This positive and worthwhile qualification of 'trust' is generally not at issue, but its exact meaning and implication in a specific context remains unknown. As a consequence, the discourse surrounding 'trust' in Groningen runs the risk of meaning different things to different people. To use this term without further explanation creates the risk of a certain nothingness: claims with respect to trust (e.g. 'In order to restore trust government should ...') risk being hollow, and promises related

more »

... to trust (e.g. 'In order to restore trust we shall ...') risk being idle. For this reason, we believe that a research project that thematizes 'trust' needs to begin with answering the question: What is trust in this specific context? More specifically in our case: How do people build, experience, judge or consider trust in the context of dealing with the negative consequences of gas extraction? The present dissertation is primarily concerned with the negative consequences of the fortification operation and to a lesser extent also with damage procedures for residents. In that specific context, to what do statements like 'Groningen residents have lost trust' and 'Trust in Groningen should be restored' refer? Who should regain trust in what or whom? Is there also anyone who should give trust? As shall become clear below, if we don't consider these basic questions, Groningen residents and responsible institutional professionals could very well be left empty-handed because the trust restoration attempts were not founded in anything. 5 These agreements were revealed via resident and farmer Sijbrand Nijhoff's lawyers Marco Kalmijn and Marcella Spithoff, https://www.vandersluisvanderzeekalmijn.nl/geheime-gasdeal-1963-onthuld/; see also: