utopia, saw Robert Burton’s “prag-matic approach to a better state” as presented inthe “Preface of Democritus Junior” in TheAnatomy of Melancholy as that which “preparedthe stage for the entrance of the new scientificutopia” (pp. 91-92)—even if Burton (1948) sawutopia as something “to be wished for, ratherthan effected,” and the literary scientific utopiaNew Atlantis, among other literary utopias1, as“witty fictions, but mere chimeras” (p. 101).Still, according to William Rawley’s (1982)introduction to New Atlantis, “most things there-in are within men’s power to effect” (p. 418).

Howard P. Segal (2005) agreed that theseworks position technology as a means to a utopi-an end, but pointed out that “their authorsremain sufficiently wary of mankind to proposeestablishing limits within utopia,” and so “envi-sion a fixed, unchanging society without furthertechnological progress” (p. 59), which is consis-tent with Booker’s (1994) observation that “even

during the triumphant rise of science to culturalhegemony in the seventeenth and early eigh-teenth centuries, writers . . . were already warn-ing of the potential dangers (especially spiritual)of an overreliance on scientific and technologi-cal methods of thought and problem solving” (p.6). Even so, Segal (2005) pointed to the Marquisde Condorcet’s anticipation of “scientific andtechnological advances surpassing those imag-ined by Bacon” (p. 59) as evidence of the evolu-tion of technology’s relationship with utopi-anism.

Condorcet, near the end of the eighteenthcentury, and according to Segal (2005), “evincesan unprecedented optimism about the prospectsfor realizing utopia: its realization, [Condorcet]believes, is virtually at hand . . . and he grantstechnology an unprecedented role in establishingutopia” (p. 60). However, Condorcet’s hope forhumanity’s ability to reach utopia is not entirelybased in the evolution of technology. Segal(2005) pointed out that “increasing seculariza-tion, education, and equality” were the variablesto which Condorcet credited “mankind’sadvances,” and that “the technological advanceshe so carefully and lovingly [delineated] areonly indications of the way society is movinggenerally, not blueprints for a specific futuresociety” (p. 60).

Following Condorcet, Henri de Saint-Simonand his student Auguste Comte recognizedthe importance of technology in utopianthought. Saint-Simon, according to Segal(2005), argues that the intellectual, social,and cultural unity that Europe once enjoyedhas collapsed under assault byProtestantism, Deism, empiricism, national-ism, and commercialism. A new unity mustbe forged, and its basis must be ideological.The ideology that is to forge this unity isscience, which will replace the divisive andshaky world views currently presented byreligion. Science is to be applied in thepractical form of “industry,” which includesboth manufacture and distribution andwhich amounts to technology. (p. 61)

Although he eventually abandoned hisabsolute technological position, he agreed withComte, whom he also separated himself fromintellectually near this time, on what Segal(2005) termed “the need for science and tech-nology to solve major social as well as technicalproblems” (p. 61).

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

60

Following the intellectual trend of viewingtechnology as an integral part of utopian realiza-tion, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels too sawthe potential of technology for social liberation.According to Segal (2005), “[Marx and Engels]repeatedly hinted at a society radically superiorto the existing capitalist one, which would uti-lize modern, especially automated, technologyas a principal means of freeing the proletariat.The proletariat would be liberated not simplyfrom their long-standing alienated labor but alsofor other, more varied and fulfilling activities”(pp. 69-70). Despite this view, Jacques Ellul(1967) later questioned why technology failed toachieve this liberation and, instead, threatened tooverwhelm society (p. 44). This viewpointseems to question why technology had achievedquite the opposite of what Marx hinted at, and ineffect engulfed any hope of his vision coming tofruition. This is because “[Marx] preached thattechnique can be liberating,” and so “the masseswent over to the side of technique; society wasliberated,” but “those who exploited [technique]enslaved the workers” (Ellul, 1967, p. 54-55). Itwas the exploiters that thwarted Marx’s visionthrough said domination, leaving the workersonly with consumer capitalism, rather than a“superior” society fueled by technologicaladvance. According to Booker (2002), “suchchanges necessarily left a certain emptiness inthe American soul, an emptiness that the floodof commodities produced by this new consumercapitalist system was not likely to be able tofill,” and “the system was, in short, fundamen-tally anti-utopian, and even more so than nine-teenth-century industrial capitalism, which drewupon the legacy of the Enlightenment to produceat least the notion that a stable happiness couldbe achieved” (p. 22). A large part of technologi-cal utopian potential that remained under con-sumer capitalism existed in cultural production.

Having been instituted as that whichoppressed rather than liberated, technology lostwhatever tangible value it once had as a meanstoward the perfect world. Many people’s atti-tudes toward technology became increasinglypessimistic, as did attitudes toward the possibili-ty of ever reaching utopia, which was a keyachievement of the consumer capitalist system.But one positive aspect of technology remained:its facilitation of cultural production, which wasbolstered, in fact, by consumer capitalism.According to Booker (2002), the consumeristrevolution of the first three decades of the twen-tieth century did help to create new and different

kinds of culture. In particular, the new con-sumerist ethos, combined with certain techno-logical advances (such as the development ofcommercially viable film technologies), helpedto trigger an explosive growth in the productionand distribution of popular culture . . . The filmindustry was born. Increases in print technologymade it feasible to produce large numbers ofbooks to be sold at low prices; rapidly rising lit-eracy rates ensured that the masses, now able toafford books, could also read them. (p. 23)

Booker (2002) also stated that “thestrongest utopian energies in American Cultureof this period were to be found not in high cul-ture but in popular culture,” citing the work ofauthors such as Edgar Rice Burroughs as havingoffered “fantasy escapes from the humdrum rou-tine of everyday capitalism, assuring Americansthat it was still possible to experience somesense of adventure while living in the workadayworld” (p. 23). What is clear from all this is thattechnology is that which made it possible toinject utopian energy into culture. Since cultureis where much utopian potential is located, andtechnology is that which facilitates culture, thenit is fair to say that Heidegger’s (1977) assertionabout technology as “a way of revealing” (p. 12)holds true, which is to say that technology is away of revealing utopian longing/potentialin/through culture.

Heidegger and Technology as “A Way of Revealing”

Heidegger’s discussion in “The QuestionConcerning Technology” fundamentally decon-structed the very idea of technology, and did soin a way that serves thinking about it as thatwhich reveals utopian energy in culture. One ofthe first points that Heidegger (1977) madeabout technology is that it is at the same time “ameans to an end” and “a human activity”—thisis what he termed the “instrumental and anthro-pological definition of technology” (pp. 4-5). It may be useful at this point to think of cultureas both a human activity and an end, while posi-tioning technology as the means, but the instru-mentality involved in making this so, accordingto Heidegger (1977), makes it a cause, because“the end in keeping with which the kind ofmeans to be used is determined is also consid-ered a cause” (p. 6). To illustrate this point,Heidegger (1977) used a silver chalice as ananalogy, and placed it within the philosophicmodel of causality—the silver used to craft the chalice is the causa materialis, the form of the chalice that the silver takes is the causa

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

61

formalis, the purpose of the chalice is the causafinalis, and the silversmith that brings the chal-ice out from within the silver ore is the causaefficiens (p. 6). Heidegger (1977) continued byoffering that “what technology is, when repre-sented as a means, discloses itself when we traceinstrumentality back to fourfold causality” (p.6), but he did not yet reveal what was meant bythat “what.” Still, it is useful at this point to lookat (utopian) cultural production through thescope of this “fourfold causality.”

Within the philosophical model of causality,it can be inferred that the causa materialis ofutopian cultural production is the cultural tech-nique itself, its utopian dimension or form thecausa formalis, its message of hope or resistanceto the oppressive nature of consumer capitalismthe causa finalis, and the person responsible forthe product—an author or filmmaker, forinstance—the causa efficiens. The raw materialof the utopian cultural product is the culturaltechnique used to produce it, which, accordingto Heidegger’s (1977) logic, makes it “co-responsible” for the product along with its“aspect” (p. 7) of utopianness—that is, it doesnot take an anti-utopian or other contradictoryform. These two causae combine to equal notthe purpose of the utopian cultural product, butrather, by Heidegger’s (1977) logic, the result ofit—resistance to the current system and antici-pation of a better one. The author “gatherstogether” these “ways of being responsible andindebted” (p. 8) to “bring” the utopian culturalproduct “into appearance” (p. 9). This “bring-ing-forth” (p. 11) as Heidegger (1977) eventual-ly termed it, is equivalent to “revealing” (p. 11),leaving him with the question “what has theessence of technology to do with revealing?” towhich he answered “everything” (p. 12).Revealing, then, is the “what” that Heideggerleaves unexplained earlier in his discussion. Thisrevealing is important to a utopian hermeneutic.

Technology’s Role in a Utopian Hermeneutic

A utopian hermeneutic allows for the locat-ing of utopian potential in any cultural product.As articulated by Fredric Jameson (1976), utopi-an hermeneutics “offer an analytical tool fordetecting the presence of some Utopian contenteven within the most degraded and degradingtype of commercial product” (p. 58). It is tech-nology that reveals this utopian content in cul-tural production—as if making it tangible fromthe ether (upper air or sky)—but it is the theoryof idealism that allows critics and scholars to

tease it out. Utopian energy is manifested in sev-eral ways, however, and given the dystopiannature of life under consumer and late capital-ism, what is often recognized by critics andscholars as utopian energy in the cultural prod-ucts produced under these systems is a utopianlonging. Jameson’s ideas regarding utopia andcultural production were informed by ErnstBloch, who, according to Jameson (1976) “sees[the Utopian principle’s] in-forming presence atwork everywhere, in all the objects of culture aswell as in all social activities and individual val-ues or more properly psychological phenomena”(p. 56). According to Heidegger (1977), the“bringing-forth” (p. 12) that is involved withtechnology is also involved with “the arts of themind and the fine arts,” and it is in this “realm”that “revealing and unconcealment take place”(p. 13). In this sense, it is through technologythat a revealing of utopian potential can takeplace—technology facilitates the cultural prod-uct to begin with, and the utopian hermeneutic(i.e. the method or theory of idealism) uncoversits utopian potential.

Heidegger’s interpretation of what technolo-gy is, however, did not discount the negativeimplications of technology. According to Booker(2002), “the atomic bombing of Hiroshima andNagasaki was not an entirely new departure asmuch as it was a final straw that that finallybroke the back of the American national narra-tive, leading it to collapse beneath its ownweight” (p. 12). This turn of events also servedto bring about a perceived pessimism towardtechnology. Leo Marx (1994) explained that “inthe aftermath of World War II . . . what had beena dissident minority’s disenchantment with thisoverreaching hero [technology] spread to largesegments of the population” (p. 22). The way inwhich Heidegger’s deconstruction of technologytreated cultural production has its root in theGreek poi_sis, which Heidegger (1977) definedas “a bringing-forth” or “artistic and poeticalbringing into appearance and concrete imagery”(p. 10), but his view of what he called “moderntechnology” is quite different, and this is wherethat he touched upon the negative implicationsof technology. He wrote that “the revealing thatholds sway throughout modern technology doesnot unfold into a bringing-forth in the sense ofpoi_sis. The revealing that rules in modern tech-nology is a challenging, which puts to nature theunreasonable demand that it supply energy thatcan be extracted and stored as such” (p. 14). Theexample Heidegger (1977) gives is a challenging

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

62

of nature: “Air is now set upon to yield nitrogen,the earth to yield ore, ore to yield uranium, forexample; uranium is set upon to yield atomicenergy, which can be released either for destruc-tion or for peaceful use” (p. 15). AlthoughHeidegger does leave room for the peaceful pos-sibility of harnessing atomic energy, LangdonWinner (2004) pointed out that “following acci-dents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl aswell as the economic meltdown of the U.S.Nuclear power industry, the atomic dreams ofthe 1950s were heard as mere clicks on theGeiger counters of historical background radia-tion” (p. 36). This negative result of the imple-mentation of atomic energy superseded whateverpeaceful implications there had been for it,which, coupled with Heidegger’s delineation oftechnology’s ability to transform nature intoboth capital and destructive power, fostered theonset of the technological pessimism that fol-lowed the second World War.

Technology and Pessimism

Technological pessimism might well beconsidered a dystopian view of technology. Infact, this is precisely how Bernard Gendron(1977) referred to it when he characterized it as“the exact opposite of the Utopian view,” which,he explained, holds that “all or most of oursocial progress is due primarily or exclusively tothe growth of technology” (p. 3). Subscribers tothe so-called dystopian view, however, “believethat technological growth in the long run gener-ates or intensifies many more social evils than itreduces or eliminates” (Gendron, 1977, p. 3). Toanticipate the inevitable criticism of this binarydivision between the utopian and dystopianviews, it might be more useful to think of whatGendron calls the dystopian view as the anti-utopian view of technology. One example of ananti-utopian view might be that of HerbertMarcuse (1964), who granted that on the exteri-or “the ‘end’ of technological rationality” seemsto be “a goal within the capabilities of advancedindustrial society,” but ultimately found that

the contrary trend operates: the apparatusimposes its economic and political require-ments for defense and expansion on labortime and free time, on the material andintellectual culture. By virtue of the way it has organized its technological base, contemporary industrial society tends to betotalitarian. For “totalitarian” is not only aterroristic political coordination of society,but also a non-terroristic economic-techni-cal coordination which operates through

the manipulation of needs by vested interests. (p. 3)

Marcuse’s view of technology as a control-ling force is a concrete example of an anti-utopi-an (and therefore a pessimistic) view of technol-ogy. Early examples of pessimism toward tech-nology e.g., Heidegger’s (1977) and Marcuse’stechnologically pessimistic attitude put forth in1964 are evidence of the onset of technologicalpessimism in critical theory. A culmination ofthis mode of thought toward technology can befound in the Spring 1980 issue of AlternativeFutures—a special issue appropriately entitled“Technology and Pessimism.” The preface tothat issue regarded technological pessimism as“a fundamental problem in much thinking aboutthe future and indeed . . . a major intellectualcurrent in the past century and a half: fear oftechnology” (Barton & Stevenson, 1980, p. 3).The essays in this issue varied according to criti-cal perspective, but often were interested instripping pessimism away from technology2 inorder to move beyond pessimistic attitudes andembrace a future made better through technolo-gy. (Segal [1980] himself saw this perspective asevidence of “considerable faith in technology’sability to solve problems and to improve socie-ty” [p. 139].) Other essays in the collection,however, exemplified the continuing pessimisticattitude toward technology that is characterizedby pessimism.3 This binary divide between theviews of technology, however, still does notaccount for the ability of technology to providean avenue for utopian cultural production.Nonetheless, one author whose work appearedon the more utopian side of the debate was LeoMarx (1980), who considered the propheticnature of technology and pessimism inAmerican literary culture, and saw the tendencyof some people to maintain a pessimistic viewas those who “are better able to identify withresidual than emergent elements of the culture”(p. 69). Despite these utopian leanings in theface of the rise of technological pessimism inthe twentieth century, both Segal and Marxwould go on to identify a continuing thread ofthe anti-utopian view of technology within post-modernism.

Under postmodernism, this anti-utopianview of technology has continued. According toSegal’s (1994) introduction to the Sociology ofthe Sciences 1993 Yearbook, Technology,Pessimism, and Postmodernism, “technologicalpessimism has become an integral part of the

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

63

emerging culture of postmodernism. Within thatcultural hierarchy, technology itself may beassuming a declining status amid a growing dis-enchantment with material success and with allforms of social and political engineering” (p. 3).Marx’s (1994) contribution to this volume sug-gested that the pessimism associated with post-modernism is a “vision of a postmodern societydominated by immense, overlapping, quasi-autonomous technological systems” (p. 25).Following Jameson’s (1991) conception of post-modernism “as an attempt to think the presenthistorically in an age that has forgotten how tothink historically in the first place” (p. ix), then,Segal (1994) noted that “high tech is lacking inthe very historical consciousness that would inturn temper its optimism and thereby, most iron-ically of all, perhaps strengthen its appeal” (p.211). At this point the binary opposition of theutopian and anti-utopian views of technologyconverge between the two poles of anti-utopiaand utopia to become a truly dystopian mode ofthought regarding technology that is akin to TomMoylan’s (2000) discussion of dystopian narra-tive as that which “enters the fray betweenUtopia and Anti-Utopia” (p. 139). This can beunderstood via the description by editors MaritaSturken and Douglas Thomas (2004) of theessays in Technological Visions: The Hopes andFears that Shape New Technologies as makingclear “that society’s capacity to project concernsand desires on technology operates as a primaryform of social denial; the belief that a new tech-nology can solve existing social problemsreveals a refusal to confront fully the deepercauses of those problems” (p. 3, emphasisadded). Such a dystopian attitude toward tech-nology in critical theory leaves space for aseemingly as yet unexplored consideration oftechnology’s facilitation of utopian cultural production.

The dystopian nature of the technologydebate—that perspectives tend to fall betweenthe utopian and anti-utopian—necessitates aconception of culture as a production of technol-ogy (insofar as technology facilitates the pro-duction of culture, not that technology possessesthe agency of cultural production in general).Technology allows for the production of culture,and utopian potential can always be found inculture—here lies a notion of technology thatleans toward the utopian pole of the dystopianmode of thought surrounding technology in crit-ical theory. In fact, Walter Benjamin’s (2001)ideas about the role of technology in the produc-

tion of culture hinted at this notion when hewrote that “around 1900 technical reproductionhad reached a standard that . . . permitted it toreproduce all transmitted works of art and thusto cause the most profound change in theirimpact upon the public” (p. 1168). This impactseems to be the change from a mere enjoymentof a cultural product to critical analysis of it,which, again, is precisely the energy that isneeded to employ a utopian interpretation to theproduct, and thereby tease out its utopian poten-tial. Though Benjamin principally discussed howthis is so for film, it is certainly true for thetechnological facilitation of culture in general,now that new media has entered the debate. Anexample of how new media politicizes thereception of cultural products is shown next inthe Alternate Reality Game (ARG) that isoffered for analysis.

The Utopian Potential of Technology Exemplified:The Alternate Reality Game

The Alternate Reality Game (sometimesreferred to as ubiquitous or immersive gaming)is an example of an immersive cultural productthat can be broadcast across multiple types ofmedia. Players of ARGs might make or receivephone calls, send or receive packages via theUnited States Postal Service, find hidden mes-sages (in films, television shows, websites,musical recordings, and more), and receive e-mails—all pertaining to the game. Throughthese avenues, a fragmented narrative turns upthat gamers then set out to collectively piecetogether or solve by participating in the game onmessage boards. A utopian dimension of thevery existence of such a medium is inherent inthe fact that, as notable game scholar JaneMcGonigal (2003) points out, “immersive gam-ing is actually one of the first applicationspoised to harness the increasingly widespreadpenetration and convergence of network tech-nologies for social and political action.” Thislogic, however, engages in the either-or fallacyof the technological debate that the presentanalysis is attempting to undermine. Better toespouse the cultural impact of games in general(including ARGs) as outlined by Katie Salenand Eric Zimmerman (2003) in their keynoteaddress from the 2003 Digital Games ResearchConference; as they put it, blurring the bound-aries of a game’s “magic circle” (pp. 14-15)—the frame or context—and designing a game “asa cultural environment is an effective way tomount a powerful cultural critique” (p. 28).Technology remains the platform for the design

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

64

of the game, which contains utopian potential inits cultural critique, and it is in this way thattechnology reveals utopian potential in the ARG.An exemplary ARG viewed through the scope ofthis analysis is Year Zero, an ARG that mountsits cultural critique via the generic conventionsof the critical dystopia.

Year Zero’s ARG is an extension of a narra-tive vision of history conceived by TrentReznor—a musician whose “industrial” rockband Nine Inch Nails is his creative outlet, andfor which he produces all of the material. Thenarrative influenced the production of thisband’s album of the same title (released in2007), but it became much more in the ARG. Aconcert tour T-shirt sold at Nine Inch Nails per-formances in Europe before the official releaseof the album component of Year Zero had cer-tain letters highlighted in the tour schedule tospell out the words “I am trying to believe,”which fans soon discovered was actually a web-site address. The website showed Year Zero’snarrative to be set in the near future_2022, or“year zero”_during which time Americans arebeing exposed to a drug supposed to strengthenthe immune system against biological attacks.One such attack is said to have taken place, butthe author of I Am Trying to Believe assumes itwas a staged attack that allowed the conservativeChristian, totalitarian government in power toput the drug, “Parepin,” into the water. There aresome side effects to the drug, which people whostop drinking the water notice they no longerhave_these include an inability to think clearlyand a loss of sex drive. Readers are encouragedto contact the site’s author via an e-mail addressprovided on the web page (http://www.iamtry-ingtobelieve.com), but the reply suggests thatthe author has been compromised, as it dispelsthe original warnings in a way that is consistentwith the ideology of the government in power,even suggesting that the author has been re-sub-jugated, allowing the government to perpetratethe “auto response” (water@iamtryingto-believe.com, personal communication,September 28, 2007) itself. Using song titlesfrom the album, gamers found upwards of thirtyadditional websites, marking a complexity of theARG that they eventually set up a wiki to keeptrack of in addition to Internet message boards.Many of these additional websites were revealedthrough technological means such as a colorchange finish to the Year Zero compact disc andspectrographs of songs leaked on USB flash

drives planted at concerts. Other components ofthe ARG were discovered by calling a numberon the back of the digipak the album was pack-aged in, and by meeting with actors portrayingcharacters in the game. Some gamers were evengiven cellular phones and sent text messagesdirecting them to locations where still otherclues were revealed. Many aspects of the game’salternative reality are linked to aspects of thegamer’s empirical world (one example is anexplicit charge that the USA PATRIOT Actcould lead to much of what is wrong with thefuture world of the game in reality), whichencourages the kind of historical thinking asso-ciated with the conventions of the criticaldystopia. Lyman Tower Sargent (2001) definesthe critical dystopia as “a non-existent societydescribed in considerable detail and normallylocated in time and space that the author intend-ed a contemporaneous reader to view as worsethan contemporary society but that normallyincludes at least one eutopian enclave or holdsthat the dystopia can be overcome and replacedwith a eutopia” (p. 222). In Year Zero, historicalthinking comes into play in that the presentexists as the “eutopian enclave” that can over-come the narrative’s imagined future throughprevention. This manifestation of historicalauthenticity in Year Zero is consistent with theinherent emergence of the utopian imaginationin the critical dystopia explained as follows byTom Moylan:

as the critical utopias of the 1960s and1970s revived and transformed utopianwriting (by negating the anti-utopian ten-dency through a dialectical combination ofdystopia and eutopia to produce texts thatlooked not only at what was and what wasto be done but also at how the textual workself reflexively articulated that politicalimaginary), the critical dystopias of the1980s and 1990s carry out a similar inter-textual intervention as they negate the nega-tion of the critical utopian moment and thusmake room for another manifestation of theutopian imagination within the dystopiasform. (pp. 194-195)

As a critical dystopia, Year Zero bringsabout the utopian imagination on the part of the gamer. As a cultural product housed withinnew media, it uses technology to put forth itsnarrative. Because there is utopian potentialwithin Year Zero, and because it is facilitated by technology, it demonstrates how technology

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

65

facilitates utopian cultural production, and thusit undermines the binary opposition between thetwo poles of the technology debate in criticaltheory, tending instead to find utopian potentialin technology within a more cultural theory.

ConclusionScholars and philosophers have long recog-

nized that technology played an important rolein utopian thinking during the Enlightenment asa means to the realization of utopia. This is evi-dent in the scientific utopias and in the works ofutopian thinkers that appeared during this time.What is also evident, however, is that there wasa perceived understanding of the inherent dan-gers of technology. This last became paradig-matic as time passed, especially with the rise ofconsumer capitalism. Nevertheless, consumercapitalism did usher in new means of culturalproduction, much of which were facilitated bytechnology. Because utopian potential canalways be located in cultural production throughthe application of a utopian method or theory ofinterpretation á la Bloch, technology itself wasable to retain at least one utopian qualitythrough this facilitation. Heidegger’s (1977) con-cept of technology as “a way of revealing” (p.12) supports this claim to the extent that tech-nology reveals utopian energy in culture becauseit acts as an outlet for culture. Still, Heidegger

recognized the dangers of technology, which isexemplary of the strengthening of the technolog-ical pessimism paradigm after World War II. Yet,a strong critical framework opposed this pes-simistic attitude in years to come, marking apolarization between utopian and anti-utopianviews of technology and leading to a dystopianview of technology in general. But the dystopianview of technology is too narrow in its focus onwhat technology will or will not do. As LangdonWinner (2004) suggested, “perhaps it is time toaffirm that we have heard the false promises andhyperbolic speculations too often, that it is timefor this strange alchemy to cease” (p. 46). Byaccepting technology as a tool for cultural pro-duction, the emphasis can be placed not on thetechnology itself, but on the utopian potential ofthe cultural production it facilitates.4 In thisway, a critically dystopian ARG such as YearZero can perhaps be viewed as what Heidegger(1977) called a “poetic revealing” (p. 35), there-by allowing technology to “expressly foster thegrowth of the saving power” of culture, and“awaken and found anew” (p. 35) our concep-tion of the power of technology.

Mr. Alex Hall is a Senior Educational

Consultant in the Faculty Professional

Development Center at Kent State University,

Ohio.

References

Bacon, Francis. (1982). New atlantis. In S. Warhaft (Ed.), Francis Bacon: A selection of his works (pp.417-457). New York: MacMillan. (Original work published 1627).

Barton, M. & Stevenson, D. W. (1980). Preface. Alternative Futures: The Journal of Utopian Studies,3(2), 3-4.

Benjamin, W. (2001). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. In V. B. Leitch (Ed.), Thenorton anthology of theory and literary criticism (pp. 1166-1186). New York: Norton.

Booker, M. K. (1994). The dystopian impulse in modern literature: Fiction as social criticism.Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Booker, M. K. (2002). The post-utopian imagination: American culture in the long 1950s. Westport,CT: Greenwood Press.

Burton, R. (1948). The anatomy of melancholy. London: Dent.

Ellul, J. (1967). The technological society. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Eurich, N. (1967). Science in utopia: A mighty design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Fogg, W. L. (1975). Technology and dystopia. In P. E. Richter (Ed.), Utopia/dystopia? (pp. 57-73).Cambridge, UK: Schenkman Publishing Company.

Gendron, B. (1977). Technology and the human condition. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology. The question concerning technology andother essays (pp. 3-35) (W. Lovitt, Trans.). New York: Harper & Row.

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

66

Jameson, F. (1976). Introduction/prospectus: To reconsider the relationship of marxism to utopianthought. The Minnesota Review, NS6, 53-58.

Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism, or, the cultural logic of late capitalism. Durham: Duke UniversityPress.

Marcuse, H. (1964). One-dimensional man: Studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society.Boston: Beacon Press.

Marx, L. (1980). American literary culture and the fatalistic view of technology. Alternative Futures:The Journal of Utopian Studies, 3(2), 45-70.

Marx, L. (1994). The idea of “technology” and postmodern pessimism. In Y. Ezrahi et al. (Eds.),Technology, pessimism, and postmodernism (pp. 11-28). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

McGonigal, J. (2003). “This is not a game”: Immersive aesthetics & collective play. In Digital Arts &Culture 2003 Conference Proceedings. Melbourne, Australia.

More, Thomas. (1997). Utopia. (Dover thrift ed.). Mineola, NY: Dover. (Original work published1516).

Moylan, T. (2000). Scraps of the untainted sky: Science fiction, utopia, dystopia. Boulder, CO:Westview Press.

Rawley, W. (1982). To the reader. In S. Warhaft (Ed.), Francis Bacon: A selection of his works (p.418). New York: MacMillan. (Original work published 1627).

Salen, K. & Zimmerman, E. (2003). “This is not a game”: Play in cultural environments. In M.Copier & J. Raessens (Eds.), Level Up: Digital Games and Research Conference 2003. Utrecht,Netherlands: Utrecht University Press.

Sargent, L. T. (2001). US eutopias in the 1980s and 1990s: Self-fashioning in a world of multipleidentities. In P. Spinozzi (Ed.), Utopianism/literary utopias and national cultural identities: A com-parative perspective (pp. 221-232). Bologna: COTEPRA/University of Bologna.

Segal, H. P. (1980). The American Jeremiad of technological progress: Historical perspectives.Alternative Futures: The Journal of Utopian Studies, 3(2), 139-152.

Segal, H. P. (1994). The cultural contradictions of high tech: Or the many ironies of contemporarytechnological optimism. In Y. Ezrahi et al. (Eds.), Technology, pessimism, and postmodernism (pp.175-216). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Segal, H. P. (2005). Technological utopianism in American culture. Syracuse: Syracuse UniversityPress.

Sturken, M. & Thomas, D. (2004). Introduction: Technological visions and the rhetoric of the new. InM. Sturken et al. (Eds.) Technological visions: The hopes and fears that shape new technologies(pp. 1-18). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Winner, L. (2004). Sow’s ears from silk purses: The strange alchemy of technological visionaries. InM. Sturken et al. (Eds.) Technological visions: The hopes and fears that shape new technologies(pp. 34-47). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Notes

1. Andreae’s Christianopolis and Campanella’s City of the Sun, for instance.

2. The essays by Melvin Kranzberg and Samuel C. Florman are examples.

3. John H. Broomfield’s “Technology and the Tragic View” for instance.

4. Consider the recent trend of some artists in the music industry to give their work away for freeon the Internet—Nine Inch Nails among them. This allows the artists to avoid the filter of recordexecutives interested solely in the proverbial bottom line. The visual arts have also long embraced theInternet as such a forum. Additionally, novelists and graphic novelists have used this platform fortheir works. Once again, technology facilitates the cultural product, which can be found to containutopian potential.

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

67

AbstractThe increased public awareness of the sig-

nificance and necessity of biotechnology hasencouraged educators to implement biotechnolo-gy instruction in various educational settings.One example is the great effort made by educa-tional researchers and practitioners internation-ally to integrate biotechnology in technologyeducation. Despite the gains in the popularity ofbiotechnology in education, the actual imple-mentation of biotechnology instruction is notprevalent. Previous studies suggest that technol-ogy teachers’ beliefs are a significant predictorof the implementation of biotechnology instruc-tion for technology education. Thus, there is aneed for further studies on this topic, however,this study investigates Korean technology teach-ers’ beliefs related to the implementation ofbiotechnology instruction. It also includes sever-al issues that are implied by the findings. Apiloted self-reported online survey developed bythe authors was administered to 114 Koreanmiddle school technology teachers. This surveycollected demographic information and meas-ured these teachers’ intent to implement biotech-nology instruction into their classes (intent). The teachers’ beliefs were measured in threedomains: value (technology teachers’ perceivedbeliefs about biotechnology teaching as valu-able); expectancy (technology teachers’ per-ceived beliefs about biotechnology teaching asexpectancy); and innovation (technology teach-ers’ perceived beliefs about biotechnology teaching as a need regarding innovation).Results indicate that Korean technology teach-ers’ beliefs measured by value, expectancy, andinnovation were significantly associated withteacher intent to teach biotechnology content intheir classes. This study recommends thatbiotechnology content should be deliveredsystematically to technology teachers through

professional development (i.e., in-service andpre-service training).

IntroductionDue to the pervasive impact of biotechnolo-

gy, leaders in education have begun to focus onusing educational settings to increase publicawareness related to the benefits and impact ofbiotechnology (International Technology

Education Association [ITEA], 2000). Withinthe educational community, researchers, authors,and practitioners in specific fields of education,such as technology education (ITEA, 2000), science education (Glenda & Schibeci, 2003;Steele & Aubusson, 2004), and agricultural edu-cation (Wilson, Kirby, & Flower, 2000) haverealized the importance of implementingbiotechnology instruction at secondary level.Technology educators have gone a step furtherby focusing on biotechnology as a major contentorganizer for technology education programsand advocating adding it to technology educa-tion programs (ITEA, 1996; ITEA, 2000;Savage & Sterry, 1991; Wells, 1994).

Despite the position taken by the technolo-gy educators, biotechnology has not been broad-ly implemented in technology education pro-grams (Brown, Kemp, & Hall, 1998; Rogers,1996; Russell, 2003; Sanders, 2001).Technology teachers’ beliefs about biotechnolo-gy and its instruction have been found to be afactor in the implementation of biotechnologyteaching (Daugherty, 2005; Scott, Washer, &Wright, 2006). These researchers focused ondiagnosing the current conditions of biotechnol-ogy instruction in technology education and sug-gested that further systematic studies be under-taken to investigate technology teachers’ beliefsas related to the low implementation.

There have been significant efforts to incor-porate technology education into general educa-tion worldwide. Technology education was intro-duced in the second revision of the national cur-riculum in South Korea in1969. The technologi-cal revolution, especially the biotechnology rev-olution, resulted in the addition of significantbiotechnology content in the recent SouthKorean national curriculum revisions (Yi, Lee,Chang, & Kwon, 2006). However, actual imple-mentation of biotechnology instruction withinthe technology education curriculum has beenlimited (Korea Institute of Curriculum andEvaluation [KICE], 2002), compared to othercontent areas (e. g., manufacturing, construc-tion, and transportation). Wells and Kwon(2008) pointed out that Korean technologyteachers’ low implementation of biotechnology

Technology Teachers’ Beliefs About Biotechnology andIts Instruction in South KoreaHyuksoo Kwon and Mido Chang

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

68

instruction resulted from both a lack of motiva-tion and insufficient training.

Teachers’ beliefs affect their decisionsregarding the content they teach and the ways inwhich they teach that content. In particular,technology teachers’ perceived beliefs aboutbiotechnology teaching as valuable and theirperceived beliefs about biotechnology teachingas expectancy, affected the teachers’ willingnessto implement a curriculum in their classrooms(Abrami, Poulsen, & Chamber, 2004; Kay,2006). In this context, Korean technology teach-ers’ beliefs about biotechnology and its instruc-tion can affect the implementation of this sub-ject and the form it will take.

Background to the StudyBiotechnology in Korean Technology Education

The educational system in South Korea fol-lows a single track (ladder type), consisting ofelementary school (six years), middle school(three years), high school (three years), and jun-ior college, college and university undergraduatestudy (two or three, four or six years), and it isbased on a strong national curriculum. Since1948, the national curriculum has undergoneseven revisions as educators have adapted tonew educational needs and technologicalchanges. As early as 1970, extensive knowledgeof technology was recognized as important forall citizens, regardless of age or gender. Sincethen technology education has been taught as aseparate subject and integral part of general edu-cation under the name of “kisul” (literally, “tech-nology”). Throughout the past three decades,there have been innovations and challenges incurriculum, instruction, and teacher education inKorean technology education and Korean tech-nology educators have faced new challenges andexpectations whenever the curriculum has beenrevised (Yi & Kwon, 2008). Initially in 1970,Korean secondary schools started to offer tech-nology programs that included educational goalssuch as career guidance and vocation, con-sumerism, and the study of industry and tech-nology. Today, the technology curriculum forsecondary schools follows differing content atdifferent grade levels. In 7th – 10th grades stu-dents learn Technology- Home Economics, andin grades 11 and 12, students select from amongInformation Society and Computers,Agricultural Science, Industrial Technology,Enterprise Management, Ocean Science, andHome Science.

Another challenge in Korean technologyeducation has been the lack of qualified technol-ogy teachers (Yi & Kwon, 2008). In Korea, sec-ondary school teachers are graduates of a four-year teachers’ colleges. However, in the earlydays of technology education, there were noqualified technology teachers in secondaryschools because there were no teachers’ collegesfor the subject of technology. ChungnamNational University graduated its first class oftechnology teachers in 1985, and Korea NationalUniversity of Education graduated its first classof qualified technology teachers in 1995 (Kim& Land, 1994). Recently, Daebul University hasgraduated qualified technology teachers. Theshortage of qualified technology teachers is thusbeing addressed resolved through the efforts ofthese three university programs. However, thereis still a lack of talented technology teacherswho have the ability to overcome systematicproblems (e. g., the lack of necessary weeklyclass hours and the lack of needed laboratoryfacilities) and being capable of engaging ininnovative technology teaching and learning.Considering the significance of biotechnologyas a content organizer within Korean technologyeducation, the design and development ofbiotechnology courses for pre-service technolo-gy education teachers should be made a priority.However, a review of the curriculum used bythese institutes indicates that courses related tobiotechnology are still insufficient.

Biotechnology content in the national cur-riculum initially stemmed from agricultural con-tent in the elementary school (boys and girls)and middle school (girls). Because of the needsof society in the 1970s, the agricultural contenthad a significant place in technology education.By the sixth curriculum revision, biotechnologyhad become established in secondary schooltechnology courses (KICE, 2002; Yi & Kwon,2008). However, Korean technology educatorsare currently preparing for a new curriculum ina partial revision of the seventh national curricu-lum. The new curriculum is being developed tocorrect perceived weaknesses and to meet theneeds of students, teachers, and society. Basedon curriculum research, the new Korean technol-ogy education curriculum has been constructedusing five curriculum content organizers: manu-facturing, construction, communication, trans-portation, and biotechnology. The new technolo-gy curriculum incorporates learning contentbased on technological systems and students’

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

69

hands-on activities. Table 1 depicts the two mainfeatures of the structure of learning contents forGrades 7 to grade 10. A basic structure of learn-ing content and sub-content is compulsory whilethere is also a minimum level of knowledge andhands-on activity specified. In particular, “tech-nology and invention,” “Korean traditional tech-nology”, and “biotechnology” are new cate-gories of learning content, introduced for thefirst time in the new technology curriculum.

As awareness of the importance of teachingbiotechnology increases, Korean technologyeducation has adopted and developed biotech-nology instruction. Even though the Korean edu-cational system follows a strong national cur-riculum, the implementation of teachingbiotechnology is dependent on each technologyteacher. In other words, technology teachers’beliefs about biotechnology and its instructionaffect both their decisions to implement biotech-nology instruction and their performance once itis introduced.

Technology Teachers’ Beliefs

Teachers’ attitudes towards value, expectan-cy, and innovation are the key factors affectingtheir choice, their performance, and their persist-ence in implementing the curriculum (Abrami etal., 2004; Kay, 2006; Wilson et al., 2002).

Teachers’ values directly their influence per-formance, activity choice, and participation insuch activities (Eccles, 2005). Value for teachersindicates the usefulness (Graham & Taylor,2002) or attractiveness (Wigfield, Tonks, &Eccles, 2004) toward a specific activity. Theteachers’ values can be measured by the benefitsor usefulness of the program to teachers and stu-dents (Abrami et al., 2004; Wozney, Venkatesh,& Abrami, 2006). Also, a specific educationalactivity is more likely to be implemented ifteachers perceive that it has high value (Abramiet al., 2004; Kay, 2006). Technology teachers’beliefs about the value of biotechnology instruc-tion can be a significant predictor of whether

biotechnology instruction is implemented.Biotechnology is important today because itscontent is essential for students’ understandingof the world now and in the coming years(ITEA, 2000; Savage & Sterry, 1991; Scott etal., 2006; Wells, 1994). In other words, teachingbiotechnology is valuable because it enhancesthe technological literacy necessary for students’lives in the future. Moreover, teaching biotech-nology is important because biotechnology

knowledge is significant for food, health, andenvironment of the world’s population (Wells,1994).

Another possible predictor for the imple-mentation of biotechnology instruction is teach-ers’ expectancy. Teachers’ expectancy for suc-cess directly predicts their outcomes such astheir performance, persistence, and choice ofactivities (Eccles, 2005). These expectations forsuccess are strongly associated with teachers’ability to perform the assigned tasks and activi-ties (Wigfield et al., 2004). Thus, technologyteachers’ beliefs about their ability regardingbiotechnology instruction affect the implementa-tion of such content. In other words, technologyteachers’ expectations for success in teachingbiotechnology promote the choice or intent toimplement this instruction.

Lastly, despite a strong national curriculum,the implementation of technology education hasbeen dependent on technology teachers’ beliefsabout curriculum innovation (Yi & Kwon,2008). Therefore, the choice or decision to teachbiotechnology content also may be affected byKorean technology teachers’ beliefs about inno-vating the current technology curriculum.

Research QuestionsThe purpose of the study was to investigate

Korean technology teachers’ beliefs related totheir intent to implement biotechnology teach-ing. More specifically, the study attempted toanswer the following research questions:

Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade 9th Grade 10th grade

Learning Technological Information and Electronics and Vocation andContents Development and Communication Machine Technology Career Design

Future Society Technology

Technology and Manufacturing Construction TransportationInvention Technology Technology Technology

Biotechnology

Table 1. Learning Contents of New National Technology Curriculum inSecondary School

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

70

1. Do Korean technology teachers perceivebiotechnology to be of value within tech-nology education?

2. What do Korean technology teachers’expect from teaching biotechnology intheir classrooms?

3. Do Korean technology teachers see theneed to develop the current Korean tech-nology curriculum to accommodatebiotechnology instruction?

4. What is a predictive model for thedependent variable of the Korean technology teachers’ intent to teachbiotechnology when the following independent variables are considered:Korean technology teachers’ demograph-ic information, their perceptions of innovation in the biotechnology curricu-lum, their expectancy for biotechnologyteaching, and their perceived value ofbiotechnology teaching?

MethodsParticipants

The participants of the study were 114 tech-nology teachers who were teaching technologyas a part of the “Technology-≠HomeEconomics” subject in Korean middle schoolslocated in two major cities (Daejon MetropolitanCity and Seoul Special City) and one rural area(Gyeonggi Province).

The study adopted both random samplingand convenient sampling methods. The randomsampling following Cochran’s (1977) guidelineswas employed to select technology teachers inDaejon Metropolitan City. A total of 95 technol-ogy teachers from a possible 127 teachers teach-ing in middle schools during the spring semesterof 2008 were selected using Cochran’s formula.From these 95 teachers, 46 participated in thesurvey.

The study also made an effort to reduceselection bias caused by location (i.e., metropol-itan/city or rural areas). Using technology teach-ers’ directories of four local districts in SeoulSpecial City and Gyeonggi Province, this studychose 75 middle school technology teachers andreceived responses from 68.

Instruments

The instrument consisted of five sections:1) technology teachers’ intent to implement

biotechnology teaching (intent: 6 items); 2)technology teachers’ perceived beliefs aboutbiotechnology teaching as valuable (value: 8items); 3) technology teachers’ perceived beliefsabout biotechnology teaching as expectancy(expectancy: 6 items); 4) technology teachers’perceived beliefs about biotechnology teachingas needs for innovation (innovation: 6 items);and 5) demographic information (e.g., years ofteaching technology, college major, gender, andcourses taken associated with biotechnologycontent in the technology teachers’ preparatoryinstitute).

Constructs. The dependent variable of thestudy was the technology teachers’ intent toimplement biotechnology instruction (intent)measured by six items.

The three components, teacher value,expectancy, and innovation, served as the majorindependent variables for the study. The items ofteacher value and expectancy were developedbased on definitions by motivation theorists(Eccles, 2005; Graham & Taylor, 2002;Wigfield, et al. 2004), whereas teacher innova-tion was created by following the suggestionsfor innovating the Korean technology curricu-lum (KICE, 2002; Yi et al., 2006). More specifi-cally, value is defined as “intrinsic interest,”“importance,” and “usefulness,” while expectan-cy is defined as “beliefs about ability” (Eccles,2005; Graham & Taylor, 2002).

The degree of agreement for each item ofthe independent and dependent variables wasmeasured by selecting one of the followingresponses for each item: strongly disagree: 1;disagree: 2; neutral: 3; agree: 4; Strongly agree:5. The study included the "neutral" category toencourage respondents to make a response,instead of not responding (Bognar, 1997),although several researchers have found thatrespondents are more likely to choose the "neu-tral" category, and this can make a difference inresponses.

Content validity. The instruments werereviewed for content/face validity by a panel ofexperts made up of two technology educationscholars who hold doctoral degrees in the fieldof technology education. To overcome potentialproblems caused by translation, three Koreanlanguage teachers and two English languageteachers from South Korean high schoolsreviewed the survey items.

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

71

Reliability of constructs. The researchersfirst conducted a pilot study using 21 partici-pants from 10 technology middle schools whowere not randomly selected and who had taughtbiotechnology for at least three years. The par-ticipants of the pilot study were asked to com-plete and comment on the web-based survey. Inthe pilot study, the reliability statistics measuredby the Cronbach’s alpha for expectancy, value,innovation, and intent ranged from 0.85 and0.87. Corrections as suggested by pilot studyparticipants were made to the total survey.

In the main data collection, the reliabilities(Cronbach’s alpha) of teachers’ belief ofexpectancy, value, innovation, and intent weremeasured at 0.889, 0.876, 0.843, and 0.888respectively. For further statistical analysis, we conducted factor analysis for the three components.

Demographics. The study also collecteddemographic data (e.g., teaching experiencemeasured by years of teaching, gender, major,and courses taken in the technology teachers’preparatory institutes). The years of teachingtechnology were divided into 8 categories (1 =less than 1 year; 2 = 1-3 years; 3 = 4-6 years; 4= 7-10 years; 5 = 11-15 years; 6 = 16-20 years;7 = 21-25; 8 = over 26 years).The courses relat-ed to biotechnology content at the teachers’preparatory institute were measured according tosix categories: agricultural technology, environ-mental science/engineering, genetic engineering,food science/engineering, biology, and generalscience.

Data Collection

Both randomly selected and convenientlyselected teachers were sent a web link to accessa web-based survey, “Korean TechnologyTeachers’ Perception toward BiotechnologyTeaching”, which was developed by theresearchers, and included corrections based onthe pilot study. Technology teachers (95) fromthe teachers’ directory of Daejon MetropolitanCity were used to select teachers randomly; 75technology teachers from Seoul Special City andGyeonggi Province were used to select teachersconveniently. An e-mail (including a link to theonline survey and a cover letter) was sent toeach selected teacher asking the teacher to com-plete the survey. This study was approved by theVirginia Tech School Institutional Review Board(IRB).

ResultsDemographic Information

A total of 114 respondents (58.8% male and41.2% female technology teachers) completedthe survey instrument, with a total response rateof 67.5%. The missing data were replaced by thetotal means of each variable to capture all possi-ble information without affecting the analysisresults. The majority of respondents (n = 101,88.6%) were technology teachers who hadmajored in technology education. About 11.4percent of respondents (n = 13) had majored in“Home Economics,” “Industrial Subjects,” or“Agricultural Science.”

Approximately 32 percent of the respon-dents had taught content relating to biotechnolo-gy for 7 to 10 years. Most of the respondents(73.7%, n = 84) took agricultural technologycourses in the technology teachers’ preparatoryinstitutes as well. However, there were othercourses required for technology teachers’preparatory work, such as environmental sci-ence/engineering (18.4%, n = 21), genetic engi-neering (23.7%, n = 27), food engineering(18.4%, n = 21), biology (38.6%, n = 44), andscience (23.7%, n = 27).

Factor Analysis

The study performed a series of factoranalyses to confirm interrelationships amongitems of each of the four components (expectan-cy, value, innovation, and intent). As presentedin Table 2, most of the items of each componentdisplayed high factor loadings. Through thisprocess, one item, “Q6: I am interested in read-ing newspapers and books and watching TV pro-grams related to biotechnology” indicated across-loading for value and expectancy (.301 forvalue .343 for expectancy), and thus it wasremoved from the survey.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations amongVariables

Table 3. presents the means, standard devia-tions, and correlation coefficients for the vari-ables of intent, value, expectancy, innovation,years of teaching, number of courses in biotech-nology content, and gender.

The respondents’ composite mean of per-ceived value for teaching biotechnology was3.92 on a five-point Likert scale, indicating thatthey perceived that biotechnology and itsinstruction was useful. The composite mean ofexpectancy for teaching biotechnology was 3.26

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

72

on the same scale, indicating a comparativelylower worth than value. In terms of changes toKorean technology education, teachers perceivedthat several aspects of the current biotechnologycurriculum were in need of development: (1)Biotechnology content in technology educationmust be changed into more interesting topics tomotivate students; (2) the current Korean tech-nology curriculum must be reorganized intoproblem-based learning or hands-on activities;and (3) the biotechnology curriculum should

avoid the topics of simple cultivation technologyand should employ a variety of biotechnologytopics.

The intercorrelations revealed that Koreantechnology teachers’ intent to teach biotechnolo-gy was significantly associated with value,expectancy, and innovation (676, .681, and .541,respectively). A significant negative correlationwas noted between the intent and teaching years(-.331). In other words, technology teachers who

Factors Predictor Variables Loading

Value I believe that human life will improve through biotechnology .781(_=.889) Biotechnology is one important content that should be taught in TE classes .781

Considering students’ future life, learning biotechnology is essential .778I like to teach biotechnology content .756I believe that teaching biotechnology is valuable, considering the .748

developmental trends of contemporary technological societyI am interested in learning new terminologies and concepts of biotechnology .742Considering students’ actual life, learning biotechnology is useful .731I believe that all literate people should know biotechnology content .690

Expectancy I can implement problem-based learning in biotechnology instruction .821(_=.876) I can develop hands-on activities related to biotechnology for TE classes .813

I can employ the content or strategies of other subjects (e.g. biology, .789mathematics, etc) for teaching biotechnology in TE classes

I can manage materials, tools, equipment, and the laboratory for biotechnology .778hands-on activities

I can evaluate/assess hands-on activities in biotechnology instruction .774I can teach biotechnology in a unique method different from that of biology .752

and agriculture teachers

Innovation We should employ biotechnology topics in motivating students .858(_=.843) We should emphasize hands-on activities and practice, providing students .820

with practical experiencesWe should add the topics dealing with social/environmental impact as major .806

content in biotechnology curriculumWe should eliminate simple cultivation technology and cover a variety of .766

biotechnology topicsDeveloping more practical problem solving ability should be one of major .724

goals teaching biotechnology for TE classesWe should emphasize the affective domain students (developing the attitude .542

toward biotechnology)

Intent I will develop hands-on activity for my biotechnology teaching .874(_=.888) I will acquire materials, tools, and equipment for biotechnology teaching .837

I will recognize the content of the textbook to teach biotechnology .813I will build up knowledge and competency related to the biotechnology content .802I will apply student based hands-on activities for biotechnology teaching .801I sincerely teach biotechnology content in my class .674

Table 2. Independent/Dependent Variables and Factor Loadings

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Intent 3.938 0.654 -2. Value 3.921 0.574 .676** -3. Expectancy 3.261 0.680 .681** .536** -4. Innovation 4.149 0.570 .541** .426** .336** -5. Teaching yr 4.030 1.436 -.331** -.290** -.155 -.264** -6. Courses 1.960 1.088 -.032 -.042 .088 -.122 .187* -7. Gender 1.410 0.493 -.076 .076 -.238* .118 -.182 -.288**

*p<.05, **p<.01.

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations of Variables

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

73

had taught for a longer time were less likely towant to teach biotechnology.

Teacher Intent to Implement Technology Education

Overall, Korean teachers indicated a will-ingness to teach biotechnology, having a meanof intent of 3.938 on a five-point Likert scale.An ANOVA was conducted to compare thedegree of teachers’ intent to teach technologyeducation among the three locations of Seoul,Daejon, and Gyeonggi, and there was no signifi-cant difference (F = 2.877, p > 0.05), as shownon Table 4. This finding was further verifiedwhen data were analyzed using Levene’s test(0.614, p > 0.05).

Factors for the Intent to Teach Biotechnology Content

The major tool of the study was the hierar-chical multiple regression with which the effectsof independent variables can be examined stepby step after controlling for the effects of demo-graphic variables. The analysis model first con-trolled for the effect of teacher gender, years ofteaching, and number of courses; then value,expectancy, and innovation were added to themodel, one by one, as presented in Table 5.

The results show that three independentvariables (teachers’ value, expectancy, andinnovation) successfully predict the dependentvariable (the intent to implement biotechnologyteaching), which is indicated by F-value of34.929 (p < 0.01) and R-square of 0.664. Whenthe contribution of each independent variablewas added, Korean technology teachers’ valuewas found to be a significant predictor in thismodel. The coefficients of teachers’ value (•‚ =.726, p < 0.01), expectancy (•‚ = 0.411, p <0.01), innovation (•‚ = .278, p < 0.01) were sig-nificant, and this was also verified by the signif-icant Pearson’s correlation coefficients (r =0.681 p < 0.01; r = 0.676, p < 0.01; r = 0.541, p< 0.01, respectively).

Summary and Conclusion

This study used an online survey to investi-gate Korean technology teachers’ beliefs (value,expectancy, and innovation) associated withtheir intent to teach biotechnology content intechnology education classes. The piloted survey

developed by the authors was administered, to114 Korean middle school technology teacherswho had been selected using random and con-venient sampling methods from three differentdistricts. An ANOVA was used to check the dif-ference of teacher intent, which could be causedby different sampling methods and locations;however, no significant difference was noted (F= 2.877, p > 0.05).

Korean technology teachers saw the bene-fits of biotechnology in their students’ lives andthe need to teach biotechnology content in tech-nology education class. However, their belief intheir ability to teach biotechnology content

successfully was not consistent with their levelof perceived value of the subject. The surveyresults suggested that the teachers believed thatthe current biotechnology curriculum withinKorean technology education should be devel-oped in terms of learning topics, instructionalstrategies, and a variety of hands-on activities.In particular, they wished to teach a variety ofbiotechnology topics through problem-basedlearning or hands-on activities.

The major finding of the study was thatKorean technology teachers’ beliefs as measuredby value, expectancy, and innovation were sig-nificantly correlated with teacher intent toimplement biotechnology in their classrooms.Hierarchical multiple regression model success-fully predicted their intention to teach biotech-nology content after controlling for demographicinformation (years of teaching, courses, andgender).

In addition, the study discovered that thosetechnology teachers who had taught longer wereless likely to teach biotechnology content intheir classes.

Implication

There are several implications for futurepractice and for studies that should be conduct-ed. As stated previously, the results of this studysuggest that technology teachers face a lowerexpectancy level than the value they place ontechnology education. This finding may

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F

Between Groups 2.389 2 1.194 2.877Within Groups 46.070 111 .415Total 48.459 113

Table 4. Analysis of Variance Summary Regarding Teachers’ Intent

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

74

References

Abrami, P. C., Poulsen, C., & Chambers, B. (2004). Teacher motivation to implement an educationalinnovation: Factors differentiating users from non-users of cooperative learning. EducationalPsychology, 24, 201-216.

Bognar, C. J. (1997). Neutral category. Presentation at the American Educational ResearchAssociation Annual Conference, Chicago, IL.

Brown, D., Kemp, M., & Hall, J. (1998). On teaching biotechnology in Kentucky. Journal ofIndustrial Teacher Education, 35(4), 44-60.

Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques, 3rd edition. Wiley & Sons, NY.

Daugherty, M. K. (2005). A changing role for technology teacher education. Journal of IndustrialTeacher Education, 42(1), 41-58.

Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choicesIn A. J. Elliot & C. S Dweck (Eds), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 105-121) NewYork: The Guildford Press.

highlight the need to improve their expectancylevel toward biotechnology and its instruction. Inparticular, these teachers show strong motivationto innovate current biotechnology curriculum fortechnology education classes. Professionaldevelopment programs emphasizing biotechnol-ogy and its instruction can help technologyteachers to improve their competency level(Daugherty, 2005; Scott et al., 2006). This studyrecommends that biotechnology content shouldbe delivered systematically during technologyteachers’ professional development.

In addition, this study concentrated oninvestigating technology teachers’ attitudes andmotivation toward biotechnology and its instruc-tion. However, there may be other variablesaffecting biotechnology instruction for technolo-gy education programs. External factors such asschool support, facilities, and equipment canaffect biotechnology instruction (Brown et al.,

1998; Daugherty, 2005). Also, the sample of thisstudy was middle school technology teachers inSouth Korea. In this country, technology educa-tion is a compulsory subject under the nationalcurriculum, and biotechnology content is part oftechnology education presented at the middleschool level. Therefore, future studies shouldinvestigate the beliefs of technology teachers inother countries including related external factors.

Hyuksoo Kwon is a Ph.D. candidate in

Teaching and Learning at Virginia Polytechnic

Institute and State University, Blacksburg. He is

a member of the Beta Chi chapter of Epsilon Pi

Tau.

Dr. Mido Chang is an Assistant Professor in

Educational Research & Evaluation at Virginia

Polytechnic Institute and State University,

Blacksburg.

Variable B SEB _ R2 _R2

Step 1 .124**

Years of Teaching -.159 .042 -.348Courses -.004 .057 -.007Gender -.188 .125 -.141

Step 2 .497*** .374***Value .726 .081 .637

Step 3 .619*** .122***Expectancy .421 .072 .438

Step 4 .664*** .045***Innovation .278 .074 .243

Predictor Variable: Teacher intent to teach biotechnology***p<0.001

Table 5. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Summary (N=114)

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

75

Glenda, L., & Schibeci, R. (2006). Teaching about designer babies & genetically modified foods:Encouraging the teaching of biotechnology in secondary schools. American Biology Teacher, 68(7),98-103.

Graham, S., & Taylor, A. Z. (2002). Ethnicity, gender, and the development of achievement values. InA. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 121-146). SanDiego: Academic Press.

International Technology Education Association [ITEA]. (1996). Technology for all Americans: Arationale and structure for the study of technology. Reston VA: Author.

International Technology Education Association [ITEA]. (2000). Standards for technological literacy:Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.

Kay, D. (2006). The influence of early childhood education teachers’ beliefs on curriculum implemen-tation and classroom practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Missouri,Columbia.

Kim, C., & Land, M. (1994). Recent development of technology education in Korea. The TechnologyTeacher, January, 30-33.

Korea Institute of Curriculum and Evaluation [KICE]. (2002). A study of the systemization of objec-tives and contents of school “Practical Arts” and “Technology and Home Economics” (II), Seoul,Korea: Author.

Rogers, G. E. (1996). The technical content of industrial/technology teacher education. Journal ofTechnology Education, 8(1), 40-49.

Russell, J. (2003). The assessment of student learning is a pivotal component of effective teaching andlearning. The Technology Teacher, 63(2), 28-32.

Sanders, M. (2001). New paradigm or old wine? The status of technology education practice in theUnited States, Journal of Technology Education, 12(2), 35-55.

Savage, E., & Sterry, L. (Eds.). (1991). A conceptual framework for technology education. Reston,VA: International Technology Education Association.

Scott, D., Washer, B., & Wright, M. (2006) A Delphi study to identify recommended biotechnologycompetencies for first-year/initially certified technology education teachers. Journal of TechnologyEducation, 17(2), 44-56.

Steele, F., & Aubusson, P. (2004). The challenge in teaching biotechnology. Research in ScienceEducation, 34(4), 365-387.

Wells, J. G. (1994). Establishing a taxonometric structure for the study of biotechnology in secondaryschool technology education. Journal of Technology Education, 6(1), 58-75.

Wells, J. G., & Kwon, H. (2008). Inclusion of biotechnology in US standards for technological litera-cy: Influence on South Korean technology education curriculum. Proceedings of the 19th Pupil’sAttitude Toward Technology Conference, 315-333. Salt Lake City: PATT.

Wilson, E., Kirby, B., & Flower, J. (2002). Factors influencing the intent of North Carolina agricultur-al biotechnology curriculum. Journal of Agricultural Education, 43(1), 69-81.

Wigfield, A., Tonks, S., & Eccles, J. S. (2004). Expectancy-value theory in cross-cultural perspective.In D. M. Mclnerney & S. Van Etten (Eds). Big theories revisited: Research on sociocultural influ-ences on motivation and learning (pp. 165-198). Information Age Publishing.

Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., & Abrami, P. (2006). Implementing computer technologies: Teachers’ per-ceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14, 173-207.

Yi, S. & Kwon, H. (2008). Bringing Korean educators' experience to the global village: Innovationsand challenges of Korean technology. Proceedings of the 19th Pupil’s Attitude Toward TechnologyConference, 225-240. Salt Lake City: PATT.

Yi, S., Lee, S., Chang, J., & Kwon, H. (2006). Directions and systems to reform technology educationcurriculum at the secondary school, Korea Journal of Technology Education, 6(1), 45-62.

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

76

IntroductionAccording to the Association of Technology,

Management, and Applied Engineering(ATMAE), graduate-level studies in technologyare designed to prepare technologists to focus onthe applied challenges of society, industry, andgovernment through integration- and implemen-tation-oriented activities (2009). Although theassociation’s affiliated institutions and member-ship have been interested in research and gradu-ate education for many years, increased discus-sion is needed concerning both the goals anddelivery of graduate programs leading to mas-ter’s and doctoral degrees related to the field forthe 21st century. Many of the academic partici-pants in this organization, as well as others,work at universities that include a College ofTechnology (COT) or similar department-levelentity associated with applied engineering, man-agement, or industrial technology. Many of theseorganizations are currently examining theirresearch and engagement efforts in light of thecurrently shrinking state and federal budgets andan increasing demand on the part of faculty andstudents for resources to conduct research. Assuch, these institutions are exploring ways toalign strategic plans with university, state, andfederal objectives. They are trying to engageindustry in a manner that provides value to bothparties. All of this is taking place in an environ-ment where future funding streams and organi-zational infrastructures are uncertain. In order topromote confidence in the academic researchagenda of technology-based programs, a clearvision for research and engagement efforts intechnology disciplines is necessary.

The authors advocate a definition ofresearch activity and strategy that includes tradi-tional funding sources for research, as well as afresh look at how an engaged graduate programin a technology discipline would function. Thestrategic plans for both the university and thecollege where these authors are employedrevolve around the following mission: servingthe citizens of the state, the nation, and theworld through discovery that expands the realmof knowledge; learning through disseminationand preservation of knowledge; and engagementthrough exchange of knowledge. A major goal

of a technology department or college should beto further develop graduate education in fulfill-ment of this vision.

Presently at the authors’ institution, theCOT is going through a process of implement-ing individual master’s degrees in the academicareas of each technology department in the col-lege while continuing to deliver the Ph.D. inTechnology at the college level. Such work hascaused the technology graduate faculty to (a)formulate the role of graduate education withinthe context of the larger university community,and (b) articulate how graduate education intechnology may differ from that of the other col-leges and schools in the academy. While theauthors acknowledge that the depth and breadthof implementation of the suggested researchactivities in this article will vary among institu-tions, it is hoped that any technology-baseddepartment or college could generalize thisapproach to advance graduate education at itsinstitution.

The purpose of this paper is twofold. Thiswork presents a general discussion of the theo-retical foundation for graduate education intechnology followed by specific applications ofresearch activities within graduate education intechnology. This paper represents the authors’view of the role of graduate education in (a)advancing the knowledge base, (b) adapting aresearch paradigm, (c) preparing the futureTechnology faculty, (d) capitalizing on theresearch interests of the faculty, (e) addressingindustry’s challenges in implementing andadapting technology, and (f) structuring graduateeducation in technology.

Advancing the Knowledge Base

Discovering, integrating, applying, commu-nicating, and teaching the knowledge of doingare integral to undergraduate and graduate edu-cation for professions in technology, where technology is defined as those fields that applypractical knowledge in improving the humancondition. A typical undergraduate technologyprogram is based more on students’ initial acquisition of knowledge and skill within thetechnical areas under study, graduate technology

Examining the Nature of Technology GraduateEducation Nathan Hartman, Marvin Sarapin, Gary Bertoline, and Susan Sarapin

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

77

education is based more on developing students’abilities and achievements in scholarship. Boyer(1990) presented a model encouraging activeparticipation in a wide range of scholarship forthe higher education community, including theScholarship of Discovery, the Scholarship ofIntegration, the Scholarship of Application, andthe Scholarship of Teaching. Such a model isparticularly salient in identifying the goals oftechnology graduate education. In a research-intensive university environment, these attributescannot be demonstrated in a coursework-onlygraduate program. Graduate programs at suchinstitutions require a student-specific degreeplan of study that provides learners with the req-uisite experiences to acquire knowledge andskills needed for graduate students to developfocused research agendas. The plan of studyshould be a well-thought-out regimen of course-work enabling the learner to demonstrate schol-arship by the completion of a directed project,thesis, or dissertation used to investigate andreport on a significant undertaking in discovery,integration, application, or teaching related totechnology.

Adapting a Research Paradigm

Central to identifying the mission of gradu-ate education in technology is the articulation ofthe appropriate domains of inquiry. Bush’s(1945) work titled Science:The Endless Frontierpresented a linear model representing the post-World War II view that discovery in sciencegives rise to applications in technology. Basedon this model, the domains of basic research andapplied research are seen as independent andalmost unrelated. Whereas basic research is con-ducted by “scientists” for the sole purpose ofunderstanding the nature of phenomena, appliedresearch is conducted by “technologists,” and itis directed solely at solving societal problems.Stokes (1997) presented a more robust modelfor the domains of inquiry, which can becomethe research paradigm for technology graduateeducation. This model considers the desire ofinvestigators to undertake the quest for basicunderstanding and the consideration of the useof research and inquiry. The mission for discov-ery, integration, application, and teaching in aCOT context can be identified in a model adopt-ed from Stokes’ (1997, p. 73) four-quadrantgraphic shown in Figure 1.

Research is inspired by whether it promotesunderstanding of the fundamental elements of adiscipline and whether there is further utility to

the research results once they are known.Research in its pure, basic form known to otherdisciplines (e.g., physics, biology, chemistry)does not typically occur in technology disci-plines mainly because of the mission of technol-ogy-centric education and research in general.However, use-inspired basic research and pureapplied research are more common, and thesecan define that nature of scholarship in technol-ogy graduate programs. This focus is not on fun-damental scientific behavior, but rather onapplied usage of basic science and extension andvalidation of novel tools and techniques.

Preparing Future Technology Faculty

Demographic surveys conducted by Zargariand Sutton (2007) document the need for institu-tions offering technology degree programs tohave a well-qualified faculty. Their surveydemonstrates the need for providing graduateeducation leading to the terminal degree in thefield because attaining such degrees is animportant criterion in hiring, awarding tenure,and promoting technology faculty. Doctoral pro-grams specific to technology are limited, creat-ing a need that must be addressed as undergrad-uate programs in technology continue to grow.The work of Golde and Walker (2006) providesa paradigm helpful for identifying the goals ofgraduate education in technology in preparingthe future stewards of the technology disci-plines. According to their view, “a steward of thediscipline considers the applications, uses, andpurposes of the discipline and favors wise andresponsible applications” (p. 13). Well-thought-out and delivered graduate programs in technol-ogy should focus on increasing productivity inthe scholarship of discovery, integration, appli-cation, and teaching for the professions in tech-nology. Such learning is often developedthrough a mentoring process where graduate stu-dents work closely with their major advisor pur-suing discovery, learning, and engagement proj-ects. Scholarship in technology that focuses ondiscovering methods for extending the state of

Figure 1. Quadrant Model of ScientificResearch

Considerations of Use?

Quest forfundamentalunderstanding?

Pure BasicResearch

(30hr)

Use-Inspired BasicResearch(Pasteur)

Pure AppliedResearch(Edison)

Yes

Yes

No

No

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

78

the art (integrating cutting-edge tools, tech-niques, and methods) expands the literature inthe field. Applying this knowledge in businessand industrial settings, and improving technolo-gy teaching as a result of graduate educationcontributes to the field and will help address thefaculty needs of future technology programs inthe colleges and universities in the nation.

Capitalizing on Faculty Research Interests

College and university faculty memberswho are heavily engaged in research behave in afashion similar to independent entrepreneurswho seek funding through grants to advancetheir research agenda. Much of the funding theysecure is used to hire graduate students toengage in research work, which leads to studenttheses, directed projects, and dissertation topics.This work is disseminated through conferencepresentations and publications; often it leads tofurther research opportunities. This cyclicalprocess, when implemented strategically, resultsin focused recruiting of graduate students into aprogram, funding to support graduate students,scholarly publications, course development, andadvances in the application of technology.Prospective graduate students who are interestedin becoming part of this entrepreneurial-scholar-ship model should find the work of Baylor,Ellis, and Redelfs (2000) to be a helpfulresource in choosing the appropriate institutionand program. Although these authors were notwriting about graduate education in technology,their work is helpful for all prospective graduatestudents seeking an institutional match for theirprofessional development. The following questions posed by these authors (p. 7) areimportant:

• Does the faculty exhibit special strengthsand research qualities through their grad-uate advisees, published works, and fund-ed research?

• Are the libraries, laboratories, computers,and other research facilities adequate foryour educational needs?

• How senior are the professors in yourarea, what are their interests, and whatwill their availability be?

• Does the department of interest offer asufficiently large and varied curriculumto allow you a broad offering of coursesand options?

• What are the degree requirements?Number of hours of coursework required?Major exams? What are the expectationsfor a thesis or dissertation?

• How long will it take to complete the pro-gram?

• What is the completion rate of the generalgraduate population?

• Is there funding available in the form ofteaching or research assistantships?

Addressing Industry’s Challenges Implementing andAdapting Technology

It is well documented that industry faces ashortage of technical talent in the areas of engi-neering and science due to increasing competi-tion from foreign states and the decreasingenrollment of domestic students into those fieldsat our own universities (Keating et al., 2005;Jackson, 2003). One of the key questions thatmany people within research universities, andspecifically within technical domains, ask ishow can a contemporary university partnershipwith an industry partner effect change and havean impact on industrial processes without chang-ing the fundamental role of the university? Theliterature suggests that the fundamental nature ofthat relationship would not change the role ofthe university, but rather it could strengthen thebond between the corporate world and acade-mia, as well as provide meaningful experiencesfor students at all levels. Because many largeresearch institutions are also land grant universi-ties, and there is at least one land grant universi-ty in most states, readers need to look no furtherthan that model to draw inspiration for what isbeing proposed.

According to the United States Library ofCongress Web site (2008), the original missionof a land grant college was to provide highereducation opportunities for the citizens of a par-ticular state, especially in the areas of agricul-ture and the mechanical arts. By design, a set ofpublic universities was given a charter thatincluded engagement with industry for the bet-terment of society. However, over time this hasevolved into an enterprise of sorts as universitiescompete for industrial and federal funding tosupport research initiatives, which are oftendriven by regional economies or federal defenseand energy agendas (Kennedy, 1995).

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

79

Complimentary to this larger federal initia-tive, Boyer (1990) has suggested a revised rolefor the universities based on several factors,including faculty compensation and incentives.One facet to his approach has been to delineatescholarship in certain areas: discovery, integra-tion, application, and teaching, and the premiseis that excellence in these areas by facultymakes for a more holistic experience for stu-dents and a more productive working environ-ment. So how does this relate to graduate educa-tion and research at large universities? In theCOT, the notion of the scholarship of applicationwould likely be considered engagement--—withindustry, federal agencies, education, or thecommunity. It would involve bringing the intel-lectual resources of the university to bear insolving an applied problem that has affected theconstituents or partners of the university. In thecase of engagement with industry, this wouldlikely mean funded activities to solve a specificproblem.

The most expeditious method for doing thistype of work is to have teams of undergraduateand graduate students funded to work onengagement projects. In a technology discipline,giving graduate students a thesis project that hasreal-world applications is ideal. It provides theman applied scenario upon which to direct theirefforts, and it is more in line with their course-work than something that is rather esoteric innature. However, the results of these activitiesmay or may not be available externally becauseof intellectual property issues or federal con-trols, which should be carefully negotiatedbefore the project commences. Although thissecrecy of results may not coincide with thetenets of the original land grant mission, it iscertainly a reality in the contemporary economicclimate.

Even though engagement work with indus-try partners can contribute to the learning andmaturation of graduate and undergraduate stu-dents, the university can also provide ongoingprofessional education to the incumbent work-force, which is also in line with the mission of aland grant university. Practicing professionals intechnical disciplines struggle to keep pace withchanging technology in light of their jobrequirements, and universities with technical-and technology-based degree programs canaddress the need for professional education(Dunlap et al., 2003; Keating et al., 2005)

through the applied nature of the curricula. Indoing so, technology departments could addressthe ongoing training and education of engineers,technologists, and managers from entry-levelpositions through senior managers and directorsby providing coursework that deals with projectmanagement, measurement and analysis, train-ing and human resource development, as well asmany technical areas, depending on the compa-ny and faculty involved. These professional pro-grams may best be delivered in non-traditionalways through distance education, weekend pro-grams, or other hybrid delivery methods. It isalso possible to develop a professional programthat can become revenue-generating, which canbe invested in both the traditional and profes-sional graduate programs.

Structuring Graduate Education in Technology

Based on the discussion of scholarship intechnology, the graduate faculty at the authors’institution have identified a range of studentoutcomes. The outcomes, presented in Table 1,are helpful in communicating student expecta-tions in technology graduate education and inproviding a foundation for assessing the qualityof the program.

Documenting the expected student out-comes is not only important for internal qualitycontrol but also for serving as the foundation forspecialty and regional accreditation.Accreditation is paramount for the institution’scredibility. Standards identified in resourcessuch as the Handbook of Accreditation (2003) ofthe North Central Association–Higher LearningCommission require programs to identify and

Each graduate student should be able to:

Envision, plan and conduct research and development activities;

Identify, comprehend, analyze, evaluate and synthe-size research;

Evaluate technologies and technology-related programs;

Assess individual performance with, and under-standing of, technology;

Communicate effectively and employ constructiveprofessional and interpersonal skills; and

Function effectively in one or more of the technology disciplines.

Table 1: Graduate Student ExpectedOutcomes (Purdue University Collegeof Technology, 2007)

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

80

document student attainment of such outcomessimilar to Table 1. Recently, the Association ofTechnology, Management, and AppliedEngineering Board of Accreditation was grantedpermission by the Council on Higher EducationAccreditation (CHEA) to accredit master’sdegree programs in addition to associate andbaccalaureate degrees (Eaton, J., personal com-munication, May 4, 2009). The authors of thisarticle predict the number of institutions under-taking such specialty graduate program accredi-tation will increase.

Master’s-level COT graduate students aregiven the option of conducting a directed projectora thesis using an on-campus or a weekendmodel to demonstrate attainment of the pro-gram’s learning outcomes. On-campus studentsare typically funded as graduate teaching orresearch assistants while weekend students typi-cally work in industries related to the COT andreceive a combination of at-the-workplace andon-campus instruction. According to the hand-book for the Master’s of Science degree at theauthors’ institution (Purdue University Collegeof Technology, 2006):

The directed project is an applied researchproject that is more extensive and sophisti-cated than a graduate-level independentstudy and less formal than a master’s thesis.The overall objective of the requirement isto engage each graduate student in a study,typically industry or business focused,which is sufficiently involved as to requiremore than one semester to conceive, con-duct, and report. The focus is to be placedon a topic with practical implications ratherthan original research. In so doing, the proj-ect should reflect the mission of the Collegeof Technology by advancing technologythrough developmental research, innovation,and invention. (p. 8)

Graduates who wish to conduct more for-mal inquiry, or who intend to pursue a doctoraldegree after completing the master’s degree areencouraged to follow the thesis option todemonstrate the program’s learning outcomes.The Handbook (2006) provides the followingexplanation of a thesis:

A Master’s thesis in Technology is a signifi-cant piece of original work, typicallyinvolving research, a formal writtendescription of that research, and an oral

defense of the research. It should contributenew knowledge to the discipline, but willinclude an extensive review of what othershave contributed to the topic as well. Thetone should be scholarly, with a primaryaudience of other researchers (p. 9).

COT doctoral students demonstrate achieve-ment of the learning outcomes by completingcoursework designed to further develop theirscholarly abilities and by completing a Ph.D.dissertation that is a significant piece of originalwork conducted by the student under the direc-tion of an appropriate graduate faculty commit-tee, resulting in scholarship of discovery, inte-gration, application, or teaching that contributesto the knowledge base of the field. TechnologyPh.D. recipients pursue careers in higher educa-tion, business, industry, and government –regionally, nationally, and internationally.

In addition to the nature of technologygraduate student research, a particular set ofcoursework is critical in achieving theseresearch objectives and learning outcomes. Itwill provide a foundation upon which studentsbuild their research objectives. This courseworkis also important in developing a suitable gradu-ate to serve and engage industry in solving chal-lenges with technology. Courses that would becritical in accomplishing this mission wouldinclude the following:

• Research Methods

• Data Analysis Techniques

• Project Management

• Global Technology Issues

• Ethics and Technology

• Integration and Implementation ofTechnology

Research methods and data analysis areimportant so students can make decisions whileconducting research process and executing theproject. Background in project managementwould be somewhat tailored to a specific tech-nology domain; however, topics such as budgets,goals and objectives, and personnel selectioncan be common to all domains. The effect oftechnology on a global society has becomeincreasingly important as commerce, academics,and government transcend national borders, and

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

81

the impact that technology has regarding ethicaldecision making is important for both acceptingand implementing that technology. The topics ofimplementation and integration help students tounderstand the effects that technology can haveon people, systems, and organizations, regard-less of the technology domain in question.Although this list of courses is not comprehen-sive, it can provide a foundation for many aca-demic institutions to implement.

ConclusionThe work of Applegate (2002), titled

Engaged Graduate Education: Seeing with NewEyes, offers inspiration that can be applied tograduate education in technology when theauthor discusses the role of three importantattributes for improving higher education, name-ly vision, passion, and action (p. 4). The visionfor technology graduate education presented inthis article was centered on the scholarship ofdiscovery, integration, application, and teaching.COT graduate students and faculty are chal-lenged to pursue this scholarship with passion,thus improving undergraduate and graduate edu-cation for the professions in technology, inte-grating the unique contributions of technologyinto the academic institutions while contributingto the further development of the knowledgebase in the field. Finally, a commitment toaction is needed. Such actions can include tech-nology professionals’ commitment to continueprocess improvement in education, lifelonglearning, and scholarly productivity in the field.Graduate students and academics in technology

can facilitate this action by developing and pur-suing clear agendas for the scholarship of dis-covery, the scholarship of integration, the schol-arship of application, or the scholarship ofteaching.

Dr. Nathan Hartman is an Associate

Professor in the Department of Computer

Graphics Technology at Purdue University, West

Lafayette, Indiana. He is a member of the

Gamma Rho chapter of Epsilon Pi Tau.

Dr. Marvin Sarapin is a Professor in the

Department of Computer Graphics Technology

at Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.

He is a member of the Gamma Rho chapter of

Epsilon Pi Tau and received his Distinguished

Service Citation in 2002.

Dr. Gary Bertoline is Associate Dean for

Graduate Programs and Professor in the

College of Technology at Purdue University,

West Lafayette, Indiana. He is a member of the

Gamma Rho chapter of Epsilon Pi Tau and

received his Distinguished Service Citation in

2004.

Susan H. Sarapin is a doctoral student

focusing on media effects in the Communication

Department of Purdue University, West

Lafayette, Indiana.

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

82

References

Applegate, J. (2002). Engaged graduate education: Seeing with new eyes. Washington, DC:Association of American Colleges & Universities.

Association of Technology, Management, and Applied Engineering. (2009). Retrieved on February 17,2009 from http://www.nait.org

Baylor, S., Ellis, C., & Redelfs, A. (2000). Graduate school information guide. Computing ResearchAssociation Committee on the Status of Women in Computing Research. Retrieved on February 20,2009 from www.cra.org/craw

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: TheCarnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Bush, V. (1945). Science: The endless frontier. Washington, DC: United States Government PrintingOffice.

Dunlap, D.D., Tricamo, S.J., Sebastian, D.H., Keating, D.A., & Stanford, T.G. (2003). Growing thenational innovation system: Defining the characteristics of innovative professionally-oriented edu-cation at the master, doctor, and fellow levels for technology leaders in industry. Proceedings of the2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Nashville,Tennessee, June 22-25, 2003.

Golde, C. & Walker, G. (2006). Envisioning the future doctoral education: Preparing stewards of thediscipline. Carnegie Essays on the Doctorate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Higher Learning Commission. (2003). Handbook of accreditation third edition. Chicago, IL: TheHigher Learning Commission—A Commission of the North Central Association.

Jackson, S. A. (2003). Envisioning a 21st century science and engineering workforce for the UnitedStates:Tasks for university, industry, and government. Washington DC: National Academies Press.

Keating, D.A. et al. (2005). Framework for integrating project-based learning, experience, and prac-tice in professional graduate education for engineering leaders in industry leading to the profession-al engineering doctorate and fellow levels. Proceedings of the American Society for EngineeringEducation Annual Conference & Exposition. Portland, Oregon, June 12–15, 2005.

Kennedy, D. (1995). Universities: Costs and benefits of the academic frontier. Proceedings of Sciencethe Endless Frontier 1945-1995: Learning from the Past, Designing for the Future. Tempe,Arizona–Center for Science Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University. Retrieved on June20, 2007 from http://www.cspo.org/products/conferences/bush/fulltexthighlights.pdf

Purdue University College of Technology. (2007). College of technology graduate program handbook.Retrieved on February 20, 2009 from http://www.tech.purdue.edu/Graduate/grad_downloads/Grad%20Handbook%20r6-07.pdf

Purdue University College of Technology. (2006). CGT Department graduate program handbook.Retrieved on February 20, 2009 from http://www.tech.purdue.edu/cgt/academics/graduate/documents/CGTGraduateStudentHandbook_v6.pdf

Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant:Basic science and technological innovation. Washington DC:Bookings Institution Press.

United States Library of Congress. (2008). Primary Documents in American History Morrill Act.Retrieved on February 26, 2009 from http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Morrill.html

Zargari, A. & Sutton, J. (2007). National Association of Industrial Technology 2006 annual nationalsalary survey data and demographics. Retrieved on February 20, 2009 from http://www.nait.org/

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

83

The Board of Editors of The Journal of Technology Studies and the Board of Directors are pleased toannounce the recipient of the Paul T. Hiser Exemplary Publication Award for Volume XXXIV, 2008.

The Board of Directors established this award for deserving scholars. In recognition for his exemplaryservice to the profession and to the honorary as a Trustee and Director, the award bears Dr. Hiser’sname. It is given to the author or authors of articles judged to be the best of those published each yearin this journal.

Selection ProcessEach member of the Editorial Board recommends the manuscript that he or she considers the best ofthose reviewed during the year. The board nominates articles based on their evaluation against specificcriteria. A majority vote of the editors is required for the award to be made. The honor society’s Board ofDirectors renders final approval of the process and the award.

Criteria1. The subject matter of the manuscript must be clearly in the domain of one or more of the professions

in technology.

2. The article should be exemplary in one or more of the following ways:• Ground-breaking philosophical thought.• Historical consequence in that it contains significant lessons for the present and the future.• Innovative research methodology and design.• Trends or issues that currently influence the field or are likely to affect it.• Unique yet probable solutions to current or future problems.

A $300 award recognizes the recipient(s) for the year and is presented during an Epsilon Pi Tau pro-gram at an annual professional association conference.

The 2008 Paul T. HiserExemplary Publication Award

Recipient

Sophia Scott“Perceptions of Students’ Learning Critical Thinking through Debate in a Technology

Classroom: A Case Study”

Th

e J

ou

rna

l o

f Te

ch

no

log

y S

tud

ies

84

SUBJECT FOCUS The JOTS welcomes original manuscripts from

scholars worldwide focused on the depth and breadthof technology as practiced and understood past, pres-ent, and future. Epsilon Pi Tau, as perhaps the mostcomprehensive honor society among technology professions, seeks to provide upto-date and insightfulinformation to its increasingly diverse membership aswell as the broader public. Authors need not be mem-bers of the society in order to submit manuscripts forconsideration. Contributions from both academics andpractitioners are equally welcome.

A general guide to the breadth of topics of poten-tial interest to our readers can be gained by considera-tion of the 17 subclasses within “Technology” of theclassification scheme of the Library of Congress, USA<lcweb.loc.gov.catdir/cpso/lcco/lcco_t.pdf>. Thisincludes engineering and allied disciplines, informaticsin its many manifestations, industrial technology, andeducation in and about technology. Authors are strong-ly urged to peruse this list as they consider developingarticles for journal consideration. In addition, JOTS isinterested in manuscripts that provide:

• brief biographical portraits of leaders in technol-ogy that highlight the difference these individu-als made in distinct fields of technology or itswider appreciation within society,

• thoughtful reflections about technology practice, • insights about personal transitions in technology

from formal education to the work environmentor vice versa,

• history, philosophy, sociology, economics, and anthropology of technology,

• technology within society and its relationship to other disciplines,

• technology policy at local, national, and inter-national levels,

• comparative studies of technology development,

implementation, and/or education, • industrial research and development, • new and emerging technologies and technolo-

gy’s role in shaping the future.

Within this immense diversity of technology, itsapplications and import, authors must communicateclearly, concisely, informatively, and only semi-techni-cally to readers from a diverse set of backgrounds.Authors may assume some technical background onthe part of the reader but not in-depth knowledge ofthe particular technology that is the focus of the arti-cle. Highly technical articles on any field of technolo-gy are not within the purview of the journal. Articleswhose subject focus has been extensively explored inprior issues of the journal are only of potential interestif they: 1) open up entirely new vistas on the topic, 2)provide significant new information or data that over-turns or modifies prior conceptions, or 3) engage sub-stantially one or more previously published articles ina debate that is likely to interest and inform readers.Syntheses of developments within a given field oftechnology are welcome as are metanalyses ofresearch regarding a particular technology, its applica-tions, or the process of technical education and /orskill acquisition. Research studies should employmethodological procedures appropriate to the problembeing addressed and must evince suitable design, execution, analysis, and conclusions. Surveys, forexample, that exhibit any or all of the following char-acteristics are of no interest to the journal: 1) insuffi-cient awareness of prior research on this topic, 2)insufficient sample size, 3) improper survey design, 4)inappropriate survey administration, 5) high mortality,6) inadequate statistical analysis, and/or 7) conclu-sions not supported by either the data or the researchdesign employed. The journal is neutral in regards toqualitative, quantitative, or mixed method approachesto research but insists on research quality.

GUIDELINES FOR

The Journal of Technology StudiesA refereed publication of the international honor society for professions in technology.

The Journal of Technology Studies (JOTS) is the flagship, peer-reviewed journal of Epsilon Pi Tau, an international honor society for technology professions. Two print issues per year are mailed to all members of the society as well as to academic and general libraries around the globe. These printed issues, plus additional issues available only in electronic format as well as past issues, are available free on-line at scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/jots.

Th

e J

ou

rna

l of Te

ch

no

log

y Stu

die

s

85

GUIDELINES FOR SUBMISSION Articles must conform to the most current

edition of the Publication Manual of the AmericanPsychological Association. All articles must be origi-nal, represent work of the named authors, not beunder consideration elsewhere, and not be publishedelsewhere in English or any other language. Elec-tronic submissions in either rich-text format orMicrosoft Word formats are encouraged, althoughsubmission of three printed copies and a diskette containing the article are also permissible. E-mailsubmissions should be sent to the editor, Dr.Dominick Fazarro, at jots@bgsu.edu. Paper submis-sions should be mailed to:

Editor, Journal of Technology Studies Epsilon Pi Tau, Technology Building Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, Ohio 43403-0296

Manuscripts should be no more that 25 pages,double spaced, including references. Typescriptshould be Times New Roman or a close approxima-tion of font and 12 point. Only manuscripts in theEnglish language will be accepted and they shouldconform to American usage. Figures, tables, photo-graphs, and artwork must be of good quality and conform to APA form and style.

REVIEW PROCESS Articles deemed worthy by the editor for consid-

eration by Authors who submit an article that doesnot merit review by the editorial board are informed

within approximately two weeks of receipt of thearticle so that they may explore other publishing ven-ues. A rejection may be based solely on the contentfocus of the article and not its intrinsic merit, partic-ularly where the topic has been extensively exploredin prior JOTS articles. Articles that exhibit extensiveproblems in expression, grammar, and spelling aresummarily rejected. Authors of articles that havebeen peer-reviewed are informed within about threemonths from the date of submission of the article.Anonymous comments of reviewers are provided to authors that are invited to submit a revised articlefor either publication or a second round of review.The editor does not automatically provide reviewercomments to authors whose articles have been reject-ed via the peer review process but makes a judge-ment based on whether the feedback might provebeneficial to the authors as they pursue other pub-lishing opportunities.

PUBLICATIONAuthors whose articles have been accepted,

will have their final products published in the on-line version of the journal. Selected articles from the on-line edition of the journal may also appear in two print issues that are issued per calendar year.All authors will receive a pdf version of their pub-lished article and co-retain rights to that article along with Epsilon Pi Tau. The editor will supplywhen requested information about an accepted article that has not yet appeared in print for facultyundergoing tenure review.

GUIDELINES FOR

The Journal of Technology Studies(Continued)