| |
November 2001Institutionalizing Social Science Data Collection A Pilot
Project
For our latest report click
here.
Project Overview
The Sustainable Fisheries Act requires that socio-economic impacts of
fisheries regulations must be considered. Systematic collection and use of
socio-economic data should be an integral part of the management design
process, but it is not. Fisheries managers are often called upon to make
decisions that have tremendous impacts on communities without having adequate
information to design conservation measures that can achieve their goals
without inflicting unnecessarily harsh social and economic impacts.
The MFP community Panels Project has been created to demonstrate effective
use of community-based panels to collect and analyze social science
information and to make this information available to improve fisheries
management. The project has instituted six community-based panels of fishing
stakeholders as detailed below. The goal is to help each panel collect and
organize relevant social science data so that the communities can regularly
comment on and describe potential real-time impacts from proposed
regulations. The data may also be used to assist communities in assembling
important facts for economic and development planning.
rincipal Investigators:
David Bergeron
Massachusetts Fishermen’s Partnership
2 Blackburn Center
Gloucester, MA 01930
dbergeron@mass-fish.org
Madeleine Hall-Arber, PhD
Center for Marine Social Sciences
MIT Sea Grant College Program
3 Cambridge Center, NE20-368
Cambridge, MA 02142
Arber@mit.edu
Bonnie J. McCay, PhD
Rutgers Board of Governors Distinguished
Service Professor
Chair, Department of Human Ecology
Cook College, Rutgers the State University
55 Dudley Road
New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901
mccay@aesop.rutgers.edu
Project Participants Advisory panel: About 18 people representing the
three target communities and interested others attended the introductory
meeting Beals Island/Jonesport: Jennifer Brewer, Coordinator; Herman Backman,
Jr., Dwight Carver, John Church, Colleen Haskell, Dana Rice, Mike Kirby, and
later, Amr Ismail, Robin Alden, Ted Hoskins. This group includes fishermen, a
high school principal, and community activists.
Gloucester: Sarah Robinson, Coordinator; Vito Giacalone, David Goethel,
Bill Linn, Rosalie Parisi, Steve Parkes, Marc Sandler, Angela Sanfilippo, Joe
Scola, Christine Sherman, Russell Sherman. These individuals comprise a group
of inshore fishermen, a settlement agent, an attorney, seafood dealers, and
fisheries group representatives. Some panel meetings have been attended by
Lori Steele, staff member of the New England Fishery Management Council.
Scituate: Bob Marcella, Bob MacKinnon, Chuck Haddad, Chris Mullaney, and
later, Steve Welch. These include a lobsterman, two gillnetters, a restaurant
owner, and a grocery store owner. Objectives Our primary objective is to
develop a community-based process for gathering and assessing social science
data relevant to the fishing industry.
We wanted to
- ground-truth an academic product intended as a baseline study
- identify what communities consider important
- locate new data sources
- offer communities the opportunity to define themselves and articulate
their values
Community-based panels are reviewing, adding to, and creating
socio-economic profiles for their communities. This project has enabled us to
experiment with several approaches to developing a community-based process
for social science data collection. Evaluation of the different approaches
has already enabled us to adapt our strategies for the next phase of this
project and for a companion project that is extending our work to an
additional three communities.
Our advisory group brainstormed categories for participants in the panels
that included a wide variety of community and industry members. The group
then suggested individuals for each of the panels that represented the
identified categories. Originally, we intended to hire someone
from each of the fishing communities to serve as coordinator. However, we
quickly learned that we were likely to be more successful if we actually
hired someone from outside the community, but who had specific
characteristics. These characteristics will be described in the section below
entitled “Lessons learned.” We were fortunate to find two excellent
coordinators for our Beals Island and Gloucester Panels. Interestingly, the
Scituate Panel requested that we not hire a coordinator as they felt that
they could organize themselves, meet sufficiently often and carry out the
research themselves. In order to recruit individuals to the
panels, we started with the lists suggested by the advisory group and held
additional discussions with other well-known individuals in each community.
The coordinators took the lead on identifying contacts in the community and
region, networking, and recruiting the core panel members. They also
successfully established group rapport and trust, a precedent for consensus.
The PIs took the lead on developing protocols to guide the data collection
and panel discussions. Each panel then adapted the protocols to better suit
their communities’ concerns, issues, and values. In addition, each panel
suggested additional panel members to the coordinators that they and the
coordinators felt would help them to meet their objectives and augment data
collection capabilities.
Originally, we had planned for each panel to meet a total of six times in
two years. We had anticipated day-long meetings. We learned early, however,
that panel members preferred to meet in the evening for shorter meetings held
more frequently. Beals Island/Jonesport met 5 times in 5 months; Gloucester
met 4 times in three months specifically for the panels project; and Scituate
met 3 times in four months. Selected milestones Beals Island/Jonesport:
- Identified panel members’ common values and general goals with regard
to project objectives. This group wants to retain the right to fish for
themselves and their descen dan ts. It is perceived as a unique and
valuable livelihood, as well as the community’s economic base. In practice,
this means opposing regulatory closure of customary commons, such as
license moratoria/entry limits and ITQs that restrict industry flexibility
by preventing entry and exit to fisheries. Maintaining infrastructure is
also important. At present, the lobster fishery is the key concern, being
the primary fishery, but greater diversity of resource access is desired as
well. The group decided to take an historical approach to show the extent
to which flexibility and resource access have already diminished. The idea
is that fighting individual regulatory events on the basis of immediate
social and economic impacts is a perpetual and losing battle. Establishing
the extent of impacts over time might be more likely to effect a paradigm
shift in regulatory policy.
- Agreed upon data collection tasks that might further these goals
- Identified human resources available to collect data, both within and
outside the community. Assigned initial data collection tasks to panel
members, subsequent tasks to panel coordinator, and explored possibility of
assigning further tasks to a panel member recruited for his research
experience.
- Panel members collected initial data from lobster, crab and
groundfisheries
- Asked panel to respond to immediate regulatory changes in groundfishery
by channeling panel viewpoints directly to state regulatory agency and
indirectly to federal and regional decision makers via MFP
- Explored possibility of making formal presentation to state regulatory
agency and lawmakers
Gloucester:
- Our first two meetings focused on the project as a whole, its aims,
sources of data, and appropriate tasks for panel members.
- Among other things, we examined a ‘project matrix’ designed by the
principal investigators (it identifies information to collect about the
fisheries and the community over a period of 15-20 years) and discussed the
desirability and feasibility of collecting the information to fill in the
matrix.
- Began a review of the data contained in the 2001 MARFIN report’s
profile of Gloucester and the North Shore.
Shortly after our second meeting, a judicial decision imposing new and
severe restrictions on the groundfish fishery in New England was issued, and
our next two meetings focused on the likely social and economic effects of
these new restrictions.
- We designed and distributed two data collection forms, a ‘boat
economics’ form, and a ‘days-at-sea’ form. The former is aimed at
identifying the fixed and non-fixed costs of different size vessels, and
the latter at the actual numbers of days-at-sea used by fishermen in the
groundfishery (as a way of estimating their new allocations under the new
restrictions).
- Panel members filled out forms, and also distributed them to (and
collected them back from) other members of the community. Our panel member
who is a settlement agent was invaluable in collecting the boat economics
information.
- We are currently in the process of analyzing the data collected.
Scituate:
Panel members have found it more difficult than anticipated to organize
themselves and conduct research without formal direction. Nevertheless, the
three meetings were productive since the panel members are very knowledgeable
about the fishing in their area and the changes that have occurred over time.
- We have recently hired a coordinator and will be moving forward later
this month.
- Several of the members have used the protocols to survey harvesters.
Project principals (PIs and coordinators, including the new coordinators
for the additional communities) met to discuss project’s progress, goals,
objectives, lessons learned, next steps. We invited an economist and the
project principals on the Atlas project to join us in order to evaluate how
best to coordinate our work for mutual benefit.
Special meetings
Four industry-wide meetings were held in June by the Massachusetts
Fishermen’s Partnership in Gloucester, New Bedford, Boston, and Chatham.
While not “panel meetings” per se, these were held under the aegis of the
community panel project. The aim of these meetings was to identify industry
views on immediate social and economic needs of the communities in the wake
of the tight new restrictions on the groundfishery. This was of great
interest in Gloucester, where the great majority of fishing vessels
participate in (and rely upon) the groundfishery. Panel members provided
valuable information at the meeting and helped to frame key questions posed
at the meeting.
The PI s distributed a survey instrument they had designed to collect
information about industry members (both harvesters and shore-side
businesses) and their views on immediate social and economic needs. One panel
member, employing personal persistence and considerable networks in the
community, worked hard to ensure that people would fill in the surveys. Due
to her pivotal efforts, we collected 42 completed surveys from industry
members in Gloucester and the North Shore. We are also in the process of
analyzing the data collected in these surveys.
Lessons learned
Coordinators qualities are critical to success: Top Coordinators have to
be familiar with social science methodology and familiar with the fishing
industry. We also sought coordinators known and liked in the communities.
Importantly, the coordinators must be able to explain the goals and
objectives of the project without imposing a personal agenda. They must be
able and willing to summarize what is known and facilitate their panel’s
discussions. They must be flexible and willing to make an extraordinary
number of phone calls to organize meetings and recruit participation. They
must be able to help panel members set tasks and deadlines for accomplishment
and they must be able to devote time to research and writing in order to
further the work of the panels and the project. The community panels have
already proven to be valuable. They made feasible the convening at short
notice of the special industry-wide meetings to assess immediate economic
needs.
Panels composition:
- Panels should comprise 8-12 core members and be open to additional
members on a permanent or task basis
- Panel should comprise roughly half industry representatives and half
people with broader non-fishing-related experience
- Panels should include a dealer, harvesters representing at least the
range of vessel sizes, if not the range of gear types and species, someone
with experience in local government, someone with a personal or
professional interest in young people who want to fish for a living.
- Good panel members are often people who are already over-committed to
civic activities. Respecting their scheduling and pacing needs is
important.
- In some communities (e.g., Beals Island/Jonesport area), adding core
panel members on a permanent basis can be difficult after the second
meeting or so, once group rapport and goals are being formed. This makes it
important to get a good mix of skills and experience from the start.
- However, in larger communities (e.g., Gloucester), it is probably best
not to think of the panel as a fixed object, but rather as a collection of
individuals with various, interconnected expertise.
We have found that for certain purposes, it is most effective to have
sub-groups of the panel meet to develop data on a particular topic within
their expertise. For other purposes (like the upcoming Amendment 13
brainstorming session), it is most effective to have the group meet as a
whole and pool their expertise. · In any case, panel members should not be
asked to invest large amounts of time in topics for which other panel members
have greater expertise
Panel coordination
- Depending on the number of hours the panel coordinator has available
for data collection and administrative tasks, recruiting a core panel
member with basic administrative, research or data entry skills as well as
time to invest in panel support tasks can be very helpful
- Distributing responsibility for panel coordination from the beginning
helps to ensure that backup human resources are in place should the primary
coordinator have to leave the project temporarily or permanently. This
backup person could be a panel member, a PI, or a secondary coordinator.
Objectives, data and group dynamics
- Clarity and realism in communicating project objectives is crucial.
Panel members are being asked to invest in a process with uncertain
outcomes. This should be understood. It should also be clear how
differences between the goals of the panel or the goals of the scientists
are paramount will be negotiated.
- Although consensus may not always be possible, it is desirable for
group cohesion and project momentum
- Participants need to believe that their input will be taken seriously
and have a positive, practical impact
- It is helpful for panel coordinators to meet occasionally to share
common problems and solutions
- It is particularly helpful to have a PI at the first or second panel
meeting to establish credibility with the panel, to answer panel questions,
to establish an open line of communication, and to see the group dynamics
first hand in order to better support the coordinator as the project
progresses
Social science
- The project must be designed to collect social and economic
information. To panel members it makes no sense to focus on social impacts
without also, simultaneously, looking at economic impacts. The two are tied
together and must be investigated together.
- Panels need regular access to quality advice on methodology and
realistic goals from a social scientist and someone with regulatory
experience. Such expertise might be offered by the coordinator, the PIs (in
attendance or in close communication with the coordinator), or by a panel
member familiar with these issues.
- It is critical that the PI s and the coordinators provide information
about social science methodologies and instruments to panel members. Panel
members do not want the task of reinventing social science; rather, they
want to work with social scientists as active partners. In exchange for
their participation, their views, and their hard work, they want
information about effective social science methods. They want to be sure
their work will be taken seriously and not dismissed as inadequate. At the
same time, they raise good, hard methodological questions about existing
social science methods, and their collaboration can be critical in the
further design of effective methods. Next steps:
Gloucester:
- Amendment 13—We are in the process of scheduling an October panel
meeting to ‘brainstorm’ on the likely impacts of Amendment 13, the new
restrictions on the groundfishery planned for August 2003, on Gloucester.
We aim to get together the panel members (expanded by a few new members to
ensure that we have the widest possible participation) to talk about what
the impacts are likely to be, what information is needed to estimate these
impacts, and what holes there are in current Council analyses of impacts.
This will be a critical analysis as Gloucester is likely to be very hard
hit by Amendment 13. Its principal fishery today is an inshore groundfish
fishery. One of the major alternatives for the regulations under
consideration is a closure of the inshore grounds around Gloucester to
groundfishing (along with 50% or greater cuts in already greatly diminished
days-at-sea allocations). Following this ‘brainstorming’ meeting (or
‘focus’ group meeting), we will endeavor to collect what we can of the
information deemed critical to a proper analysis of Amendment 13’s social
and economic impacts. As noted, we are in the process of analyzing data
already collected (through the boat economics forms, the days-at-sea forms,
and the surveys), and we will use that data in our Amendment 13 analyses.
- Beyond the Amendment 13 analysis, we intend to pursue the review of the
MARFIN port profile (part of which will be accomplished by the Amendment 13
review), to continue work on filling in the ‘project matrix,’ and to
determine and provide other end products (such as historical narratives
from long-time industry participants).
Beals Island/Jonesport
- Continue input process for groundfish Amendment 13 by tapping
additional panel members from a broader area with greater investment in
groundfishing
- Continue data collection · Collate data into graphical presentation of
quantitative findings
- Edit MARFIN and write narrative explication of quantitative findings,
incorporating qualitative input from panel and other interviewees
- Possibly write and mail community household and/or business survey
- If panel wishes to do so, develop formal panel presentation for state
or other decision-makers
- Explore possibility of writing additional grants in collaboration with
community members, according to priorities established by the group
Scituate
- Focus on Amendment 13, likely economic and social impacts not only to
groundfish harvesters, but the potential effect on shoreside businesses and
other fisheries
All
- Panel coordinators will meet to draft a very brief step-by-step guide
to recruiting and convening panels, addressing issues that are likely to
arise, and possibly adding a list of resources. PIs will review the
proposed guide, finalize the content and write any introductory sections to
orient the material within their broader agenda for institutionalization.
# # #
|
|
