Sferguson+HASS


 * Developing sustainable technology and society: bioplastics as object conflict and alternative pathway**

Plastics are an increasingly harmful problem for both health and the environment. From accumulating waste in the oceans to toxins created during manufacturing and use of plastics there comes a growing realization that alternatives must be found and promoted. One developing alternative to petroleum based plastics is the research and development of biologically based polymers, or “bioplastics.” Groups as wide ranging as Wal-Mart, the U.S. Department of Energy and EPA, and grassroots recycling and sustainability groups have touted bioplastics as a partial solution to our oil addiction as well as an innovative solution to the harms caused by plastics in the environment. Using the case of bioplastics as an example of the "greening" of industry, this research project contributes to social scientific debates about industry change. I focus on two main areas of inquiry: the relationship between social movements and "alternative pathways" for industry and the ways in which existing institutions structure and constrain possibilities for significant change. Specifically, the proposed research will address the following questions :

1. How are environmental movements contributing to the development of bioplastics as an alternative pathway for the plastics industry?

2. How do existing institutions for disposing of waste structure and constrain the development of alternative materials for consumer products?

To answer these questions, I will analyze the interactions of social movements, research institutions, government agencies, industry groups, and consumers, as they co-evolve alternative pathways of technological change. The research design includes interviews with an array of stakeholders from dominant industries, regulatory agencies and advocacy organizations. I will collect additional data through participant observation of two advocacy groups-- the Sustainable Bioplastics Consortium and Institute for Local Self-Reliance-- in order to develop a more nuanced perspective on the interactions of these groups with industry members and research institutions. I will also analyze the policies that facilitate or constrain the development of bioplastics, focusing on the national level in the US as well as New York State. To identify the unique characteristics of US policy with respect to bioplastics, I will make a comparison to Germany’s regulatory environment and institutional formation. A final component of analysis develops from an existing and ongoing collaboration with advocates of bioplastics in New York state as they develop avenues for introducing bioplastic goods, manufacturing facilities, and feedstock and waste handling facilities. The combination of long term experiences in New York and observations with movement groups as well as a broad comparative policy analysis will enable the breadth and depth of analysis required to answer the primary questions.

__Prior Experience and Preparation__ In preparation for this research I have been in conversation with several of the faculty at RPI whom have expertise in the literature that I will contribute to as well as the methods that I intend to pursue. For the last year I have been working with Abby Kinchy and David Hess of RPI's Science and Technology Studies department on the topics of sustainability, social movements and technological change. They have guided my preparation of background literature as well as helping in the formulation of research questions from the data I have been collecting over the last year. This research and dialogue will continue through the Spring 2009 semester as well as throughout the Summer of 2009 as I construct dissertation and grant proposals. My coursework has extensively prepared me for both the ongoing development of this project as well as a broad set of analytical tools and empirical backgrounding. Relevant coursework include a semester of policy studies in science and technology, a design seminar where I performed considerable work on the designing and development of sustainable goods, two seminars on advanced research methods and project design which have proven critical to the development of this proposal as well as an NSF proposal, and a graduate seminar on discourse analysis with a focus on public policy analysis and methodological grounding. Finally, I was part of an entire graduate seminar devoted to social movements in technology and science where the final term paper was devoted to worker cooperatives and sustainable production. I also have a unique opportunity to work with members of New York government agencies and Executive Chamber as a policy research intern in Governor Patterson's Offices of Environment and Energy. This experience has already placed me in contact with interested parties at the Department of Agriculture and Markets, Empire State Development Agency and the President of Morrisville College, Raymond Cross, who has been working on developing a bioplastic industry in the state for several years. One outcome of this interaction with state officials has been a policy proposal on the possibilities of constructing a bioplastic industry in New York State with specific details on feedstock options, existing manufacturing facilities, and complexities of waste disposal for different regions of the state. These experiences along with the last 14 months worth of immersion in literature and primary documents position me as an already embedded scholar in this field. With an intellectual background in political science and biology as well as experience working in Washington, DC in an advocacy position on biotechnology regulation I have first hand experience in the complexities of navigating federal science policies and agencies. Finally, my past experiences at the University of Chicago has allowed me to develop associations with German natives who will enable a more thorough understanding of policy and cultural changes in Germany during the comparative policy analysis component of my research. __Plan of Study__ The research will develop the social, political and economic reasons for renewed attention to biobased goods as well as the pathways of innovations in the technology that were closed off or made visible over the short history of this industry. The following table includes the proposed time line for the project:



**Overview of Planned Research** __Research Objectives__ The proposed research project is primarily a study of emerging bioplastics industries through the eyes of state and national advocacy communities. There is a growing literature on the role of social movements in driving and directing changes in science, technology, and industry. This project extends the existing literature by examining conflicts among environmental movements in the promotion of the same basic goal, a sustainable society. The most recent example of this is the conflict between pro-nuclear power environmentalists and anti-nuclear environmentalists due to expanding concern over global warming. The case of bioplastics suggests that movements creating obstacles for one another could be less isolated than perceived, even as each group opposes the actions of the same group, institution or company. Conflicts are developing on many grounds, including the following:


 * Many advocates of recycling argue against the inclusion of bioplastics that could contaminate the recycling streams.
 * Those hoping to transform agriculture away from industrial forms are concerned that the desire for bioplastics will create yet more demand for cheap industrial agriculture goods.
 * Groups attempting to reform our throw-away culture are concerned that introducing a whole new class of 'green' products will enable consumers to distance themselves from their consumption and waste production.
 * Bioplastics are increasingly considered suitable for 'carbon neutral' incineration for energy. This path would position the industry in direct opposition to environmental justice groups that were original advocates to remove waste incineration and develop recycling as an alternative.

This project probes these tensions, with the aim of better understanding the possibilities and obstacles for industry change toward environmental sustainability. The broad objectives of the project are to:
 * Add to the empirical record of a developing sociotechnical field
 * Increase understanding of sustainable industry innovation by incorporating internal and external conflicts surrounding social movement interventions.
 * Introduce consumer practice into the equation of sustainability studies and STS research on sustainable design and extend the scholarship on the sociopolitical context for technology innovation.

Secondary research on the public policy formation in New York, the U.S. and Germany gives context to the landscape that these social movements must navigate. The differences and similarities between the three data sets are necessary to understand important targets of social movement intervention. Each level of analysis details how differences in public policy can shape the actions of social movements and enable greater leverage in developing alternative technological and institutional changes. To meet the above research objectives, this project is designed to answer the following questions:
 * 1) How are environmental movements contributing to the development of bioplastics as an alternative pathway for the plastics industry?
 * 2) How do existing institutions structure and constrain the development of alternative materials for consumer products?

__Intellectual Merit__ This research project contributes to social scientific debates about industry change, particularly the “greening” of industry. I focus on two main areas of inquiry: the relationship between social movements and “alternative pathways” for industry as well as the ways in which existing institutions structure and constrain possibilities for significant change.

//How are environmental movements contributing to the development of bioplastics as an alternative pathway for the plastics industry?// The importance of material changes for reconstruction of economy and technology has become increasingly important for STS and sociology (Pinch and Swedberg 2008). From this perspective, bioplastics represent a technological field under contention as well as material technologies that shape society toward different practices and pathways of development. David Hess' work on product-oriented social movements (2005)⁠ and alternative pathways {Citation}⁠ demonstrates the importance of social movements in industry change. In his explication of alternative pathways he includes two concepts as critical components of pathway formation. The first is product oriented social movements. In these fields movements target particular products that are deemed to be unsustainable or create disparities of risk. Movement participants challenge existing producers of these technologies to develop alternative variations based upon the movement goals. In this challenge there is a dialectic process where the products and industries incorporate the messages from social movements even as they resist the change due to institutional inertia. In the second case of alternative pathway formation social movements oppose outright the actions of certain industries due to democratic ideals, the production of toxins, or the unsustainable production of goods. Social movements in these cases become drivers of research and industry change that would otherwise be unlikely to occur. Because social movements develop as marginal to the institutions that they encounter, they are capable of thinking outside of the boundaries of possible pathways constructed in the norms and knowledge systems of these institutions. The proposal works within a recent tradition in STS that seeks to reconstruct technologies along lines that are more democratic, more socially just, and more ecologically sustainable (Woodhouse et al. 2002)⁠. I acknowledge and attempt to extend this tradition in arguing that redirection of technological trajectories requires a more thoroughgoing combination of mutually supportive changes than is typically encountered within social movement studies or social studies of technology. I argue that the outcome of social movements is not simply a change in material existence, but also a change in knowledge practices in broader society (Casas-Cortés, Osterweil, and Powell 2008)⁠. In a relevant instance sociological research has demonstrated the influence of environmental movements on creating institutions that manage waste in society and regulate health impacts from technologies. As was briefly mentioned above, recycling has been an important outcome of movement interventions. Lounsbury, Ventresca, and Hirsch (2003)⁠ have performed considerable research on the incorporation of environmental values into public discourse as well as institutionalization of these values into recycling and waste handling facilities. The intervention of these environmental movements forced changes in the labeling and processing of plastics, the material itself, but also how people think about their consumption and waste. In much the same way I draw out the fields of interaction surrounding bioplastics, e.g. the government agencies, agricultural extension services, university and private research, non-profit organizations, for-profit organizations, industry associations and social movement groups, which are again changing the characteristics of a class of consumer goods and as a result the sociocultural practices in society. Agendas for profitability and sustainability become entwined in the makeup of the goods as well as how these goods filter through different levels of society.

//How do existing institutions for disposing of waste structure and constrain the development of alternative materials for consumer products?// What is missing from environmental movement scholarship, and to an extent even in work on alternative pathways, is an understanding of how the translation of new forms of knowledge extending from within social movements can fall short of intentions. In the case of bioplastics the conceptions of recycling and consumption in particular settings can constrain the development of new technologies. Indeed, the success of early environmental and environmental justice movements in the construction of waste management and recycling institutions has proven problematic for advocates of bioplastics. Some recycling companies and non-profit organizations have come out against bioplastics as this technology could prove detrimental to the goals of recycling (Hook n.d.)⁠. This conflict mirrors work performed in STS on trusting science and markets to produce technological fixes for what should be complicated social problematics (Rip, Misa, and Schot 1996⁠; Sarewitz 1996). Simple interventions in producing a particular sustainable good has little success of maintaining sustainable practices if existing institutions are incapable of evolving to manage this introduction. Recent work in ecological economics attempts to consider technical trajectory formation through the lens of evolutionary processes. In particular the concept of co-evolution is useful for grasping how changes in a single technological trajectory requires associated technological networks to co-evolve in the process of incorporation. If the co-evolution is impossible then either the original technological change will be hindered or removed or the impacted institution will be confronted with irreconcilable tensions (Geels and Raven 2007).⁠ The influence of movements on technological trajectories in bioplastics can be argued to co-evolve with the consumer choices and waste processing facilities that evolve with the introduction of this new class of technology.

__Research Methodology__ //Selected Cases// This study will develop out of data collected through semistructured interviews, analysis of policy documents and participant observation in several locations in the United States and Germany. I will examine the bioplastics debate at three scales: New York State, the United States as a whole, and internationally. These sites have been selected in order to acquire a breadth of actors and networks associated with the development of bioplastics in and the agenda setting surrounding this field. The critical sites that frame the analysis are: New York's developing bioplastic community. As an intern with the Governor's office, I will continue collaborating with groups that have expressed interest in promoting bioplastics as they develop markets for these goods, determine feedstock availability, advocate for government support, and arrange a commodity chain from land to manufacturer to consumer to post-consumer management. The Institute for Local Self Reliance: Minneapolis, MN and Washington, DC. The Institute for Local Self Reliance is an advocacy based research institution that has both a sustainable plastics division as well as a carbohydrate economy division. They are one of the first and few groups with both an activist agenda and a devotion to sustainability. They are a key site for understanding the development of bioplastics because they have both state level and national level interests in bioplastics, mirroring my experiences in New York and the analysis of U.S. policy documents. The ILSR is also a long running advocate of a carbohydrate based economy, lending history to this study, as well as an initial advocate for bioplastics. These two locations will be analyzed through participant observation at the physical location as well as through interviews of members.
 * The Sustainable Biomaterials Collaborative. The Collaborative represents a wide range of stakeholders including green product businesses, social investment firms, recycling professionals, and academics, along with advocates focused on environmental health, environmental justice, or rural communities. This consortium provides a broad mix of individuals where the movement for bioplastics is developing as well as a central node in the network of groups and individuals interested in this technology. Presently there is no single physical location for the Collaborative however there are primary coordinators that shape the agenda of this group:
 * Mark Rossi, Clean Production Action (CPA, Spring Brook, NY) – Collaborative Co-Coordinator
 * Brenda Platt, Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR, Washington, DC) – Collaborative Co-Coordinator
 * Tom Lent, Healthy Building Network (HBN, Washington, DC)
 * Jim Kleinschmit, Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy (IATP, Minneapolis, MN)
 * Cathy Crumbley, Lowell Center for Sustainable Production (LCSP, University of Massachusetts-Lowell)European Union and Germany. I will be performing a public policy analysis of legislation created and pending in the EU, with a special emphasis on Germany. The EU is slowly developing guidelines for biobased goods, e.g. 7th EU Research Framework Program and Biomass Action Plan of 2005, however binding agreements and specific plans are limited. Germany's Bundestag on the other hand has made more explicit goals of promoting and regulating bioplastics through packaging legislation and changing regulations on composting in order to create transition opportunities for bioplastics. Germany has been critical further for developing certifications for biodegradability and compostability for bioplastics which are now the default certifications for Europe and other nations.
 * Further observation will occur in industry conferences and public meetings of advocate communities as the opportunities arise. Presently there exists only one international forum for bioplastic industries that is annually held in Germany. I will observe the proceedings of the European Bioplastics Conference in 2010 and any U.S. based forums as they appear. These later conferences act as contextualizing data for the interviews as participants in the meetings interact with less biasing interaction that is unavoidable in interviewing.

//Interview Data// I have structured the plan of research to allow for a breadth of interviews with participants in various positions of influence on bioplastic development and post-consumer handling of these products. The expected number of individuals I will be capable of working with within the time frame of this project is 40. Interviews will focus on the following groups:
 * Activists: This includes the activists and volunteers associated with the groups in the Sustainable Bioplastics Consortium, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, as well as the Health Building Network which is hosting the Consortium and targets consumer goods in the construction industry. These interviews represent the social movement portion of the research questions and participants will be engaged to determine both their group history as well as personal stake in this field.
 * Recycling Industry: Interviews will also take place among the Bioplastics Recycling Consortium, a predominately industry and university representative body. The members in this Consortium will be part of a set of data that engages with industry perspectives on bioplastics as well as one portion of my policy analysis. Additionally, other members of the recycling community, including the Container Recycling Institute and National Recycling Institute will provide the downstream market effects of technology introduction.
 * Government: Policy makers will be interviewed from New York as well as from suggested individuals derived from interviews with previous interlocutors in order to develop the connections between the social movements, industry representatives and government officials.
 * Bioplastic Industry: most interviewees will be drawn from the pool of members of the industry aligned Sustainable Bioplastic Consortium. The Consortium includes such diverse members as the Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers, Climate Neutral, NatureWorks LLC, Primo Water Corporation, and the U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste.

Interviews and observations will focus on the following broad questions: 1. Why is it important to find alternatives to plastics? 2. Who has and who should influence the pathways of innovation? 3. What are the most important people, institutions and actions in the making of a bioplastic industry? 4. What complications are occurring or are likely to occur as bioplastics become more prevalent? 5. How are bioplastics and sustainability conceptualized?

//Policy Formation in Context// Another method of contextualizing and orienting the analysis will be developed in a discursive public policy analysis. I will utilize the methodology explained by Frank Fischer (2003)⁠ to develop a picture of the social construction of public policy out of relevant documents and visual material from the United States and the EU, with a particular emphasis on Germany. The methodology focuses on the development of social meanings and values within the language and discourse of public policy. Agendas in this light are formed not only through the simple legislative documents or policy reports, but through the construction of forums for debate and the limitations placed on groups within these forums. The politics within the two national arenas are interesting in that both regions have promoted the formation of a bioplastic industry and yet the formulations of the technology and the handling of this technology are substantially different. Germany has become the de facto leader in European industry standards, plastic regulation, recycling industry, and bioplastic company formation. Germany via government action and industry centralization has also been the most vocal country in the the promotion of bioplastics. There exist discursive differences in Germany in that more forums exist for public involvement in the debates over regulatory changes. The differences in Germany over the U.S. experiences are important to include in this study due to the more pronounced interest in changing the consumption patterns of the population, advancing dramatic recycling measures, and embodying a more developed precautionary principle than the United State. There is a final component of this comparative analysis that has overarching possibilities for both stages of this project. Due to the institutions and culture prevalent in Germany there exists several interesting variables for bioplastic formation. On the one hand the socialist environmental policies that have shaped the nations manufacturing, recycling, composting and waste collection would seem to create limited possible avenues for bioplastic innovation in comparison to the United States deregulated markets. However, due to the passage of a packaging ordinance in Germany under the sweeping 1991 Waste Act a coalition of industry members was created to comply with a packaging "take back" clause. This coalition has worked with a variety of communities to change the technologies of packaging and recycling. Using the Waste Act and subsequent legislative and regulatory acts as a focus I will draw out the discursive politics of waste and consumption in this country. This methodology will be repeated in the United States in order to find the similarities and differences in alternative industry pathway formation. In the example of the most widely used biopolymer, polylactic acid (PLA), Germany has options of collecting for recycling, composting the product in existing industrial facilities, or incineration for energy. In the United States these options seem to be closing down in the eyes of the people I have been communicating with and many find incineration not only the most pragmatic option because of institutional limitations but also the best option due to assumed zero-emission characteristics of the product. Analyzing the existing policy documents from each region will enable a construction of how different values and institutions embedded in different cultures can shape future policy formation as well as constrain and enable future technological pathways.

__Dissemination__ The study will result in publications in major journals in the fields of STS (e.g. Social Studies of Science and Science, Technology & Human Values), journals interested in industry and technological change (e.g. Technology and Culture; Technology in Society; Industry and Innovation) as well as my Ph.D. dissertation in the STS department at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI). The study will also result in presentations at plastic industry and social science conferences as well as collaborations with social movement groups and companies interested in sustainable development during and after the project. This latter focus is to collaborate in the developing imaginaries of 'bioplastics' within the communities that are actively constructing the science and technology of this field.

__Future Research and Career Plans__ There exist several different avenues for extension of the proposed project as well as tangential interests that I intend to develop in the future. In part this project is concerned with how collective understandings of environmental degradation create opportunities for intervention in our technologically mediated futures. These interventions can develop out of social movements, however there are separate opportunities such as socially responsible investing and environmentally aligned entrepreneurs in for-profit institutions that gain credibility as needs for change mount. These and the proposal itself consider much of the front end of technology and society. As an alternative formulation of how to construct more sustainable futures and shape consumer culture I have begun work with Edward Woodhouse on integrating understanding of waste into consumer decision making and corporate practice. This extends from a democratic ideal in which collective social and environmental problems are managed by placing costs on individual decision making. In particular I have begun developing schemes for placing prices on waste, much like the work being performed on CO2 cap and trade systems, which can be integrated into markets and have a trickle up effect on reconstructing technological artifacts and institutional arrangements. As a meta-narrative that encompasses many of my interests I have been begun work on reconstructing markets and specific industries through democratically derived investment institutions that advance more sustainable and socially beneficial technologies. A panel on this topic will be presented at the International Association of Science and Technology Studies with Edward Woodhouse. My targeted career is as an academic professor. The positions I am capable of fulfilling are difficult to concretize due to the interdisciplinary nature of both my eventual degree and interests. I most properly fit into departments of public policy, STS, and sociology. This does not preclude my capabilities of working in such environments as MIT's Program in History, Anthropology, and Science, Technology, and Society. Serving in an academic position is a primary interest, however, my time in settings of policy making and advocacy have conditioned my interest in participating in these forums. In particular, the work on developing a new industry will be beneficial for both companies considering getting into a field such as bioplastic as well as governments and non-profits that are interested in promoting particular technosocial changes.

__Citations__ Casas-Cortés, María Isabel, Michal Osterweil, and Dana E. Powell. 2008. “Blurring Boundaries: Recognizing Knowledge-Practices in the Study of Social Movements..” //Anthropological Quarterly// 81:17-58.

Fischer, Frank. 2003. //Reframing public policy : discursive politics and deliberative practices//. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Hess, David. 2005. Technology- and Product-Oriented Movements: Approximating Social Movement Studies and Science and Technology Studies. //Science, Technology, & Human Values//. 30(4): 515-535.

-. 2007. //Alternative Pathways in Science and Industry.// Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hook, Brian R. n.d. “Growth of bioplastics concerns recyclers.” //AR January 2008 Recycling & Waste News//. http://www.americanrecycler.com/0108/growth.shtml (Accessed February 26, 2009).

Lounsbury, Michael. 2005. //Institutional Variation in the Evolution of Social Movements: Competing logics and the spread of recycling advocacy groups// .. In __Social Movements and Organization Theory.__ Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Woodhouse, Edward, David Hess, Steve Breyman, and Brian Martin. 2002. “Science Studies and Activism: Possibilities and Problems for Reconstructivist Agendas.” //Social Studies of Science// 32:297-319.

 S E A N M. F E R G U S O N   128 1 st St. • Troy, NY 12202 (773) 263-3721 • fergus3@rpi.edu

__**Education**__

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 2006 – present
 * PhD candidate: Science and Technology Studies
 * Areas of interest: democratic theory, alternative technologies, environmental sustainability, new institutions and economies, environmental justice, and social movements
 * Graduate Colloquium Coordinator 2008-9

Beloit College 1998-2002
 * Bachelors of Science: Political Science, Cellular and Molecular Biology
 * Political Science Thesis: Regulating Agricultural Biotechnology
 * Cellular and Molecular Biology Thesis: Visualizing Chondrogenesis through Regulatory Proteins
 * Departmental Honors and Dean’s List

__**Publications**__


 * Ab. Matteen Rafiqi, Steffen Lemke, **Sean Ferguson**, Michael Stauber, and Urs Schmidt-Ott (2008). Evolutionary origin of the amnioserosa in cyclorrhaphan flies correlates with spatial and temporal expression changes of zen. PNAS 105 (1): 234-239
 * **Sean Ferguson** and Edward Woodhouse (2008). Alternative Technology. Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy. Macmillan Reference
 * **Sean Ferguson** (2008). Science Education. Battleground: Science and Technology. Greenwood Press

__**Presentations**__ __**Affiliations**__
 * MIT Graduate Student Conference. February 21, 2009. Social Movements, Conflicts and Translation: The Case of Bioplastics.
 * International Association for Science, Technology & Society. Panels accepted. April 3, 2009.
 * "Workplace Democracy and Technological Decision Making" with Edward Woodhouse
 * "Nanotech, Science (fiction) and ethical quandaries"
 * Society for the Social Studies of Science

__**Employment**__

//Graduate Research Internship// May 2008-Present Governor’s Executive Chamber, Albany, NY
 * Office of Energy and Office of Environment

//Lab Technician// 2004-2006 University of Chicago, Chicago, IL code
 * Principle Investigator-Urs Schmidt-Ott

code