Master’s Thesis, 60 ECTS
Social-ecological Resilience for Sustainable Development Master’s programme 2013/15, 120 ECTS
On the other end of research -
Two cases of knowledge exchange in small-scale fisheries in Zanzibar,
Tanzania
Viola Hakkarainen
Stockholm Resilience Centre
Research for Biosphere Stewardship and Innovation
Abstract
Sustainability science has recently adopted a more action-oriented approach in addition to purely increasing knowledge. It is argued that mobilising more and better knowledge is needed for sustaining human wellbeing and promoting sustainable development. There is an increasing recognition of knowledge exchange (KE) as a key factor to enhance social, environmental and economic impacts of research. KE in the context of marine resource management has mostly been studied in relation to the science-policy interface in the Global North. To expand understanding of science-society interactions within sustainability science, this thesis adopts an explorative approach and studies two cases of KE between external researchers and local stakeholders in small-scale fisheries in Zanzibar, Tanzania, with a particular focus on community-level encounters. First, the context of these encounters is explored through flows of benefits and patterns of interactions between researchers and local stakeholders. Second, experiences of actors engaged in KE are studied. The thesis concludes that as KE is a complex and dynamic process, i) history and relationships between actors shape the outcomes of KE, ii) knowledge-based outcomes of KE are complex and unpredictable as different actors create their own meaning from shared information, and iii) KE includes other than knowledge-based outcomesas multiple incentives of different actors shape KE and how it is experienced.
Acknowledgements
I would first like to thank the people who participated in this study in Zanzibar and dedicated their time to one more student to gain her degree. There are no words to describe how grateful
I am for that. Asante sana.
Many thanks to the two amazing researchers for trusting me to follow their work and write about it. Without their openness, this thesis would not have been possible.
I express my sincere thanks to my great supervisor team, Tim Daw, Maria Tengö and Elizabeth Drury O’Neill. They all kept me on the right track and guided me when things were getting too complex in different phases and places of the process. To Tim for encouraging me to share my drafts and pushing me forward when I was stuck. To Maria for the inspiration I
always felt after our meetings. To Liz for lifelong memories.
I also thank my master’s class and particularly my thesis group Leonie Lara Guerrero, Abigayil Blandon and Kajsa Resare Sahlin, for multiple good conversations and support
during the thesis year. The future won’t be the same without you. I am grateful to Jacob Hileman for giving a final touch on the thesis. And finally, I thank Nicholas Baroncelli Torretta for listening to me going on and on about this project during the past nine months.
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ... 2
1 INTRODUCTION ... 6
1.1AIM AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS ... 7
2 BACKGROUND ... 8
2.1KNOWLEDGE AND KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS ... 8
2.2KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE ... 9
3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 11
3.1KNOWLEDGE GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK ... 11
3.2RELEVANCE/SALIENCE, CREDIBILITY, LEGITIMACY AND ACCESSIBILITY ... 12
3.3WAYS TO UTILISE RESEARCH ... 12
3.4OPERATIONALISING THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 14
4 CASE STUDY ... 15
4.1STUDY SITE ... 15
4.2TWO CASES OF KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE ... 15
5 METHODS ... 18
5.1QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION ... 18
5.1.1 Sampling and conduction of interviews ... 19
5.1.2 Observations ... 22
5.1.3 Informal follow ups ... 22
5.2DATA QUALITY AND REFLEXIVITY ... 22
5.3DATA ANALYSIS... 24
6 RESULTS ... 25
6.1RESEARCH QUESTION 1:PATTERNS OF STAKEHOLDER INTERACTION ... 25
6.1.1 Local interactions in fisheries decision making ... 26
6.1.2 Contact between (external) researchers and local managers and academics ... 28
6.1.3 Perceptions of scientific knowledge and researchers held by community members ... 29
6.2RESEARCH QUESTION 2:EXPERIENCES ABOUT THE TWO CASE STUDIES OF KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE ... 32
6.2.1 Novelty of encounters... 32
6.2.2 Relevance and learning ... 32
6.2.3 Perceptions of credibility and legitimacy in the workshop type 1 and 2 ... 36
6.3RESEARCH QUESTION 3:ACTOR RELATIONSHIPS SHAPING KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE ... 37
6.3.1 Academic collaboration and compensation for participation ... 37
6.3.2 Beach recorders and accessibility ... 38
7 DISCUSSION ... 39
7.1MISSING CONNECTIONS BETWEEN ACADEMIA AND MANAGEMENT ... 40
7.2PREVIOUS RESEARCH ENCOUNTERS SHAPING SCIENCE-SOCIETY RELATIONSHIP ... 41
7.3SOCIALLY SITUATED ENCOUNTERS ... 42
7.4KNOWLEDGE-BASED OUTCOMES:USEFUL OR USABLE KNOWLEDGE? ... 43
7.5RESEARCHER AS A KNOWLEDGE BROKER ... 45
7.6BEYOND KNOWLEDGE-BASED OUTCOMES:MULTIDIMENSIONAL INTERACTIONS WITH RESEARCHERS ... 46
7.7RECOMMENDATIONS ... 48
7.8THEORETICAL REFLECTIONS ... 49
7.9CONCLUSIONS ... 49
8 REFERENCES ... 51
9 APPENDICES ... 55
List of figures and tables
FIGURE 1. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE KNOWLEDGE GOVERNANCE APPROACH. ... 11
FIGURE 2.THEORETICAL BASE ... 14
FIGURE 3. FEATURES OF KNOWLEDGE GOVERNANCE IN SMALL-SCALE FISHERIES RESEARCH IN ZANZIBAR. ... 26
FIGURE 4.KEY FINDINGS IN RELATION TO THE THEORETICAL BASE... 40
TABLE 1.DEFINITIONS AND USE OF LEGITIMACY, CREDIBILITY, RELEVANCE, SALIENCE AND ACCESSIBILITY. ... 13
TABLE 2.SUMMARY OF THE WORKSHOP TYPES ... 16
TABLE 3.OVERVIEW OF THE DIFFERENT DATA TYPES AND SAMPLE SIZES. ... 19
TABLE 4.SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS ACCORDING TO THE DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDER GROUPS AND SAMPLING CRITERIA. ... 21
TABLE 5. SELECTED BENEFIT AND POWER RELATIONSHIPS ... 48
1 INTRODUCTION
Sustainability science scholars have increasingly focused on bridging knowledge and action, and science and decision making (van Kerkhoff and Pilbeam 2017). This is based on the normative assumption that research can and should have impact in society, and not only accumulate more knowledge. Sustainability science has even been described as “fundamentally interventionist” (van Kerkhoff and Pilbeam 2017) as it has adopted more action-oriented approaches to enhance the role of science in decision-making (Clark et al. 2016; van Kerkhoff and Pilbeam 2017). According to Fazey et al. (2014), the traditional way of perceiving scientists purely as knowledge producers is changing as they are increasingly participating in activities including “multi-way interaction and co-production of knowledge between researchers, decision-makers and other beneficiaries of science” (205). Folke et al. (2005) link the shift in researchers’ roles to rapid environmental changes in complex adaptive systems, which makes researchers deliver knowledge to managers instead of maintaining their position as objective and detached specialists. As a result, it is argued that sustaining human well-being simultaneously with the crucial functions of Earth’s life support systems requires mobilising more and better knowledge of the ways these systems can be maintained (Clark et al. 2016).
However, critical approaches to understanding the role of science in environmental decision- making are concerned with power relations as well as desirability and efficiency of science in decision-making (van Kerkhoff and Pilbeam 2017). Western scientific knowledge has a multi- dimensional relationship with non-Western contexts playing out in complex power relations and often in light of colonial history (Hoppers 2002). Hence, research is not a distant academic exercise but always has intent and activity (Hoppers 2002). Accordingly, scientific knowledge is a product of a culture, situated in a specific socio-political and cultural context, and thus is value-laden in nature (Bäckstrand 2003; Hoppers 2002). Ultimately, relationships between research-based knowledge and action are embedded within larger power structures which change over time (van Kerkhoff and Lebel 2006), and understanding these relationships requires examination of the socio-political context in which science is situated (van Kerkhoff and Pilbeam 2017).
In the context of small-scale fisheries, better communication between stakeholders such as managers, fishers and scientists is proposed to lead to improved management (Wallner-Hahn 2017), and enhancing knowledge exchange (KE) with marine resource decision-makers can lead to more effective policies and programmes (Cvitanovic et al. 2015). However, KE within
marine resource management has been mostly studied in relation to the science-policy interface in the Global North (Cvitanovic et al. 2015). Thus, KE focally at the community level, but also at the management level, in small-scale fisheries in Zanzibar, Tanzania, is an interesting sphere in which to understand the phenomenon in the context of the Global South, where research is conducted by local researchers but also vastly by external researchers.
1.1 Aim and research questions
Considering the increased pressure on researchers to exchange knowledge and generate impacts from their research, and the importance of understanding the socio-political and cultural context that inevitably shape the relationship between science and society, the thesis advances understanding of the processes of KE. I explore the context of scientific knowledge and research in small-scale fisheries management in Zanzibar, and then closely examine two different types of community-level knowledge exchanges between external researchers and local stakeholders. This offers insights into the underlying processes that shape knowledge exchange and its outcomes.
Over-arching research question:
How are the encounters of knowledge exchange shaped by the context they are conducted in and respectively perceived and negotiated by different stakeholders?
Specific research questions:
1. What patterns of knowledge-related interaction form the context of research in small- scale fisheries in Zanzibar?
2. How do stakeholders experience the two different cases of knowledge exchange?
3. What actor relationships shape the studied encounters of knowledge exchange?
The stakeholders include small-scale fishers and traders, beach recorders (bwana diko in Swahili; public officials placed in villages and landing sites for monitoring purposes), managers from the Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources (DFMR), local academics from a local research institute and external researchers (visiting researchers from abroad). I adopt a particular focus on external researchers’ roles in knowledge-based processes in small-scale fisheries in Zanzibar.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 Knowledge and knowledge systems
It is crucial to start with identifying what is meant by knowledge. Knowledge is often referred to as a “justified belief” that is used to claim a truth (Jacobson 2007; Nonaka et al. 2000; van Kerkhoff and Lebel 2006). This thesis draws on constructivist social epistemology, stating that knowledge is not defined by its truth or falsehood but by acceptance of it in the context in which it is used (Jacobson 2007). Hence, in different contexts, knowledge takes different forms depending on the sets of criteria that justification is based on (van Kerkhoff and Lebel 2006).
According to Tàbara and Chabay (2012), information is turned into knowledge through meaning, which constitutes the possibility to “understand, intervene or resolve particular problems or address particular situations in meaningful or/ and satisfactory ways” (73).
Knowledge can thereby be recognized as multidimensional and embodied in practices, tools, technologies and institutions used by different actors, and what constitutes knowledge is thus determined by the context in which it is produced (Cote and Nightingale 2012; Tengö et al.
2017).
Knowledge systems consist of agents, practices and institutions, which construct the use, transfer and production of knowledge (Tengö et al. 2017). Indigenous, local and scientific knowledge systems all are influenced by existing power relations. These relations can be related to specific characteristics such as person’s position and/or gender (Tengö et al. 2017). For example, the process of justification and expertise can favour privileged groups over the marginalized and oppressed in a society (Jacobson 2007). Therefore, the flows of knowledge, credibility and power are shaped by relationships within knowledge systems (Cornell et al.
2013), and the purpose of the system is then constantly defined by the agents operating in the system (Tàbara and Chabay 2012). Local and indigenous knowledge systems are widely recognised for their importance in coping with environmental changes and building resilience in systems. Bridging and collaborating across different knowledge systems can, in the best cases, support development and governance for sustainability (Agrawal 1995; Berkes, Colding and Folke 2000; Berkes et al. 2006; Tàbara and Chabay 2012; Tengö et al. 2017, 2014).
Simultaneously, coupling science with action and utilising more scientific knowledge in decision-making is acknowledged as a key to sustainable development (Cash et al. 2003; Clark et al. 2016; Cornell et al. 2013). Finding ways to deliver and communicate research is seen as crucial for improving management of complex social-ecological systems, as making informed
decision about management requires knowledge about the state of the system (Fazey et al. 2007;
Folke et al. 2005). Cornell et al. (2013) argue that interactions between science and other knowledge systems must be intensified by “opening up” knowledge systems to address complex social-environmental issues. However, using scientific knowledge in decision-making is often hindered by lack of communication and dissemination of research, lack of capacity to apply research findings in the context, inappropriateness of knowledge for decision-makers, mismatches between research and policy cycles and cultural differences between scientists and decision-makers (Cvitanovic et al. 2016; Davies 1994; Reed et al. 2014). In this thesis, science and scientific knowledge is used in a broad sense following Cornell et al.’s (2013) definition of scientific knowledge as the body of knowledge about the world generated through the systematic and cumulative processes of inquiry. This definition reaches over all academic disciplines across the natural and social sciences. Knowledge among researchers in the scientific community is “justified by their adherence to a research process as defined by peers”
(van Kerkhoff and Lebel 2006, 447), and is traditionally generated in universities and other specialist knowledge institutions (Cornell et al. 2013).
2.2 Knowledge exchange
Knowledge exchange (KE) is a research field that sheds light on the processes of sharing and integration of knowledge, and increases understanding about the interface between research and stakeholders. KE refers to “the process of sharing, using, and generating information through various methods appropriate to the context, audience and purpose of communication” (Fazey et al. 2012, 20). It includes concepts such as co-production, transfer, storage, transformation, integration and translation of knowledge and social learning (Fazey et al. 2014). The way KE is implemented is heavily dependent on how knowledge is viewed and conceptualized (Fazey et al. 2014; Evely et al. 2012). Different research fields usually see knowledge and KE in different ways, which leads to varying approaches to KE (e.g. transfer or sharing) (Fazey et al.
2014). Moving away from conceptualising knowledge as “a thing” that can be simply transferred and stored, to understanding it as a complex process, is key to successful KE processes (Roux et al. 2006; Evely et al. 2012). Furthermore, the ways of producing knowledge and sharing and translating it, as well as the social context where people learn about new knowledge, determine if policy and practice is informed by science (Reed et al. 2014). KE is a relatively new research field and it has often been presented as a tool rather than a complex and
the process of KE (Fazey et al. 2014). Hence, this thesis explores KE as a complex process and sheds light on emerging context specific factors.
3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 3.1 Knowledge governance framework
Knowledge governance is defined as “the formal and informal rules and conventions that shape the ways we conduct or engage in knowledge processes, such as creating new knowledge, sharing or protecting knowledge, accessing it and applying or using it” (van Kerkhof and Pilbeam 2017; van Kerkhoff 2014). Knowledge governance enables examining the rules around knowledge-based processes, which in turn can help to shed light on the complex relationship between science and practice (van Kerkhoff and Pilbeam 2017). Clark et al. (2016) link the importance of exploring knowledge governance to understanding meaning of salience, credibility and legitimacy of information in different socio-political contexts. Van Kerkhof and Pilbeam (2017) suggest a knowledge governance framework to understand the socio-political and cultural context where environmental science plays a role in decision-making, and where specific knowledge-into-action interventions are then situated (figure 1; see van Kerkhoff and Pilbeam, 2017).
The framework by van Kerkhof and Pilbeam (2017) presents a set of key themes and questions to study knowledge-based processes divided under the theoretical conceptualisation of civic epistemology, knowledge systems and interventions (see Appendix 1). I use the notion of knowledge governance in this thesis to enable critical examination and conceptualisation of the context where KE takes place and to situate encounters of KE into this context. Thus, the two types of KE are conceptualised in the thesis as interventions or “deliberate efforts to change science-society relations” (van Kerkhof and Pilbeam, 2017) to link knowledge governance to KE.
Figure 1. Van Kerkhof and Pilbeam (2017): Conceptual framework for the knowledge governance approach.
3.2 Relevance/salience, credibility, legitimacy and accessibility
In literature about KE and knowledge systems, concepts of legitimacy and/or credibility, relevance or salience, and accessibility are identified to determine the use of new knowledge.
According to Cash et al.’s (2003) work on knowledge systems, stakeholders’ perceptions of the credibility, legitimacy and salience of knowledge determine if knowledge feeds into action, particularly in interactions between science and policy. Instead, in theoretical conceptualizations of KE relevance, legitimacy and accessibility are named as factors that shape how knowledge translates into policy and action (Reed et al. 2014; Contandriopoulos et al.
2010). Table 1 presents definitions for these concepts with the conceptualisation of knowledge systems in the knowledge governance framework by van Kerkhof and Pilbeam (2017) as it builds on Cash et al.’s (2003) work. Examination of the different definitions shows that the concepts are overlapping and not fixed across the KE and knowledge system literatures.
Particularly, legitimacy and credibility have a similar nature, and salience and relevance are used as synonyms. I chose to use the concepts of legitimacy, credibility and relevance to conceptualise stakeholders’ experiences about encounters of KE to capture aspects from both the KE and knowledge system literatures. In this thesis, based on the definitions (table 1), relevance and salience are considered to be synonyms referring to actionability and usefulness of information. Legitimacy and credibility are also seen as interrelated concepts, combining perceptions on trustworthiness of knowledge (credibility) and representativeness of different views (legitimacy). Accessibility of knowledge is considered as an underlying factor that crucially shapes possibilities to gain and use new knowledge (Contandriopoulos et al. 2010).
3.3 Ways to utilise research
Beyer (1997) divides utilization of research into three different categories: i) to directly solve problems (instrumental use), ii) general enlightenment that can influence action indirectly (conceptual use), and iii) to legitimate and sustain predetermined positions (symbolic use). She argues that most of the research conducted is more likely to be used in a conceptual way as research is not often aiming at solving a specific need in a specific context (Beyer 1997).
Table 1. Definitions and use of legitimacy, credibility, relevance, salience and accessibility in the literature on KE, knowledge systems and knowledge governance. These definitions are used as a starting point to understand how different stakeholders experience the encounters of KE.
Knowledge exchange
(Contandriopoulus et al. 2010)
Knowledge systems
(Cash et al. 2003)
Knowledge governance framework
(Based on Cash et al.
2003 in van Kerkhof &
Pilbeam, 2017)
This thesis
Legitimacy The credibility of the
information Perception that the production of information and technology has been respectful of stakeholders’
divergent values and beliefs, unbiased in its conduct and fair in its treatment of opposing views and interests
Where there are different concepts of public good or desired outcomes, whose dominates? Why?
Do science-based decision-making processes reinforce existing power relations, or challenge them? How do societal expectations of objectivity affect the role of science in decision-making? Does science have a role in mediating conflicting societal views?
Representativeness of different views
Credibility Not included, see
legitimacy Scientific adequacy
of the technical evidence and arguments
Whose knowledge, or what kinds of knowledge, tend to be most readily accepted by decision- makers? What is the role of participation in supporting credibility?
Does science-based knowledge have a role in formal
accountability processes?
Are there multiple accountabilities?
Trustworthiness of information
Relevance Timeliness, salience and actionability of knowledge. Heavily context dependent.
Not included, see
salience Not included Usefulness and
actionability of information in context Salience Not included, see
Relevance Relevance of the
assessment to the needs of decision- makers
How visible are the knowledge-based needs of decision-makers to researchers? What processes enable this visibility? Whose interests are included or excluded?
See relevance
Accessibility Includes dimensions
such as formatting Not included Not included Availability of information and
3.4 Operationalising the theoretical framework
Acknowledging the complexity of KE, I draw from the different sources of theoretical understanding of knowledge-based processes presented above to gain a comprehensive picture of the phenomenon. Based on the knowledge governance framework (van Kerkhoff and Pilbeam 2017), I consider the studied encounters as interventions, where different knowledge systems meet in a form of KE (Figure 2). The encounters are embedded in the greater socio- political and cultural context, which I approach through a notion of knowledge governance as defined by van Kerkhoff (2014) (Figure 2). Drawing on the literature about knowledge systems and KE (Cash et al. 2003; Contandriopoulos et al. 2010), I study experiences about the encounters of KE through perceptions on relevance, legitimacy, credibility and accessibility of information. Finally, I use Beyer’s (1997) division of utilisation of research to discuss how possible knowledge-based outcomes of KE are either facilitated or constrained in the studied cases. I recognise these types of interventions are inevitably shaped by the way encounters are designed, where and how people receive new knowledge (Reed et al. 2014), and by previous encounters between researchers and participants, including the history of researchers studying in Zanzibar (Toomey 2016).
Figure 2. Theoretical base. Interventions to change science-society relationship, where scientific and local knowledge systems interact, are embedded in knowledge governance, the wider socio-political and cultural context that shapes knowledge-based processes. Use of knowledge is determined by perceptions of relevance, legitimacy, credibility accessibility of new information.
4 CASE STUDY 4.1 Study site
The case study was conducted in Unguja island in Zanzibar. The administrative state of Zanzibar consists of Unguja and Pemba islands and a number of smaller island, and is located in the Western Indian Ocean about 40 km off mainland Tanzania. In 1964, after over 70 years of British colonial rule, Zanzibar and mainland Tanganyika formed the United Republic of Tanzania. The population is mainly Kiswahili speaking and Muslim (Crona et al. 2010).
Traditionally, the fisheries have provided an important livelihood and source of food and income to local communities (Lange and Jiddawi 2009). Expanding population, use of destructive gears and growth of the tourist industry have increased the pressure on marine resources, and management of fisheries has become more difficult (Jiddawi and Öhman 2002;
Lange and Jiddawi 2009). The DFMR is responsible for maintaining and protecting small-scale fisheries, monitoring fish stocks and encouraging sustainable fishing activity (Colbert-Sangree 2012). Management strategies cover gear restrictions, marine protected areas and limitations on fishing techniques (de la Torre-Castro 2006). Beach recorders in different villages monitor and communicate between the management level and communities (de la Torre-Castro 2006).
4.2 Two cases of knowledge exchange
Encounters of KE took place through two different types of workshop models organised by two different external researchers (Table 2). The objective of both researchers was to share their research findings with communities where they had conducted research for Ph.D. projects approximately three years earlier. In both cases, coming back was seen as an ethical responsibility, and the researchers wanted to provide information back to people who had been interviewed for research projects. Other reasons for coming back were having a personal good feeling about returning to the field sites stemming from the perception that it is ethically right (External researcher 1) and showing appreciation and thanking participants for cooperation (External researcher 2). Both researchers thus aimed at reaching people who had participated in their studies. Sharing research findings was not incorporated into the projects from the beginning but enabled by an additional travel award and a grant.
Table 2. Summary of the workshop types
Workshop type 1 Workshop type 2
Topic Structure of the fisheries value
chain, gender differences in the value chain, actors’ aspiration to change in the value chain, tourism industry in relation to the value chain. Results from Zanzibar and in the Philippines.
Perceptions of fishers, managers and researchers of different management options for seagrass- associated small-scale fisheries.
Workshop design A board of a value chain
functioned as a base for the workshop. Each participant got a paper figure that presented themselves. During the workshop, participants moved the figures in the value chain board for example in the nodes they operate or would like to operate. The researcher presented the information through data cards. Questions were asked after each presented section to hear participants’ experiences and opinions. Participants could comment and ask questions at any moment.
Presentation and open discussion.
Participants could comment and ask questions at any moment.
Conceptualisation of workshop Community dialogue Science outreach Type of participants Male and female fishers and
traders, often a beach recorder.
Max. 20 participants
Male fishers, often a beach recorder. Max. 20 participants
Observed locations Maruhubi, Mkokotoni, Nungwi,
Uroa, Kizimkazi, Buyu and Kizingo (7/8 held workshops observed)
Mkokotoni, Fukuchani, Kendwa (3/7 held workshops observed)
Material benefits A poster with summarised
information about the research project for the community. Snack and drinks for each participant.
2000 (0.9 USD) Tanzanian Shillings for each participant.
A poster with summarised information about the research project for the community. 2000 (0.9 USD) Tanzanian Shillings for each participant.
Workshop type 1 had an interactive and participatory approach, designed around a board game to encourage participants to engage with findings and discuss them. The researcher conceptualised the workshops as ‘Community dialogues’. The presented information related to value chain dynamics in small-scale fisheries in Zanzibar which was presented in a comparison to similar data from the Philippines. The researcher wanted to provide an overall view of the system to the participants but did not expect any practical use of the information. Workshop type 2 was based on a presentation followed by open discussion, and the researcher conceptualised it as ‘Science outreach’. The presented information consisted of perceptions on
different management options from managers, scientists and fishers, focusing on fishers’
perceptions in seagrass associated small-scale fisheries. The information was hoped to be usable at the management level, and at the community level the researcher wanted to give a quantitative overview of what fishers think about the management options. All together 10 workshops were observed in nine fisherfolk villages: workshop type 1 in seven villages and workshop type 2 in three villages (Map 1).
Map 1: Communities where observed workshops were held: Maruhubi, Mkokotoni, Nungwi, Uroa, Kizimkazi, Buyu and Kizingo (workshop type 1, External researcher 1) and Mkokotoni, Fukuchani and Kendwa (workshop type 2, External researcher 2).
5 METHODS
I used a qualitative research strategy, based on interpretivist epistemological orientation and constructivist ontology, in the thesis. Interpretivism places the focus on understanding persons’
perceptions, experiences and how they make sense of the world. Human behaviour is considered a product of how a person interprets the world (Bryman 2012, 28-30). The role of social scientists is then to interpret actions and social world from people’s point of view (ibid).
Constructivist ontology sees social phenomena and their meanings continually shaped by social actors – social objects and categories are socially constructed (Bryman 2012, 33).
5.1 Qualitative data collection
I used qualitative research methods as they aim at understanding the nature of a phenomenon and do not seek to quantify it (DeWalt & DeWalt 2011). The majority of the data collection took place during a one-month field work in Unguja Island November-December 2017. Data collected for the thesis included a) semi-structured interviews about the context of KE with local academics, beach recorders and key informants in the small-scale fisheries (fishers, traders, a chair and a secretary of fisheries committees, a secretary of a traders’ association), as well as two group interviews with managers; b) observations in the KE workshops and in a meeting between external researcher 1 and managers; c) semi-structured interviews with workshop participants after the workshops; d) two rounds of semi-structured interviews with the external researchers before and after they had run the workshops; e) observations of the whole process of KE from planning to implementation; and f) informal follow-ups and discussions with some workshop participants three months after the workshops (see Table 3 for a summary).
I applied an ethnographic approach in the qualitative data collection, in the sense that I also observed behaviour, listened what was said in conversations between others and asked questions outside the set interviews and workshops. I used informal interviewing and remembering and noting conversations during the course of days to uncover new topics during fieldwork, which then fed into semi-structured interviews and gaining more depth in issues that came up in the interviews.
Table 3. Overview of the different data types and sample sizes.
Type of data Clarification
Semi-structured interviews With local academics (N=2), beach recorders (N=6), key informants in the small-scale fisheries (N=7), workshop participants (N=16), external researchers (N=2)
Observations 10 different KE workshops and one meeting with
managers were observed as an outside observer.
Participant observations were conducted throughout the whole process of planning and implementing KE, including the fieldwork period but also time before and after fieldwork.
Group discussions Two times with managers, first with 3 participants and
then with 2. One manager participated in both of the discussions.
Informal follow-ups Some landing sites (Uroa, Kizimkazi, Maruhubi,
Nungwi and Mkokotoni) were visited three months after the workshops. Visits included discussion with some workshop participants such as beach recorders, fishers and traders when they were reached.
5.1.1 Sampling and conduction of interviews
Interview data with key informants, managers and local academics fed into the first research question. Interviews conducted after the workshops were used mainly to answer to the second research question. Interviews with external researchers were used to answer both research questions. The third research question was explored through all the interviews but mostly answered through observations.
I used purposive sampling as a sampling method. The purpose was to interview informants from different stakeholder groups: managers, fishers and traders (outside and after workshops), local academics, beach recorders and external researches (Table 4). The sampling also had an element of convenience sampling, as often, particularly after workshops, I interviewed participants who volunteered, and I could only reach people who stayed around after the workshops. In a few cases, I based the selection of participants on recommendations from beach recorders (Table 4). Convenience sampling simply refers to interviewing people who are available (Bryman 2012, 201). However, convenience sampling turned easily into purposive sampling (Bernard 2006, 189-191) as interviewed stakeholders fit to pre-decided purpose as a representative of a stakeholder group (Table 4).
The number of participants in the workshops was around 20 with the exception of one workshop with 7 participants, but I only interviewed 1-3 participants after each workshop due to the fact that most people left directly after the workshop or during the first interview. Thus, the sample per workshop is relatively small for inferring differences between workshops. Instead results reflect the general experiences over the two different cases. After workshop type 1, male fishers or traders frequently volunteered to be interviewed. I aimed to interview at least one man and one woman after each workshop type 1. Thus, I approached women after the workshops and asked them to be interviewed. The aim was not fulfilled in four of the workshops in which I only interviewed a man or a woman as people left before I could reach them. I reached both traders and fishers, and 6 fishers and 6 traders were interviewed. In the workshop type 2, all the participants were fishermen, and I based the selection on guidance from the beach recorders or on volunteering. Table 4 gives a more specific explanation for sampling of interviewees.
I recorded interviews with a voice recorder except with local academics and managers due to their preferences. The duration of interviews varied from 10 minutes to 45 minutes, and I aimed to respect people’s time and minimise effort for participants. For example, I interviewed some of the key informants while they were doing their daily activities, and in few cases, interviewees needed to leave before the interview was finished. Semi-structured interviewing was a suitable method due to its flexibility to leave space for interviewees to bring up themes and topics that I was not aware of before conducting the research, and because it was possible to change the order of questions and add questions during the interview (Bryman 2012, 209-211). This was important in the case study as I uncovered new topics during the fieldwork, and interviewees had different backgrounds and professions and therefore I often needed to modify questions. I conducted interviews with managers in groups due to their preferences. The topics of interviews included perceptions of research, researchers, use of scientific knowledge and patterns of decision-making processes. Interviews after workshops focused on the experience and perceptions of presented information (see appendix 2 for interview guides).
Table 4. Semi-structured interviews according to the different stakeholder groups and sampling criteria.
Group N Working location Gender Sampling
Local
academics 2 Local research institute F Interviewed academics are engaged with researchers from abroad by either taking care of a visa application process or providing field guidance.
Managers 4 (2x group interview; first 3 participants, second 2 participants)
Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources
M Sampling based on availability, participated in the observed meeting with external researcher 1.
Beach
recorders 6 Kizimkazi M A beach recorder from each site where
workshops were held was interviewed, except in Fukuchani (due to time limitation) and Maruhubi (Bach recorder was not reached: Secretary of a beach recorder interviewed instead) to gain an overall picture of relations to external researchers in the landing sites.
Mazizini/Buyu Kizingo
Nungwi/Kendwa Uroa
Mkokotoni Key
informants outside workshops
7 Fisher/Secretary of
Beach recorder Maruhubi M Key informants were chosen based on recommendations from beach
recorders (Chair of fisheries committee in Nungwi, Fisher in Mkokotoni) or availability of fishers (Fisher in Kizimkazi, Fishers in Uroa) or due to their professional position (Secretary of the Trader’s cooperative Maruhubi, Secretary of a beach recorder
Maruhubi).
Fisher Kizimkazi
Chair of Fisheries Committee
Nungwi
Fisher Uroa
Fisher Uroa
Trader & Secretary of the traders’
cooperative
Maruhubi
Fisher Mkokotoni
Workshop participants Workshop type 1 = WS1 (N=14)
Workshop type 2 =WS2 (N=4)
16 Fisher (WS1) Kizimkazi M Most of the interviewees volunteered to be interviewed after the workshops or were asked to be interviewed (mostly women). Ethical reasons played a big role: People who seemed to have time and interest to stay were reached as participants had already spent around 45 min. in the workshop before the interview. After the workshop type 2, the interviewed participants were chosen based on recommendation from the beach recorder (in Fukuchani) and voluntary (in Mkokotoni) or due to person’s position (Kendwa, Chair of Fisher’s committee).
Fisher (WS1) Kizimkazi F
Trader (WS1) Nungwi M
Fisher (WS1) Nungwi M
Trader (WS1) Nungwi F
Fisher/Trader (WS1)
Uroa M
Trader (WS1) Uroa F
Fisher (WS1) Buyu M
Fisher (WS1) Kizingo M
Trader (WS1) Maruhubi M Trader/Assistant of
the chair of traders’
cooperative (WS1)
Maruhubi M
Trader (WS1) Mkokotni F Fisher (WS2) Mkokotoni M Fisher (WS2) Fukuchani M Fisher (WS2) Fukuchani M Fisher/Chair of
fishers’ committee (WS2)
Kendwa M
External researchers
2 (Two interviews with each)
Swedish research institutes F The two external researchers were chosen as both of their work was small-scale fishery related and classified as sustainability science, and they conducted the workshops around
5.1.2 Observations
I observed as an outside observer 10 KE workshops in 9 fisherfolk communities (Map 1) and one meeting with representatives from the DFMR. Both types of workshops were run during the same time period, and thus I could not participate in all the held workshops (Table 2). I selected the observed workshops based on logistics. As an observer I did not participate in the workshops or affect the course of the workshops, although I had an active role in designing the workshop type 1 before the fieldwork. I conducted participant observation throughout the fieldwork and observed experiences of external researchers before and after the fieldwork period.
5.1.3 Informal follow ups
Around three months after the workshops, in April 2018, I visited some of the landing sites of the workshop type 1 informally with the external researcher 1. During the visits, I managed to reach and talk with some workshop participants such as fishers, beach recorders and traders.
These visits added to a deeper perspective and validation of the results as people still remembered similar things from the workshops they had said was interesting 3 months ago.
Data gained in the follow-ups have the limitation of being opportunistic and non-systematic in nature, as we did not visit all the workshop sites, and did not reach people in every landing site.
5.2 Data quality and reflexivity
The use of translators creates a risk for the quality of data (Thurèn 2013). I used three different translators to conduct the interviews with beach recorders, fishers and traders, which may have led to misunderstanding of questions by the translators or interviewees, and to partial answers.
I trained translators to understand the aim of the study and the approach for data collection by practising interviews beforehand, but some meanings and nuances of answers were changed through the interpretation of translators. For example, during transcribing, I noticed that different translators used certain words differently such as a researcher and an expert, where one of the translators systemically called researchers “experts.” Furthermore, the depth of translations capturing the answers varied between translators.
There was often limited time available to conduct an interview, particularly after workshops as participants had already spent about 45 minutes in a workshop, which created situations where there was not enough time to get in depth enough with questions, or many possible interviewees left before I could interview them. Also, sampling affected by people volunteering after the
workshops may have led to a selection bias towards interested people, and missing the most negative voices. I acknowledge that each community has their own history and background in relation to research, but I did not capture the nuances between and within communities in this study due to a small number of interviews in each landing site. Also, I observed more type 1 workshops, and interviewed more participants afterwards than after the type 2 workshops, and thus I gained a more nuanced picture about the perceptions of presented information in workshop type 1. It was difficult to predict which workshops and meetings should be observed as they were run simultaneously. I did not use an elaborated sampling criterion for the workshops or meetings, but I chose them based on logistics such as transport. For example, I did not observe the meeting between the external researcher 2 and managers and gained data about it only through the reported experiences of the researcher.
During the fieldwork, I was extremely conscious about my own role as an external researcher and I believe that my position as a foreigner and researcher affected the way interviewees answered the questions. Topics such as perceptions of research and external researchers were difficult to explore as I myself was in the position of a researcher. When it came to conducting interviews after the workshops, it was impossible to avoid workshop participants making a connection between researchers presenting information in workshops and me as an observer.
The likelihood of the deference effect is high, meaning that interviewees told me what they thought I wanted to hear (Bernard 2006). For example, participants were probably more likely to describe the presented information as useful and give positive feedback on the workshop generally. Also, statements such as “nothing was misunderstood by the researcher” may stem from the deference effect. These answers are also linked to the social desirability bias as interviewees may have responded in a way that makes themselves look good (Denzin and Lincoln 2011). This is particularly likely as interview situations often ended with a request for financial or material support.
The possibility to implement an ethnographical approach was limited due to language barriers and the short period spent in each community and in the field generally. Thus, it was difficult to gain an in-depth picture of the different contexts where the workshops were conducted.
Particularly, participant observations were limited and did not fulfil the aim of the method as
Nevertheless, participant observations covered the whole process of coming back to share research findings, and I gained close insights of perspectives of the external researchers in addition to experiences of local stakeholders. Ultimately, I am conscious about my position as a foreign student, being in a process of learning, conducting a study in a new context, and I felt that the data quality improved towards the end of the field work, reflecting this process. At the end of the fieldwork, I was more comfortable in probing and got more in-depth answers. I also started to better manage the process of using translators by asking clarifications and double- checking some translations during the interviews.
5.3 Data Analysis
I transcribed recorded interviews and digitalised notes from hand-written interviews. I coded interviews thematically and created different code sets for the different research questions, using qualitative data analysis software MAXQDA. Themes emerged from the theoretical background and naturally from the interviews. I used abductive reasoning in the data analysis, which is based on finding surprising empirical results against a background of existing theories (Timmermans and Tavory 2012). Interview guides were designed around themes presented in the theoretical background, which naturally created pre-assumptions for codes. Simultaneously, however, the coding process was open to emerging themes in order not to miss important aspects not necessarily supported by the theoretical background. Hence, abductive reasoning aims at theory-building on surprising research evidence (Timmermans and Tavory 2012). I conducted two rounds of coding. First, I created codes and then merged codes and combined them under the main themes (Appendix 3: Codes). I did not digitalise fieldwork notes but coded them manually on notebooks under the same codes created in MAXQDA. I triangulated data from interviews with observations and notes from informal interviews in the field.
6 RESULTS
The results are organized to address the three research questions.
6.1 Research question 1: Patterns of stakeholder interaction
From the coding of interview data and observations, I identified key actor groups and a set of interactions between them that forms the context for KE. An overview is given in Figure 3. In the following sections, I will further elaborate on some interactions that emerged as critical in the data.
I found that the research encounters in the two case studies happened in the context of interactions between different stakeholders, manifested in flows of benefits or potential benefits. Figure 3 highlights parts of knowledge governance by presenting some of these interactions with a focus on flows of information and knowledge particularly between external researchers and local stakeholders in the researched context of small-scale fisheries in Zanzibar.
The main flows in the figure are shown as funding, and social contacts from researchers to locals, and access to the field sites and data (information/knowledge) from local stakeholders to researchers. This creates the fundamental base for foreign researchers conducting research projects in Zanzibar. However, the relationship between a researcher and a researched community is not direct from the beginning, but guided and shaped by contact with a local collaborator and beach recorders. The interviews with different stakeholder groups showed that the flow of information is mostly unidirectional towards the external researcher from the researched communities, and potential flows of scientific knowledge back to the context of research are often not in the place. Yet, there are other types of benefits gained such as international contact or expertise from the interaction with external researchers. The next sections will further elaborate factors forming the gaps of knowledge flows, first examining fishers’ involvement in decision-making and the contact between the local research institute and management level, as well as contact between external researchers and local academics and managers. Finally, perceptions of research and researchers from members of the local communities are presented.
Figure 3. Features of knowledge governance in small-scale fisheries research in Zanzibar. Patterns of interaction shape the context of research: Flows of benefits between external researchers and local stakeholders are presented in arrows. Funding for research projects is exchanged to access to research subjects. Feedback of research and sharing research findings with local stakeholders are mostly missing (dashed orange arrows). A description of interactions between local stakeholders is presented in boxes (A & B). The figure was created based on interviews with all the stakeholders and field observations.
6.1.1 Local interactions in fisheries decision making Fishers’ participation in decision-making (Figure 3 part A)
Decision-making about fisheries, and implementation of management seem to have a hierarchical nature [KI1, LA2, M1]1. Fishers can influence collective decision-making through Fishers’ Committees [KI1, 2WS4, LA2, M1]: An elected chairperson of each committee in each landing site functions as a link between managers and communities. Management-level decisions are communicated through the committee to the villages, and they in turn communicate fishers’ needs to the department and sometimes their views and opinions [KI3].
According to managers, trust in their decision-making is ensured by organising a meeting at the department once every three months, where members from the Fishers’ committees are present.
This was described by a manager as a chance for the managers to present their ideas to the committees [M1]. However, at least in half of the visited communities, fishers or beach recorders explained that either the Fishers’ committee is not meeting regularly or that elections for the Fishers’ committees are not held.
1 Citation to the interviews. KI=Key Informant, M=Managers, LA=Local academic, E=External researcher, BD=Beach recorder, 1WS=Workshop type 1 participant, 2WS=Workshop type 2 participant. See appendix 4.
There is a fishers’ committee and that committee connects to the Fisheries department but there are no regular meetings. Just maybe when something happens, like a misunderstanding between fishers, the committee takes the information but they [fishers] are involved because there is a committee but not enough.
-Beach recorder [BD3]
The comment from this beach recorder describes what other interviewees in Mkokotoni, Maruhubi and Kizimkazi also said: Fishers are involved in the decision-making and represented by the committees, yet involvement is hindered by issues with participation in the committees.
The same beach recorder expressed that it could be better to have meetings regularly and not only when misunderstandings happen [BD3]. Another beach recorder explained that there is enough involvement, but irregular meetings of the committee prohibit action and implementation in the landing site [BD6]. Yet, a fisher in Mkokotoni described how the committee makes decisions just by themselves and he does not feel he can be involved. Not only was the work of Fishers’ committees considered insufficient, but also participation in events at the DFMR was perceived unequal: A secretary of the beach recorder in one village described that only a few fishers can participate in the events, leading to a situation where a majority of fishers do not get access to the information and education provided in meetings.
The overall narrative from a majority of the community-level interviews was that involvement and participation of fishers in management level decision-making is needed, and a fair decision is a decision that is made together between different actors. Achieving participation of fishers seemed to vary between the different communities and be perceived differently by different actors. Even in the same site perceptions of involvement differed: A fisher in Uroa expressed that fishers are involved in decision-making, whereas another fisher in the same site said that he is not involved at all, being upset that dynamite fishing was forbidden. Perceptions of involvement are thus likely to be linked to the activity and organisation of Fishers’ committees, the level of involvement by individuals, and the ways in which decisions affect fishers’
livelihoods.
Information sharing between managers and the local research institute (Figure 3 part B) The relationship between the local research institute and the DFMR seem to be greatly based on a personal connection: A local academic from the research institute reported always participating in meetings and preparing policy briefs for the managers [LA2]. In contrast, another local academic described the lack of a platform to share and exchange knowledge with
managers and funding issues restrict, for example, asking for specific scientific information if it is needed for management decisions. Accordingly, a manager stated that the goal of the institute is only to publish enough academic papers [M2]. However, described by a local academic, the DFMR lacks an own research institute and human capital as the education level among managers is a master’s level at highest, which prevents the use of science in decision- making [LA2].
6.1.2 Contact between (external) researchers and local managers and academics
Local academics saw that external researchers can bring expertise and contribute to the gaps in scientific knowledge as well as come with bigger funding and projects [LA1, LA2; Figure 3 part C]. For managers at the DFMR, the role of external researchers was to provide contacts to abroad and even widen local people’s views about the system they operate in [M1; Figure 3 part C]. Ideally, according to both local academics and managers, research done by external and internal researchers should feed into management. [LA1, LA2, M1].
Barriers in use of science
In practice, the link of feeding scientific knowledge to management or to the local research institute from external researchers was mostly missing. Local academics described how they need to constantly remind external researchers to even send a report about their research findings back, even though it is a requirement for getting a research permit. Even fewer researchers come back personally [LA1, LA2]. Nevertheless, it was not clear what happens to the reports after they are sent and forwarded to the governmental level [LA1]. Also, managers considered lack of feedback as a major problem. This can also be against given promises as one manager described:
They [researchers] often leave without sharing, they don’t leave reports, at the start when they come they visit and meet with us and promise to leave reports and share, but they don’t, they just disappear.
-Manager, the DFMR [M1]
Managers stressed the importance of practical information that can be understandable and applicable and that consultancy also after research projects could be beneficial and not just formulating recommendations. When asked directly if external researchers benefit fisheries management in any way, one manager noted plainly “Not at all, they don’t benefit fisheries management”. This, the manager explained, is partly due to the type of research conducted, as natural sciences are not necessarily seen as interesting for decision-making in management.
Also, a local academic mentioned that the type of research conducted is a barrier for dissemination to the management level and communities since results from social sciences are considered more applicable or easier to be understood [LA1]. However, when asked what kind of information is of interest to managers they mentioned that information on stock sizes is most needed. Also, both managers and local academics expressed that external researchers usually come with their own research projects in spite of the existing Zanzibar Research Agenda (ZRA), which maps the focus of research and innovation for 2015-20202. Yet, any kind of research was welcomed, and local academics or managers said they hardly influence the type of projects implemented by external researchers [LA1, LA2, M1].
6.1.3 Perceptions of scientific knowledge and researchers held by community members Nearly all interviewed stakeholders in the different communities said they had had contact with researchers in the form of being interviewed before. However, interviews and discussions in the villages revealed that perceptions of research and researchers varied and researchers were often mixed with other visitors such as people implementing projects, and informants were unsure what role researchers have.
Trust in scientific knowledge and learning through contact with researchers
Generally, outside the workshops, interviewees said they trust researchers and their knowledge.
This was based on the fact they can validate researchers’ information by what they see in the environment, or the changes they see in the environment are explained by researchers [BD2, KI2, KI3, KI4, KI5]. Another way of seeing research as trustworthy was if it could be applied and was useful [BD4, KI4, KI5], and this, as noted by a few interviewees, requires researchers coming back and sharing their results [BD1, BD6, KI1]. Research-based knowledge was seen as useful to describe the system, increase awareness, and provide knowledge about the environment and how to do fishing or trading activities better [BD1, BD3, BD4, BD5, KI1, KI4]. For example, based on his previous experiences as a participant in a research project, a fisher in Uroa stated that researchers can help educate on how to use the ocean in a sustainable way to maintain it for future generations. He had learned that destroying corals affects fish reproduction, but he also said a better way of fishing would require gear for deep-sea fishing [KI5]. Science was also seen as having modern and technological aspects, which can offer new, more efficient or environmentally friendly ways to support livelihoods, compared to the local
