Understanding the motivational perspectives of sustainability: A case of biogas production
Querol, Marco Pereira; Seppänen, Laura; Jackson Filho, José Marçal
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0103-6513.095212
Production, vol.25, n2, p.266-277, 2015
Abstract
Despite the importance of the expectations and visions of the actors involved in sustainable innovations, only the societal, motivational perspective is usually considered. The fact that local actors may have different multimotivations is typically overlooked. The aim of this study is to examine and understand the multi-motivational perspectives in a sustainable production project. First, we introduce the concept of the object and analyze the case of a biogas production project as a mediating activity for making swine production more sustainable. We argue that the object of the activity, as manifested in motivational perspectives, shapes the way in which biogas production (BP) systems are implemented. The article concludes by discussing how the concept of object can be used to explore the actual and future possibilities of using artifacts for increasing the sustainability of production.
Keywords
Sustainable innovation. Swine production. Activity theory. Motivation. Object of activity.
References
Brown, H. S., Vergragt, P., Green, K., & Berchicci, L. (2003). Learning for sustainability transition through bounded socio-technical experiments in personal mobility. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 15(3), 291-315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080 /09537320310001601496
Brown, H. S., & Vergragt, P. J. (2008). Bounded socio- technical experiments as agents of systemic change: the case of a zero-energy residential building. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75, 107-130. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2006.05.014
Béguin, P. (2003). Design as a mutual learning process between users and designers. Interacting with Computers, 15(5), 709-730. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0953-5438(03)00060-2
Béguin, P. (2008). Argumentos para uma abordagem dialógica da inovação. Laboreal, 4(2), 72-82.
Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., Pinch, T., & Douglas, D. G. (2012). The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge: MIT press.
Bucciarelli, L. L. (2002). Between thought and object in engineering design. Design Studies, 23, 219-231. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00035-7
Clot, Y. (2009). Clinic of activity: the dialogue as an instrument. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels & K. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Learning and Expanding with Activity Theory (pp. 286-302). Cambrigde: Cambridge University Press.
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural Psychology: A Once and Future Discipline. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by Expanding: An Activity Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Helsinki: Orienta Konsultit Oy.
Engström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: towards an activity-theorectical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/13639080020028747
Feenberg, A. (1991). Critical theory of technology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goodman, D. E., Sorj, B., & Wilkinson, J. (1985). Agroindústria, políticas públicas e estruturas sociais rurais: Análises recentes sobre a agricultura brasileira. Revista de Economia Política, 5(4), 31-55.
Guérin, F., Laville, A., Daniellou, F., Duraffourg, J., & Kerguelen, A. (2004). Compreender o trabalho para transformá-lo: A prática da Ergonomia. São Paulo: Edgard Blücher.
Holland, D., & Reeves, J. R. (1994). Activity theory and the view from somewhere: team perspectives on the intellectual work of programming. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human- Computer Interaction (pp. 257-281). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Kaptelinin, V., & Miettinen, R. (2005). Introduction: perspectives on the object of activity. Mind, Culture and Activity, 12(1), 1-3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/ s15327884mca1201_1
Kroes, P. (2002). Design methodology and the nature of technical artifacts. Design Studies, 23, 287-302. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00039-4
Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity Theory as a Potential Framework for Human-Computer Interaction Research. In: B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and Consciousness (pp. 17-44). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, Consciousness and Personality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Leontiev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the Development of the Mind. Moscow: Progress.
Marx, K. (1992). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy (Vol. 1). London: Penguin Books.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Row.
Miettinen, R. (1998). Object construction and networks in research work: the case of research on cellulose-degrading enzymes. Social Studies of Science, 28(3), 423-463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030631298028003003
Miettinen, R. (2005). Object of activity and individual motivation. Mind, Culture and Activity, 12(1), 52-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca1201_5
Owen, C., Béguin, P., & Wackers, G. (Eds.). (2009). Risky Work ... Reappraising Human Work Within Fallible Systems. (pp. 99-103). Farnham: Ashgate.
Pereira-Querol, M. A. (2011). Learning Challenges in Biogas Production for Sustainability. Helsinki: Institute of Behavioural Science.
Pereira-Querol, M. A., & Seppänen, M. (2012). Finding disturbances in on-farm biogas production. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 41, 81-88.
Raven, R. P. J. M., & Geels, F. W. (2010). Socio-cognitive evolution in niche development: Comparative analysis of biogas development in Denmark and the Netherlands (1973-2004). Technovation, 30(2), 87-99. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.technovation.2009.08.006
Roth, W. M. (2007). On mediation: towards a cultural- historical understanding. Theory & Psychology, 17, 655- 680. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959354307081622
Sannino, A. (2011). Activity theory as an activist and interventionist theory. Theory & Psychology 21(5), 571- 597. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959354311417485
Stetsenko, A. P. (1995). The role of the principle of object- relatedness in the theory of activity. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 33(6), 54-69. http:// dx.doi.org/10.2753/RPO1061-0405330654
Van Mierlo, B., Leeuwis, C., Smits, R., & Klein Woolthuis, R. (2010) Learning towards system innovation: evaluating a systemic instrument. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(2), 318-334. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.techfore.2009.08.004
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Process. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Yapp, J., & Rijk, A. (2005). CDM Potential for the Commercialization of the Integrated Biogas System. Bristol: Caleb Management Service.
Brown, H. S., & Vergragt, P. J. (2008). Bounded socio- technical experiments as agents of systemic change: the case of a zero-energy residential building. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75, 107-130. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2006.05.014
Béguin, P. (2003). Design as a mutual learning process between users and designers. Interacting with Computers, 15(5), 709-730. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0953-5438(03)00060-2
Béguin, P. (2008). Argumentos para uma abordagem dialógica da inovação. Laboreal, 4(2), 72-82.
Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., Pinch, T., & Douglas, D. G. (2012). The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge: MIT press.
Bucciarelli, L. L. (2002). Between thought and object in engineering design. Design Studies, 23, 219-231. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00035-7
Clot, Y. (2009). Clinic of activity: the dialogue as an instrument. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels & K. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Learning and Expanding with Activity Theory (pp. 286-302). Cambrigde: Cambridge University Press.
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural Psychology: A Once and Future Discipline. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by Expanding: An Activity Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Helsinki: Orienta Konsultit Oy.
Engström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: towards an activity-theorectical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/13639080020028747
Feenberg, A. (1991). Critical theory of technology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goodman, D. E., Sorj, B., & Wilkinson, J. (1985). Agroindústria, políticas públicas e estruturas sociais rurais: Análises recentes sobre a agricultura brasileira. Revista de Economia Política, 5(4), 31-55.
Guérin, F., Laville, A., Daniellou, F., Duraffourg, J., & Kerguelen, A. (2004). Compreender o trabalho para transformá-lo: A prática da Ergonomia. São Paulo: Edgard Blücher.
Holland, D., & Reeves, J. R. (1994). Activity theory and the view from somewhere: team perspectives on the intellectual work of programming. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human- Computer Interaction (pp. 257-281). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Kaptelinin, V., & Miettinen, R. (2005). Introduction: perspectives on the object of activity. Mind, Culture and Activity, 12(1), 1-3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/ s15327884mca1201_1
Kroes, P. (2002). Design methodology and the nature of technical artifacts. Design Studies, 23, 287-302. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00039-4
Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity Theory as a Potential Framework for Human-Computer Interaction Research. In: B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and Consciousness (pp. 17-44). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, Consciousness and Personality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Leontiev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the Development of the Mind. Moscow: Progress.
Marx, K. (1992). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy (Vol. 1). London: Penguin Books.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Row.
Miettinen, R. (1998). Object construction and networks in research work: the case of research on cellulose-degrading enzymes. Social Studies of Science, 28(3), 423-463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030631298028003003
Miettinen, R. (2005). Object of activity and individual motivation. Mind, Culture and Activity, 12(1), 52-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca1201_5
Owen, C., Béguin, P., & Wackers, G. (Eds.). (2009). Risky Work ... Reappraising Human Work Within Fallible Systems. (pp. 99-103). Farnham: Ashgate.
Pereira-Querol, M. A. (2011). Learning Challenges in Biogas Production for Sustainability. Helsinki: Institute of Behavioural Science.
Pereira-Querol, M. A., & Seppänen, M. (2012). Finding disturbances in on-farm biogas production. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 41, 81-88.
Raven, R. P. J. M., & Geels, F. W. (2010). Socio-cognitive evolution in niche development: Comparative analysis of biogas development in Denmark and the Netherlands (1973-2004). Technovation, 30(2), 87-99. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.technovation.2009.08.006
Roth, W. M. (2007). On mediation: towards a cultural- historical understanding. Theory & Psychology, 17, 655- 680. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959354307081622
Sannino, A. (2011). Activity theory as an activist and interventionist theory. Theory & Psychology 21(5), 571- 597. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959354311417485
Stetsenko, A. P. (1995). The role of the principle of object- relatedness in the theory of activity. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 33(6), 54-69. http:// dx.doi.org/10.2753/RPO1061-0405330654
Van Mierlo, B., Leeuwis, C., Smits, R., & Klein Woolthuis, R. (2010) Learning towards system innovation: evaluating a systemic instrument. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(2), 318-334. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.techfore.2009.08.004
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Process. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Yapp, J., & Rijk, A. (2005). CDM Potential for the Commercialization of the Integrated Biogas System. Bristol: Caleb Management Service.
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
CiteULike
Reddit
Email