Doing Qualitative Research

BRUNO LATOUR, The pasteurization of France, trans. Alan Sheridan and John Law, Cambridge, Mass., and London, Harvard University Press, 1988, 8vo, pp. 273, £23.95. GEORGES CANGUILHEM, Ideology and rationality in the history of the life sciences, trans. Arthur Goldhammer, Cambridge, Mass., and London, The MIT Press, 1988, 8vo, pp. xi, 160, £17.95. Bruno Latour has written a wonderfully funny book about himself. It is difficult, however, to summarize a text committed to the view that \"Nothing is, by itself, either reducible or irreducible to anything else\", (p. 158). In Latour's opinion, the common view that sociologists of knowledge and scientists are opposed is incorrect. Both groups, according to Latour, are the authors of identical mistakes: reductionism and, relatedly, attempting to conjoin (in the instance of the sociologist) science and society, or (in the instance of the scientist) keeping them apart. For Latour, there are only forces or resistances which different groups encounter and attempt to conquer by forming alliances. These groups, however, are not simply the actors of conventional sociology. They include, for example, microbes, the discovery of the Pasteurians, with which they have populated our world and which we must now take notice of in any encounter or war in which we engage. War is a fundamental metaphor for Latour, since in a war or a battle clashes of armies are later called the \"victory\" of a Napoleon or a Kutuzov. Likewise, he argues, the Pasteurization of France can be viewed as a battle, with its field and its myriad contestants, in which opposing sides attempted to mould and coerce various forces of resistance. Strangely, he points out, the outcome of this huge battle, the labour and struggle of these masses, we attribute to the scientific genius of Pasteur. Pasteur's genius, however, says Latour, lay not in science (for this could be yet another way of making science and society distinct) but as strategist. Pasteur was able to cross disciplinary lines, recruiting allies to laboratory science by persuading them that they were recruiting him. This was possible because, like the armies in battle, they had already done the work of the general. Thus Pasteur's microbiology, which might conventionally be seen as a whole new science, can also be construed as a brilliant reformulation of all that preceded it and made it possible. Hygienists seized on the work of the Pasteurians and the two rapidly became powerful allies because \"The time that they [the hygienists] had made was now working for them\" (p. 52). French physicians, on the other hand, resisted recruitment, since for them it meant enslavement. Finally, however, they recruited the Pasteurians to their enterprise. Pasteurian public health was turned into a triumph of medicine. It is impossible to read this book and not substitute Latour for Pasteur. At the head of his own army, increasingly enlarged by the recruitment of allies, Latour now presents us, in his own language, with something we have made, or at least made possible. The cynic might say, using the old jibe against sociologists, that Latour has explained to us in his own language everything we knew anyway. Retorting thus, however, would be to unselfconsciously make an ally of Latour and miss the point by a narrow margin that might as well be a million miles. Latour says all this much more clearly (and certainly more wittily) than any review. Read it, but beware; in spite of Latour's strictures about irreducibility, the text is not what it seems. This is a recruitment brochure: Bruno needs you. Among the many historians whom Latour convicts by quotation of mistaking the general for the army, Pasteur for all the forces at work in French society, is Georges Canguilhem. Latour uses two quotes from Canguilhem, both taken from the original French version of Ideology and rationality in the life sciences, first published in 1977. Reading Canguilhem after Latour induces a feeling akin to culture shock. Astonishingly, Canguilhem seems almost Anglo-American. Anyone familiar with Canguilhem's epistemological universe would hardly be surprised to discover that Latour finds in it perspectives different from his own. After all, Canguilhem remains committed to the epistemologically distinct entity science or, better still, sciences. Likewise he employs distinctions between science and ideology, as in Spencerian ideology and Darwinian science, which will seem familiar, possibly jaded to English-reading eyes. His text is liberally seeded with unLatourian expressions, including injunctions to distinguish \"between ideology and science\" (p. 39), lamentations that eighteenth-century medicine \"squandered its energy in the erection of systems\" (p. 53), rejoicing that physiology \"liberated itself' from classical anatomy (p. 54), and regret that \"Stahl's influence ... seriously impeded experimental

/pdf/bruno-latour-the-pasteurization-of-france-trans-alan-syp9mg0jqd.pdf

Bruno Latour, The pasteurization of France , trans. Alan Sheridan and John Law, Cambridge, Mass., and London, Harvard University Press, 1988, 8vo, pp. 273, £23.95. - Georges Canguilhem, Ideology and rationality in the history of the life sciences , trans. Arthur Goldhammer, Cambridge, Mass., and London, The MIT Press, 1988, 8vo, pp. xi, 160, £17.95.

The future of hydrogen : opportunities and challenges

Household energy conservation has emerged as a major challenge and opportunity for researchers, practitioners and policymakers. Consumers also seem to be gaining greater awareness of the value and need for sustainable energy practices, particularly amid growing public concerns over greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Yet even with adequate knowledge of how to save energy and a professed desire to do so, many consumers still fail to take noticeable steps towards energy efficiency and conservation. There is often a sizeable discrepancy between peoples’ self-reported knowledge, values, attitudes and intentions, and their observable behaviour—examples include the well-known ‘knowledge-action gap’ and ‘value-action gap’. But neither is household energy consumption driven primarily by financial incentives and the rational pursuit of material interests. In fact, people sometimes respond in unexpected and undesirable ways to rewards and sanctions intended to shift consumers’ cost–benefit calculus in favour of sustainable behaviours. Why is this so? Why is household energy consumption and conservation difficult to predict from either core values or material interests? By drawing on critical insights from behavioural economics and psychology, we illuminate the key cognitive biases and motivational factors that may explain why energy-related behaviour so often fails to align with either the personal values or material interests of consumers. Understanding these psychological phenomena can make household and community responses to public policy interventions less surprising, and in parallel, can help us design more cost-effective and mass-scalable behavioural solutions to encourage renewable and sustainable energy use among consumers.

Household energy use: Applying behavioural economics to understand consumer decision-making and behaviour

World Risk Society

Despite the popularity of bike sharing, there is a lack of evidence on existing schemes and whether they achieved their objectives. This paper is concerned with identifying and critically interpreting the available evidence on bike sharing to date, on both impacts and processes of implementation and operation. The existing evidence suggests that bike sharing can increase cycling levels but needs complementary pro-cycling measures and wider support to sustainable urban mobility to thrive. Whilst predominantly enabling commuting, bike sharing allows users to undertake other key economic, social and leisure activities. Benefits include improved health, increased transport choice and convenience, reduced travel times and costs, and improved travel experience. These benefits are unequally distributed, since users are typically male, younger and in more advantaged socio-economic positions than average. There is no evidence that bike sharing significantly reduces traffic congestion, carbon emissions and pollution. From a process perspective, bike sharing can be delivered through multiple governance models. A key challenge to operation is network rebalancing, while facilitating factors include partnership working and inclusive scheme promotion. The paper suggests directions for future research and concludes that high-quality monitoring impact/process data, systematically and consistently collected, as well as innovative and inclusive evaluation methods are needed.

Bike sharing: A review of evidence on impacts and processes of implementation and operation

What do we know about public perceptions and acceptance of hydrogen? A critical review and new case study evidence

There is now increasing evidence that the public has become much more aware of global warming, climate change and environmental risks. This has been repeatedly demonstrated in a number of official surveys and other research. However, the salience of these issues varies; for some social groups, there are other more significant problems and urgent priorities. It has also been found that while expressing strong beliefs about the negative consequences of global warming, or dependence on fossil fuels, or more positive approval of alternative and renewable energy sources, people do not seem to have translated those opinions into practical actions to limit their energy use in their domestic consumption, lifestyles, or travel patterns, for example. It is this apparent ‘discrepancy’ between stated beliefs (and values) and behaviour, which comprises the so-called ‘value-action gap’. Various writers have observed this in different contexts previously, as will be discussed below. In this chapter, we examine the importance of the value-action gap in relation to hydrogen energy and the emerging hydrogen economy. Qualitative and quantitative data are presented from a series of focus groups and a telephone questionnaire survey of selected samples in seven different areas of England and Wales. The chapter first gives a very brief outline of the nature of hydrogen energy and its potential uses as an innovative technology. Secondly, it reviews selected literature about public attitudes towards environmental and energy issues and the apparent valueaction gap. Findings from our recent research are then discussed. Finally, some general conclusions are offered to account for the ambivalence revealed in this case of hydrogen energy, and the disjunction between people’s awareness of an energy crisis and their reluctance to change behaviour.

The ‘value-action gap’ in public attitudes towards sustainable energy: The case of hydrogen energy

Engaging the public on paths to sustainable energy: Who has to trust whom?

Obwohl Wasserstoff schon seit langer Zeit in der Industrie genutzt wird, ist seine Verwendung als Treibstoff oder Energietrager relativ neu, und das Expertenwissen uber die damit einhergehenden Risiken ist weder vollstandig noch einhellig. Dementsprechend existiert auch wenig Wissen uber die offentliche Wahrnehmung der Wasserstoffenergie und die Einstellungen bezuglich einer moglichen kommerziellen Nutzung. Der vorliegende Artikel beginnt mit der Diskussion unterschiedlicher Risikodefinitionen. Im Anschluss werden die Streitfragen unterschiedlicher Nutzungsweisen von neuen Wasserstofftechnologien untersucht. Die unterschiedlichen Experteneinschatzungen und die Debatten uber die offentliche Risikowahrnehmung werden dargestellt und mit Vorstellungen und Debatten uber andere neue Technologien verglichen. Denn auch fur andere Technologien wie CO2-Abscheidung und Speicherung, genetisch modifizierte Organismen oder Nahrung und die Nanotechnologie besteht hohe wissenschaftliche Unsicherheit und sie werden gleichzeitig vergleichsweise wenig in der Offentlichkeit wahrgenommen. In Bezug auf den Diskurs zum offentlichen Engagement und zur offentlichen Beteiligung bei der Entwicklung neuer Technologien wird gezeigt, dass wissenschaftliche und technologische Unsicherheit in unterschiedlicher Weise wahrgenommen werden und verschiedene Interessenvertreter und Offentlichkeiten verschiedene Aspekte oder Risikotypen herausstellen. Diese grundsatzliche Problematik lasst sich kaum durch eine starkere Offentlichkeitsbeteiligung uberwinden, da die Interpretationsweisen von Risiken und Nutzen notwendigerweise in einen kulturellen und ideologischen Kontext eingebettet sind. Gleichwohl konnen sich solche Interpretationsweisen unter dem Eindruck neuer Erfahrungen auch wandeln.
URN: urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0601194

/pdf/risk-perception-of-an-emergent-technology-the-case-of-3j6xg227dd.pdf

Miriam Ricci

Papers

Bike sharing: A review of evidence on impacts and processes of implementation and operation

What do we know about public perceptions and acceptance of hydrogen? A critical review and new case study evidence

The ‘value-action gap’ in public attitudes towards sustainable energy: The case of hydrogen energy

Engaging the public on paths to sustainable energy: Who has to trust whom?

Risk Perception of an Emergent Technology: The Case of Hydrogen Energy