|
- Melanie
Morris
- Department of
Sociology
- Memorial
University of Newfoundland
- St. John's,
Newfoundland
Issues Position paper
Social Research and Ecological Knowledge Systems: Exploring
Research Designs and Methodological Approaches that Define
and Reconcile Contending Perspectives*
1. The Meaning or Various
Meanings of 'Ecological Knowledge (Observations respecting
the similarities and differences embedded in various
ecological knowledge systems)
Previous research on alternative
knowledges has focussed on indigenous peoples who were found
to possess a vast amount of information about the
environment around them. This combination of knowledge is
commonly referred to as indigenous knowledge, local
knowledge, traditional ecological knowledge or practical
knowledge. Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and local
knowledge (LK) seem to be most widely accepted labels,
however no label is universally accepted. For the purposes
of my research I have decided to adopt the term fishers'
local knowledge which can be said to be a variant of TEK.
This knowledge is local in that "it is derived from the
direct experiences of a labour process which is itself
shaped and delimited by the distinctive characteristics of a
particular place with a unique social and physical
environment" (Kloppenburg, 1991:).
There are definitional problems
with labelling fishers' local knowledge as indigenous or
traditional. For example, Johnson argues that indigenous
knowledge emphasizes indigenous people, when in fact, such
knowledge "is also found among non-indigenous peoples such
as outport fishermen and farmers . . . who also acquired
their knowledge and skills through hands on experience
living in close contact with the environment" (Johnson,
1992: 4). Similarly, problems arise with the concept
"traditional." Berkes (1992) and others indicated that the
term is ambiguous and raises the questions "of the cultural
dynamics of such knowledge systems" (Berkes, 1992:4;
Palsson, 1995: 10). He argues that
In the
dictionary sense, traditional usually refers to
cultural continuity transmitted in the form of social
attitudes, beliefs, principles and conceptions of
behaviour and practice derived from historical
experience. However, societies change through time,
constantly adopting new practices and technologies and
making it difficult to define just how much and what
kind of change would affect the labelling of a
practice as traditional (Berkes, 1992: 3).
The terms "ecological" knowledge or
"environmental knowledge" knowledge is also considered
inaccurate and ambiguous. Berkes (1992) argues that because
ecology is a branch of science it poses problems because
most lay people are not scientists (Berkes, 1992: 3).
Arguably, traditional environmental knowledge poses the same
problem.
Neis and Felt (1995) suggest that
major differences may exist between the traditional
knowledge of indigenous peoples and that of contemporary
commercial fishery workers. For example, western scientific
and management techniques have affected fishery workers.
Contemporary fishery workers may also be more mobile.
Moreover, the transmission of local knowledge between
generations is often mediated by formal education, periods
of out-migration and relatively high rates of technological
and industrial change (Neis and Felt, 1995).
2. Issues Arising When
Theorizing or Conceptualizing Ecological
Knowledge
I have found that the most
difficult aspect of my thesis was finding a theoretical
framework that would serve to guide my research. In fact,
very little of the work on ecological knowledge has been
completed without having been framed in any kind of
theoretical paradigm. Numerous sociological theories address
local knowledge such as Post Modernism and Social
Constructionism, however, both theories fail to provide any
kind of framework needed to address ecological knowledge,
scientific knowledge, resource management policies or guide
the process by which social scientists could use qualitative
research to analyze and understand what resource users' mean
and why they think that way. For example, beyond
establishing that all knowledge is socially constructed and
that there is no "objective" knowledge, both theories lose
their ability to give social scientists the theoretical
framework to take their research to the next level. Social
Constructionists (at their extreme) question the existence
of any knowledge. This perspective is extremely harmful for
researchers trying to bridge the gap between local knowledge
and scientific knowledge. Postmodernists argue that there is
no need to account for contradictory relations between
knowledge systems because they see and applaud diversity as
expressions of local autonomy.
3. Remarks respecting ways
and means of reconciling differences between scientific and
experience-based ecological knowledge
systems
Despite attempts to incorporate
fishers (ie logbooks and sentinel fisheries) into the stock
assessment process, many scientists and managers remain
sceptical about using fishers' knowledge in stock assessment
science. One reason for this skepticism is that scientists
and managers do not know how to incorporate such knowledge
(Neis et al., 1996). Scientists argue that if inshore
fishers' knowledge cannot be successfully incorporated into
traditional scientific assessment models then it is unlikely
that they can successfully use fishers' knowledge. To
clarify, stock assessment science is primarily quantitative
and has generally relied on data derived from the offshore
commercial fishery and offshore research vessel surveys
(Neis, 1992: 162). Given this, scientists have tended to
dismiss fishers' knowledge seeing it as "anecdotal" and
generally lacking in reliability and validity necessary to
be called data (Finlayson, 1994).
Another reason that scientists have
until recently ignored resource users' knowledge in stock
assessment and resource management is because of its local
scale. Stock assessment scientists typically aim at getting
larger spatial scale estimates of the entire stock (Neis et
al, 1996: 14). Scientists have also argued that unlike stock
assessment science, the knowledge of fishers is not
evaluated objectively but is a part of their social and
cultural reality (Finlayson, 1994). Given this, many
scientists have argued that neglect of fishers' local
knowledge is warranted. They have argued that because of the
large number of fishers in the inshore and diverse
technologies imposing some kind of order on their knowledge
is very difficult. Factors such as gear and climate make
their knowledge "largely opaque to statistical analysis"
(Finlayson, 1994).
Another reason scientists and
managers have been slow to integrate fishers and their
knowledge into science and management process is because
they are not aware of the differences and similarities that
exist between their knowledge and that of fishers. All
knowledge systems, whether scientific or nonscientific,
emerge out of a complex process involving social, political
and ecological factors (Felt, 1994). In fisheries management
and science, several different knowledge systems are at work
including those of scientists, managers and politicians.
Policy makers and managers may have different and often
conflicting opinions about the fisheries while scientists,
including fisheries biologists and stock assessment
researchers operate from different paradigms and
consequently view the resource differently. Because of this,
no one knowledge system is separate from another nor is one
knowledge system value free and objective. Like the
knowledge of scientists and managers, that of fishers is not
immune to social, organizational, technological, political
and ecological processes. Fishers claim no objectivity but
are mediated by different technologies, management,
competition and work strategies.
Part of the solution to the
scientists skepticism lies in the way they are approaching
fishers' local knowledge. Many scientists and policy makers
realize that social and ecological factors affect fishers
within their local environments, but they believe that
information useful to science must be free from these
influences. They see the inconsistencies in fishers'
knowledge as a problem. Without any appreciation or
recognition of the social and ecological contexts that cause
fishers' local knowledge to vary, we run the risk of
conflicts between knowledge systems such as those of stock
assessment science, policy makers and fishers; and the
avoidance of knowledge that may more useful than it first
appears. Too often divergence in the observations and
opinions voiced by different groups of fishers in different
areas may be used as a basis for dismissing fishers
knowledge rather than interpreted as an indication of the
existence of localized stocks or populations with different
dynamics. Scientists and managers who have a better
understanding of the organization, content and social and
ecological processes that mediate fishers' ecological
knowledge, can utilize such knowledge to its fullest extent
and with grater care. Failure to understand fishers'
ecological knowledge for what it may lead to the decision to
avoid it because it does not reflect the opinions of the
scientific or management communities (Palsson, 1995: 191).
4. Observations on the
strengths and weaknesses evident in the published literature
respecting eco-knowledge research (see theory
question)
Existing research on fishers' local
knowledge has paid attention to the importance and
usefulness of such knowledge in the development of
scientific data and resource management (felt, 1994; Berkes,
1998; Neis et al, 1996; Palsson, 1993, scientific sources)
However, little attention has been paid to identifying and
understanding how social and ecological contexts can cause
knowledge to vary among fishers.
5. Observations respecting
particular methodological issues, challenges and needs and
research design recommendations. (Observations respecting
the design of eco-knowledge research) (Observations Arising
From Participant Experiences in Eco-Knowledge Focused
Research)
Information derived from fishers is
not a substitute for scientific research. Like other types
of information used in science and management, it needs to
be collected in a systematic fashion with careful attention
to the social and ecological contexts that can influence
observations and interpretations. Fishers are not
technicians and fishing is not a controlled, experimental
situation; fishers' observations are generally orally
transferred rather than written and are subject to the
effects of memory. However, fishers generally monitor
closely what is happening on their fishing grounds on a
daily basis during the fishing season. The times series of
observations generated over the course of their fishing
careers often exceeds that available to science. Systematic
collection of fishers' observations can be costly but it can
facilitate the historical reconstruction of longer term
trends in fisheries and identification of ecological
changes. This information can be aggregated, reconstructing
these patterns from local to regional scales, and results
can be verified using information from existing scientific
research or by triggering new scientific research that may,
in the longer term, make it easier to cross-reference
information from fishers with that from science.
6. Observations concerning
the relation of ecological knowledge to natural resource
management public policy
Within fisheries, a growing
interest has developed in increasing the participation of
fishers in both the collection and development of scientific
data and in fisheries management (Neis, 1997; Palsson, 1998;
Pinkerton, 1995: 2). Part of the reason for this interest is
the fact that fisheries policy and science have not been
successful in achieving sustainability for the world's
fisheries. In trying to address this problem many
scientists, managers, fishers and academics believe that
fishers should be meaningful incorporated into the fisheries
policy formation process, including the establishment of
population characteristics of targeted species. If
successfully incorporated, fishers might offer perspectives
on the fishery that have not been present. Given recent
trends toward more localized fisheries management, fishers'
knowledge might become vital to a system of management that
focuses on localized knowledge and decision
making.
|