NSF Award
2314791
Transportation is a central target for infrastructural development in urban contexts. Numerous factors determine whether a given form of transportation is deemed appropriate. Regulation of the transportation industry reflects incompletely overlapping priorities from individuals involved in the transportation sector, regulatory bodies, and others. This doctoral dissertation research project investigates how different cultural and regulatory contexts lead to different infrastructural outcomes in urban contexts that share the aim of becoming more modern, yet differ in the means of achieving modernization. It tests scientific cultural anthropological theories in political anthropology to understand how historical differences in cities' histories interact with overlapping goals of modernization to generate different infrastructural outcomes. The project trains a graduate student in scientific cultural anthropological theories and methods and disseminates its findings broadly to academic and non-academic audiences. <br/><br/>This comparative project helps understand the conditions that variously promote or limit the development of modernization projects in urban contexts. Specifically, it uses mixed methods, including interviews, transect rides, and document analysis to examine questions surrounding 1) how understandings of transportation infrastructure affect governance in different areas; 2) how individuals involved in the transportation sector respond to different governance structures; and 3) how individuals and officials negotiate their perspectives to determine how transportation infrastructure is ultimately shaped. It does so in contexts with different regulatory histories to understand how governance structures affect these negotiations. This doctoral dissertation research project uses a nuanced lens to shed light on how various actors with incompletely overlapping motivations negotiate infrastructural developments in modernizing cities.<br/><br/>This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.
