The Institutional Dimensions of Fisheries Stock Assessments

Alcock, Frank

doi:10.1023/b:inea.0000040416.45027.e4

Cited by 8 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One concept that can be useful in interpreting institutional constraints in the context of scientific assessments relates to whether an organisation is autonomous or embedded in the policy-making arena [5]. Autonomous processes are those where the scientific advisory organisation is separate from the political institution that they provide advice for, while embedded processes are those where the advisory organisation is contained within the policymaking apparatus itself.…”

Section: Institutional Constraintsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Autonomous processes are those where the scientific advisory organisation is separate from the political institution that they provide advice for, while embedded processes are those where the advisory organisation is contained within the policymaking apparatus itself. Firmly separated from the policy-making institution, autonomous organisations are expected to have more independence (in terms of merit-based appointments and scientific control of the research agenda) and hence less involvement between scientists and policymakers (in terms of communication and formulating advice), and vice versa for embedded organisations [5][6][7]. In Fig.…”

Section: Institutional Constraintsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These concepts are not independent, and trade-offs must be made -for example, limiting involvement in the project to top scientists may enhance credibility (particularly among other scientists), but could undermine salience by failing to address concerns of decision-makers (as a lack of participation means they have been unable to influence the agenda of the research). Where assessments fail to achieve an appropriate balance of these needs, it is argued that they will fail to be influential in the policymaking process [5,[7][8][9][10]). …”

Section: Needs and Expectationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The position of ICES, which displays a degree of autonomy while maintaining a key role within the policy process, suggests that Alcock's [5] simple dichotomy between autonomous and embedded organisations does not adequately represent organisations such as ICES which seek to find a middle ground. To some extent, for example, ICES seeks to address the divisions between scientists and managers by providing for management input in certain working groups, as noted in the first vignette.…”

Section: Institutional Constraintsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To some extent, for example, ICES seeks to address the divisions between scientists and managers by providing for management input in certain working groups, as noted in the first vignette. Nevertheless, Alcock's [5] emphasis on autonomy and involvement does highlight important issues which impact on the role identity that actors within these organisations identify with.…”

Section: Institutional Constraintsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Lost in translation: Differences in role identities between fisheries scientists and managers

Delaney¹,

Hastie

2007

Ocean & Coastal Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the European Union, fisheries managers rely on the expertise of scientists to provide scientific advice for the fisheries management process. Yet the boundary between science and policy is not only imprecise, but one that is also socially constructed. Negotiations take place between two main groups, managers and scientists, surrounding the roles and expectations each has towards the other. Pressure is placed upon each group to conform to the role expectations of the other. Taking note of reform attempts of the European fisheries management system which are already under way, we suggest that reform must provide for effective two-way communication between scientists and managers, which recognises their different needs and role identities, and focuses on both areas of conflict and areas of common interest, in order that the system better meets the requirements of each party, ultimately aiding in the shared goal of the sustainable use of fisheries resources. r

show abstract

Section: Institutional Constraintsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Institutional Constraintsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Needs and Expectationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Institutional Constraintsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Institutional Constraintsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Lost in translation: Differences in role identities between fisheries scientists and managers

Delaney¹,

Hastie

2007

Ocean & Coastal Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Improving communication from managers to fishers in Europe and the US

Densen¹,

McCay

2007

ICES Journal of Marine Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Van Densen, W. L. T., and McCay, B. J. 2007. Improving communication from managers to fishers in Europe and the US. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64: 811–817. Communication problems need to be solved if managers are to be more persuasive about the need for limitations on fishing, to protect and restore fish populations. The context is widespread scepticism about the effectiveness of management on both sides of the Atlantic. That scepticism is fuelled by assessment bias as seen in the case of the northern cod of Newfoundland, and by failure to take into account differences in perceptions of stock size and fishing mortality; differences in causal reasoning about fishing pressure and environmental factors influencing stock size; and differences in the capacity to read and understand the mostly graphic information that underlies and is often used to explain management decisions. This analysis is based on interviews and observations in the European Union and the northeastern USA.

show abstract

Nondemarcated Spaces of Knowledge‐Informed Policy Making: How Useful Is the Concept of Boundary Organization in IR?

Compagnon

Bernstein

2017

Review of Policy Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceConcepts of “boundary organization” and “boundary work,” borrowed from science and technology studies (STS), are now commonly used in International Relations to analyze organizations providing a science–policy interface. This article critically examines these concepts, with close attention to specific insights from the STS literature, for their added value in understanding the interactions between knowledge production processes on the one hand and policy making at the global level on the other. It lays the basis for two critiques: (1) an institutionalist critique of the use of these metaphors highlighting the mismatch between the interplay of relevant actors—scientists, policy makers, and stakeholders—via the social spaces they occupy and international organizations; (2) on weak assumptions on coproduction. The authors argue that the true challenge for science–policy interfaces is to generate politically “usable knowledge” and conditions for social learning, thus recognizing that politicization of science is more likely than the scientification of politics

show abstract

The Institutional Dimensions of Fisheries Stock Assessments

Cited by 8 publications

References 11 publications

Lost in translation: Differences in role identities between fisheries scientists and managers

Lost in translation: Differences in role identities between fisheries scientists and managers

Improving communication from managers to fishers in Europe and the US

Nondemarcated Spaces of Knowledge‐Informed Policy Making: How Useful Is the Concept of Boundary Organization in IR?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About