Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
were based on diverse sources. Overall, we found: Kunz, himself a trained techni-
cian and analytical chemist, drew upon techno-economic knowledge and episte-
mology to reason about the ideas. In detail, a variety of sources were available to
him. First and overarching, he conceptualised environmental issues based on his
professional background as well as on professional conferences and contemporary
law. Accordingly, on his wall we found a poster with an overview on legal stipula-
tions relevant to his work. Further, he also dealt with magazines, which attended
to the environment. The criteria which he used for shaping his advice fit to these
forms of knowledge: it was important (1) implicitly, that the ideas are likely to
improve the environmental situation, and explicitly that they are feasible in terms
of (2) involved technology and (3) temporal and financial implications; he also
mentioned (4) life cycle analyses. However, these criteria are all quite 'soft' and
when it came down to it; he said “After all, the corporation has to get something
out of it, i.e. it has to pay off for the corporation.” Thus, the significant question
was: is it “financially worth it”?
Kunz also had quite a bit of knowledge about the environmental situation at the
production site. Actually we can find that he seemed to take-for-granted that he
had the most complete knowledge of the environmental situation at the site (rela-
tive to others at the site). This can be seen as a doxic stance as described by
Bourdieu: this theoretical approach suggests that actors believe in the presupposi-
tions of a field and by that reproduce its social and economic conditions (Bourdieu
1990). In our case Mr. Kunz had good reasons to believe that he knew best about
conditions relevant to sustainable energy management. He already worked for
many years at the site - he was even a worker with one of the longest time spans
working there. Disposed to such a stance, it can be considered of uttermost diffi-
culty for him to
imagine
that workers may develop an idea, which has both char-
acteristics: a) environmentally useful and b) not conceptualisable within his exist-
ing frame of knowing. Furthermore, he had relations to expert-colleagues which
can be characterised by co-operation. For him, it was self-evident that together
they have the best possible knowledge of the local conditions regarding the envi-
ronment. Thus, this indicates clearly: his scheme and background of performing
knowledge fit well to the rationality of ecological modernisation as described
above.
These criteria and his background illustrate his schemes of perception. Both by
training and in his practical decision-making he used hegemonic forms of knowl-
edge: technoscience, law, seeking profit, which were shared among his colleagues
and stabilised by the corporation. This kind of knowledge should be quantifiable -
at least clearly categorisable. If it was not, this would have constituted a problem,
not only for him, but - he well knew - also for the corporation. This was the case
because his corporation tried to universalise, within its whole structure, the way
environmental management was run. Therefore, this organisational habitus (Hård
1994) shaped the practices at our BOTNACO site as well. Kunz would not have
been able to easily evade the rationality of the organisation.
When some workers did not know about the situation at the site in the manner
he deemed adequate, he conceptualised them as being not informed (case of solar
panel). This stance is structured similar to the cognitive
deficit model
discussed
Search WWH ::
Custom Search