Dissertation Research: Ecological "Technological Enthusiasm": Tensions at the intersection of science, technology and values

科学与技术研究论文改进助学金将为一名博士生提供研究费用，该博士生正在研究基于生态工程原理的生态技术的创新和采用。这一课题的研究将进一步发展对生态现代化进程的分析和批判。实地研究的具体目标是：1)确定和描述个人参与生态工程生态技术创新和采用的原因及其对这些领域的目标和愿望；2)确定和描述生态技术和生态工程定义中的差异和变化；3)确定和描述参与者在创新和采用生态技术方面的差异和紧张关系。基金将支持参与者观察和半结构化访谈，以收集与创新和采用生态技术相关的个人想法、动机和价值观的数据。本案例研究将利用生态工程废水系统的生态技术作为选择研究地点的统一框架。研究领域的地点和主题将代表一系列的参与：1)学术研究人员；2)非营利性创新者；3)营利性承包商；4)技术采用者。生态现代化理论预测，绿色技术总体上将在产业、社会和政策中走向更加中心的地位。当绿色技术出现这种情况时，赋予生态技术的意义和价值的某些方面可能会丢失。也有理论认为，这些新技术的结合过程将有利于与主流实践互补的技术，而不是更激进的替代方案(Hess 2003)，而且这种部分采用可能有利于资本主义的关切，而不利于表达替代价值和理性(Guldbrandsen和Holland 2001)。这项研究将通过调查在生态工程废水技术的创新和采用中发生的变化和紧张局势来探索这些批评。这项工作带来了环境人类学和科学技术研究(STS)之间的和解。环境人类学家将技术纳入他们的研究主要集中于反对技术的环境运动(例如，Berglund，2001)。同样，STS从业人员也曾考虑采用替代或适当的技术，但这些往往是从历史或社会学的角度进行的(例如，MOL 2003)。这项研究推动了环境人类学对环境运动的更丰富的探索，并将人类学对个人真实经验的关注带入了对替代技术的STS分析。这项研究的第二个学术价值是，它愿意应对挑战，既接受对人类学家进行研究的呼吁(纳德1974)，也接受人类学家从事多地点研究的呼吁(Marcus 1995)。这项工作的第三个优点是它结合了理论上的关注和更“以激进主义为导向的STS”(Woodhouse 2002)。正是这种激进主义倾向使自己得到了更广泛的应用。这项研究的应用目的是为了便于识别和讨论生态工程领域发展中的紧张点。这项研究解决了生态技术实践者自己确定的问题和关切(Kangas，2004)。这项研究将对当前生态工程学科的形式化和边界设置有特别的帮助。

This Science and Technology Studies Dissertation Improvement Grant will provide funds to support research costs for a Ph.D. student who is examining the innovation and adoption of ecotechnologies based on ecological engineering Principles. The topic will be studied to further develop the analysis and critique of the process of ecological modernization. The specific goals of the field research are: 1) To identify and describe the reasons individuals became involved in the innovation and adoption of ecologically engineered ecotechnologies and their goals and aspirations for these fields; 2) To identify and describe differences and changes in the definitions of ecotechnologies and ecological engineering and 3) To identify and describe differences and tensions amongst the participants in the innovation and adoption of ecotechnologies. Funds will support participant observation and semi-structured interviews in order to collect data on individuals' ideas, motivations and values associated with the innovation and adoption of ecotechnologies. This case study will utilize the ecotechnology of ecological engineered wastewater systems as the unifying frame through which research sites are selected. The research field sites and subjects will represent a range of involvement: 1) Academic researchers; 2) Not-for-Profit innovators; 3) For-profit contractors and 4) The technology adopters. Ecological modernization theory predicts that green technologies in general will be moving toward a more central position in industry, society, and policy. As this occurs for a green technology, aspects of the meaning and values ascribed to the ecotechnology could be lost. It is also theorized that the process of incorporation of these new technologies will favor the technologies that are complementary to mainstream practice over more radical alternatives (Hess 2003), and that such partial adoption can favor the concerns of capitalism, to the detriment of the expression of alternative values and rationalities (Guldbrandsen and Holland 2001). This research will explore these critiques through the investigation of the changes and tensions that are occurring in the innovation and adoption of ecologically engineered wastewater technologies. This work brings a rapprochement between Environmental Anthropology and Science and Technology Studies (STS). Environmental anthropologists' inclusion of technology in their studies has largely centered on environmental movements in opposition to technologies (e.g. Berglund 2001). Similarly, STS practitioners have looked at the adoption of alternative or appropriate technologies, but these are often done from a historical or sociological perspective (e.g. Mol 2003). This research pushes environmental anthropology to a richer exploration of environmental movements, as well as bringing the anthropological concern for the real experiences of individuals to the STS analysis of alternative technology. The second intellectual merit of this research is its willingness to tackle the challenges involved in accepting both the call for anthropologists to study-up (Nader 1974), as well as the call for anthropologists to engage in multi-sited research (Marcus 1995). The third merit of this work is its conjoining of theoretical concerns with a more "activist oriented STS" (Woodhouse 2002). It is this activist orientation that lends itself to broader application. The applied goal of this research is to facilitate the identification and discussion of points of tension in the development of the field of ecological engineering. This research addresses questions and concerns that ecotechnology practitioners themselves identify (Kangas 2004). This research will be especially helpful in the current formalization and boundary setting in the academic discipline of ecological engineering.