|
Ecological Knowledge:
Key informant approaches for the Gulf of St. Lawrence Lobster Fisheries
Christopher
Bear
Department
of Geography
University of Aberdeen
Aberdeen, Scotland
In the social sciences,
research on ecological knowledge has often focused purely on scientific
or 'traditional' knowledges in preference to all other knowledges or understandings.
More often than not, the approach is segregational rather than integrative.
This separation, whilst perhaps reflecting the natural-social science
divide, is of particular interest to the geographer, whose discipline
appears to have become increasingly disintegrated between the physical
and the human until recently when calls have been made for a more holistic
approach (notably Massey, 1999). This paper therefore begins by questioning
the 'ecological knowledge' concept, suggesting what it may involve and
what its worth may be. It then goes on to consider more specifically the
lobster fisheries of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Nova Scotia, with regard
to the practical implications of the gathering of this ecological knowledge.
The use of a key informant approach is discussed, in terms of its strengths,
weaknesses, challenges and requirements.
Ecological Knowledge
The Oxford English
Dictionary (1989) defines 'ecology' as 'The science of the economy of
animals and plants; that branch of biology which deals with the relations
of living organisms to their surroundings, their habits and modes of life,
etc.'. If we accept this as being a relatively sound definition, how do
we come to 'know' about ecology? In the past, we may have turned immediately
- and perhaps solely - to environmental science for an explanation. Animals
and plants are taken as objects of study. Structured experiments are carried
out to test their behaviour in different situations. This may be seen
as a 'rational' approach. However, as Eden (1998: 425) has noted, 'many
of the issues which are 'environmental' are also 'cultural', 'economic',
'social' and 'rural''. As a result, there has been a realisation that
studies of ecology - and, more generally, the environment - need to be
more than scientific.
As has been noted,
the social scientist - or perhaps policy maker - has frequently turned
to 'traditional' ecological knowledge (TEK) as an alternative or complementary
base to that of scientific knowledge. Often, studies have considered this
TEK in the context of 'indigenous peoples' - leading to an association
with the term 'local'. It is this 'localness' which has perhaps often
reduced its perceived value (Murdoch and Clark, 1994). However, the terms
are not interchangeable. TEK, it may be said, refers to a very specific
form of knowledge. This knowledge has been gained through interactions
with the environment and through inter- and intra-generational communication.
These environmental interactions come through day-to-day experiences rather
than through 'rational' testing. The term 'traditional' is perhaps confusing
as it suggests a knowledge gained purely from the past. Although this
is an important element, 'tradition' is adaptable and, as such, draws
on the contemporary experiences of the knowledge-holders.
Local ecological
knowledge (LEK) is far broader. It includes TEK (which is not necessarily,
of course, wholly local) but also may be said to include knowledge of
the ecology and environment through indirect contact. For instance, although
a restaurateur may have no direct contact with lobsters until their arrival
in a market or even their restaurant, they still hold knowledge of the
economic value of this 'ecological resource'.
Although TEK or LEK
are often held as the basis for future sustainable management of a resource,
Murdoch and Clark (1994) have noted that it is quite possible that they
are no more sustainable than scientific knowledge. They suggest that these
alternatives or complementaries to science should be addressed in an equally
critical manner with regard to resource management.
The Gathering
of Ecological Knowledge
With such a wide
range of potential sources of ecological knowledge in any one area, the
gathering of the knowledge - and the identification of sources - provides
many practical problems. If the aim of this project is to find a way of
achieving further integration of the types of knowledge held by different
people, it not only needs to analyse the knowledge available but also
the people or groups which will want to use it. Here, therefore, there
must be an underlying consideration of ethics, questioning not just the
use of TEK or LEK by other groups but also the use of, for example, scientific
knowledge and the way this is situated in power relationships.
While a number of
possible field methods exist, the key informant approach appears to have
been selected for the current study. As part of the research conducted
to date, the fishermen who were questioned were asked to identify three
people, other than themselves, who they thought were 'well informed about
the local fishing ground'. Three-hundred-and-seven people were then listed
as 'informed fishermen'. Sixty-nine of these people were named three or
more times and thirty-five were named four or more times. What are the
implications of carrying out a study in this way?
Firstly, the knowledge-holders
who have been identified are only fishermen knowledge-holders, identified
by fellow fishermen. Apparently, only two of those identified were not
actually fishermen. The original questionnaire asked fishermen to identify
'people, either currently fishing or retired, who are considered…to
be especially knowledgeable about the local fishing ground.' This emphasis
on the knowledge purely of fishermen prevents a respondent from suggesting
that a non-fisherman - perhaps even a scientist - is particularly knowledgeable
about the area. This appears to assume that those who fish will most appreciate
the knowledge of their peers, as opposed to people in other fields. If
networks are to be traced which will subsequently allow a greater integration
of knowledge types, it is not only necessary to understand intra-'community'
feelings of respect and admiration but also inter-community relationships.
The same is equally
true of the other groups which may be involved. It is necessary to understand
how, for instance, fisheries biologists view the knowledge held by the
fishermen. Who would they consider to be most knowledgeable about an area?
Would those named include any fishermen? To what extent do these understandings
- those of scientists and fishermen - overlap and coincide? To comprehend
such issues more fully, it is seen as necessary to interview other related
groups.
Within the existing
study, the choosing of key informants itself raises a number of important
questions. Firstly, who is key? The fact that a person has been recommended
as knowledgeable by three or four others does not necessarily correspond
with the level of knowledge and understanding this person holds compared
with that of someone who has been only recommended once - or perhaps even
no times. Recommendations can also be related to other factors, such as
the level of social interaction of certain individuals. The fact that
one person may have many friendships and contacts and discusses fisheries
with them does not mean that this person is any more knowledgeable than
a counterpart who is less gregarious and does not share his/her knowledge
to the same extent. Perhaps this is simplifying the situation somewhat,
but the issue must be borne in mind.
The structure of
the questionnaire used may help to assess the situation of a recommendation.
Following the identification of the three 'informed' fishermen, participants
were asked to state how they knew those whom they had recommended - as
a relative, a friend, someone they had fished with, someone they had fished
near, through an organisation or some other way. An analysis of these
responses might show the relative importance of friendships over 'official'
relationships, for instance.
A second point is
related. Although one person may be regarded as knowledgeable by other
fishermen, that person is not necessarily representative of the majority
of those involved in fishing. Even if it is found to be true that this
person holds a greater amount of 'knowledge' than many others, the opinions
held by this person may not mirror those held by others. The over-emphasis
of this person's knowledge could lead to undesirable power relationships
if the person were included in a formal management structure.
The question regarding
who is well informed refers specifically to the local fishing ground,
thus privileging the local knowledge over the regional or universal. It
must be remembered that non-locally specific knowledge could also be highly
applicable to the area and that, while such knowledge may be recognised
by the fishermen, the questionnaire may have prevented them from alluding
to this because of its local specificity. Perhaps this is an area that
could be considered in the current period of research. It would be useful
to know how fishermen would rank the value of less locally situated knowledge.
An overall point
which may be taken from the discussion thus far is that the key informant
approach as currently understood only incorporates the understandings
of one group as to who is key. It must also be noted that the group that
has been discussed to this point is no doubt far from heterogeneous in
many ways. Only fishermen have been considered in any detail so far. Which
other groups require to be contacted and how may key informants be distinguished?
Once more, a consideration
of ethical requirements must be taken into account. Perhaps the identification
of key informants in other groups depends on the philosophical stance
of the seminar's participants and what is seen as its guiding principle.
If the aim is to 'empower the people' then perhaps informants from the
other groups should be chosen from the perspective of the fishermen. If,
however, the aim is seen as being to find a way of adding to the existing
scientific knowledge base, then perhaps informants should be selected
on the basis of the feelings of those within the scientific community.
If a fully integrative approach with a supposedly neutral stance is sought,
we must make a subjective decision which will, as far as could be seen,
offer the best opportunities for all the participants.
The only group other
than fishermen to have been introduced is scientists, again a group which
is far from homogeneous. An obvious group, overlapping to a large degree
with other groups, is that of poachers. They have been identified in a
number of reports as one potential threat to lobster stocks and concern
has been raised over how to control such activities. Economic motives
have been cited for people turning to poaching and it is therefore important
to investigate the relationships between poachers and other fishermen
not purely from the environmental perspective but also from the economic
and social and so forth. Because poachers may not be contacted through
any formal organisation, informants will have to be identified through
conversations with others who are prepared to name them. Here, perhaps,
the key informant approach would be merely an ideal which it may be impossible
to attain. Rather, a mere informant approach is more likely to be necessary,
in which those whom it is possible to contact will be contacted. Clearly,
such an approach is highly unlikely to be representative of the poaching
population as a whole.
Representatives from
fish processing plants should be sought if a broad view of 'ecological
knowledge' is to be taken because of their economic understandings of
the issues. The Integrated Fisheries Management Plan for the Gulf Lobster
Fisheries states that there were 76 processing plants in the Gulf Fisheries
that processed lobster. The emphasis put on lobster will differ among
these plants. Here it would seem logical to consider the plants that have
the greatest emphasis on lobster. Within these plants, further considerations
may be included, such as the intended market of each plant (for instance,
the emphasis on exports) or the number of employees. If such an approach
were to be employed, it would clearly be based on a quantitative background,
utilising industry figures and so forth to investigate the importance
of each company. However, qualitative methods could also be employed once
more, for instance in asking fishermen about the processing plants and
finding out which plants they consider to be most important. Again, the
importance of a plant may be socially constructed by those involved in
the area and it is therefore important that an outsider's view is not
imposed as this may give an unclear picture of the situation as experienced
by those concerned on a day-to-day basis.
The
Key Informant Approach: Benefits, Drawbacks and Challenges
The selection of
groups covered by this paper is far from exhaustive. However, a number
of important issues regarding the key informant approach have been identified.
It has been shown
that, if the approach is to be effective, it must be applied with great
caution. The question, 'Who is key to whom?' must always be asked. We
must always bear in mind the power relationships between and within groups
involved in the lobster fisheries. To gain a holistic perspective, it
is therefore necessary to concentrate not only on one group (the fishermen,
for instance) but on all those involved, and to recognise heterogeneity.
It has been suggested that the fact that one fisherman has been recommended
as 'informed' by over four others does not mean that he is actually any
more knowledgeable than another fisherman who has not been cited at all.
However, although both might be equally knowledgeable, perhaps the respect
given to the former is in fact important as people may be more willing
to respond to advice given by him than by the other.
Another theme to
arise from the discussion is the breadth of the ecological knowledge concept.
Those who are to be seen as key will depend to a large extent on the definition
which the researchers are prepared to adopt. Although the Working Seminar's
primary tasks are defined as relating to the perspectives of the Native
and non-native fishers and scientists, ecological knowledge could easily
be claimed to cover far wider territory. Obviously, the extent of breadth
to which we may allude during this seminar is limited due to the time
available, but it should nevertheless be remembered that forms of ecological
knowledge exist beyond the direct and the holders of indirect knowledge
may be said to have a right to be involved in future management procedures
because of their understandings of the resource. The fact that one fisherman
suggested a fish processing plant owner as being particularly knowledgeable
about the resource suggests that it is not a base to be discounted because
of a purely economic or culinary understanding. To return to the Oxford
Dictionary's definition of ecology, we are told of its concern for 'the
relations of living organisms to their surroundings.' It must be acknowledged
that the lobsters' surroundings are not merely the sea but also all the
processes that relate to the fish - whether these be physical, human or
both.
Thirdly, it must
be remembered that respect for the knowledge held by someone may not only
be intra-group (e.g. within the fishermen group) but also inter-group
(e.g. between fishermen and scientists).
The key informant
approach may therefore be seen to be a strong research tool when used
carefully and when any shortcomings due to availability of time and so
forth are acknowledged. The very use of the approach in this study may
itself lead to questions beyond the methodological and suggest new areas
of research
References1
- Eden S 1998 Environmental
Issues: Knowledge, Uncertainty and the Environment
Progress in Human Geography 22(3): 425-432
- Massey D 1999
Space-time, 'science' and the Relationship Between Physical Geography
and Human Geography Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers
24(3): 261-276
- Murdoch J and
Clark J 1994 Sustainable Knowledge Geoforum 25(2): 115-132
1 Other references
were drawn from the Ecological Knowledge Working Seminar Information
Pack
|