This study explores building code negotiation between straw bale advocates’ ecology-oriented values and health and safety values that underlie building codes in general by focusing on how values and ethics are articulated and embodied in practice and discourse in the two states where straw bale building standards were first initiated. The local, contingent nature of interactions, grounded in particular practices, material culture, and written and visual texts in which values were embedded, coupled with organizational factors contributed to strategies for a prescriptive code in Arizona and for a performance code in New Mexico. Examination of situated practice in standards development for unconventional materials that may not fit well with practices based on conventional technologies sheds light on how norms associated with the ethics of safe building are enmeshed in existing practice where they can be taken for granted as ethical absolutes and illustrates the kinds of insights available through paying attention to ethics in practice.
Boericke, A., and B. Shapiro. 1973. Handmade houses: A guide to the woodbutcher's art. San Francisco: A&W Visual Library.
2.
Bowker, G., and S. Leigh Star. 1999. Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3.
Brown, S. D., and R. Capdevila. 1999. Perpetuum mobile: Substance, force, and the sociology of translation. In Actor network theory and after, ed. J. Law and J. Hassard, 26-50. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
4.
Brugge, D., and A. Cole. 2003. A case study of community-based participatory research ethics: The healthy public housing initiative. Science and Engineering Ethics9 (4): 485-501.
5.
Callon, M.1986. The sociology of an actor-network: The case of the electric vehicle. In Mapping the dynamics of science and technology. Sociology of science in the real world, ed. M. Callon, J. Law, and A. Rip, 72-102. London: Macmillan.
6.
Coeckelbergh, M.2006. Regulation or responsibility? Autonomy, moral imagination, and engineering. Science, Technology, & Human Values31 (3): 237-260.
7.
Eden, L.2004. Whole world on fire: Organization, knowledge, & nuclear weapons devastation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
8.
Ferguson, E.1992. Engineering and the mind's eye. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9.
Freidson, E.1986. Professional powers: A study of the institutionalization of formal knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10.
Gorman, M., M. Mehalik, and P. Werhane. 2000. Ethical and environmental challenges to engineering. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
11.
Hackett, Edward J.2002. Four observations about “six domains of research ethics.” Science and Engineering Ethics8:211-214.
12.
Haraway, D.1988. Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies14:575-600.
13.
Harris, C. E., M. S. Pritchard, and M. J. Rabins. 2000. Engineering ethics: Concepts and cases. 2nd ed.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
14.
Henderson, K.1991. Flexible sketches and inflexible data bases. Science, Technology, & Human Values16:448-473.
15.
Henderson, K.1995The political career of a prototype. Social Problems42:274-299.
16.
Henderson, K.1999. On line and on paper: Visual representations, visual culture, and computer graphics in design engineering. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17.
Hutchins, E.1995. Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18.
Keulartz, J., M. Schermer, M. Korthals, and T. Swierstra. 2004. Ethics in technological culture: A programmatic proposal for a pragmatist approach. Science, Technology, & Human Values29:3-29.
19.
Latour, B.1986. Visualization and cognition: Thinking with eyes and hands. Knowledge and Society: Studies in the Sociology of Culture Past and Present6:1-40.
20.
Latour, B.1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21.
Lave, J.1988. Cognition in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22.
Law, J.1987. Technology and heterogeneous engineering: The case of Portuguese expansion. In The social construction of technological systems, ed. W. Bijker, T. Hughes, and T. Pinch, 111-134. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23.
Mann, D.1996. The Baley pulpit. The Last Straw14:5-5.
24.
Meyers, C.2004. Institutional culture and individual behavior: Creating an ethical environment. Science and Engineering Ethics10 (2): 269-276.
25.
Myhrman, M. and J. Knox. 1993. A brief history of hay and straw as building materials. The Last Straw1 (4): 1-5, 18-19.
26.
Rosen, H., and T. Heineman. 1990. Construction specifications writing. 3rd ed.New York: John Wiley.
27.
Rudofsky, B.1964. Architecture without architects: A short introduction to non-pedigreed architecture. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
28.
Sayre, L.1996. One from the top. The Last Straw14:1-6.
29.
Steen, A., B. Steen, and D. Bainbridge. 1994. The straw bale house. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.
30.
Strang, G.1984. Straw bale studio: A cheap, sturdy structure with good thermal performance. Fine Homebuilding24 (December/January): 70-72.
31.
Suchman, L.1987. Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32.
Van de Poel, I., and A. C. van Gorp. 2006. The need for ethical reflection in engineering design: The relevence of type of design and design hierarchy. Science, Technology, & Human Values31 (3): 333-360.
33.
Vaughan, D.1997. The Challenger launch decision. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34.
Vesilind, P. A., and A. S. Gunn. 1998. Engineering, ethics and the environment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35.
Vincenti, W. G.1992. Engineering knowledge, type of design, and level of hierarchy: Further thoughts about what engineers know. In Technological development and science in the industrial age, ed. P. Kroes and M. Bakker, 17-34. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
36.
Vinck, D.2003. Everyday engineering: An ethnography of design and innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37.
Welsch, R. L.1973. Baled hay. In Shelter, 70-70. Bolinas, CA: Shelter Publications.
