Tasks performed
Background
I am trained as a social anthropologist (UiO) and have multidisciplinary experience with research and teaching.
Tags:
Library,
Research support,
Social anthropology,
Teaching,
Digital research methods
Publications
-
Ntapanta, Samwel Moses & Medaas, Christian Peter
(2025).
Who cares, and for what? Exploring the contents and extents of care as an analytical concept in ethnographies of electronics repair.
Human Organization.
ISSN 0018-7259.
84(2),
p. 182–190.
doi:
10.1080/00187259.2025.2486612.
Full text in Research Archive
Show summary
Care in repairing is practiced, imagined, and experienced differently in various contexts. In this article we examine the role of care as a concept in the repair of consumer electronics. Our aim is to ethnographically explore the necessity of repair and the dynamics of repairing as they emerge in geopolitically polarized regions. To do so, we compare the repair of consumer electronics in Norway and Tanzania as two contrasting cases. Norway has the world’s highest per capita rate of consumption and disposal of consumer electronics. In contrast, due to Tanzania’s position within global techno-capitalism, Tanzanians are among those who consume the fewest consumer electronics per capita. We highlight the fluidity and ambiguity of the concept of care as it applies to repair practices in vastly disparate places. We further examine the benefits and limitations of employing the concept of care in such analyses, particularly in relation to the field of discard studies.
-
Størkersen, Kristine Vedal; Osmundsen, Tonje Cecilie; Stien, Lars Helge; Medaas, Christian; Lien, Marianne Elisabeth & Tørud, Brit
[Show all 8 contributors for this article]
(2021).
Fish protection during fish production. Organizational conditions for fish welfare.
Marine Policy.
ISSN 0308-597X.
129.
doi:
10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104530.
Full text in Research Archive
Show summary
Too many salmon die during production at Norwegian fish farms. Earlier research shows that most farmed salmon die in operations partly related to protection of the wild salmon (from salmon lice), but it is not known how this relates to other conditions positive or negative for fish welfare. Fish farm personnel are experts on the organizational conditions during production. This is thus a study of what fish farm personnel consider contributing to fish welfare. Data are gathered through interviews, observation, and a small-scale survey. The results suggest that the personnel stand in a multiple protection dilemma, where fish welfare loses in a battle with objectives of profitable production, and protection of wild salmon. In this context of conditions emphasizing other objectives, the personnel act as a buffer for farmed fish welfare. In particular, the study indicates that fish health personnel perceive themselves and are perceived as advocates for fish welfare. This important role, and the multiple protection dilemma that comes from the conflict between product and environment, are not earlier described in organizational literature. Multiple protection dilemmas can be relevant for all production in open environment, so personnel and organizations should be structured to reduce and handle it.
-
Medaas, Christian; Lien, Marianne Elisabeth; Gismervik, Kristine; Kristiansen, Tore S.; Osmundsen, Tonje & Størkersen, Kristine Vedal
[Show all 8 contributors for this article]
(2021).
Minding the Gaps in Fish Welfare: The Untapped Potential of Fish Farm Workers.
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics.
ISSN 1187-7863.
34(5),
p. 1–22.
doi:
10.1007/s10806-021-09869-w.
Full text in Research Archive
Show summary
The welfare of farmed fish is often regarded with less concern than the welfare of other husbandry animals, as fish are not universally classified as sentient beings. In Norway, farmed fish and other husbandry animals are legally protected under the same laws. Additionally, the legislature has defined a number of aquaculture-specific amendments, including mandatory welfare courses for fish farmers who have a key role in securing animal welfare, also with regards to noting welfare challenges in the production process. This article uses fish welfare courses as a site from which to inquire about the common-sense understanding of fish welfare in Norwegian fish farming. The focus is specifically on fish farm employees, their experiences of welfare-related issues and contradictions in their daily work, and the struggle to act responsibly in aquaculture settings. Through participant observation at welfare courses, as well as interviews and conversations with fish farm workers, the article details how challenges are experienced ‘on the ground’, and suggests how fish farm workers’ own experiential knowledge might be mobilized to improve the general welfare of farmed fish.
-
Gismervik, Kristine; Tørud, Brit; Kristiansen, Tore S; Osmundsen, Tonje Cecilie; Størkersen, Kristine Vedal & Medaas, Christian
[Show all 8 contributors for this article]
(2020).
Comparison of Norwegian health and welfare regulatory frameworks in salmon and chicken production.
Reviews in Aquaculture.
ISSN 1753-5123.
p. 1–15.
doi:
10.1111/raq.12440.
Full text in Research Archive
Show summary
The health and welfare of farmed fish are often regarded with less concern than for other production animals. This review compares the Norwegian legal health and welfare frameworks for broiler chickens and farmed salmon, with the aim of improving regulations for salmon farming in Norway. Highlighting differences in laws, regulations and governmental organisation are also highly relevant in general, especially in developing welfare regulations for farmed fish in other countries. Norwegian chicken farmers must comply with two main laws, the Norwegian Animal Welfare Act and the Food Act, governed by the same ministry and governmental agency. The salmon farmers must in addition relate to the Aquaculture Act, different ministries and several agencies with different objectives. Compared to the regulation of chicken farming, the regulation of salmon farming is more complex, has potentially conflicting aims and uses less positive welfare phrasings. Thus, the regulation may be perceived as focusing on profitability over welfare. Despite having many similar paragraphs to regulation for chicken farming, salmon farming regulation is less strict in the daily securing of animals and recordings of mortality. There is no specified slaughterhouse control of high‐density productions, as there is for broiler chickens. There are also differences in the mandatory welfare courses, one being that infection prevention is a stated topic for chickens. The Norwegian Animal Welfare Act has no possibility of dispensation, meaning exceptions, and treats fish and other animals equally. Future regulatory frameworks for farmed fish production should avoid unintended downgrading of fish health and welfare.
-
Stien, Lars Helge; Tørud, Brit; Gismervik, Kristine; Lien, Marianne Elisabeth; Medaas, Christian & Osmundsen, Tonje Cecilie
[Show all 8 contributors for this article]
(2020).
Governing the welfare of Norwegian farmed salmon: three conflict cases.
Marine Policy.
ISSN 0308-597X.
117.
doi:
10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103969.
Full text in Research Archive
Show summary
To obtain insight into perceptions of how fish welfare and health is governed in Norwegian aquaculture, this study investigates three conflict cases: salmon lice, pancreas disease and farm siting. Using surveys and in-depth interviews, it highlights challenges and solutions as perceived from different professional groups. The results show that the current inflexible limit of the number of salmon lice permitted creates frustration, both among the farmers themselves and fish health personnel, and that many advocate means for making the regulations more in line with how much infection pressure a farm creates. The regulators acknowledge that upholding salmon lice regulations may diminish animal welfare. Also, farmers and fish health professionals are concerned about the welfare impact of risky delousing operations. Where pancreas disease is concerned, many express their incredulity that a clearly welfare harming disease is permitted to be endemic in parts of Norway, while a positive diagnosis outside the endemic zone will lead to the fish farmers having to slaughter their fish. The case of farm siting was responsible for less conflict than expected. Few expressed strong opinions, but some asked for an overall plan for farm positioning in order to limit spread of pathogens. All groups expressed a concern in that it is difficult to implement the necessary changes within the present framework. The overall problem seems to be that what is best for the single farmer or company in the short term, is often contrary to the common good and long-term benefit of the industry as a whole.
View all works in NVA
Published
Feb. 7, 2024 1:58 PM
- Last modified
Jan. 6, 2026 9:38 AM
