PHASE 1 - THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF A FIXED LINK

Theories regarding technology as socially constructed basically see technological development as arising from negotiations between different social actors, organised in relevant social groups, each having their own comprehension of the problems to be solved and the solutions available. Contrary to the linear projection of traditional technology models, this comprehension is multidimensional, making it possible to consider the development of an artifact as an alternation between variation and selection. What constitutes a relevant social group in the SCOT theory is that its members share the same opinion of a given technological solution (the artifact). In an analysis of a technology decision process all relevant social groups must be identified, not on the basis of a priori distinctions between for instance technicians and economists, but - as mentioned - from the shared interests of group members and from an explanation of political and economical power relations between the groups. In order to understand a technology decision it is necessary to expose the problems and complementary solutions associated with a specific technological artifact by each individual group. A problem is only real if a social group define it as such: Artifacts are ... described through the eyes of the members of relevant social groups. The interactions within and among relevant social groups constitute the different artifacts, some of which may be hidden within the same "thing". In that case, the "interpretative flexibility" of that "thing" is revealed by tracing the different meanings attributed to it by the various different relevant social groups.(Bijker 1995, p 252) Thus the interpretative flexibility can be demonstrated by a deconstruction of a specific artifact into several artifacts, which separately are connected to the interpretation of the individual social group. This flexibility exists until consensus concerning the meaning of an artifact between different groups occurs. The pluralism of artifacts then disappears in a closure (Hansen 1993). The nature of closure, however, can vary depending on its type and basis of stabilisation. If based on strong power it may be a pure rhetorical closure. Or it may be achieved through a redefinition of the technology problem, which opens for new interpretations and consensus between groups. A concept of central importance in SCOT is the technological frame. It originates in predominant practise, theories, tactics, goals and means shared by the group in relation to a technology. Thus it defines the scope of a social group’s actions. From this it appears that a technological frame also indicates, how existing technology has a structuring impact on the social environment. However, this structuring of the interaction between members of a group is relative, as it is affected by the members’ different degrees of inclusion in the frame. A high degree of inclusion will significantly reduce the dynamics in the group. By a low inclusion the group members may even be part of more than one frame. In the Great Belt fixed link decision process an obvious major methodological challenge is to handle the vast multiplicity of potential relevant groups over an extended time span. A way out is to operate with groups of central actors and to analyse in snapshots - at given historical moments, when certain changes is known to have occurred. The first snapshot, described below, illustrates the situation in the early 1980s. At that time the artifact was a change of technology in order to secure future transport across the Great Belt. The central actors could be structured in the following relevant social groups: THE SOCIAL DEMOCRATS: characterized by a technology frame deeply rooted in a political understanding of the state’s active role in society; officially pro public transport technology. Furthermore, in the light of two oil crisis, growth in private car trafic had to be impeded. This attitude was supported by the dawning environmental consciousness. A prime aspect of a fixed link was the positive employment effects linked to construction activities and regional spin-off development. A minor concern, however, was lying in the reduced local employment due to a close down of the ferries. At that time a sole railway connection would have been a solution to the problem. Alternatively a car-railway (shuttle) concept would also have been acceptable. A solution to environmental problems pointed towards a tunnel. THE LIBERALS AND THE CONSERVATIVES: political parties, whose frame are closely defined by liberal ideas. Technological solutions based on the public provision of transport were in principal unthinkable. This group defined the problem as protecting the liberty of the individual through establishing a possibility of private car traffic across the Belt. This went well along with an old wish of breaking the Danish State Railways’ (DSB) very lucrative ferry monopoly. Although the Liberal Party had concerns about the national economy this worry was suppressed in order to secure solidarity in the group, which accentuated the sole car traffic link as a solution, or alternatively a combined car/railway link. THE ROAD DIRECTORATE: coming up to a frame defined by its institutional role as provider of optimum conditions for car traffic. The directorate was always competing with the State Railways for public grants and therefore saw the problem as guaranteeing a car traffic crossing and breaking the State Railways’ monopoly. Thus, a best solution would be constituted by a sole car traffic link, and if not possible by a combined link. THE DANISH STATE RAILWAYS: also acting within an institutionally defined frame, but in this case affected by commercial interests because the car ferries are representing a substantial source of revenue which should be replaced. A link, which offered priority to car traffic would of course threaten the train traffic; on the contrary a sole railway link would improve the competitiveness of trains. Alternatively a car-railway (shuttle) link would prevent road traffic from exploiting too large benefits. Besides, this might even be good business for the State Railways. THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS: a quite heterogeneous group, bound together by a commitment to the protection of the environment. Numerous problems were identified: water flow to the Baltic Sea, spawning locations, the frogs on the island of Sprogø, the general growth in car traffic as a result of a more convenient crossing. Not all members of the group share all concerns. One solution was continued ferryboat transport. However, if impossible to stop the fixed link, a tunnel was preferable. THE FIXED LINK OPPONENTS: also a heterogeneous group, having some ideas in common with the environmentalists, but defined within a frame, which consider a fixed link as a token of an undesirable trend in society. The group’s solution is total cancellation of a fixed link. These relevant social groups, their notion of the problem and solutions are summarised in Figure 1. The second snapshot is taken in 1986, when the Paliament came to an agreement concerning the construction of the fixed link. At this point a merging of several relevant social groups has occurred. The central group now consists of the SOCIAL DEMOCRATS, the LIBERALS/CONSERVATIVES, the ROAD DIRECTORATE and the DANISH STATE RAILWAYS. This group is established on the basis of a redefination of the artifact - from the comprehensive idea of new transport technology across the belt towards what can be characterized as the balanced fixed link. The actors in the group share an understanding of the necessity to balance a solution, which takes into consideration problems like environment, advantages for railways, convenient crossing for cars, employment and potentialities for public transport. This solution is called the time-lagged combined link. The group of OPPONENTS still exists, however, now including part of the ENVIRONMENTALISTS group, while the rest of this has been included in the above described agreement. Thus the heterogeneous group of OPPONENTS still associate numerous problems with the fixed link, and they continously see ferry transport as the only solution. In this way the redefinition of the artifact towards the balanced fixed link resulted in two relevant social groups with significant power differences, finally making it possible for the bridge adherents to make a rhetorical closure. It should, however, be noted that for instance the SOCIAL DEMOCRATS apparently considered rejecting the car link at a later point; if correct this indicates a rather low level of stabilisation and correspondingly that the inclusion of the SOCIAL DEMOCRATS within the frame was low. The situation at the snapshot 2 point is indicated in Figure 2. In the first snapshot several relevant social groups try to optain dominance - technology is in a third development stage (Bijker 1984, p 182), where rhetorics work as the main selection mechanism. No single group achieves full control, but the redefined compromise in snapshot 2 indicates a shift towards a second development stage, where one group was dominant. Theoretically, in such a situation a conventional solution was to be expected. Whether the time-lagged, combined link represents conventionality can be discussed; it might, however, be stated that the disclaimer of responsibility for the fixed link’s final elaboration (design) points towards familiar technology.