Technological solution for vulnerable communities: Questioning the sustainability of Appropriate Technology

Vulnerability eradication has become an emerging concern in today's society following the increasing uncertainties in achieving societal resilience, particularly in vulnerable communities. Furthermore, incorporating technological solution, especially appropriate technology (AT), into such concern requires interdisciplinary understandings to achieve a holistic eradication based on the particularities of each community. This study aims to briefly reveal existing scholarly discourses and investigate potential gap(s) between previous researches. Literatures, particularly consisting meta-analysis on previous scholarly discussions, are surveyed. The findings reveal three progress among scientific discourses. The first one is the paradigm shift of developmental purposes from typical development to empowerment. Next, concerns in technology development indicate the parallel movement toward empowerment. Then, previous methodological developments, including approach in sustaining AT, indicate the needs to assess the future based on sustainability. Therefore, a new research is proposed to develop an assessment framework on AT for vulnerability eradication on the basis of empowerment paradigm, extended focuses in technology development, and extended coverage of future changes in dynamic matter. The framework needs to be developed based on the combination of positivist-deductive-qualitative research paradigms. This is intended to generalize the framework for being used in different cases, to build an applicative framework as an integral part of existing body of knowledge, and to develop an enriched and flexible construction of framework. Looking at existing researches, this brief study proposes insights to move scientific progress toward a more holistic vulnerability eradication using AT solution both in conceptual and practical levels.

[1]  Roger Few,et al.  Flooding, vulnerability and coping strategies: local responses to a global threat , 2003 .

[2]  Joel T. Heinen,et al.  Emerging, diverging and converging paradigms on sustainable development , 1994 .

[3]  A. Bagheri,et al.  Navigating towards sustainable development: A system dynamics approach , 2006 .

[4]  Design for environment , 2013 .

[5]  Holger Meinke,et al.  Assessing the sustainability of wheat-based cropping systems using simulation modelling: sustainability = 42? , 2013, Sustainability Science.

[6]  Gatot Yudoko,et al.  Seven Pillars of Survivability: Appropriate Technology with a Human Face , 2013 .

[7]  Ali Bagheri,et al.  Planning for sustainable development: a paradigm shift towards a process-based approach , 2007 .

[8]  Jeremy Holland,et al.  From analysis to implementation , 2020, Multi-dimensional Review of Viet Nam.

[9]  M.R.M. Crul,et al.  Design for Sustainability: Current Trends in Sustainable Product Design and Development , 2009 .

[10]  Barry Richmond,et al.  Systems thinking: critical thinking skills for the 1990s and beyond , 1993 .

[11]  Gatot Yudoko,et al.  Design Methodology for Appropriate Technology: Engineering as if People Mattered , 2013 .

[12]  K. Francis,et al.  The Development of Constructivist Grounded Theory , 2006 .

[13]  zahra DR.hosseinigolafshani,et al.  Theory Construction and Model Building Skills , 2014 .

[14]  L. Alessa,et al.  Timescapes of Community Resilience and Vulnerability in the Circumpolar North , 2004 .

[15]  Joanneke Kruijsen,et al.  Interface between appropriate technology and sustainable energy policy in vulnerable societies , 2014 .

[16]  Robin M. Leichenko,et al.  The Dynamics of Rural Vulnerability to Global Change: The Case of southern Africa , 2002 .

[17]  Amy Luers,et al.  Illustrating the coupled human–environment system for vulnerability analysis: Three case studies , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[18]  W. Neuman,et al.  Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches , 2002 .

[19]  F. Schrag,et al.  In Defense of Positivist Research Paradigms , 1992 .

[20]  R. Kasperson,et al.  A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[21]  W. L. Shirley,et al.  Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards , 2003 .

[22]  J. Haase,et al.  Reconciling Paradigm Assumptions of Qualitative and Quantitative Research , 1988, Western journal of nursing research.