Opening dialogue and fostering collaboration: Different ways of knowing in fisheries research

Abstract

We set out to explore some of the impediments which hinder effective communication among fishers, fisheries researchers and managers using detailed ethnographic research amongst commercial handline fishers from two sites-one on the southern Cape coast and the other on the west coast of South Africa. Rather than assuming that the knowledge of fishers and scientists is inherently divergent and incompatible, we discuss an emerging relational approach to working with multiple ways of knowing and suggest that this approach might benefit future collaborative endeavours. Three major themes arising from the ethnographic fieldwork findings are explored: different classifications of species and things; bringing enumerative approaches into dialogue with relational approaches; and the challenge of articulating embodied ways of relating to fish and the sea. Although disconcertments arise when apparently incommensurable approaches are brought into dialogue, we suggest that working with multiple ways of knowing is both productive and indeed necessary in the current South African fisheries research and management contexts. The research findings and discussion on opening dialogue offered in this work suggest a need to rethink contemporary approaches to fisheries research in order to mobilise otherwise stagnant conversations, bringing different ways of knowing into productive conversation.

Strong fisheries management and governance positively impact ecosystem status

“…; Duggan et al . ; Ragaller ). Further, economic objectives override social objectives in the large fisheries (e.g.…”

Comparing fishers’ and scientific estimates of size at maturity and maximum body size as indicators for overfishing

“…, Duggan et al. ). Some past examples include the use of fishers’ LEK to measure population trends (Davis et al.…”

“…This slow integration is explained in part because the scientific community has viewed fishers' local ecological knowledge (hereafter LEK) as epistemologically different from science-based ecological knowledge (hereafter SEK); so different that the two forms of knowledge may not be directly comparable (Berkes 1999, Neis et al 1999, Johannes and Hviding 2000, Drew and Henne 2006. Nonetheless, researchers have argued that there are situations when fishers' LEK and SEK can be framed in similar terms for comparison (Neis et al 1999, Murray et al 2008, Davis and Ruddle 2010, Le Fur et al 2011, Duggan et al 2014. Some past examples include the use of fishers' LEK to measure population trends (Davis et al 2004, Castello et al 2009, Azurro et al 2013, Kay et al 2012, Bender et al 2013, Beaudreau and Levin 2014, Katikiro 2014, Giglio et al 2015, define fish habitat use and diet (Garc ıa-Quijano 2009, Boudreau and Worm 2010, Rasalato et al 2010, de Magalhães et al 2012, pinpoint the timing and location of reproduction (Johannes and Hviding 2000, Aswani and Lauer 2006, Fraser et al 2006, Griffith et al 2013, reconstruct historical baselines (Ainsworth et al 2008, Ainsworth 2011, Giglio et al 2015, and identify migration patterns (Silvano et al 2006, Murray et al 2008.…”

Local Ecological Knowledge of Fishermen in Rhode Island and the Dominican Republic: State of Their Fisheries, Changes and Adaptations

“…Nonetheless, researchers have argued that there are situations in which FEK and SEK can be framed in similar terms for more direct comparison (Neis et al 1999, Grant et al 2008, Davis and Ruddle 2010, Le Fur et al 2011, Duggan et al 2014. Past studies that incorporated FEK measured several aspects of the ecology of harvested species, including population trends (Castello et al 2009, Azurro et al 2011, Bender et al 2013 and whether stocks are in decline (Davis et al 2004, Kay et al 2012, Katikiro 2014, habitat use and diet , Boudreau and Worm 2010, de Magalhães et al 2012, the timing and location of reproduction Fraser et al 2006;Griffith et al 2013) and migration patterns , Grant et al 2008.…”