The role of science in fisheries management in Europe: from Mode 1 to Mode 2

Abstract

The transformation of fisheries science in an applied context ('Mode 2') sciences is controversial within the scientific community. To investigate this issue, the conceptual shift from 'traditional academic science' (Mode 1 science) to 'modern post-academic science' (Mode 2 science) is used. The paper uses EU fisheries science with focus on ICES research as illustration for gaining new insights in the consequences and dilemmas of the transformation, in regards to the production of knowledge for policy-making in fisheries management. Hence the main question to be discussed in this paper is: what does the new kind of more applied 'Mode 2 science' mean for reliability, credibility, trustworthiness and quality assurance? This study, therefore, mainly demonstrates what such a transformation may imply to the scientific community and what consequences it might have for the way fisheries science is practised, and perceived in a political context.

A comprehensive framework for operating science‐based fisheries management: A checklist for using the best available science

“…The SBFM framework presented in the paper provides a new support structure for the so‐called post‐normal problem‐oriented fishery science. In general, the relationship between science and policy in SBFM conforms to the philosophy of Mode 2, as described in figure 2 of Msomphora (2016). However, seeing from the criteria developed based on the review of 94 reports, the science in SBFM neither fully satisfies the ideals of Mode 1 nor Mode 2 but is somewhere in between.…”

“…The key to the development of the SBFM framework is to understand our expectations of science and the relationship between science and policy in governance, which involves the topic of the differences between the paradigms of normal science (Mode 1) and post‐normal science (Mode 2) (Merton, 1996; Msomphora, 2016; Ziman, 2000; Ravetz, 2006). Wouters et al.…”

“…They criticized Mode 2 science, as commissioned research, tends to be private and exclusive, and lack of transparency and peer review, which would weaken the quality of science and ultimately erode the legitimacy of science for decision‐making (Hessels & Van Lente, 2008; Wouters et al., 2008). Msomphora (2016) further pointed out that failure to establish an effective new support structure for these changes would bring huge risks to the research enterprise.…”

“…Second, commissioned science does not mean privatization. As Msomphora (2016) suggested that scientific research in SBFM should be funded by the entire society at large, that is, the government, which provides a good reason for making the science public. Social concerns, such as complaints from NGOs, also require the disclosure of scientific methods and results used for decision‐making.…”

Behaviour, uncertainty, and the role of information in resource management

“…This has hampered scientists to effectively explain research results, to learn from and to further adapt the advice system. Furthermore, it has induced a shift in the 'ethos of science', moving from traditional academic science towards contextualized, policy-driven science [Msomphora, 2016]. Daw & Gray (2005) and Cardianle et al (2017) considered the limited scope of fisheries research and large uncertainties underlying to crucial parameters such as stock growth and species mortality a major cause of the insufficient transformation of scientific knowledge (e.g.…”