Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

We discussed definitions that we will be using in our work, especially vulnerability, risk and criticality. These are terms that have been heavily debated elsewhere, but there is an agreement on the fact that their meaning is constructed. We need to look at these terms historically and be aware of the fact that they may have been defined differently in different times, places, and situations. One way is to relate them to other concepts, related or in opposition. How does, for example, risk relate to concepts like safety and freedom, consequence (calculated and unknown), the welfare state, danger or threat? Vulnerability can be defined in opposition to robustness or resilience, but also to innovation. Do we need vulnerability to promote innovation? 

There is also a question of how risk as a concept is used. Who are the actors that define risk, and in relation to what is it defined? Whose risk are we talking about? How is risk distributed? Is it voluntary or imposed? All of these questions are important for us to consider in our research. It was also discussed whether vulnerability should be a core concept for us. Maybe that is where we could contribute to a discussion otherwise mostly dominated by the concept of risk.

When it comes to the terms critical and infrastructure, they are too, of course, constructed and relative terms. It could be claimed that an infrastructure is critical by its mere existence. On the other hand, there are levels of criticality, depending on the possible alternatives for the service rendered by the infrastructures, the degree of coupling and the number of people dependent on the services. Also, the linking of different infrastructures might have made them more vulnerable. Has there been a change in the level of criticality of certain infrastructures over time? Has the linking of infrastructures meant that the threats also can migrate from one system to another?  There is a vulnerability paradox in that the bigger and more robust a system is constructed, the more complex and vulnerable it becomes.

There is also a cultural concept of what at failure is and how prone we are to expect it.

We looked at the different concepts used in risk management today, and discussed how they could be used in our research. How has risk management looked in different countries in different times? Risk management is also about governance, control, trust, and fear. How are these concepts related to each other and our research? Are we more afraid of a risk the further away from our control it is? And can risk management be used to govern infrastructures?

There was also a discussion about how our research project should relate to policy making, and reaching out to other audiences and fields. The concept of transnational was also discussed. Borders are interchangeable, and national infrastructures can become transnational, as well as the other way around. We also need to think about how we define transnational, and how we distinguish it from for example intergovernmental and transcontinental. What in our research is transnational? Is it only the unit of analysis?

Another important question was what kind of history we want to write? Is it a new kind of history, a linking of or an adding of new layers to already existing national histories? Is it a history from a bottom-up perspective, or should we be looking at the “thick middle”?