Using diverse expertise to advance climate change fisheries science

Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2017) 1e11

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

Using diverse expertise to advance climate change fisheries science Kate K. Mulvaney a, Caroline Gottschalk Druschke b, * a U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Atlantic Ecology Division, 27 Tarzwell Drive, Narragansett, RI 02882, USA b University of Wisconsin-Madison, 7187 H.C. White Hall, 600 N. Park St., Madison, WI 53706, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 6 January 2017 Received in revised form 2 October 2017 Accepted 2 October 2017 Available online xxx

As climate change continues to impact New England's coastal ecosystems and their related fisheries, the need for measuring, projecting, interpreting, and applying those impacts for adaptive management is expanding. In New England, different types of formal and informal research efforts that involve collaboration between the fishing community and traditional university and government researchers continue to develop to address some of this need. To better understand the opportunities and challenges that these collaborative research efforts face, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 18 members of the fishing and research communities who are engaged in advancing New England climate change and fisheries science. Participants showed clear concern for the impacts of climate change on New England fisheries and about the insufficient availability of the necessary science to manage for those impacts. They also noted a number of challenges in collaborative research, including poor communication and a lack of trust among fishers, researchers, and decision makers, as well as a lack of perceived credibility for research coming out of the fishing community. We identify a number of opportunities for improving collaboration and communication among these groups, which could build upon the identified value of existing collaborations. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Climate change is expected to impact ocean ecosystems and their fisheries in a number of known and unknown ways that will have significant impacts on those who depend upon ocean resources, particularly fishing communities. Fishing communities, scientists, and environmental decision makers are just beginning to understand what those impacts will be. In order to better understand the implications of those impacts, a considerable amount of additional research will be needed over the next few decades, but traditional research institutions (universities and government agencies) will be greatly challenged to keep pace with that need (Visser, 2008). Collaborative fisheries research conducted by scientific and fisheries partners and acceptance of industry-led research offer possibilities for supplementing available data, but come with considerable limitations. Through interviews with researchers and the fishing industry, this paper explores the opportunities and limitations of increasing collaborative and industrydriven research in the context of climate change for fisheries

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (C.G. Druschke).

based out of Rhode Island, USA. 1.1. Climate change impacts in the Northwest Atlantic Although the science for understanding climate change impacts is still in its early stages, a number of impacts of climate change on marine ecosystems and their related fisheries have been identified. In addition to the changes in air and water temperature, there are also projected changes in patterns of ocean acidification, habitat loss, food webs, freshwater runoff, wind patterns, and more that can affect fisheries directly or indirectly (Doney et al., 2012, 2014; Hare et al., 2010). In the waters off the northeast United States, studies have found shifts in fish stock distribution (northward and into deeper waters: Pinsky et al., 2013; Nye et al., 2009) and species composition (Collie et al., 2008). In response to these pressures from climate change and other drivers, fishing communities will need to cope with and adapt to climate change pressures, which can range from diversifying locations, gears, and targeted species to opting out of fisheries entirely (Coulthard, 2009). While studies are starting to provide a clearer image of the effects of climate change on marine ecosystems and their fisheries, effects need to be further researched, better understood, and more deeply incorporated into

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.10.006 0964-5691/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Mulvaney, K.K., Druschke, C.G., Using diverse expertise to advance climate change fisheries science, Ocean & Coastal Management (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.10.006

2

K.K. Mulvaney, C.G. Druschke / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2017) 1e11

management directives (Doney et al., 2014; Hare et al., 2010; Sumaila et al., 2011). 1.2. Advancing research collaborations In fisheries governance in New England, across the United States, and globally, there is a consistent call for stakeholder participation, even if it can mean different levels and depths of engagement (Johnson, 2011). For example, as the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC, 2016) describes, “The intent of the Council system is to maximize public participation in the management of a public resource …” Often, the stakeholders that are being called on for participation are a mix of the general public and “experts” who have a vested interest in the issue under consideration. While actual participation varies, in general, participants in fisheries governance tend to include representatives from the fishing industry, environmental non-governmental organizations, universities, and state and federal agencies. The inclusion of “experts” in these processes is seen as a way to legitimize decisions and subsequent political actions (Nenadovic and Epstein, 2016; Evers and Menkhoff, 2004; Collins and Evans, 2002). In the case of fisheries, this category of “experts” often refers to research scientists from government agencies, universities, or consulting companies, whereas the fishing community is considered separately as offering anecdotal information outside of the “expert” sphere (Hall-Arber and Pederson, 1999). This is seemingly contradictory to the popular definition of expert, which often relates directly to an individual's level of experience and familiarity with a topic (Collins and Evans, 2002). Those working in the fishing industry have often been taught by seasoned mentors and have extensive experience fishing various conditions throughout the seasons. But this firm line between “legitimate” expertise and earned experience seems to hold in many policymaking circles. While the value of local knowledge in fisheries management has been recognized for decades, a mismatch remains between the recognized value of local knowledge and its actual use (Mackinson, 2001; Nenadovic et al., 2012). One barrier to the incorporation of local knowledge is the reluctance on the part of managers to give credence to local knowledge equal to that of traditional biophysical science (Mackinson, 2001; Mackinson and Nøttestad, 1998). One distinct exception to the exclusion of fishers as “experts” is the work of Mackinson (2001:533), which includes fishers and First Nations peoples, along with managers and scientists as “experts and fishery professionals.” His work outlines a methodology for incorporating the practical, local knowledge of fishers and First Nations peoples with the scientific information and literature produced by fisheries scientists. Most notably, Mackinson (2001) found that the two types of knowledge were not contradictory, but were instead complementary in scope for furthering fisheries science. Other exceptions include Grant and Berkes (2007), in which fisher knowledge is considered as the expert system for investigating the longline fishery of Grenada, and Richmond (2013), who offers specific recommendations for incorporating indigenous expertise into fisheries policy and management. In New England, and other parts of the United States, cooperative research efforts between the fishing and research communities have begun to blur the lines of expertise and have advanced relationships that have historically been crippled by distrust and low credibility (Hartley and Robertson, 2009). These efforts integrate, to varying extents, the expertise of fishing and research partners in design, implementation, and communication of fisheries research (Hartley and Robertson, 2009; Kaplan and McCay, 2006). Past research by Hartley and Robertson (2006, 2009) on cooperative fisheries research efforts has shown increased perceptions of

credibility of the science by the fisher participants. It also showed more positive relationships between the fishing and research communities in terms of mutual understanding, trust, and likelihood of long-lasting partnerships. Further, scientists and researchers who participated in cooperative research efforts were more likely to engage in management efforts afterwards (Hartley and Robertson, 2006, 2009). While studies identify a number of benefits of cooperative management, participants from the fishing community in particular were less certain about how their data would be integrated into fisheries management. This skepticism colored their perceptions of the success of the overall efforts (Hartley and Robertson, 2006). Johnson (2011) analyzed a cooperative fisheries research effort in the U.S. squid fishery. She found the engagement of fishers from the beginning of and through the research effort resulted in improved integration of scientist and fisher knowledge. This integration was facilitated by critical “boundary spanners” who facilitated interactions and helped the two groups to better understand what was needed and communicate with one another. In another study of northeast collaborative fisheries research, the two-way flow of information between fishers and scientists is important in cooperative management, which enables better participation in management and improved understanding of the scientific process by fishers (Johnson, 2010). Johnson (2010) also identified improved management outcomes because of improved trust and understanding. In their analysis in the northeast United States of the Trawl Survey Advisory Panel, Johnson and McCay (2012) found improved interactional communication between fishers and scientists who had participated in past collaborative research efforts. While this improved communication was important, it was not enough to maintain the relationships necessary for the success of the panel. Other limits in communication and transparency, such as perceived one-way communication, weakened the institutional arrangements and resulted in ending the panel. In addition to improvements in communication between scientists and researchers, Johnson and van Densen (2007) identified a number of other benefits of collaborative research. These benefits include reduced costs and improved capacity to increase the breadth of data coverage as well as improved quality of the data. The collaborative research also resulted in improved research relevance for management. Nenadovic et al. (2012) also identified improvements in the spatial resolution of data because of the collaboration with fishers. 2. Methods For this study, we conducted 16 semi-structured, face-to-face interviews (Patton, 2002) with 18 members of the Rhode Island fishing and research communities (five university researchers, three government researchers, one university outreach scientist, three fisheries policy specialists, four commercial fishers from the Rhode Island fleet, one fisheries activist, and one fisheries industry representative) in the summer of 2012. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. The interviews averaged 70 min in length. Prominent members of the Rhode Island marine science and policy communities were identified and contacted via email, with additional participants identified through snowball sampling (Lindlof and Taylor, 2011). This work was a part of a larger National Science Foundation Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) track-1 effort focused on “Infrastructure to Advance Life Sciences in the Ocean State.” Our research was tasked with understanding how to improve communication between marine science researchers and Rhode Island's fishing community who have a significant investment in accessing, understanding, and contributing to updated knowledge about the impact of climate

Please cite this article in press as: Mulvaney, K.K., Druschke, C.G., Using diverse expertise to advance climate change fisheries science, Ocean & Coastal Management (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.10.006

K.K. Mulvaney, C.G. Druschke / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2017) 1e11

change on marine life. Interview questions focused on climate change impacts on fisheries, cooperative research efforts, and research needs for adapting fisheries management to climate change impacts. In analyzing interview data, we used content analysis as a process to analyze discursive data within managers' own contexts (Krippendorff, 1989) and rhetorical analysis to look more deeply at the functions of language and its wider frames (Bazerman and Prior, 2003) to identify relevant themes, arguments, and phrases. In particular, we paid attention to the EPSCoR project's stated interest in the public accessibility of data about climate variability and its impacts on marine life. The interview data were analyzed using a Grounded Theory approach (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). The data were initially categorized according to high-inference categories in which phrases or sentences related to each other, followed by a deeper examination of each of the high-inference categories (Lindlof and Taylor, 2011). 3. Results and discussion The interviews revealed a broad understanding by both marine researchers and fishing industry representatives that there is a need for the fishing community to become more engaged in research efforts and for their participation to be valued more significantly by researchers and policymakers. Interview participants indicated the need for flexibility in fisheries governance, and its contributing science, in order to effectively adapt management structures and policies to climate change impacts. The fishing community's on-the-water insights into changes in the ecosystem were seen by both researchers and the fishing community as valuable early warning signs of larger trends, but fishers' alleged lack of credibility as “experts” was seen as a hindrance to assimilating that early information into management decisions. There are a number of possible reasons for the perceived lack of credibility between the fishing community and the scientific research community. These include the widespread adoption of a deficit model approach to communication held by the research community, many of whom still believe the challenges of communication between marine researchers and fishers would be remedied if the fishing community were simply provided more information about marine research (Gross, 1994). One-way forms of communication (Gross, 1994), what Rowe and Frewer (2005) refer to as “public communication,” like marine science public lectures and press releases, seemed to have a negligible impact on fishers. Meanwhile, many research participants indicated that seemingly more interactive forms of communication, like public hearings, have long been sites of contention rather than innovation that adopt a “decide, announce, defend” model (Hendry et al., 2004) rather than working to deliberate about potential futures. They indicated that new channels for iterative communication (Druschke and Hychka, 2015) and collaborative knowledge production, such as joint research efforts, are necessary. Interviews revealed a broad willingness from marine scientists, industry advocates, and fishers themselves to pursue joint research efforts, but pointed to a number of limitations. These limitations included a lack of prioritization by funding agencies; the perception that the research gathered by the fishing industry is not scientifically rigorous or is intentionally skewed; the hesitation of the fishing industry to share “proprietary” information; and a general need for facilitating and improving iterative communication and trust between fishers, researchers, and decision makers. Many of these concerns led to discussions about the need for increased trust across the research and fishing communities as well as with fisheries decision makers, an improvement that can emerge, in part, from adopting more deliberate mechanisms of public participation

3

that feature iterative communication, sustained engagement, and timely response (Druschke and Hychka, 2015). 3.1. Perceived threats from impacts of climate change All of the participants identified some threats from climate change to existing fishing practices in southern New England. Many expressed concerns that the area could be particularly hard hit because of geographical impacts and synergistic effects from other threats to New England fisheries such as overfishing and associated management challenges. Both the research and fishing communities saw a significant need for research to better identify, understand, and minimize those threats. One fisheries researcher pointed to changes in climate, ecosystem dynamics, food chains, species, and associated ranges: “In southern New England we tend to be at the southern end of the northern species, northern end of the southern [species] … And that is a really dynamic area that's shifting. So we need to get the stock assessments correct. And that means more timely information, better coverage.” A lobster fisher noted similar impacts of warming waters as well as changes in species availability, eddies, and the timing of seasons, explaining that with the warming, “things continue to turn.” A number of the researchers and fishers interviewed noted that while there is a general understanding that there will be impacts from climate change, what those impacts will be specifically remains relatively unknown. For example, one researcher explained, “For a lot of the climate change type of stuff, I'm comfortable with saying that there is going to be a change, but … I'm not usually comfortable saying what that change might be. I mean there are big patterns that I think that we can be comfortable with predicting, but in terms of saying how's it going to affect fisheries harvest or something like that, I think it's pretty tough.” Similar to other areas and communities facing impacts from climate change, in New England, not all stocks and industries will be affected in the same way, while some groups may even benefit from changes in climate. Many of the researchers and fishers noted that who will benefit or adapt sufficiently is uncertain. As one researcher described, “In the northeast region, there are going to be winners and there's going to be losers … and it's going to be the ability of fishermen, society, community to be able to change in response to this changing playing field.” One researcher noted the challenges of identifying climate change impacts because of other impacts to fish stocks from fishing. As he stated, “Well, I think probably the biggest barrier to the research is it's hard to disentangle whether [impacts are] due to fishing or climate … My message is that both are happening at the same time. You have to consider them at the same time and try to understand, you know, how they interact because really that's the important part. And, it would be easy if you could just look at climate alone and not worry about fishing but you can't. So you have to try to understand how they interact.” Climate change impacts are a concern for the fishing and research communities, but those concerns are exacerbated by concerns about fisher exclusion from fisheries policy and decision making processes. As one researcher put it, “The challenge right there is fisheries management in the northeast, and, as these changes with climate change happen, making sure that the fisheries management policies are not only accepted by industry, but are led by industry. And that's not impossible.” 3.2. The need for increased flexibility in scientific research to manage adaptation of the fishing community to climate change impacts Adaptability and flexibility in scientific research were seen as

Please cite this article in press as: Mulvaney, K.K., Druschke, C.G., Using diverse expertise to advance climate change fisheries science, Ocean & Coastal Management (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.10.006

4

K.K. Mulvaney, C.G. Druschke / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2017) 1e11

major issues for addressing climate change impacts on fisheries in southern New England. Fishers and researchers interviewed were concerned that existing and robust cause and effect relationships are not sufficiently known for adaptively managing impacts. When fishers and researchers were asked about managing for climate change impacts, one of the strongest joint messages was the need for adaptability and flexibility in scientific research methods and topics. One university researcher described a need for, “Learning how to adapt both as a community, as an economy, as scientists, as the public, as an industry. Being able to adapt: that is going to be really important and will provide some opportunity especially for the fishing industry.” There is a belief across many research participants that the Rhode Island fishing community will be able to adapt more effectively than other areas because of their existing diversity of gear types and fishing experience. As one university researcher explained, “In Rhode Island, you know, they have the ability to be able to change gears a lot. And so, they're already adapting.” Another fisheries scientist offered, “I think fishermen are pretty adaptable. I mean they are constantly adapting to even just annual temperature changes and finding the fish from year to year and using different gear.” This adaptability was seen as boding well for Rhode Island fishers' ability to deal with coming changes, whatever those changes may be. However, this flexibility and adaptability requires research support that includes not only research conducted by government and university facilities, but also the use of on-the-water and technical knowledge gained from the men and women who spend their lives fishing. For example, because of the heavy use of fishing gear by researchers, one researcher spoke of the need for the fishing community to be engaged in that research because, “There's no one who understands fishing gear better than fishermen, and the guys who build it.” Engaging the fishing industry in research was also seen as one way of overcoming limitations in data collection. One lobsterman described the ability of fishers to potentially contribute to real-time data collection efforts. As he explained, “You know, the Bigelow [a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration research vessel] makes a trip in the spring and a trip in the fall. You want more realtime information than that. You know, the fishing industry is out there every day.” Fishers pointed to the need for new mechanisms to validate and make use of their experiences and time spent on the water to supplement the infrequent sampling efforts of traditional federal fisheries research. 3.3. What if best available science is not enough? One of the most consistent threats participants identified to the adaptive management of climate-impacted fisheries is the belief that the best available science is not sufficient for making the adaptive decisions necessary for dealing with climate change impacts on fisheries. One researcher who works directly with the fishing industry described a central dilemma: “What do you do when the best available science simply is not good enough? It's not much better than guesswork. And there's millions of dollars riding on that.” The fishing community and researchers are frustrated by the absence of available data and empirical relationships to inform decision making. For example, one researcher explained, “In terms of getting information to people, people aren't always satisfied that it’s going to take another five years, another ten years of quantitative research to get an answer. Fisheries management is, you know, it needs usually whatever information is available now to make decisions.” It is, “caught in that dichotomy between the science still developing but the need for information to make decisions now.”

One of the main limitations for the availability of data comes from financial constraints due to the cost of technical fisheries research. As one researcher pointed out, missing information leads to “huge uncertainty in the models … The scientists and managers have recognized that those are issues. It's just they don't have the money to fill that data gap right now.” Many interviewees saw collaborations with the fishing industry as a way to reduce costs by engaging in research on boats that are already out on the water every day. As one researcher put it, “With budget situations the way they are, we need to think outside the box in terms of developing a scientific approach that incorporates fishermen in a verifiable way so that we can obtain good data in a cost-effective way. Because the way we're doing it now is not cost effective. It's leading to a lot of division about the credibility of the data. And some really hard decisions are being made management-wise that have huge consequences.” The lack of both funding for investigations of climate change impacts and flexibility in the use of existing funding are seen as particular constraints for understanding climate change impacts on fisheries. One researcher emphasized, “I know this is not something that is changeable necessarily because of how funding works, but, you know, it really bothers me that climate change is separate, you know, that there's a separate thing called climate change … You know, it shouldn't be separate. It should be integrated with everything else.” Related to the financial constraints that limit stock assessments were concerns about inadequate temporal coverage of stock. This issue was raised by a researcher working with the fishing community as the case with species like squid: “Squid only live a year, but their stock assessments last about five years. So [managers] use data from five years ago to assess how much they can catch five years later. So that's an issue. Other squid fisheries in the world, such as the Falkland Islands, are able to manage through real-time assessments, in which the industry provides data on what they're seeing, the number of females that are the ‘eggers’ they call them. And, they're actually able to manage real-time, say, ‘Alright, well, you know, your catch per unit effort is below this. You can't fish anymore.’ They realize that's what they have to do in order to sustain their fishery.” Interviewees pointed to the need for research structures that took a more integrative, participatory, and timely approach to climate change impacts on Rhode Island fisheries. 3.4. Perspectives on communication In addition to the technical restraints of data availability, there are a number of communication challenges that prevent effective adaptive management of climate change impacts on fisheries. These include limitations that stem from scientists adopting a deficit model or information transmission approach to communication, believing that the fishing community simply needs to learn more about the existing science produced by government and university scientists and then adjust their practices accordingly (Tlili and Dawson, 2010; Gross, 1994). This perspective is in contrast to a contextual (Gross, 1994) or iterative (Druschke and Hychka, 2015) model whereby government and university scientists would target particular audiences with relevant information in a context- and audience-appropriate format. While the fishers interviewed seemed already to have a deep understanding of the impacts of climate variability and fish stocks change based largely on their daily experiences and shared knowledge, some marine researchers seemed to point to the challenge of a lack of knowledge about climate change on the part of the fishing community. According to researchers, fishers could become more informed about climate change research from scientists' contributions to fishery management councils, through participation on science and statistical committees, and through

Please cite this article in press as: Mulvaney, K.K., Druschke, C.G., Using diverse expertise to advance climate change fisheries science, Ocean & Coastal Management (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.10.006

K.K. Mulvaney, C.G. Druschke / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2017) 1e11

the writing of white papers. This awareness could also come from face-to-face interaction between researchers and fishers, like lectures and meetings. As one researcher described, scientists, “have also gone to talk to fishermen too about what it might mean for them. Yes, because the science itself is actually not terribly new … It's really a change in management, not necessarily a new science. And so climate change is kind of all mixed in there with that.” These researchers are not alone in the belief that they should do a better job communicating with the fishing community, though it may be the case that a lack of understanding is not related to a lack of available information. While some researchers pointed to a lack of engagement with the fishing communitydlike one interviewee who said directly, “I've never spoken to a fisherman's group”dif they communicated at all, researchers adopted a one-way approach to communication (Gross, 1994; Rowe and Frewer, 2005), communicating to but not with the fishing community through public hearings, scientific committees, and academic publications, venues that are not necessarily the most effective media for engagement. A few researchers seem to be focused on this conundrum. One researcher who collaborates regularly with the fishing community explained that policy makers are beginning to question the communication status quo: “The Woods Hole scientists came to me and said, ‘You know, we've got to find a way to communicate with these people because public hearing 101 is not doing it.’ And I said, ‘Yes I totally agree.’” She sees innovative research collaborations, like research set asides (RSAs), as important opportunities for managers and researchers to more effectively communicate with, and not at, the fishing community. Beyond communication challenges between marine researchers and the fishing community, the academic research community does not always effectively communicate with decision makers either. For example, when asked about sharing information with decision makers, one researcher replied, “We published a paper about how you would incorporate those shifts in distribution into like the population models that [decision makers] use to set the policies,” but she noted there was no indication as to why or how decision makers would actually read that academic journal article. Other researchers talked about providing their information at scientific symposia, but fewer mentioned public lectures or appearances or meetings with policymakers and politicians. Providing information in peer-reviewed journals or scientific symposia is not necessarily the most effective mechanism for sharing information with decision makers and stakeholders (Barbour et al., 2008; Druschke and Hychka, 2015). Researchers seemed at least to conceptually understand that, and when the same researcher was asked about the journal's relevance to managers, the researcher acknowledged, “Yes, so it's a journal … And it's like kind of big, lengthy probably boring papers to most people.” Another researcher talked about the challenges of sharing her work with non-scientific audiences as a problem of jargon and discipline-specific information: “There's definitely a problem of jargon and barriers from the researchers' side, and a colleague pointed out at some point that researchers always talk in terms of standard deviations and the public wants to hear about means.” She continued, “I think scientists, myself included, suffer from not being able to make these super simplified statements in light of the hundred caveats that we know about. And I think that's a real hindrance, and we're trying to work on that.” This practice of incorporating caveats into scientific writing, referred to in the literature as “hedging” (Hyland, 1998), provides researchers a tool to address concerns or possible opposition in the academic literature. It can also make the findings more confusing for any nonacademic audience. Most researchers are trained to communicate through academic literature and scientific symposia, and not for effective

5

communication with non-researchers. Many researchers are aware of this challenge, and recognize that they suffer from a lack of training to prepare them for communicating with the public. As one researcher described, “So [for] a public audience, probably one of the main barriers is training, I would almost say … In terms of effectively crafting a message for the public or for a council, I have no training on that. You know, I have a lot of experience giving [academic/scientific] talks. I know what works what doesn't work … That's exactly the point is that it’s not a scientific presentation … It's a totally different audience. And I know enough now to know that I'm out of my league.” Many of the fishers and researchers interviewed recognized that many members of the fishing community should also be responsible for addressing the communication challenges between fishers, researchers, and policy makers. Some interviewees expressed their annoyance with what they saw as the disruptive presence of some members of the fishing community at public meetings or the misrepresentation of viewpoints. As one researcher put it, “The other problem is from the fishermen who are being marginalized. And the ones with the biggest voices again whine, whine, whine. And this is the old way. Blame, blame, blame. Whine, whine, whine. Look at poor us. We're barely making it. Nobody wants to help us. We can barely survive. But yet you go down to the Point [Judith] … you know, that's not true. And it might be true for some of them, but I can tell youdI can guarantee you it's not true for all of them.” The validity of this argument may be debatable, but the perception of the loudest voice unjustly getting the most attention was common in interviews. Maybe in light of that perception, there is the related challenge of getting fishers to participate in public processes. Many times, the meeting location and timing can pose challenges, coupled with fatigue with the process. As one fisher described, “I know my old scallop crew, all the other guys, were like, ‘Hey, we like what you're doing. Just do whatever you think is necessary as long as we don't have to go to meetings.’” Interview participants identified limited or nonexistent sharing of catch data that the industry considers “proprietary” between the fishing industry, researchers, and managers as an additional communication challenge that negatively affects the integration of collaborative research. Catch data is seen by some fishers as representing private insights that provide them with competitive advantage over their counterparts in the fishing industry. Because of this, many members of the fishing community are reluctant to share information about location and types of data that could otherwise be made publicly available to potentially inform management efforts (Hall-Arber and Pederson, 1999). Although this is a perception of many of the interview participants, past research on records sharing has shown that most fishers would actually be willing to share their records with managers (Hall-Arber and Pederson, 1999). 3.5. Challenges and opportunities in collaborative research One productive response to many of these challenges for the adaptive management of climate change impacts on fisheries is the use of collaborative research between the traditional research community and the fishing community. According to one of the fisheries researchers interviewed, these collaborative research efforts were brought about during particularly tense points in fisheries management because, “There was this call, kind of, for both sides to kind of calm everyone down. Just to start educating the industry as to how the assessments work, how management works, who does what, who's responsible for which species. Because even the hierarchy of the management system is really, really confusing.” Interview participants identified a number of collaborative

Please cite this article in press as: Mulvaney, K.K., Druschke, C.G., Using diverse expertise to advance climate change fisheries science, Ocean & Coastal Management (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.10.006

6

K.K. Mulvaney, C.G. Druschke / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2017) 1e11

programs throughout New England, and one researcher described the evolution of these efforts: “When we first started doing the research, it would be what you would call ‘cooperative.’ So cooperative research says, ‘We get the idea. We rent your boat. You're involved, but only because we're renting your boat or whatever,’ right. That's cooperative.” As she continued, “It's now changed, and again, because I think fishermen have really stepped up to what we call collaborative. So, in fact, none of the [research] that we've tested was our idea. It was the fishermen's idea. And, so it's true 5050. They're not just providing the boat. They're providing the idea … And so now you're equal partners. So there's no problem transferring the knowledge because they're part of the knowledge generation.” This shift from shallow to deep involvement, from boat rental to genuine, joint knowledge production, was seen as a step towards productive research collaboration in the face of climate change and other fisheries management issues. This is similar to the findings of Johnson (2011) who found that collaboration throughout the process of scientific research in the squid fishery led to improved integration of knowledge sharing between scientists and fishers. There are now a number of members of the Rhode Island fishing community who actively engage with fisheries research efforts throughout New England. Many of these relationships have evolved positively through facilitation by formal industry-research partnerships as well as informal engagement. As one fisher described his relationship with a cooperative fishing and research organization and individual researcher: “[they have] been a tremendous source of information and enabling. Kind of giving you the tools you need to get into the management process. And other contacts. Most of the management stuff come from just being involved you know.” Still, participants cited reasons these relationships are underutilized in climate research, including: the lack of climate change research prioritization in fisheries, despite its importance to the fishing industry; the belief that collaborative efforts are not as scientifically rigorous or can be skewed by the fishing community; and a lack of trust between researchers, the fishing community, and decision makers (see Table 1). 3.5.1. Collaborative research is not necessarily a research priority of government/traditional funders, but it is for the fishing industry and researchers As discussed above, many interviewees felt that increased collaborative research is needed for effective governance of marine fisheries. Many interview participants did not feel that the funding for collaborative research in this area matches its perceived impacts on the fishing industry and marine ecosystem. Several researchers mentioned joint proposals and research ideas that came from the fishing community that were submitted, but not funded. The fishing industry has begun to fund research efforts to supplement

funding from government agencies and academic institutions for climate change research and other types of research. Industry funders are motivated by their interest in the data and their desire to inform their industry and state, regional, and federal managers. As one researcher who works extensively with the fishing community stated, “It's all about research, research to better inform management decisions, economic development decisions, personal business plans. But, it's all about trying to get good information into management of the resource that their businesses depend on.” Fishers are trying to support and create their own efforts to get that research into the hands of managers in ways that will make it useful. 3.5.2. Not considered to be scientifically rigorous/need for joint protocols The willingness and desire of researchers and the fishing industry to conduct collaborative research to fill data gaps are not necessarily enough for that data to be used by decision makers. Sometimes, additional data is not seen as necessary by researchers. As one researcher reflected on his own research, “I've never asked anyone to do data collection for me because it's the total foundation of all the research we do. And we don't need massive quantities and area coverage.” Other times, research collected by fishers is not seen as valid scientific data. For example, a collective of lobster fishers has been compiling data for the last ten years with the help of a state biologist. Despite the effort at data collection and collaboration with the state scientist, one lobsterman reflected that this data is not considered by decision makers to be “collected to the level high enough to enter directly into the stock assessment.” But, he added, “It's certainly at a level where it could inform.” Still, he described two additional obstacles to incorporation of the data: logistical constraints of the offshore fishery not being officially represented by state-level scientists and management turnover, in this case the retirement of a federal manager who did not transfer the information prior to retirement. In Rhode Island, the state lost its funding for lobster surveys, so if decision makers still want surveys, they will need to collaborate with industry. In light of this need, the fishing industry started working with the National Marine Fisheries Service on joint protocols for collection, but this collaboration ended before implementation. Still, the lobster industry continues to be interested in pursuing alternative venues. As one fisher stated, “So it's just politics; so we just pushed back and we're in the process to see if we can get this started up again. But in the meantime, for lobster, we went through some state biologists, and continued the conversation. And so we think that, yes, there's trust issues but we think we can overcome them.” There were a number of concerns by some fishers and researchers that the data fishers collect or maintain is “anecdotal”

Table 1 Challenges and opportunities in collaborative research. There are several types of collaborative research efforts promoted by industry and the government to encourage collaborative research between the traditional research community and fishing industry partners. Multiple challenges affect the pursuit and acceptance of collaborative research, but there are also an increasing number of opportunities for improving collaborative research. Challenges  Definitions of “collaborative research” range from relatively shallow equipment sharing to deeper joint knowledge production.  Interview participants believe that collaborative efforts are underutilized in climate research.  Traditional funders do not always fund collaborative research.  Research efforts need to incorporate joint protocols and scientific rigor.  Lack of trust between members of the fishing community and researchers to collect the appropriate data, as well as with decision makers to use the findings, can inhibit work. Opportunities  Increased possibilities for productive engagement among fishers, traditional researchers, and decision makers.  Improved understanding of research context.  Possibilities for joining forces to expand research efforts.

Please cite this article in press as: Mulvaney, K.K., Druschke, C.G., Using diverse expertise to advance climate change fisheries science, Ocean & Coastal Management (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.10.006

K.K. Mulvaney, C.G. Druschke / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2017) 1e11

rather than scientific. As one fisherman reflected, “Well the whole thing about science is we've got to get past this whole ideadand I think it's happened finallydthat when I go and say something it's considered anecdotal. That pisses me off. You know, I've got over 30 years of experience. If somebody says, ‘Well, you know, we can't verify that, that's anecdotal,’ screw you, you know?” An additional complication in stock assessments is that, historically, there has been contention between the fishing community and researchers about appropriate methods for stock assessment. Many members of the fishing community do not think that the research conducted by the traditional research community is valid. For example, one fisher explained, “They don't know how to catch up on the lobster. They don't know how to rundI helped set up the fricking ventless trap survey stuff, and they don't know. They still can't do it right. They can't do it right. They can't do it right. And, because they can't do it right, that means there must not be any lobsters, not that, ‘Geez we're [expletive] up all the time.’ Says, ‘Well we can't catch any so that's why they aren't here.’ I got no problem catching them.” Another fisher explained, “And, so you have industry getting information on fish populations … you don't have enough fisherman in there in that process. You need to bring much more fisherman in the process. Then at least you're accountable for your own error … Well, because the [current researchers] don't know how to catch the fish. You bring more industry in, it changes things.” This leads to a lot of what one interviewee called “issues and mistrusting,” and many of the interviews with members of the fishing community provided examples: “I mean the prime example's like the Gulf of Maine pot, like the fishermen are having a great year. You know, they're, ‘Oh, it's never been better,’ you know. And then the survey comes back and says, well they're declining. There's nothing there.” Even if partly exaggerated, fishers described a constant process of their experiential data not matching up with government fisheries assessments. Collaborative methods remain rare because of the differences in methodology between scientific researchers and fishing communities. Several scientists saw concerns about the conflict between the standardized stock assessment approaches that require specific gears to be used in specific locations and the possibility of spreading research across different boats with different gears run with varying levels of expertise throughout the industry. As one researcher put it, “You're going to see the stock assessment approach is going to still be the Wild West because everyone says we need more industry boats doing the stock assessment work … But, to a scientist, the gear has to be identical for every single boat. Right, so not just the length of the wire, but the kind of wire, not just if the boats are off by 50 horsepower that makes a huge difference in how the net's towed. So how do you calibrate an industry survey?” Another researcher described the perceived differences in methods as fundamental differences in approaches: “One of the things that I do think is a major misunderstanding is the idea of how fish are sampled. Because fishermen, what they do is, their profession is, to go and find where there is high densities of fish. They know how to do that. They're the best at it. They're better than anyone at doing that. And they think that is what scientists are trying to do when they go out and sample, that they're trying to find the places where there are the most numbers of fish. That's not what they're trying to do. They are trying to estimate the total population size, the total stock size. So they aren't going to the places where the highest densities of fish are, and then say, ‘We're going to sample here,’ and extrapolate that to the whole Western Atlantic. So the fishermen criticize the scientific methods because the fishermen say that the scientists go out with their net and they get whatever it is, 10

7

or 20 fish or 10,000 fish or whatever it is. And, the fishermen say, [satirical voice] ‘Well if I took that net out there for sampling, I would get 5 times that.’ And, they're right, they would. But that's because that's what they do, that's their goal. So there is a misunderstanding of the sampling effort, and that is one of the first criticisms that the fishermen have, is that they don't trust the scientific methods.” There are some signs that methodological credibility is improving through a number of collaborative efforts. Recently, fishing industry leaders were included in the development of the net for future surveys, and one interview participant identified the importance of this action for furthering the credibility of the research, “So it's verified by the industry that they say, ‘Well we're really going to believe what this net catching book is because this is how we fish,’ and things like that. So, yes, it's coming along.” Another fisherman spoke of the value of the collaborative Regional Set-Aside programs (research funds set aside through allocations from active fisheries; NOAA, 2016) because of their ability to conduct research that is logistically limited. As he reflected, “That's really good and we are providing data that [National Marine Fisheries Service] can't get otherwise because they can't get the Bigelow on the rock pile to catch a fish that they say don't exist. We, like, catch [sea bass] all day long.” A researcher mentioned another collaborative lobster project to survey offshore (out to more than 100 miles, on the shelf break where, historically, there is limited data) that she was working on with the fishing industry: “So they're working on kind of tapping into industries' knowledge and their willingness to improve this assessment so that they can actually, you know, continue to fish offshore.” 3.5.3. Trust Similar to the findings of past research (e.g., Johnson, 2010; McCay et al., 2006), at the root of many of the concerns of both researchers and members of the fishing community interviewed is a lack of trust in one another and in the decision makers who would eventually use any data emerging from collaborative research. Several of the interview participants noted the importance of this trust to be reciprocal. For instance, as one researcher who collaborates significantly with the fishing industry noted, “You have to make sure that there's trust not only from industry to government but from government to industry.” There is an understanding that, as one fisher put it, “There is still some trust that needs to be developed between the two groups, um, and we started the conversation … And, so we think that, yes, there's trust issues, but we think we can overcome them.” This mistrust has a long history. One researcher described this relationship as the following: “Unfortunately we don't have the best rapport: scientists and industry, government in particular. Very, very, very poor relationships in the past, well forever … So it has deep roots. I mean it started, you know, fishing wasn't really regulated until in the 70s, 80s. Then the Magnuson Stevens Act came in a kind of put an end to overfishing. So they started and then at the same time was when all these new management techniques particularly came in for each species where they were able to say ‘All right, well here are my fancy computer models and here's how much of biomass you can catch,’ which even being a fishery scientist those models are - they're crazy. They're ridiculous. If you were to look at one [you would say], ‘What on earth is this?’ So it's not straightforward. It's not a transparent process. It's not, you know, the fisherman don't know what goes into those models or - we're working on that. So, that they do now know what goes into them.”

Please cite this article in press as: Mulvaney, K.K., Druschke, C.G., Using diverse expertise to advance climate change fisheries science, Ocean & Coastal Management (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.10.006

8

K.K. Mulvaney, C.G. Druschke / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2017) 1e11

For this researcher, no one group is to blame for the lack of trust between them. The changing science and technology and the growing history between the groups has added to the challenge: “So, it's not their - it's not all their [the fishing industry's] fault. It's not all the scientists' fault. It's not all the managers' fault. It's kind of this vicious cycle that's been, you know, first too much trust in - or too much trust but not appropriate management or no management of our fisheries resources. And then it was, you know, maybe too much trust in our modeling efforts, which didn't go as we had hoped. And so that, you know, leaves the fisherman to think ‘Well these models aren't even right so why are they being used to manage our fish stocks?’” This distrust is particularly apparent when asking about climate change information. One fisher expressed, “I don't know how much of it is hype and how much isn't hype. I read too much. I'm cynical enough that I don't trust most of what I read. You know, and I don't know what to believe anymore with some of the stuff.” It was clear that this fisherman was either not convinced of the evidence or did not know what or who to trust anymore. With so much uncertainty about the specific impacts of climate change on fisheries, it seems likely that fishers would have an especially difficult time deciding which models they ought to pay attention to and which warnings they ought to heed. Increased contact and trust between the fishing community and marine researchers might go a long way to improving communication in ways that provide both parties with valid, situationally appropriate climate science. But consequential interaction will be thwarted if marine researchers dismiss fishers' contributions or beliefs, and should, instead, focus on some of the micro-scale climate changes of which fishers are astute observers. Affecting the trust between researchers, fishers, and decision makers is the perception by some that data collected by the fishing industry or in collaboration with the fishing community will be intentionally skewed to benefit the industry. One researcher responded to a common refrain about involving fishers in fisheries policy making: “You know, it's funny, there's the big argument that the fox can't guard the hen house right? But, you know what? If the fox isn't guarding the henhouse or isn't involved in the conversation, then all that wire you put up around the henhouse isn't going to work anyway. Because the fox is going to find a way around it. You know, the fox has to understand why the hen house has to stay intact and why the eggs have to - you know, I mean you've got to you have - you have to have the fishermen there. Otherwise there will be a million ways around the [regulations].” For this researcher, it was essential that fishermen be involved in creating the policies that protect the livelihoods of future generations of fishers. As she continued, “Nobody wants to be told what to do. They're all adults. And it's their life on the line when they go out there. It's their financial situation on the line when they come back to port. And, that's why the fishermen need to be there.” As discussed above, many interview participants from the fishing industry see utility in their work to supplement data gaps in the traditional research programs, but they face trouble in acceptance of that research. For example, one fisherman reported, “They [managers] understand that there just isn't enough funding for full stock assessment of all of the species in all of the areas, so they will need some of the work of the fishing industry. So they need to enlist industry in [research]. It sounds like a no-brainer. It sounds like it should be simple. But there is a significant divide between a lot of stock assessment ecologists and biologists about letting industry into the stock assessments, because they're convinced that all we want is more fish. You know, ‘We don't care about the size, we just want more fish.’ So this is where we are pushing now.”

One way that the fishing industry is pushing for acceptance of data is through the voluntary use of video monitoring to offer evidence that data are not skewed. Several researchers and members of the fishing community interviewed brought up the usefulness of video for providing verification for their data. For example, one researcher explained, “So, that comes with validation or verification of their data which is where these video systems come in handy. So you have to be able to verify that the data they're providing is true and accurate. And it's in their - but it's in industry's best interest to provide accurate information. It's just that the trust … isn't always there from the other direction. So that's why those video systems that's what they would be for. I mean we've talked a lot with the … scientists and directors to say obviously the intake of that's one of the keys is you need to be able to verify the data that's been provided. But, if they can be verified then, yes, it will be used. Which is good.” 3.6. Opportunities to improve communication As discussed above, while a number of participants identified significant communication challenges between the research and fishing communities, many of those same participants identified collaborative research as an opportunity to mitigate some of those challenges (Table 2). For starters, there seems to be at least a grudging acceptance that these groups need to find productive ways of engaging with each other. And, that need has never been more acute than it is in the face of climate variability and change. As one researcher explained of a recent management process, the varying groups, “showed up because they knew they needed to communicate with each other and resolve some real issues out there. Neither side was going away. They needed to coexist.” That understanding of the need for coexistence offers distinct possibilities for productive engagement. But productive engagement will only come when, as one researcher described, researchers and policy makers place importance on “keeping [fishers] in the loop,” and on instituting the important logistical labor of making that happen. For fishers, as she described, “It's not just, ‘Hey I'm coming on your boat and you're going to fish where I tell you to fish.’ … It's very hard to schedule a meeting with fishermen because they've clearly got to go out if it's going to be nice out. You can't schedule a meeting two weeks in advance because if it's a gorgeous day they're going to be out in the water, which is understandable.” She focused on the importance of finding creative and audience-appropriate ways of communicating: “You have to reach out to them in different ways. You can't just assume that they're going to be next to their cell phone because they're 150 miles offshore … I guess it's learning to communicate in a different way and getting results in a different way.” For this researcher, audience and context were incredibly important. She emphasized the need to communicate differently with different groups. She gave this example: “When I go present at a conference I say things I would never … you know, or explain things in a completely different ways than I would explain it if I'm put on a dock, and say, ‘Hey look, look at this map.’ You know? For instance, they use different names for different fish. You know, no one uses species' names. Even scientists … It's a change and it does take effort on scientists' and managers' parts to make a conscious effort to make sure you make sense … I mean fishermen are smart guys. They know what's going on out there. So it's just a way of making sure you're saying it in their terms.” This awareness of audience also means thinking about what counts as evidence for different audiences and what makes for a compelling narrative. As the same researcher pointed out, “Scientists love numbers. They love p values and they love multidimensional scaling plots and different software and kind of new

Please cite this article in press as: Mulvaney, K.K., Druschke, C.G., Using diverse expertise to advance climate change fisheries science, Ocean & Coastal Management (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.10.006

K.K. Mulvaney, C.G. Druschke / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2017) 1e11

9

Table 2 Addressing identified challenges. Improved communication through collaborative research provides a number of opportunities to address challenges in trust between the fishing community, researchers, and decision makers. It is not always easy, but there are actions that can improve communication.  Consistent efforts to overcome logistical differences between those with traditional work hours and the fishing community whose work is heavily dependent on seasonal conditions and is often conducted during a range of hours far outside of traditional work schedules.  Deepened understanding by researchers of the fisheries community as an audience for their work in terms of providing salient information in relatable terms.  Increased efforts to share research beyond academic journals and scientific symposia to diverse audiences.  Investment in understanding the synergies across different types of technical expertise.

approaches … Scientists were very interested in new approaches to analyzing data and developing a story from that data … Whereas fishermen are … very interested in the environmentdvery, very, very interested. So they're very interested in, ‘Oh, what was the temperature when you put the net down.’ So you always have a temperature sensor on our net. Oh, which they're fascinated … They're very interested in looking to see what the bottom looks like. What's on the bottom other than fish … They're very interested in how the environment impacts the fish. They're interested in the habitat. They're interested in the features of the water column that they can't see. So, you know, I've had a couple of fishermen ask me where they can buy water quality sensors because they want to know what salinity is like, you know, at 30 fathoms or they want to know what the temperature's like.” Researchers and managers can better connect with the fishing community by recognizing what it is they might, and might not, be interested in as people who spend considerable portions of their lives at sea. Some of these interactions can come through public lectures that can turn into opportunities for engagement. One researcher recalled giving a public talk at a local library. While she commonly gives those talks, she recalled, “Oh man, it was so funny. I think I stayed about a half an hour extra as well just listening to their stories. And, you know, if they had seen something, asked me what it was or if there were fiddler crabs in the bay - questions like that … But I think that the message of the impact of climate change really got through because there were some - you can tell when you watch people there's looks. They give you, ‘It's like what? Whoa,’ you know, they [have] never actually seen evidence. And I think it was actually useful for them to see a figure, a graph, an analytical output.” But it also seemed useful that the researcher stayed after to listen. This engagement can also come with policy audiences, not just the general public. As another researcher explained, “Scientists were sort of brought up to believe that publishing in a peer review journal is an endpoint. And we have the mistaken belief that everyone's going to read our work. But mostly it's probably only five people who read your work, you know, family included. So and, you know, you have to take the next steps and you have to take the next steps and you have to become more engaged in the assessment process.” In light of that importance to “become more engaged,” one researcher described a group that has “been making a concerted effort to be at stock assessments where we have information, to present the information that we have. And if it gets used, we support its use. If they decide not to use it, no hard feelings, and we'll show up in the next one and present the information.” This group of researchers clearly saw opportunities to provide research that might be useful for policymaking. Still, she had reservations with the process. As she cautioned, “I think we're still missing the people, the true decision makers.” In her eyes, there is a need to try to also develop a discussion or a dialogue with the Fishery Management Council, the state agency, and the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council “to understand what their views are, what their concerns are and then to try to, you know, where we can adjust our research so that we're sort of matching up with some of

their concerns, with their loopholes.” This work will not happen on a short time scale, she cautioned, but it can happen: “It's a long, you know, it's a year, it's years' process.” This work matters, she insisted, because, “assessment scientists and managers have far too much to do to look for things to include in their decisions. So you really have to be at the table where the information's being presented, let them know the information's there so much more proactive approach.” Engagement, in others words, takes showing up, cultivating relationships, and finding ways to engage.

3.7. Value of collaboration Overall, the researchers and the fishers who participated in interviews highly valued collaborative research. The results are undoubtedly slanted to those who were willing to participate in our research efforts, but, overall, most of the participants had only positive things to say about the opportunities for positive outcomes from collaborative research for improving climate science and fostering improved relationships between the research community and the fishing community. As one researcher who works closely with the fishing industry stated: “I think having fishermen to work with in a collaborative way early on is just very valuable for [researchers] to really formulate their research questions because it gives them a context. It gives them information that - the fishermen are out there and they are eyes and ears of the ocean. And their daily observation, although not really scientific, are very important ideas and information that help scientists understand their research questions.” One of the fishers who has participated in several different research efforts spoke of the value for not just improving his business, but of addressing problems in the ecological system and fisheries in general. He talked about “Having an idea that's seeking up connections that can - you can make to help get your idea realized into a project that can hopefully be beneficial to everybody … Not just as an idea that you want to make money off of but an idea that, hey, I think, you know, this is a problem and I think we can fix it or get to it somehow this way.” Several of the interview participants emphasized the value of the collaborative interactions for addressing serious research needs. As one researcher who works closely with the fishing industry stated, “I think it's going to take a team effort. I don't think that a manager or regulatory scientist could do it in and of themselves because of a lot of the hurdles, the bureaucratic obstacles, the legal challenges of the constraints for resources and staff and the budgets that they face in fieldwork, et cetera. So I don't think they're going to be able to do it themselves. I don't think the fishing community could do it themselves. They know they need to be involved in it but they need the scientific expertise and the management system needs to be responsive to what they do. And I don't think we can do it without the environmental groups because they are the watchdogs and overseeing all this. And they have to be part of the team and believe in what's being done.” One positive example of research that came out of collaborative research ideas is the work of Gawarkiewicz et al. (2012). Several

Please cite this article in press as: Mulvaney, K.K., Druschke, C.G., Using diverse expertise to advance climate change fisheries science, Ocean & Coastal Management (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.10.006

10

K.K. Mulvaney, C.G. Druschke / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2017) 1e11

local fishers noticed that 2011's oceanographic conditions were unusual, and discussed this with several researchers from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. This example was mentioned by several of the researchers as an example of the value of listening to the fishing community for research ideas. As one researcher described the interaction, “Well they knew it. They knew the things were - they knew things were going [on] out there. They couldn't quite - they weren't so interested in how is this affecting weather in New England and they weren't taking it to that level. But they adapt to what they see out there. And they knew this was an anomaly year based on 30 years of fishing experience that they carry around up here or in logbooks that they've inherited from their grandfathers that, you know, they take home every night with them under lock and key. So they have a lot of valuable information.” The researchers took the insights of the fishers seriously, and went on to investigate an unusual tilt in the Gulf Stream that showed distinct warming events in November and December 2011. The authors directly thank the fishers in the paper's acknowledgments, and say, “[We] look forward to future interactions with commercial fishermen who share their insights about oceanographic conditions” (Gawarkiewicz et al., 2012:6). 4. Conclusions Climate change is likely to increasingly impact marine ecosystems, fisheries, and the fishing communities that depend on those ecosystems. In order to adapt to those impacts, a considerable amount of additional research is needed to understand the complex ways in which the system will be affected. One of the ways to meet that need is through increased collaborative research, which provides a number of co-benefits to data production, including improved trust between researchers and fishers as well as improved integration of local knowledge into the research sphere. Collaborative research provides an opportunity for working together to ask questions, develop methodologies, collect data, train others, and apply findings. This is inherently a much more iterative, contextual, two-way approach to communication between researchers and fishers, and the interview participants in this research spoke highly of its possible applications to climate research in fisheries. Despite its identified value, there are a number of challenges to collaborative research and communication between fishers and researchers. These challenges range from logistical constraints such as funding strains and the difficulties of meetings for fishers and researchers who work on very different schedules, to more complex, social limitations due to a perceived lack of trust between researchers and fishers and acceptance of the validity of one another's research. Most critically, fishers and researchers need to see each other as “experts” who are working together to ask and answer critical questions for maintaining fisheries in southern New England, and managers need to find ways to respect and make use of those varying forms of expertise. Current mediums of communication such as journal articles, public meetings, or scientific presentations are often ineffective for bridging the knowledge between fishers and researchers, so there is a need for new communication efforts, including increased collaborative research. Because of the complexity of the known challenges facing fisheries and the likelihood of additional unknowns as a result of climate change, it will take the contributions of a broader set of “experts,” including those who spend their days on the water and who are most likely to be exposed to the biggest impacts, to identify opportunities for management alternatives. In addition, these local experts are best situated to monitor resources for indications of impacts, and to otherwise conduct the more timely research necessary for understanding impacts of climate change and

adapting management accordingly. There are a number of challenges to setting up new structures that accommodate collaborative researchdincluding the adoption of standardized gear, the use of new communication and data technologies, the creation of new funding mechanisms to support this research, and changes in policy and management that can accommodate the research produced, but our research points to a number of possible significant benefits. These benefits include improved data collection, management, and relationship building. These place-specific, iterative mechanisms offer the best chance for useful research in the face of climate change-based uncertainty. These mechanisms offer opportunities to bring more forms of expertise and more researchers to the table, not fewer, in hopes of addressing the pressing challenges facing our fish stocks and the communities that depend on them. Funding This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation EPSCoR Cooperative Agreement #EPS-1004057 to the State of Rhode Island. Acknowledgements The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the interview participants from both the research and fishing communities who provided their valuable insights for this research. We also would like to thank EPSCoR Summer Undergraduate Research Fellows, Peter Schooling and Evan Dunphy, who helped to develop, conduct, and transcribe the interviews, and Lena Weiss who helped with literature reviews. Valuable reviews came from Walter Berry, Nathaniel Merrill, Claudette Ojo, Marnita Chintala, Wayne Munns, and two anonymous reviewers. This is ORD STICS tracking number ORD-019279. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Any mention of trade names, products, or services does not imply an endorsement by the U.S government or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA does not endorse any commercial products, services, or enterprises. References Barbour, M.T., Poff, N.L., Norris, R.H., Allan, J.D., 2008. Perspective: communicating our science to influence public policy. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 27 (3), 562e569. Bazerman, C., Prior, P. (Eds.), 2003. What Writing Does and How it Does it: an Introduction to Analyzing Texts and Textual Practices. Routledge, London. Collie, J.S., Wood, A.D., Jeffries, H.P., 2008. Long-term shifts in the species composition of a coastal fish community. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 65, 1352e1365. Collins, H.M., Evans, R., 2002. The third wave of science studies of expertise and experience. Soc. Stud. Sci. 32 (2), 235e296. Coulthard, S., 2009. C.16 Adaptation and conflict within fisheries: insights for living with climate change. In: Adger, W.N., Lorenzoni, I., O'Brien, K.L. (Eds.), Adapting to Climate Change: Thresholds, Values, Governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 255e268. Doney, S.C., Ruckelshaus, M., Duffy, J.E., Barry, J.P., Chan, F., English, C.A., Galindo, H.M., Grebmeier, J.M., Hollowed, A.B., Knowlton, N., Polovina, J., Rabalais, N.N., Sydeman, W.J., Talley, L.D., 2012. Climate change impacts on marine ecosystems. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 4, 11e37. Doney, S., Rosenberg, A.A., Alexander, M., Chavez, F., Harvell, C.D., Hofman, G., Orbach, M., Ruckelshaus, M., 2014. Ch. 24: oceans and marine resources. In: Melillo, J.M., Richmond, T.T.C., Yohe, G.W. (Eds.), Climate Change Impacts in the United States: the Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, pp. 557e578. Druschke, C.G., Hychka, K.C., 2015. Manager perspectives on communication and public engagement in ecological restoration project success. Ecol. Soc. 20 (1), 58. Evers, H.-D., Menkhoff, T., 2004. Expert knowledge and the role of consultants in an emerging knowledge-based economy. Hum. Syst. Manag. 23, 123e135. Gawarkiewicz, G.G., Todd, R.E., Plueddemann, A.J., Andres, M., Manning, J.P., 2012. Direct interaction between the Gulf Stream and the shelfbreak south of New

Please cite this article in press as: Mulvaney, K.K., Druschke, C.G., Using diverse expertise to advance climate change fisheries science, Ocean & Coastal Management (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.10.006

K.K. Mulvaney, C.G. Druschke / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2017) 1e11 England. Sci. Rep. 2, 553. Grant, S., Berkes, F., 2007. Fisher knowledge as expert system: a case from the longline fishery of Grenada, the Eastern Caribbean. Fish. Res. 84 (2), 162e170. Gross, A.G., 1994. The roles of rhetoric in the public understanding of science. Public Underst. Sci. 3 (1), 3e23. Hall-Arber, M., Pederson, J., 1999. Habitat observed from the decks of fishing vessels. Fisheries 24 (6), 6e13. Hare, J.A., Alexander, M.A., Fogarty, M.J., Williams, E.H., Scott, J.D., 2010. Forecasting the dynamics of a coastal fishery species using a coupled climate-population model. Ecol. Appl. 20 (2), 452e464. Hartley, T.W., Robertson, R.A., 2006. Stakeholder engagement, cooperative fisheries research and democratic science: the case of the Northeast Consortium. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 13 (2), 161e171. Hartley, T.W., Robertson, R.A., 2009. Stakeholder collaboration in fisheries research: integrating knowledge among fishing leaders and science partners in northern New England. Soc. Nat. Resour. 22, 42e55. Hendry, J., Depoe, S., Delicath, J., Elsenbeer, M., 2004. Decide, Announce, Defend: Turning the NEPA Process into an Advocacy Tool rather than a Decision-making Tool. SUNY Press, Albany, pp. 99e112. Hyland, K., 1998. Hedging in scientific research articles. Prag. Beyond. 54, 308. Johnson, T.R., 2010. Cooperative research and knowledge flow in the marine commons: lessons from the Northeast United States. Int. J. Commons 4 (1), 251e272. Johnson, T.R., 2011. Fisherman, scientists, and boundary spanners: coorperative research in the U.S. Illex squid fishery. Soc. Nat. Resour. 24 (3), 242e255. Johnson, T.R., van Densen, W.L.T., 2007. Benefits and organization of cooperative research for fisheries management. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 64, 834e840. Johnson, T.R., McCay, B.J., 2012. Trading expertise: the rise and demise of an industry/government committee on survey trawl design. Marit. Stud. 11, 14. Kaplan, I.M., McCay, B.J., 2006. Cooperative research, co-management and the social dimension of fisheries science and management. Mar. Pol. 28, 257e258. Krippendorff, K., 1989. Content analysis. In: Barnouw, E., Gerbner, G., Schramm, W., Worth, T.L., Gross, L. (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Communication, vol. 1. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 403e407. Lindlof, T.R., Taylor, B.C., 2011. Qualitative Communication Research Methods, third ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks. Mackinson, S., 2001. Integrating local and scientific knowledge: an example in fisheries science. Environ. Manag. 27 (4), 533e545.

11

Mackinson, S., Nøttestad, L., 1998. Points of view: combining local and scientific knowledge. Rev. Fish. Biol. Fish. 8 (4), 481e490. McCay, B.J., Johnson, T.R., St Martin, K., Wilson, D., 2006. Gearing up for improved collaboration: the potentials and limits of cooperative research for incorporating fishermen's knowledge. Am. Fish. S. S. 52, 111e115. NEFMC (New England Fishery Management Council), 2016. Get Involved. New England Fishery Management Council Website. www.nefmc.org/get-involved. Accessed: 10/31/2016. Nenadovic, M., Epstein, G., 2016. The relationship of social capital and fishers' participation in multi-level governance arrangements. Environ. Sci. Policy 61, 77e86. Nenadovic, M., Johnson, T., Wilson, J., 2012. Implementing the Western Gulf of Mexico area closure: the role and perception of fishers' ecological knowledge. Ecol. Soc. 17 (1), 20. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), 2016. Research Setaside Programs. Available online: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/coopresearch/ rsa_program.html. Accessed: 10/31/2016. Nye, J.A., Link, J.S., Hare, J.A., Overholtz, W.J., 2009. Changing spatial distribution of fish stocks in relation to climate and population size on the Northeast United States continental shelf. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 393, 111e129. Patton, M.Q., 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, third ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks. Pinsky, M.L., Worm, B., Fogarty, M.J., Sarmiento, J.L., Levin, S.A., 2013. Marine taxa track local climate velocities. Science 341 (6151), 1239e1242. Richmond, L., 2013. Incorporating indigenous rights and environmental justice into fishery management: comparing policy challenges and potentials from Alaska and Hawaiʻi. Environ. Manag. 52 (5), 1071e1084. Rowe, G., Frewer, L.J., 2005. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci. Technol. Hum. Val. 30 (2), 251e290. Strauss, A., Corbin, J., 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage Publications, Newbury Park. Sumaila, U.R., Cheung, W.W.L., Lam, V.W.Y., Pauly, D., Herrick, S., 2011. Climate change impacts on the biophysics and economics of world fisheries. Nat. Clim. Change 1, 449e456. Tlili, A., Dawson, E., 2010. Mediating science and society in the EU and UK: from information-transmission to deliberative democracy? Minerva 48, 429e461. Visser, M.E., 2008. Keeping up with a warming world; assessing the rate of adaptation to climate change. P. Roy. Soc. B- Biol. Sci. 275, 649e659.

Please cite this article in press as: Mulvaney, K.K., Druschke, C.G., Using diverse expertise to advance climate change fisheries science, Ocean & Coastal Management (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.10.006