技术治理与安全感的生成：智慧养老平台的双重效应与情感悖论——基于南京F社区的混合方法研究

Technology Governance and Sense of Security: Dual Effects and Emotional Paradox of Smart Elderly Care Platforms—A Mixed-Methods Study Based on Nanjing F Community

摘要: 技术治理在养老服务领域日益普及，却在基层实践中反复引发“技术越精细、部分老年人越不安”的情感悖论。本研究以南京F社区为分析窗口，采用混合方法设计(量化N = 231；质性访谈六类行动者)，系统考察技术治理对老年人安全感的影响机制。量化分析表明，技术治理感知与安全感呈显著正相关，但分组比较显示低使用组与高使用组的安全感均显著高于中等使用组，呈现“整体正相关、局部U型分异”的非线性特征。质性分析识别出五条核心路径：规范化服务与制度信任的建立、健康监测与风险干预构成提升路径；标准模糊与分配不公、形式化服务与情感冷漠、制度断裂与记忆缺失构成削弱路径。U型分异的生成源于三重张力——标准化与个体差异、效率与情感、制度信任与人际信任——在中等使用群体中的集中汇聚。基于此，研究提出“技术–人情双轨制”作为缓解情感悖论的制度路径。本文为理解技术治理的情感后果提供了过程–结构分析框架，并为数字时代社会治理中技术理性与人文价值的平衡提供了理论参照与实践启示。

Abstract: Technology governance is prevalent in elderly care yet generates an emotional paradox: the more refined the technology, the more uneasy some older adults feel. Taking Nanjing F Community as the site, this mixed-methods study (quantitative N = 231; qualitative interviews with six actor types) examines how technology governance affects older adults’ sense of security. Quantitative analysis shows a significant positive correlation between perceived technology governance and sense of security. However, group comparisons reveal that both low- and high-use groups report higher sense of security than the medium-use group, exhibiting an “overall positive correlation with a local U-shaped pattern”. Qualitative analysis identifies five core pathways: two enhancement pathways (standardized services and institutional trust; health monitoring and risk intervention) and three weakening pathways (vagueness of standards and unfairness in distribution; formalized services and emotional indifference; institutional discontinuity and loss of institutional memory). The U-shaped pattern arises from three tensions—standardization vs. individual differences, efficiency vs. emotion, and institutional trust vs. interpersonal trust—converging in the medium-use group. The study proposes a “technology–human relations dual-track system” to alleviate the paradox. This paper offers a process-structure framework for understanding the emotional consequences of technology governance, and provides implications for balancing technological rationality and humanistic values in digital-era social governance.