Advertisement

The Principles of Transdisciplinary Research in Small-Scale Fisheries

  • Alicia SaidEmail author
  • Ratana Chuenpagdee
  • Alfonso Aguilar-Perera
  • Minerva Arce-Ibarra
  • Tek Bahadur Gurung
  • Bonnie Bishop
  • Marc Léopold
  • Ana Isabel Márquez Pérez
  • Sérgio M. Gomes de Mattos
  • Graham J. Pierce
  • Prateep K. Nayak
  • Svein Jentoft
Chapter
Part of the MARE Publication Series book series (MARE, volume 21)

Abstract

The diverse characteristics, values, and importance of small-scale fisheries imply at least two key considerations. First, there is no tailor-made, one-size-fits-all solution to the problems and challenges facing small-scale fisheries; thus, policy and governance must be sensitive to the contexts. Second, the close relationship and interactivity between the natural and the social dimensions of small-scale fisheries suggests that knowledge and understanding about small-scale fisheries may need to transcend the boundaries of academic disciplines. These are the premises for research and activities conducted in the Too Big To Ignore (TBTI) – Global Partnership for Small-Scale Fisheries Research. Taking a transdisciplinary approach to research, training, and learning about small-scale fisheries can help address real-world problems and reveal opportunities to move towards pragmatic solutions. In this chapter, we discuss what transdisciplinarity involves, what the underlying principles are, and what makes it distinct from other perspectives. We argue that transdisciplinarity in small-scale fisheries requires institutional and academic innovation at local and national scales that facilitates interactive and transformative learning.

Keywords

Research techniques Transdisciplinary lens Knowledge integration Trust 

References

  1. Aguilar-Perera A, Arce-Ibarra AM, Bishop B et al (2017) Towards sustainable small-scale fisheries: key considerations for transdisciplinary teaching and training. Too big to ignore research report number R-04/2017. http://toobigtoignore.net/report-transdisciplinary-approach-for-ssf/. Accessed 2 May 2018
  2. Antonova AS (2016) The rhetoric of “responsible fishing”: notions of human rights and sustainability in the European Union’s bilateral fishing agreements with developing states. Mar Pol 70:77–84.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.04.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aslin HJ, Blackstock KL (2010) “Now I”m not an expert in anything’: challenges in undertaking transdisciplinary inquiries across the social and biophysical sciences. In: Brown V, Harris J, Russell J (eds) Tackling wicked problems through transdisciplinary imagination. Earthscan, London, pp 117–129Google Scholar
  4. Bateson G (1987) Steps to an ecology of mind. Jason Aronson Inc, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Bavinck M (2014) Investigating poverty through the Lens of Riches – immigration and segregation in Indian capture fisheries. Dev Pol Rev 32:33–52.  https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12042 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bergmann M, Jahn T (2008) CITY:mobil: a model for integration in sustainability research. In: Hirsch Hadorn G, Hoffmann-Riem H, Biber-Klemm S et al (eds) Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Springer, Berlin/Germany, pp 89–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brandt P, Ernst A, Gralla F et al (2013) A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecol Econ 92:1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown V (2010) Collective inquiry and its wicked problems. In: Brown V, Harris J, Russell J (eds) Tackling wicked problems through transdisciplinary imagination. Earthscan, London, pp 61–83Google Scholar
  9. Bundy A, Chuenpagdee R, Jentoft S, Mahon R (2008) If science is not the answer, what is? An alternative governance model for the world’s fisheries. Front Ecol Environ 6:152–155.  https://doi.org/10.1890/060112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carew AL, Wickson F (2010) The TD wheel: a heuristic to shape, support and evaluate transdisciplinary research. Futures 42:1146–1155.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2010.04.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Charles A (2011) Small-scale fisheries: on rights. Trade Subsid Marit Stud 10:85–94Google Scholar
  12. Choi B, Pak A (2006) Multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clin Invest Med 29:351–364.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2010.08.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chuenpagdee R (2011) World small-scale fisheries: contemporary visions. Eburon, DelftGoogle Scholar
  14. Cornell S, Berkhout F, Tuinstra W et al (2013) Opening up knowledge systems for better responses to global environmental change. Environ Sci Pol 28:60–70.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.11.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cuervo-Sánchez R, Maldonado JH, Rueda M (2018) Spillover from marine protected areas on the pacific coast in Colombia: a bioeconomic modelling approach for shrimp fisheries. Mar Pol 88:182–188.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MARPOL.2017.10.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Degnbol P, Mccay BJ (2007) Unintended and perverse consequences of ignoring linkages in fisheries systems. ICES J Mar Sci 64(4):793–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DuBois C, Zografos C (2012) Conflicts at sea between artisanal and industrial fishers: inter-sectoral interactions and dispute resolution in Senegal. Mar Pol 36:1211–1220.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.03.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dyball R (2010) Human ecology and open transdisciplinary inquiry. In: Brown V, Harris J, Russell J (eds) Tackling wicked problems through transdisciplinary imagination, first. Earthscan, London, pp 273–284Google Scholar
  19. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2015) Voluntary guidelines for securing sustainable small-scale fisheries. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  20. Geertz C (1973) Thick description: toward an interpretive theory of culture. Fontana Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Gezelius SS (2008) The problem of implementing policies for sustainable fishing. In: Gezelius SS, Raakjær J (eds) Making fisheries management work. Implementation policies for sustainable fishing. Springer, Heldelberg, pp 1–25Google Scholar
  22. Goti-Aralucea L, Fitzpatrick M, Döring R et al (2018) Overarching sustainability objectives overcome incompatible directions in the common fisheries policy. Mar Pol 91:49–57.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.02.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Griffith R (2010) Rethinking change. In: Brown V, Harris J, Russell J (eds) Tackling wicked problems through transdisciplinary imagination, first. Earthscan, London, pp 251–259Google Scholar
  24. Harris F, Lyon F (2013) Transdisciplinary environmental research: building trust across professional cultures. Environ Sci Pol 31:109–119.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.02.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hendricks C (2010) Inclusive governance for sustainability. In: Brown V, Harris J, Russell J (eds) Tackling wicked problems through transdisciplinary imagination. Earthscan, London, pp 150–160Google Scholar
  26. Jentoft S (2000) The community: a missing link of fisheries management. Mar Pol 24:53–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jentoft S (2006) Beyond fisheries management: the Phronetic dimension. Mar Pol 30:671–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jentoft S, Bavinck M (2014) Interactive governance for sustainable fisheries: dealing with legal pluralism. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 11:71–77.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.10.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jentoft S, Chuenpagdee R (2009) Fisheries and coastal governance as a wicked problem. Mar Pol 33:553–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jentoft S, Eide AH, Gunnarsdottir M-V (2011) Poverty mosaics: realities and prospects in small-scale fisheries. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Johnsen JP (2018) Small-scale fisheries governance in Norway: hierarchy, institutions and markets University of Norway. In: Pascual Fernández JJ, Pita C, Bavinck M (eds) Small-scale fisheries in Europe: status, resilience and governance. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  32. Kerne A (2005) Doing interface ecology: the practice of metadisciplinary. Proceedings of the USA. URL: In: ACM SIGGRAPH 05 electronic art and animation catalog, August 1–4, 2005, Los Angeles, California,Google Scholar
  33. Kooiman J (2005) Fish for life: interactive governance for fisheries, 3rd edn. Amsterdam University Press, AmsterdamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lalancette A (2016) Creeping in? Neoliberalism, indigenous realities and tropical rock lobster (kaiar) management in Torres Strait. Aust Mar Pol 80:47–59.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.02.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M et al (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci 7:25–43.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Linke S, Jentoft S (2014) Exploring the phronetic dimension of stakeholders’ knowledge in EU fisheries governance. Mar Pol 47:153–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McClanahan TR, Castilla JC, White AT, Defeo O (2009) Healing small-scale fisheries by facilitating complex socio-ecological systems. Rev Fish Biol Fish 19:33–47.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-008-9088-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McCormack F (2017) Sustainability in New Zealand’s quota management system: a convenient story. Mar Pol 80:35–46.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.06.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mitchell RK, Wood DJ, Agle B (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts authors (s): Ronald K Mitchell, Bradley R Agle, Donna J Wood. Source: The Academy of Management Review, vol 22, no 4. (Acad Manag Rev 22:853–886, October).  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1997.9711022105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Msomphora MR (2016) Conflict resolution and the delegation of authority in fisheries management: the case of outer Hebrides Inshore Fisheries Group in Scotland. Mar Pol 73:263–275.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.08.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nayak P, Berkes F (2011) Commonisation and decommonisation: understanding the processes of change in the Chilika Lagoon, India. Conserv Soc 9:132.  https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.83723 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nelson CH, Lowitt K, Nagy M et al (2013) Future research approaches to encourage small-scale fisheries in the local food movement. J Agric Food Syst Community Dev 3:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pinkerton E (2017) Neoliberalism and global small-scale fisheries (Special issue). Mar Pol 80:1–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pinkerton E, Davis R (2015) Neoliberalism and the politics of enclosure in North American small-scale fisheries. Mar Pol. 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.03.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pohl C, Hadorn GH (2008) Article methodological challenges of transdisciplinary research. Natures Sci Sociétés 16:111–121.  https://doi.org/10.1051/nss CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Polk M (2014) Achieving the promise of transdisciplinarity: a critical exploration of the relationship between transdisciplinary research and societal problem solving. Sustain Sci 9:439–451.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-014-0247-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Pol Sci 4:155–169.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rochet MJ, Prigent M, Bertrand JA et al (2008) Ecosystem trends: evidence for agreement between fishers’ perceptions and scientific information. ICES J Mar Sci 65:1057–1068.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsn062 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Roux DJ, Stirzaker RJ, Breen CM et al (2010) Framework for participative reflection on the accomplishment of transdisciplinary research programs. Environ Sci Pol 13:733–741.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Russell J (2010) A philosophical framework for an open and critical transdisciplinary inquiry. In: Brown V, Harris J, Russell J (eds) Tackling wicked problems through transdisciplinary imagination, first. Earthscan, London, pp 31–60Google Scholar
  51. Said A, Tzanopoulos J, MacMillan D (2016) Bluefin tuna fishery policy in Malta: the plight of artisanal fishermen caught in the capitalist net. Mar Pol 73:27–34.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.07.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sundström A (2015) Covenants with broken swords: corruption and law enforcement in governance of the commons. Glob Environ Chang 31:253–262.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.02.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Symes D, Hoefnagel E (2010) Fisheries policy , research and the social sciences in Europe: challenges for the 21st century. Mar Pol 34:268–275.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2009.07.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tunca S, Ünal V, Miran B et al (2016) Biosocioeconomic analysis of marine recreational fisheries: a comparative case study from the Eastern Mediterranean, Turkey. Fish Res 174:270–279.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2015.10.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Urquhart J, Acott T, Reed M et al (2011) Setting an agenda for social science research in fisheries policy in Northern Europe. Fish Res 108:240–247.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2010.12.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Weeratunge N, Béné C, Siriwardane R et al (2013) Small-scale fisheries through the wellbeing lens. Fish Fish 15:255–279.  https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wise PH, Shaw GM, Druzin ML et al (2017) Risky business: meeting the structural needs of transdisciplinary science. J Pediatr 191:255–258.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.08.072 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wyborn C, Clealand D (2010) Fences and windows: using visual methods to explore conflicts in land and seascape management. In: Brown V, Harris J, Russell J (eds) Tackling wicked problems through transdisciplinary imagination, first. Earthscan, London, pp 161–170Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alicia Said
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ratana Chuenpagdee
    • 2
  • Alfonso Aguilar-Perera
    • 3
  • Minerva Arce-Ibarra
    • 4
  • Tek Bahadur Gurung
    • 5
  • Bonnie Bishop
    • 6
  • Marc Léopold
    • 7
  • Ana Isabel Márquez Pérez
    • 8
  • Sérgio M. Gomes de Mattos
    • 9
  • Graham J. Pierce
    • 10
  • Prateep K. Nayak
    • 11
  • Svein Jentoft
    • 12
  1. 1.Too Big To Ignore Global Partnership for Small-Scale Fisheries ResearchMemorial University of NewfoundlandSt. John’sCanada
  2. 2.Department of GeographyMemorial University of NewfoundlandSt. John’sCanada
  3. 3.Departamento de Biología MarinaUniversidad Autónoma de YucatánMéridaMexico
  4. 4.Departmento de Sistemática y Ecología Acuática de El Colegio de la Frontera SurChetumalMexico
  5. 5.Nepal Agricultural Research CouncilKathmanduNepal
  6. 6.Education CoordinatorVancouverCanada
  7. 7.Institut de Recherche pour le développement (IRD) c/o Institut Halieutique et des Sciences Marines (IH.SM)Université de ToliaraToliaraMadagascar
  8. 8.Universidad Nacional de ColombiaSan AndresColombia
  9. 9.Ministry of PlanningRecifeBrazil
  10. 10.Departamento de Ecología y Recursos MarinosInstituto de Investigaciones Marinas (CSIC)VigoSpain
  11. 11.School of Environment, Enterprise and DevelopmentUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  12. 12.Norwegian College of Fishery ScienceUiT- The Arctic University of NorwayTromsøNorway

Personalised recommendations