The working seminar
will likely chew through these and many other linked questions and issues.
From the outset, it is critical that substantial, defensible and examinable
answers be provided to the issues associated with these what, who and
how questions. Additionally, it seems inescapable that the specific
research tools and methods needed to document the various 'communities'
of ecological knowledge will differ with respect to the 'knowledge claims'
under study. For instance, the sampling procedures, key informant identifier
processes and the sorts of questions asked will vary depending on whether
one is working with fisheries scientists/marine ecologists-biologists,
commercial marine harvesters, First Nations or recreational fishers.
For this thought
exercise I have chosen to focus on American Eel fisheries and systems
of ecological knowledge. This fishery is associated with at least three
contending systems of 'ecological knowledge': the knowledge claimed
by fisheries scientists/marine biologists and ecologists, the knowledge
accumulated by non-native commercial and recreational harvesters, and
Mi'kmaq knowledge of American Eel behaviour and habitat. Additionally,
there seems to have been little, if any, social research in North America
focussed on eel fisheries and knowledge systems. Finally, the eel fisheries
seem to have experienced little by way of systematic interest or attention
from fisheries managers; yet, are understood as particularly important
to the Mi'kmaq and characterised by Mi'kmaq participation. Is the marginality
of American Eel in fisheries science/management related in any way to
the marginality, in economic and political terms, of the Mi'kmaq?
By way of a specific
comment on design and methodology, I have participated in both qualitative
and quantitative research processes. In working with non-native marine
harvesters, I have come to prefer a two-tier methodological approach.
This approach begins with the quantitative designs and devices associated
with stratified random sampling as the means to identify and initially
describe the pertinent 'categories of people' as well as key attributes
of human action/organisation/background. A rank order of peer-specified
local knowledge experts would be created from the quantitative work.
The quantitative
phase might also be employed to detail core aspects of social background,
family/kin/organisational 'rootedness' in fishing such as duration of
participation, interruptions, attachments to and satisfaction with fishing
as well as the extent to which participation is 'nested' within/in relation
to kin and family participation in fishing. For example, in quantitative
research it is possible to document whether a respondent began fishing
with kin/family, whether their father/grandfathers fish/fished, and
whether they are currently fishing with kin/family (sons, brothers,
fathers, grandfathers, or other relatives). It is also important to
document qualities of current fishing practices and 'fishing power'.
That is, it is important to detail the fisheries engaged (e.g., lobster,
groundfish, pelagics, crab etc.), fishing licenses currently held, fishing
gear used (traps, nets, trawl, hook and line), as well as technical
characteristics of the current fishing boat (age of vessel, length of
vessel, engine power, electronic aids, and such).
Once completed,
the quantitative phase is followed by qualitative research during which
one focuses effort on working with the persons identified by peers during
the first phase as the recognised local ecological knowledge experts.
The qualitative work is focused on generating the 'thick descriptions'
elemental to documenting human action and understandings. The second
phase of this research design is domain-centred. The researcher would
begin by working with the most commonly peer-acknowledged local expert.
This work would employ various devices such as family/kin and occupational
history descriptions (a genealogical approach), nautical charts, observations
during fishing trips (not essential, but useful), and other devices
to document experiences, identify and 'name' locations, and to detail
knowledge of fishing grounds and species (lobster/American Eel) behaviour
as well as ecological associations and interactions. The rank-order
list of acknowledged local ecological knowledge experts would be worked
through until it becomes clear that 'information saturation' has been
achieved for the locality and species concerned.
In principle, this
approach engages a defensible and legitimating design/methodology with
respect to the 'meaning' of data/information gathered respecting non-native
marine harvester ecological knowledge. Of course, one of the major limitations
of this approach is that it is both time and material resources hungry,
requiring intensive engagement over a lengthy period of time. Yet, I
cannot conceive of any other approach that would permit social researchers
to demonstrate a sufficient and defensible systematic methodological
foundation for what is claimed as documentation/description, let alone
as findings, conclusions and understandings.
I have a particular
interest in using and developing mapping as an aspect of research design
and methods, particularly as applicable to human extractive interactions
within natural resource settings. I have employed primitive mapping
in some previous research, mainly interviewing marine harvesters about
fishing practices and strategies with the aid of nautical maps. I found
these maps to be invaluable as the harvesters could easily relate their
practices, memories, and understandings to the spatial and 'physical
features' dimensions represented in the map, e.g., water depth, ocean
floor topography, and 'fishing spots'. Recollections, 'stories' and
specific observations for various fisheries, locations and times of
year were often cued through reference to and discussion of fishing
'places' and 'ground'. Nautical maps also proved useful in aiding reconstructions
of fishing histories and experiences, including stories respecting the
experiences of others in specific reference to particular places, often
named, located on the fishing ground. The use of multiple copies of
a locality's nautical/coastal maps would likely be necessary to record/document
relative time-referenced and framed information, i.e., Map copy 1 for
early experiences, Map Copy 2 for when first taking a boat as captain,
Map Copy 3 for mid-career experiences, Map Copy 4 for current or recent
experiences, observations.
Finally, I have
learned that recollections are most readily detailed and associated
with the particular boat fished on at the time. Consequently, it is
useful to reconstruct fishing histories and relative chronologies through
reference to and descriptions of the boats fished on. In my experience,
while dates, including specific years, are rarely recalled with any
accuracy, technical attributes of all boats fished on are clearly recalled,
particularly if discussions/interviews begin with the first boat and
systematically work forward through all boats fished on until the present
day (or retirement). Questions can be productively asked respecting
matters such as experiences had, observations made, locations, times
of year, and so on with reference to the boat being fished on and the
captain/crew being fished with 'at that time'. Working through the rank-ordered
list of peer acknowledged local ecological knowledge experts in this
manner should provide a very thorough description of local understandings,
experiences, and observations respecting matters such as ecological
relationships and species behaviours associated with particular 'places'
within the fishing ground.
I also think that
it is critical to develop a way to determine the extent to which specific
attributes, ecological claims, and such are commonly described among
and expressed as 'local knowledge' by those identified as experts. In
one informal experiment I worked with a key informant and paper readouts
from his echo sounder as a way of identifying locally important fishing
places as well as various biotic and abiotic attributes associated with
these places. I then made up a 'key' from this information and prepared
several sheets with unlabeled echo sounder readouts of these places.
These sheets were shown to other key informants fishing on the ground.
They were asked whether or not they recognised the places represented
by the echo sounder images. If they did, they were asked to describe
the biotic and abiotic qualities that they associated with these places
as well as to relate any experiences they associate with the locations.
I did this in an unsystematic manner, essentially as an attempt at developing
a way to describe and to test the extent to which understandings of
the fishing ground were held in common. While never taken to its conclusion
or developed to its full potential, not surprisingly this 'test' strongly
associated detailed understandings and ability to identify 'places'
with the most experienced harvesters. That is, the most experienced
were more likely to identify the 'places' and to associate similar biotic
and abiotic attributes. I suspect that there is considerable potential
in developing elements of this sort of procedure with respect to documenting
and verifying various core attributes of local ecological knowledge.
I also suspect that this sort of technique would allow for reasonably
comprehensive descriptions and understandings of the socio-economic
and political attributes, conditions and contexts associated with becoming
a bearer of detailed ecological knowledge. An approach reflecting these
qualities but drawing on small scale maps could be developed for any
aquatic environment, including estuaries, rivers and lakes.
This design has
potential when working with non-native fish harvesters, recreational
fishers and, possibly, First Nation harvesters. Certainly at least aspects
of the qualitative strategies and approaches outlined would be applicable
to working with First Nations harvesters and fisheries scientists. In
these two communities qualitative approaches would be essential and
most sensible. Working with First Nations persons on ecological
knowledge issues would, first, entail developing a means to identify
those considered by the Mi'kmaq to be most knowledgeable. For instance,
given the fact that the scale and characteristics of Mi'kmaq participation
in American Eel fisheries are apparently unrecorded by government offices,
identifying knowledge experts will require working with existing community
organisations and leadership. This research would also need to be framed
with reference to the mores of community conduct and regard respecting
ecological knowledge. Likely, Mi'kmaq would need to be engaged in the
design of research processes and tools such as interview forms. Mi'kmaq
would also need to participate as interviewers, particularly given that
the Mi'kmaq language may need to be employed when working with community
elders and that the Mi'kmaq have concerns about the control and dissemination
of 'their knowledge'.
Identifying fisheries
scientists with whom to work does not pose a similar difficulty.
For instance, core current and past American eel fisheries science and
biology/ecology researchers are retrievable from authorship and citation
references. Certainly a design employing an intensive interview with
follow-up seems best suited. In addition to gathering the intellectual
and research experience genealogy through detailing background educational,
employment and research experiences, questioning might focus productively
on 'black box' topics such as the reasons for the apparent absence of
information respecting matters such as eel reproductive behaviours and
elver biomass relation with reproductive dynamics/sustainability. Explanations
respecting the reasons for the rather extraordinary absence of First
Nations and recreational harvesting from fisheries assessments would
also be useful. In this work it would be important to detail the researchers'
actual field experiences and observations, in addition to their work
with official statistics. If there has been direct participation in
field research, details such as location and time of year would be critical
to assessing researchers' observations. Where actual field research
has been conducted, a follow-up interview might productively employ
close-scaled topographic/nautical maps for the purpose of cueing recollections
and contextualising/referencing observations/experiences. Finally, this
interview, as with all of the others, should provide opportunity for
the researchers to comment upon matters such as research needs respecting
understandings of the American Eel and its ecology, the relation between
existing knowledge and fisheries management initiatives (e.g., experimental
elver fisheries), and explanations for the recent declines in eel and
eel landings.
Identifying non-native
recreational eel fishers may also prove a challenge, particularly
if licensing information is not readily available. In the absence of
such information, one approach would be to find one recreational user;
and, towards the end of the interview, request the names of and contact
information for additional users. In short, employ a network approach,
focused on the domain of a local estuary, river or lake. A similar qualitative
strategy to the one outlined above would prove useful in so far as it
would detail personal background, attributes of experiences in the recreational
eel fisheries, and knowledge of the fishing grounds. Recreational fishers
may have considerable information to add respecting the characteristics
of eel populations as well as environmental factors potentially influencing
population trends, distributional variations/changes, and population
dynamics.
As an aspect of
working with each of the communities of users, it would be interesting
to document the extent and character of relations and interactions that
each community has had or currently has with the other. Learning of
these qualities would assist in determining the extent to which each
communities' concerns and understandings respecting the Eel and the
Eel fisheries have arisen from either their own experiences or a combination
of experiences and interactions. Antidotal material suggests that the
Eel fishery has been and remains of considerable importance for both
the Mi'kmaq and the Acadian French communities. These communities have
been and remain closely associated within Maritime Canada, allied historically
and, to this day, often living in adjacent settlements. Of course, relations
between them have not always been cooperative as fully evident in the
recent Burnt Church, New Brunswick, conflicts respecting Mi'kmaq participation
in the commercial lobster fishery.
Finally, I think
that social research can have a central role in documenting and giving
voice to ecological knowledge systems. But, with this role comes the
rather onerous responsibility of assuring that the documentation and
'voice' provided contribute meaningfully to something other than the
entrenchment of cleavages, vested interests and power inequities. Additionally,
the association of social research outcomes with the championship of
particular approaches to resource management certainly requires that
the 'evidence' clearly, unequivocally, and confidently supports the
positions taken. That is, championing implementation of management policy
carries the risk of achieving little more than failure and the consequences
of same as experienced in the lives and well-being of harvesters, their
families and their communities. It seems to me that championship underwritten
by anything less than evidence-rooted and tested 'knowledge' is little
more than an ideological, self-indulgent and irresponsible act. Few
social researchers and scientists must live with the consequences of
their failed management preferences, i.e., lost employment, economic
hardship, and crises in personal, family and community life. As one
New Brunswick marine harvester was reported as telling the Kirby Commission,
all fisheries scientists, researchers and policy makers should have
their incomes reflect annual returns to the fisheries they study and
the harvesters they 'manage'. Perhaps, if such were the situation, scientists,
researchers and managers would be more careful and concerned about the
meaning and the impacts of the management policies with which 'others'
must live.