Table of ContentsReports

WORKING GROUP REPORTS

Sunday, June 18th, 2000

 
Theme: Research Designs Best Suited for the Systematic Study of
Contending Systems of Ecological Knowledge

Discussion - a.m.

Ottawa Meeting: issues there, re emphasis on credibility problem, focus on communications-link this to interest in social scientific research, potential use of social science contributions.

Maps , cards, pictures, all visual aids to help trigger memory, getting people to talk about what they know.

Lay out different, broad approaches described in the issue papers-for day one and then...

Chris Milley, "Sarah Brennan, researchers John Prosper, executive director of Mi'kmaq Fish and Wildlife Commission.

Petter's paper as a good place to begin the discussion:
suggested look at study of diff. Knowledge systems, depending on how work
1. Deference model-scientists, realist social science, fishers knowledge constructivist fishers knowledge is deferential to scientists

Alternative: fishers knowledge- realist, vs science constructivist
or both constructed

I think both are constructed-Alida-both are constructed forms of knowledge, what would like to throw out to the group-Petter-
Kevin: I was wondering if those positions that one takes on scientific knowledge or traditional knowledge, i understand are implications for methodology but do they have to be so defined, can't one see scientific knowledge as socially constructed, another moment more realist endevor-depends on the context?
Exploration into whether science is socially constructed or realist, at different moments can be both or other of those-seems to speak more to strategies, why one would strategically see science as socially constructed or not.

Tony: Also: design-implicit in design is a position on these things-in that design, embodied-tools you use, questions you ask, organization of the questions, etc. Is it possible to design a piece of research that reflects a position?

Looking at tek knowledge sociology implies that perspective in and of itself. Alida: in terms of studying science, science is already published, why do you need social scientists do this work, can read their papers?

Jeff: Science is disinterested, removed, search for truth, one thing, approach to a problem that is not biased but how people use it is another issue, how use it politically, economically , theories, construct and test them empirically, may or may not hold truth , fishermen have theories they are testing all the time, may use a diff. Set of methods to test them, may be more bias, my interest in theories, whether scientific etc. empirically validate those things, are constructed diff. ways

Scientific sense: I am in a marine institute with biologists, a lot are very conservative, don't want to be activists, if take that step, risk the knowledge, believe have a truth that is separate from political and econ. Issues, if take a position, some more willing to do that than others, politicians willing to do this.

Dan: do we make the distinction between science and applied science, social construction is in applied science?

Tony: truth can come in a variety of dresses, so fragmented, altering genetics of bees may allow for x, doesn't allow for relation bees and predators that feed on them, implication of that for y, systems are complex systems, what is truth if you don't grasp the whole system? Lab doing human genome thing-what is that

Social construction view-
more obvious in applied science?

One of the distinctions that is not in petter's paper, is what do you do with the holes in knowledge that science in way approaches knowledge is so special, detailed, doesn't have much to say about other relations, that are outside thing looking at, everyday knowledge or local, has way of solving problems or holes, making connections.

Dan-one of things have to look at here, all socially constructed, scientific knowledge so detailed, doesn't deal other business, creates need for someone to come in and show relationship between this knowledge and rest of world.

Fish harvesters dumping oil, garbage onto grounds, is LEK automatically connected to the world.If former is reflection of local knowledge raises question of relation-to world. Most people don't eat the fish that they catch.

Question how science is used: Chris-mainstream sci. research, with time realize eat fish from area die, takes more time, institutionalized science has the problem that because it is institutionalized, set up as a religion, how politicians misused that, issue, late 90s dfo eval. Of own science, problem not the science, it was how that was used.-given mythical weight.

Like a religion: go to public scientists say

increase skepticism about science-

science saying, has to be a change in quotas but government didn't cut them.

Science is being funded by the state: science looking purely out of curiosity-industry and government are saying if you do it this way, will get the funding, flavour of the month, aquaculture research-kept nrc alive in Halifax-science shifts around in response to funding agendas, which are politicized.

science migrates around following fisheries-abandon collapsed ones vs focus on recovery

Aquaculture: hierarchy-shellfish people give presentations, try to step out of subordinate relationship to fin fish people, ecologists-animal production people criticizing them for being negative, hierarchies within official science-John Phyne-when we look at scientific ecological knowledge and local ecological knowledge-how within former, where is that internal fracturing, start seeing in aftermath of that.

Truth: often bad science and people who are wrong-doesn't have anything to do with social construction, per se-i don't mean to bash economists, jeff, but in fisheries management biologists dominated, focus biology then economists came in-brought in with models, right or wrong, formal models, can estimate something like efficiency, problem: have assumptions that are untenable in most cases, therefore are wrong-pseudoscience vs real science-gets put forth as science, I don't believe what they say-

Tom: both traditional knowledge and scientific knowledge can be good or bad-same framework- bad tek, bad traditional practices, see it in the results-

There are theories, people work on theories-where am i going to find my fish today, salinity, wind directions, etc. not linearly, i think will be here today, have logs, gone through those, some are real empiricists, others follow them. -Jeff

Good and bad distinction knowledge-cloning might be good science today but won't-good and bad for w?-monsanto

Perspective we take when we enter research design phase-how does the design demonstrate how? not going to be embedded? Actually embedded in the design, allow for-this issues??? Tony-

Anita-I was questioning is it possible to have a realist perspective on science, who can have that-that implies that there is a truth we know that the scientists don't know-who has any realist glasses to put on to validate whether science holds the truth-Petter's paper is good because it makes us think about these things, can we move around?-we do move around but in a kind of unconscious way-because we are on the crusade for the truth: truth is out there-we look for that-when we do our studies we focus on catch statistics, ask about catches, then we seek knowledge science has defined as part of the truth, science decided that, Tromso, a lot of snow, old saying is local knowledge about snow, if snows in may or June, is good because the snow coming on top of the other snow will help the old snow to melt, may be some truth to that, we laugh at it but.

Petter: one of my intentions with that paper is just to make it less easy to systematically treat diff knowledge claims in diff. Ways, obvious in a lot of the papers, it treats scientific knowledge and local knowledge asymmetrically-can see the shift from a constructivist to a realist perspective when move from local knowledge to scientific knowledge-I agree with Kevin, we need both repertoires, we need both- I think that is important, one problem with a constructivist approach science and local knowledge, in some way we need to assume that we have independent access to what is the truth, finlayson is a major problem with that book-

Ilike to say also that there is a tendency for another asymmetrical treatment of local knowledge and scientific knowledge, tony in your introduction yo talk about knowledge systems, what does that mean? Tendency when we look at scientific knowledge, we don't look at the knowledge itself, if we wanted to look at what science knows about cod, go into the library and look up papers on cod and read them, social scientists not what is in the paper but in the way science is organized-funding, rule system, how many people involved, etc. system of knowledge production when comes to local knowledge may say interested in that, how knowledge is transmitted-but there are into looking at knowledge itself, that is a type of asymmetry-NBNB

Tony: yes, we do inquire about production of the knowledge system, about knowledge system itself, presented as finding, analysis of the knowledge production system allows you to raise questions about what presented as finding-do directly, indirectly raise questions that is presented as system of knowledge, implies social system of knowledge or cultural system-logic??

Jeff: this whole thing about studying knowledge systems-also work illness beliefs, physicians not scientists, have belief systems that may be diff from folk systems of beliefs about illnesses then are scientists, physicians, now looking at ear aches, -diff perspectives- diff-can study knowledge have, implication of that for behaviour-

Kevin-do we have to be realist or constructivist- you are diff things at diff times- are you looking at knowledge as something that is real, or multideterminant-at that level, that choice has less to do with epistemology but methodology-agreed-trying to shift the ontological entry point to those things that are more relevant to local fishers, etc. that has a lot to do with methodology epistemological question about what is knowledge?? In one moment enterprise presume decide we are going to do mapping exercise, looks at cod fish at local scale bec. Dominant science

Barb: i am critical realist, perspective that is not in your paper. I think there is a reality, we can only know it imperfectly and from particular places-partial knowledge and one of the values that comes from looking at different kinds of knowledge is that it helps us see that partiality, way each is constructed and by combining them, move towards a system of knowledge that is better, perhaps closer to that reality as it exists or perhaps existed in the past since we are always studying the world as it existed yesterday in this kind of research and fisheries and fisheries science for that matter are dynamics. Related to this, we need to be careful not to treat science as monolithic similarly fishers' knowledge-one of the tings we found in our research was that there was a branch elements of science that fit better with tek but had been marginalized in the stock assessment process-others have found this as well.

Chris-are diff. Scientific communities-objectives-have science that is done through ngos that is there for more esoteric reasons, not monetary, dfo science it is 9-5:00 job, it is a job, science is a profession, chasing the money by chasing the fishery-want to keep their jobs-cod biology-shift frm lobster biologist to crab biologist in gulf more opportunity to keep your job.

Traditional knowledge: doing it because it is their survival, scientists not part of day to day lives, etc. separation-

Alida: that dichotomy is also a problem- are some scientists who are dedicated to work,

Barb: fishers as well, some are instrumental in what they, for the wealthy a fishery may be just another investment

Dan: to go back to the beginning-most of the times we have used science today, used as a construction-not talking about cod studies, dfo that is all constructed knowledge that is not science, counting fish was not science were some scientific studies done on cod, but org. of count wasn't science, it was a system of counting fish in rel. to a concept of stock, etc. we have lumped this all together, that is the one contending system that has privilege-do scientists that have ecological knowledge-preliminary work?

Contending systems-?
Systematic study of contending systems-

John Phyne-in terms of looking at the issue of science seems to be that the issue is within the scientific community we have to be really aware of how science is organized, where scientists fit into this-found -look at the scientific community-why are scientists interested in certain questions-why are some scientists more interested in transgenic issues- vs ecological issues- why some-issues scientists involved in it, eel fishery, lobster hierarchy of prestige within science as well? (Barbara)

Chris: scientists working on single species that doesn't fit, biodiversity people starting to fit-comes down to, because reductionist approach to understanding ecosystem, reduced it to point where useless, building back up to more complexity, much harder to do, much harder to develop an understanding-science evolving back into traditional knowledge- scientists are becoming fishermen- or

Alida: sounds to me like one of the ways we could look at this would be to examine why people believe what they believe-all types of knowledge are somewhat socially constructed-

Jeff: science not monolithic tek-variation in knowledge, by ecology, i study cultural knowledge: do people have a shared system knowledge, if it is not shared, idiosyncratic knowledge if not shared, culture-shared among a group of people, core body share, diff's based on diff experiences, is there a body of knowledge that is shared, within that shared knowledge system, how is it shared-

intercultural variation in science-

Tony: within every domain, are a number of domains here, first nations, nonnative understandings may be quite different, diff domains, in those design issue, how approaches...can't assume will exist, then there is the issue of the characteristics of its existence-

Design issues

implications are: people interviewed one or two people, if shared body of knowledge may be okay, if not highly shared then two are idiosyncratic representations of something-

see dfo and unions-use fishermen who said x or y-in a meeting and claim truth or rejection, similarly individual fishermen to represent particular points of view-

Tony: specific focus on attributes of design, appears to be some unanimity?
What is in the notion of systematic:

 

Session # 2: a.m.
seemed to be unanimous view amongst the group-need for systematic approach to research

Systematic approaches to research design

Are we to assume that time and money are not constraints
ideal situation, nice to interview everyone, see distribution of knowledge

work principle: modest budget

Jeff: how do you determine to what extent something is shared-if highly shared, don't need to talk to a lot people, if something is not shared, need more people. Depends, can do purposive samples of people, pick a range of people on a theoretical dimension, diff. Expertise levels, gender, class, talk a few along dimension, say same things, say sharing across range of dimension, or do random samples, smaller, estimate maximum likelihood, don't have to talk to everyone, but may not want to do a random sample, do purposive sample, extreme cases vs

Tony vs technical level how are systematic,
is there a felt need to be systematic? - could be presumptive-what do we take that to mean?
Qualities? In a general sense-
Jeff: talking here a lot about comparing, fishers scientists, has to be systematic, have to make sure responding to same things in same way, have to be systematic, if want to look at variation in knowledge,
problem narrative approaches: if someone doesn't say something does that mean they don't know it. If i am a very shy person, may not tell you,

Mapping thing, if have a map use that, fishermen bring a chart out and show me-

Jon: i think one way to deal with systematic approach, noticed in four papers, talked about dealing people outside of framework, i.e. buyers in the port, fish plant workers, and others, regardless of methodology we take, who would be involved? Is an important question that precedes sampling issues.

Chris: bigger issue than this, people don't trust researchers generally now a days, like Mi'kmaq fishers, not a lot of trust, who does the research is a very important point, may be shy may not trust the researcher, may lie to you and that is the worst possible scenario

Tony: issue around systematic-
Chris: also: charts are often wrong, or perceived to be wrong by fishers.

Barb: some of the fishers I have worked with cannot read charts easily. Discussion about whether they can be oriented so that they can work with them-yes but there is an issue of comparability of information between fishermen who work with charts normally vs fishermen who don't but can still use them, etc.

Jeff: have people draw their own maps, often pictures of different setting,

Anita: depends a little bit on what you are trying to find out- systematics, what is that, i am thinking about this shared knowledge issue, if are going to be systematic in that sense, asking everyone to find out how shared, doesn't make sense all the time, anecdotes are very nb knowledge, held by one fisherman, ability to test out whether or not is shared isn't interesting in some settings, are so few fishermen who could share that, some fishermen operate in fiord are only users, problem, when fisherman talks about this area no one else does, how validate this, even though systematic in the sense of systematic set of questions, only one informant, we have to follow a line in our work

Chris: question from the point of being systematic, how systematically select your interviewees, not systematic-pre sampling stage, how do you structure your sampling

Tony: why be systematic in your sampling?

Jeff: anecdotes are real important, need to know where lies in the grand scheme of things-way I construct in a lot of ways do, start with qualitative narratives, wide range of people, from that construct something on systematic knowledge, so that can put in context -once collected a lot of in depth qualitative data, maybe

Doug: i want to pull us back a bit, we started this conversation on our research question? True, but do we need to articulate that-what is the research question?

Jeff: got to start out broad ways to look at, variance is so important, i wouldn't begin at this point to know what questions to ask.

Is there consensus: on the need for symmetry in research re fishermen's knowledge and science?

Doug: i feel like I am responding to the question, how do these groups see the lobster question, too general to be able to talk about a design-

Design standpoint, we want to compare three groups-commercial fishermen, lobster fishermen, scientists, how do we compare them, is there a fair comparison, have an opportunity to respond to the same things in the same way, how do we design something that would be fair to each group-

Tony: have to be able to document with some degree of confidence what is in each domain, within each, something that can allow for defensible comparability-built into that process of how you conceptualize it-

John Phyne: specific question, whole debate on what is the appropriate carapace size for harvesting, notice around gulf of st. lawrence, diff sizes, sometimes managers, scientists think one size appropriate, sometimes companies exporting us think another size is appropriate, on what basis do you feel this is the appropriate size- etc. survival of species or whatever-

Jeff: diff knowledge and political rhetoric influencing what people say for advantage

Doug: that to me feels too specific, one of the things about making a question that specific, if carapace size can get quite a few ideas- about that

Chris: carapace size question is not one that is a local knowledge issue, one that is a lek issue, that is a management economic issue as well, gets very difficult to discern that, is a global market that's dictating, are questions about lobster fishery, mix of issues, locally people have an understanding what is the best way to deal with our fishery, what marshall decision is pushing, we have to rethink the lobster fishery, dfo saying here is the status quo, works, but have to gather information now so know better how to deal with fishery

But focus now: what to people believe and why do they believe it-
Kevin: i am thinking there is something in the middle there idea that what do they know and how do they know it, vs lobster fishery questions, something in the middle there that says are we interested in finding out knowledge that will make management better, understanding biology of lobsters differently, community development, that's the kind of part i need articulated better, that has a lot to do with methodology- community structure and implications for management

Exploratory phase, qualitative vs more focussed phase-

why are you doing this? Tony-to empower harvester organizations, is there an advocacy function.
We are not biologists or marine ecologists-hard for social scientists- to present themselves as knowledgeable-how put together a research team question?

Our strengths working human communities in ways inquiring about what are doing-there are many motives associated with why research is engaged in, if are an advocate-notion of why systematic? - answers you want

Of your concern is advocacy-does the way in which you have allowed your advocacy to inform your work-affect it?
Exercise of confirmation-vs defensible inquiry-systematic embodies many qualities, prepared to subject what do to external inquiry, adjudication or inspection, prepared to subject what do to burden of confirmation-prepared to see variation will be embodied in what do-

I did work in coastal communities in NS communities, see social science literature, see no discussion of racism in those communities, local knowledge, factors that are empirically associated with rules of exclusion-local knowledge not necessarily an inclusive system socially, bases of excluding have not been entirely discussed- race reference

Why were mi'kmaq not involved in commercial fishing-why african ancestry n.s. not involved in coastal fisheries-neglected area.

Kevin: you can talk about the why question that go on and on etc. we spend a lot of time talking about that, useful, thing I am trying to say now, general research question where why is because we want to more about the biology of lobster- or more specific- or social structure of the lobster fishery here-

Rules of exclusion: lot of work done on why mi'kmaq were excluded, history as a useful tool. Nbnb.

Tony: described an exciting research project, to do that have to narrow down the what people know thing to something manageable to do with reasonable budget- breadth-what know, vs systematic comparisons-resources into that broad knowledge- we need to narrow down more specific questions about the fish and the ecology-why is research design question, can't do both

Dan: if the knowledge is sought if concentration on ecological. Knowledge. Today, may be because Want to use it for management- gov'ts want to get out of science and to use a cheaper alternative-if that is the case, research will have to be broad based why question is nb bec. Could influence research design.

Chris: most recent discussion paper dfo on fisheries atl. Fisheries policy and need for change, are looking at industry taking on bigger share of science as well, now will see more economically driven science vs local knowledge-clearwater will do science.

Design: people excluded comes down to the fact that we often forget are users who are not obvious artisanal, etc. knowledge often left out, talk to people at the front end, set up sampling strategies, now talk to the people who have a diff. Set of experiences, exclusion of mi'kmaq also has led to their exclusion in the research

Tony: how do you identify invisible groups- invisible to who?

Chris: using fishermen as researchers like fishermen and scientists research society, ones at the front end are biggest most successful can afford to get involved, smaller fisherman his knowledge is being left out, very different from guy with investment money-ways to include all types of users vs most readily identifiable.

Want to make sure that sample groups: jeff-groups in field didn't expect, precedent, people study drug dealers, hard to find populations, hiv users, use network techniques, to snowball, are ways to find people,

Chris: poachers as a population that may be discrete may have a particular world view- known as poachers in a community, poaching may translate into nuances,
Jeff: I worked in a cannery, i studied cannery fishermen, vs renegade fishermen no licenses, and native fishermen, blind man and elephant,

John phyne: seems what talking about here, research design, what research question, which group should be involved general-how do we narrow things down-

Tom: what is problematic in these two fisheries-treat it as applied setting, we are problem solvers what is problem in this fishery-go on to see the research solutions to that problem-curious been given single species approach to fisheries -given ecological knowledge-

Barb: importance of history, three kinds of knowledge vs fishermen's and science, problem of establishing rapport, trust, problem of shifting baseline syndrome, intellectual property issues

Jeff: what is the common set of tools available at any time, etc. instead of getting caught up in a problem- or question, focus more on tools-what tools appropriate for question??--

John Phyne: tools

If had a question-John for this particular type of question, might not work

Don:

Sarah: going to identify who you are working with, history, creation of stereotypes, fishermen, boats, affect research design, you are creating history, really recognize what you are looking at, selection of golf clubs, mi'kmaq people might have a different set of tools, different ways of doing things, res. Design inclusive, bring them into the research design, cross cultural stuff isn't emphasized

Chris: analogy of the golf clubs, going through and describe tools, research question, don't need the full bag of golf clubs, what is the research question desc. Tools, what is res can apply this to.

Tom: you have already defined the problem, going around golf course lowest possible score, shot, appropriate tool, need general research question defines problematic

Doug: i find myself asking an even more basic question, why am I here-we spend a week helping someone getting started on a research project, focussed on something you intend to do, privileges your research question-i liked what jeff said, what is the green

Tony: clear in things sent to you, cases are fictive references, however, that doesn't mean not real, there is the possibility that if we focus on these all around table, are engaged and have experience research focussed on various aspects of fisheries, etc. invited here, for the purpose of thinking about, how to work systematically with, ecological knowledge systems, fisheries as empirical reference, see fisheries as empirical reference, some potential for that, yes is a specific possibility because of some of the other relationships and processes under way here may have the opportunity to contribute directly to a series of research projects, not the intent,

Kevin: the eel and the lobster were helpful for me, but now I need more fictive references that go beyond that, cpue in tek,

Chris: how tek is being used-to validate mainstream science we are losing something, science has missed the mark, more, but from a management point of view, science only addresses a certain part of the problem, go to dfo science, give us information so we can invest, go somewhere else, missing how that information is being used within communities to make information about communities-stop -fishermen and scientists research society-is former, not willing to go the next step, tek, not just knowledge of biology of the fishery, how knowledge is used in fishery, focus variety of fisheries, etc.

Jeff: study funded by sea grant on tek in n. carolina, one of main motivations worked commercial fishermen for years, been to a lot of public hearings fishermen challenge the science shrimp don't behave that way, redfish don't, know have knowledge about how shrimp behave, know behavioural ecology, their own set, part of the issue here is to provide an understanding scientists understand have a coherent knowledge system, use that so fishermen also understand what scientists know, try to solve regulatory problems, scientists understand that fishermen have a coherent theoretical system about how the world works, workshops at the end to bring the two together, sho have coherent systems of knowledge, so managers understand why fishermen

kevin specificity-?

Trust:--
ethical tek research components?
Jeff: thing about this notion of trust driving methods-belief on some parts that systematic methods won't work in some places relate to trust issue, resorted to doing very nondirected qualitative tings, ecological narratives, and that is the end, makes everyone feel good, researcher feels good, trust: people won't let you do this because they won't trust you, can you do this if spend enough time, don't come in like a viking hit village and leave

John: why can't we deal with a question that is empirically referenced at some level-in context deal with normative questions-which of these communities are interested in this question- way could deal with wider set of issues while at the same time dealing with a number of things empirically referenced-

Design issue: what are the domains, what are the research issues, etc. focus of this afternoon's discussion.

Working groups--

 

Sunday pm-

American lobster and research design issues. The domains, what is in the domains, how to operationalize what is in the domains.

Schematic for tek/lek work-
domain of inquiry
attributes nb to study
other goals of seminar: what would we recommend as general guidelines in the development of research designs for the systematic exploration of ecological systems or contending ecological knowledge systems.

Recommendations on guidelines that we think should frame up or assist in the process best suited for the design of research on ecological knowledge.

Audience for guidelines??
Community of social researchers and students?
Other bodies of potential users/participants- community action groups,
FAO Report-variety of matrices they present that summarize
research participation framework

professional exclusive-social research reflects the science realist approach
community exclusive on the other end of the spectrum
range of audiences-entirely inclusive-
engaging community partners - if professional exclusive are objects in a petrie dish, if community inclusive discover options around having people in a process of participation that designs the research. Who consumers? Relationship to framing of research-for am. Lobster.
Design research, design process who do you talk with, what should this process involve, etc.

Group A: American lobster
Anita: too specific? Seems specific to say lobster-if it was specific Tom's idea, what is the problem with the lobster fishery is the next question-should choose that way, have a specific problem-

issues: low lobster landings and then increase in landings into the 90s and now drop off but regional variation-in terms of the long term issue-how do we account for this sudden increase in lobster catches in 70s-effort, gear, biological reasons-and then what is going on in the 90s. Now saying with cod fish moratorium increase in silver hake predation for lobster larvae-they say one of reasons for decline in catches-gulf nova scotia bona fide

start with set of claims: cause of decline is increased silver hake predation
scientific survey: hake stomach study lack of lobsters in it??
Possibility of two contending understandings.

Series of research question-look at growth and decline
Jeff: ask biologists asking fishermen to tell us something, knowledge they have of the behaviour of lobster, of population dynamics, causal theories using to explain rise and falls in populations, focus causal nature of change-consequences of changes over time, how affect business and how adapt to that-
theories they are using ?
Are there several theories-different groups with different theories? Or how many theories do people have, who has them, are there competing theories among fishermen-certain gear types have different theories?
Is there a single theory or are there competing theories-
life history approach: knowledge is contingent on point of entry, some of the ecological knowledge is transferred, vs now in the 90s might have a different perspective-
if are experts, there should be some shared understanding.

Theory: rise in seal population, some belief out there that seals are eating lobster-Mi'kmaq-that type of conversation is carried on by local fishermen-St. George's Bay-
If hake are seen as the culprits and gutting the fish on board-potential knowledge source to reference, what part if any they think the hake play in the lobster fishery

That is a food web issue: there are food web issues-was a time no seals, now come back, predator prey relationship that has a cascade effect see the ecological linkages between variety of species in the system and the ones that they care about. Ecological issues: understand fishermen know about them.

Food web relationships one of things we want to understand what fishermen or different groups of fishermen think about them.
Anita: step by step process-what is the problem? Are there other problems? Answers-theories of lobsters-investigate theories-may be many, are there other theories?

We are trying to understand their subjective understanding of the world-
temporal and spatial- dimensions how long term? Different patterns in the landings in different areas.

Who are the theory holders? To do that: need criteria by which to assess that-temporal, spatial dimensions, gender, skippers versus crew

1. What age cohort
we have some assumptions about how knowledge is evenly or unevenly distributed among the population

alternative-use different criteria-
not by gear groups, etc. vs random sample and see what comes out-

Tom McGuire-gap assessment results-fishery performance-remarkable
assessment results-suggest are in trouble-what is happening.

Statement taken from FRCC-about the situation- try to get at that statement on the situation re performance vs assessment results-
what is going on? Overfishing? Pollution, environmental change, just cyclical, predator prey relations, removal of refuges
catches gone down, price has gone up, fear problem on the horizon in terms of silver hake issue-

acoustics-

The Hungry Ocean, follow up to Perfect Storm, book -describes setting her long line, long discussion very involved it is really nice, looking at temperature, stratification, currents, right kind of temperature differentials, looking for birds, presence of bait keys putting into account and all data taking into account, how fare these stratified temperature areas are-environmental stuff, in depth understanding of oceanographic-could build a model out of her description monitoring where the other fishermen are, etc. as one person, would we be able

What do they think is changing? If differences and she knows a lot-why not ask her-what does it mean in terms of your efficiency
Fleet behaviours, technology, oceanographic factors, birds, complex system of understanding- eliciting from people what they think the impacts are.

Stock status? Uncertainty about this, couldn't research question-what is the status of the lobster stocks,, could be your question-try to build cpue index-parallel to that, try to gain greater understanding of fishermen's understanding of lobster- try to get better understanding of stock status-

Managers assessing stocks, fishermen agree or disagree on the basis of their ecological knowledge, 1,000s coming from here, agree or disagree with what they think is going on-told by DMF-which endangered, which problematic, have reasons why.
Status of the stocks as a general theme-design different ways to try to get at that question- stock status-direct role lobster play in ecology-seal issue, etc. parallel line of thought-try to get better index of how effort has changed over the years-catch/haul, how have catching technologies changed, etc. changes in efficiency not taken into account-

What are the theories, reasons, causes or implications, of that particular theme- if stock declines,
what are the reasons- what is the theory behind these- think stock is declining- or okay-

How do people account for their different accounts-
blame others, etc.

Problem of distinguishing between observation, interpretation, etc.

Lobster stuff-assessment-what was observed-some involved in sea sampling programs, index programs, etc. log book groups involved sea sampling, index fishery, either one- how does involvement in one or more of those structure what we observe-

Fishermen's logbook data-what they do with that data- how are they using their logbook data, and how do their logbooks how do they analyse that data- then

Mexican shrimp trawlers have cabin boys fill out logbooks on the way in, are laws about where can fish, fish in illegal areas, never in the logbooks
personal longs- other sources-suspect-

What have fishers observed in their fishery over time
What is the history of the interaction between scientists and fish harvesters? How has this influenced the intrepterations of both groups?

Use of history-newspaper articles-19th century debates-history of management initiatives and role in research design- historical information about the fishery and how use that-

Cold water thesis: late 19th century, decline in ocean temperatures, interesting how historically speaking, same information been used to interpret what has been going-

Fishermen whether agree with scientists or the other way around, a lot of time incorporate scientific information particularly if it fits well with what is going on, less the other way around? Your explanation of something is a function of how it is going to affect you-study of env.degradation, commercial fishermen, recreational fishermen, etc. compare diff. Groups all believe the environment should be saved and it is a good thing, general ethos there, diff. Kinds of issues that we share, start to get disagreement when get down to specific level about what is causing problems find people give you diff. Reasons depending on whether or not they are the cause, blame others, etc. part of it is political, how dynamics are in the ecology- issue of blame-

Share of blame-effects of trawling on the bottom-talking to fixed gear fishermen they want to get rid of trawlers, fight- between crab fishermen and the trawlers- explanations- link to what kinds -economic and political motivations for having different kinds of theories-

Stock assessment problem?
Differential ecological knowledge
Very little mi'kmaq fishery in St. George's bay-

Would there be a native knowledge about lobsters to contribute to this? Could be-have to go back a number of years-

What about after sparrow-strictly food fishery, for people to do food fishery had been excluded from that, quite a problem getting back into a food fishery, local nonnative fishermen were hostile-when say food fishery, subsistence-cheaper for me to buy a lobster at Sobeys than to go fishing for lobster for my dinner- First Nations-

When did lobster here become an economic species- one time used to throw in garden, poor people ate lobster-knowing the history of the mi'kmaq fishery-lobster sandwich was a negative thing- used to be a fishery of the poor
shrimp used to be called bugs-

Include in the research design a history of the relationship between mi'kmaq fishing and-- lobster industry, regulations, etc. if that history has not been assembled-

Are we contributing to a stock assessment exercise-trying to improve-scientific knowledge by using harvesters-

Alida: assumption-to improve for everyone-vs assume science was entity in its own right-third type of knowledge-

Tom: closet fan of single species stock assessment

Knowledge for knowledge sake?
Underwrites a particular form of management.
Stock status could be redefined -to shift the focus from counting fish towards-something else?
Number of lobster over 10 years old in the system, etc. or use of knowledge to identify productive areas, to design these, etc.
Could use for stock assessment-how egg bearing females have changed over time, decline in number in this area, etc. dynamics over time, spatially and over time- can glean those things from ecological knowledge-

Importance of stock structure information

Acoustic research-red drum, trout, etc. where they spawn-doing through acoustics, hydrophones, found males make sounds when mate, comparing to what fishermen know about spawning, want to close areas during spawning, using maps to map out these spawning areas, see how map onto one another to involve fishermen in the process, -

Fishermen take the acoustic - technology

Relationship between study and management goals-
what are we doing this for?

Matrix of options-workshops with fishermen-look at outcomes, why may or may not occur-

How much background work-exploratory phase, followed by something more concrete after that?
Systematic explanatory phase-Sutton example-work out purpose of study with local people- and

Popping up a lot of issues-concentrated on understanding stock assessment relevant stuff, okay to have long list of issues to discuss-also think would need -when go in there and do these things, need to know in this exploratory phase need to know the situation- structure of the setting that you enter, again, who you talk to, etc.

To put me out there in this lobster setting-other things-i would need to know, examples? How do you fish lobster, who does it, out of political reasons for different answers-need to know which kind of gear groups, conflicts between people, some idea to assess the information you get, also fear this word assess because in exploratory phase, if have this constructionist assumption to this- where are we? We gather what people say, to assess what say at the same time, but how can you avoid that, need to know political setting, to follow up on questions, can come out with a lot of rubbish, need to know to make follow up questions- similar situations in Norway, ways to qualify - do you need to know informal management? Both-that and formal-but if don't do that, broad thing, good thing about this list of questions is that they are specific-

Eels: what are the consequences of a different fishing strategy, status of the stock, eel-facet which apparently scientific explanation of where they spawn-spawn, science in Sargasso sea and young elvers return up the coast- first nations understanding is different, more localized spawning, that is the belief of some people, another potential area of research and interest- meaning for two different knowledge systems, commercial harvesting of eels, their understanding of those things-

Chris bear: still looking at three groups-scientists commercial harvesters and the first nations- recognize the heterogeneity- ? Other groups as well? Or within-scientific groups is the most obvious one, different types of funding, different types of science-diff views on the lobster- science community is quite small-could be interview all of the scientists working on american lobster, not all that difficult, if are substantial differences- could become

A and B licenses in lobsters- talk to both groups, two women at st of x, father license in inverness county had a lobster licence wanted to stay in the family, went to daughters but local fishermen agreed to transfer to daughters only if reduced to a bi licence-some a vs b- some first nations signed to a deal doing is looking at some of these b licenses, looking at converting a to b licenses- full licence 300 traps vs 90 traps-

Looking at poachers-there is a general agreement that it is going on but no one admits to it, John McMullin -St. Mary's study-get. How do you deal with this issue.

Looking at lobster fishermen who have left-or don't bother to fish licenses because lobster have gone-spatial contraction of lobster stocks-

Jeff: confused -when we say research design what do we mean?
I want to have a common understanding of this- linkage theory, hypotheses data collection, data analysis all linked-research design can't think of problem-flow chart-linkages between all of these things-hard to separate these things out-are issues like do experimental work, quasi experimental work, etc. etc. field stuff,

a) all field interviews, not doing experiments with fishermen-
but could have acoustic surveys-or genetic analysis examination of scientific data-or
b) can you do tek research using single disciplines- -do you need interdisciplinary team- advantages and disadvantages -
if we're studying-tradition of ethnobotany, ethnoecology what we do, i have done that and others have studied mayan plant taxonomies, mayan's understanding of biology-modelling what mayans know-maybe want have a scientist look at what learned, in terms of ethnobotany and anthropologists doing that should have some training in botany, don't need biologist in course of doing these things-ethnoicthyology-taxonomies of fish, learned enough about biology-do classes know enough about fish i am studying native or indigenous understanding of fish, can relate that to biology from that standpoint, i may not need to know science very well.

If we have a constructionist perspective then could be on our own vs realist?-

If we wanted to include what the scientists know abut the same subject-if we want to know how information can be applied? Ethnobotanist-know what people thinking, potential pharmaceutical uses- different thing, trying to translate-to understand native system-

What about having a mayan- person? Participation by the people you are studying- include vocal native people-the come from a social structure-that might influence who they might talk to, interesting implications, from one kin group, etc. -potential risks- need to know but potential for that- collaboration?- help you design the questions you might ask-variety of different levels in the process-do the questioning, question elders-

Looking for someone to get a ph.d. with us, live in the village and get a dissertation, they could do what they want and help us with what they are doing-

Herein nova scotia they will determine what is asked, what information is shared with anyone period, other studies bad experiences, insistent getting information, what information should be shared with whom when, information up front and clear-with the mi'kmaq here,

Members of the team: -rainforest and pharmaceutical companies, looking for tek, i am sure people down there are not benefiting from that-

Who is on the team? Who benefits? Locality-

Add managers?--

Who benefits from the research?

 

Plenary on Sunday:

What we did was we tried to start look for a general question or questions pertaining to the lobster fishery, moved to a series of questions, then tried to identify guidelines.

One of the things interested in: why are lobster catches declining and how do we account for this decline-overfishing, habitat destruction, changes in effort, technological innovation, silver hake predation, seal predation. What are the consequences of changing fishing strategies affect our ability to interpret what is happening, what have fish harvesters observed in the fishery over time, how do people account for their specific claims, history of interaction scientists and fish harvesters and how has this influenced the interpretations of both groups, how do we make use of historical information on the fishery? Long term trends, aiding in development of questions for the present.

There are political and economic motives behind the use of variables in certain theories, what variables do people think are important, how are these implicated in theories people have about what is happening scientists, theories of others, what are the factors behind the participation in and exclusion of first nations from the lobster fishery-recent entry in, how do we make sense of what has happened to them over long term in terms of knowledge can articulate about the lobster fishery.

How is ecological knowledge use, who decides how it is used, what knowledge is needed to decide which options will work?

Research guidelines:
a) do you need an interdisciplinary team to do tek research? Who else needs to be included?
b) do you need to use someone from the locality in question, if yes, what are the implications of this. Pros and cons.
c) who benefits from the research?
d) what are the domains of knowledge? Who are the groups identified with such domains?
e) what is the appropriate scale needed-spatial??? local, variety of different localities.
f) need for an exploratory phase to identify issues questions and comparative groups?
g) need to translate the exploratory phase into information that can be presented to people systematically
h) after this, identify sample size for conducting research
i) assuming sample size is manageable, preference of face to face interviews, mapping, utility of using this versa over the phone-

 

Group A
Sunday, June 18, 2000

Lobster Fishery

1. What are lobster catches declining?

a) over fishing
b) environmental change
c) habitat destruction
d) changes in effort
e) What are the impact of tech. change?
f) silver hake predator
g) seals

2. What are the consequences of changing fishing strategies for our ability to interpret what is happening to the stock?

3. What is the status of lobster stocks?

4. How do people account for their specific claims concerning the status of lobster stocks?

5. What have fish harvesters observed in their fishery over time?

6. What is the history of the interaction between scientists and fish harvesters? How has this influenced the interpretations of both groups?

7. How do we make use of historical information on the fishery?

8. There are political and economic motives behind the use of variables in certain theories?

9. What are the factors behind the participation in and exclusion of First Nations in the lobster fishery?

10. How is ecological used? Who decides how this is used?

11. What knowledge is needed to decide which options will work.

 

Research guidelines

1. Do you need an interdisciplinary team? If yes, what are the advantages? If no, what are the disadvantages? Who else needs to be included? (Depends on the nature of the problem)

2. Do you need to use someone from the locality in question? If yes, what are implications of this?

3. Who benefits from the research?

4. What are the domains of knowledge? Who are the groups identified with such domains?

5. What is the appropriate scale needed?

6. There needs to be an exploratory phase to identify issues questions, and comparative groups.

7. You need to translate the exploratory phase into information that can be presented to people systematically?

8. This can help determine the sample size.

9. Assuming that the sample size is manageable - use of face-to-face interviews.

 

Working Group B
Sunday, June 18, 2000

Domains/Entry Points

Social networks/structures and how information is transmitted and translated (e.g., management)

How groups understand the importance of research questions.

What do fisher communities know about the biology/habits/habitats of species and the environment? How does this vary between groups?

How do occupations/life styles/social position/etc. condition knowledge? (political psychology cognition).