Google Search Engine: Ethnography of Technology in Everyday Life

This essay provides an ethnographical analysis of the Google Search engine's impact on technology and daily life, framed within the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) framework. The essay explores how Google Search has influenced production, distribution, and marketing by examining interpretative flexibility, relevant social groups, and rhetorical closure. It highlights how Google Search has adapted to user needs, enhanced marketing strategies, and facilitated research. The analysis considers how Google Search performance impacts production capabilities and emphasizes the significance of the search engine in facilitating online research and product promotion. The essay concludes by underscoring the transformative role of Google Search in connecting producers and consumers, enabling global interactions and facilitating the distribution of goods and services. The essay uses references to support the arguments made.

Google Search Engine: Ethnography of Technology in Everyday Life
Name
Institution
Professor
Course
Date

Introduction
Technology has been associated to many changes in the line of production and
consumption of goods and services. Since technology came into existence, radical changes have
been underway with many changes happening over a short period of time (Murthy, 2008). In this
regard, it would be accurate to assert that, technology has been shaping human life and its
development follows a structured and predefined structure. It does not have any social or
political issues associated with it. Technology use has been attributed to changes in human life,
which makes it socially constructed as it is human life that shapes technology. In the analysis of
technology and its effect in the society, Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) framework
would be considered. It is apparent that, Google search has had advance effects on almost all
people lives. In today’s world, technology consumption is in almost all spheres of life ranging
from communication, business operations and marketing among others (Higgins, Xiao &
Katsipataki, 2012). In this regard, Google search has been widely used in several sectors such as
research, production, distribution and marketing of goods and services.
Effects of Google search engine in production, distribution and marketing
There is no doubt that Google search engine has been and still being used in almost all
areas of business operations. The interpretative flexibility is one of the SCOT model frameworks
that focuses on flexibility of various social groups linked to a particular technology brand
(Connaway, Lanclos & Hood, 2013). Despite the existence of correlation between interpretative
flexibility and relevant social groups, the latter is different. It views both technology and design
concepts as open processes which are different in regard to social circumstances put in place.
Google search engine users have been changing with technology needs for different reasons. In
this case, interpretative technology can be regarded as meaning Google search users’ accord to

technology in place. Since its inception into human life, Google search engine has been changing
to align itself to security policy requirements and technology enhancements. As these changes
have been taking place, its users have been responsive and flexible enough to accept any
technological change. Since adoption of Google search technology, organizations and other users
in production and marketing sector have taken advantage of its existence to enhance their
marketing strategies (Bughin et al., 2011). Organizations are using Google search engine to
promote different product brands because it is believed to be a platform with highest number of
users, hence changing how production and marketing approach. A good example can be deduced
from companies like Apple and Microsoft which use search engine to promote and sale its
products across the globe. On the same note, Google maps are can be used to monitor which
market sector and part of world has been highest consumer of specific goods. This helps
organization focus on market segment which seems more profitable.
Consumption of any product or service is highly linked to existence of some Relevant
Social Groups (RSGs). Technology users can be categorized into users and non-users. According
to Cantallops, Cardona & Matarredonda (2013), users’ make use of technology in several ways
while non-users have a negative perspective on Google search technology. This SCOT
component borrows its operational concepts from market segmentation which assumes
consumption of a certain brand can be associated with social groups. Change in Google search
engine capability and performance should consider effects to be experienced by different group
of users, either organizations or individual users in the marketing sector. Various Google search
engine users would be affected depending on how they use subject technology. Google search
engine has and continue to be in use by various organizations for different purposes such as
research and delivery of products and services. A good example can be deduced from

distribution of some goods and services via Gmail. With help of Google search engine, users are
able to sale, purchase and deliver some products such as software electronically. The
performance of the engine as required by different users’ results to automatic creation of RSGs.
Important to note is that, some Google search engine users’ run business processes that are
resource intensive (Ershov, 2016). In such a case, performance of the engine should be highly
considered. Performance of the engine has affected some organization’s production capability.
Increased performance results to direct increase in technology related service delivery such as
internet service providers. Google search engine performance affects production in a direct
manner. Poor engine performance translates to low production from RSGs using it for production
purpose and vice versa on high performance.
The next aspect in SCOT framework would be rhetorical closure of the subject
technology. This has been mainly experienced in cases where a certain product does not meet
required specification and does not offer desired functionality (Van-Dijck, 2010). Mainly,
rhetorical closure has been attributed to technology being ineffective which in turn results to
emergence of substitute products or services. In this regard, there have been no cases of Google
search engine closure as its services have been outstanding. Google search engine interpretative
flexibility has been quite good and almost all RSGs have been responding positively to any
change in technology adopted. To make the engine more reliable, every change has been done
proactively with aim of benefiting all its users. Production industry relies heavily on search
engine for research to improve its product quality, service delivery and measure customer
responsiveness. In today’s market, research has been shifting from physical data collection to
remote based. In this regard, Google engine is being used for research by sending out data
collection tools such as questionnaire as well as receive feedback from respondents. Through use

of Google search engine, the cost of conducting research has been reduced greatly making it
easier to produce high quality products with low cost (Yannopoulos, 2011). As a result, the cost
of producing related product or service has gone down substantially. Therefore, with ease in
promoting organizational product through use of search engine, it would be quite impossible to
have rhetorical closure of such an important technology. Before innovation of Google search
engine, online research and promotion of products could not be conducted.
Conclusion
Technological advancements have been changing how human being has been undertaking
several activities such as production, distribution and marketing. Technology effects on several
sectors of business process have been analyzed in respect to SCOT framework. It has been used
as a guide in analyzing how goggle search engine has been undergoing development in order to
remain simple, effective and robust. The product should focus on interpretative flexibility,
rhetorical closure and RSGs. Without Google search engine technology, the internet that
everyone is proud of could not have such capability. It has offered both producers and consumers
an opportunity to interact without much restriction. Producers are able to sell from any part of
the world while consumer is able to choose from a variety of markets available. Similarly,
distributing of goods and services has been made much easier through use of Google search
engine.

References
Bughin, J., Corb, L., Manyika, J., Nottebohm, O., Chui, M., de Muller Barbat, B., & Said, R.
(2011).The impact of Internet technologies: Search. High Tech Practice. McKinsey &
Company.
https://open.uct.ac.za/bitstream/handle/11427/22890/thesis_com_2016_sehuhula_mooket
si_bojelo_ester.pdf?sequence=1
Cantallops, A. S., Cardona, J. R., & Matarredonda, M. G. (2013). The impact of search engines
on the hotel distribution value chain. Redmarka: revista académica de marketing aplicado,
(10), 6. http://cienciared.com.ar/ra/usr/39/1440/redmarka_n10_v2pp19_54.pdf
Connaway, L. S., Lanclos, D., & Hood, E. M. (2013). “I Find Google a lot Easier than Going to
the Library Website.” Imagine Ways to Innovate and Inspire Students to Use the
Academic Library. In Proceedings of the Association of College & Research
Libraries (ACRL) 2013 conference, (pp. 10-13).
http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/confsandpreconfs/201
3/papers/Connaway_Google.pdf
Ershov, D. (2016). The effect of consumer search costs on entry and quality in the mobile app
market. Mimeo, University of Toronto. http://www.law.northwestern.edu/research-
faculty/searlecenter/events/internet/documents/Ershov_Consumer_Search.pdf
Higgins, S., Xiao, Z., & Katsipataki, M. (2012). The impact of digital technology on learning: A
summary for the education endowment foundation. Durham, UK: Education Endowment
Foundation and Durham University.

https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/public/files/Publications/The_Impact_of_
Digital_Technologies_on_Learning_(2012).pdf
Murthy, D. (2008). Digital ethnography: An examination of the use of new technologies for
social research. Sociology, 42(5), 837-855.
https://octavioislas.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/digital-etnography-sociology-sept-
2008.pdf
Van Dijck, J. (2010). Search engines and the production of academic knowledge. International
journal of cultural studies, 13(6), 574-592.
https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/958061/90423_Search_engines_and_academic_knowledge.IJ
CS.pdf
Yannopoulos, P. (2011). Impact of the Internet on marketing strategy formulation. International
Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(18).
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0ce5/c799898b4696e24518ba27e0f457f3e1df19.pdf