Mind or Machine? Opportunities and Limits of Automation

  • Petri NokelainenEmail author
  • Timo Nevalainen
  • Kreeta Niemi
Part of the Professional and Practice-based Learning book series (PPBL, volume 21)


Automation of work is not a new phenomenon. For businesses, technological development has an impact how enterprises organize work and production processes. Mechanical power has replaced some human workforces to eliminate unsafe work processes. New information and communication technologies have thus raised important questions as to what types of work can be replaced by technology and which require human decision-making and social and creative intelligence. This chapter discusses general developments in the automation of work and reflects on forecasts that have been made regarding changes in the labor market.


World of work Automation Skills Education Ethics 


  1. Autor, D. (2015). Why are there still so many jobs? The history and future of workplace automation. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(3), 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Autor, D., Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2003). The skill content of recent technological change: An empirical exploration. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4), 1279–1333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. New York: WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  4. Chen, J. X. (2016). The evolution of computing: AlphaGo. Computing in Science & Engineering, 18(4), 4–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  6. Deming, D. J. (2015). The growing importance of social skills in the labor market, The National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 21473. Cambridge, MA: NBER. Retrieved from: Scholar
  7. Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frey, C.B., & Osborne, M.A. (2013). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation. Retrieved from
  9. Frey, C.B., Osborne, M.A., & Holmes, G. (2016). Citi GPS: Global perspectives & solutions. Retrieved from
  10. Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (1998). The origins of technology-skill complementarity. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(3), 693–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (2007). The race between education and technology: The evolution of U.S. educational wage differentials, 1890 to 2005, NBER working paper series. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from: Scholar
  12. Goos, M., & Manning, A. (2007). Lousy and lovely jobs: The rising polarization of work in Britain. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(1), 118–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goos, M., Manning, A., & Salomons, A. (2014). Explaining job polarization: Routine-biased technological change and offshoring. American Economic Review, 104(8), 2509–2526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hagel, J. (2016). We need to expand our definition of entrepreneurship. Retrieved from.
  15. Hytönen, K., Palonen, T., Lehtinen, E., & Hakkarainen, K. (2016). Between two advisors: Interconnecting academic and workplace settings in an emerging field. Vocations and Learning, 9(3), 333–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. IBM. (2016). Watson health. Retrieved from
  17. Kersting, N. B., Sherin, B. L., & Stigler, J. W. (2014). Automated scoring of teachers’ open-ended responses to video prompts: Bringing the classroom-video-analysis assessment to scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74(6), 950–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Komulainen, K., Naskali, P., Korhonen, M., & Keskitalo–Foley, S. (2011). Internal entrepreneurship: A Trojan horse of the neoliberal governance of education? Finnish pre- and in-service teachers’ implementation of and resistance towards entrepreneurship education. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 9(1), 342–374.Google Scholar
  19. Laschi, C., Mazzolai, B., & Cianchetti, M. (2016). Soft robotics: Technologies and systems pushing the boundaries of robot abilities. Science Robotics, 1(1), 1–11. Retrieved from Scholar
  20. Liu, M.-C., & Huang, Y.-M. (2017). The use of data science for education: The case of social-emotional learning. Smart Learning Environments, 4(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nenkov, N., Dimitrov, G., Dyachenko, Y., & Koeva, K. (2016). Artificial intelligence technologies for personnel learning management systems. In R. Yager, V. Sgurev, M. Hadjiski, & V. Jotsov (Eds.), 2016 IEEE 8th international conference on intelligent systems (pp. 189–195). New York: IEEE. doi:10.1109/IS.2016.7737420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rintala, N., & Suolanen, S. (2005). The implications of digitalization for job descriptions, competencies and the quality of working life. Nordicom Review, 26(2), 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rudner, L.M. (2009). Scoring and classifying examinees using measurement decision theory. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14(8). Retrieved from
  26. Spencer-Scarr, D. (2014). Long tail leadership: Understanding soft power affecting organizations. In H. Rahman & R. D. de Sousa (Eds.), Information systems and technology for organizational agility, intelligence, and resilience (pp. 1–24). Hershey: Business Science Reference.Google Scholar
  27. Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. World Economic Forum. (2016). The future of jobs: Employment, skills and workforce strategy for the fourth industrial revolution. Retrieved from.
  29. Yeager, D. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., Tirri, K., Nokelainen, P., & Dweck, C. S. (2011). Adolescents’ implicit theories predict desire for vengeance after peer conflicts: Correlational and experimental evidence. Developmental Psychology, 47(4), 1090–1107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Petri Nokelainen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Timo Nevalainen
    • 2
  • Kreeta Niemi
    • 3
  1. 1.Laboratory of Industrial and Information ManagementTampere University of TechnologyTampereFinland
  2. 2.ProakatemiaTampere University of Applied SciencesTampereFinland
  3. 3.Faculty of EducationUniversity of TampereTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations