Validity and reliability

Validation of analytical concepts has turned out to be a particular focus of attention in this study. This involves constructing or collecting analytical concepts that are consistent with the purpose of the study and with the proposed theoretical perspectives and propositions, and which fit to the empirical entities which have to be conceptualized in order to be discussed by the theory. The validity of these concepts will probably have to be judged on the basis of their fruitfulness to additional empirical investigations and explanation building attempts. I have, however, in an effort to increase the validity of my analytical concepts, made extended use of the study of McGuire, Granovetter and Schwarts presented in chapter 3.

I still find that constructs of language such as “actor-network” and

“collective” could be improved upon by finding some other concept that provides more accurate associations, but at least I find that they cover those empirical entities that I have been interested in, in a useful way.

Internal validity has also been a major concern. In particular, it has been an ambition to identify and outline the proper character of the causal relationships between the events studied. As a starting point, I have discussed argued that changes in industrial and economic systems follow from the work of and the interaction of entrepreneurial collectives that are somehow established and shaped on the basis of some unifying concepts, purposes and programs regarding a future end. I have also outlined analytical models which permit us to incorporate elements that are traditionally seen as representing “mechanical” forces or causes, into such a “final cause” mode of explanation. One of the objectives of my case study is to investigate further into how certain conditions can be seen as leading to certain other conditions and thereby constitute causal links, without us having to perceive of them as mechanical or deterministic forces.

External validity concerns the domain to which a study’s findings can be generalized. The ambition of my study in this respect is outlined in the introductory chapter and covers the domain of large scale radical economic reforms across the world and across time and the relationship between economics as a scientific discipline and the economy as a societal phenomenon.

In broad, I find that the case studied is representative to this domain, despite the obvious “contextual” differences to other large scale economic change processes in other countries and to historical processes of change in economic systems. The problem would be that there are too many things that are taken for granted when we study our own society, which can not be

taken for granted when we shift to other societies or to different times. This is however, probably one of the major strengths of the actor-network approach; that its analytical constructs escape from the dependency of some outside context taken to shape the entities studied. Rather, it presents a set of analytical concepts which focuses the attention on the changing phenomenon and conceptualizes what constitutes change-making in a fundamental way.

Analytical insights obtained from such a focused view might accordingly be transferred into very different historical and geographical “contexts” without loosing validity. This generalized applicability is also demonstrated by taking the analytical concepts from the area of science and technology studies and applying them to a process of large scale reform in the organization of an economic system.

I have not found space within this project for a comparative study of similar market reforms in other countries, but have included some discussion of other large economic reforms in Norway which have been studied by others and which represent important preconditions for or influences on the electricity market reform. For obvious reasons, the validation of any conclusions would have been substantially improved with the inclusion of more cases. It is my hope that it may contribute to facilitate later comparisons with different large scale industrial reforms.

Reliability is probably the more difficult part. I have tried to include sufficient references through out the text, but recognize also that more could have been included to demonstrate that the operations of the study can be repeated with the same results if someone else was to fight her way through what I have done. In order to check out the data as well as my interpretations of them, drafts of this manuscript at different stages through the writing process have been distributed to core participants in the electricity market reform for comments. Their critical comments as well as their confirmations represent the second important source of validation.

The basic problem however, is the theory dependency of the analyzer which causes me to draw upon a substantial amount of knowledge and data that are simplified and conceptualized in specific ways and where the origins of the data have become partly obsolete or to complex to trace in each case, but where I still feel confident in their validity. In particular, I feel that the very explorative nature of this piece of research has forced me into a rather aggregated molding of complex empirical data with theoretical perspectives and analytical concepts where the selection of and interpreted data cannot be completely separated from the other ingredients. The context of investigation and explanation cannot be completely separated from the context of justification of analytical apparatus. On the other hand, checking and documenting the sources of data is a matter of scientific importance which

should not be taken lightly, where I constantly feel that I have room for improvements.

Part II: