长期认识论冲突背景下的合作生产外交制度化:鳕鱼渔业治理案例研究

IF 3 3区 社会学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Nicole Klenk, Brian Pentz, Nicholas E. Mandrak
{"title":"长期认识论冲突背景下的合作生产外交制度化:鳕鱼渔业治理案例研究","authors":"Nicole Klenk,&nbsp;Brian Pentz,&nbsp;Nicholas E. Mandrak","doi":"10.1002/eet.2138","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Knowledge co-production is a collaborative approach to research that seeks to enable transformative societal change and improve outcomes in natural resource management and sustainable development. Instituting knowledge co-production requires that researchers, decision-makers, and stakeholders be willing to work together towards shared goals. In the context of fisheries management, co-production represents a significant departure from the technocratic discourses and governance practices that have characterized decision-making for decades. Moreover, some fisheries contexts have been plagued by persistent and seemingly intractable epistemological conflicts between stakeholders and decision-makers. Such situations complicate the implementation of co-production and raise questions about the extent to which researchers can achieve the aims of co-production in situations of distrust, amenity, and entrenched positions. We use the case study of Northern Cod, a stock of Atlantic Cod (<i>Gadus morhua</i>) governance in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, a case of long-standing conflict between the regulator, fishers, Indigenous peoples, and industry parties, to explore whether and how co-production can enable collaborative research leading to “transformative societal change.” We find five factors complicating uptake of co-production in the governance of Northern Cod: (i) competing perspectives exist regarding the relative worth of different types of knowledge; (ii) links between epistemic preferences and interests; (iii) barriers related to access and inclusion in governance spaces; (iv) barriers related to institutional design; and, (v) conflict-ridden stakeholder relations. In a context of persistent epistemological conflict and distrust, we propose that knowledge co-production focus on diplomacy through science with an aim to repair relationships rather than produce new knowledge that can serve as evidence in decision-making as the primary goal of the co-production process.</p>","PeriodicalId":47396,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Policy and Governance","volume":"35 2","pages":"214-227"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/eet.2138","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Institutionalizing co-production diplomacy in contexts of long-term epistemological conflict: A case study of cod fisheries governance\",\"authors\":\"Nicole Klenk,&nbsp;Brian Pentz,&nbsp;Nicholas E. Mandrak\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/eet.2138\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Knowledge co-production is a collaborative approach to research that seeks to enable transformative societal change and improve outcomes in natural resource management and sustainable development. Instituting knowledge co-production requires that researchers, decision-makers, and stakeholders be willing to work together towards shared goals. In the context of fisheries management, co-production represents a significant departure from the technocratic discourses and governance practices that have characterized decision-making for decades. Moreover, some fisheries contexts have been plagued by persistent and seemingly intractable epistemological conflicts between stakeholders and decision-makers. Such situations complicate the implementation of co-production and raise questions about the extent to which researchers can achieve the aims of co-production in situations of distrust, amenity, and entrenched positions. We use the case study of Northern Cod, a stock of Atlantic Cod (<i>Gadus morhua</i>) governance in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, a case of long-standing conflict between the regulator, fishers, Indigenous peoples, and industry parties, to explore whether and how co-production can enable collaborative research leading to “transformative societal change.” We find five factors complicating uptake of co-production in the governance of Northern Cod: (i) competing perspectives exist regarding the relative worth of different types of knowledge; (ii) links between epistemic preferences and interests; (iii) barriers related to access and inclusion in governance spaces; (iv) barriers related to institutional design; and, (v) conflict-ridden stakeholder relations. In a context of persistent epistemological conflict and distrust, we propose that knowledge co-production focus on diplomacy through science with an aim to repair relationships rather than produce new knowledge that can serve as evidence in decision-making as the primary goal of the co-production process.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47396,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Policy and Governance\",\"volume\":\"35 2\",\"pages\":\"214-227\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/eet.2138\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Policy and Governance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eet.2138\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Policy and Governance","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eet.2138","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

知识联合生产是一种合作研究方法,旨在实现变革性社会变革,改善自然资源管理和可持续发展的成果。建立知识联合生产需要科学家、决策者和利益相关者愿意为共同的目标而共同努力。在渔业管理的背景下,共同生产代表着对几十年来作为决策特征的技术官僚话语和治理实践的重大背离。此外,一些渔业环境一直受到利益相关者和决策者之间持续且看似棘手的认识论冲突的困扰。这种情况使合作生产的实施复杂化,并提出了关于研究人员在不信任、舒适和地位根深蒂固的情况下能够实现合作生产目标的程度的问题。我们以加拿大纽芬兰和拉布拉多的一种大西洋鳕鱼(Gadus morhua)的治理为例,探讨了监管机构、渔民、土著居民和行业各方之间长期冲突的案例,探讨了合作生产是否以及如何使合作研究成为可能,从而导致“变革性的社会变革”。我们发现五个因素使北方鳕鱼治理中联合生产的吸收复杂化:(i)关于不同类型知识的相对价值存在相互竞争的观点;(ii)认知偏好与兴趣之间的联系;(三)与进入和融入治理空间有关的障碍;与体制设计有关的障碍;(五)冲突缠身的利益相关者关系。在持续的认识论冲突和不信任的背景下,我们建议知识合作生产将重点放在通过科学进行外交上,目的是修复关系,而不是生产可以作为决策证据的新知识,这是合作生产过程的主要目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Institutionalizing co-production diplomacy in contexts of long-term epistemological conflict: A case study of cod fisheries governance

Institutionalizing co-production diplomacy in contexts of long-term epistemological conflict: A case study of cod fisheries governance

Knowledge co-production is a collaborative approach to research that seeks to enable transformative societal change and improve outcomes in natural resource management and sustainable development. Instituting knowledge co-production requires that researchers, decision-makers, and stakeholders be willing to work together towards shared goals. In the context of fisheries management, co-production represents a significant departure from the technocratic discourses and governance practices that have characterized decision-making for decades. Moreover, some fisheries contexts have been plagued by persistent and seemingly intractable epistemological conflicts between stakeholders and decision-makers. Such situations complicate the implementation of co-production and raise questions about the extent to which researchers can achieve the aims of co-production in situations of distrust, amenity, and entrenched positions. We use the case study of Northern Cod, a stock of Atlantic Cod (Gadus morhua) governance in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, a case of long-standing conflict between the regulator, fishers, Indigenous peoples, and industry parties, to explore whether and how co-production can enable collaborative research leading to “transformative societal change.” We find five factors complicating uptake of co-production in the governance of Northern Cod: (i) competing perspectives exist regarding the relative worth of different types of knowledge; (ii) links between epistemic preferences and interests; (iii) barriers related to access and inclusion in governance spaces; (iv) barriers related to institutional design; and, (v) conflict-ridden stakeholder relations. In a context of persistent epistemological conflict and distrust, we propose that knowledge co-production focus on diplomacy through science with an aim to repair relationships rather than produce new knowledge that can serve as evidence in decision-making as the primary goal of the co-production process.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Environmental Policy and Governance
Environmental Policy and Governance ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES-
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
13.30%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: Environmental Policy and Governance is an international, inter-disciplinary journal affiliated with the European Society for Ecological Economics (ESEE). The journal seeks to advance interdisciplinary environmental research and its use to support novel solutions in environmental policy and governance. The journal publishes innovative, high quality articles which examine, or are relevant to, the environmental policies that are introduced by governments or the diverse forms of environmental governance that emerge in markets and civil society. The journal includes papers that examine how different forms of policy and governance emerge and exert influence at scales ranging from local to global and in diverse developmental and environmental contexts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信