Article

The complexity of innovation:A relational turn

Arnt FlysandUniversity of Bergen, Norway

Stig-Erik JakobsenUniversity of Oslo, Norway

AbstractRecent contributions within the system of innovation approach are marked by an instrumentalism that viewsinnovation as a predictable and standardized process that in most aspects counters theories and empiricalobservations stressing the multilevel, spontaneous and complex features of innovation. Informed by therelational turn within economic geography this paper develops an alternative analytical framework. Wedo this stepwise: first, by elaborating on how innovation was originally defined within the systems ofinnovation approach; second, by outlining a relational based analytical framework based on the concept ofsocial fields; and, finally, by demonstrating how it has been applied.

Keywordsinformal knowledge, innovations, relational turn, rules of conduct, social fields

I Introduction

Liberalization of trade and financial markets,

together with technological advances (particu-

larly in information and communications tech-

nology) have reduced geographical and other

barriers previously protecting domestic industries

against international trade competition. Firms

must continually innovate to compete beyond

regional borders in this new global reality. The

development of new knowledge, new ways of

doing things and new products have been por-

trayed as the key factors in improving global

competitiveness for business sectors, places and

regions.

Several approaches, based on studies that

range from applying the evolutionary ideas of

Schumpeter (Fagerberg, 2003) to recent contribu-

tions building on ideas of complexity thinking

(Fonseca, 2002; Martin and Sunley, 2007), have

been developed to understand why and how

innovation does (or does not) occur. Much of the

writing has been on the systems of innovation

approach (Cooke, 2001; Edquist, 1997; Lundvall,

1992). This approach attained a hegemonic posi-

tion within the innovation literature during the

1990s and 2000s. However, it has fostered a

instrumentalism that views innovation as a pre-

dictable and standardized process that in most

aspects counters theories and empirical observa-

tions stressing the multilevel, spontaneous and

complex features of innovation. Several best

Corresponding author:Arnt Flysand, Department of Geography, University ofBergen, Fosswinckelsgt 6, N-5020 Bergen, NorwayEmail: arnt.floysand@geog.uib.no

Progress in Human Geography35(3) 328344

The Author(s) 2010Reprints and permission:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav10.1177/0309132510376257

phg.sagepub.com

328

innovation practice models have been developed,

informed by empirical evidence from hot spots

within the economy, making them less repre-

sentative of innovation practice within the new

multidimensional global economy. Strong lin-

kages between policy and research practice also

seems to favour quick fixes and guidelines

anticipating that innovation practice can be

replicated and diffused as blueprints regardless

of the empirical context. Therefore, the aim

of this paper is to develop an alternative analytical

framework emphasizing innovation as a rela-

tional phenomenon.

To think of innovation practice as relational

involves focusing on networks of actors, the

flow of knowledge and assets within these

networks, and the interconnectivity of various

networks. It also involves acknowledging hege-

monic positions of certain actors within these

networks. The first publications on the innova-

tion system approach strongly advocated such

an approach. They argued for an understanding

of innovation as a dynamic, open and interactive

process that focused on learning and networking

(Lundvall, 1992). Ironically, with the develop-

ment of strong linkages between research and

policy, the approach has been reconstructed as a

standardized model for best innovation practice

and used instrumentally for adjusting system fail-

ures within national, regional and even local inno-

vation systems (see, for instance, Enright, 2003;

Ffowcs-Williams, 2004; Solvell et al., 2003).

Some studies have warned against this prac-

tice because it presupposes the innovation

process to be a phenomenon that can be con-

trolled and guided (Balzat and Hanusch,

2004; Lundvall, 2007). Second, it very often

presupposes a geographical co-location of a

comprehensive business milieu and an advan-

ced knowledge infrastructure of universities

and research institutions that are essential for

innovation (Cooke et al., 2004). This presuppo-

sition rules out most rural contexts where

certainly innovation can also be observed.

Third, this practice seems to foster innovation

policies prioritizing formal know why knowl-

edge above contextual and informal know

what/who/when/where and how knowledge,

ignoring the claim that a combination of both

types of knowledge gives firms a competitive

edge in the market (Howells, 2002; Jensen

et al., 2007; Lundvall, 1992).

We argue that a spatial- and context-sensitive

relational turn is needed to avoid such contra-

dictions. Within the relational turn literature in

economic geography, economic practice is seen

as an action with many goals, from meeting

material needs and making profits, to seeking

symbolic satisfaction, pleasure and power

(Amin and Thrift, 2007; Yeung, 2005). How-

ever, it has not yet fostered a comprehensive and

well-defined analytical framework that is ready

for application in studies of innovation (Bathelt

and Gluckler, 2003). As such, it has been accused

of lacking analytical guidelines (Sunley, 2008).

We endorse this criticism.

The essence of our analytical framework is

the concept of social field, capturing both the

interconnectivity and the time-spatial context

of innovation practice. Actors of all kinds, eco-

nomic actors included, operate in time-space

systems of more or less interrelated, but observa-

ble social fields ie, dense patterns of social

relations, marked by a particular time-spatial

scale and knowledge production that constrains

and enables the agency of actors. Some social

fields may be local, while others may cut across

geographical boundaries of clusters, regions and

nations. Practices in such fields are guided by

field-specific knowledge production that con-

cerns both formal and informal knowledge,

ranging from rules of conduct and conventions

to discourses and narratives that may or may not

sustain innovation practice. In a globalized set-

ting, actors participate in several overlapping

and interlinked social fields of different scales,

with different types of actors, knowledge and

rules of conduct. This implies that innovation

practices are multifield based, but normally with

some sort of field hegemony.

Flysand and Jakobsen 329

329

The lesson learned from such a relational turn

is that innovation studies are not a question of a

theory restricted to a limited part of reality. On

the contrary, they are about three different

things. First, innovation studies represent theore-

tical approaches thought to have a broad scope;

therefore, they have to be fairly abstract. Second,

they represent an empirical programme in diver-

gent spatial environments and timescales. Third,

studies of innovation start to represent political

ideologies when theories and empirical findings

are implemented in policy strategies.

II Going back to the roots

Our search for a relational understanding of

innovation echoes earlier arguments of Karl

Polanyi, Mark Granovetter, Torstein Hagerstrand

and Bengt Ake Lundvall. Polanyi (1944) demon-

strated that economic exchange relations were

enmeshed in culture. It is obvious that Polanyis

three systems of exchange reciprocal, redistri-

butive and market exchange correspond well

with arguments within the relational turn that eco-

nomic relations are based on some kind of shared

knowledge such as rules of conduct, conventions

and discourses. Second, the focus on social

aspects within innovation theory is closely

aligned with Granovetters (1985) ideas of con-

textualizing all (economic) behaviour within sys-

tems of social relations. His intention was to

avoid both the undersocialized view of eco-

nomic action in neoclassical economics and the

oversocialized views of classical sociology.

Neither Polanyi nor Granovetter paid attention

to how territorial space affected economic

action. An early interest in spatial positioning

of economic action can be linked to Hager-

strands time-geography that dealt with how

territorial time-space explains action (Hager-

strand, 1970). Hagerstrand was concerned to

map the time-spatial dimensions of action by

transforming action into a geometrical form

(Hagerstrand, 1970). However, this time-

geography was accused of failing to integrate

institutional conditions.

Much of the innovation literature has been

linked to the systems of innovation approach

pioneered especially by Bengt Ake Lundvall

(1992).1 Lundvall argued for an understanding

of innovation as an open and dynamic process

marked by a certain uncertainty: in practically

all parts of the economy, and at all times, we

expect to find ongoing processes of learning,

searching and exploring, which result in new

products, new techniques, new forms of organi-

zation and new markets (p. 8). Innovation

appears not as a single event, but rather as an

interactive process, involving networking,

learning and feedback loops among various

types of actors such as firms, research and devel-

opment institutions, political authorities, and

training centres. Lundvall also claimed that the

process of innovation is uncertain and disrup-

tive. He stressed how research and innovation

from time to time produces results which were

neither anticipated nor looked for (p. 12). This

view on innovation as an interacting process

highlights the complexity of systems of innova-

tion. The boundaries of a system of innovation

cannot be sharply determined. The distinctions

among local, regional, national and even inter-

national systems of innovation will be blurred

and overlapping: a definition of the system of

innovation must, to a certain degree, be kept

open and flexible regarding which subsystems

should be included and which processes should

be studied (p. 13).

Regardless of any uncertainties over the

results of innovation processes, some guidelines

are arguably relevant to organizing the innova-

tion processes in firms and creating a well-

functioning innovation system. The literature

on regional innovation systems (RIS) exempli-

fies this through models and guidelines (Cooke,

2001; Todtling and Trippl, 2005). However,

implementation of the systems of innovation

approach in an empirical programme seems to

have altered the original definition of innovation

330 Progress in Human Geography 35(3)

330

as a dynamic and complex process marked by

uncertainty, towards an understanding of inno-

vation as a predictable and standardized process.

Best-practice innovation studies have been

developed that combine concepts from the sys-

tems of innovation approach and the terminology

of corporate benchmarking and policy-making

(Balzat and Hanusch, 2004).2 Benchmarking

within these studies usually follows a two-step

procedure. First, various indicators for innova-

tion and best practices are identified among the

systems that are being analysed. Second, based

on the results of these studies, policy recommen-

dations are developed, more or less regardless

of the dissimilarities between the various

contexts that have been studied (Enright, 2003;

Polt et al., 2001; Solvell et al., 2003). These

best-practice studies have also resulted in the

development of more standardized indicators for

innovation. Furman et al. (2002), for example,

have developed the concept of national innova-

tion capacity, referring to a systems ability to

produce and commercialize new technologies,

the strength of the formal innovation infrastruc-

ture (such as research and education), the

strength of the industry sectors, and linkages

between research institutions and industry. This

concept has been applied by Porter and Stern

(2002). Several stage or phase models for inno-

vation systems or clusters have also been devel-

oped, whereby a system is anticipated to move

from one clearly defined phase to the next,

either as a consequence of the dynamics of the

system, or as a result of facilitation provided

by political authorities (Ffowcs-Williams,

2004). This development implies that perfor-

mance comparisons across systems have gradu-

ally moved towards the centre of attention,

while less importance has been given to the con-

sideration of systemic dissimilarities (Balzat

and Hanusch, 2004: 198). Lundvall (2007) has

warned against this development, and stated that

policy-makers have interpreted the innovation

system in a mechanistic and functionalistic way,

with an assumption that such a system can be

constructed, governed and manipulated. This

is supported by de Bruijn and Lagendijk

(2005: 1155) stating that models for innova-

tions, such as RIS, has been transformed into

a kind of ideal model applicable to all regions,

including less successful regions. Uyarra

(2010) suggests a need to be cautious about

reproducing such ideal models, addressing the

need for more context-sensitive models.

Treating Polanyi, Granovetter, Hagerstrand

and Lundvall collectively, we argue that there

is a need for an empirical programme that, con-

trary to best-practice studies within the systems

of innovation approach, highlights the interplay

of innovations with their cultural, social and ter-

ritorial contexts. A precondition of this

argument is that innovations are unpredictable

and that they should be treated as part of a polit-

ically constructed and dynamic process

enmeshed in relational time-spatial contexts. In

recent studies of innovation within relational

economic geography, such cultural, social and

territorial aspects have been approached in par-

ticular through a revised understanding of the

concept of embeddedness defined by Hess

(2004) to evolve around territorial, societal and

network embeddedness. Different forms of

embeddedness are seen as overlapping relational

phenomena combining to constitute the space-

time context that is constraining and enabling

economic innovation. Paraphrasing Yeung, who

argues for a time-spatial approach that is scale-,

social- and knowledge-sensitive and that avoids

a static view of agency, we must steer the field

towards an ontological turn in which dynamic

and heterogeneous relations among actors are

conceptualized as constituting the essential

foundations of socio-spatial existence (cited in

Hess, 2004: 178). We will follow these lines of

thought by arguing for a relational turn in studies

of innovation based on the concept of social

field. The novelty of our approach is not the cel-

ebration of cultural, social or territorial spaces,

but the aspirations of building a relational

approach integrating the cultural, social and

Flysand and Jakobsen 331

331

territorial aspects of economic interaction into

one analytical concept.

III Towards a relationalframework

1 Social fields or networks?

A relational turn implies a broadening of the

content of studies of economic practice by

including the social position of actors and their

various network relations on different and over-

lapping spatial scales. Recent contributions

within the economic geography literature repre-

sent an intention to develop a more context- and

process-sensitive understanding of innovation

(Bathelt and Gluckler, 2003; Storper, 1997;

Yeung, 2005). In these studies, it is argued that

the innovative success of one firm or a local

milieu cannot be explained by referring to their

internal capabilities or their ability to copy the

successes of other firms. Instead, innovative suc-

cess needs to be explained by performance in

relation to other firms and network ie, their

relational position in networks (Yeung, 2005).

Such positions can range from hegemonic to

subservient. Second, it is argued that networks

are not static and fixed in time and space, but

constantly changing and multispatial. Third, for-

mal and informal knowledge in business and

social relations are overlapping phenomena.

Innovation strategies of firms are seen not only

as being influenced by the market situation,

political regulations and the strategies of rivals,

but also as having historical legacies and cultu-

rally informed discourses, narratives and rules

of conduct produced within the social context

of where the innovations arise.

Different concepts have been used to describe

such relational time-spatial interaction systems.

Grnhaug (1974, 1978) introduced the concept

of a social field, defined as a relatively bounded

interconnexion system of social relations

stretched out in socio-space (Grnhaug, 1978:

118). A social field is an empirical phenomenon

that is identified by examining the persistence of

relationships between actors and the specific

knowledge production that is completed through

associated practices. The main theorem is that

actors of all kinds, economic actors included,

operate in time-spatial systems of more or less

interrelated, but observable social fields ie,

dense patterns of social relations, marked by a

particular time-spatial scale and knowledge pro-

duction that both constrains and enables the

agency of actors. Some social fields may be

local, while others may cut across geographical

boundaries of clusters, regions and nations.

The analytical framework based on the con-

cept of social field may appear similar to

network theory for analysing industries. Nohria

and Eccles (1992) define the network concept

as a set of nodes (e.g., persons, organizations)

linked by a set of social relationships (e.g.,

friendship, transfer of funds, overlapping mem-

bership) of a specified type (Laumann et al.,

1978: 458). This way of treating social relations

in network theory overlaps with the social field

approach in many respects. Both approaches

focus on the structure and the form of social

relations (networks/social fields) and on how

social relations constrain and, in turn, shape the

actions of organizations/individuals. In a simi-

lar way, the conceptual underpinnings of these

approaches also stress the social and cultural

complexity of social relations and the overlap-

ping characteristics of networks/social fields.

The main difference between the network con-

cept and the concept of social fields is that the

latter pays attention to the time-spatial scale of

social relations emphasizing their historical

and geographical scope. This brings it more

into line with the relational turn within eco-

nomic geography, which stresses the impor-

tance of space-time contexts in constraining

and enabling economic innovation, as well as

other related concepts paying specific attention

to time-spatial aspects. DiMaggio and Powell

(1991), for instance, apply the concept of an

organizational field consisting of those orga-

nizations that, in the aggregate, constitute a

332 Progress in Human Geography 35(3)

332

recognized area of institutional life: key sup-

pliers, resource and product consumers,

regulatory agencies, and other organizations

that produce similar service or products

(DiMaggio and Powell, 1991: 64). In line with

this, Scott (1995: 56) states, The notion of

field connotes the existence of a community

that partakes of a common meaning system and

whose participants interact more frequently

and fatefully with one another than with actors

outside of the field. Within economic geogra-

phy, the concept of community of practice has

attracted much attention (Amin and Roberts,

2008), referring to systems of relationships

among people, activities, and the world; devel-

oping with time, and in relations to other tan-

gential and overlapping communities of

practice (Lave and Wenger, 1991: 98).

There are several similarities between these

different concepts. Still, we find the social field

approach more elastic in the way it deals with

social practice and tacit knowledge in terms of

informal rules of conduct. The homogenization

of practice is pivotal within the concept of orga-

nizational field (DiMaggio and Powell, 1991),

while the concept of communities of practice has

been criticized for placing too much emphasis

on community (Amin and Roberts, 2008). The

concept of social field allows for a stronger

focus on the structure-agency dynamics that

constitute innovation. It also allows for a stron-

ger confrontation with the complexity of man-

agerial and organizational practices.

2 Social fields: social practice, (tacit)knowledge and scale

As a starting point, we define social practice in

social fields as interaction between two or more

actors that is characterized by overlapping

processes of transaction and signification or

interchange of goods and signs. Recalling the

exchange systems of Polanyi, interaction has to

be based on particular knowledge of what is

appropriate role conduct, or on knowledge that

regulates how processes of transaction of goods

should take place. The purpose of an interchange

of goods and signs in a social field can, for

example, be to confirm the actors identity (gen-

der, place, profession, etc), his/her position

(social, political, economic, etc) in a firm, place

and society, and how far he/she is motivated by

the pursuit of economic profit. We argue that

such intersubjective knowledge is produced by

practices within social fields that are often only

tacitly realized in the doing of economic activ-

ities. In summary, interactions in social fields are

guided by field-specific knowledge production

that concerns both formal and informal knowl-

edge ranging from rules of conduct and conven-

tions to discourses and narratives that may or

may not guide innovation practice. Accordingly,

tacit knowledge becomes central to interpreta-

tions of processes of interaction in social fields.

From the literature on innovations, we know

that (tacit) knowledge both constrains and

enables innovation. The production of informal

rules of conduct provides one example. Social

actors operate in status combinations, in which

they construct, maintain and change the pro-

cesses of interaction in line with the role conduct

they can legitimate in a given field. A status is a

social position of rights and duties that function

as incentives and limitations on role conduct

(Linton, 1936). This means that for a global sta-

tus combination, such as employer-employee,

there exist social roles that are legitimated

through the particular expectations of role con-

duct in a social field. Such informal rules may

include shared expectations in a community

field about firm management. Managers of firms

may consider the needs of the community in

developing their firm strategy, even if this

reduces profit. Such knowledge is often central

to the innovation capacity of a firm or industrial

milieu. It may play a key role in determining

what actions are appropriate, who is a legitimate

participant in practice, and to what degree

norms, routines and conventions can be differen-

tially interpreted, transformed or ignored. The

Flysand and Jakobsen 333

333

scale of a social field is empirically defined by

referring to the number of actors, their relations

in a particular social field, and how these rela-

tions are distributed in time and space. Some

fields may be local, while others have a wider

sociospatial scale. Interaction in given social

relations turns into a social field only when a pat-

tern of interaction has the strength to influence

the social formation of the actors and society

as a whole (Grnhaug, 1978). Thus, only reper-

cussive interaction of a certain historic duration

results in construction of social fields.

The social field concept reflects a system idea

(Grnhaug, 1978). For example, an approach

based on the concept of social fields implies

that economic actors simultaneously take part

in various fields (family relations, community

relations, economic relations, political relations,

etc) on different scales. In a globalized setting,

actors participate in several social fields of

different scale and with different types of actors,

knowledge and rules of conduct, all of which are

to varying degrees connected. This normally

implies that innovation practice is multifield

based. Some innovations may be embedded in

local social fields constituted by local specia-

lized suppliers, while others depend on global

fields of customers and non-specialized

suppliers.

The final step concerns the question of power

and hegemony. In a system of social fields each

field is in itself a system of dominating and dom-

inated elements, but the more complex question

concerns the relative dominance of one (or

more) of the several fields comprising society

(Grnhaug, 1978: 119). Thus, power is related

to how actors are empowered and disempowered

in a particular field and to the processes and

events that make some fields in a field system

more hegemonic than others. In the former case,

it becomes a question of who is determining the

formal and informal knowledge production and

interaction in a field. In the latter case, power

is related to how particular social fields are inter-

related and how practice in a particular field

guides the flow of knowledge and material

resources in a field system. There is an agree-

ment in the literature that innovation processes

in firms are based on knowledge sources and

(power) linkages from both intrafirm and extra-

firm dynamics at both local and global levels.

Hence, both intrafield and interfield power

dynamics are of interest for innovation studies.

In our studies, we have been focusing on inter-

field power dynamics. Globalization very often

implies a fragmentation of established territorial

patterns of relations (Giddens, 1991). The result

is a form of recasting of socio-economic

processes both upwards and downwards in

a scale that enables the development of new

dominant modes of organizing and new dominant

spatial patterns of relations (Jakobsen et al., 2009;

Swyngedouw, 2004). In the case of innovations,

they may be embedded in global fields that leave

little room for establishing relations with local

fields, or rooted in local fields as argued in much

of cluster theory.

3 Social field systems in timesof globalization

At present, globalization in terms of time-

space compression interferes with develop-

ment through multifield processes of integration.

The global economy is characterized by a grow-

ing organizational and geographical complexity

(Coe et al., 2008). We would expect that actors

are becoming more integrated in wider time-

spaces than before, or that social practice takes

place in social fields on a wider sociospatial

scale. We would also expect increasing numbers

of linkages in an actors field systems, because

time-space compression implies involvement

in a greater number of overlapping fields. Some

of the generic features of such complex social

field structures in a globalizing economy would

be openness (it is difficult to determine the

boundaries of the system), non-linear dynamics

(various complex feedback and mutually self-

reinforcing interactions among participants) and

334 Progress in Human Geography 35(3)

334

self-organization (some of the dynamics of the

social field system emerge spontaneously and

in a disruptive way) (Martin and Sunley, 2007).

Figure 1 illustrates the difference between a

simple social field structure and a complex

social field structure. Each dot in the figure

represents an actor. The ellipses indicate

social fields of different scale. In a complex

social field situation, actors participate in

several social fields of different scale and

with different types of actors, knowledge and

rules of conduct, that to varying degrees are

connected. The illustrations in Figure 1 should

not be read literally. The scale and the knowl-

edge production in social fields influencing

economic practice of a given firm or industry,

as well as the interrelations between fields,

are an empirical question. The number of social

fields and their distribution in time-space,

cultural context and relative power need to be

empirically investigated.

IV The analytical frameworkas an empirical programme

1 The case of Ellingsy

The analytical framework has been developed

and refined through several case studies in rural

Norway.3 To exemplify this framework and to

confront the theoretical discussion, we will

draw on a case study of Ellingsy to analyse

processes of innovation in the fish-processing

industry in Norway (Flysand and Jakobsen,

2002). Our selected case is quite different from

the empirical studies within most of the

best-practice orientated innovation literature.

These studies emphasizes the hot spots of

the economy and the importance of formal

Community field

Household field

Community field

Neighbor-hood field

Ethnic field

House-hold Ethnic

field

Neighbor-hoodfield

Field of education

Field of employment

Field of ?

Simple field system

Complex field system

Actor

field

Figure 1. Examples of simple and complex social field structures

Flysand and Jakobsen 335

335

research-based knowledge. By selecting a

rural case, we draw specific attention to the

importance of informal knowledge, social

networking and rules of conduct for innovation

practice. Such features are included within

the mainstream innovation literature (Cooke,

2001; Lundvall, 1992), but to lesser extent

operationalized. We agree that they are impor-

tant, but, regardless of the empirical setting

for the study, they should be analysed more

profoundly.

A study applying the social field framework

needs to produce an overview of the social field

system in which economic actors take part,

actors are interlinked and intangible resources

appear. Normally, this means that several

techniques for data collection are combined

(Peck, 2003). An analysis of the development

of social fields and their scale, types of actors,

knowledge, rules of conduct, etc, begins with

an overview of the industrial history of the site

or milieu under study, and how the industry has

evolved over time. It involves interpreting statis-

tics and secondary data from research on the

place and publications on the history of the place

and its institutions. Survey data mapping the

geographical scale of the social, political and

business relations of the given firms/industry

as they are stretched out in space are also impor-

tant. However, as exemplified in the next sec-

tion, in-depth case studies activating different

qualitative techniques (participant observation,

fieldwork conversations and semi-structured

interviews) are needed to grasp the social field

constellations, the cultural content of these

fields, and the dynamics between practices and

processes in different fields. Such time-

consuming case studies should be selected based

on their explanatory power, focusing on the

social fields of firm managers and their rela-

tional practices.

By the beginning of the twenty-first century,

12 fish-processing firms were located in

Ellingsy, a small island in the western part of

Norway with a population of 1700. In total, these

firms were employing approximately 20% of thelocal workforce or the equivalent of 300 man-

years. All but one firm was established before

1970. Further, they were all locally controlled

family businesses. Eight of the firms had fewer

than 20 man-years, while the rest had between

20 and 70. The firms were highly specialized

in producing dried salted fish (bacalao). About

90% of the internationally traded dried saltedfish is exported from Norway, while Brazil and

Portugal represent the main market with approx-

imately 80% of total consumption. During the1990s, Ellingsy strengthened its position in

the Norwegian fish-processing industry under

increased national and international competition

caused by deregulation of the sector. In this

period, the production of the Ellingsy industry

tripled. The industry was also innovative. They

invested heavily in new equipment to make the

production process more efficient, and reorga-

nized part of their input and output relations.

Through this, the firms were able to increase

their access to new markets for raw fish to secure

their input relation. The majority of the firms

organized output relations by obtaining their

own export licences. In short, Ellingsy exem-

plified a small innovative local milieu with a

strong market position. The question was why.

Cooperation among local firms and links to

universities and research institutions were negli-

gible. Such cooperation is heightened within

analyses inspired by the system of innovation

approach. Thus, an alternative explanation had

to be sought. As part of this effort, we mapped

the social field system in which the fishing

industry and its managers took part, the knowl-

edge and rules of conduct found in these social

fields, and how the interplay in and between the

social fields could explain the capabilities of

innovation. The study demonstrated the exis-

tence of three main fields: the bacalao, family

firm and community fields. In these fields, prac-

tices were guided by field-specific knowledge of

production that particularly concerned informal

knowledge, and where the multilevel, complex

336 Progress in Human Geography 35(3)

336

and unique dynamics of the field system in ques-

tion had considerable impact on the innovative-

ness of the industry. The outcome of these

dynamics is mainly incremental, small-step

innovations facilitated by informal knowledge

production and field-specific rules of conduct.

2 Informal knowledge and rules ofconduct in the bacalao field

In Ellingsy, informal knowledge was found in

the international bacalao field. The key actors

of this field were the bacalao producers in

Norway and the middlemen or agents in the

markets of bacalao, especially in Brazil. The

history of the field went back several generations

and a certain type of knowledge and cultural cap-

ital was needed to become a member. Through a

historical process and deepening specialization,

the actors of the fish-processing industry of

Ellingsy had developed comprehensive infor-

mal competence and experience about the

production of bacalao. The production process

could be divided into three phases: salting, drying

and classification. The first phase, the production

of salted fish, was conventional with standardized

technologies and practices. The drying phase was

more complicated. It was based on local capabil-

ities shared by the members of the bacalao field:

It is almost an art to get the perfect result when you

are drying. It is hard to know precisely how long to dry

the fish. It varies a lot with the shape and the weight of

the fish. You almost have to live with it before you

can say that you master it. (Local manager)

If the fish were dried incorrectly, the quality was

poor and the market value of the fish fell. For

example, if the fish were dried for too long they

lost weight and volume. Consequently, income

was reduced. Instruments were used to measure

the humidity of the fish, but a manual process of

squeezing the fish was also used. In this process,

the inspectors were using their capabilities to

determine when the fish were perfect. Key mem-

bers of the firms, such as the owner, the manager

or the production leader performed the role of

inspectors. They had been socialized into the

bacalao field and obtained the tacit knowledge

that existed within the field.

In the third phase, the salted dried fish were

classified according to size, humidity and

quality. This was done manually and by mem-

bers of the staff with specific competence. The

producers had to follow a set of formal rules.

Customers in the bacalao field, for instance

in Brazil, would complain if they received a

product that was not produced according to

these rules. Actors unfamiliar with the capabil-

ities of the bacalao field will easily fail in the

classification procedure. If such errors were

repeated, the producer would lose trust and

position in the market.

The members of the bacalao field have also

developed specific knowledge for operating in

the market of bacalao. During the postwar period,

most of the firms at Ellingsy obtained their own

export licences. This enabled them to avoid

Norwegian exporters as middlemen in overseas

trade relations. Another effect of export licences

was closer contact with the art of trade/marketing.

As mentioned, Brazil has been the most important

market for dried salted fish from Norway.

The export to Brazil was organized through

middlemen or agents in the Brazilian market.

The agents received a portion of their sales as

income, and were performing all the practical

export procedures. Most of the agents were either

Brazilian or European emigrants living in Brazil.

Over time, the producers at Ellingsy had estab-

lished close relations with Brazilian agents:

We started to use an Italian emigrant just after the

Second World War. When he died a couple of

years ago, his son, who is now our official agent,

took over. He has been involved in the firm since

the day he could walk and knows all about fish

trading. They always keep their word and we know

we can trust them. Since we have worked with

them for such a long time, we also believe that

we have helped them in developing their agency.

(Local manager)

Flysand and Jakobsen 337

337

The close ties within the international bacalao

field imply that transactions in most cases were

practised without contracts. Thus, the transac-

tion arrangements were based on trust. Through

close social relations, the producers in Ellingsy

obtained important information about the mar-

ket. By participating in interactive learning pro-

cesses, the producers developed innovative

capabilities that enable them to present a product

in tune with market demand.

3 Informal knowledge and rules ofconduct in the family firm field

Other informal knowledge affecting the

competitiveness of the firms was found in the

family firm field. At Ellingsy, family members

controlled the majority of shares and occupied

most of the key positions in the enterprises. All

the managers were, for instance, members of a

family controlling a firm. Further, with one

exception, at least two generations of the family

were involved in the firms. Thus, the milieu at

Ellingsy represented a strong form of family

businesses where informal rules, norms and role

expectations governed conduct and influenced

economic practices and innovativeness of the

firms. In general, the family institution has an

important role in socializing new members into

society, but when a firm is a part of the familys

project such socializing will also include accu-

mulation of knowledge about production:

I have been walking around at my fathers and my

uncles factories since I was a little kid. When I

grew up I spent all my holidays at the factory help-

ing out with different things and learning about the

production. You can say that I have always

worked down at the plant. When my father wanted

to step down, it was only natural that I succeeded

him. (Local manager)

This kind of education, where tacit knowledge is

transferred from one generation to another, gave

the firms competitive advantages, especially

when new leaders combined informal with

formal education. Another institutionalized rule

was that members of the family had to be loyal to

the family and the firm. For example, it was

expected that members of the next generation

were willing to take over as leaders and make the

necessary sacrifices:

I went to the capital to study law. It was important

for me to get an education. But I could not fulfil

my ambition, because my father died. I had to go

home to my family and sort things out. I was the one

who had to succeed my father as manager. I wanted

to practise as a lawyer but it did not turn out that

way. (Local manager)

Nevertheless, some of the firms experienced

problems in cases where members of the next

generation were not willing to take over as

leaders, or they did not have the required cap-

abilities. There had also been some dispute when

ownership stakes were transferred from one gen-

eration to the next. To handle such generation

shift is a major challenge for all family firms,

even those located at Ellingsy.

4 Informal knowledge and rules ofconduct in the community field

Another field with informal knowledge of

importance for the innovativeness of the indus-

try of Ellingsy was the community field. It

included all fish-processing firms at Ellingsy

and other important actors in the local produc-

tion system (producers of inputs, agents, impor-

ters, retail dealers), as well as in the local

community in general (local political authori-

ties, neighbours and families). Not surprisingly,

informal rules, norms and role expectations reg-

ulating interactions among the members of the

community field had been developed. For exam-

ple, there were institutionalized role expecta-

tions in the community field affecting work

ethics on the management level:

I spend an awful lot of time down at the factory.

I almost never have time off. That is only when I get

away from Ellingsy. Otherwise, I have to be

338 Progress in Human Geography 35(3)

338

available at almost every hour. I have to check the

drying process in the evening, and take care of boats

bringing raw fish or picking up dried salted fish for

export. (Local manager)

If the managers and the firms followed these

rules for work ethics, they accumulated what

Bourdieu (1977: 41) defines as symbolic capital

or collectively recognized credit. This sym-

bolic capital could be converted into economic

capital. Firms with high local prestige met few

problems in recruiting workers. Such firms also

achieved trust in the bacalao field, since knowl-

edge of which firms are operating in a fair way,

and which firms are not, becomes common.

However, the dynamics of the field is of special

interest, because it had a positive influence on

the information flow among the firms and the

work ethic within the firms. Economic activity

in the fish-processing industry of Ellingsy was

characterized by strong competition among the

producers:

When I saw that the manager and the staff of the

firm next to us were working late, I always felt

that we also had to put in extra hours. And when

I realized that they had expanded and invested in

new equipment, I felt that we had to do the same.

We did not want to be left behind. (Local

manager)

In general, it was important for a producer to

collect information about other firms to con-

firm and, if necessary, amend their own meth-

ods and strategies. However, informal rules

governing competition among the fish-

processing firms of Ellingsy prevented actors

from collecting information through visits or

other types of direct contact. Instead, the pro-

ducers collected information through a form

of monitoring by participating in the commu-

nity field:

There is a kind of hidden monitoring taking place.

You talk to suppliers and other people in the area

(community) and you get a grip on what is going

on. Everybody is doing this, so its not hidden, liter-

ally speaking. (Local manager)

5 The interfield dynamics

The social field system of the fish-processing

industry of Ellingsy is illustrated in Figure 2.

Each of the 12 dots in the figure represents a firm.

The white ellipse surrounding the dots illustrates

individual family firm field. The largest white

ellipse illustrates the bacalao field. It includes the

firms of Ellingsy, but the majority of its agents

are found outside the local community. The

shaded ellipse illustrates the community field.

The shading indicates that the rules of conduct

for this social field coordinate the system.

In the previous section, it was stressed that in

a globalizing economy the social field situation

is characterized by complexity, where actors

participate in several social fields of different

scale and with various type of actors, knowledge

and rules of conduct. The three main social fields

of the Ellingsy have been present for a long

time. Still, the numbers of relations and flow

of knowledge in each of these fields show

increased complexity. New linkages to provi-

ders of raw fish and technology have been

established and their international market rela-

tions have been intensified. On the level of firm

management, globalization is challenging the

Figure 2. The social field system of the fish-processing industry of Ellingsy

Flysand and Jakobsen 339

339

system. Many present members of the families

lack the required motivation. Globalization has

open new spaces and carrier possibilities and

made the next generation less willing to take

over as leaders of the family firms.

The practices of these fields are influenced by

events and processes in micro- as well as macro-

scale fields accelerated by current time-space

compression. The Ellingsy case demonstrates

the development of knowledge and rules of con-

duct in several overlapping fields. The industry

is part of and plays an important role in an inter-

national bacalao field characterized by special

codified knowledge and rules of conduct

governing the production and trade of bacalao.

Second, informal knowledge affecting the

competitiveness of the industry is found in the

family firm field. Third, membership and prac-

tices in a local community field regulate the

information flow among the firms and the work

ethic that characterizes the milieu.

A closer look at the interfield dynamics of the

industry indicates that the community field is the

glue and the hegemonic field of the system.

Despite a lack of direct contact and cooperation

among firms, there is an ongoing diffusion of

knowledge among the firms involved in the

community field. It takes place through informal

or social relations among key persons in differ-

ent firms, through communication among work-

ers in different firms, through sellers of input

factors who have several of the local producers

as customers, when people employed in one firm

move to another firm, and simply by the fact that

key persons in different firms participate in the

social life of the community. There is a reci-

procal interdependency among local firms, and

the maintenance of this balance is critical for

knowledge accumulation and innovation prac-

tice within these firms.

6 Evidence from other case studies

The analytical framework based on the concept

of social field has been developed and refined

through several case studies in rural Norway

(Flysand and Jakobsen, 2002, 2007; Flysand

and Lindkvist, 2001; Flysand and Sjholt,

2007). From these case studies, we have learned

that innovative practice can be placed in several

social fields and that this practice embraces pro-

duction of meaning comprising conventions,

narratives and rules of conduct that the field

members use to interpret, maintain and generate

new meaning and innovative practices. We have

found that in some areas the ability of industry to

take advantage of globalization and innovation

has been remarkably strong, while other areas

are lacking the capacity to adjust and innovate.

We have also observed that innovation often can

be the outcome of self-organizing strategies

emerging through day-to-day practice and

face-to-face contact. Our studies also indicate

that it is important for economic actors to partic-

ipate in social fields of different geographical

scales and knowledge production if viable local

milieux are to be developed. The most innova-

tive environments have expanded their relations

in the direction of a multiscale field system.

External influences have come from widening

the fields of trade and crossing into international

markets. The integration in these fields has made

the industries multiscaled in their embedded-

ness. This has had a positive influence on the

restructuring of industry activities. However, the

glue in the field systems has, in most cases, been

the community field. Since it serves as an arena

in which knowledge, experiences and ideas from

external and local fields are merged, this field is

very often characterized by informal network-

ing, and the interweaving of individuals, firms

and networks of different scales.

A study informed by the system of innovation

approach would have highlighted territorial

aspects and the need for formal linkages among

subsystems within RIS. Social network theory

would have focused on the social and cultural

aspects underlying networking and innovations.

The strength and novelty of the social field

approach is that it integrates informal knowledge

340 Progress in Human Geography 35(3)

340

and rules of conduct (cultural aspects), multiple

types of relational practice (social aspects) and

geographical scale (territorial aspects) of inno-

vation practice into one analytical framework.

The approach has also been developed to

recognize other blind spots in the innovation lit-

erature, eg, its failure to treat gender seriously.

The approach was applied to study how pro-

cesses of globalization influenced the gendered

division of labour in a fishery community in

Spain. It examined how effects were reflected

in narratives, social fields and constructions of

gender, and how this could inform the relations

among globalization, the construction of gender

relations and economic performance (Flysand

and Sther, 2007). The study revealed that

time-space compression caused new field cons-

tellations and field dynamics, changing the nar-

ratives and conduct of women and men in the

regional innovation system linked to fisheries

in a marginalizing way for the women. How-

ever, additional studies are needed to further

elaborate our approach and form more solid

conclusions on the gendered complexity of

innovation practice.

V Innovation studies as arelational phenomenon

In this paper, we have argued for a relational

turn within innovation studies. We have done

this stepwise: first, by going back to roots to ela-

borate on how innovation was originally defined

within the systems of innovation approach (sec-

tion II): second, by outlining a relational-based

analytical framework based on the concept of

social fields (section III); and, finally, by demon-

strating how it has been applied (section IV).

The discussion has revealed that at the core of

innovation system theory stands the recognition

that innovation needs to be defined as an uncer-

tain process of reflexive and dynamic interacting

actors operating in a given time-spatial context.

We find this definition to be reasonable, and

have consequently been critical towards best-

practice innovation studies operating with more

fixed and standardized understanding of innova-

tion (Enright, 2003; Solvell et al.; 2003). To

match a definition of innovation as a relational

phenomenon and an open-ended process, we

have introduced an analytical framework based

on the concept of social field. In this frame-

work, it is believed that actors of all kinds, eco-

nomic actors included, play out their economic

practice in time-spatial relational systems of

more or less interrelated, but observable social

fields. Broadly stated, practices in such fields

reflect field-specific knowledge held within

firms, industries, places, communities and

regions. A social field system is an empirical

phenomenon. Thus, operation of the framework

assumes examining relationships among actors

to explore how economic practice is embedded

culturally, socially and territorially in different

social fields.

Innovation system theory defines learning

and knowledge creation as a key driver for entre-

preneurship and innovation. Again we agree, but

findings and conclusions of innovation studies

will be influenced by their empirical pro-

grammes. The best-practice innovation studies

seem to be linked to an empirical programme

assuming the geographical co-location of a com-

prehensive business milieu and an advanced

knowledge infrastructure of universities and

research institutions. A majority of these studies,

inspired by the system of innovation approach,

are thus based on empirical evidence from

highly advanced metropolitan areas or studies

of high-tech industries. Consequently, they tend

to prioritize formal knowledge of universities

and research institutions over the informal and

practical knowledge of individual firms and

milieux. The relational framework for innova-

tion studies suggested in this paper has been

developed and refined through several case

studies in rural Norway, one of which we have

presented to exemplify its operation. This

empirical focus has revealed that most innova-

tive practices are influenced by tacit knowledge

Flysand and Jakobsen 341

341

and dynamics characterized by a strong corpo-

rate responsibility or commitment to the local

community. The field dynamics in rural areas

seem to motivate economic actors to maximize

social capital in addition to profit, in the process

stimulating hybrid forms of capitalism that bal-

ance internal and external resources (people,

knowledge and economic capital). The result is

a local buzz coexisting with global pipelines

facilitating or constraining innovation (Bathelt

et al., 2004). The findings in our studies in many

ways contradict the dynamics stressed in the

best-practice innovation studies. This can be

partly explained by the reality of diverging

empirical programmes. However, it can be

argued that the hegemony of best-practice

innovation studies, characterized by combining

ideas from the systems of innovation approach

and the terminology of corporate, benchmarking

and policy-making, reflects a certain neoliberal

bias within the innovation literature. It is about

picking winners, facilitating growth in dynamic

regions and copying successful models. We

instead argue for studies that facilitate the devel-

opment of context-sensitive policy tools that bal-

ance the promotion of dynamic milieux and

regions with tailor-made incentives for areas

lagging behind (see also Todtling and Trippl,

2005). Thus, our final point is that a relational

turn within innovation studies also encourages

us to reflect on the ideologies and networks

behind innovation studies and innovation policy

in a broader sense.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for valuable comments and

suggestions from the editors and three anonymous

referees. The research was made possible by a grant

from the Norwegian Research Council.

Notes

1. The system of innovation approach was developed dur-

ing the 1980s and 1990s. It is closely linked to the con-

cept of National Innovation System (NIS), and is

sometimes referred to as the NIS-approach (Lundvall,

1992). However, in line with the writings of Edquist

(1997), we opt for the term systems of innovation.

2. Balzat and Hanusch (2004) use the term policy-

orientated studies to describe these new contributions

to the system of innovation approach. We prefer the

term best-practice innovation studies, because it high-

lights an orientation towards benchmarking and quick

fixes within the innovation literature.

3. See, for instance, Flysand and Jakobsen (2002, 2007);

Flysand and Lindkvist (2001); Flysand and Sjholt

(2007).

References

Amin A and Roberts J (2008) Knowing in action: Beyond

communities of practice. Research Policy 37: 353369.

Amin A and Thrift N (2007) Cultural-economy and cities.

Progress in Human Geography 31: 14361.

Balzat M and Hanusch H (2004) Recent trends in the

research on national innovation systems. Journal of

Evolutionary Economics 14: 197210.

Bathelt H and Gluckler J (2003) Toward a relational eco-

nomic geography. Journal of Economic Geography 3:

11744.

Bathelt H, Malmberg A, and Maskell P (2004) Clusters

and knowledge: Local buzz, global pipelines and the

process of knowledge creation. Progress in Human

Geography 28: 3156.

Bourdieu P (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Coe NM, Dicken P, and Hess M (2008) Global production

networks: Realizing the potential. Journal of Economic

Geography 8: 27195.

Cooke P (2001) Regional innovation systems, clusters and

the knowledge economy. Industrial and Corporate

Change 10: 94574.

Cooke P, Heidenreich M, and Braczyk HJ (2004) Regional

Innovation System: The Role of Governances in a

Globalized World. London: Routledge.

de Bruijn P and Lagendijk A (2005) Regional innovation

systems in the Lisbon strategy. European Planning

Studies 13: 11531172.

DiMaggio PJ and Powell WW (1991) The iron cage revis-

ited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality

in organizational fields. In Powell WW and DiMaggio

PJ (eds) The New Institutionalism in Organizational

Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 6382.

Edquist C (1997) Systems of innovation approaches: Their

emergence and characteristics. In Edquist C (ed.)

342 Progress in Human Geography 35(3)

342

Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and

Organisations. London: Pinter, 135.

Enright M (2003) Regional clusters: What we know and

what we should know. In Brocker J, Dohse D, and

Soltwedel R (eds) Innovation Clusters and Interregional

Competition. Berlin: Springer, 99129.

Fagerberg J (2003) Schumpeter and the revival of

evolutionary economics: An appraisal of the literature.

Journal of Evolutionary Economics 13: 12559.

Ffowcs-Williams I (2004) Cluster development: Red

light and green light. Paper prepared for ANZRSAIs

Sustaining Regions, 24 May.

Flysand A and Jakobsen S-E (2002) Clusters, social fields

and capabilities: Rules and restructuring in Norwegian

fish processing clusters. International Studies in

Management and Organisation 31: 3555.

Flysand A and Jakobsen S-E (2007) Commodification

of rural places: A narrative of social fields, rural develop-

ment, and football. Journal of Rural Studies 23: 20621.

Flysand A and Lindkvist KB (2001) Globalisation, local

capitalism and fishery communities in change. Marine

Policy 25: 11321.

Flysand A and Sther A (2007) Globalizacion, comuni-

dades pesqueras y construccion de genero: El caso de

Muros (Galicia). Boletn de la Asociacion de Geografi-

cos Espanoles 45: 3148.

Flysand A and Sjholt P (2007) Rural development and

embeddedness: The importance of human relations for

industrial restructuring in rural areas. Sociologia Rura-

lis 47: 20527.

Fonseca J (2002) Complexity and Innovation in Organiza-

tions. London: Routledge.

Furman JL, Porter ME, and Stern S (2002) The determi-

nants of national innovation capacity. Research Policy

31: 899933.

Giddens A (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and

Society in theLateModernAge. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Granovetter M (1985) Economic action and social struc-

ture: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal

of Sociology 91: 481510.

Grnhaug R (1974) Micro-macro relations: Social organi-

zation in Antalya, Southern Turkey. Occasional Paper

7, Department of Social Anthropology, University of

Bergen, Norway.

Grnhaug R (1978) Scale as a variable in analysis: Field in

social organisation in Herat, northwest Afghanistan. In

Barth F (ed.) Scale and Social Organisation. Oslo: Uni-

versitetsforlaget, 78121.

Hagerstrand T (1970) What about people in regional science?

Papers of the Regional Science Association 24: 721.

Hess M (2004) Spatial relationships? Towards a recon-

ceptualization of embeddedness. Progress in Human

Geography 28: 16586.

Howells JRL (2002) Tacit knowledge, innovation and eco-

nomic geography. Urban Studies 39: 87184.

Jakobsen SE, Gammelster H, and Flysand A (2009) The

spatial embeddedness of professional football clubs in

Norway. Soccer and Society 10: 26179.

Jensen MB, Johnson B, Lorenz E, and Lundvall BA (2007)

Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation.

Research Policy 36: 680693.

Laumann EO, Galskeiwicz L, and Marsden PV (1978)

Community structures as interorganizational linkages.

Annual Review of Sociology 4: 455484.

Lave J and Wenger E (1991) Situated Learning:

Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Linton R (1936) The Study of Man: An Introduction. New

York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Lundvall BA (1992) Introduction. In Lundvall BA (ed.)

Systems of Innovations. London: Pinter, 119.

Lundvall BA (2007) National innovation systems

analytical concept and development tool. Industry and

Innovation 14(1): 95119.

Martin R and Sunley P (2007): Complexity thinking and

evolutionary economic geography. Journal of Economic

Geography 7: 573601.

Nohria N and Eccles RG (1992) Networks and Organiza-

tions: Structure, Form, and Action. Boston, MA:

Harvard Business School Press.

Peck J (2003) Fuzzy old world: A response to Markusen.

Regional Studies 37: 72940.

Polanyi K (1944) The Great Transformation. The Political

and Economic Origins of Our Time. Boston, MA:

Beacon Press.

Polt W, Rammer C, Gassler H, Schibany A, and

Schartinger D (2001) Benchmarking industryscience

relations: The role of framework conditions. Science

and Public Policy 28: 24758.

Porter ME and Stern S (2002) National innovation capac-

ity. In Porter ME, Sachs JD, Cornelius PK, McArthur

JW, and Schwab K (eds) World Economic Forum. The

Global Competitiveness Report 20012002. New

York: Oxford University Press, 102119.

Scott WR (1995) Institutions and Organizations.

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Flysand and Jakobsen 343

343

Solvell O, Lindqvist G, and Ketels C (2003) The Cluster

Initiative Greenbook. Stockholm: Bromma Tryck.

Storper M (1997) The Regional World. Territorial Devel-

opment in a Global Economy. New York: Guilford.

Sunley P (2008) Relational economic geography: A partial

understanding or a new paradigm? Economic Geogra-

phy 84: 126.

Swyngedouw E (2004) Globalisation or glocalisation?

Networks, territories and rescaling. Cambridge Review

of International Affairs 17: 2548.

Todtling F and Trippl M (2005) One size fits all? Towards

a differentiated regional innovation policy approach.

Research Policy 34: 12031219.

Uyarra E (2010) What is evolutionary about regional

systems of innovation? Implications for regional

policy. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 20: 115

137.

Yeung HW (2005) Rethinking relational economic

geography. Transactions of the Institute of British

Geographers 30: 3751.

344 Progress in Human Geography 35(3)

344

Copyright of Progress in Human Geography is the property of Sage Publications, Ltd. and its content may notbe copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express writtenpermission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.