. Two competing discourses emerge from a careful reading of parliamentary debates in Norway on rural development. One regards rural values as intrinsic, while the other regards the rural as an actor in a play about economic growth. The ‘growth’ discourse has economic growth as its nodal point and fo‐cuses on the freedom of an individual to establish a business wherever he or she wishes, and to migrate to any preferred destination. The ‘intrinsic value’ discourse places the value of rural settlements and cultures as its nodal point and focuses on allegedly forced migration, a nature‐based economy, and local freedom of action. During the neoliberal period, starting about 1980 the strength of the intrinsic value discourse has been increasingly displaced by the growth discourse. The latter seems to match general social changes such as neoliberalism and globalization more than the former. However, analysing the fight between these two discourses is not exhaustive. A broader analytic perspective is needed if we want to understand the logic of how the meaning of rurality comes about. The meaning of rurality in Norwegian politics is made through the way the competing discourses link up to ‘nondiscursive’ topics that originate and evolve outside the discourses on Norwegian rural politics. We claim that topics which include economic safety and national identity/nation‐state are more or less fundamental to understanding the logic of the production of the concrete discourses of rurality in Norwegian politics. We provide evidence that rural change is contingent not only on the meaning‐making process in parliamentary debates, but on the way truth claims made by politicians are linked to general national and global issues.

Se Balanseprogrammets programplaner på www.forskningsradet.no. 2. Artikkelen omhandler funn fra ett av to delprosjekter som utgjør forskningskomponentene i UiAs Balanseprosjekt. 3. Se Balanseprogrammets nyeste programplan på www.forskningsradet.no.

Institutional Ethnography-a method-of-inquiry developed by the feminist sociologist Dorothy Smith (2005)-provides a particularly useful framework and tools for doing intersectional analysis. Institutional Ethnography focuses analysis on explicating the social organizing that generates different outcomes and opportunities for different people. We contend that Institutional Ethnography unpacks how categories are a result and expression of historical material processes that shape people's opportunities. Institutional Ethnography avoids problematic tendencies, which can result from social constructionist and post-structural analysis, to draw a direct line from identity category to social experience. In this article we go through the central concepts of Institutional Ethnography and show how these were developed by Dorothy Smith in response to objectifying processes within research and other institutional processes. We show how Institutional Ethnography-rooted in a particular ontology of the social and feminist standpoint epistemology-always takes point of entry in experience and moves from there to identify how it is shaped in wider textual processes. The concrete everyday experience remains central in the process of inquiry, and as a result gender, class, race and other intersecting relations are not reduced to 'discrete variables' , that gloss over and hide actual people, their actions, interactions and relations.

No abstract

Sammendrag Gitt forståelsen av integrering som en mangfoldig prosess som kan romme mange ulike praksiser og aktører, diskuterer vi integrasjon som en prosess der mennesker «sikrer sted». Vi utforsker flyktningers integreringsfortellinger, for å forstå hvilke integreringserfaringer disse rommer. Rammeverket til Penninx og Garcés-Mascareñas (2016) brukes til å analysere flyktningers fortellinger om integrering inn i et lokalsamfunn. Gjennom disse erfaringene viser vi et mangfold av integreringsforståelser og praksiser.