No abstract

Both natural scientists and economists commonly use quantitative data to create models of the systems that interest them and then use these models to inform fisheries management. Other social scientists rely on lengthier, descriptive texts based primarily on qualitative data to assess the human dimensions. To their dismay, fisheries social scientists find that much of their rich narrative with keen insights ends up filling pages that are neither read nor meaningfully integrated into decision‐making in fisheries management. Nevertheless, what all scientists, practitioners, and managers want and need is information that will lead to a better understanding of the ecosystem (comprised of interdependent ecological and human systems) and therefore to fisheries management that benefits the whole system. Based on the belief that only a combination of high‐quality quantitative and qualitative data will provide both the numbers and the context needed for success in ecosystem‐based management, we discuss efforts to present social and cultural information in forms that are more familiar to those who rely on models for a representation of reality in the fisheries context. We point out how the designers of these models (or how we) think the models might be applied to fisheries management, noting how each model attempts to incorporate qualitative data to depict context essential for grounding the more commonly used biological and economic models. We also assess the benefits and limitations of these models, including the constraints on their development and use.

In this article we consider the current educational needs for science and policy in marine resource management, and we propose a way to address them. The existing literature on cross-disciplinary education in response to pressing environmental problems is vast, particularly in conservation biology. However, actual changes in doctoral-level marine science programs lag behind this literature considerably. This is in part because of concerns about the time investment in cross-disciplinary education and about the job prospects offered by such programs. There is also a more fundamental divide between educational programs that focus on knowledge generation and those that focus on professional development, which can reinforce the gap in communication between scientists and marine resource managers. Ultimately, transdisciplinary graduate education programs need not only to bridge the divide between disciplines, but also between types of knowledge. Our proposed curriculum aligns well with these needs because it does not sacrifice depth for breadth, and it emphasizes collaboration and communication among diverse groups of students, in addition to development of their individual knowledge and skills.

No abstract