Article

The complexity of innovation:

A relational turn

Progress in Human Geography

35(3) 328344
The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
10.1177/0309132510376257
phg.sagepub.com

Arnt Flysand
University of Bergen, Norway

Stig-Erik Jakobsen
University of Oslo, Norway

Abstract
Recent contributions within the system of innovation approach are marked by an instrumentalism that views
innovation as a predictable and standardized process that in most aspects counters theories and empirical
observations stressing the multilevel, spontaneous and complex features of innovation. Informed by the
relational turn within economic geography this paper develops an alternative analytical framework. We
do this stepwise: first, by elaborating on how innovation was originally defined within the systems of
innovation approach; second, by outlining a relational based analytical framework based on the concept of
social fields; and, finally, by demonstrating how it has been applied.
Keywords
informal knowledge, innovations, relational turn, rules of conduct, social fields

I Introduction
Liberalization of trade and financial markets,
together with technological advances (particularly in information and communications technology) 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 portrayed 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 contributions building on ideas of complexity thinking
328

(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 position within the innovation literature during the
1990s and 2000s. However, it has fostered a
instrumentalism that views innovation as a predictable and standardized process that in most
aspects counters theories and empirical observations stressing the multilevel, spontaneous and
complex features of innovation. Several best

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

Flysand and Jakobsen

innovation practice models have been developed,

informed by empirical evidence from hot spots
within the economy, making them less representative of innovation practice within the new
multidimensional global economy. Strong linkages 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 relational 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 hegemonic positions of certain actors within these
networks. The first publications on the innovation 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 development 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 failures within national, regional and even local innovation systems (see, for instance, Enright, 2003;
Ffowcs-Williams, 2004; Solvell et al., 2003).
Some studies have warned against this practice because it presupposes the innovation
process to be a phenomenon that can be controlled and guided (Balzat and Hanusch,
2004; Lundvall, 2007). Second, it very often
presupposes a geographical co-location of a
comprehensive business milieu and an advanced knowledge infrastructure of universities
and research institutions that are essential for
innovation (Cooke et al., 2004). This presupposition rules out most rural contexts where
certainly innovation can also be observed.
Third, this practice seems to foster innovation

329

policies prioritizing formal know why knowledge 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 contradictions. 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). However, 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, economic actors included, operate in time-space
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 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 concerns 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 setting, 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.
329

330

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 theoretical approaches thought to have a broad scope;
therefore, they have to be fairly abstract. Second,
they represent an empirical programme in divergent 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
ke Lundvall. Polanyi (1944) demonand Bengt A
strated that economic exchange relations were
enmeshed in culture. It is obvious that Polanyis
three systems of exchange reciprocal, redistributive and market exchange correspond well
with arguments within the relational turn that economic 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 contextualizing all (economic) behaviour within systems of social relations. His intention was to
avoid both the undersocialized view of economic 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 Hagerstrands time-geography that dealt with how
territorial time-space explains action (Hagerstrand, 1970). Hagerstrand was concerned to
map the time-spatial dimensions of action by
transforming action into a geometrical form
(Hagerstrand, 1970). However, this time330

Progress in Human Geography 35(3)

geography was accused of failing to integrate

institutional conditions.
Much of the innovation literature has been
linked to the systems of innovation approach
ke Lundvall
pioneered especially by Bengt A
1
(1992). 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 organization 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 development institutions, political authorities, and
training centres. Lundvall also claimed that the
process of innovation is uncertain and disruptive. 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 innovation. The boundaries of a system of innovation
cannot be sharply determined. The distinctions
among local, regional, national and even international 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 innovation processes in firms and creating a wellfunctioning innovation system. The literature
on regional innovation systems (RIS) exemplifies 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

Flysand and Jakobsen

as a dynamic and complex process marked by

uncertainty, towards an understanding of innovation as a predictable and standardized process.
Best-practice innovation studies have been
developed that combine concepts from the systems 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 innovation and best practices are identified among the
systems that are being analysed. Second, based
on the results of these studies, policy recommendations 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 innovation capacity, referring to a systems ability to
produce and commercialize new technologies,
the strength of the formal innovation infrastructure (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 innovation systems or clusters have also been developed, 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 performance comparisons across systems have gradually moved towards the centre of attention,
while less importance has been given to the consideration 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

331

constructed, governed and manipulated. This

is supported by de Bruijn and Lagendijk
(2005: 1155) stating that models for innovations, 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, contrary to best-practice studies within the systems
of innovation approach, highlights the interplay
of innovations with their cultural, social and territorial contexts. A precondition of this
argument is that innovations are unpredictable
and that they should be treated as part of a politically 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 particular 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 spacetime 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 celebration of cultural, social or territorial spaces,
but the aspirations of building a relational
approach integrating the cultural, social and
331

332

territorial aspects of economic interaction into

one analytical concept.

III Towards a relational

framework
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 overlapping spatial scales. Recent contributions
within the economic geography literature represent 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 success 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, formal 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 culturally 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
332

Progress in Human Geography 35(3)

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 production 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 concept 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 membership) 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 similar way, the conceptual underpinnings of these
approaches also stress the social and cultural
complexity of social relations and the overlapping characteristics of networks/social fields.
The main difference between the network concept 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 economic geography, which stresses the importance 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 organizations that, in the aggregate, constitute a

Flysand and Jakobsen

recognized area of institutional life: key suppliers, 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 geography, 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; developing with time, and in relations to other tangential 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 organizational 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 stronger confrontation with the complexity of managerial 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

333

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 (gender, 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 activities. In summary, interactions in social fields are
guided by field-specific knowledge production
that concerns both formal and informal knowledge ranging from rules of conduct and conventions to discourses and narratives that may or
may not guide innovation practice. Accordingly,
tacit knowledge becomes central to interpretations 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 processes 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 status combination, such as employer-employee,
there exist social roles that are legitimated
through the particular expectations of role conduct 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 differentially interpreted, transformed or ignored. The
333

334

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 relations 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 pattern of interaction has the strength to influence
the social formation of the actors and society
as a whole (Grnhaug, 1978). Thus, only repercussive 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 specialized 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 dominated 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 interrelated and how practice in a particular field
334

Progress in Human Geography 35(3)

guides the flow of knowledge and material

resources in a field system. There is an agreement in the literature that innovation processes
in firms are based on knowledge sources and
(power) linkages from both intrafirm and extrafirm 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 interfield 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 times

of globalization
At present, globalization in terms of timespace compression interferes with development through multifield processes of integration.
The global economy is characterized by a growing organizational and geographical complexity
(Coe et al., 2008). We would expect that actors
are becoming more integrated in wider timespaces 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 selfreinforcing interactions among participants) and

Flysand and Jakobsen

335

Actor
Neighborhood
field

Ethnic field

Community
field

Household
Field of
employment field

Ethnic
field
Field of
education

Neighborhood
field
Field
of ?
Household
field

Simple field
system

Community
field

Complex
field system

Figure 1. Examples of simple and complex social field structures

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 knowledge 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 framework

as 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
335

336

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 important, 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 statistics 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 important. However, as exemplified in the next section, 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 timeconsuming case studies should be selected based
on their explanatory power, focusing on the
social fields of firm managers and their relational 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
336

Progress in Human Geography 35(3)

firms were employing approximately 20% of the

local workforce or the equivalent of 300 manyears. 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 salted
fish is exported from Norway, while Brazil and
Portugal represent the main market with approximately 80% of total consumption. During the
1990s, 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 reorganized 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 exemplified 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 negligible. 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 knowledge 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 existence of three main fields: the bacalao, family
firm and community fields. In these fields, practices were guided by field-specific knowledge of
production that particularly concerned informal
knowledge, and where the multilevel, complex

Flysand and Jakobsen

and unique dynamics of the field system in question had considerable impact on the innovativeness 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 of

conduct 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 capital 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 informal 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 capabilities 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 members of the firms, such as the owner, the manager

337

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 members 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 capabilities 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 established 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)

337

338

The close ties within the international bacalao

field imply that transactions in most cases were
practised without contracts. Thus, the transaction arrangements were based on trust. Through
close social relations, the producers in Ellingsy
obtained important information about the market. By participating in interactive learning processes, the producers developed innovative
capabilities that enable them to present a product
in tune with market demand.

3 Informal knowledge and rules of

conduct 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 accumulation 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 helping 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
338

Progress in Human Geography 35(3)

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 capabilities. There had also been some dispute when
ownership stakes were transferred from one generation 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 of

conduct in the community field
Another field with informal knowledge of
importance for the innovativeness of the industry of Ellingsy was the community field. It
included all fish-processing firms at Ellingsy
and other important actors in the local production system (producers of inputs, agents, importers, retail dealers), as well as in the local
community in general (local political authorities, neighbours and families). Not surprisingly,
informal rules, norms and role expectations regulating interactions among the members of the
community field had been developed. For example, there were institutionalized role expectations 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

Flysand and Jakobsen

339

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 symbolic 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 knowledge 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 confirm and, if necessary, amend their own methods and strategies. However, informal rules
governing competition among the fishprocessing firms of Ellingsy prevented actors
from collecting information through visits or
other types of direct contact. Instead, the producers collected information through a form
of monitoring by participating in the community 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, literally speaking. (Local manager)

Figure 2. The social field system of the fishprocessing industry of Ellingsy

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 providers of raw fish and technology have been
established and their international market relations have been intensified. On the level of firm
management, globalization is challenging the
339

340

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 macroscale fields accelerated by current time-space
compression. The Ellingsy case demonstrates
the development of knowledge and rules of conduct in several overlapping fields. The industry
is part of and plays an important role in an international 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 practices 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 different firms, through communication among workers 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 reciprocal interdependency among local firms, and
the maintenance of this balance is critical for
knowledge accumulation and innovation practice within these firms.

6 Evidence from other case studies

The analytical framework based on the concept
of social field has been developed and refined
340

Progress in Human Geography 35(3)

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 production 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 participate in social fields of different geographical
scales and knowledge production if viable local
milieux are to be developed. The most innovative 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 embeddedness. 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 networking, 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

Flysand and Jakobsen

and rules of conduct (cultural aspects), multiple

types of relational practice (social aspects) and
geographical scale (territorial aspects) of innovation practice into one analytical framework.
The approach has also been developed to
recognize other blind spots in the innovation literature, eg, its failure to treat gender seriously.
The approach was applied to study how processes 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 constellations and field dynamics, changing the narratives and conduct of women and men in the
regional innovation system linked to fisheries
in a marginalizing way for the women. However, 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 a
relational 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 elaborate on how innovation was originally defined
within the systems of innovation approach (section II): second, by outlining a relational-based
analytical framework based on the concept of
social fields (section III); and, finally, by demonstrating 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 uncertain 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-

341

practice innovation studies operating with more

fixed and standardized understanding of innovation (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 framework, it is believed that actors of all kinds, economic 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 entrepreneurship and innovation. Again we agree, but
findings and conclusions of innovation studies
will be influenced by their empirical programmes. The best-practice innovation studies
seem to be linked to an empirical programme
assuming the geographical co-location of a comprehensive 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 innovation 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 innovative practices are influenced by tacit knowledge
341

342

and dynamics characterized by a strong corporate 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 balance 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 development of context-sensitive policy tools that balance 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 during the 1980s and 1990s. It is closely linked to the concept of National Innovation System (NIS), and is
sometimes referred to as the NIS-approach (Lundvall,
342

Progress in Human Geography 35(3)

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 policyorientated studies to describe these new contributions
to the system of innovation approach. We prefer the
term best-practice innovation studies, because it highlights 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 economic 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 revisited: 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.)

Flysand and Jakobsen

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 development, 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, comunidades pesqueras y construccion de genero: El caso de
Muros (Galicia). Boletn de la Asociacion de Geograficos 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 Ruralis 47: 20527.
Fonseca J (2002) Complexity and Innovation in Organizations. London: Routledge.
Furman JL, Porter ME, and Stern S (2002) The determinants of national innovation capacity. Research Policy
31: 899933.
Giddens A (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and
Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Granovetter M (1985) Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal
of Sociology 91: 481510.
Grnhaug R (1974) Micro-macro relations: Social organization 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: Universitetsforlaget, 78121.

343
Hagerstrand T (1970) What about people in regional science?
Papers of the Regional Science Association 24: 721.
Hess M (2004) Spatial relationships? Towards a reconceptualization of embeddedness. Progress in Human
Geography 28: 16586.
Howells JRL (2002) Tacit knowledge, innovation and economic 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.
(2007)
Jensen MB, Johnson B, Lorenz E, and Lundvall BA
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.
(1992) Introduction. In Lundvall BA
(ed.)
Lundvall BA
Systems of Innovations. London: Pinter, 119.
(2007) National innovation systems
Lundvall BA
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 Organizations: 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 capacity. 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.

343

344
, Lindqvist G, and Ketels C (2003) The Cluster
Solvell O
Initiative Greenbook. Stockholm: Bromma Tryck.
Storper M (1997) The Regional World. Territorial Development in a Global Economy. New York: Guilford.
Sunley P (2008) Relational economic geography: A partial
understanding or a new paradigm? Economic Geography 84: 126.
Swyngedouw E (2004) Globalisation or glocalisation?
Networks, territories and rescaling. Cambridge Review
of International Affairs 17: 2548.

344

Progress in Human Geography 35(3)

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.

Copyright of Progress in Human Geography is the property of Sage Publications, Ltd. and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.