Between path dependency and contingency: new challenges for the geography of port system evolution.

Seaports play a critical role as gateways and facilitators of economic interchange and logistics processes and thus have become crucial nodes in globalised production networks andmobility systems. Both the physical port infrastructure and its operational superstructure have undergone intensive evolution processes in an effort to adapt to changing economic environments, technological advances,maritime industry expectations and institutional reforms. The results, in terms of infrastructure, operator models and the role of an individual port within the port system, vary by region, institutional and economic context. While ports have undoubtedly developed in scale to respond to the changing volumes and structures in geographies of trade (Wilmsmeier, 2015), the development of hinterland access infrastructure, regulatory systems and institutional structures have in many instances lagged behind. The resulting bottlenecks reflect deficits in the interplay between the economic system and the factors defining port development (e.g. transport demand, the structure of trade, transport services, institutional capacities, etc. cf. Cullinane and Wilmsmeier, 2011). There is a wide range of case study approaches and analyses of individual ports, but analyses from a port system perspective are less common, and those that exist are seldom critical of the dominant discourse assuming the efficiency of market competition (cf. Debrie et al., 2013). This special section aims to capture the spectrum of approaches in current geography research on port system evolution. Thus, the papers reach from the traditional spatial approach (Rodrigue and Ashar, this volume) to network analysis (Mohamed-Chérif and Ducruet, this volume) to institutional discussions (Vonck and Notteboom, this volume; Wilmsmeier and Monios, this volume). The selection of papers allows an opening of discussion and reflection on current research, necessary critical analysis of the influences on port systemevolution and,most importantly, future directions. The remainder of this editorial aims to reflect on these challenges and identify the potential for future research.

I film therefore I am: process and participation, networks and knowledge – examples from Scottish community media projects.

This chapter examines community media projects in Scotland as social processes that nurture knowledge through participation in production. A visual and media anthropology framework (Ginsburg, 2005) with an emphasis on the social context of media production informs the analysis of community media. Drawing on community media projects in the Govan area of Glasgow and the Isle of Bute, the techniques of production foreground “the relational aspects of filmmaking” (Grimshaw and Ravetz, 2005: 7) and act as a catalyst for knowledge and networks of relations embedded in time and place. Community media is defined here as a creative social process, characterised by an approach to production that is multi-authored, collaborative and informed by the lives of participants, and which recognises the relevance of networks of relations to that practice (Caines, 2007: 2). As a networked process, community media production is recognised as existing in collaboration between a director or producer, such as myself, and organisations, institutions and participants, who are connected through a range of identities, practices and place. These relations born of the production process reflect a complex area of practice and participation that brings together “parallel and overlapping public spheres” (Meadows et al., 2002: 3). This relates to broader concerns with networks (Carpentier, Servaes and Lie, 2003; Rodríguez, 2001), both revealed during the process of production and enhanced by it, and how they can be described with reference to the knowledge practice of community media.