Knowledge production at boundaries : an inquiry into collaborations to make management plans for European fisheries

Stange, Kari

doi:10.18174/402072

Cited by 6 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 109 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additional factors hindering successful engagement are the absence of methods training, limitations set by research institutes, and a lack of knowledge of the information needs of stakeholders (Cvitanovic et al 2015). Moreover, it can be challenging to integrate stakeholder knowledge, which is often qualitative and experiential in nature, with qualitative scientific data that tends to be viewed as more objective and systematic (Stange 2017;Köpsel 2019). Engagement, therefore, requires much dedication, time and energy from both scientists and stakeholders (Brinkmann et al 2015).…”

Section: A Growing Interest In Exchange With Practitionersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholder engagement vs. social distancing—how does the Covid-19 pandemic affect participatory research in EU marine science projects?

Köpsel¹,

Kiipper²,

Peck

2021

Maritime Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the realm of marine science, engaging with stakeholders (e.g., industry members, policy-makers, managers, NGOs) is an important method applied in many research projects. The Covid-19 pandemic has severely impacted this engagement in two ways. First, social distancing measures forbid most face-to-face participatory activities originally envisioned in projects. Second, the restrictions have caused hardships for the stakeholders being engaged by these projects. We assessed the impact of Covid-19 on stakeholder engagement activities in ongoing EU marine science projects by posing the following questions: What problems has Covid-19 caused for the workflow and outcomes of current research projects, (ii) how have scientists responsible for stakeholder engagement coped with the situation, and (iii) if alternative stakeholder activities were implemented, how have these been evaluated? Our survey was conducted nearly 2 months after the onset of Covid-19 lockdowns. It addressed researchers who engage with stakeholders in EU projects and delivers insights into the practical implications of Covid-19 for stakeholder engagement and the measures taken to tackle this challenge. The paper highlights the impacts of the pandemic on stakeholder engagement in marine science, outlines current coping strategies in different EU projects, and recommends seven practical actions to promote and maintain meaningful exchange with stakeholders in times of social distancing and lockdowns.

show abstract

Section: A Growing Interest In Exchange With Practitionersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholder engagement vs. social distancing—how does the Covid-19 pandemic affect participatory research in EU marine science projects?

Köpsel¹,

Kiipper²,

Peck

2021

Maritime Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They should also focus on lesser studied topics, such as the role of women, food security related to fisheries, impacts of market-based approaches, the (future) role of family businesses, fisheries and marine spatial planning, and fishing and climate change, as suggested in the Manifesto (MMSS 1.2; 2.2). Additional topics, some of which have also been suggested in marine social science research agendas (Arbo et al 2018;Symes and Hoefnagel 2010;Urquhart et al 2011), we suggest are the following: the impacts of increasing 'industrialisation' of coastal and offshore waters on fisheries, which is particularly relevant in view of the global blue economy agenda where fisheries seem to be losing out (Arbo et al 2018;Barbesgaard 2018;Bavinck et al 2017;Jentoft and Knol 2014); development of participative fisheries and ecosystembased governance approaches, including co-production of knowledge (Arbo et al 2018;Kraan et al 2014;Röckmann et al 2015;Stange 2017;Steins et al 2019;Stephenson et al 2016;Symes and Hoefnagel 2010;Urquhart et al 2011); interactions between fisheries of different scales and between regions (Hegland et al 2012;Sievanen et al 2013); labour rights including slavery (Marschke and Vandergeest 2016); enhancing an interdisciplinary understanding of fisher or fishing behaviour (Schadeberg et al 2019;Van Helmond et al 2016); and the consequences of increased use of advanced technologies in monitoring, control and surveillance on governance and fisher behaviour (Toonen and Bush 2018;Van Helmond et al 2019).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Commentary 1 to the Manifesto for the Marine Social Sciences: fisheries

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fisheries have long dominated the agenda of marine social sciences. For most of the twentieth century, studies tended to focus on ethnographies of fishing communities and case studies of local management, and often located in the Global South. Research activities were fragmented, remained academic, and had little impact on policy (Symes et al. 2019). The last 25 years witnessed changes, with increasing focus on fisheries management studies in the Global North, and a growing, yet sometimes hesitant, recognition from policy-makers that social sciences have an important role to play in showing interactions between marine policies on the one hand and fishers' behaviour, compliance, communities and heritage on the other (Symes and Hoefnagel 2010; Urquhart et al. 2011). At the same time, significant changes are taking place in terms of marine use, with coastal and offshore waters no longer being the exclusive domain of fishers. Nature conservation and development, land reclamation, tourism, aquaculture, shipping, mineral extraction and, more recently, renewable energy production particularly through offshore wind farms are putting increasing stress on the oceans, on traditional users and on governance. So does climate change. Considering the current focus on Blue Growth or the Blue Economy (Arbo et al. 2018; Mulazzani and Malorgio * Nathalie A.

show abstract

“…The concept of boundary objects is used to study a diverse range of interactions, e.g., to identify and study how science-policy interactions take place (Stange 2017;Star 2010;Turnhout 2009). A crucial aspect of a boundary object is its interpretative flexibility.…”

Section: 1 Different Conceptualisations Of Science-policy Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge uncertainties in nature conservation : Analysing science-policy interactions in the Dutch Wadden Sea

Floor¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chapter 2: A review of science-policy interactions in the Dutch Wadden Sea-The cockle fishery and gas exploitation controversies 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Historical overview 2.2.1 The cockle fishery and gas exploitation conflicts 2.2.2 Cockle fishery 2.2.3 Gas exploitation 2.3 Review of the social science literature on the Dutch Wadden Sea 2.3.1 Structuring the literature 2.3.2 Resource management 2.3.3 Nature views and discourses 2.3.4 Science dynamics 2.4 Discussion 2.4.1 Shifting analytical perceptions of science 2.4.2 Normative perception of science 2.4.3 The role of the government 2.5 Conclusions 2.6 Epilogue Chapter 3: Uncertainties in the assessment of "significant effect" on the Dutch Natura 2000 Wadden Sea site-The mussel fishery and powerboat race controversies

show abstract

Knowledge production at boundaries : an inquiry into collaborations to make management plans for European fisheries

Cited by 6 publications

References 109 publications

Stakeholder engagement vs. social distancing—how does the Covid-19 pandemic affect participatory research in EU marine science projects?

Stakeholder engagement vs. social distancing—how does the Covid-19 pandemic affect participatory research in EU marine science projects?

Commentary 1 to the Manifesto for the Marine Social Sciences: fisheries

Knowledge uncertainties in nature conservation : Analysing science-policy interactions in the Dutch Wadden Sea

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About