WORKING GROUP REPORTS Wednesday, May 26th, 1999

Fishery Science Ecological Knowledge GROUP A Point made: Fishery science can be ecological knowledge and is broader than fishery science biological knowledge. Fishery science ecological knowledge is gathered by surveys and catch returns, both methods have their problems. Estimates of fish stock and their ecology are made. The fish science ecological knowledge is then held by "the fishery science establishment" where it may undergo change, selection and differential interpretation. Some reasons: different interest groups within the scientific establishment different genealogies (e.g., social and educational backgrounds of the biologists) internal politics and career considerations Fishery science ecological knowledge then is usually given to policy makers who may re-interpret it. (Points 4 & 5 may be fruitful scientific subjects of investigation.) The expectations of the uses of the fishery knowledge are pitched at a realistic level and not rubbished as inaccurate and useless, because of the margins of error inherent in any ecological research.   GROUP B What is the utility of research designs used to document the characteristics of and differences within fisheries science ecological knowledge? facilitate communication how is scientific knowledge generated and accepted into the scientific community? how can it become accessible to other groups? identify some of the potential risks and keep findings transparent (e.g.: utility of 'mother fish'; what are the potential risks of inappropriately raising quotas? What are the socio-economic objectives associated with the project?) Meta-design in order to legitimize the project there is a general knowledge about marine environments, and we should reexamine the component, which itself becomes a legitimizing process. Fishers have no problem helping with the research (e.g.: tagging fish) but there is no return on the information (e.g.: they send the tags off somewhere, and do not know what is done with them). Commonalties between DFO, fishers, and management: stock structure (size, location, distribution, habitat, behaviour) by catch (size, species) stomach contents Need a good working example of when the parties can equally engage (in terms of power balance) in meaningful dialogue (e.g.: one day conference where fishers and scientists can ask each other questions about a single species in a specific location).   GROUP C Ambivalent relationship between science and policy Knowledge is socially constructed, and there is a recognition of fisheries science as filtered through various social institutions (ex: political and economic pressures pushed estimates of stock toward upper level of range of estimates) Disassociation/Alienation between scientists and fishers and processors Critical issues dealt with retrospectively In reference to Tom McGuire's comment about "studying" fisheries institutions (what makes institutionalized bureaucracies "tick"?) start with Hutchings and Myers paper (working papers from CAFSAC, 1992) Complexity removed as it moves from science to management (does this happen everywhere?) Trust is degraded and mistrust creates feedback making management more difficult (e.g., misreporting: inability to get accurate information.) The way in which local knowledge is perceived - it is variegated and diffused QUESTIONS: Q Moving from single to multi-species assessments/ecosystem approach. Why has this not progressed? data is difficult to collection if models are complex, advice and management difficult   Q Why is this not funded? There is no desire to support this work (sociology of funding; politics)   Q How do we explore the way in which particular methods are championed?   Q: NIFA in courts Kevin St. Martin -"good science" but not able to influence policy. Power and politics -> who holds sway?   RESEARCH DESIGN TO CONSIDER: What are the units of analysis? (individuals, etc.) What are the relevant groups (regional, national, West coast, East coast) What research instrument to use? :semi-structured interview schedule :face to face Science knowledge compared to local knowledge focused on a particular issue and area Need for external criticism (i.e., opportunity for participation by interested and affected parties).   GROUP D What research designs would be best suited to document the characteristics of and differences within fisheries science ecological knowledge? Very interesting- sociology of science question. Hard to discuss methodologies without discussing institutions and the structures within institutions. For example, institutional change, contexts change which may influence the research methodologies you use. (e.g., native harvesters knowledge as much methodological as institutional.) The researchers can validate the answers they get, which presupposes an institutional framework. NEK-native knowledge requires a collaborative approach. We are all contributing to the process. Methodology and institutions are closely connected. What is the contribution of social scientists to this question? Sociologists are interested in social relations and social action. The best way may be to study social interaction. That is where sociology has something to offer. There are similar parallels between fishers and scientists and how they acquire their knowledge- as Jeff Hutchings mentioned. Based on that premise you may be able to extend the methodology that works with fishers to understanding the different levels of knowledge and structure within fisheries science ecological knowledge. What is that methodology ? We are deciding on that. (MacInnes) What aspects of advanced knowledge do we have to buy into? MacInnes argues that what is decided depends on who represents the meeting. In principle, MacInnes assumption is based on the process of knowing as a social process. We exchange ideas. The only difference between scientists and fishers is that scientists sit around a table and fishers are on the docks. Sociology can do this. The purpose is to arrive at methodologies to pick up on this within institutions. Social context affects knowledge, science and fishers. There is a methodology to studying social groups that can produce answers. Participant observation is an approach for studying science and management, but depends on the goals. How do we best get this knowledge (depending on our goals)? Much of this knowledge is tacit. How do you get this knowledge? You have to study practice. Knowledge is assumptions. You have to base your next piece of knowledge on your last piece of knowledge. Scientists threatened by Barb's work. Closing of certain organizations influences what kind of science is done. The institutional framework of DFO is cut. Research capabilities are cut What type of approval would be necessary for sociological studies of science and management studies, if we want the "real top to bottom"? Study other groups: few people have the power to study other groups knowledge because of lack of access. How does the anthropology define access? Where you access an institution shapes your research. Finlayson represents the outside. Work with fishers may be easier because they are not so constrained to speak. Who are you writing your proposal for? If you think about ecological knowledge as a stock of something, it is basically a biological statement. No expertise on that, nor any other sociology can teach biologists about biology. Fishers have that. So the issue becomes developing a methodology. Where sociology comes in is where knowledge comes in and how to get to knowledge. I am starting with the assumption that fishers' knowledge is useful to science, and we should start from that and how to get that knowledge. How do we structure knowledge? Bob Johannes, have no way to weed out useless information. What I have done in anthropology, is to do applied anthropological research. Set up a team, don't get enough context. How do you sort out the useless information? My concern is the policy issues. What is it about scientific ecological knowledge that doesn't allow TEK, and what is it about TEK that doesn't allow it to be integrated? Within science, there are many structures that are set up to facilitate the knowledge process and it is set up in a way that folk knowledge is not allowed in. So breaking down those barriers is the work of science. We have the scientists who give advice to the managers. The arguments is that this advice would be better if the fishers are part of the debate. What if scientists are on the bottom and fishers were in the middle? The process would be different. The fisheries scientists give the information to the managers. The research instrument is developed Methodologies or approaches developed-anthropology methods. An instrument, which methodologies can be used to study work within science. Finlayson and Caroline Creed, New England groundfish council-ethnographic study. Finlayson's work more interviews. Sociologists are not biologists.