Trading expertise: The rise and demise of an industry/government committee on survey trawl design

Teresa R Johnson,Bonnie J Mccay

doi:10.1186/2212-9790-11-14

Teresa R Johnson, Bonnie J Mccay

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1186/2212-9790-11-14

Copy DOI

Abstract

Understanding how industry-science collaborations work and how the resulting knowledge is used is critical for improving the incorporation of fishers' knowledge in policy-making. We use the concept of 'trading zones' to analyze a collaborative effort to integrate fishers' and scientists' expertise in the Northeast U.S.: the Trawl Survey Advisory Panel. The aim of this collaboration was to improve the production of knowledge for fisheries management by developing a new and improved trawl system (survey net and gear) for the routine data-gathering survey carried out by the federal government. The collaboration was expected to increase the legitimacy and credibility of the science by increasing transparency through a participatory process that made use of fishers' contributory knowledge. We describe how this collaboration shifted among “trading zones,” as well as the role of boundary processes in this transition. Although the government scientists invested heavily in the collaboration, they were ultimately not able keep the process going, as industry members left, sensing that their expertise was not appreciated, boundaries had been erected, and the trading zone for genuine collaboration was closed.

Highlights

A critical area of research in social studies of science explores the extent the public should be involved in technical decisions, or what is referred to as “the problem of extension” (Collins and Evans 2002)
The fishers and scientists selected as members of the Trawl Survey Advisory Panel were involved in cooperative research, fisheries management, or applied fisheries science, and they were most likely selected to be on the Panel because of this expertise at collaboration as well as their technical expertise (Table 2)
Key industry members of the Panel brought both interactional and contributory expertise to the task they shared with scientists

Summary

Introduction

A critical area of research in social studies of science explores the extent the public should be involved in technical decisions, or what is referred to as “the problem of extension” (Collins and Evans 2002). Boundary work can occur between social worlds occupied by holders of different kinds of expertise, such as scientists and those with experience-based expertise These sites of ‘co-production’ (Guston 2000; Jasanoff 2004) are critical for achieving an effective balance between legitimacy, credibility, and salience in science policy (Cash et al 2003; Guston 2001). Jenkins (2007; 2010) applied the trading zone framework to analyze relationships between the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the shrimp fishing industry in the creation, evolution and adoption of a device for preventing nets from catching turtles Based on her application of the trading zone framework to her specific case, she hypothesized that changes along the level of homogeneity/heterogeneity are due to variations in the degree of shared language; she suggests that as the “ability to communicate increases, the flow of information that can result in changes in another culture will increase, altering the degree of heterogeneity” (Jenkins 2010: 83).

Closing of the Trading Zone

Science Center

Discussion