III: Socio-Economic Networks

Posisjon  4

III: Socio-Economic Networks

Participants:
Thomas R. Hasvold, University of Tromsø
Trond Nilsen, University of Tromsø
Ingrid M. Kielland, University of Tromsø
Jørgen Ole Bærenholdt, Roskilde University
Gunnar Thór Jóhannesson, Roskilde University

The group was formed during a workshop for the new research umbrella 'Globalization from Below? Localized Transformations in a Northern Perspective' at Roskilde University 1. - 3. December 2004. The purpose of the group is to create a platform for discussion on socio-economic networks. The group functions as a study group, and members are committed by common interests in contributing to advances within qualitative method, theoretical perspectives and to provide relevant references to literature or research regarding various approaches/aspects to the studies of socio-economic networks.

Our networks: We approach the idea of network from similar but still different approaches. In our view that can serve as a very fruitful base for discussion and cooperation. A sketch of our keywords:

Trond Nilsen is currently working on a PhD-project related to how economic networks between places and firms can contribute to explain why some firms succeed and other firms do not succeed when it comes to sub-contracting in the petroleum industry in Northern Norway. He bases his research on the Snøhvit construction outside Hammerfest, and his theoretical focus is mainly focused upon distant and mobile network relations with emphasis on how trust and reciprocity develops and how it can be maintained in these networks between global actors.

Thomas Hasvold is currently involved in a PhD-project on ICT and local development. He bases his research on case studies both on a regional level concerning strategies for the implementation of ?citizen webs? in Finland. As well as how practices at a local farm are assisted by mobile technologies. He studies networks from a Science and Technology Studies (STS) perspective, both leaning on constructivist models and Actor-Network Theory (ANT). The approach is to study ever-changing heterogeneous entities, both human and non-human in socio-technical networks.

Ingrid Kielland is developing a PhD-project on the construction of place identity and urbanity in the Circumpolar region. She wants to compare different representations or understandings of places among various groups of inhabitants with different resources and influences. She will focus on the power of definition, and the process of inclusion and exclusion inherent in urban constructions. Currently she is exploring how a network-perspective could work out as a tool for structuring a discussion on heterogeneity and negotiations of different interests and representations in Northern peripheral cities.

Gunnar Thór Johannesson is working on a PhD project about tourism development projects in the Northern periphery. The research is based on case studies of two tourism development projects in Iceland and the Faroe Islands. Both are part of a larger tourism development program called Destination Viking - Sagas and Storytelling. The research focuses on how tourism is being ordered in certain places through creation and stabilization of heterogeneous networks. Actor-Network Theory (ANT) is the central theoretical perspective used in the study.

Jørgen Ole is writing a book 'Coping with Distances, Producing Nordic Atlantic Societies' (see proposal on www.ruc.dk/inst3/geo/staff/job) inspired by new or critical mobility thinking, Actor-Network Theories among others He is also working with Tourism, Cultural Economy and Heritage.

Summary of the first group-discussion, which took place during the workshop in December 2004:
Actor-network theory was discussed as a methodology, and the central notion of translation was touched on. It stresses that network is a process or work that involves change or betrayal, but should not be understood as a pipeline that carries objects and information back and fort intact. What ANT and/or other network approaches offer is a particular perspective on the world ? a specific analytical framework. All participants stressed the importance of paying attention to the practical actions of people/actors/elements. The group was on its way to work itself through the complexity of the network concept. A door into that task was the idea of reciprocity and the possible role of reciprocity for the maintenance and understanding of networks. We also discussed network stabilization and change, maintenance of reciprocity, and power relations. Furthermore we touched on the challenges of network analysis, its limits and benefits. Other keywords for research came up, such as enactment, processes, change, power, and ways of inclusion/exclusion.

Some discussion revolved around practical things of doing research with ANT and network approaches in general. How far should we go? Is it possible to rely on some black boxes and if so, how should we choose them?

Results: So far we have begun to unpack a bundle of questions regarding networks and network approaches in research. Regarding future activities the group reached two concrete conclusions. First and most importantly: To keep on talking, personally via e-mail and also by focusing jointly on some texts. Second, we will use the GFB-seminar in Tromsø in April 2005 to continue our discussions, and if possible we will produce a paper by some or all members of the group as a result of these.