Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Industry-science collaboration in shellfish aquaculture and the management of knowledge processes Paradis, Erika Samek 2003

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2003-0497.pdf [ 8.45MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0091395.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0091395-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0091395-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0091395-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0091395-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0091395-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0091395-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0091395-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0091395.ris

Full Text

Industry-Science Collaboration in Shellfish Aquaculture and the Management of Knowledge Processes  by Erika Samek Paradis B . S c , Universite du Quebec a Rimouski, 1995  A THESIS S U B M I T T E D IN P A R T I A L F U L F I L M E N T OF THE REQUIREMENTS F O RTHE D E G R E E OF  M A S T E R OF SCIENCE m THE F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES (Department o f Resources Management and Environmental Studies, Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability)  W e accept this thesis a£ confgHrringT^ the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A M a y 2003 © Erika Samek Paradis, 2003  I n p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the head of my department o r by h i s or her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n .  The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver, Canada  ABSTRACT  In the new global, knowledge-based economy, knowledge is recognized as a driving force of social and economic development: it is the key to innovation, as well as to the goal of sustainability. Growing economic, social, political and environmental pressures on both the industry and the science sector have driven many organizations to re-assess their own capacities of producing, mobilizing and absorbing knowledge, and search for effective knowledge management strategies. One strategy that is increasingly utilized is the process of intersectoral collaboration. Collaboration between the two sectors of industry and science has been particularly fostered by government, through R & D policies and funding strategies. It is seen as an efficient strategy to improve knowledge production, diffusion and absorption capacities across both sectors, by creating synergies.  However, industry and science operate within different contexts.  Collaboration between them often presents significant difficulties.  Using the case of shellfish aquaculture in Canada, this exploratory study takes a broad sociological approach in the investigation of industry-science collaboration. It explores mainly the phenomena of occupational  cultures  and knowledge  networks,  in  order to seek a better understanding of some of the social processes by which shellfish aquaculture knowledge is produced, diffused and validated.  The study uses qualitative  methods and interviews with shellfish growers and aquaculture scientists in three different regions of Canada, in an attempt to identify some of the structural, cultural and relational factors that may affect collaboration processes between them. Once we have identified and understood the factors that favour or inhibit intersectoral collaboration, we may be in a better position to develop improved tools and mechanisms that will facilitate the process and allow both the industry and the science sector to achieve the full benefits of the knowledge that is being developed.  n  TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT  ii  TABLE OF CONTENTS  iii  LIST OF TABLES  vi  LIST OF FIGURES  vii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  viii  CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION Why intersectoral collaboration? The challenges behind intersectoral collaboration Industry-science relationships in shellfish aquaculture Research purposes Outline  '.  3 4 5 8 10  CHAPTER II - THE SOCIAL PROCESSES OF KNOWLEDGE 2.1 A Knowledge-Based Approach to Resources Management  11  2.2 The Nature o f Knowledge  13  2.3 The Cultures behind Knowledge  15  Occupational cultures The culture of science The culture of industry 2.4 Social Networks and Knowledge Flows Social networks Knowledge networks 2.5 Managing Relationships, Managing Knowledge  16 18 20 21 22 23 25  CHAPTER III - A BRIEF HISTORY OF SHELLFISH AQUACULTURE KNOWLEDGE IN THREE PARTS OF CANADA 3.1 The Development o f Shellfish Aquaculture Knowledge The Magdalen Islands, Quebec Prince Edward Island Vancouver Island, British Columbia 3.2 Tracking Knowledge  29 32 37 43 49  in  CHAPTER IV - APPROACH AND METHODS 4.1 Research Approach  50  4.2 Data Collection  52  Background research  52  Study Areas Sampling Interviews  53 56 58  4.3 Data Analysis  62  4.4 Data Validity and Research Limitations  63  CHAPTER V - CHAPTER V - OCCUPATIONAL CULTURES AND KNOWLEDGE PARADIGMS 5.1 Occupational Life and Culture The The The The  occupational life of shellfish growers shellfish grower culture occupational life of aquaculture scientists aquaculture scientist culture  5.2 Paradigms o f Knowledge  68 68 74 78 83 87  The shellfish grower knowledge paradigm The aquaculture scientist knowledge paradigm  87 94  5.3 Conclusion: The closing gap between two cultures  99  CHAPTER VI - INDUSTRY- SCIENCE RELATIONSHIPS Frequency Purpose Quality Communication Trust In Summary  102 106 107 109 113 118  CHAPTER VII - NETWORKS OF KNOWLEDGE RELATIONSHIPS Shellfish aquaculture knowledge and networks of relationships  122  iv  Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge The role of  networks in the Magdalen Islands networks in Prince Edward Island networks in British Columbia knowledge networks: Conclusion  124 127 133 139  CHAPTER VIII - PERSPECTIVES ON INTERSECTORAL COLLABORATION 8.1 Advantages, disadvantages and challenges to intersectoral collaboration Complimentary knowledge/ distinctiveness of perspectives Knowledge production, transfer and use Perks and annoyances  141 143 144 147  8.2 Government intervention  149  8.3 What is needed for effective collaborative R & D  153  Key factors for success Improvements  153 154  8.4 Implications for this study  155  CHAPTER IX - TOWARD A NEW CULTURE OF KNOWLEDGE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMANDATIONS 9.1 The Conditions for Improved Collaboration  158  Structural factors Cultural factors Relational factors Towards a new culture of knowledge Towards a new culture of knowledge  159 161 162 163 164  9.2 Recommendations for further research  167  BIBLIOGRAPHY  170  APPENDIX I - INFORMATION SHEETS  175  APPENDIX II - NETWORK SYMBOLS  178  APPENDIX III - RECOMMENDATIONS  179  v  LIST O F TABLES  Table 1 Number o f growers sampled i n each study region  57  Table 2 Typology o f the scientists' sample  58  Table 3 Level o f education and average years o f experience o f shellfish growers  69  Table 4 Primary sources o f information for shellfish growers  78  Table 5 Level o f education and average years o f experience o f aquaculture scientists .80 Table 6 The knowledge paradigms o f shellfish growers and aquaculture scientists  89  Table 7 M a i n purpose for interactions between shellfish growers and aquaculture scientists  107  Table 8  Perceived quality o f relationships between shellfish growers and aquaculture Scientists 108  Table 9  Participants perspectives on intersectoral collaboration  142  vi  LIST OF FIGURES  Figure 1 Variables related to organizational knowledge  27  Figure 2 Shellfish aquaculture production i n Canada (based on the value), in 2002  31  Figure 3 The Magdalen Islands, Quebec  53  Figure 4 Study area on Prince Edward Island  55  Figure 5 Study area on Vancouver Island  56  Figure 6 Growers' frequency o f interaction with scientists working i n various Organizations  103  Figure 7 Scientists' frequency of interaction with shellfish growers  105  Figure 8 Growers' level o f trust towards scientists i n general  114  Figure 9 M o d e l o f the network o f relationships framing shellfish aquaculture knowledge in the Magdalen Islands  125  Figure 10 Example o f a network of relationships framing shellfish aquaculture knowledge in Prince Edward Island  129  Figure 11 Example o f a network of relationships framing shellfish aquaculture knowledge in British Columbia  134  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  This study has been a fascinating journey that has taken me from coast to coast, allowing me to meet extremely interesting people. Their overwhelming generosity and openness made the data collection process a great experience, and the knowledge and perspectives they shared with me gave this thesis its richness.  I would like to thank AquaNet, part o f the Networks o f Centres o f Excellence (NCE)  Program, for funding this research through a research grant to Dr. Ralph  Matthews.  I am particularly grateful to Dr. Ralph Matthews, professor at the U B C  Department o f Anthropology and Sociology, who agreed to be m y supervisor and invited me to j o i n his research team, thus allowing me to explore both the fields o f aquaculture and o f sociology.  H e has provided me with great support through the entire study. I  would also like to thank Dr. Brian Elliott, also professor at the Department o f Anthropology and Sociology, for his advice during the developmental phase o f this research, and for his valuable input regarding my interview schedules.  Finally, I am  deeply grateful to Dr. Les Lavkulich, director o f the Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, for his guidance and support.  Vlll  CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION  "Recent research shows that in a knowledge-based economy, economic improvement is related to the efficacy and efficiency of using and producing knowledge, both tacit and codified." Cimoli and Constantino, 2001:57  Today, as Canada finds itself under the growing pressures of an increasingly global, knowledge-based economy, the need for improved innovation capacity has become a priority for a number of organizations across both the public and private sectors.  This, however, does not call for unfettered economic development: we have  seen, in the past - and continue to see today - the damaging effects of unsustainable development, and have learned a few lessons from these results.  That is why the  organization is impelled to consider the potential social and environmental impacts of its development strategies.  For the past few decades, the world has been rapidly 'shrinking': not only as a result of globalization, but also through our realization of the interconnectedness of all things on Earth.  Now, as the world continues to shrink, two fundamental needs -  common to the goals of innovation and of sustainability - are growing: the first is the need for knowledge.  Increasingly recognized as a 'productive force' (Stehr, 2002),  knowledge (both tacit and explicit) has become crucial in order for industry to be able to adapt to the rise of international competition, the acceleration of market change, as well as to the requirements of sustainable development. The second expanding need is for concerted action among the actors in the public and the private sector, as a strategy to  1  offset the costs and risks associated with the production o f knowledge, but also as a necessary approach to resolve the complex issues involved i n the goal o f sustainability.  Associated with these growing needs are two emerging phenomena that are changing the way various organizations in the public and the private sector treat knowledge, and also the way they organize themselves around knowledge. These two phenomena, which are i n fact very much intertwined, are: the mounting attention given to the management of knowledge  (Choo and Bontis, 2002; Little et al., 2002), and; the  significant increase i n intersectoral N i o s i , 1996;Godin, 1999).  collaboration,  over the past decades (Fusfeld, 1994;  The importance given to the management o f knowledge, or  more precisely, to the management o f knowledge processes (i.e. production, transfer and absorption), has come mainly with the realization that, i n this 'new economy', knowledge is the  key to productivity and  competitiveness  (Castells,  1996).  Thus,  many  organizations are now re-evaluating their own capacities o f producing, accessing and absorbing knowledge, i n search for strategies to improve these capacities.  A second important realization has been that innovation is a social process, and therefore, by creating an environment where people can interact, synergies (mutually advantageous  conjunctions) can be created.  One strategy that is now increasingly  popular -particularly in Research & Development ( R & D ) - is intersectoral collaboration. Indeed, i n the past decades, there have been indications o f a significant increase in the level o f interaction between the sectors o f industry and science (Godin, 1999).  This  trend, increasingly fostered by government through R & D policies and funding strategies,  2  aims at enhancing the flow o f information between scientists and industry members, and intensifying the production o f new knowledge.  W h y intersectoral collaboration ? Intersectoral collaboration is the process by which two distinct sectors (in this case, industry and science) with similar or compatible goals, work together to realize these goals, by sharing resources, risks and decision-making. There are different kinds o f collaboration, involving relationships (formal and informal) o f different intensities. Intersectoral collaboration is not solely concerned with the production o f new knowledge, but also with the transfer o f existing knowledge between sectors.  Thus, industry  members and scientists can collaborate by working together on R & D projects, or simply by exchanging information.  Some o f the most common advantages associated with  intersectoral collaboration are:  •  The sharing o f the costs and risks associated with R & D ;  •  The pooling o f other resources (labs, machinery, samples, labour, etc);  •  The creation o f relationships and synergies;  •  The reduction o f duplication and o f information transfer time.  Naturally, there are also some 'downsides' associated with intersectoral collaboration. The fact that it brings, for both industry members and scientists, a certain level o f dependency and involves some obligations, is an issue that has raised concerns with both groups (Fusfeld, 1994). The issue has also been extensively examined by a number o f  3  social scientists, many o f them warning against changes i n the production o f scientific knowledge (Ziman, 2000).  1  The challenges behind intersectoral Despite collaboration  these  concerns,  outweigh  any  and  collaboration believing that  disadvantages,  the  the  benefits  Canadian federal  o f intersectoral and  provincial  governments - and now a number o f universities - continue to encourage scientists and industry members to work together.  However, the fact is that science and industry  operate  (Fusfeld,  within  different  contexts  1994),  and  therefore,  intersectoral  collaboration between the two sectors does not come without some important challenges. In some cases, the main challenge is to get industry members to invest time and money into collaborative projects.  In other cases, the principal difficulty is for both parties to  reach a consensus on various issues (such as the research priorities, timeframe, methods and use o f the results).  Sometimes, the difficulties faced by scientists and industry  members seem to have much more intangible roots: several authors i n the field o f sociology have associated these difficulties with the existence o f a certain cultural gap or disconnect  between science and industry (Cotgrove and B o x , 1970; Ziman, 2000).  However, other scholars have somewhat disregarded this argument and suggested that the success o f intersectoral collaboration depends mainly on the development o f the appropriate policies (Niosi, 1996), and the establishment o f the proper infrastructure (Combs et al., 1996). Nevertheless, the fact is that this type o f collaboration between  This debate will not be addressed in the thesis. The assumption for the study is that intersectoral collaboration is a strategy that is presently favoured and that can be effective and beneficial i f carried properly. 1  4  industry and science is a fairly new phenomenon and that we still know only very little about the factors that come to play i n the process o f intersectoral collaboration.  Using the case o f shellfish aquaculture i n Canada, this study takes a broad sociological approach i n the investigation o f industry-science collaboration, i n an attempt to identify some o f the factors that may affect it. Since, ultimately, it is the processes o f knowledge that we are attempting to improve through heightened cooperation between industry members and scientists, this study examines some o f the social processes by which shellfish aquaculture knowledge is produced, diffused, and absorbed.  Seventeen  shellfish growers and thirteen aquaculture scientists i n three different regions o f Canada (the Magdalen Islands i n Quebec, Prince Edward Island, and Vancouver Island i n British Columbia) were interviewed.  Industry-science  relationships in shellfish  aquaculture  In Canada, shellfish aquaculture is a new, promising field o f activity i n terms o f economic benefits (mainly for remote coastal communities), but also i n terms o f opportunities for advances i n scientific knowledge. W i t h i n the last 30 years, Canadian shellfish aquaculture has shifted from being an artisanal occupation, to being an industrialized activity. Despite this significant development, various reports indicate that the industry is far from having reached its full economic potential . In fact, although the greatest part o f the production comes from a small number o f big (often vertically integrated) companies, the industry consists predominantly o f small family businesses Pendleton, L . 2001. PEIIndustry Overview. Draft Report for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA). Also: Economic Potential of the BC Aquaculture Industry. 1997. Prepared by Cooper & Lybrand Consulting for Western Economic Diversification Canada.  2  5  that are: producing small quantities; either selling their product locally or to processors in the region; and, generating just enough profit to survive from one year to another.  The  scientists working i n the field o f shellfish aquaculture (whether working in government laboratories, i n educational institutions, or with consulting firms) are also part o f a very small, and often struggling community: as shellfish aquaculture generally comes very far down on government lists for R & D priorities.  Although the two sectors have often been partners in the creation and diffusion o f knowledge i n the past, there are, today, even greater pressures for them to collaborate. Indeed, both shellfish growers and aquaculture scientists are facing important challenges in the current economic, social and political Climate. First, the effects o f the new global, knowledge-based economy (previously discussed) are already being felt by the shellfish aquaculture industry.  N e w international competitors are emerging on local markets,  bringing down prices and forcing growers to constantly find new ways to compete. However, with little or no capital for in-house R & D , smaller growers w i l l either have to enhance their ability to access external expertise (government laboratories, universities, and consultant firms), or they w i l l have to improve their own capacities to generate the knowledge needed to keep up with their international competitors, and remain at the leading edge o f an industry in which complexity seem to increase with each production cycle.  Two other sources Of pressure, acting on both the industry and the science sector, are government funding strategies and environmental policies. A s mentioned earlier,  6  governments, both federal and provincial, are increasingly encouraging members of the industry and scientists to collaborate, by developing programs and incentives that require both groups to participate in order to access funding. This trend reflects government efforts to involve the industry sector in sharing the costs of R&D, and the science sector in participating more directly in economic developments (Bellini and Piccaluga, 2001). As a result, across the country, a number of these programs and initiatives have already been put in place for aquaculture Research & Development.  Additionally, new developments in environmental sciences, combined with growing public concerns regarding the impacts of human activities on the environment, have lead to a mounting number of regulations to which shellfish growers must adhere. As shellfish aquaculture systems shift from extensive to intensive, environmental sustainability issues will most likely continues to arise. Therefore a closer collaboration between the two sectors may allow aquaculture scientists to provide answers to environment concerns, and shellfish growers to be able to quickly adapt to any new requirements.  These pressures are driving both sectors to re-evaluate their relationship to one another and to wonder if either of them has the 'luxury' of ignoring the other anymore. In fact, it appears that increased collaboration' is necessary: markets require it, governments require it, and so does the public. The following quote by Koebberling, Derttmers, and Zolbord (2001) illustrates well the challenges that shellfish growers and aquaculture scientists are now facing:  7  "Research, development and innovation will become key factors for growing sustainable B . C . aquaculture that meets market demands, addresses stewardship issues, contributes to social communities and also contributes to social objectives by providing credible, science-based information to assist local resource planning and decision-making."  Research Purposes The framework o f this study resulted from two main concerns: the first involves the efficiency o f intersectoral collaboration as a knowledge management strategy, and more particularly, for an industry such as shellfish aquaculture.  There seem to be little  benefit, however, in trying to discover how efficient the strategy is, without first c  understanding how it works (i.e. the kinds conditions that are necessary for the process to be carried on and what it implies for each sector). A s the greatest part o f the literature addressing the subject o f intersectoral collaboration appears to take an economic approach, and to focus mainly on large, hi-tech industries, the idea o f exploring this subject through a relatively small industry, and with a sociological approach was very exciting.  The second concern is in the nature o f knowledge and, more precisely, the way that knowledge is produced, diffused and absorbed between the industry and the science sector.  Because intersectoral collaboration involves two distinct sectors either working  together to produce new knowledge, or exchanging information for the purpose o f advancing each other's knowledge, one may ask: are growers' and scientists' ways o f processing knowledge compatible?  What is the nature o f shellfish aquaculture  knowledge, and how is it produced, diffused and validated by each sector?  8  Frank and Smith (2000:1) argued that, "Strong, viable partnerships don't just happen.  They need to be understood, properly developed and w e l l maintained."  Therefore, i n order to be able to develop effective collaboration between growers and scientists, we must first understand the process o f collaboration itself, as well as the parties involved.  This study uses qualitative methods to seek an understanding o f the  various factors - structural,  cultural and relational - that may affect the process o f  intersectoral collaboration between shellfish growers and aquaculture scientists. It looks at the social processes by which shellfish aquaculture knowledge is produced, diffused and validated, by closely examining two particular phenomena: that o f  occupational  cultures (Trice, 1993) and knowledge networks (Kobayashi, 1995; Senker and Faulkner, 1996).  In the past three decades, shellfish growers and aquaculture scientists have developed an economically and socially important industry for coastal Canada, and the potential for further growth remains. Increased collaboration between the two groups is currently seen as a valid strategy to improve the knowledge production, transfer and absorption capacities across both sectors, and to maximize knowledge benefits.  The  challenge is i n developing the right tools and mechanisms to facilitate intersectoral collaboration and improve its efficiency.  In order to do that, we must be able to identify  and understand the factors that foster or inhibit the process o f collaboration between growers and scientists, and that is precisely what this study was intended to do.  9  Outline Chapter II presents an overview o f some o f the concepts exploited i n this thesis. It reviews some o f the early theories regarding the cultures o f science and industry ( C P . Snow, 1962, and; Cotgrove and B o x , 1970), and examines the more contemporary concept o f 'occupational cultures' (Trice, 1993). It also explores the subject o f 'knowledge', and the concepts o f 'knowledge networks' (Kobayashi, 1995; Senker and Faulkner, 1996), and 'knowledge management' (Choo and Bontis, 2002; Little et al., 2002).  Chapter III outlines the methodology used i n this study. Chapter IV provides an  overview o f the development o f shellfish aquaculture i n three regions o f Canada. Chapter  V examines the occupational cultures and knowledge paradigms o f shellfish  growers and aquaculture scientists, i n an attempt to determine what makes the two groups 'distinct cultures', and how these cultural differences affect the way that each group deals with knowledge, as well as the ways i n which they interact. Chapter VI investigates the current state o f grower-scientist relationships i n each study region while Chapter  VII  presents information on some o f the knowledge networks that were observed i n these regions. Finally,  Chapter Chapter  VIII explores the participants' views on intersectoral collaboration. IX  summarises  the main findings o f this research  and  offers  recommendations for further study.  10  CHAPTER II - THE SOCIAL PROCESSES OF KNOWLEDGE 2.1 A Knowledge-Based Approach to Resources Management In the past hundred years, advances in science and technology have allowed us to significantly increase our material quality o f life through the extensive exploitation o f natural resources.  Industries have grown, constantly improving on their methods o f  extracting the Earth's materials more efficiently.  Approximately half way through the  century, however, we began to realize not only that our planet's resources were finite, but also that our ways o f making use o f them were jeopardizing the health o f the environment, and consequently, the very quality o f our own lives.  A s a result, some  measures were initiated in an attempt to regulate the exploitation o f natural resources, and studies were undertaken to address the lack o f knowledge regarding the environment and impacts o f human activity upon it.  Today, with the growing recognition o f the interdependence  o f economic  development and environmental health, 'sustainable resources management' has become a goal not only for governments, but also for educational institutions and industry. Although sustainability  has become a buzzword with a definition  often left to  interpretation, there is a general consensus that, to be sustainable, the exploitation o f a resource must be: economically viable, environmentally benign, and socially acceptable. In other words, resources management, i n the new millennium, is concerned with finding strategies to maintain the economic benefits associated with the exploitation o f natural resources, while protecting the environment, and being duly cognisant o f social values and individual rights.  11  This common goal, added to increasing economic, political and social pressures (see chapter I), has brought government, industry and science to cooperate more than ever before (Fusfeld, 1994). three sectors  Indeed, one o f the strategies increasingly utilized by all  - although particularly by government  - has been the fostering o f  intersectoral collaboration. Partnerships between science and industry especially, have become widespread over the last 15 years (Niosi, 1996, Godin, 1999).  In addition to the  advantage o f sharing the costs and risks associated with R & D , a significant benefit for both partners is the stimulation and enhancement  o f their capacity for knowledge  production (which w i l l be discussed further in this chapter).  The importance o f scientific knowledge for the advancement o f society was accepted, almost universally, a long time ago. However, it is only recently that we have begun to recognize the value o f other sources o f knowledge, such as tacit or 'local' knowledge (Senker and Faulkner, 1996). From stories and songs o f Native Americans, to the skills o f farmers i n Nepal, knowledge is now increasingly sought and found outside the boundaries o f 'normal' science (Kuhn, 1962).  Industry is now perceived as a  significant source o f knowledge, and both government and scientific institutions such as universities and  government  research  laboratories  are  putting more  efforts  into  developing mechanisms that allow them to tap into it. However cooperation between industry and science is not an easy thing: relationships between the two sectors have been known to be often difficult, sometimes leading to poor results (Kassicieh and Radosevich, 1994).  12  Despite these difficulties, governments  continue to favour  science-industry  partnerships through various collaborative programs and other incentives.  Some o f the  objectives o f this strategy are to: 1) increase the production o f new knowledge (by stimulating both scientific and industrial research); 2) facilitate knowledge transfers between the two sectors, and; 3) improve the industry's capacity to absorb  new  knowledge (Anonymous, 2001). Obviously this strategy is economically driven: it primarily aims at insuring that industry - and consequently the nation -  remains  competitive in the global, knowledge-based economy. However, it also benefits science, for it allows scientists (as well as policy-makers) to access different sources and types o f knowledge and perspectives on issues that are common to both sectors.  2.2 The Nature of Knowledge The origin, nature and role o f knowledge in society have long been subjects o f reflection by philosophers, historians and sociologists. Francis Bacon (1620) wrote i n his Novum Organum:  'Scientia  est potentia'  (meaning 'Knowledge is potential'), that the  power o f knowledge is in its potential to set things i n motion, to engender change (Stehr 2002).  Today, many fields o f research  (especially social sciences, economics and  management) are taking a closer look at the phenomenon o f knowledge in its various forms, and loci. But whether it is perceived as a social construction, an organizational asset, a commodity, or as the key to innovation, it is clear that knowledge is a fundamental part o f society and a growing force i n economic improvement (Castells, 1996; Choo and Bontis, 2002).  13  According to Davenport and Prusak (1998), knowledge is "a fluid m i x o f framed experiences, values, contextual information, and expert insights that provide a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information". Castels (1996) defines knowledge as: "a set o f organized statements o f facts or ideas, presenting a reasoned judgement or an experimental result".  Adler (2002) describes knowledge as  "the relatively permanent record o f the experience underlying learning". For the purpose of this thesis, we w i l l define knowledge simply as 'processed information' (Stehr, 2002): information  being data (values) with their context.  There is a general  consensus  regarding the categorization o f knowledge into either a tacit or an explicit form. Tacit knowledge (encompassing skills, methods and mental models) is embedded i n practice, and therefore, difficult to codify, while explicit knowledge is codified (through formal, systematic language) and thus easily transferable  (Choo and Bontis, 2002).  This  distinction between the two forms o f knowledge is an important one and w i l l be further discussed later on i n this chapter.  Traditionally, knowledge has also been classified into the following types: knowwhat (facts/ information); know-why (explicit knowledge o f the principles and laws o f nature); know-how (tacit knowledge/ skills); know-who (information about who knows what and who knows how to do what).  Frank Blackler (2002) suggests a similar  categorization through the following 'images' o f knowledge: embrained  (dependent on  conceptual skills & cognitive abilities/ know-that); embodied (action-oriented/ knowhow);  encultured  (refers  to process o f achieving shared understanding/  language-  14  dependent); embedded (resides in systemic routines/ social & institution arrangements) and; encoded (conveyed by signs & symbols, in books, manuals, code o f practice, etc).  This categorization provides useful insights to understand the diversity i n the nature o f knowledge, as well as the complexity that must be faced when attempting to analyze it. Additionally, it demonstrates that knowledge is not developed i n a vacuum: not only is it 'context-specific', but also it is also 'dynamic', in that is often produced through social interactions (Nonaka et al., 2002).  In other words, knowledge is very  much dependent on individuals, but also o f the social circumstances in which they function, as well as o f the nature o f interactions among people: "Knowledge is created through interactions among individuals or between individuals and their environment." (Umemoto, 2002:465).  But what are the social processes by which knowledge is  produced, transferred and validated?  In the following sections, I w i l l take a closer look  at some o f the factors that frame these processes, by exploring two important phenomena: occupational cultures and social networks.  2.3 T h e C u l t u r e s behind K n o w l e d g e Anthony Giddens (1993:31) defines culture as "the values the members o f a given group hold, the norms they follow, and the material goods they create". Cultures emerge as individuals interact with one another. A t first, people recognize their similarity with others who share the same values and norms, leading to the development o f a sense o f 'we-ness' that creates i n their minds a distinction between those who are 'insiders' and those who are 'outsiders'. According to Harrison M . Trice (1993:21), cultures have two  15  major components: ideologies (sets o f taken-for-granted, emotionally charged beliefs), and cultural forms (mechanisms to express these beliefs). Ideologies guide the members in their actions, while cultural forms (such as language, symbols, stories, rituals, etc) help members share their ideologies between one another, thereby fortifying the culture.  Occupational  cultures  In the field o f organizational studies, a lot o f attention has been given to occupational life. A s work takes on an important place in our lives, it has been observed that people increasingly come to define themselves through their occupations, leading to the emergence o f occupational  cultures.  Trice (1993:73) suggests that: 'Occupations  shape and mould [people's] individual beliefs so that they often come to internalize the group's ideology'.  In other words, occupations - through interpersonal relationships -  can generate cultures.  T r i c e (1993) also proposes that there are certain forces facilitating group identity: 1) esoteric' knowledge  and expertise  (the belief o f possessing a special kind o f  knowledge, shared only by a few other people); 2) consciousness of kind (the boundaries determined by people i n regards to who is ' l i k e ' them and who is not); 3) pervasiveness (the occupation-related activities and relationships, extending outside the work life); 4) favourable self-image and social value in tasks (the pride that originates i n social value or status associated to an occupation); 5) primary  reference group (the sense that,  because o f shared understandings, only people with the same occupation may be able to judge one's performance, or help with a problem); 6) abundance of cultural forms (the  16  richness in ways to express ideologies). These forces lead to a greater cohesion within the occupational culture. Highly cohesive cultures are often defined as  communities.  What primarily distinguishes these communities, are the distinctive stocks o f knowledge their members hold. Commercial fishermen's knowledge, for example, extends way beyond boats, nets and fish: it encompasses how to interpret cloud formations to predict the weather; how to read symbols on navigational charts; what water temperature gradients to look for i n order to find particular species o f fish; or what depth the gear must be set, in order to maximize the catch. It is this rich and unique body o f knowledge, which most fishermen share, that sets the frame for a strong culture and a tight community. In turn, this culture governs how fishermen produce and absorb new knowledge, as well as how they determine what constitutes valid knowledge. Thus, occupational cultures are an important factor i n the framing o f knowledge processes.  Thus, i f different occupations lead to different cultures, and to different stocks o f knowledge, where does it leave industry and science? What kinds o f values, beliefs and norms are associated with each sector? H o w distinct are their cultures and what impact does it have on the type o f knowledge they hold? There is a very rich literature, in the field o f sociology, suggesting the existence o f a certain 'gap' or 'disconnect' between the two sectors. This gap has been attributed to a number o f factors, one o f them being the fundamental differences in the cultures o f these sectors.  In their analysis o f the role o f  scientists i n society, Cotgrove and B o x (1970:35) affirm that industry and science are i n fact "two distinct social systems, with different goals, values, and norms."  17  The culture of science The idea o f science being a culture may be a concept broadly accepted i n today's society, however it has not always been so.  It is i n great part the work carried on the  subjects o f the organization o f science and the social construction o f scientific knowledge - accomplished during the 1960s and 1970s by scholars, such as C P . Snow, Thomas Kuhn, and Bruno Latour - that contributed to the current view o f science.  C P . Snow  (1962:10) explained that, although scientists i n different fields do not always understand each other, "there are common attitudes, common standards and patterns o f behaviour, common approaches and assumptions" that make science a culture, i n the anthropological sense o f the word. Before that perspective emerged, science was mostly perceived as value-free and guided by strong norms that insured its objectivity. organized scepticism, universality and disinterestedness  Communality,  were the fundamental standards  o f scientific research that Robert Merton (1942; 1973) identified, and which became known as the'norms o f science'.  Today, these same norms are still held by many members o f the scientific community (particularly i n academia). The scientific methods (involving sound research design, random and representative  sampling, replicates and 'control' experiments,  reproducibility, etc), the peer review process, and the publication o f findings remain the principal standards by which a scientist's credibility and the validity o f research are determined. These, along with distinct cultural forms such as language (e.g. the use o f Latin in taxonomy) and symbols (e.g. the periodic table i n chemistry), are at the foundation o f the culture o f science. In the scientific community, logic, homogeneity,  18  independence, hierarchy, and recognition are some o f the values traditionally promoted and generally shared (Gibbons et al. 1996).  However, as science expanded its roles beyond its traditional boundaries, new values and norms have emerged (Gibbons et al., 1996). In fact, the diversification o f the roles o f science - and consequently o f its loci o f production - has engendered development  of  'subcultures'  the  o f science: in academia, there is the traditional  fundamental or 'pure' science, and the growing applied science; i n government, there is the R & D science, as well as the policy-making science; there is the 'in-house' R & D found in industry, or industrial science, and finally; the opportunistic and highly adaptive science o f consultancy firms (Fusfeld, 1994). Although these subcultures o f science have slightly different sets o f values and norms, explicit knowledge  remains the principal  product for all o f them.  The processes  by which scientific knowledge is produced, validated and  disseminated are very much institutionalized.  Cotgrove and B o x (1970) suggested that  the most distinctive feature o f science is its 'social character'.  The production o f new  knowledge is predominantly initiated either by simple curiosity, for theoretical interest, or for potential usefulness (Stevenson and Byerly, 1995). It is most often based on a preexisting frame o f reference composed o f theories and laws accepted by the scientific community (Collins, 1992). A s mentioned above, the validation o f scientific knowledge is done chiefly through the peer review process. The value given to new knowledge i n basic science is often related to the degree i n which it advances understandings o f nature,  19  but also by the frequency by which the work is cited i n publications respected by the community.  Somewhat i n contrast, i n applied science or R & D , the value o f new  knowledge is often related to its usefulness to help solve a particular issue, or a marketoriented problem. Finally, scientific knowledge is public property: it is created, in most cases, to be shared with the other members o f the scientific community.  The culture of industry Industry (the commercial enterprise concerned with the output o f a product) also has a culture o f its own. The values that are promoted, the norms that are followed and the material goods created are, for the greatest part, very different from those o f science (Cotgrove and B o x , 1970; Fusfeld, 1994).  Growth, competitiveness, innovation, and  efficiency are some o f the values often associated with industry. There are also general standards respected across the sector: profitability, fair trade, accountability for the product or service provided, etc. The knowledge produced i n industry is more often an "intermediate  product  required  in  production  of  goods  and  services"  (Kobayashi, 1995:130). It is mostly tacit (see definition above) i n nature: it resides i n the experiences, the skills and the routines o f individuals and organizations, and is generally transferred through apprenticeship (Blackler, 2002).  The validation o f new knowledge  is based often on reputation (that o f the individual or organization where the knowledge originated from), and also on the results it generates.  Above all, the value o f new  knowledge i n industry is ultimately determined by its usefulness i n bringing/insuring profit. That is w h y new knowledge is often kept secret and commercialized (moved to market) as fast as possible (Kassicieh and Radosevich, 1994).  20  Because cultures are 'emotionally charged' (Trice, 1993), members will defend their ideologies and reject ideologies from other groups: they may even come to distrust anyone not belonging to their community. The culture they share gives them a feeling of common identity, which facilitates the creation of relationships. According to Trice (1993:25): "Cultures, guided by ideologies, tend to produce mechanisms that arrange the relationships between their members; in other words, a structure of social relations". However, cultures can also alienate those who do not share the same values and norms, and thus, potentially lead to the erection of barriers between people with different occupations.  Thus the gap between science and industry is not some mystical  phenomenon, but in considerable part, a divergence in ideologies and cultural forms that has kept the two sectors apart.  2.4 Knowledge Networks and Flows I have established that knowledge is dynamic, in the sense that it is mostly produced and validated through social interactions (Nonaka et al., 2002). Although they may occur haphazardly (e.g. people meeting at a conference), or be stimulated for a particular objective (e.g. an R&D project), these interactions most often occur naturally in groups of people who are somehow acquainted and share similar interests. Together, the relationships binding the various actors in these groups form social networks. As we will see, these pre-existing networks of relationships play an important role in the production, transfer and validation of knowledge.  21  Social networks In the simplest terms, a network is 'a configuration o f nodes and links' (Batten et al., 1995). There are many different kinds o f networks: transportation (roads) networks, information networks, economic (inter-firm) networks, etc.  Social networks can be  defined as sets o f actors linked by formal or informal relationships (e.g. patron-client, mentor-apprentice, business partnership, consultant, kinship, friendship, neighbour). What makes a group o f actors part o f a network is the importance o f the connections between them, and how these connections influence each actor and the network as a whole (Mulford, 1984). A s explained by Laumann et al. (1983:18): "From a network perspective, individual behaviour is viewed as at least partially contingent on the nature o f an actor's social relationships to certain key others".  Social networks may be very structured (presenting a certain order in its components, hierarchically or otherwise), or they may be more loosely organized (with no particular order among the various actors).  Although there is a certain degree o f  permanence i n every network, social networks are dynamic.  They develop and change  over time: growing or shrinking in size as linkages form or break off; varying i n stability and cohesion as relationships intensify or weaken.  Thus, the network influences the  actors' behaviour, which, in turn, can affect the structure and nature o f the network. But where does a network begin, and where does it end? Laumann and his colleagues (1983) suggest that there are two different approaches to set the boundaries o f a network, namely the 'realist' and the 'nominalist' views.  In the realist approach, the boundaries are  defined by the actors themselves, whereas in the nominalist approach, it is the conceptual  22  framework imposed by the investigator that delimitates the network. This latter approach allows the researcher to focus on a particular phenomenon by examining only a particular type o f relationships.  Therefore, i f the phenomenon investigated is knowledge,  the  boundaries o f the network can be set by mapping solely the relationships that allow for knowledge to be either produced collectively, or to be diffused within a group o f people. The result o f this exercise would thus be the identification o f networks of  knowledge  relationships.  Knowledge  networks  Kobayashi (1995) defines 'knowledge networks' as systems in which the nodes are the loci for knowledge (existing stocks and capacity for production), and the linkages allow knowledge either to travel among the different nodes, or to be collectively produced. The nodes can be human settlements, but they can also be individuals or small groups o f individuals (companies, organizations, etc). The linkages can be mechanisms specially put i n place to facilitate the diffusion o f knowledge (i.e. transportation and telecommunication), but they can also be pre-existing relationships that facilitate knowledge processes (i.e. the production and diffusion o f knowledge).  The stock o f knowledge an actor brings to the network can be defined as knowledge  capital.  Knowledge capital can be transferred  -at least partly - from one  person to another, or from one organization to another, through communication. There  23  -1  t  are numerous means of knowledge diffusion (face-to-face contact, telecommunication, written reports, books, etc), however, as discussed earlier, some of these transfer mechanisms are more suitable depending on the type of knowledge. The exchanges of knowledge within a network are referred to as knowledge flows (Kobayashi, 1995).  Knowledge flows may vary in intensity and direction, depending on the degree of connectedness of the network. First, the nature of a relationship - and the degree of trust - between two actors can determine what knowledge each one is willing to share. Also, because not all relationships are symmetrical (Johnson, in Batten 1995), in some cases knowledge may travel in only one direction (e.g. from the mentor to the apprentice). The terms 'source' and 'sink' are often used to describe where knowledge is produced, and where it is absorbed (although it is important to remember that the production of knowledge is very often a social process, resulting from the interactions among different actors).  In addition, the topology of the network (who is connected to whom) may also determine how knowledge will flow.  Some actors are 'prominent' (Knoke and Burt,  1983), or said to have a high 'degree', meaning that they are connected to many other members, and therefore may have a greater influence in the network. A network where the actors have high degrees of connectivity is more 'dense' or 'cohesive', leading to a better flow of knowledge between all the actors in the network (Johnson, in Batten 1995). Density may, however, vary through the network: the words 'cliques' or 'clusters' are In reality, it is not knowledge per se that is transferred, but rather information. That information, once received, must be processed in order to become knowledge. However, for the purpose of this study, the commonly used term 'knowledge transfer' will be used. 3  24  often used to describe particular groups o f actors who share more intense relationship within a larger network. There can be many cliques within a network (Burt, 1983).  Other important features o f social networks are integrators "brokers"). (board,  (often referred to as  Mulford (1984:181) refers to the integrator as "the organizational entity  staff,  organizations".  or person)  charged with coordinating the  services o f  autonomous  In this study, however, I w i l l refer to integrators as individuals or  organizations that are bridging different cliques, or even different networks.  These  integrators play a crucial role i n the production and transfer o f knowledge, for they insure the cohesion among different parts o f the network, and may allow access to different sources  o f knowledge by establishing connections with other loci o f knowledge  production (external to the network).  Therefore, integrators not only facilitate the flow  o f knowledge among the various actors, but they may also enhance the network's knowledge stocks with external sources.  Although the use o f network theory may be a simplistic way o f presenting complex systems o f social relationships, it does allow us to see clearly how the different components i n these systems are connected, and to understand how each system behaves as a whole. A l s o , it can help us to map some o f the loci o f knowledge production, as well as how knowledge travels i n society (Cimoli and Constantino, 2001).  25  2.5 Managing Relationships, Managing Knowledge In the past decade, a number o f experts i n various fields (social scientists, economists, information experts, firm managers) have come to agree that knowledge  has  become one o f the most important engines o f social and economic development (Castells,1996; Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Stehr, 2002).  Thus, the performance o f  private and public organizations - and therefore, o f nations - increasingly depends on their  efficiency i n managing  knowledge  resources  and  processes  (Cimoli  and  Constantino, 2001; Choo and Bontis, 2002; Garavelli et al., 2002).  Although there is still a lot that we have not yet discovered or understood, there is a great deal o f existing knowledge, out there, i n the minds o f people (a significant fraction o f which resides i n industry and science). Unfortunately, the fact that this knowledge exists does not necessarily mean that it is being used efficiently.  The  increasing awareness o f this fact has driven many organizations to reassess their efficiency at producing, mobilizing and using knowledge (Choo and Bontis, 2002).  The production o f knowledge can be costly and time consuming. However, an organization taking on the challenge to produce new knowledge 'internally' or 'in-house' is likely to obtain knowledge that w i l l respond directly to the organization's particular needs.  The only alternative to gain new knowledge is to obtain it from an external  source: this knowledge however must first be located, validated and then transferred. The  transferred  knowledge  must  be  absorbed. (interpreted  organization's needs), before it can be used (Choo, 2002).  and  adapted  to  the  The capacity to seek and  26  absorb new knowledge is especially critical for organizations with little knowledge production capabilities (Fusfeld, 1994).  W e have determined that there is a significant connection between knowledge processes (production, transfer and validation) and social factors.  Thus, to improve or  control these processes, it is fundamental to understand the factors that influence them. This is one o f the objectives o f the emerging field o f knowledge management.  As  explained by Paul Quintas (2002:5):  "Often knowledge is created within communities of practice who share understandings and experience that is not easily transferable to those outside that community.  The  relationship between individual, group and organizational knowledge is therefore a central focus for knowledge management."  According to Choo and Bontis (2002), the knowledge within an organization is related to the identity o f the organization, to its purpose, as well as to the environment i n which it operates, and the capabilities it possesses (Figure 1).  Organizations sharing the  same or comparable variables are thus more likely to both hold and be able to share similar knowledge.  r  This may facilitate communication between them, however their  Identity/ Nature  Environment  Figure 1 Variables related  Purpose/ Agenda  Capabilities/ Resources  to organizational knowledge.  27  exchanges may not be as stimulating and fruitful as i f they were to interact with organizations with very different stocks o f knowledge. That is one o f the arguments, discussed at the beginning o f this chapter, for encouraging intersectoral collaboration.  In order to adapt to the changing world, new knowledge is constantly needed.  As  suggested by Ikujiro Nonaka (2002: 437): "communities o f interaction contribute to the amplification and development o f new knowledge". Thus, i f the secret to adaptation lies - at least partly - i n our capacity to interact, we must then concentrate our efforts not only on managing knowledge stocks and flows, but also on managing relationships between all the different loci o f knowledge.  In the following chapters, I w i l l explore the phenomena o f occupational cultures and o f knowledge networks through the case study o f shellfish aquaculture in three regions o f Canada. The investigation o f these two social phenomena w i l l help us better understand the processes by which knowledge is produced, diffused and absorbed by shellfish growers and aquaculture scientists. This, in turn, w i l l allow us to identify some of the cultural differences and commonalities between the two groups that may affect the way they interact.  Additionally, it w i l l allow us to ascertain what kinds o f knowledge  relationships already exist and how shellfish aquaculture knowledge flows among the actors in each sector (i.e. industry and science), as well as between the two sectors. But first, a description o f the history o f shellfish aquaculture i n each study region, i n order to understand how this field o f activity has grown, and what are some o f the factors that have contributed to this growth.  28  CHAPTER III - A BRIEF HISTORY OF SHELLFISH AQUACULTUTRE KNOWLEDGE IN THREE REGIONS OF CANADA 3.1 - The Development of Shellfish Aquaculture Knowledge Shellfish aquaculture can be defined as the farming o f molluscs, although crustaceans (such as prawns and lobsters) and echinoderms (such as sea urchins) are often included in the definition.  A relatively young industry i n Canada, the culture o f  shellfish finds its roots i n Ancient Rome; oyster seeds were imported from Gaul and grown locally with a 'stick and bag' method, which can still be found today i n some parts o f France (Tiddens, 1990).  A t first, the farming o f shellfish was mainly practiced i n  places where w i l d fisheries existed, and primarily as a solution to over-harvesting: depleted natural stocks were enhanced with imported seeds to keep the commercial fisheries alive. Later on, the expanding knowledge regarding the reproduction, life cycle, nutrition and predation o f various species o f shellfish lead to the development o f hatchery and nursery technologies, as well as more efficient growing and harvesting techniques. Today, part o f the industry has become quite sophisticated, with for example, advances i n remote  setting, floating upwelling systems  (FLUPSY)  and genetic manipulations.  Shellfish aquaculture knowledge was developed through two main processes: 1) from experience (observation, trial and error) and; 2) from systematic research (basic and applied).  Europe and A s i a were the leaders in the development o f shellfish aquaculture knowledge until the 1970s, when North and South America caught up with them. (Aranda and Cardenas, 2002).  In the United States and Canada, a handful o f  29  entrepreneurs on each coast laboured for more than a decade at adapting foreign technologies and developing some o f their own: armed with their dreams, their innovative minds and a lot o f patience, they were the pioneers o f shellfish aquaculture i n North America.  A t the same time, many scientists saw in this growing activity a new  field o f research, with new sources o f funding.  In the 80s, advances in the field o f  biotechnology (such as the development o f triploid oysters) brought new possibilities for the industry.  Since the mid-1980s, growing concerns regarding environmental issues  associated with shellfish aquaculture have led many scientists to study the impacts o f the industry on the marine environment.  However, many areas o f shellfish aquaculture  remain in need o f more research and development: life cycle, disease control, genetics, pollution effects on shellfish, predator control, as well as various aspects regarding the potential for new species culture.  Today, shellfish aquaculture i n Canada is a 58 m i l l i o n dollar industry : it has 4  surpassed the w i l d fisheries and has also opened new markets for species that are not (or not anymore) commercially fished, such as manila clams, soft shell clams, bay scallops, quahaugs, geoducks, abalones and sea urchins. The Blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) and the American oyster (Crassostrea  virginicd)  on the East Coast, and the Pacific oyster  (Crassostrea gigas) and the M a n i l a clam (Tapes phUippinarum) on the West Coast are the most economically important shellfish aquaculture species (totalling 55 m i l l i o n dollars i n 2001, or almost 95% o f the total landed value).  The two biggest producers are Prince  Edward Island, with 50% o f the total landed value and British Columbia, with 27% (see Figure 2). 4  Statistics Canada , Agriculture Division (2001).  30  NL  NB  Qc 1%  NS  10% PEI  r 50%  27%  Figure 2 Shellfish aquaculture production in Canada (based on the landed value), in 2001.  Shellfish growers come from a wide array of backgrounds: many of them are former fishermen, while others were trained in biology, accounting, and engineering. Their motives for being involved in the industry are also diverse.  Some chose this  occupation for the lifestyle associated with it, while others have invested time and money into the enterprise primarily in hopes of large profits in return. Thus the size, nature and goals of the hundreds of shellfish aquaculture companies in Canada are varied and, consequently, so are the stocks of knowledge they hold and the capacities (or inclinations) they have to produce new knowledge.  Shellfish aquaculture science today encompasses  a number of scientific  disciplines: zoology, parasitology, chemistry, oceanography, limnology, ecology, genetics, and many others.  In Canada, the scientific research relating to shellfish  farming is performed in various governmental agencies (both federal and provincial), universities and colleges, consultancy firms, and of course, within industry itself (a few of the bigger companies employ biologists and technicians).  Many of the scientists  31  working on projects related to shellfish aquaculture have a background i n marine biology. However, only a few were trained to deal with issues directly related to shellfish culture, largely because the interest for shellfish in general is very recent in this country, and educational institutions are only beginning to teach courses relevant to the industry. Therefore, most o f the scientists working in the field o f shellfish aquaculture today built up their expertise as the industry developed, constantly trying to keep up with technological advances and to anticipate biological, environmental and human healthrelated problems: "The thousands of years it took to go from a primitive plough to modern-day agriculture has been compressed into about ten years for the [shellfish] aquaculture industry"  5  Because o f varying ecological, social and political factors, the development o f the industry has occurred differently in each province: variations also exist on a local scale. Each province in Canada presents its own particular history o f the development o f shellfish aquaculture knowledge i n terms o f the pioneers and other key players, the innovations and the setbacks, as well as the social networks that made it all happen. In the following sections, we w i l l take a closer look at three o f these histories: that o f the Magdalen Islands i n Quebec, o f Prince Edward Island, and o f Vancouver Island i n British Columbia.  The Magdalen Islands, Quebec Research on shellfish aquaculture i n Quebec began i n the Magdalen Islands i n the 1970s, however commercial production only began i n the m i d 80s (almost a decade Quote from Gary Caine (provincial aquaculture regional operations chief), in 'Shell Game', the Times-Colonist, June 11, 1995: A l . Victoria, B.C. 5  32  behind Prince Edward Island and British Columbia). During the 1990s the industry slowly spread to the Cote-Nord (St-Lawrence River) and the Gaspesie region. Today, although there are still only two dozens shellfish companies i n Quebec, the sector generates more than 140 jobs and has returns o f approximately $625,000 . 6  Experiments with mussel and oyster culture began in 1973, at the provincial fisheries research station i n the Magdalen Islands. That year, French experts were invited to Quebec - as part o f a collaborative program initiated by the Ministere de I 'Agriculture, des Pickeries  et de I'Alimentation  du Quebec ( M A P A Q ) - to evaluate the potential for  shellfish aquaculture in the eastern part o f the province (Myrand, 1992).  The Magdalen  Islands were determined to have the highest capabilities for the culture o f Blue mussels and American oysters.  Research on these two species continued until the early 1980s,  when efforts were concentrated mainly on the Blue mussel, for it was showing the greatest potential at the time.  In 1984 however, the Canadian Federal Department o f  Fisheries and Oceans ( D F O ) regained jurisdiction over the fisheries sector i n the G u l f o f Saint-Laurence, and the research station in the Magdalen Island then re-oriented its focus on shellfish aquaculture: thus it became the Station Technologique Maricole des Iles-dela-Madeleine  (STMEVI). That same year, following a visit to Prince Edward Island and  N o v a Scotia, 'longline' culture techniques were introduced i n Quebec: this important development allowed the industry to make the shift from small-scale culture to largescale commercial mussel aquaculture (Myrand, 1992).  6  Statistics Canada, Agriculture Division, 2001. 33  Very quickly, the interest i n shellfish culture spread to other parts o f the province: promoters and research institutions, such as the Centre Aquacole Riviere  Marin de  Grande-  (another M A P A Q research centre, in Gaspesie), universities, consultancy firms,  and processing plants became interested i n examining the potential o f this new industry. D F O funded many pilot projects through its Programme Halieutiques Maricole,  et  Experimentation  Soon, these players joined i n what was called the Table  an organization composed o f D F O , the M A P A Q , the Regroupement  Mariculteurs I'Industrie  et Aquicoles.  Essais  du Quebec ( R M Q ) , and later on, the Societe de Developpement Maricole  (SODIM) . 7  des de  The organization's mandate was to coordinate the  efforts to put i n place the necessary conditions for the development o f the industry. According to Bruno Myrand (1992), research and development activities i n shellfish aquaculture during the 1980s can be categorized under seven themes: 1) siting potential; 2) seed supply; 3) production parameters; 4) quality o f the product; 5) processing; 6) adaptation and development o f technology, and; 7) management.  Thus, right from the beginning, the science sector was the primary source o f shellfish aquaculture knowledge and a driving force i n the development o f the industry in Quebec. However, as the industry sector grew, shellfish growers became increasingly active in the production o f new knowledge, as well as i n the transfer o f knowledge from sources outside the province. B y 1985, there were 8 mussel operations i n the Magdalen Islands, making it the most important region for shellfish aquaculture i n Quebec.  The  Guide de Demarrage d'une Entreprise Maricole. Comite Sectoriel de main-d'oeuvre des peches maritimes - S O D I M et Emploi Quebec. 2000.  34  following year, the mussel production climbed to approximately 50 tonnes (a 225% increase i n one year), and the average price per pound was then about $0.76.  However, the industry's rapid growth was abruptly stopped by the 1987 domoic acid scare, i n Prince Edward Island.  The negative effect o f this episode was especially  felt i n Quebec where two people had died and close to 100 had become i l l from the toxic shellfish: mussel growers lost thousands o f dollars from unsold product, leading some growers to sell their operations.  B y 1989, the average price for mussels had fallen to  $0.56 per pound . Then followed a few harsh winters which, added to the unresolved 8  problem o f summer mortality o f mussel seeds and markets that had not recovered after 1987, resulted i n a significant decrease in the number o f shellfish aquaculture companies in Quebec.  In the Magdalen Islands, 4 growers filed for bankruptcy, 3 companies  merged, and one grower survived by himself. Thus, today only two mussel operations remain in the Islands.  In the 1990s, research at the station diversified.  W i t h the creation o f the  university program O P E N (Ocean Production Enhancement Network), and the new M A P A Q program called R E P E R E (REcherche sur le Petoncle a des fins d 'Elevage et de REpeuplement),  researchers  (Placopecten magellanicus)  intensified their  experimentation  with  Giant scallop  seed collecting and bottom enhancement techniques.  This  time, Japanese experts were invited to Quebec, as researchers and growers from Quebec went for a visit to Japan (Bastien, 1992). A s the biophysical feasibility o f scallop culture in Quebec had already been determined 8  - through research - i n other parts o f the  D F O Statistics, Agriculture Division, 2001.  35  province, the next objective was to find ways o f insuring seed supply. R E P E R E is still ongoing today, making it one o f the longest-running R & D programs in shellfish aquaculture.  Some o f the work on scallop culture was done through a partnership  between researchers from different organizations and an innovation-driven shellfish aquaculture company located on Quebec's Basse Cote-Nord.  Another collaboration, this  time between researchers at the Magdalen Islands' Station and the local scallop fishermen association, allowed great progress to be made in that field.  Today, there are two scallop  aquaculture operations i n the Islands, each working on different products (one grows them for the adductor muscle only, the other raises them to be marketed whole), with different techniques.  Other species are also being developed i n the Islands today: one company has been successfully growing American oysters, but is now facing difficulties due to the unreliable seed supply.  Another grower has been developing softshell clam (Mya  arenaria) culture with the help o f a biologist hired through the Societe de  Developpement  de I'Industrie Maricole ( S O D I M ) , a funding agency established by the M A P A Q i n 1997. Green urchins have also been grown experimentally, at different times i n the past 20 years.  A n important factor i n the development o f the shellfish aquaculture knowledge in the Magdalen Islands is undoubtedly the constant support o f the provincial Ministere de VAgriculture,  des Peches et de VAlimentation  ( M A P A Q ) since the 1970s. The Ministry  has provided not only funding (millions o f dollars over the past 20 years), but also  36  infrastructure for the sector to develop.  Its investments i n R & D and technological  transfer, as well as its constant efforts to involve the industry as w e l l as other organizations have lead to important advances and have contributed to make Quebec one o f the world leaders in the research and development o f shellfish aquaculture.  Prince Edward Island For the past 20 years, shellfish aquaculture has been a booming industry in Prince Edward Island (P.E.I.).  The commercial culture o f Blue mussels has been well  established since the early 1980s, and now American oysters, clams, and quahaugs are also being grown successfully. Today there are more than 120 shellfish aquaculture companies, with most o f the tenures located along the northern and eastern coasts o f the Island (Anonymous, 1998). Over the years, the industry has not only become an important source o f economic wealth for the province, but it also a significant source o f new knowledge for the entire country.  The culture o f shellfish in P.E.I, began in the early 1900s, with oyster farming: it is believed that the American oyster was one o f the first species in Canada to be subjected to attempts at cultivation (Anonymous, 1998).  However, difficulties i n obtaining high  and constant seed supply have made oyster aquaculture a most difficult activity.  To  remedy to this situation, the Canadian federal Department o f Fisheries and Oceans ( D F O ) set up, i n 1965, an experimental oyster hatchery at the Ellerslie Fisheries Station, and although the process o f artificially spawning oysters was shown to be feasible, its cost  37  was just too high to make it economically viable.  9  Thus growers had access to three  different methods o f obtaining seeds: 1) they could catch seeds on cultch (material serving as substrate) placed i n certain seed-producing areas; 2) they could purchase seeds from suppliers (mostly from Maine), or; 3) they can get a permit from D F O , giving them access to either public grounds or contaminated areas (contaminated seeds then were moved to a clean area for decontamination).  In 1973, after 80 years o f habitat deterioration and stock depletion due to over harvesting, the provincial government, in collaboration with both D F O and the P.E.I, oyster industry (fishery), put together an oyster enhancement program (Anonymous, 1998).  The program continued over the years, and was renewed, i n 2000, under the  Oyster Development Program. Continued efforts have paid-off. Today, oyster beds are healthy, seeds are abundant, and production has gone up 200% since the 1970s. This has had not only favoured the oyster fishery, but also the aquaculture industry, as more and more lease holders are turning to oyster culture to increase their production. Today, advances in hatchery techniques have made seeds more accessible, and more affordable than i n the past.  Two main techniques for growing oysters were developed over the years: bottom culture, which was the oldest one and is still broadly used, and off-bottom culture, which was a technique originally imported from Europe, but slowly adapted to P.E.I, conditions. Although it requires more manipulations, off-bottom or suspension culture (with the use o f rafts, buoyed long-lines, or fences) was shown to accelerate growth, improve the 9  D F O - Underwater World website.  38  quality o f the meat, and decrease losses to predation.  10  In 1995, the Department o f  Fisheries, Aquaculture and Environment (provincial) began testing the 'rack and bag system', which had been developed in France. Plastic mesh bags were attached to rebar racks placed in the intertidal zone (Anonymous, 1998). This system not only reduced predation (the bags making it harder for crabs, seastars and birds to reach the oysters), it also greatly inhibited the fouling process (due to the regular exposure to air and sun). However, the rebar racks were heavy, impractical and expensive for the growers who soon replaced them, first by aluminium, and then by rope. Today, facing a production cycle o f 4 to 6 years and competing with the still strong local fishery - as w e l l as with oyster producers from the west coast and the United States - the oyster aquaculture industry in P.E.I, remains in its developmental phase.  O n the other hand, the culture o f Blue mussels has been a fast growing industry i n P.E.I., and is now the second most important 'fishery' on the Island, with an export value o f more than $23 million i n 2001.  11  Mussel aquaculture began i n the 1970s, with a  Belgian-born tobacco grower named Joe V a n den Bremt. W i t h the collaboration o f the Department o f Fisheries and Environment, he set out to find a way to produce mussels with a higher quality than the w i l d ones, and that could be harvested year-around, since it is i n the winter that mussel flesh reaches its best quality, and also that the demand for this product is at its highest. Because so little was known back then about mussel culture, V a n den Bremt, accompanied by other growers, went to visit a few operations in Europe. One idea they brought back was the 'raft system', where mussels were grown suspended  10  11  DFO - Underwater World website. DFO Statistics, Agriculture Division, 2001.  39  under a series o f rafts.  However this experiment failed, with the ice eventually  dismantling the rafts (Anonymous, 1998).  Then followed a series o f trials and errors, where V a n den Bremt and other growers, such as the Dockendorffs and Fortunes, experimented with various methods o f suspension systems.  A Norwegian system o f mesh stockings, known as 'socks', was  eventually adopted: the socks were filled with spats (juveniles) and attached aluminium piping, which were attached to buoys.  to  Later, the aluminium piping was  replaced by a 300-foot buoyed rope, with suspended socks or seed collectors at about 3 . feet interval: this was the beginning o f the rope-cultured mussel industry.  Another important step for the mussel industry was the development o f winter harvesting technology, a collaborative effort between growers, the Department o f Fisheries, Aquaculture and Environment ( D F A E ) and D F O .  The capability to harvest in  the late-winter/early-spring period, when meat yield is the highest for mussels, gave Island growers a competitive advantage on world markets (Anonymous, 1998). During the following decade, production more than tripled.  Greatly contributing to the  advancement o f the industry was the development o f a unique holding system, invented in the late 1970s by Brian Fortune (one o f the biggest grower/processor on the Island), with the assistance o f D F O .  Each tank in the system can hold up to 500 pounds o f  mussels for as long as two weeks, ensuring consistent supply to the market (even during the months when the ice is too thin to harvest), but also enhancing the quality o f the product, by providing the mussels with a self-cleaning period. U n t i l recently, mussels  40  were sold fresh only, however new packaging techniques (developed by the Island processors, i n collaboration with the Food Technology Centre and the D F A E ) now allows the distribution o f a pre-cooked frozen product.  To assist growers in predicting when it was the best time to put their seed collectors in the water, and also to monitor and gain knowledge on issues such as water quality and toxic blooms, the Department o f Fisheries, Aquaculture and Environment began a monitoring program.  Unfortunately, these preventive measures could not  prevent the disastrous events o f December 1987, when a mysterious toxin i n P.E.I, mussels shut down the entire Atlantic shellfish aquaculture industry for approximately two months. A team o f about 50 scientists from various organizations in P.E.I, and other maritime provinces worked around the clock to establish the identity o f the unknown toxin. Finally, a professor from the University o f P.E.I, discovered that it was a diatom producing domoic acid that had rendered the mussels toxic (Day, 1989).  In 1996, the  Shellfish Monitoring Program was restructured to allow the province and D F O to cooperate for more efficiency (Anonymous, 1998). To date, the program is still ongoing and the information collected is made available to the growers, by area, through a voice mail system.  Although diversification is occurring, Blue mussels, under the brand name o f Island Blue, remain the main aquaculture product being grown i n P E L In fact, 80% o f the mussels consumed nation-wide are Island mussels.  Today, there are approximately  100 mussel growers sharing 10,000 acres for mussel culture, and employing 650 full-time  41  and part-time workers (Anonymous, 1998).  This sector is well organized, with  representatives in each bay or river system, and a strong industry organization, i.e. the P.E.I. Aquaculture Alliance.  From 1995 to 1998 Holland College in Charlottetown provided an Aquaculture Technology Program at the Ellerslie Fisheries Station.  Today the Station is still in  operation as the only hatchery on the Island, and is now producing mostly bar clam, bay scallop and quahaugs seed (Anonymous, 1998). The only remaining institution providing education in aquaculture today is the Canadian Aquaculture Institute of the University of P.E.I., specializing solely in the field of animal health.  Since 1999, a unique cooperation has been established in P.E.I, between the industry, the provincial government and DFO: the Aquaculture Management Board was created to deal with issues such as policy, financing, marketing and R&D. Although P.E.I, does not have a federal research station (the Ellerslie Station being no longer owned by DFO), a biologist from Moncton (New Brunswick) makes regular visits to assist in various projects.  The Aquaculture and Fisheries Division of the provincial  Department of Fisheries, Aquaculture and Environment is the main scientific and technological source of knowledge on the Island, with 3 biologists and 5 technicians. In recent years it has created the Aquaculture and Fisheries Research Initiative Inc. (AFRI), an R&D company that focuses on short-term, problem-oriented projects, while fostering partnerships between research agencies and industry. It encompassing two important aquaculture programs: the Aquaculture Research Program,  and the Processing  Research  42  Partners Program.  Both provide partial funding for research projects initiated by the  industry, private businesses, educational institutions, or provincial agencies, for the 10  purpose of enhancing production, and/or improving processing.  The Department also  publishes a monthly fact sheet, the Aqualnfo, which provides information to the growers regarding the various studies conducted by researchers from the Department, the Atlantic Veterinary College (UPEI), and DFO in Moncton, N.B. Vancouver Island, British  Columbia  Oysters have been farmed in British Columbia since the 1920s, when Pacific oysters were imported from Japan and Washington State to rebuild depleted natural stocks (Quayle, 1988). Oyster culture in those days consisted of enhancing beach leases with the imported young oysters, and waiting for the product to grow for several years before harvesting what had survived (this technique is still used today by some of the 'smaller' growers in B.C., and is referred to as bottom culture).  B y the end of the 50s,  the introduced species had already bred successfully in many parts of the province, eliminating the need to import seed, but more importantly, increasing what were now considered 'wild' stocks in such a significant way that growers began to see the potential for developing the industry more aggressively (Quayle, 1988).  Through the late 70s and early 80s, growers experimented with different seed collecting methods. Traditionally, the use of cultch (or setting material) was the most popular technique. Oyster shells (mostly collected from chucking plants) and other types  P.E.I. Aquaculture and Fisheries Research Initiative. Pamphlet, Department of Fisheries and Environment: Charlottetown. 12  43  o f cultch (cement-dipped, wood veneer rings, French pipes or Chinese hats) were spread on beaches or suspended from rafts in seed collecting areas such as Pendrell Sound, which had been designated a Shellfish Reserve. A spatfall (setting) forecasting program, with stations i n different areas, was put i n place in the 1950s by the province - and consequently run by the Pacific Biological Station, the Marine Resources Branch, and finally passed on to contractors - to allow the growers to know when it was the best time to put the cultch i n the water, thus avoiding excessive fouling (Quayle, 1988).  Growers also experimented with various methods o f culture, mostly adapted from methods used i n other parts o f the world: stake culture, rack and stick culture, string culture, and tray culture were all off-bottom, semi-intensive methods o f production (in contrast to the more intensive raft culture method broadly used today).  However, the  greatest difficulty  stocks varied  remained seed supply, for breeding o f the w i l d  significantly from one year to another.  This situation was to change in the late 1970s,  with the introduction o f remote setting methods i n B . C . , by Gordon and Bruce Jones o f Innovative Aquaculture Products Ltd.  The two growers - with no scientific background,  but a lot o f ingenuity - adapted hatchery techniques based on the work done by growers in the Untied States and other countries since the 20s, and began to sell seed out o f the first oyster hatchery in B C , on Lasqueti Island (Pirquet, 1989).  They also wrote two  extensive reports on the remote setting o f hatchery-produced oyster larvae, which were published by the provincial government for the industry.  44  This was an important step i n the development o f the industry, introducing a whole different field o f knowledge for growers i n British Columbia, and giving them more control over a phase o f production which, until then, had been mostly i n the hands o f nature, o f the scientists, or o f the foreign seed producers.  B y the mid-80s, many  growers use would use remote setting methods to reduce the costs o f seed (buying only small bags o f larvae instead o f cases o f clutched seed) and increase the quality o f their product.  However, the overall results were not constant: because there were no real  standardized methods, many growers had only poor success (Roland and Broadley, 1990). To remedy this situation, in 1987 a remote setting facility was established (by the Ministry o f Agriculture and Fisheries) i n the Saanich Inlet, and a series o f experiments were carried out i n order to determine the specific guidelines for remote setting o f oysters. This project was a collaborative effort involving growers and scientists from the University o f Victoria, form D F O and diverse provincial agencies, as well as from two B . C . consultancy firms.  Around that same period, growers and scientists intensified their efforts to improve control over the many other factors influencing production (such as survival rate, growth rate, meat quality, predation, etc) and they also began to explore the possibilities for growing other species. A n important player i n the development o f the shellfish aquaculture knowledge in B . C . during the 60s, 70s and 80s, was D r . Dan Quayle, working on oyster culture with the Marine Resource Branch ( B C Environment Ministry) and later on with the Department o f Fisheries and Oceans ( D F O ) at the Pacific Biological Station (PBS). Quayle's work on the biology and the culture o f the Pacific  45  oyster was extensively published: one o f these publications was the first comprehensive 'Guide to Oyster Farming' i n B C (Quayle and Smith, 1976). In 1988, he wrote: 'Pacific Oyster Culture i n British Columbia', a legacy to the scientific community, but also to the industry o f all the knowledge produced and accumulated over his long career.  Another important source o f knowledge i n shellfish aquaculture was Dr. N e i l Bourne, who was head o f clam and scallop research, at P B S during the 1980s. Bourne investigated the feasibility o f growing Japanese scallops (already grown very successfully *  13  in Japan) i n British Columbia.  The research was a joint project between P B S and the  Marine Resource Branch, in collaboration with an aquaculture centre i n Japan. A small experimental hatchery was built to develop artificial spawning and feeding techniques.  A s the demand for M a n i l a clams increased, in the m i d 1980s, growers began to experiment with this species. Innovative Aquaculture Products and Redonda Sea Farms were also key players i n developing clam hatchery and nursery techniques (Jones et al. 1993). N o r m Gibbons (Redonda Sea Farms Ltd) was also one o f the first growers i n B . C . to experiment with mussel culture.  Based on the knowledge from the East coast  (Maritimes and Maine), he worked on determining the feasibility o f growing Blue mussels in B . C . , from the early 80s.  In 1985, he published a report with details on  fouling, predation, seed collection, site selection, growth, yield, equipment, methods used, processing and marketing (Gibbons, 1985).  'Import seeds B.C. scallop fishery', by M . Farrow, in The Vancouver Sun, March, 28 , 1983: A 2 .  46  Today the industry is composed o f approximately 250 companies, producing about 8, 320 tonnes o f shellfish (6, 800 o f which are oysters), for an estimated value o f $15, 700, 0 0 0 .  14  The majority o f the industry's development has occurred in Baynes  Sound, Desolation Sound as well as on the Sunshine Coast.  However, with the B . C .  Assets and Land's mandate to double the amount o f available water for shellfish aquaculture, new regions are now being considered. The Pacific oyster and the M a n i l a clam remain the principal shellfish aquaculture species grown i n the province. However the production o f Japanese scallops and Blue mussels are slowly increasing, and new species, such as geoducks and Pinto abalones, are also being explored for culture purposes.  M a n y o f the knowledge producers o f the 60s, 70s and early 80s (both growers and scientists) have now retired, leaving a gap that remains to be filled.  Indeed, the  production rate o f shellfish aquaculture knowledge i n government agencies seemed to have significantly decreased over the past decade G d g e d by the number o f related u  publications for that period and the present number o f scientists working i n that field). The Pacific Biological Station does some research on shellfish diseases: the information is posted on the D F O website. A l s o , a National Aquatic A n i m a l Health Program is being developed and could potentially help growers with the important problems related to seed transfer, and product import/export.  A t the provincial level, B C Fisheries has one  biologist and a few technicians working on a few studies, but contracting from D F O , universities and consultancy firms to do analysis (for they do not have their own laboratories). The Science Council o f B C has been particularly active, i n the past decade, 14  Statistics Canada (2001).  47  in mobilizing and coordinating Shellfish Aquaculture R&D capacities within the province, with initiatives such as the BC Aquaculture R&D Steering Committee (2001), and the new Aquaculture  and Environment Research Fund Program  (Aqua E-Fund),  which supports research on environmental issues.  In the case of educational institutions, little seems to be going on, except for Malaspina, in Nanaimo: the college has been giving shellfish aquaculture courses for the past 20 years (collaborating with several growers to provide students with some field experience), and is now considerably developing its research capacity with the creation of a Centre for Shellfish Research. The Centre is a partnership with the B.C. Shellfish Growers Association and aims primarily at attracting more scientists (national and international) to work on British Columbia shellfish aquaculture issues. Some research projects have been initiated, in collaboration with DFO, AquaNet, the University of British Columbia Centre for Aquaculture and Environment, and industry partners, but with limited capacities only, since the Centre's research facilities are yet to be built.  Thus it seems that much of the shellfish aquaculture R&D in British Columbia continues to occur in the industry sector, through the efforts of innovation-driven companies  (such as Fanny Bay Oysters, Odyssey Shellfish and Island Scallops) and  consultancy firms (e.g. Kinzett Professional Services and I.E.C. Collaborative Marine Research and Development), often with the financial support of federal and provincial governments.  48  3.2 - Tracking Knowledge The account given in this chapter of the development of shellfish aquaculture knowledge in each study region is based mainly on the information found in various publications. However, it is important to consider that a lot of the knowledge existing today was produced by shellfish growers and was never published. A good part of this knowledge, I assume, was transferred from one grower to another, or from growers to scientists through interactions, and became part of the 'common' stock of shellfish aquaculture knowledge. Tracking back the origin of this knowledge would therefore be a difficult task and is well beyond the scope of this research.  49  CHAPTER IV - APPROACH AND METHODS  4.1 - Research A p p r o a c h W e have seen, i n chapter I, that the growing economic, social and environmental pressures, and the importance accorded to sustainable resources development call for a new approach to innovation: one that increasingly seeks cooperation between the public and private sectors. Although intersectoral collaboration presents itself as a valid strategy to improve the production and diffusion o f knowledge, it also holds significant challenges for the actors involved.  A s it is the case for any kind o f collaboration process, there are  factors that foster this process, and factors that hinder it. The main purpose o f this study is to identify some o f the factors that may affect collaboration between members o f industry and scientists, by using shellfish aquaculture i n Canada as a case study.  Because these factors are most likely varied i n nature, the challenge with such an endeavour was to find an approach (or a combination o f approaches) that allowed for an investigation o f the different realms involved i n intersectoral collaboration (i.e. the structural, cultural and relational realms).  The approach used by Huijsman and  Budelman (1996), i n their study o f agricultural R & D , was chosen for its relevance to the objectives o f this study. First, it takes the 'social actor perspective', where the production and adoption o f knowledge are seen as "part o f a broad social process, which may be encouraged or impeded by what happens among the actors in the process" (1996:10). It also looks at knowledge as a 'system': " A knowledge systems perspective looks not only at 'users' o f information but also at the way knowledge is created.  Moreover, the  knowledge system can be examined and the integration o f its components can be pursued  50  to improve its functioning." (1996: 15). This approach, Huijsman and Budelman explain, acknowledges the need to "understand the processes involved in the generation and application o f knowledge, along with key factors like the presence or absence o f linking mechanisms among stakeholders - including researchers . . . " (1996: 15)  Therefore, this study approaches shellfish aquaculture knowledge as a system, with components (the actors) that each has a function within the system. Additionally, this system is part o f broader social context where the actors (in our case, shellfish growers and aquaculture scientists) and interactions among them are considered the key factors i n the production, transfer and absorption o f knowledge.  The main goal o f this  research is thus to investigate some o f the social processes by which shellfish aquaculture knowledge is produced, diffused and absorbed by growers and scientists, in order to identify the structural, cultural and relational factors that affect the way each group deals with knowledge, as well as the way they interact when producing and exchanging knowledge together.  Because it was assumed that the results o f this exploratory research would greatly vary depending on the socioeconomic and political context i n which the industry has developed, a comparative analysis o f three different study areas across Canada was chosen as the best way to capture the diversity o f existing situations.  The research is  based on a series o f 31 interviews with a number o f growers and scientists i n each study region. U s i n g essentially qualitative methods, the study draws from the experiences and perspectives o f the participants to determine how shellfish aquaculture knowledge is  51  produced, diffused and validated, and to explain the current state o f the relationships between growers and scientists. In order to focus the research a little more, a 'template analysis' approach, which Nigel K i n g (1998) describes as the middle ground between content analysis and grounded theory, was used to create the interview schedules. In this approach, some o f the themes are defined a priori, but there is also some degree o f flexibility, allowing for other themes to emerge through the study.  A template (series o f  pre-determined codes) is developed and used to generate and analyse the data.  In this  study, the initial template was created based on the background research (see below).  3.2 - D a t a Collection Background  research  The first step i n this research was a review o f various documents relating to the history and the present state o f the shellfish aquaculture industry across Canada. B y going through newspaper articles (for British Columbia only), aquaculture magazines (such as Northern Aquaculture  and Canadian Aquaculture),  governmental publications,  and information available on the Internet, it became clear that the provinces o f P.E.I, and B . C . - each with its own particular history - were the two most important loci for shellfish aquaculture knowledge.  During the summer 2001, I conducted a few  informal,  preliminary interviews with several growers and scientists i n each province, providing me with an overview o f some o f the issues regarding industry-science relationships. A l s o , quite by chance, I had the opportunity o f meeting and interviewing the director o f the Station  Technologique  Maricole  des Iles-de-la-Madeleine  (Qc), during his visit to  52  Vancouver, i n the summer o f 2001.  The unique context i n which the industry had  developed presented a very interesting third study area for this research.  Study Areas Three study areas were thus chosen: the Magdalen Islands (Qc), Prince Edward Island (P.E.I.) and Vancouver Island (B.C.).  The Magdalen Islands are composed o f a  dozen islands located i n the G u l f o f St-Lawrence, approximately 140 miles from the Gaspe peninsula and 5 hours by boat from P.E.I, (see Figure 3). Fisheries have played an important role in the Madelinots' history, and remain today a basic cultural and economic aspect o f their l i v e s . Tourism and the salt mines are also two important employers on 15  the Islands.  Figure 3 The Magdalen Islands, Quebec.  15  www. ilesdelamadeleine.com. 53  The shellfish aquaculture sector is composed o f six companies (two growing mussels, two scallops, one soft-shell clams, and one oysters), one processor (which is mainly a finfish processing plant) and a provincial government research station, which employs six biologists (one is actually employed by another organization, but works at the Station), as well as nine technicians and support staff.  Although the industry remains  relatively small, the fact that the research station was established in the Islands before the industry, and that the scientists and growers live in such a tight community makes this region an interesting and unique study area.  O n Prince Edward Island, agriculture is the main industry, followed by tourism (the fastest growing industry, with more than one m i l l i o n visitors each year), and fisheries (cod, herring, tuna, and lobster). Although it is the smallest province in Canada, the Island is the largest producer o f cultured shellfish in the country (approximately 20,000t/year or almost 59% o f the Canadian production).  16  Comprising more than 120  companies, six processing plants, equipment designers and manufacturers, distributors ands retailers, as w e l l as related governmental agencies, the shellfish aquaculture sector in P.E.I, is an important one, economically and socially.  The unique collaborative  structure between D F O , the province and the industry (see Chapter HI) makes this region a particularly interesting one to study i n terms o f how shellfish aquaculture knowledge was/is produced and diffused within the sector.  The eastern part o f the Island (from  Tracadie Bay, on the north coast, to Orwell Cove, on the south coast)  was chosen as a  sampling area for the growers, because it is where the industry has mostly developed, and also for practical reasons such as time restrictions and transportation (see Figure 4). 16  Statistic Canada, Agriculture Division, 2001.  54  Figure 4  Study area on Prince Edward Island.  Vancouver Island, in British Columbia, is often associated with salmon spawning streams, old-growth forests and great tourist attractions. However, the collapse o f salmon fisheries and the closing o f many lumber companies and paper mills i n the past decade have made life increasingly difficult for Island residents.  T o remedy, i n part, this  situation, the provincial government has put efforts into helping the islanders develop other sectors. Shellfish aquaculture has been a growing industry on Vancouver Island for the past 20 years, and with the B . C . Assets and Land's new mandate to double the amount o f available area for the industry by 2008, this sector is expected to expand significantly in the next decade.  The sector comprises more than 250 companies;  mostly small operations growing small quantities o f oysters. The sampling area chosen encompasses the Baynes Sound and Desolation Sound regions (see Figure 5), which accounts for more than half the total shellfish production i n B . C .  17  British Columbia Western Economic Diversification Report, Cooper & Lybrand Consulting, 1997.  55  Figure 5 Study area on Vancouver Island.  Sampling A s explained i n chapter U l , shellfish growers come from a wide variety o f backgrounds and they operate in different contexts: the same can be said about aquaculture scientists. Because I knew my sample for each sector would be limited (due mostly to time constraints), I opted for a targeted or 'purposeful' sampling to insure that I would a get participants who would represent the variety i n each sector (Daymon and Holloway, 2002). Since there were only six growers and six scientists i n the Magdalen Islands, I decided that six informants in each sector would also be selected for the two other study areas, for a total o f 18 growers and 18 scientists. Participants were selected according to various criteria.  For shellfish growers, it was determined that owners and managers o f shellfish aquaculture companies would be the best informants for the study. T w o o f the managers were also biologists doing a fair amount o f research for their companies, however, they  56  were still classified as 'growers' since they were mainly managing the operations, i.e. mainly responsible for production, and not R & D per se.  During m y background  research, some o f the 'bigger' and 'smaller' growers on each coast, as well as some o f the pioneers, and some o f the growers that had participated i n collaborative R & D projects with scientists were identified. The main sampling parameters for the growers were to have at least one ' b i g ' producer, a 'small' one, one who had collaborated with scientists, and one who had not for each study area.  Finally, I also wanted to have at least one  grower with a university education, and one with a high school education only, i n each study region. O f course, since there were only six growers i n the Magdalen Islands, I did not intend to apply these parameters, however the informants did fall into the various categories. In P.E.I, and B . C . , the participants also had to be operating within the preselected sampling areas, and a few informants i n each study area were selected i n a more random and opportunistic manner. A l l the selected growers agreed to an interview, and 17 were eventually interviewed: one o f the growers i n the Magdalen Islands being away on a vacation (see Table 1). Although there are a few female growers i n Canada, the participants i n this study were all male.  Table 1 Number o f growers sampled in each study region. Magdalen Islands  Prince Edward Island  Vancouver Island  5  6  6  For the science sector, the only parameters were that the scientists be working as biologists (not technicians) in a field related to shellfish aquaculture, and representing the  57  diversity o f organizations where  scientific knowledge is produced  (governments,  educational institutions, consultancy firms). Industry scientists would have been included in the sample, however I found none that were primarily doing science within the industry.  A l l six shellfish aquaculture scientists i n the Magdalen Islands agreed to an  interview.  In Prince Edward Island, there are only five scientists working in shellfish  culture-related projects: two working for the provincial government, two for the university, and one scientist who actually works for D F O i n Moncton (N.B.), but does regular visits to P.E.I, to assist i n various projects.  O f these five scientists, three were  interviewed (one university professor was on vacation, and the D F O biologist was in Moncton at the time I was conducting interviews i n P.E.I.).  In the case o f Vancouver  Island, there are, again, only half a dozen scientists at the most that fall within the selection criteria mentioned above, four o f whom participated i n the study.  Therefore, a  total o f 13 scientists were interviewed (Table 2).  Table 2 Typology o f the scientists' sample. Federal Agency  Provincial Agency  Educational Institution  Private F i r m / Consultant  1  9  2  1  Interviews The majority o f the participants were first contacted through an introductory letter or email, which was then followed by a phone call to confirm whether or not they wished to participate (in a few cases, however, the participants were first contacted by phone). Only two growers contacted refused to participate i n the study. The one-to-one  58  interviews were conducted in person, during the period from July to November, 2002, either i n the participants' offices or homes, or in public places. A t the beginning o f each interview, the participants were informed that their identity would remain confidential, and also that, to insure confidentiality, the data collected would be presented i n aggregate.  A t the end o f the interviews, informants were asked i f they would agree to  sign a consent form, written in accordance with the ethics policy o f the University o f British Columbia. A l l agreed to sign.  The interviews lasted between one to three hours, averaging one and a half hours. Twenty-seven o f the thirty-one interviews were tape-recorded, and subsequently fully transcribed (verbatim).  Two o f the participants did not feel comfortable with the  recorder, thus only written notes were taken. T w o other interviews occurred in places simply too noisy to use the recorder, so written notes were also taken.  This study being  part o f a bigger research project, the interviews with French participants were translated to E n g l i s h .  18  I opted for semi-structured interviews to explore the research questions, because this method o f data collection provides a great deal o f social context, which helps in producing better understanding o f the participants' perspectives (Daymon and Halloway, 2002).  This method also provides more flexibility, which allowed me to further probe  some interesting information or comments i f I wished, while giving the participants more freedom^ to elaborate on certain issues that were particularly important to them. Although I tried to translate these interviews as precisely as possible, in terms of vocabulary and meaning, as in any translation, some degree of interpretation may have occurred. That is why the quotes used to illustrate some of the issues discussed in this research were left in French. 18  59  Additionally, because I was looking to see i f there were any 'cultural' differences between growers and scientists, the interviews offered some important data, such as occupational jargon, spontaneous reactions, and other meaningful information providing extra clues on the participants' working 'world' (Daymon and Halloway, 2002).  Two interview schedules were developed: one for the growers, and another (a variatiant o f the first one) for the scientists. A series o f about 40 questions was originally developed, based partly on some o f the literature on the nature o f each sector (science and industry), as well as on the phenomenon o f intersectorial R & D , and partly on the material collected during the background research and preliminary interviews.  This research  being developmental in nature, the interview schedules were slightly modified after the first few interviews: some less relevant questions were dropped, and a few new ones were added. These modifications came mostly from issues and comments brought up by the first participants interviewed, and were made to insure that important issues, not addressed in the original schedules, were consequently discussed. A l l o f the questions were open-ended, except for about half a dozen formulated as fix choice questions to provide an easier and more quantitative base o f comparison for the analysis.  These  questions were put on an 'information sheet' that was filled for each o f the 31 informants: again, there were two variations o f the information sheet, one for growers and one for scientists (see Appendix 1).  The schedules can be divided i n four major sections: 1) work life; 2) perspectives on knowledge and the other sector; 3) state o f growers-scientists relationships and  60  knowledge networks; 4) perspectives on collaboration.  In the first section, each  participant was asked to talk about his/her background and occupation (nature of the work, motivations, goals, etc). In the second section, the focus is on how the informant perceives the people working in the other sector, and what he or she expects of them. The third section has for objective to define the state of the relationships between growers and scientists (frequency, purpose and quality or the interactions, issues of trust, etc). Finally, the last section encourages the informant to reflect upon the phenomenon of collaboration with members of the other sector, allowing him/her to express his/her opinion on what are/could be the advantages and disadvantages of collaboration, on whether or not it should be fostered by government, on what he/she believes the key factors are for successful collaboration, etc.  Because I let the participants control the interviews (to a certain degree), allowing them to 'tell their stories' without too many interruptions on my part, not all the questions were asked during each interview. However, overall, I always made sure that most questions were discussed, without abusing the participants' time. The great majority of the informants appeared to be comfortable talking about their knowledge and their thoughts. Additional documentation (articles from local newspapers, various reports and video tapes) was also offered to me by some of the participants. Many participants showed an interest in the research, and I therefore offered to send them a summary report, once the study was completed.  61  4.3 - Data Analysis As in most qualitative researches, the analysis of the data in this study was done throughout the different stages of the study: it began with the background research and ended as I wrote the last sentence in Chapter VIII.  I initiated this research with the  concept of occupational cultures clearly in mind, but also looking for other theoretical ideas that could help me understand how shellfish aquaculture knowledge was produced, diffused and absorbed by each sector, and explain how industry-science relationships were formed in each study area.  During the interviews on Prince Edward Island, I observed an interesting phenomenon with the growers, a certain connectivity and structure in knowledge relationships that I had not expected.  Thus, I went back to the literature and began  reading more about the networks theory and knowledge networks.  I soon realized that an  interesting comparison could be made between the knowledge networks mapped in the Magdalen Islands, P.E.I, and B.C.  Therefore, the data from all three study areas were  reviewed, once more, to allow the comparison of their respective networks of knowledge relationships.  Because the transcription of the tapes was done continuously, I was able to easily compare the data coming from the different participants: notes and thoughts were recorded for further analysis, and so were interesting quotes. This preliminary analysis revealed some significant patterns developing; patterns that supported the concept of important culture differences between growers and scientists.  Any data that could not be  62  classified as 'cultural' factors were tentatively organized i n terms o f either 'structural' factors, or 'relational' factors. This categorization (cultural, structural and relational) has often been used i n the social sciences to explain the factors that come to play in such social phenomena as relationships, communication and knowledge production (Choo and Bontis, 2002). A series o f codes was then developed for each category, however not all the data were coded, for some o f the evidence required a more 'contextual' analysis. The data collected on the 31 information sheets were analyzed and summarized, using descriptive statistics for an easier comparison.  Thus, two levels o f comparison were produced for this study: first, a comparison o f the commonalities and differences between shellfish growers and scientists, across all three study areas and; second, a comparison o f the types o f interactions (nature, frequency, etc) that exist between the two sectors in each study area, as well as o f the networks o f relationships observed.  4.4 - Data Validity and Research Limitations Although the sample size is relatively small, I am confident that the informants selected well represent the populations (growers and scientists) i n each sector o f shellfish aquaculture.  According to Daymon and Holloway (2002), most qualitative studies have  a sample size o f between four and 40 data units, allowing for a more in-depth exploration o f the phenomenon studied. They go on to explain that: 'Smaller samples are acceptable as long as saturation occurs, i.e. when no new data emerge that are important for the study o f the developing theory' (2002:163).  Saturation, i n this study, was reached  63  relatively early, with strong patterns emerging after only a few interviews, and being reinforced with every subsequent interview. The fact that each interview was recorded and transcribed verbatim allowed a degree of authenticity in the data collection that would have not been achieved, had only written notes been taken. Also, it allowed supporting the arguments in this study with rich and precise quotes.  With this type of research, where the informants are asked to give their opinions and perceptions on certain issues, it is important to consider that their answer may be influenced by: a) the manner in which the question is asked; b) the state of mind the informants are in at the time of the interview, or; c) the particular agenda they may have. For example, some of the growers were dissatisfied with a particular governmental agency and perceived my research as an opportunity to express and possibly to have me convey their discontent.  In the same manner, some scientists may have felt that  expressing something negative about their relationships with the growers would be perceived as a failure on their part. This problem, however, was limited by the fact that the interview schedule had questions that explored both the potential positive and negative aspects of industry-science relationships, inciting the informants to present both sides of the story, instead of just the one they wished me to see.  This study is essentially exploratory: its broad focus and small sample size did not allow for any in-depth analysis. However, the findings that have ensued are significant in that they reveal some of the social processes that frame the way shellfish growers and aquaculture scientists across Canada are dealing with knowledge, as well as the way they  64  interact with one another.  Additionally, the results point to possible areas for further  studies and improvements.  65  CHAPTER V - OCCUPATIONAL CULTURES AND KNOWLEDGE PARADIGMS  "In science, the goal is public knowledge, and those whose contributions to knowledge are accepted are rewarded by recognition, esteem, and honours. The goal of the economic system is the production of marketable goods and the rewards are above all monetary." Cotgrove and Box, 1970  It has been argued that, i n the past decades, there have been two emerging phenomena (observed across many sectors, and i n various countries) affecting the way government, industry and science treat knowledge.  The first one is the growing  importance given to the management of knowledge processes: organizations (private and public) are reassessing their capacities to produce, transfer and absorb knowledge, in order to raise their level o f efficiency and maximize the benefits o f knowledge (Choo and Bontis, 2002; Little et al., 2002). The second phenomenon is the increase i n intersectoral collaboration.  Collaborative R & D , in particular, appears to have become one o f  government's favourite strategies in its effort to improve innovation capacities and knowledge flows (Fusfeld, 1994; Godin, 1999).  W e have seen, in the Chapter i n , how the industry and the science sector o f shellfish aquaculture have developed i n Canada, adapting 'foreign' knowledge to local conditions, and generating new knowledge o f their own. W e have also seen that shellfish aquaculture is a growing industry; one presenting great economic potential, but also facing important challenges and raising a number o f questions regarding its sustainability. To address these challenges and questions, various initiatives have been developed in  66  recent years.  A s mentioned, one strategy increasingly used by both the provincial and  federal levels o f government has been the promotion o f cooperation between shellfish growers and aquaculture scientists, by creating programs that strongly encourage the two sectors to form partnerships i n R & D .  However, the potential difficulty with such a  strategy (as with any collaboration situation) is that there can be important differences between the two parties involved: these differences may lead to conflicts and, i n turn, have significant impacts on the process o f collaboration itself, as w e l l as on its products. Thus, it is important to understand  the factors that may affect  industry-science  relationships, so that they may be considered when developing R & D programs and carrying out collaborative projects.  In the following chapter, I w i l l demonstrate that there are indeed significant differences  between  shellfish  growers  and aquaculture  scientists, and that these  differences do influence the way that each group deals with knowledge, as well as how they interact with one another. I w i l l argue that these differences are mostly 'cultural' i n nature, as. many o f them originate from each group's occupational culture (see chapter U). Thus, I w i l l show that shellfish growers and aquaculture scientists are embedded i n two distinct cultures, and that what Trice (1993) calls the 'consciousness o f k i n d ' , is very much present among shellfish growers, as well as among aquaculture scientist. Finally, I w i l l demonstrate that associated with each culture there is a distinct knowledge paradigm that plays an important role i n the framing o f knowledge i n each sector.  67  5.1 O c c u p a t i o n a l L i f e a n d C u l t u r e We have determined, in chapter H., that cultures consist o f shared values and norms, as well as i n the material goods produced by a group o f people (Giddens, 1993). They manifest themselves through ideologies and cultural forms.  W e have also  established that, through social interactions, a sense o f unity or 'we-ness' can be generated among the members o f an occupation (Trice, 1993).  In the following section, I examine the occupational lives o f shellfish growers and aquaculture scientists i n order to create a general portrait o f each sector, and highlight some o f the differences and commonalities between them.  Based on these findings, and  using mainly the arguments presented in the work o f Harrison Trice (1993), I w i l l demonstrate that there is a distinct occupational culture associated with shellfish growers, and another with aquaculture scientists. However, I w i l l also argue that the findings i n this particular case study indicate that the distinctiveness between the two cultures may not be as unambiguous as that presented i n the 'traditional' understanding o f science and industry (e.g. in the works o f Cotgrove and B o x , 1970; Kuhn, 1970; or Merton, 1942; 1973). Indeed, we w i l l see that there are many commonalities between the two sectors, making the boundaries between their cultures perhaps less clear than they were i n the past.  The occupational life of shellfish  growers  Altogether, 17 shellfish growers were interviewed. They represented some o f the diversity that can be found i n the Canadian shellfish aquaculture industry (i.e. big and  68  small producers, growers/processors, and producers o f various species). They were asked to talk about their education, their reasons for becoming growers, as w e l l as their motivations and goals regarding their work. The participants also provided some details regarding their operations (activities, markets, number o f employees), and the nature o f their work (changes, difficulties encountered, needs).  Nine o f the growers interviewed have a high school or college/ C E J E P diploma (see table 3); six have a bachelor's degree, and two have a post-graduate degree.  Three  also received specialized training i n aquaculture, through a university program. Growers in British Columbia presented a slightly higher level o f education than growers i n the other two provinces.  The average years o f experience per grower i n Prince Edward  Island and British Columbia are 18.5 and 16 years respectively: practically double that o f growers i n the Magdalen Islands (with an average o f 9.6 years per grower). This can be explained by the fact that the industry in Quebec is about a decade younger (see chapter IV). Interestingly, 11 o f the 17 growers have backgrounds as commercial fishermen (six o f whom have only a high-school education). This may be an important factor, since it  T a b l e 3 Level o f education and average years o f experience o f shellfish growers. Level of education  QC  PEI  BC  High school  3  3  1  Community college/ C E G E P  1  -  1  Bachelor's degree  -  3  3  Graduate degree  1  -  1  5  6  6  9.6  18.5  16  Total number of growers Average years as grower  69  has been argued that the sharing o f a similar background can contribute to bringing a sense o f unity among people (Giddens, 1993; Trice, 1993).  The great majority o f the shellfish growers interviewed mentioned that they had chosen this occupation primarily because it allows them to continue residing i n a particular place. One grower said: "So the motivation was to find something that would let us live here."  (Grower  interview #12) The Magdalen Islands, P.E.I, and Vancouver Island are three relatively isolated, and mainly rural regions o f Canada where work is not easily found.  According to the  growers, shellfish aquaculture in these regions is a good way to earn a living, or a good complementary source o f revenue to seasonal fisheries (especially in P.E.I.).  In all three  provinces, the growers interviewed were either born in the region, or (as it was particularly the case in B . C . ) they had moved to the region mainly because o f its attributes (such as 'remoteness' and 'coastal environment'): "Je suis ne et j ' a i grandi ici, et j'aime le style de vie que ce type de travail pouvait m'offrir." (Grower interview #4) [I was bom and raised in this place, and I liked the way of life that this type of work could offer me.] Another grower said: "It's a way to stay on the Island. It's part of a lifestyle choice in terms of being motivated to go to work: i f you don't like the view, then there's probably not enough reasons to be here!" (Grower interview #15)  70  Thus, in most cases, it appears that the growers have a sentimental attachment to the geographic region and/or the physical environment where they live and work.  Shellfish aquaculture, however, not only allows the growers to stay i n a particular location o f their choice, but it also provides them with a lifestyle that they enjoy (i.e. owning a business, working on/near the water, growing a product). Indeed, the majority of the informants identified 'lifestyle' as their principal motivation for being shellfish growers: "I love being but on the water and being your own boss. If you make a mistake, it's your fault, but you gain a lot out of it." (Grower interview #10) "I have a commercial fishing background and my whole family is a commercial fishing family: the water and the ocean are important. That's partly why I gave.up engineering: because I was living in downtown Vancouver and that just wasn't my style..." (Grower interview #17) H a l f o f the participants mentioned that 'seeing the product grow/ go out on the market' is a great source o f satisfaction. A small number o f growers said that 'solving problems/ seeing things work' is satisfying for them. Four informants (three i n P.E.I, and one i n B . C . ) identified 'money' as a source o f motivation.  Some o f the business goals  identified by the growers were: 'vertical integration', 'increasing production', 'creating jobs', and 'developing/ accessing new markets'. A small number o f growers i n P.E.I, and B . C . also mentioned: 'increasing the value o f the operation, i n order to sell it and retire'.  Three o f the growers interviewed i n P.E.I, and one i n B . C . process their own product, whereas the majority o f the other growers sell their product mostly to local  71  processors.  The majority o f the growers in this study (12 out o f 17) employ only  between two and six people, mostly on a seasonal base (these are considered the 'small' operations i n the industry). Three o f the growers (one i n each case study) employ more than six, but less than 50 people, and two others (one i n P.E.I, and one in B . C . ) each employ 50 or more employees (these are considered the ' b i g ' operations i n the industry).  Ten growers have identified 'mechanization' as a major change i n the nature o f their work, since they have started, and five mentioned that there is 'more knowledge/ more methods' today: "Before that, it was just a hit and miss operation. [...] People were experimenting, but nobody really had any process figured out. So the work has changed tremendously." (Grower interview #12) Only a few growers have diversified over the years (involving new knowledge about additional species).  In terms o f the difficulties faced by the growers i n their work, the  'access to seed supply' and/or the 'right to transfer seed between different bays' are problems that were identified by more than half the participants i n both the Magdalen Islands and i n P.E.I.  In B . C . , 'dealing with the bureaucracy' was identified as the major  obstacle for shellfish growers: "By far the major difficulty is responding to the needs of the bureaucracy: federal and provincial." (Grower interview #14) A small number o f growers in each region mentioned 'finding/ keeping reliable labour' as a constant challenge. Interestingly, informants in the Magdalen Islands and B . C . had a wide variety o f concerns (each grower naming a few), while i n P.E.I, each informant (except for the one oyster grower interviewed) would generally identify only one main  72  difficulty.  This seems to reflect the well-developed and relatively healthy state o f the  mussel industry i n that province.  Four o f the growers (two i n the Magdalen Islands and two i n P.E.I.) identified 'technical support/ technology transfer' as their main need to develop their business. In the Magdalen Islands, a small number o f growers also mentioned 'commercialization/ marketing' as an important need, whereas in P.E.I., 'stopping the bidding war among wholesalers' was mentioned by a small number o f informants.  In B . C . , the growers were  unanimous, identifying 'access to more water/ favourable policies' as the most important factor to allow their businesses (and the industry as a whole) to develop: "...there is really not a whole lot R & D funding can do for us. Y o u know, it's really putting the cart before the horse! Government is saying: ' O . K . you have to stay inside this box, but we would like to help you grow as much as you possibly can inside the box.' Well, we're telling the government that the box isn't big enough!" (Grower interview #14) Four o f the growers also mentioned that, i n the past, there were scientists providing good technical support and that today, this support is missing: '...there was another generation of people like Dan Quayle and Neil Bourne: they used their position and the capacity at their disposal, as federal scientists, to develop shellfish aquaculture.  Once those positions retired, nobody stepped in to take that further: the  technical assistance.' (Grower interview #13) It is important to acknowledge that none o f the participants mentioned 'more scientific research' as a need for the industry's prosperity.  One grower explained that, i n his  opinion, very little science is actually needed:  73  "In terms of farm practice, I don't think there is that much science to be done, other than the growers improving their own methods and testing new equipment: it's not rocket science out there!" (Grower interview #17)  The shellfish grower  culture  We have seen that there are many commonalities among shellfish growers, as well as some differences. 'shellfish grower culture'?  However, the question remains: Is there such a thing as a I have already defined 'culture' as consisting o f values,  norms and material goods common to a group o f people, and creating a sense o f unity among its members (Giddens, 1993).  In support o f the view that there is a 'shellfish growers' culture, we have already seen that the majority o f the growers do share a number o f similar values (or ideas about what is good or desirable): a 'remoteness/coastal lifestyle', 'independence/owning a business', and 'growing a product'. M a n y also value 'innovation' and 'making profits'. Although the interviews did not reveal much about the norms growers might follow, a small number o f participants did refer to some o f the things growers generally 'do' or 'do not'.  For example, one informant implied that growers normally keep an eye on their  neighbours' operations, and w i l l alert them i f anything suspicious is seen: "We will often call each other i f we see someone strange on the water or on the shore." (Grower interview #11) Another explained that there is a certain consensus among growers (at least, locally) in regards to what practices are acceptable or not:  74  "I'm not saying the industry are all saints either: some people do really dumb things too. But usually, we police it ourselves, and jump on the problems quickly."  (Grower  interview #12) Additionally, the growers i n P.E.I, and B . C . have recently produced and endorsed a Code of Practice to guide their behaviour: this shows that there are indeed certain norms that the growers abide by: "The industry developed a code of ethics and signed off on it that they would all abide by it, and they decided that that was good enough." (Grower interview #8) In terms o f the 'material goods' growers create, there are many. The modified boats designed for the industry appear to be especially meaningful to the shellfish growers. They appear to be perceived as the reflection o f the growers' efforts to improve the industry, but also the reflection o f their individual ingenuity, which gives them a sense o f pride. One grower said: "In 1993, I built the boat I have now. In five years my boat will probably need to be replaced.. .but it's like an old shoe: you don't want to throw it away! It has done a lot of work and it has a lot of work left in. There are pictures of it all over the world!" (Grower interview #11) In P.E.I., 'socking tables', 'de-clumpers', and 'three-feet chainsaws' (used in winter harvesting) are all objects produced by the mussel growers that are meaningful to them: " A l l the machinery that's here was basically invented here, or it was somebody's idea." (Grower interview #8) Similarly, in B . C . , 'floating rafts', ' F L U P S Y s ' , or 'bouncy-buckets' are material goods produced by the oyster growers and, I would argue, very much part o f their culture. One grower explained:  75  "Every fall, we started having a 'bouncy-bucket party': other growers would come over and bring their buckets, and we'd compare notes and ideas." (Grower interview #12) Beyond values, norms and material goods, Trice (1993) asserts that there are forces that 'facilitate group identity' and contribute to strengthening cultures (see chapter II). 'Social value i n tasks' is one o f the forces that seem to act upon the growers. Indeed, the 'production o f a food source' and the 'generation o f employment' are undoubtedly two tasks that are highly valued i n our society, and that, according to the participants, are a.common source o f pride for shellfish growers: "...en faisant un type de travail qui est valorisant.  Se nourire est l'une des choses  fondamentales de la vie, et se nourire avec un bon produit." (Grower interview #2)  [.. .by doing a type of work that is valuable. Feeding yourself is one of the fundamental things in life, and feeding yourself with a good product.] However, pride also comes from the work they have accomplished over the years; from a sense o f having built something.  In P.E.I., this pride seems to be a 'collective'  phenomenon among mussel growers, i n the sense that they mostly expressed their pride in terms o f the work they have accomplished as an industry,  and in terms o f the  reputation the Island Blue (the brand name under which P.E.I, mussels are marketed) products have gained across North America: "And for years, [wholesalers] have tried Newfoundland products, Nova Scotia's, New Brunswick's and Quebec's. And the consumers themselves decided for them that P.E.I, still got the best mussels!" (Grower interview #8) This most likely strengthens their sense o f unity.  O n the other hand, it appears to  alienate (at least i n part) oyster growers.  76  This sense o f 'we-ness' does not appear to be as strong i n the Magdalen Islands (which could be attributed to the fact that the industry is still very young and small, and greatly diversified). The only thing that seemed to unite the growers is a recently built shellfish aquaculture interpretation centre, where tourists can taste the industry's products (donated by the growers).  Interestingly, i n B . C . , it is the controversy around their  occupation that gives shellfish growers their sense o f unity. Indeed, their group identity appears to result mainly from the fact that they feel they have to defend - against public opposition and government red tape - not only their right to farm, but also their very own lifestyle: "...we are about one tenth the size that we should be, given the constraints that have been unnecessarily placed on us by a bureaucracy that was unable, and by the managers within that bureaucracy who were unwilling to enable the changes that would remove those constraints to growth." (Grower interview #14) ".. .there is a big public perception issue: at the moment we are sort of frustrated by the a lot of attention being paid to some 'NTMBYs' and 'nay-sayers', and that they are stealing... that a lot of resources are being directed to address all those concerns, where really we should be focussing on development and sustainable management: that sort of things." (Grower interview #13) Their pride, as it is the case for growers i n the Magdalen Islands, was expressed mostly i n terms of personal efforts and achievements.  Trice (1993) suggests that 'cultural forms' (the expressions o f cultures) also contribute to reinforcing the sense o f 'we-ness' in a group (see chapter H). For example, the growers share a language that is very much particular to their occupation (with words and expressions such as F L U P S Y ' , 'socking material', 'spatting period', and 'remote f  77  setting').  They also have in common a series o f occupation-based activities (varying  slightly depending on the species grown), which could be qualified as almost 'ritualistic' (e.g. collecting seed in the spring and summer, cleaning longlines or trays, grading, and harvesting).  Trice also proposes that "the extent to which members o f the occupation are the members'  primary  reference  occupational cultures.  group"  (1993:26)  is  another  force  strengthening  Interestingly, one thing that clearly emerged i n this study is o f the  importance o f the (grower) community as 'primary reference group' to most o f the participants. When growers were asked to identify, among a series o f choices, what they consider their 'primary  source  of information  regarding  shellfish  aquaculture',  majority o f them (almost 65%) answered 'other growers' (see table 4).  the  These 'other  growers' were identified as family members, friends, neighbours, business partners/ connections, or simply individuals whom were met during workshops and conferences. These results and their impacts w i l l be further discussed i n the next chapters.  Table 4  Primary sources o f information for shellfish growers. Values represent the number o f growers who chose a particular category, and percentage.  Sources of information  Number of Growers  Scientific journals Aquaculture magazines Government agencies Universities j j j j e r growers In-house  1 0 1 0  I  J l 4  % 5.9 0.0 5.9 0.0 64.7 23.5  78  A l l the factors mentioned above contribute to developing and maintaining what Trice calls 'occupational ethnocentrism', or a sense o f "we-ness" among the shellfish growers. B y interacting with one another, growers come to "see themselves i n terms o f their occupational norms and beliefs" (Trice, 1993:40). In other words, they no longer see themselves solely as 'individuals', but also as 'shellfish growers' belonging to a community o f shellfish growers. A s we have seen, this sense o f unity among growers varies from one province to another, and appears to be the strongest i n Prince Edward Island. W e w i l l also see, further i n this chapter (as well as i n the following chapters), that this sense o f we-ness among shellfish growers is also expressed when the informants talk about scientists: the 'we' versus 'them', or the notions o f 'insider' and 'outsiders' then frequently surface i n the shellfish growers' narratives.  The occupational life of aquaculture  scientists  Thirteen shellfish aquaculture scientists, representing the various institutions where scientific knowledge is produced, were interviewed. They were asked, as were the growers, to talk about their education, about how they became involved i n shellfish aquaculture, and about their motivations to do their work.  Some questions also  addressed the kinds o f research they are involved in, as well as the roles they see themselves playing i n the development o f the industry.  A l l the aquaculture scientists interviewed have a background i n biology. In B . C . , scientists have a higher level o f education, as three out o f four have a P h D (see table 5). They also present a higher average in years o f experience (19.5 years per scientist).  79  P.E.I, participants follow with an average o f 15.7 years o f experience per scientist, and Quebec come last, with 14.2 years per scientist.  Table 5 Level o f education and average years o f experience o f aquaculture scientists. Level of education  QC  PEI  BC  Bachelor's degree  5  1  -  Graduate degree  1  2  4  Total number of scientists  6  3  4  14.2  15.7  19.5  Average years as aquaculture scientist  The sources o f motivation and satisfaction for aquaculture scientists are varied. H a l f o f the informants said that the feeling o f 'being useful' is what motivates them to do their work, and seven out o f thirteen mentioned that 'finding solutions/solving problems' is a great source o f satisfaction: "...de creer de l'emploi: de voir que des gens vivent de notre travail.  Je trouve ca  vraiment motivant. Je sens que c'est un resultat concret de nos efforts..." [...to create jobs: to see that people are making a living from what we work for. I find this really motivating. I feel it's a concrete result of our efforts...] (Scientists interview #2) Another scientists said: "...solving a problem for a client: you could say it's a bit of an ego-rush!" (Scientist interview # 11) A small number o f scientists identified 'innovation' as a source o f motivation. T w o informants i n the Magdalen Islands also mentioned that 'working outdoors' is a motivation to them.  In P.E.I., the three scientists interviewed brought up 'industry  80  development' and doing 'practical work' as motivating factors i n their work lives, and two o f them mentioned 'quality o f the product' as a source o f satisfaction: "The fact that you can go pretty much anywhere in North America and you will see PEI mussels on the menu. Most people really enjoy PEI mussels. Same for Malpec oysters. That is what satisfies me, that the work we do to help the industry grow and develop is paying off, is worthwhile." (Scientist interview #7) In B . C . , two informants said that doing something that is 'intellectually interesting' is motivating.  Only the scientist working as a private consultant i n B . C . mentioned  'money' as an important source o f motivation to do his work.  A l l the participants mentioned that nearly 100% o f their research is applied i n nature (such as carrying capacity studies; development o f culture methods for new species; shellfish diseases; and work on invasive species). Most o f the research is done collaboratively, with a number o f scientists (often from diverse fields and organizations) and industry members working together. Interestingly, more than half o f the participants (all working for government or as consultant) mentioned that they do not really perceive themselves as a 'scientist': a term which they rather associate with academia, or people doing fundamental research: ".. j 'ai de la difficultee a me voir comme une scientifique! Je me considere plus comme une developpeuse: un outil dans le developpement. Pour moi, un scientifique c'est - et c'est sure que c'est un cliche - mais je vois quelqu'un dans un laboratoire, avec un sarrault..." (Scientist interview #2) [...I am having trouble seeing myself as a scientist!  I consider myself more as a  developer: a tool in development. To me, a scientist is - and for sure it is a cliche - but I see someone in a laboratory, with a lab coat...] "I don't know i f I always feel like a scientist!" (Scientist interview #11)  81  The majority o f the scientists said that 'industry' and/or the 'mandate o f their agency' mostly determine the types o f studies they carry out: this concurs with the fact that 10 out o f the 13 scientists interviewed are working for organizations that specifically have a mandate to assist the aquaculture industry in it's development (see chapter I V , table 2). However, one university scientist also admitted: " [ M y research is] industry-driven: that's where the funding comes from." (Scientist interview #9)  Only two o f the participants  mentioned that their 'personal interests' partly determines what research they get involved in.  H a l f o f the scientists (four i n the Magdalen Islands, two i n P.E.I, and one i n B . C . ) perceive their role in the development o f the shellfish aquaculture industry as a 'supportive' one: "I see our role as backup, a support rather than a lead." (Scientist interview #8) Another scientist, with more than 20 years o f experience i n aquaculture, explained: "...technology is sort of trial-and-error, homing in on an answer, not understanding what the real operating factors are, and without having any real proof to follow on the trail. It's iterative and it improves your technique, but you go just so far and then you run out. And you need the scientist coming behind you to explain what it was that caused the variation. So scientists are always a year or two behind, slowly catching up, telling the people at the front who are just going trial and error, where to start looking next and why what they did worked." (Scientist interview #13) Four scientists (one i n each case study, plus the consultant i n B . C . ) mentioned having more than one role: they see themselves as 'administrators/ program coordinators'.  managers/  Three participants mentioned 'knowledge transfer' as being part o f their  82  role.  T w o scientists (in P.E.I, and B . C . ) perceive their role as 'stewards o f the  environment': "...trying to provide, not so much growth, but sustainability to the industry. Both in terms of environment and production, but also governance." (Scientist interview #9)  In the Magdalen Island, three o f the scientists identified 'engineering' as an area o f research they think should be developed for the industry to prosper. Another (the one with a P h D ) mentioned 'genetics' as an important area for development. and 'environmental impacts' were also mentioned.  'Seed supply'  T w o scientists i n P.E.I, said that  'environmental impacts/interactions' are an important area for future studies. 'Invasive species' and 'predation' were also mentioned as a research priority.  In B . C . , two o f the  informants said that 'developing new/ native species' for aquaculture should be one o f the focuses o f research. T w o scientists (one i n P.E.I, and one i n B . C . ) mentioned that it is difficult to determine what the focus o f research should be, because the industry's needs are changing so rapidly.  Interestingly, both scientists referred to their work as  'firefighting': "But we're kind of like firefighters in a way too: different things pop up every day, different problems that we have to deal with." (Scientist interview #8) "So I'm doing the firefighting, but the basics are coming from the fundamental research." (Scientist interview #12)  The aquaculture scientist culture 'Solving problems' and 'being useful' are two values identified by the majority o f the aquaculture scientists i n this study. I would also add 'science' as a third value, since the participants chose science as their main tool to solve problems and become useful.  83  However, as we have seen, the science these researchers do is not the typical 'traditional/ academic' science (i.e. fundamental i n nature), for it is a science carried on mostly i n the context o f application (this w i l l be discussed further i n the next section).  Another  interesting fact is that some o f the values expressed by the scientists are similar to those identified by the shellfish growers.  For example, their attraction to the marine  environment (the majority o f them studied marine biology specifically) is a commonality with  the growers.  Some  scientists  mentioned  other  values  such as  'industry  development', 'innovation', 'doing practical work', and even 'making profits', which were also identified by the shellfish growers.  Although no cultural form particular to aquaculture scientists emerged from this study, the language used by the informants was very much rooted i n science (with words and expressions such as 'replicates'; 'experimental design'; 'data collection'; and 'baseline research'). However, mixed with this 'scientific' language was also a great deal of the vocabulary used by shellfish growers (reflecting the applied nature o f the scientists' work).  Despite these significant linkages to industry, what clearly emerged i n this study is the importance accorded by the aquaculture scientists to the respect o f certain norms o f science.  This was reflected by the omnipresence o f what Ziman (2000) calls 'the  elements o f the scientific ethos' i n the participants' narratives. Indeed, the scientists, i n their answers and comments, often referred to some o f the Mertonian 'norms o f science' (see chapter II): things that, as a scientist, one must or must not do. F o r example, many  84  scientists mentioned the importance o f doing research that is reliable and valid (Merton's 'scientific methods', 1942;1973). One scientist explained: "...on est souvent pousse a faire les choses vite, vite, et en oubliant parfois de respecter certaines regies.  [II faut] Prendre le temps de bien travailler et de s'assurer qu'on va  avoir un resultat qui va valoir quelque chose." (Scientist interview #2) [...we are often pushed to do things quickly, sometimes forgetting to respect certain rules. We must take the time to work well and to insure that the result will be worth something.] "Many of the industry's needs in relation to science-type questions can be addressed by scientists, but it takes time. It takes time to write proposals, it takes time to do the work: industry doesn't always have that time to wait.  But I think that i f you look at the  generation of information through science, over a period of years, you will certainly have a beneficial impact on the industry development. That can only be accomplished with a sound science program." (Scientist interview # 7)  A l s o , some participants expressed a concern with insuring that the knowledge they produce remains public knowledge (Merton's norm o f 'communalism').  However, it  appears that publication (in scientific journals and books) is not a priority among aquaculture scientists: "...c'est pas pour la publication comme telle, mais, pour moi, c'est l'aboutissement des choses; parce qu'on est pasjuge la-dessus." (Scientist interview #6) [.. .it's not for publishing per se, but, for me, it's the culmination of things; because we're not judged on that.] Another scientist explained: ".. .We're in a different boat, provincially: we have to be able to respond to the industry's needs. If there is a problem, we have to be there. And if you are doing pure science, you can't do that: you have your protocol set out and you can't really waver from that  85  otherwise you won't be able to get your paper published.  Here, we're not about  publishing papers." (Scientist interview #8)  One o f the Mertonian norms not mentioned very often during the interviews with aquaculture scientists is 'disinterestedness'. Only one scientist referred to the importance o f objectivity i n his work. The others did not appear to be particularly concerned with that issue, other than with the constraints that can ensue from being close to the industry: "Parfois 9a peut amener des contraintes, dans le sense qu'on a peut-etre pas assez de recul, mais le bon cote c'est que Ton est plus implique emotivement dans le succes de rindustrie." (Scientist interview #6) [Sometimes it can bring constraints, in the sense that we might not have enough distance, but the good side is that we are more emotionally involved in the success of the industry.] Another scientists said: "I think it's [aquaculture] a good, sustainable way of making money on the coast. I think it's very environmentally compatible, i f done properly. And socially, I think it's very beneficial too for the communities." (Scientist interview #13)  A s we should see, there are two things common to all the aquaculture scientists interviewed i n this study (regardless o f the province or the organization i n which they are working): 1) the predominantly applied nature o f the work they do; and 2) the fact that, although they may not all perceive themselves as 'scientists' per se, they appear to abide by many o f the values and norms o f science.  Thus, aquaculture scientists do share a  number o f values and most o f them seem to abide by particular norms (mainly scientific methods).  However, as we have seen, some o f the values and norms identified i n this  study differ from those described in the 'traditional' views o f science (Kuhn, 1962; Cotgrove and B o x , 1970; Merton 1942;1973). In fact, I w i l l argue that the features o f the  86  culture associated with the scientists i n this case study seem to better correspond to what has been described as the 'new culture o f science' (Gibbons et al., 1994; Ziman, 2000). This w i l l be further discussed in the next section, as I demonstrate the linkages between the features o f this 'new culture o f science' and the way knowledge is produced, transferred and validated among aquaculture scientists.  5.2 Paradigms of K n o w l e d g e We have seen, in Chapter n, that knowledge is embrained  (meaning that it is  dependent o f the individual's own cognitive capabilities), embodied encultured  (in actions),  (framed i n values, beliefs and norms), embedded (in systemic routines and  technologies) and encoded (Blackler, 2002). Thus, a person's knowledge is framed, i n great part, by the environment in which he or she exists, as well as by the interactions he or she has with other people (Choo and Bontis, 2002).  The worklife being an important  environment and locus o f exchange, I w i l l argue that the associated occupational culture is a social process that significantly influences the way people deal with knowledge.  In the following sections, I w i l l demonstrate that the occupational cultures o f shellfish  growers and aquaculture  scientist also manifest  themselves  through  particular way knowledge is approached by each group, i.e. through their paradigms.  the  knowledge  Part o f the data supporting this claim were found scattered throughout the  interviews in the participants' various comments, and part o f it comes from a series o f questions that particularly aimed at bringing growers and scientists to reflect on shellfish aquaculture knowledge (both 'scientific' and 'local').  87  Although this study is far from being a comprehensive analysis of scientific and local knowledge, it does allow us to get a better understanding of how growers and scientists perceive knowledge and organize themselves around it. Thus, we found that, associated with each group's occupational culture is a distinct knowledge  paradigm.  Each paradigm is framed in series of motivations, goals and values, and moulded by certain norms.  Each one also involves specific methods of knowledge production, as  well as particular transfer and validation mechanisms. These knowledge paradigms are significant because they affect the way growers and scientists deal with knowledge, and, consequently, impact on the very nature of the knowledge they produce. This, in turn, is most likely to have an impact on how the two sectors collaborate on R&D projects. Therefore, it is important to understand and acknowledge the differences between the two groups' knowledge paradigms in order to find mechanisms to improve collaborative R&D. The features of each group's knowledge paradigm are summarized in table 6.  The shellfish grower knowledge paradigm  Although the majority of the shellfish growers interviewed in this study started their operations with a certain amount of knowledge regarding the marine environment and boats (from their experience as fishermen), most of them were pioneers in their field and, therefore, had to teach themselves how to grow shellfish.  New knowledge was  produced, as it was needed, to make operations profitable and competitive.  Today, the  motivations for growers to acquire new knowledge appear to be either crisis-based (e.g. unexplained mass mortality, new invasive species, unknown disease), or market-driven (changes in the demand, increase in the competition, opening of new markets):  88  Table 6 The knowledge paradigms o f shellfish growers and aquaculture scientists. Shellfish grower knowledge paradigm  Aquaculture scientist knowledge paradigm  Motivation  Crisis-based Market-driven  Occupational Mandate-driven  Goals  Solve problems (to control production) Gain competitive advantage  Find solutions (to reduce uncertainties)  Values  Applicability  Potential for action Validity  Norms  Affordability  Scientific methods  Methods  Practical Situational  Systematic Institutionalized  Production  Short-term Application-oriented 'Collective'  Long & short-term Application-oriented Heterogeneous teams  Diffusion  Relation-based Face-to-face  Public domain Reports  Validation  Success Reputation/ field experience  • User-based Methods  Nature  Primarily tacit Diverse Tool (to improve business)  Primarily explicit Transdisciplinary Tool (to assist/ control industry's development)  89  "If we had a mortality problem, potentially related to plankton, then we would take it to a shellfish pathologist at DFO, to get her expertise to solve the problem." (Grower interview #13) "Why does any company diversify? To gain access to new customers and new markets..." (Grower interview #14)  Thus, the growers' two main goals for acquiring new knowledge are to solve problems  related to production, or to gain a competitive advantage over the other  growers.  However, the majority of the participants have referred to the dominating  necessity to make profit (at least enough to maintain their lifestyle). The production of new knowledge must be above all considered 'affordable': "Quand tu deviens un mariculteur, tu as de grosses responsabilitees financieres. Alors tu dois etre capable de faire des compromis entre ce que les scientifiques sentent qu'ils ont de besoin, et ce que tu sens que tu peux dormer." (Grower interview #3) [When you become a grower, you have big financial responsibilities. So you have to be able to compromise between what the scientists feel they need, and what you feel you can give.] Moreover, it appears that the growers are accepting a certain degree of uncertainty (and a certain level of losses due to unknowns), as long as it is outweighed by the level of profit: "We have never done systematic research to deal with it, simply because we have just accepted a certain level of mortality and work with it, in the business plan..." (Grower interview #13) Many also seem to believe that some things simply cannot be controlled (no matter the knowledge produced):  90  "It's Mother Nature's industry, and you take what she gives you. And i f she doesn't give you the food [plankton], you don't get the growth, and i f she doesn't give you seed, there's nothing you can do about it!" (Grower #8) For Indeed,  shellfish growers, knowledge is valuable i f it can be used, and quickly.  applicability  and  urgency  seem  to  be  considered  the  most  important  characteristics for new knowledge: it must respond - in the shortest time possible - to the growers' needs (and since these needs are varied in nature, the knowledge must also be varied in nature): "...sometimes it can take a long time to get answers that we need urgently." (Grower interview #11) "...but in our business, there's got to be a practical side to it [the production of knowledge]. While pure scientific research is fun and interesting, it doesn't put food on the table:  at least not within the time frame of a company like ours!"  (Grower  interview #14) Furthermore, the knowledge produced must be adapted to their capabilities o f absorption (i.e. they must be able to understand it, and must have what is necessary to use it: whether it is money, technical expertise or time). One grower explained: "Quand on va chercher revaluation d'un stock, nous, c'est pas complique; on prend nos methodes. 'Mais non! La facon scientifique c'est pas ca, c'est comme 9a!' faire 9a comme 9a, c'est bien trop d'ouvrage: 9a [n'a] pas de bon sens!  Mais crime, C'est des  methodes reconnues, mais diffi9ilement applicable dans l'industrie." [When we go get a stock evaluation, for us, it's not complicated; we take our own methods. But no! The scientific method, it's not like this, it's like that! But damn it, doing it like that is too much work: it doesn't make any sense! These are recognized methods, but difficult to apply in the industry.] (Grower interview #2)  91  The results o f this study do not indicate that there are any particular norms guiding the production o f knowledge among shellfish growers, other than, perhaps, profitability.  A small number o f participants did mention that the costs o f acquiring new  knowledge should not outweigh the benefits that can be derived from it: "On a du investir $10,000 dans ce projet: 9a fait trois ans and rien en est sorti. U n gachi d'argent!" (Grower interview #4) [We had to invest $10,000 in that project: it's been three years and nothing really has come out of it. A waste of money!] Another grower said: ".. .because he just designed a solution, without the cost in mind. He was not practical, in that way." (Grower interview #17)  Thus,  according to the participants,  shellfish growers  mostly create new  knowledge through observation and trial-and-error: their methods are situational and practical in nature.  They use this knowledge mostly as a tool, either to solve a problem  or gain a competitive advantage on the markets.  The knowledge produced is primarily  tacit, i n the sense that it is mostly embodied i n the growers' 'know-how' (Blackler, 2002): "We had to work very, very hard to develop and refine the processes of growing and harvesting." (Grower interview #7) Another grower explained: "...all farming, whether daffodils or clams, 90% of it is observation! Never mind the rest! If you don't have the ability to observe, you'll never be a successful farmer." (Grower interview #12)  92  This knowledge is also 'embedded'  i n their routines and understandings  (of the  interactions between the shellfish and the marine environment, as well as o f the impacts o f their own actions on the production processes).  Finally, much o f the growers'  knowledge is 'encultured', i n the sense that much o f it was constructed through social interactions, and resides in their shared understandings and language: " A l l the growers had something to contribute, through observation; collectively, good ideas have been pooled." (Grower interview #12) "Everything in the industry has got its timeframe as far as work and when it's got to be done!" (Grower interview #8)  Because o f its tacit nature, the growers' knowledge is not easily transferable (see chapter II).  Part o f it can be acquired either through apprenticeship (when there is a  mentor available), or through social interactions, which are greatly dependent on the types o f relationships among the growers (this particular point w i l l be further discussed i n chapter VI).  However, according to the growers, much o f it must be developed through  personal experience: "We stumble one day at the time in this industry, whether we've got an education or not. It's all learned first hand and you're always better off learning by your own mistakes than if you listen to somebody else!" (Grower interview #11)  Finally, the issue o f validation for the shellfish growers does not appear to be very important (only a few informants referred to it).  Mainly, it seems that the success  resulting from the new knowledge (such as the improvement o f production, the reduction o f costs, or the increase i n the quality o f the product) is the main 'validation mechanism'  93  in the industry. The reputation o f and trust placed in the 'source' appear to be important factors used by growers to validate the knowledge acquired:. "Mario Cyr a ete dans la business depuis 15 ans: c'est un pionnier, ici, au Quebec. II m'a aide durant la premiere annee et demie..." (Grower interview #5) [Mario Cyr has been in the business for 15 years: he's a pioneer, here, in Quebec. He helped me during the first year and a half...] Another grower explained: "The school of fisheries, in Washington State, has a good program, and a lot of the leading-edge technology that we use has been developed by their graduate students. The Sea Grant program in Washington has been very valuable in developing different culture techniques and species." (Grower interview #14) Experience, more particularly ' i n the field', was also mentioned by a small number o f growers as an important criteria: " M y view on that is that these guys [scientists] don't have any experience, and they don't deal with it everyday. I don't know how they could have the experience really. [...] When they come out, it's for 20 minutes, then they go back home: they're not going to be able to tell me anything by doing that! Growers know more than they do!" (Grower interview #10)  "Growers have an historical and intimate knowledge of their environment basically that no one else has. [...] I think it often gets dismissed." (Grower interview #13)  The aquaculture scientist knowledge  paradigm  Because asking questions and finding answers are basically what the aquaculture scientists' occupation consists of, the distinction between their occupational culture and their knowledge  paradigm  is difficult to make.  In fact, the two are very much  intertwined. W e have seen, in the previous section, that many o f the characteristics o f the  94  aquaculture scientists' culture are not consistent with that o f 'traditional' science. Instead, the aquaculture scientists' culture appears to correspond more closely to Ziman's 'new culture o f science' or 'postacademic science' (2000). In this view, it is suggested that, as a 'new mode o f knowledge production' is emerging (Gibbons et al., 1994), some o f the values and norms associated with the culture o f science are changing. According to Gibbons and his colleagues, this new mode o f knowledge production translates into a science that is: application-oriented and heterogeneous accountable  (rather than primarily cognitive);  transdisciplinary  (rather than disciplinary and homogenous); as well as  and reflexive.  Interestingly (as I w i l l demonstrate), all o f the  socially features  enumerated above appear to be present within the aquaculture scientists' culture and/or knowledge paradigm.  A s any other scientists, aquaculture  scientists have received part o f their  knowledge from mentors i n academia. However, as was the case for shellfish growers, the majority o f the aquaculture scientists i n this study have had to create for themselves a great deal their own knowledge regarding the culture o f shellfish i n Canada (see Chapter m). Using some o f the knowledge originating from Europe and America as a base for producing knowledge relevant to local conditions, they have, at the same time, acquired their own experience and developed their own understandings.  Today, as we have seen i n the previous section, the type o f research aquaculture scientists do is primarily applied in nature, and largely driven by the needs o f the industry and the mandate o f the organizations for which the scientists work. In fact, we have seen  95  that the majority o f the scientists interviewed have identified 'the needs o f industry' as the main factor determining the kind o f projects they are involved in: "...on essaie de voir quels sont les besoins des promoteurs, et onbati les projets a partir de la. [...] Ici, on peut pas se permettre de passer nos interets en premier." [... we try to see what the promoters' needs are, and we build projects from there.] [Here, we can't allow ourselves to put our own interests first.] (Scientist interview #4) Another scientist explained: "The type of work we do is directly applied to the industry: they [research projects] are driven by our discussions with the industry and issues that are timely with the industry..." (Scientist interview #7) Thus new knowledge is not produced for the sake o f advancing scientific knowledge per se (as it is mostly the case with fundamental science), but essentially in the context of application, to solve problems directly related to the industry (by reducing uncertainties): "... we work in all sorts of different project to help the growers solve their problems." (Scientist interview #8) Because these problems are often transdisciplinary (i.e. they may involve biological, chemical, and oceanographic issues at the same time) each aquaculture scientist seem to be involved in the production o f very diversified knowledge: "We tend to be generalists: in the work we do, we jump from project to project, to project. We don't spend a lifetime focussing on one issue..." (Scientist interview #7)  "[My research] is pretty broad span: it's usually producer-based. Producers identify the research priorities and I usually try to assemble research teams and programs to respond to these priorities..." (Scientist interview #9) Additionally, it appears that they are frequently required to work i n heterogonous teams, where various skills are combined to find solutions:  96  "...we are involved in research in that we collaborate with other researchers, including A V C and DFO, in many different ways." (Scientist interview #8) "Different people [were involved], for different reasons. [They were] chosen depending on what was needed (skills)." (Scientist interview #10)  A s we have seen earlier, the knowledge produced by aquaculture scientists is rarely produced with publication as a primary goal. For these scientists, knowledge is not so much an 'end product' (as it is i n the traditional science), but rather a tool used either to assist or control the industry's development (as many o f these scientists are also resource managers/ consultants to policy-makers). In fact, i n their opinion, that is mainly where the value o f knowledge stands (i.e. in its potential for action).  However, as  explained earlier i n this chapter, the majority o f informants also mentioned validity as an important factor i n the production o f new knowledge. To insure validity, these scientists are applying the methods they were taught in university: these 'scientific methods' are systematic and institutionalized  (see Chapter II):  "Results must be based on methods that are clearly defined and reproducible." (Scientist interview #10) Another scientist said: "Les scientifiques, on est des professionnels; des gens qui ont ete formes pour se poser des questions." (Scientist interview #6) [Scientists are professionals; people who were formed to ask themselves questions.] These methods lead to the production o f knowledge that is 'encultured' (Blackler, 2002), in the sense that it is produced following the norms endorsed by the scientific community. It is also primarily explicit in nature, and thus easy to codify and transmit.  97  The scientific knowledge created is considered 'public property', and is diffused mostly through reports. However, the fact that publication is not a priority among aquaculture scientists is an important factor, in the sense that it changes the way knowledge is validated. Indeed, the peer review system is considered an important social mechanism to validate scientific knowledge, and was identified by Merton (1942; 1973) as one o f the norms o f science (i.e. the norm o f 'scepticism').  Without publication (in scientific  journals and books), this mechanism cannot function. Instead, it appears that it is most likely those using the knowledge produced (i.e. policy-makers, resource  managers,  industry members, N G O s , etc) who validate it: "We are trying to make it something that is applied. For the industry's development, but also to help the decision-making processes, and insure sustainability.'  (Scientist  interview #10) This is an important point, with significant consequences for the production o f scientific knowledge.  However, 'sound methods' remains an important criterion used by the  scientists for determining whether the new knowledge is valid or not.  Finally, the issues o f social accountability and reflexivity have also transpired from the aquaculture scientist knowledge paradigm.  Indeed, many o f the scientists  interviewed in this study acknowledged the importance o f public opinion and o f their own role and responsibilities as 'knowledge producers'.  The following comments by  two o f the participants clearly illustrate the scientists' awareness o f the impact o f science on the public: "...tout le cote environnemental [a besoin de plus de recherche]: pas parce que, personellement, j ' y vois beaucoup de problemes, mais parce que le publique a beaucoup de questions. " (Scientist interview #6)  98  [.. .all the environmental side needs more research: not because Impersonally, see a lot of problems, but because the public has a lot of questions.] "We are stewards for the public, for the resource: we have.an obligation to insure the activities of the industry are carried in a sustainable manner." (Scientist interview #10) Additionally, the participants appeared reflexive toward their work.  A s explained by  Gibbons and his colleagues (1994): "...working i n the context o f application increases the sensitivity o f scientists and technologists to the broader implications o f what they are doing."  One scientist expressed the importance he perceives o f understanding the  industry's point o f view i n order to do his work adequately: "It's hard to understand an industry problem, unless you understand the industry." (Scientist interview #8) Another scientist explained: "On est aussi des citoyens: si on veut que notre economie se developpe, on voit un peu notre role la dedans." (Scientist interview #6) [We are also citizens: i f we want our economy to develop, we see a little of our role in that.]  Thus, I have shown that the features associated with the 'new mode o f knowledge production' are present i n the knowledge paradigm o f the aquaculture scientists, making it different from that o f traditional science. I have also demonstrated some o f the impacts these features have on the nature o f scientific knowledge produced.  5.3 Conclusion: The closing gap between two cultures In this chapter, it was shown that both shellfish growers and aquaculture scientists exhibit a culture associated with their occupation.  I have demonstrated further that  99  growers present a strong 'consciousness o f k i n d ' (Trice, 1993), which originates in the values, beliefs and cultural forms associated with being shellfish producers.  Scientists  also display a certain unity, however not so much as 'aquaculture scientists' per se, but rather as 'researchers bound by the rules o f science'. W e have also seen that there are numerous differences i n the features o f each group's occupational culture, making them two distinct  cultures.  Associated with these cultures are two different knowledge  paradigms, affecting how each sector produces, diffuses and validates knowledge. Again, I have shown that there are important differences between the two groups.  On the other hand, we have also established that there are commonalities between growers and scientists. These commonalities may render fuzzy the boundaries between the two cultures, and most likely contribute to reducing the cultural gap or disconnect. Thus, it appears that the industry and the science sectors i n this study may not be quite as 'distinct' as depicted by Cotgrove and B o x (1970). This can be largely associated with the fact the culture and knowledge paradigm o f the scientists i n this study present features that differ from traditional science and that appear perhaps more compatible with those o f industry. These differences and commonalities i n the cultures and knowledge paradigms o f the shellfish growers and aquaculture scientists are significant for, as we w i l l see in the following chapters, they greatly affect how the two groups perceive each other and how they interact, which in turn influences their attitude towards intersectoral collaboration.  100  CHAPTER VI  - INDUSTRY-SCIENCE RELATIONSHIPS  " A genuine research partnership involves obligations and dependency. [...] The probability that the researcher's desire and the corporation's need will coincide by chance is almost nonexistent. Such an arrangement normally results from previous contacts, informal discussions and, very likely, a prior relationship." H.I Fusfeld, 1994  For the past 30 years, shellfish growers and aquaculture scientists have worked hard at developing a new industry and field o f research in Canada. Both groups have faced - together or independently - numerous challenges over the years, and both have seen their knowledge expand tremendously. It was shown, i n Chapter HI, that part o f the shellfish aquaculture knowledge growers and scientists are holding today was produced 'collectively', through various strategic alliances and collaborative efforts.  Today, new  challenges are arising (see Chapter I), and the two sectors are finding themselves increasingly pressured to work with one another (Fusfeld, 1994; Godin, 1999; Frank and Smith, 2000).  However, the extent to which these pressures really affect interactions  between the two groups can only be measured by taking a closer look at the current state of grower-scientist relationships.  In this chapter, we w i l l take a look at the current state o f the relationships between shellfish grower and aquaculture scientists in each study area. B y exploring how each participant perceives his or her relationships with members o f the other sector, we may be able to draw a clearer picture o f the nature o f industry-science relationships i n shellfish  101  aquaculture in Canada. Furthermore, this may allow us to identify some o f the factors that affect these relationships.  A series o f three structured or close-ended questions (see Appendix 1) were presented to both growers and scientists, asking them to describe some aspects o f their relationships with the other sector. These questions had as their objective an assessment o f the frequency with which growers and scientists interact, as well as the main purposes and the quality they associate with these interactions. Both growers and scientists were also asked their opinions on whether or not they think communication members o f the other sector.  is easy with  Additionally, growers were asked to rate the extent to  which they trust scientists i n general, whereas the question for scientists was an openended one, asking them whether they feel that trust is an issue i n relationships between growers and scientists.  Frequency In this study, two distinct types o f growers can be identified: a) those who interact with scientists on a fairly regular basis; and b) those who very rarely do.  As  shown in Figure 6, growers 2 to 6, and 11 have monthly interactions with scientists working in various organizations.  Three o f these growers even have weekly contacts  with scientists: growers 3 and 11 are developing new aquaculture species i n collaboration with scientists working for a provincial agency, while grower 4 is a young entrepreneur who is trying to expand his operation and find innovative ways to compete with other mussel growers.  102  BC  PEI  • Federal • Provincial  1  1  2  3  4  5  111 6  7  8  9  B Academia H Consultancy firm  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Growers  Figure 6 Growers' frequency o f interaction with scientists working in various organizations (federal government, provincial government, academia and consultancy firm). The frequency o f interaction is represented by the following categories: 0 = never; 1 = a few times/year; 2 = a few times/month; 3 = a few times/week; 4 = daily.  O n the other hand, growers 1, 7 to 10, and 12 to 17 hardly ever interact with scientists (or not at all, i n the case o f grower 14, who is the manager o f a big operation doing extensive in-house R & D ) .  Based on comments these growers have provided, four  main situations or reasons why they do not interact much with scientists were identified: 1) a lack o f trust toward scientists (this particular issue w i l l be further discussed later); 2) some growers are very independent, and do not like asking for help (especially 'outside' the industry); 3) some growers are not very much aware o f what is happening i n the science sector and simply do not know who to go to, and; 4) many growers are convinced that the scientists do not have the 'right' expertise to offer: "We'd be happy to work, collaboratively with researchers who understood our business and had a common vision. And who had the skills and expertise in a particular area that would really advance our business: but we haven't found those people." (Grower interview #14)  103  Another grower said: "...there isn't a capacity, either from the university sector, nor from the government sector (provincial or federal) to assist in the development of the shellfish industry when it comes to these technological and biological problems." (Grower interview #13)  According to the growers, this lack o f scientific expertise i n B . C . was not always so, for there were, in the past, scientists whom they respected and trusted.  Four o f the six  growers interviewed in B . C . mentioned that they used to have contacts with these scientists: "It doesn't even occur to me to go to government because I've figured.. .they don't know anything anyway! (laugh) It's probably not fair: I'm sure some of them do, but where do you source them! Where do you find the person who has the background to answer your question? [.'..] The only guy that I knew, back then - he was doing lots for the shellfish business - was Dan Quayle. When he was alive, I'd go and seek his advice, because he had a reputation - a damned good one! And, Y E S , he spent a lot of time in the field!" (Grower interview #12) "When you used to have a guy like Dan Quayle: there was a guy who lived hands on, in the field, coming up with things that were very appropriate. We don't have people like that anymore." (Grower interview #15)  It is important to notice that 15 out o f the 17 growers interviewed have said to have some contacts with provincial scientists, on a yearly basis at the least, reflecting the relative importance o f the provincial organizations for the industry (or, at the least, the higher degree o f 'visibility' o f these scientists). In the Magdalen Islands, all but one informant have occasional interactions with scientists working for the Department o f Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), however it appears most o f these contacts are i n regards to  104  policy (mostly environmental).  19  In British Columbia, three out of six growers  mentioned having occasional contacts with academia: all confirmed that these interactions are actually with one individual who regularly brings students on shellfish aquaculture operations, in order to provide them with some field experience. We have seen, in Chapter m, that there are in B.C. a few private consultants who are very active in the field of shellfish aquaculture: in this study, three growers mentioned having some contacts with consultants.  In the case of scientists, the frequency of interaction with growers is fairly high (see Figure 7).  Seven of the informants - all of whom are working for a provincial  agency, except for one who is a private consultant - said that they have daily contacts with shellfish growers.  Three other scientists (two of whom are academics) have  Scientists  Figure 7 Scientists' frequency of interaction with shellfish growers. The frequency of interaction is represented by the following categories: 0 = never; 1 = a few times/year; 2 = a few times/ month; 3 = a few times/ week; 4 = daily. As mentioned before, although the question was addressing relationships with scientists only, it appears that many growers do not really perceive a clear distinction between 'scientists' and 'regulators/ administrators' working with DFO. 19  105  interactions with industry on a weekly basis, while the last three have contacts with growers only a few times each month. These results may, at first, seem contradictory to those obtained for the growers, however it is important to keep i n mind that the scientist/grower ratio i n the Magdalen Islands is 1:1, whereas i n P.E.I, and B . C . it is more in the vicinity o f 1:50. In the Magdalen Islands, scientists #1 is a technological support officer, and scientists 2 and 5 are working mostly with the scallop growers.  I must  specify that the scientists at the Station also have contacts with other growers i n Quebec, which may explain the higher frequencies on their part, than the ones for the growers interviewed.  Purpose Table 7 (below) clearly shows that, for the majority o f growers and scientists, the main purpose for interacting with members o f the other sector is a 'two-way sharing o f information'.  The participants have indicated that, in most cases, these interactions  happen i n an informal way (sometimes face-to-face, in the field, or, more often, on the telephone).  Some o f these interactions, however, occur in a more formal setting (at  various meetings, workshops and conferences, or through R & D projects).  Five o f the participants identified 'collaboration on R & D projects' as the main purpose for interacting with members o f the other sector. Very few informants answered 'providing information' or 'obtaining information', which demonstrates that in general the flow o f information between the two groups is mostly symmetrical (see chapter U). Only one grower could not answer this question, due to his lack o f contact with scientists.  106  Table 7 M a i n purpose for interactions between shellfish growers and aquaculture scientists. Values represent the number o f informants who chose a particular answer.  growers  P.E.I,  QC scientists  growers  Providing information  -  -  Obtaining information  -  2  Two-way sharing of information  3  5  Collaboration on R&D projects  2  1  3  scientists  1  2  1  Debate/ Confrontational  B.C. growers scientists  1  1  4  1  1  -  Quality The majority o f the participants (both growers and scientists) have expressed that they generally have a 'good' to 'very good' relationship with members o f the other sector (see table 8).  Despite the criticisms and dissatisfactions expressed by some o f the  growers during the interviews, none o f them chose to qualify their relationships with scientists as 'bad' or 'very b a d ' / "  Three o f the growers i n the Magdalen Islands  mentioned having better relationships with the technological support officer at the Direction Regionale, than with other scientists: "Avec [M], c'est tres bien. Tu peux lui parler, et i l peut t'expliquer des choses. II est honnete. On lui fait confiance." (Grower interview #4) [With [the support officer], it [the relationship] is very good. You can talk to him, and he can explain things to you. He is honest. We trust him.]  Perhaps i f there had been an intermediate choice, between 'good' and 'bad', we would have seen more variation in the growers' answers.  107  Table  8 Perceived quality o f relationships between shellfish growers and aquaculture scientists. Values represent the number o f informants who chose a particular answer.  QC  P.E.I.  B£.  growers  scientists  growers  scientists  growers  scientists  Very good  1  2  2  3  1  2  Good  4  4  Bad  -  -  -  -  -  -  Very bad  -  -  -  -  -  -  Non existent  -  -  3  -  3  -  1  -  2  2  In P.E.I., half o f the growers interviewed affirmed being satisfied with their relationships with the scientists at the Ministry o f Fisheries, Aquaculture and Environment ( M F A E ) : "The guys at the province are pretty good. They've called, in the past, to know i f there were any new projects out there: sometimes i f you had a unique idea, they would jump right at it!" (Grower interview #10) ".. .he [a scientist with the M F A E ] is here on the river about every second week. [He is] pretty good at picking up the phone and answering your calls... They're a very good office, at the province [MFAE]: i f you treat them right, they'll respect you and get back to you." (Grower interview #11) Six growers (Figure 6: growers #7, 9,10, 14, 16 and 17) felt they could not answer this question, due to their lack o f interaction with scientists.  O n the other hand, more than  half o f the scientists interviewed described their relationships with growers as 'very good', while the others qualified them as ' g o o d ' . T w o o f the scientists even consider 21  some o f these growers 'friends'.  21  Again, an intermediate choice between 'good' and 'bad' might have given different results.  108  Communication  The subject of communication  is obviously fundamental in the study of  intersectoral relationships and knowledge exchanges. However, the broad focus of this thesis did not allow for an in-depth treatment of the topic. Despite this constraint, some interesting and strong patterns emerged from the findings, with regards to communication between the two sectors. What clearly appeared, is that communication between the growers and scientists interviewed can generally be characterized as 'difficult'. Indeed, the majority of the participants affirmed that communicating with members of the other sector is not always easy. Most participants identified a 'divergence of perspectives' as the main hindering factor.  In the Magdalen Islands, three of the five growers interviewed mentioned that communication is difficult with scientists in general (two of them expressed that it is much easier to communicate with the local technology transfer officer, as well as with the technicians working at the Station). One grower mentioned a 'difference in language' as the reason for this difficulty: "Du moment qu'on va parler le meme language, 9a va etre beaucoup plus fa9ile." [As soon as we speak the same language, it will be easier.] (Grower interview #2)  Another grower said: "Au dernier colloque, ils nous ont presente des tonnes de donnees, avec des mots a plus finir .. .si bien qu'on se demande qu'est-ce que 9a peut bien nous apporter." [At  the last conference, they [scientists] presented to us tons of data, with  [incomprehensible] words...so much so that we wonder what it could really bring us.] (Grower interview #5)  109  Although a difference i n the educational  background  between growers and  scientists may be a factor i n this (for all three growers mentioned above went to high school only), I would argue that this 'difference i n language' mostly refers to a divergence  in perspectives  between the two groups regarding shellfish aquaculture.  Indeed, these growers expressed, during the interviews, that the scientists 'do not seem to understand the needs o f the industry', leading the two groups to disagree on issues such as R & D priorities: "...s'ils avaient la meme preoccupation que nous autres, c'est-a-dire qu'ils voudraient que les mariculteurs deviennent riche [...] C'est-a-dire, se preoccupper de la reussite de 1'industrie. De bien connaitre ou est rendu l'industrie, le bout de chemin qu'il y a encore a faire et de quelle facon ils peuvent aider. Mais c'est jamais de cette facon que ca se passe..." (Grower interview #2) [.. .if they [scientists] had the same preoccupations as we do, i.e. that they would want the growers to become rich [...] i.e. to be preoccupied with the success of the industry. To know where it is at, and what needs to be done and how they can help. But it never goes that way...] A small number o f growers in P.E.I, and the majority o f the growers interviewed i n B . C . also share this opinion: "There are some scientists and bureaucrats though who don't see the problem the way we [growers] see the problem: they see the problem as an interesting scientific issue, or as an issue of public protection, whereas we see it as an obstacle to making a living." (Grower interview #17) "I see a big void there; a lack of learning and a lack of trust between the two [sectors]. And a lack of understanding, and an inability or a reluctance even to communicate. That's why you have the scientists here, and the farmers there, and a big void in the middle, and there is nothing happening!" (Grower interview #12)  110  This difficulty i n communication between growers and scientists appears to be greater i n B.C.  A l l six growers perceive some communication problems:  "They [scientists] won't listen to the farmer because they figure that the farmer hasn't been to university, so he is an idiot!" (Grower interview #12) "I am sure a lot of growers today need a lot more education in what they are doing. But whether you can bring them up to that level, and you can bring the scientists down to meet them, somewhere in between... I don't really know. I think it's just different minds: that's mainly the problem." (Grower interview #17)  In P.E.I., although the majority o f the growers said that they do not have very much 'direct' contact with the scientists, some mentioned that they still communicate through their bay representatives and the Alliance, and they also receive information from the scientists through the Aqualnfo  aquaculture notes, mailed to growers every  month by the Aquaculture Division o f the Ministry o f Fisheries, Aquaculture and Environment ( M F A E ) .  Overall, the scientists interviewed also feel that communication between them and members o f the industry can be difficult.  Most o f the scientists acknowledged that the  'divergence o f perspectives' between the two groups could hinder communication: "...moi, j'essaie plutot de proposer; pas de m'imposer.  [...] les producteurs, c'est  orgeilleux parfois! Si i l y a une methode qu'il fait depuis 10 ans, i l changera pas juste parce que tu lui dis!" (Scientist interview #1) [...I try to propose, not to impose myself. [...] producers can sometimes be proud! If there is a method that he has been using for 10 years, he will not change just because you tell him to!] Another scientist explained:  111  "They [scientists] come in and tell the grower: ' Oh, you've got a problem and it's going to cost you a million dollars to set up an experiment and maybe we'll give you an answer in a couple of years, after we've published papers.' And the industry people are hanging on, saying: T need an answer right now!' The two are complimentary, in my opinion. Neither one understands the other too well." (Scientist interview #13) A , scientist working with two scallop growers in the Magdalen Islands explained that communication is rather easy with each one because they have a university degree: "on se comprend parce qu'on a la meme formation." (Scientist interview #5) [We understand each other because we have the same formation.]  The consultant interviewed i n B . C .  also feels that educational background influences relationships with the growers: " A s a M S c , I feel I can work closer with the industry than someone with a P h D . " (Scientist interview #11)  Scientists in P.E.I, mentioned having good communication with shellfish  growers, especially through their relationship with the P.E.I. Aquaculture  Alliance.  According to one scientist however, with more personnel, communication between the two sectors could be improved: " A lot of time, it is our fault: we always seem to be short of time to get back to people, to keep the growers informed, etc. Also, we must find time to write reports in a userfriendly way." (Scientist interview #8) The scientists i n B . C . (except for the consultant) also mentioned that, with more time and resources, they would be able to go out i n the field more often and communicate more with shellfish growers. One informant also acknowledge that a certain lack o f trust on the part o f the industry towards scientists can make communication difficult: "For them [the growers], it's a bit of a double-edged sword because i f they have something that could be overly problematic, then it's sort of the 'fear relationship': they don't want the bad news to get out!" (Scientist interview #12)  112  Trust The phenomenon o f trust, and more particularly, trust towards science  and  scientists has been extensively studied, especially in the field o f sociology o f science. In this study, from the first informal interviews with shellfish growers, it became clear that trust is a very important factor affecting relationships between growers and scientists. B y examining the entire interviews, and not just the structured question addressing the issue o f trust (see Appendix 1), I realized that the growers' comments during the course o f the interviews revealed a lot more about their level o f trust towards scientists, than the answers to the structured question did. What I found is that the majority o f the growers interviewed, for various reasons, do not have much trust i n scientists i n general. In many cases, the distrust is directed at the organization for which the scientists are working (e.g. D F O ) , rather than at the scientists themselves. The scientists, on the other hand, appear to be aware o f the growers' lack o f trust towards them. They, in turn, also have their own issues i n regards to how much they feel they can trust growers involved in the research projects.  The growers were asked: 'to what extent do you trust scientists i n general', and given a series o f choices. A s shown i n Figure 8, there was very little variation i n the answers given: the majority o f the growers replied that they  'fairly' trust scientists i n  general. Four informants chose 'not very much' as their answer, but none chose 'a lot' or 'completely'.  However, based on the comments made by the growers during the  113  interviews, I suspect that the choices provided for this question may not have been adequate. 22  o 2  Figure 8 Growers' level o f trust towards scientists i n general. The level o f trust is represented by the following categories: 0 = not at all; 1 = not very much; 2 = fairly; 3 = a lot; 4 = completely.  A s mentioned earlier, when analyzed, the growers' comments reveal a lot more about their thoughts on the topic o f trust. For example, a concern that is present in their minds is the perception that scientists - no matter what their intentions and motivations are - could always end up having a negative impact on the industry (through what they find, and what information they make public). Past experiences o f such a situation (with scientists from various organizations) seem to have led many growers to  either  completely loose their trust i n scientists, or to become more cautious i n their interactions with them: "No point in asking them [the scientists]: they could very well turn around and shut me down!" (Grower interview #7) 22 Perhaps the gap between 'fairly' and 'a lot' is too great and perhaps a seven-point scale would have allowed for a better distribution.  114  "I receive calls sometimes when they [scientists] want to do studies: sometimes you don't really want to help, because down the line, it might hurt you!" (Grower interview #10) Another reason why growers say they feel they cannot trust scientists is that they feel they can never be sure about the scientists' motives: " A good scientist, i f he was a good communicator, you'd have a better atmosphere. But again, one could question his agenda." (Grower interview #12)  Some growers believe that university scientists are  mostly interested i n collaboration as a mean to get their research funded: "The danger is if one partner is only in it for monetary advantage, and quite often it is the case, then I don't know i f there are any effective way to fend against that." (Grower interview #12) Another grower claimed: "Most of the money for R & D goes to academic agencies, and that kind of fellows, and they have people on staff who only worry about getting themselves more money and more research staff!" (Grower interview #7) Some growers believe that government scientists (those working with D F O i n particular) are more concerned with avoiding public controversy and protecting their own job, than with assisting the industry i n its development: "lis [DFO scientists] disent que c'est pour porteger l'environnement, mais moi je pense que c'est pour se proteger eux autres-meme!" (Griwer interview #1) [They say that it is to protect the environment, but I think that it is to protect themselves!]  In all three study areas, the growers expressed having a much lower level o f trust towards the scientists working with Department o f Fisheries and Oceans, than towards those working with provincial agencies:  115  "It senseless to go to DFO: they're not available. If you get an individual on the right day, yes. But most of my business is done through the province: they're all very obliging and will go out of their way to help you out." (Grower interview #11) Again, it must be mentioned that, although the question was addressing trust toward scientists only, some o f these growers do not appear to really perceive a clear distinction between D F O 'scientists' and 'regulators/ administrators'. This is an important fact, for it most likely affects how the growers interact with scientists. In British Columbia, the distrust growers feel towards D F O - as an organization - appears to significantly impact on their relationships with the scientists: "I have had experiences in the past with scientists, from DFO, coming on my lease and acting as i f they know everything, and ending up interpreting things wrong! [...] I am sure there are really good scientists at DFO. But I am cautious' now: I would not want a D F O scientist on my beach!" (Grower interview #12) Another grower explained: "...we've always been a little apprehensive about D F O becoming involved in doing any types of R & D in aquaculture, because of their philosophical approach, and because of their lack of expertise. Or the expertise is there, but the biases are always such that the end results don't reflect our reality as farmers. [...] Because they are managing a public resource, to them, it's a conflict of interest to be doing something that would see that interest transferred off the commons' hands, to the hands of private companies." (Grower , interview #14)  The scientists appear to be aware o f the growers' lack o f trust towards them. Three o f the scientists, believe that the growers' distrust is mainly towards the methods scientists employ (rather than towards the individuals), simply because they don't understand them: "C'est difficile de faire comprendre au mariculteur pourquoi on fait les choses comme 9a." (Scientist interview #3) 116  [It's hard to make the grower understand why we do things like that.]  Although it was not said directly, what transpired from the scientists' comments is the importance, at least for most o f them, o f obtaining the growers' trust.  This need can  probably be related to the fact that, i n many cases, the growers are the scientists' clients. The majority o f the informants mentioned that communication  is key to improve trust  between the two sectors: "Once they [growers] see you are sincere and that you show an interest, then they are keen [to help].  It's just having the time to get out there and see them." (Scientist  interview #13)  A small number o f scientists mentioned having their own difficulties trusting growers, sometimes, when doing a project i n partnership.  They explained that, because  some growers do not understand how scientific work is done, there is always the possibility that protocols w i l l not be respected: "It is hard sometimes to get compliance, and we have identified growers now who are very good with compliance, who understand the scientific process. Whereas other ones really don't understand it and cannot be trusted to respect the protocol.  It's an  educational challenge that we have to address when we start a project. [In P.E.I.] It's easier with the mussel industry: mussel growers are highly educated.  Whereas in the  oyster industry, there isn't such a diverse group: oyster growers are often oyster fishermen who decided to grow." (Scientist interview #9) One scientist recalled an experience where the project was completely stopped, because the grower had suddenly decided to harvest the stock that was part o f the experiment. Another admitted having, i n the past, some concerns about the validity o f his results,  117  because he could not be sure that the grower he had been working with had completely followed his instructions.  In Summary A t first look, what emerges from the three close-ended questions is that the current state o f the relationships between shellfish growers and aquaculture scientists i n the Magdalen Islands appears to be much better than it is i n the other two studied regions, where it seems to be fairly comparable. However, by 'putting back' the findings within the context o f each study region and by examining more closely the participants' comments - especially those regarding communication and trust - a somewhat different picture emerges.  For example, the fact that growers i n the Magdalen Islands have a much higher frequency o f interaction with scientists (compared to the other two provinces), can easily be explained by three circumstances: a) the industry is still very much i n the 'developmental' phase (whereas  the P.E.I, and B . C . industries are mostly i n the  'commercial' phase); b) the growers are few and fairly isolated, and; c) there are many scientists working i n very close proximity with the growers. What the informants' comments reveal, however, is that the high frequency o f interaction between the two groups does not translate into 'easier communication', nor into a 'higher level o f trust' between them.  118  Another important distinction must be made: although the frequencies with which growers interact with scientists in P.E.I and B . C . are comparable, growers in Prince Edward Island, through indirect channels (i.e. the bay/ river representatives and P.E.I. Aquaculture Alliance, the Aquaculture Management Board, as w e l l as the notes), appear to be more 'connected' with the scientists.  Aqualnfo  In the case o f British  Columbia, the lack o f interactions between growers and scientists does not appear to be compensated by 'indirect connections'.  The disconnect that exists between growers and scientists in all three regions - as indicated by the general difficulty in communicating and the lack o f trust - seems, at first look, more important i n British Columbia. There, growers are generally dissatisfied with the scientists, and scientists - except for the consultant - c l a i m to have only little time (or, more precisely, resources) to develop their relationships with the industry. The apparent lack o f structure (in both sectors) may have also contributed to this situation. I would argue, however, that the disconnect between industry and science is just as important ( i f not even more) in the Magdalen Islands, between four o f the growers interviewed and the scientists at the Station  Technologique  Maricole.  Indeed, three o f these growers  repeatedly expressed having a good relationship with the technological support officer at the Direction Regionale, but being either uncomfortable with scientists at the Station, or dissatisfied with their work. The scientists only vaguely mentioned this situation during the interviews, affirming that governmental funding strategies encouraging intersectoral collaboration, combined with the small size o f the industry are resulting i n increasing demands on the growers, and leading to more tension between the two groups.  119  T h u s , w e have established that it is fundamental to analyze the answers p r o v i d e d w i t h i n their context, for not d o i n g so c a n lead to the w r o n g c o n c l u s i o n s . M o r e o v e r , b y l o o k i n g at the broader context o f k n o w l e d g e r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n s h e l l f i s h aquaculture, s o m e interesting patterns w e r e i d e n t i f i e d , w h i c h , at first, appeared to be w e l l b e y o n d the scope o f this research, but that w e r e s o o n r e c o g n i z e d as v e r y relevant to the study.  Indeed,  a l t h o u g h the focus o f this research is p r i m a r i l y o n grower-scientist r e l a t i o n s h i p s , it b e c a m e clear that other types o f k n o w l e d g e r e l a t i o n s h i p s a r o u n d the t w o groups c o u l d not be i g n o r e d , because o f their i m p a c t o n the p r o d u c t i o n a n d d i f f u s i o n o f k n o w l e d g e . Therefore,  the  f o l l o w i n g chapter  is  an  attempt  to  demonstrate  the  existence  of  ' k n o w l e d g e n e t w o r k s ' i n each study r e g i o n , as w e l l as the i m p o r t a n t r o l e they p l a y i n the creation a n d t r a n s m i s s i o n o f s h e l l f i s h aquaculture k n o w l e d g e i n C a n a d a .  120  CHAPTER VII - NETWORKS OF KNOWLEDGE RELATIONSHIPS  "Knowledge creation and accumulation is not a purely individual affair, but it always requires the presence of a network." Coombs etal., 1996:10  W e have seen that structure  (i.e. social organization and infrastructure), and  culture may affect the way knowledge is produced, diffused and validated (see chapters U l and V ) . W e have established, i n Chapter U , that knowledge is 'dynamic', i n the sense that it is created and validated mainly through social interactions. Nonaka:  A s explained by  "Although ideas are formed in the minds o f individuals, interactions between  individuals typically play a critical role i n developing these ideas." (2002:438) It was also established that, although information  can be transferred through various means (e.g.  newsletters, reports, books, Internet), knowledge  (especially tacit knowledge) is best  transmitted from person-to-person (Kobayashi, 1995). Thus, interpersonal relationships play an important role in the production o f knowledge, as w e l l as i n its diffusion (Fischer et al., 2002).  W e have seen i n the previous chapter that, overall, shellfish growers do not appear to interact very frequently with aquaculture scientists.  Thus, i f the majority o f  the growers interviewed (11 out o f 17) do not rely (or very little) on aquaculture scientists to acquire new knowledge (see Figure 6), and considering that only two o f these companies have real capacities for sustained in-house R & D , the following question arises: in these circumstances,  how do the growers acquire new knowledge?  121  Shellfish aquaculture knowledge and networks of relationships W e have seen, i n Chapter V , that more than 60% o f the growers interviewed w i l l primarily go to other growers when seeking new information (see Table 4). One grower explained: " . . . just between other growers, we seem to find everything we need to know so far." (Grower interview #12)  This came as a somewhat unexpected result. Initially, I  had assumed that industry-science relationships would have a much greater role i n the production and transfer o f shellfish aquaculture knowledge than they actually do.  What I found, instead, is that the growers interviewed (especially those i n P.E.I, and B . C . ) acquire a great part o f the knowledge they need mainly through a number o f connections with other growers, but also with other actors involved in the industry (such as boat builders, welders and equipment manufacturers). It soon became clear that these connections are in fact part o f the growers' social networks, and that they are forming what we can call 'knowledge networks' (see chapter LT). Similarly, although scientists acquire new knowledge mostly through their own research, these are often carried i n collaboration with other scientists, as well as with other actors working i n the field o f shellfish aquaculture (such as growers, industry associations, processors and hatcheries).  Therefore, what emerged through the interviews is the existence, i n the field o f shellfish aquaculture, o f networks o f relationships, which appear to have i n important role in the framing o f knowledge processes. These knowledge networks are thus composed o f the various actors involved i n shellfish aquaculture (with their individual stocks o f knowledge), and o f the relationships among these actors (which are the linkages allowing  122  knowledge to flow through the network).  A s mentioned i n chapter II, this study uses  knowledge processes as the framework for identifying the networks and their boundaries (Burt, 1983). In other words, o f these social networks, only the components (nodes and linkages) that allow shellfish aquaculture knowledge to be collectively produced, or diffused are examined here.  Although this research was not designed to study social networks per se, the information obtained allows us to map some o f these knowledge network relationships. Two tables were produced (one for growers and one for scientists), by entering every reference to 'knowledge relationships' provided by the participants during the entire course o f the interviews.  This type o f 'social networks' perspective is interesting, for it  allows us to take a broader look at how shellfish aquaculture knowledge is produced and transferred within and across each sector. In this chapter, we w i l l examine the dynamics of knowledge flows within the industry and the science sector, i n order to identify the knowledge networks that exist i n each study area.  B y mapping some o f the knowledge  relationships mentioned by the participants during the interviews, I w i l l demonstrate that the role o f these networks i n the production and transfer o f knowledge is a significant one. The following sections present three models (or sociograms) providing an overview o f the key actors in the production and transfer o f shellfish aquaculture knowledge, and some examples o f the linkages among them that are impacting on knowledge processes.  23  A n extensive legend explaining the symbols used in the models can be found in Appendix 2.  123  Knowledge networks in the Magdalen Islands Although the frequency o f interaction between growers and scientists in the Magdalen Islands is fairly high, three o f the five growers interviewed have identified 'other growers' as their primary source o f information, while the other two have said that they find the information they need mostly 'in-house'. A s mentioned earlier (see Chapter IV), the key actors i n the field o f shellfish aquaculture i n the Islands are: the six growers (two scallop growers - one o f which was not 'formally' interviewed; two mussel growers; one oyster and one clam growers), and the six biologists (five working at the Station Technologique Maricole des Iles-de-la-Madeleine, STMEvI, and one working as a technological support officer, at the Direction Regionale). (mainly a fish processing plant) and no hatchery.  There is one processor  There is no local  aquaculture  association either.  W i t h so few local actors, some o f these growers and scientists have developed fairly intimate relationships with one another.  However, the majority have also  established 'long-distance' relationships, with actors i n other parts o f Canada.  One o f  the two scallop growers (see Figure 9: 'scallop a'), for example, has regular contacts with the scientists at the Station. However, he identified his primary source o f information as 'in-house', which i n this case is knowledge developed within a small cluster that includes two other 'sister companies' (one i n Quebec, one in N o v a Scotia). H e also mentioned a relationship with a scientist working at the Centre Aquacole Marin de Grande-Riviere ( C A M G R ) , in Gapesie, and at the Institut Maurice-Lamontagne (EVIL - a D F O research  124  centre i n Quebec). O n the other hand, 'scallop b ' with the S T M I M .  seems to have only one connection,  This connection, however, is a strong one, based on many years o f  close collaboration on the project R E P E R E (see Chapter ID).  'Mussel a' also has a linkage to the S T M I M , but it is not a strong one, as he explained: "Quand tu gere une enterprise, tu peux pas te permettre de fermer des portes." (Grower interview #2) [When you manage an enterprise, you cannot afford to close any doors.] H e has also developed connections with growers i n P.E.I, (through consultations, conferences and workshops). 'Mussel b ' is a younger entrepreneur (new in the business) who has developed - out o f necessity - an asymmetrical relationship (see Chapter IT) with the other, more experienced, mussel grower (going to h i m most often to  seek  information).  Scallop a  CAMGR (Gaspesie)  (  J IFREMER (France) UQAR (Rimouski)  Direction Regionale  Mussel a O  Growers in P.E.I.  \ O  Grower inN.B.  \  IML - DFO (Rimouski) DFO (Moncton, N B )  Figure 9  M o d e l o f the network o f relationships framing shellfish aquaculture knowledge i n the Magdalen Islands.  Information regarding this grower comes from a preliminary interview (October 2001), and from interviews with scientists working at the Station. 2 4  125  The oyster grower too has connections i n P.E.I., through a business relationship (with a very experienced grower/processor he buys his seed from).  H e also has a  relationship with a grower he used to know, when working as a fisherman i n N e w Brunswick: " J ' a i beaucoup appris de [ A ] , un producteur au Nouveau Brunswick..." (Grower interview #1) [I learned a lot from ' A ' , a producer i n N B . . . ]  Additionally, he  mentioned a good connection with the technological support officer, at the  Direction  Regionale.  Finally, the clam grower has worked with one o f the scientists at the STMEVI, however he feels that the relationship was not very beneficial to him, because - according to h i m - the information seemed to go only one way: from h i m to the scientist: " O n a du investir $10,000 dans ce projet-la: 9a fait 3 ans et y ' a rien qui en est vraiment sortit!" (Grower interview #4) [We had to invest $10,000 i n that project: it's been 3 years and nothing really has come out o f it!] H e explained that he has a much stronger connection with the technological support officer (at the Direction Regionale),  with whom he often  discusses ideas, mainly to get inputs.  A s mentioned above, some o f the scientists at the Station have developed close relationships, even friendships, with certain growers.  In some cases, the exchanges o f  information between the two groups occur on a daily basis (see Figure 7).  There  relationships appear to be stronger with the scallop growers. According to the biologist hired to work on clam culture (see Chapter HI), the relationship with the clam grower is  126  an important one, from which the grower has greatly benefited. This demonstrates how, sometimes, perceptions o f growers and scientists can differ significantly.  The scientists have also a close working relationship with the  Direction  Regionale, as well as with their colleagues at the C A M G R (the other provincial research centre for mariculture).  Additionally, they frequently collaborate with scientists from  other organizations, such as the Universite du Quebec a Rimouski ( U Q A R ) , the Institut Maurice-Lamontagne  (JJVIL), and D F O i n Moncton, N B .  scientists at the Institut Francais  de Recherche  pour  A relationship with the VExploitation  de la  Mer  ( I F R E M E R ) was also mentioned.  Knowledge networks in Prince Edward Island A n important feature o f shellfish aquaculture i n P.E.I, is that it is fairly well organized, within both the industry and the science sectors.  The 120 growers (mostly  mussel growers) are spread in the bays and the rivers around the Island, and approximately a dozen o f them are also processing shellfish. A s explained i n chapter HI, each bay/river system has a representative who plays the role o f intermediary between the local growers and the P.E.I. Aquaculture Alliance. Island are few.  The aquaculture scientists on the  However, they have developed strong connections among themselves,  and also with the industry: first, through the A F R I program between the M F A E and the University o f P.E.I./Atlantic Veterinary College; and second, through the Aquaculture Management  Board,  uniting the  industry, the  provincial  Ministry  o f Fisheries,  Aquaculture and Environment ( M F A E ) , and D F O (see chapter EI).  127  These connections among the various actors, i n addition to the many others mentioned by each o f the participants, form a large and dense network o f knowledge relationships that greatly facilitates the production and diffusion o f shellfish aquaculture knowledge on the Island.  Figure 10 shows three bay or river systems ( ' A ' , ' B ' and ' C ' ) ,  with growers, bay representatives and processors.  25  I have demonstrated, in chapter V ,  that growers rely mostly on each other to acquire new information (see table 4). Indeed, half o f the growers interviewed i n P.E.I, mentioned that the growers i n their bay or river systems often meet, either on the water or on the docks, and exchange information: "We're always meeting on the water. You stand there, and you just rattle everything around, what's going on about the socking material and screwing anchor machines and boats. [...] You get to the wharf and there is 3 or 4 guys there..." (Grower interview #8)  "We also meet around the bay and on the water, and we exchange ideas: some just brag about their equipment, others won't like to say too much." (Grower Interview #10) The connections among the growers i n a bay or river system appear to be 'informal' neighbourly relationships for the most part.  Some, however, have developed close  friendships over the years. Others are connected through kinship.  Processors (especially mussel processors)  are prominent  actors within  the  networks (see chapter IT). . They have connections (mainly business relationships, but also friendships) with many growers.  These are significant relationships, for the  processors appear to be important knowledge producers on the Island:  The study area in P.E.I, comprised about half a dozen bay or river systems (see chapter IV). However, because only a few growers in each bay or river system were interviewed, there was insufficient information to create the P.E.I, model as a true representation of the reality. Therefore the P.E.I, model only shows examples of the kind of networks and knowledge relationships that exist on the Island based on the data obtained from the background research and the interviews. 2 5  128  "I know a lot of the bigger growers [processors] are willing to share their information too: it's quite a learning experience. Y o u talk to them, and they don't mind telling you anything that they might know." (Grower interview #9)  Bay/river system 'B'  Other scientific \ Organizations ' in the Maritimes  DFO Monr.ton  # Bay/river system ' C  o  Grower inN.B.  Bay/ river representative Processor  F i g u r e 10 Example o f a network o f relationships framing shellfish aquaculture knowledge i n Prince Edward Island.  Four o f the six growers interviewed have mentioned friendships or close business relationships with either one o f the two biggest mussel growers/ processors on the Island (whom we w i l l call ' X ' and ' Y ' ) : "[X] and ourselves started at the same time: we're very good friends, and we've always cooperated, by helping each other out..." (Grower interview #7) "I had worked for [Y] for one year, harvesting mussels, so I gained a little bit of experience by doing that. [...]. I asked [Y]: he was the guy I could go to and ask questions. [...] So, basically by asking the people in the industry, like the [X] and the [Y] families, you could find out a lot, and they didn't mind telling you.  (Grower  interview # 9)  129  These exchanges o f information between processors and 'smaller' growers, however, are not necessarily only unidirectional : these 'smaller' growers may also 26  provide the processors with information from other areas. There are also other 'interbay/river' relationships (some o f which are illustrated i n Figure 10), allowing knowledge to flow between different areas. For example, a grower interviewed i n bay ' A ' has a son (also a grower) working i n river ' C . Another grower i n bay ' A ' said that he has a close business relationship with the processor in the neighbouring bay ' B ' : "We have an arrangement with [X]: my dad and him are pretty good friends. [...]  So  we're kind of loyal to one another." (Grower interview #10) According to another  grower, however, these exchanges  between  different  areas  (especially between the northern and southern coasts o f P.E.I.) can be somewhat limited: "...you don't see a lot of guys from this side of the Island going to the other side of the Island. Y o u don't get the big exchange of information back and forth that way. I think both groups are probably missing out on good ideas! Fortunately, I've gone over to the north side: a lot of them guys have been at it for 12 or 15 years too and I knew them either as soon as I got in or just shortly after, or before and I've had a great relationship with them all.  So I can go over, and they don't mind showing me what they're doing  and how they're doing it." (Grower interview #8) Knowledge production and transfer also occurs through the relationships between the growers  and  the  Island's  boat  builders, welders,  equipment  manufacturers  and  distributors: "I would see the need within my own business and would develop things myself or in conjunction with local welders." (Grower interview #6)  Most of the linkages illustrated were assumed to be symmetrical (i.e. bi-directional flow of information), for there was no indication in the data that proved otherwise.  130  The boat builders would also be a good place to go to get information." (Grower interview #10)  Not all the growers in a bay or river system are necessarily connected: some growers are said to be more independent or secretive, and therefore do not readily share information.  Most o f them, however, seem to keep contact with their 'bay/ river  representatives' - who are important linkages with the Alliance, which has been described by many growers as a great source o f information. The representatives seems to meet 'formally' with the other growers mostly in times o f crisis (e.g. a disease outbreak, or the emergence o f a new invasive species) to pass on information from the growers to the Alliance, or vice versa. One informant who is a bay representative explained: "In our bay, there are 13 growers, and when a grower comes to you with a problem, then you take it to the Alliance meeting. If it's a government issue, or just a grower issue, you discuss it with the board and then you take it back to the grower." (Grower interview #10) Based on the comments o f many o f the informants, the shellfish growers (at least the mussel growers) appear to be very satisfied with the work accomplished by the P.E.I. Aquaculture Alliance: "[Alliance] Meetings are very good: they allow an interchange between government, academia and industry. [...] The industry grew very fast, and that was because of the cooperation between the government and industry, and research has been pretty helpful too. The Alliance has been a good help..." (Grower interview #6) Another grower said: "It's [the Alliance] a good link between growers and governments.  They also have a  monthly newsletter." (Grower interview #9)  131  The majority o f the growers also mentioned having some kind o f knowledge relationship with scientists working at the Ministry o f Fisheries, Aquaculture and Environment (MFAE): "I used to sit on the board of AFRI. I think it's a very good program and it's making the best use of the expertise and the money." (Grower interview #6) "Also [the M F A E ] helped me. I always went to all the meetings organized by the Alliance and the Province." (Grower interview #11)  Finally,  only one  grower  (the  oyster  grower) mentioned  accessing  some  information outside P.E.I, (from a grower in N e w Brunswick). However, I suspect that mussel growers also have connections outside the Island: some growers did mention having to expand in N o v a Scotia, due to the lack o f available water acreage left in P.E.I, (which could lead to the creation o f new knowledge relationships). Other connections may possibly involve growers in other Maritime Provinces, but also in Maine, where the industry is also quite advanced.  The scientists interviewed have repeatedly mentioned the important relationship they maintain with the P.E.I. Aquaculture Alliance, which clearly appears to serve as an intermediary between the industry and the science sector.  This, however, is not to say  that there are no direct linkages between the scientists and the growers. Figure  A s shown in  10, the scientists also have connections with actors working with  other  organizations outside P.E.I., and an especially strong collaborative relationship with a scientist working with D F O i n Moncton, N . B . Other linkages are with the engineers at  132  the Food Technology Centre and the technicians at the Ellerslie hatchery (see chapter IE): "We provide advice, technical assistance, and bring-in expertise in case of crisis. We work in cooperation with the Veterinary School, B C and Newfoundland for education in science. There is no strong scientific base in the government, but strong cooperation to provide it." (Scientist informal interview #7)  A s we have seen, shellfish aquaculture in P.E.I, presents numerous  actors  connected in a dense and fairly well structured network o f knowledge relationships. In fact, we could qualify this network as 'mature', u T t h e sense that it's degree o f organization and topology (see chapter II) allows for knowledge to flow more efficiently throughout the network.  The bay/river representatives, the Alliance and the Ministry o f  Fisheries, Aquaculture and Environment, are obviously fundamental components o f this network, because o f their role as integrators.  The intense relationship between the  Alliance and the M F A E appears to be particularly significant, since it allows for the industry and the science sectors to mobilize more easily on R & D projects and to maintain a steady knowledge flow between them. Processors are also important components for they are great sources o f new knowledge, and prominent actors linking different parts o f the network.  Knowledge networks in British  Columbia  Although the shellfish aquaculture industry in B . C . is, i n many ways, comparable to the one i n P.E.I, (they both begun around the same period, both include more than 100 companies, and have flourished into economically and socially valuable industries), the degree o f organization and topology o f its knowledge networks appear to be very  133  different.  Based on the data collected, it seems that linkages among the various actors  are fewer, less intense, and less structured. There are no bay/ river representatives for the 250 growers, but a few industry members sitting on the board o f the B . C . Shellfish Growers Association ( B C S G A ) .  In recent years, the Association has had difficulties  organizing, and has seen its memberships decrease.  Similarly, the science sector also  appears to lack structure, with a handful o f actors more or less connected.  Figure 11 presents some o f the linkages that exist among growers in the Desolation Sound (area A ) and Baynes Sound (areas B ) regions , the main scientific 27  organizations involved i n the field shellfish aquaculture on Vancouver Island.  Many  growers in area ' A ' are connected through a local, however weak, cooperative. A small  f\ '  Scientists in the U.S.  Scientists on the East coast  Hatchery ' Z ' (WA)  (WA)  Boat builders/ machine shops  Malaspina (CSR)  ••  o  Big company with biologist/manager Hatchery  F i g u r e 11 Example o f a network o f relationships framing shellfish aquaculture knowledge i n British Columbia.  It is important to note that, as it is the case with the other two models, the symbols in figure 11 are in no way spatially located: they solely represent groups of actors and their social relationships.  134  number o f growers i n this area have developed friendships over the years, and they willingly share information among themselves: "Every fall, we started having a 'bouncy bucket party': other growers would come over and bring their buckets, and we'd compare notes and ideas." (Grower interview #12)  1  Processors do not appear to play such a significant role as they do i n P.E.I., perhaps because many growers either send their product to a processing plant i n Vancouver, or sell it themselves.  However, hatcheries seem to be important components  in the network. A s mentioned i n chapter JJJ, the hatcheries have been growing shellfish for decades, and they have been (and continue to be) responsible for a great part o f the shellfish aquaculture knowledge production i n B . C .  Four o f the six growers interviewed  mentioned that they acquire information from the hatchery where they buy their seed. One grower, involved i n the culture o f mussels and scallops, explained that his close friendship/ business relationship with one o f the leading hatchery/grower in B . C . allows h i m to obtain a lot o f the knowledge he needs to run his operation: "...the company that financed my salmon farm was also developing a hatchery for Japanese scallop. So I got the inside scoop from them. [...] They imported the Japanese model and said: 'this is how you should probably do it'." (Grower interview #17) Another grower mentioned that he, also, benefited from a similar relationship with another important hatchery: "[Company A] when they were here to help us. He used to put little newsletters with our checks. [X] would give lots of information. There was a flow of information in those days.  Not anymore.  AIL the guys developing with [company A ] were meeting and  sharing information. Use to get information from [Y] at [company B]. There used to be technicians with [company A] that are growers [now]. But now I know what I am doing." (Grower interview #16)  135  Two other growers are clients o f a shellfish hatchery (also one o f the biggest producer and processor on the west coast) in Washington State, who is a world-leader i n the development o f shellfish aquaculture: "We have a pretty good relationship with people down in Washington, particularly [company Z], for example. I correspond regularly with people associated with [them]: they have the hatchery there. Partly because we are customers (we buy the seed down there), so then I can access their resources... regularly! (laugh)" (Grower interview #13) One o f the growers - a biologist/ manager with a big company i n area ' B ' - argued that the lack o f expertise 'outside' the industry has lead h i m to form his own 'clique', by developing informal relationships with half a dozen other biologists/managers working for big companies in B . C . and in Washington State: "There is a handful of scientists, primarily in Washington State, who I will call up and discuss a problem with. [...] There is a network, obviously. We interact via email or the telephone, or the Annual Conference. Our contacts are maybe once every couple of months, just to share knowledge. They are not really consultants per se, but people like myself, working in other companies." (Grower interview #14)  The  same  grower mentioned  manufacturers  a relationship with  boat  builders  and  equipment  :  "One of the advantages that we have, in this part of the world, is that we have the machine shops and the boat builders, and everything that used to service the fishing fleet, is now inactive so it is very useful to us, to be able to use these people, their skills, to develop the machinery we need." (Grower interview #14)  He was the only informant in B.C. to mention this type of knowledge relationship.  136  Connections between growers and the B C S G A appear to be generally weak: only two o f the growers interviewed mentioned a relationship with the Association (one o f the informants is actually on the organization's board o f directors). One grower explained: "But I think part of the problem is growers here tend to be independent, as a result, the extreme ones tend to miss a lot of knowledge by adopting that attitude. There is a lot of that rigid variety out here. They don't trust those in the association because they think they are the enemy! They perceive them to bring in government and interfering, and costing more money, etc." (Grower interview #12) This situation, however, could change i n the near future, for the Association is currently re-structuring and re-defining its mandate.  Furthermore, the organization has recently  entered i n a partnership with Malaspina's new Centre for Shellfish Research (see chapter III), which could lead it to play a much more important role i n the diffusion o f new scientific knowledge, possibly as an 'integrator' between the industry and the science sectors.  A s mentioned in chapter i n , there are several consultants on Vancouver Island who  seem to be doing a significant amount o f contracted work with both industry  members and government agencies. Three o f the growers interviewed mentioned having contacts with consultants: ".. .the individuals who are in consulting, tend to be those who are from a more technical science background. One of the things that I feel we need is a whole cooperative R & D program to address future needs of the industry, and I think that consultants will play a big role in that." (Grower interview #13)  137  The relationships between the growers and these consultants, however, are not all formal ones: being, or having been growers themselves, the consultants have also developed friendships with some o f the other growers: "[Z] is a friend. He is also a grower, although he is making way more money with the consulting!  He is very good: I respect him.  We have exchanged ideas, on many  occasions." (Grower interview #12) These relationships (both formal and informal) with consultants are important i n B . C . , for they allow new knowledge to be produced collectively (e.g. the Gorge Harbour carrying capacity study, carried out by a team o f growers and researchers put together by a consultant), and to be transferred among various actors, growers and scientists.  The  consultants' capacities for knowledge diffusion seem to be enhanced by the fact that they work with various organizations: governmental, academic, industry, etc. The consultant interviewed explained: "We bid on anything we think we can do. [...] we can jug around any one of those camps, or against anyone. [...] Industry capacity is so low for R & D : we're just business people using science." (Scientist interview #11")  The other scientists working in the field o f shellfish aquaculture are with the Ministry o f Agriculture, Food and Fisheries ( M A F F ) , with D F O ' s Pacific Biological Station (PBS), and with Malaspina College. A s suggested previously, there appears to be only weak linkages among these scientists: none o f the informants have mentioned any kind o f collaboration among them. The scientist working with the M A F F mentioned a relationship with a consultant.  Although the scientists at M A F F and D F O have been  working together in the past (see chapter I V ) , collaboration between the two agencies  138  does not seem to be as frequent today.  Again, the Centre for Shellfish Research may  change this situation i n the future by serving as a link among the scientists.  The role of knowledge networks: Conclusion I have demonstrated that there exist networks o f knowledge relationships that involve many linkages other than the grower-scientist ones, and that these linkages also play an important role i n the production and diffusion o f shellfish aquaculture knowledge in Canada. W e have seen that, although numerous shellfish growers may not have much contact with scientists, they have knowledge relationships with other actors i n the network (often, other growers), and that it is these relationships that appear to provide the flow o f new knowledge the growers need to operate their businesses. Similarly, scientists also have various relationships with other scientists, which allow for different scientific knowledge to be transferred between organizations, and/or between different parts o f the world. I have also shown that the structure (topology) o f each knowledge network and the nature o f the linkages that compose them may have a direct impact on how the knowledge flows between growers and scientists, as w e l l as among the actors i n each group.  Therefore, it is important to acknowledge the role these networks play, and to  understand how they function and how they affect the production and diffusion o f shellfish aquaculture knowledge.  139  CHAPTER VIII - PERSPECTIVES ON INTERSECTORAL COLLABORATION  "Great discoveries and improvements invariably involve the cooperation of many minds." A . G . Bell  W e have seen i n the previous chapters that, i n shellfish aquaculture, the industry and science sectors are two distinct occupational cultures, and that culture does affect the way the members o f each sector deal with knowledge, as well as the way they may interact with one another.  W e have also examined the current state o f industry-science  relationships i n three parts o f Canada, and I have shown that knowledge relationships in shellfish aquaculture are not only limited to grower-scientist linkages, but that there exist, within a greater social context, complex networks of knowledge  relationships.  I have  suggested that these networks impact greatly on the production and diffusion o f shellfish aquaculture knowledge i n Canada, and that their topology may also affect how growers and scientists relate to each other (i.e. possibly facilitating or inhibiting collaboration between the two groups).  The data collected have allowed me to identify various patterns and consequently to form m y own theories regarding what factors appear to affect relationships between growers and scientists.  However, I felt that this study would not be complete without  giving the participants the opportunity to express how they feel about intersectoral collaboration.  Therefore, at the end o f the interviews, there was a series o f questions  aiming at allowing the growers and the scientists to express their own thoughts and  140  V.  opinions regarding intersectorial collaboration. This provided a way for me to verify i f m y conclusions (i.e. how I interpreted the preceding data) coincided with the participants  ?  own perspectives on the issue. It also gave me some 'expert' opinions on what could be done to improve intersectoral collaboration i n shellfish aquaculture.  It was exciting to see that what I had perceived as important factors affecting intersectoral collaboration were indeed being echoed i n the last few answers given by each informant, as well as a small number o f additional factors that had not been previously identified.  Three significant results emerged from this last section o f the  study: 1) the 'distinctiveness o f perspectives' between growers and scientists is identified by almost half o f the informants as both an advantage or benefit, and as a difficulty and/ or challenge i n collaborative R & D ; 2) despite the various criticisms expressed by the informants i n regards to intersectoral collaboration, all 31 participants agree that it is 'a good thing' (at least i n theory), and that governments should continue encouraging it, and; 3) communication/  finding ^common grounds  and respect were identified by the  majority o f growers and scientists as the key factors to successful collaboration.  8.1 Advantages, disadvantages and challenges to intersectoral collaboration Participants were asked to enumerate what they thought were some o f the advantages or benefits ( i f any) for members o f their own sector i n working with members o f the other sector. They were then asked to identify any disadvantages or difficulties, and challenges that they could perceive i n doing so. Results are presented i n table 9. There are three main themes that transpired from the answers: complimentary  knowledge/  141  distinctiveness  of perspectives;  knowledge production,  transfer and use, and; perks and  annoyances.  T a b l e 9 Participants perspectives on intersectoral collaboration. For growers  (For both)  For scientists  Advantages Complementary knowledge/ different perspectives Opportunity to find common ground/ create ties Scientists can learn about the industry  Helps growers understand scientific methods  Reliability of the results  Grounds research  Knowledge transmission capacities Access to laboratories and technicians  Access to site and equipment  Access to funding  Opportunities for research  Disadvantages Different perspectives Timeframe (too long)  Timeframe (too short)  Results can hurt industry  Lack of understanding/respect of scientific protocol  Time-consuming Need to justify methods 'Strings attached' (government agenda)  Working around growers' schedule Lack of availability/commitment Intellectual property  Challenges Communication/ finding common ground Trust Getting growers to find time  142  Complimentary knowledge/ distinctiveness of perspectives Six shellfish growers and six scientists mentioned that it can be an advantage to work with members o f the other sector as they can offer 'complementary knowledge/ different perspectives' that may helping finding the solution to a problem more rapidly: 29  "When problems arise and scientists are needed, things have to be done in cooperation: they have the biological background, and we have the local knowledge." (Grower interview #12) ".. .les mariculteurs ont une connaissance des choses qu'on a pas. lis sont sur l'eau a tous les jours: ils ont une connaissance plus intuitive, mais plus reelle. Nous, si on suit un phenomene, on va prendre un echantillon une fois par mois; on va aller sur l'eau pour une demie-heure. Done ils peuvent nous orienter." (Scientist interview #6) [...shellfish growers have a knowledge of things that we don't have. They are on the water everyday: they have a knowledge that is more intuitive, but more real. If we follow a phenomenon, we will take a sample once a month; we will go on the water for half an hour. Therefore, they can direct us.] However, half o f the participants (the majority o f those mentioned above, plus a few others) also perceive this 'difference in knowledge/ perspectives' as a disadvantage and/or a challenge. Indeed, informants mentioned how this often results i n a difficulty to communicate and find common grounds: "Overcoming the gap between indigenous, or common knowledge and the scientific training, and method, and the language of science. I think that that gap needs to be bridged and that's a job for both sides to work on. Growers have to respect the scientific methods and scientists have to make efforts to meet them halfway." (Grower interview #13)  'Complementary knowledge' and 'different perspectives' were put together in the same category because the informants would most often mention them together, as two components of the same idea. 29  143  Both groups (growers and scientists) seem to agree that more/improved communication could solve this difficulty: first by increasing each sector's understanding o f the other, and allowing trust to be established; and second, by allowing each party to address perspective differences and knowledge gaps before they become a problem: "It [collaboration] also shows the scientists what we need and the way we do things: sometimes, they don't have a clue!" (Grower interview #11) "That's one thing collaboration does: it brings an understanding both ways.  It brings  science people more an industry focus, and the other way around: they [growers] get to understand a lot better the way science works." (Scientist interview #8) Another scientists said: "The scientist comes along and says: 'I've got to study the biology of this bacteria, because it may relate to your problem.' The grower says: 'Well, that's your ivory tower stuff!'  So they have to communicate and come to an understanding with the scientist.  Not all industry people can do that, and not all scientists can do that. There has to be communication." (Scientist interview #10)  Knowledge production, transfer and use W e have seen that a 'difference i n knowledge' can be perceived as an advantage and/or a difficulty.  However, the way knowledge is produced and diffused can also  translate into a positive and/or negative factor for grower and scientists. For example, according to nine o f the scientists interviewed, working i n partnership with shellfish growers allows them to 'ground research': ".. .you realize that you really have to be on the ground, out where the problem is! So we would be working in collaboration with them [growers] as to how an experiment could be reasonably set up. Some of these agents, you can look at in the lab, but what does it mean when you get out in the field? It's good to have the bigger picture, to understand." (Scientist interview #12)  144  O n the other hand, six scientists mentioned that the fact that the growers, for various reasons, may 'not respect the protocol' is a big difficulty, while five others mentioned that 'having to explain/justify the methods', when working with members o f the industry can be time-consuming and frustrating. One scientist explained: "...they [growers] don't always have an appreciation for science and the sampling protocol: non-bias, all those sorts of things that are involved in science. So that can be frustrating for the scientists." (Scientist interview #8) Another one said: "... le fait qu'on doit repeter encore et encore la raison pour laquelle on fait les choses d'une certaine maniere: c'est une perte de temps." (Scientist interview #3) [... the fact that we have to explain over and over the reason why we do things a certain way: it's a waste of time.] One grower - who generally had very little positive things to say about working with scientists - mentioned 'obtaining results that are reliable' as an advantage when doing a project with scientists: "C'est tout le background, la methodologie. Meme s'il y a des zones grises, quand les resultats sortent, en general, on peut s'y fier. Pour moi, c'est valide." [It's all the background, the methodology. Even i f there are grey areas, when results come out, generally, you can trust them. For me, it's valid.] (Grower interview #2) A small number o f informants (both growers and scientists) acknowledged that the 'timeframe for knowledge production' poses difficulties when working with members o f the other sector.  According to growers, scientists 'take too long' to come up with  solutions: "We loose money for everyday they [scientists] take to find a solution!" (Grower interview #11)  145  Another grower explained: "I can imagine a scenario where growers are expecting or need an answer in three months or less, and the science may take two years!" (Grower interview #13) O n the other hand, scientists feel pressured by the growers to give answers faster than allowed by the methods used: "Things never happen fast enough! That's an issue that often comes up. Things take a while, and they [growers] want answers yesterday, you know! That can be a sore point sometimes." (Scientist interview #8)  A small number o f growers mentioned that one benefit from working with scientists could be the transfer o f knowledge (through scientists) from other R & D projects, other fields o f research, or other parts o f the world. One grower explained: "When we work with the province, they pass on the information for each project: it's part of the deal with borrowing money. It helps out everybody that way, so they don't have to re-invent the wheel on their own." (Grower interview #11) Here, it is the scientists' capacities for transmitting information from 'other sources' that is perceived by growers as an advantage, but also their capacities for making available to the growers these other sources o f knowledge: "I suppose, i f there is an open door to a scientists, growers could get access to information from all kinds of people in the field." (Grower interview #13)  The use o f the results obtained i n a collaborative R & D project can also present difficulties for each party.  Two growers explained that a disadvantage when working  with scientists is the 'the fact that the results could end up hurting the industry'.  This  issue was mentioned by various growers in each case study, and appears to be (as we have seen i n the previous chapters) an important factor hindering the establishment o f  146  trust towards scientists.  Three growers (all i n B.C.) mentioned that partnerships with  government scientists often 'come with strings attached' , which can be a disadvantage: 30  "Generally, they [government R & D programs] are pretty restrictive on what you can do, and they [government people] will definitely have a lot of fingers in what you are doing." (Grower interview #17) "... there is the practical side of having your results in the public domain and there is the less obvious side of the political implications of accepting funding from a provincial or a federal agency and still being able to pursue the development of the industry." (Grower ' interview #14) One scientist mentioned the issue o f 'intellectual property' as a potential difficulty when working with shellfish growers: "Aussi, rinformation en tant que telle, au niveau de la confidentialitee: souvent ils [growers] vont penser que c'est leure information. Done i l faut que ca soit clair, a qui appartient les donnees." (Scientist interview #2) [As well, the information itself, in terms of confidentiality: often they think that it is their information. So it has to be clear, whose data it is.]  Perks and annoyances Finally, there are some other advantages and disadvantages to intersectoral collaboration that were mentioned by the participants, which generally do not appear to be major factors, but can be significant i n some cases. For example, two growers i n the Magdalen Islands explained that working in partnership with scientists allows them 'access to laboratories and technicians'. This can be a very positive factor, especially for smaller companies with little in-house R & D capacities.  A small number o f growers  In B.C. the answers were often preceded by comments such as: "if we did have scientists with some expertise..." or "providing that the scientists understand the industry...", which corresponds to the lack of scientific expertise perceived by many growers in that region.  3 0  147  mentioned that collaboration with scientists could also lead to 'better chances for funding': "C'est sure qu'on peut quand meme s'associer avec eux: c'est bon pour avoir l'argent!" (Grower interview #4) [Of course we can still associate with them: it's good for the money!] Five o f the scientists identified 'access to site/ equipment' as an advantage. One scientist perceives collaboration with shellfish growers as a source o f research opportunities: "It's just a lifetime of opportunities to study things. And you can use the oyster farms just to study something you want to study..." (Scientist interview #10)  One grower brought up an issue that was often mentioned by growers, earlier in the interviews, which is the fact that intersectoral collaboration 'takes time away from the production': "I'm always receptive, but I found I was taking too much time away from my own business. Right now my business needs all the time and the concentration I can give it." (grower interview #6) A 'lack o f availability/ commitment' on the part o f the growers was also identified as a disadvantage by a small number o f scientists: "Most people are interested in the results of the projects, but some just don't want to make the time commitment: they want to be producers."(Scientist interview #7) Two other scientists explained that, for growers, production  often takes priority over  science, which can create difficulties, or sometimes, serious problems: "Another problem is that with some of the culture systems, [raft or longline], you need special equipment in order to pull them up.  So i f they [growers] are using their  equipment harvesting in another location, then how do we get the sample in our location,  148  in a timely fashion? That kind of thing has to be worked out, and they can be, but there is frustration sometimes on both sides." (Scientist interview #12) "The fact that we have to work around their schedule: we are secondary to their businesses." (Scientist interview #11)  8.2 G o v e r n m e n t intervention To  the  question  'should  governments  continue  to  foster  intersectoral  collaboration', the majority o f the participants (both growers and scientists) answered 'yes', and a few added that it is 'a good thing overall', or even 'necessary'. In B . C . , three o f the growers, however, explained that although collaborative R & D should be encouraged, it should be done differently for, at the moment, they think it is not adequate: "The model has been successful in other parts of the world, and the reason it's not working successfully here is a uniquely Canadian problem:  it's going to require a  Canadian solution." (Grower interview #14)  When asked i f there should be a limit or a certain level of caution regarding the increase o f intersectoral collaboration, only a small number o f growers and scientists answered that there should be 'none', while the majority o f the participants agreed that, indeed, there should be some level o f caution.  The growers expressed various concerns.  Some worry that certain scientists may be participating only for the financing: "The danger is i f one partner is only in it for monetary advantage, and quite often it is the case, then I don't know i f there are any effective way to fend against that." (Grower interview #12) Another fears that scientists may than be perceived by the public as working for  the  industry, which could have negative effects on the industry. A few growers mentioned that they would not want to see the strategy become the only one available, for they  149  appreciate having the choice o f working with a scientific partner or not.  One grower  explained that R & D should address more than solely production: "Aussi, les deux niveaux de gouvemement devraient avoir une vision a long terme. Par example, le M A P A Q a mit beaucoup d'argent sur la production, et a oublie qu'une fois qu'on avait produit, i l fallait les vendre, ces produits-la. C'est pour 9a qu'a mon avis 1'industrie est encore tout a fait en demarrage: on est capable de produire, mais on est pas sure qu'on est capable de vendre. C'est l'ensemble du processus qui doit etre adresse, tant par le gouvemement federal, que provincial, et meme par les universitiees."  [Also, both levels of government should have a long-term vision.  For example, the  M A P A Q put a lot of money on the production, and forgot that, once we have produced, we must sell those products. That is why, in my opinion, the industry is still completely 'starting up': we can produce, but we're not sure we can sell. It is the whole process that must be addressed as much by the federal government, than by the provincial, and even the universities.] (Grower interview #3)  Scientists also mentioned a variety o f concerns regarding the current trend. Some fear losing their autonomy and their control over research: " Y o u don't want the producers to control the research programs." (Scientist interview #9)  One scientist mentioned that  there could be a danger for scientists o f loosing their objectivity. Another explained that collaborative R & D should not be done at the detriment o f fundamental science.  One  concern mentioned by a scientist i n P.E.I, is that there are 'resources' and 'human' limits to respect when it comes to collaboration: "The problem is that the Ministry is being tapped from so many sources: we can only put so much money. Unless we get the involvement of all the growers, the pressure often falls on the same ones. Same thing for us: i f growers want to do a project, they often have to have a governmental partner. But generally, collaboration is a good thing for both of us." (Scientists interview #8)  150  This is a concern that is shared by the scientists i n the Magdalen Islands.  In fact,  the particularities o f their context (i.e. their geographic isolation, and the small size o f the shellfish aquaculture industry) combined to the recent trend i n government funding (see chapter I) have led them to a situation that has become, according to them, somewhat extreme. B y having to take industry partners more and more often, i n order to get their R & D projects funded, the scientists at the Station are now facing some serious difficulties: a) convincing the local growers to repeatedly give their time and their money, and; b) convincing governments (provincial and federal) that a refusal to collaborate on the part o f the industry does not necessarily mean that the growers are not interested, or that the research projects are not valid: "Maintenant, [...] pour montrer que le projet est vraiment un projet important pour l'industrie, i l faut que l'industrie contribue: meme si elle n'a pas les moyens. Le P C R D A c'est comme 9a; partout maintenant c'est comme 9a! Si l'industrie ne veut pas contribuer, c'est le signe que ce n'est pas important pour elle. Ce n'est pas vrai: c'est qu'ils [les mariculteurs] n'ont pas les moyens, tout simplement. Alors la, je pense qu'on va trop loin." [Now ... to show that the project really is a project that is important for the industry, the industry must contribute: even i f it does not have the resources. The A C R D P is like that; everywhere is like that! If the industry does not want to contribute, it's the sign that it's not important to it. It's not true: it's that growers don't have the resources, simply. So there, I think that we are going too far.] (Scientist interview #6)  A s other research organizations i n the province o f Quebec are beginning to get more actively involved i n shellfish aquaculture R & D , funding from new sources is coming to the Station. However, the problem remains, as the number o f growers still remains very small:  151  "II semble y avoir plus de monde qui veulent aider, que de joueurs qui ont besoin d'etre aides!" (Scientist interview #2) [There seems to be more people who want to help, than players who need to be helped!] Additionally, these organizations have a strategy o f wanting to put their money i n as many projects as possible in order to increase their 'visibility' on the R & D scene. Thus, each organization invests only a small amount o f money in each R & D project, leading to multi-organizational projects that are, as explained by these scientists (see below), logistically very difficult to manage: "Une chose qui est en train de devenir un probleme, au Quebec, c'est que tout le monde veut avoir un 'effet levier'.  Alors i l n'y a personne (peut-etre que la recherche  universitaire est differente) qui finance [les projets] a 100%." (Scientist interview #6) [Something that is becoming a problem in Quebec is that everyone wants to have a 'lever effect'. Therefore, no one (maybe university research is different) finances projects to 100%.]  "On est vraiment plus tout seul dans l'equipe: i l y a vraiment beaucoup de monde [implique], et 9a devient de plus en plus diffigile a gerer tout 9a! [...] C'est complexe. De plus en plus, on veut pas aller faire des contrats d'entente en debut de projet, mais je me demande s'il faudrait pas en arriver a 9a, a un moment donne. Justement pour que 9a soit claire, les mandats de tout le monde, et qui fournit tel argent, et a qui appartient les resultats: c'est de plus en plus complexe!" (Scientist interview #2) •J  [We are not alone anymore in the team: there is really a lot of people involved, and it's becoming more difficult to manage it all! [...] It's complex. More and more, we don't want to go and make contracts at the beginning of each project, but I wonder i f it should not come down to this, at one point. Precisely to make it clear, everyone's mandate, and who provides what money, and to whom the results belong: it's more and more complex!]  152  A third concern o f scientists in the Magdalen Islands, is the increasing power the new trend in governmental funding strategy is giving the industry i n regards to R & D . Consequently, scientists feel they are loosing some o f their autonomy: "Ca devient ridicule, quand le chercheur est a la mercie du promoteur.  L'industrie ne  devrait pas avoir Pexclusivitee du financement, comme avec le P C R D A . Parce que c'est pas leur role, d'etre leaders en R & D , et s'ils ont l'argent, ils deviennent leaders. Les chercheurs alors deviennent que des contractants." (Scietnist interview #4) [It become ridiculous, when the researcher is at the mercy of the promoter. The industry should not have the exclusiveness on financing, like with the A C R D P . Because, it is not their role to be leader in R & D , and i f they have the money, they become leaders. Researchers then become only 'contractees'.]  Although the Magdalen Islands' case is quite unique i n Canada, it provides an example o f some o f the consequences (good and bad) o f increased collaborative R & D strategies.  The concerns expressed by these growers and scientists could be taken as a  warning to R & D program managers around the country against going too far with this particular strategy. A s one scientist in B . C . cautioned: "I think government engineering of science could go too far. It would get to be like an ideology where the only researches that could be done are going to be with an industry partner.  Some of that research has to be quite untethered and free: we shouldn't go too  far." (Scientist interview #6) One o f the growers shared a similar concern: ".. .you can't always tie those two [science and industry] together because you won't get the results then. I can see, in government now, the pressure is on: you only research for something that's financially worthwhile, and maybe that's not quite right"  (Grower  interview #17)  153  8.3 What is needed for effective collaboration Key factors for success To the question: ' i n you opinion, what are the key factors leading to successful collaboration between growers and scientists', the majority o f the participants (growers and scientists) identified 'communication' as a key factor.  A small number o f growers  and scientists said that having a 'well-defined problem' and 'well-defined roles' is fundamental in collaborative R & D .  Two growers replied that 'obtaining applicable  results' is a necessary condition for success. Three scientists said that 'industry involvement/ commitment' is fundamental.  T w o others answered 'respect/  trust'.  Another scientist affirmed that the 'willingness to make compromises/ flexibility' is a key factor: "You can't be a control freak. Don't let egos get in the way. You have to be flexible and open-minded." (Scientist interview #10)  Improvements Finally, when asked 'what would be the one major improvement needed to make collaborative R & D generally more efficient', the participants offered a variety o f answers.  Some growers mentioned the issue o f 'accountability on the part o f the  scientists': "Nous autres, entrepreneurs, on en a des comptes a rendre: si je fais pas de profits, je vais etre dans le trouble. Si un scientifique essai quelque chose et que 9a n'a pas marche, 9a va." (Grower interview #2) [We, entrepreneurs, have responsibilities: i f I don't make any profits, I will be in trouble. If a scientist tries something and it does not work, it's O.K.]  154  A small number o f growers answered 'more expertise/ field time for scientists' as a much-needed improvement, while two others perceive a need for 'more scientists' altogether.  " M o r e face-to-face interactions between scientists and growers' is another  improvement identified by two growers. According to three growers i n B . C . , no effort to improve collaborative programs would succeed without first improving 'trust' and 'communication' between growers and scientists: "Mistrust towards scientists is a big factor [...] So, an element of trust needs to be reestablished: i f it was ever there in the first place! Back to communication." (Grower interview #12) Other growers proposed that 'better structure and coordination between the different research institutions', 'the designation o f a leader', and 'simpler programs' would help improve collaboration between science and industry: "Programs have to be simpler too: for example, with the A C R D P , many growers do not have the capacity to write proposals." Two scientists identified 'long-term funding' as a major improvement needed.  Four  scientists in the Magdalen Islands answered: 'not having to always involve the industry in order to get funding or justify research', which again reflects the seriousness o f their situation (described earlier i n this chapter).  8 . 4 Implications for this study A n important factor in any kind o f collaboration is the 'willingness' o f each party to participate and to make the process work. I have established, i n the chapter, that there is, indeed, a general willingness on the part o f the growers and the scientists to collaborate with one another.  W e have also seen that each group has its own perceptions  155  o f what collaboration implies, and its own expectations regarding the process.  Each  group also has pre-conceived ideas about the other that may affect the process o f collaboration. Both groups agree that the differences between their knowledge stocks can present an advantage, but also a difficulty to collaboration. They also agree that both types o f knowledge (local and scientific) are necessary to R & D .  In Chapter V I , I have discussed the importance o f communication and trust in the process o f intersectoral collaboration. Here, growers and scientists have reaffirmed this argument.  Indeed, they both agree that 'more/ improved communication' and the  'respect o f each other/ trust' are the keys to better relationships between the two sectors. Overall, the participants appear to have a clear idea o f what is necessary for the success o f intersectoral collaboration, as well as what can achieved through the process.  This  chapter has provided a better understanding o f how each sector may approach intersectoral collaboration, based on their expectations and on their perceptions o f one another.  It has also underlined some o f the difficulties that may result from 'over-  utilizing' this strategy (i.e. the case o f the Magdalen Islands).  156  CHAPTER IX - TOWARDS A NEW CULTURE OF KNOWLEDGE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMANDATIONS  "...the Government of Canada will engage large and small businesses, academia, provincial, territorial and municipal governments and Canadians to align expertise and interest in a Canadian effort. [...] The aim will be to ensure that actions are complementary and targeted, seeking partnerships to pursue our objective of a more innovative country." Canada's Innovation Strategy, 2001  In Canada, shellfish aquaculture has made substantial progress over the past 30 years.  Today, it involves a prosperous and diversified industry, as well as a growing  field o f scientific research.  However, international competition has also grown: mussel  producers in N e w Zealand are frequently competing with growers i n P.E.I., and the local oyster markets that were once secured by B . C . growers are now sought after by producers in China and the United States.  Markets are also changing fast, with the accelerated rate  of innovation: the production costs are decreasing, the quality o f the products, increasing, and new products are also constantly emerging.  Thus, the pressures o f this global,  knowledge-based economy are prompting both the private and the public sector to look for strategies that w i l l improve the competitiveness o f the Canadian shellfish aquaculture industry.  Increased intersectoral collaboration is believed to be one o f these strategies.  If  carried out successfully, it can lead to enhanced knowledge flows between shellfish growers and aquaculture scientists, and intensify their capacity to produce and absorb  157  new knowledge. However, despite the similarity or compatibility o f some o f their goals, collaboration between the two groups is not without difficulties:  as there exist factors  that facilitate the process o f intersectoral collaboration, there are also factors that inhibit it.  9.1 The Conditions for Improved Collaboration Although there is no magical formula for developing a successful collaboration, certain well-known conditions must be i n place for the process to have any chance o f succeeding.  First, there has to be an opportunity: a common/ similar problem or interest,  and a chance for mutual benefits. Then, a connection must be established (either through a formal or informal relationship): communication is fundamental at this stage for it allows the parties involved to learn about each other and build up trust (which is crucial to the process o f collaboration). Finally, common grounds must be found regarding issues such as priorities, timeframe, objectives, methods, funding, and intellectual property.  It is clear that the failure o f any o f these conditions can greatly jeopardize the collaborative process.  There are, i n fact, a multitude o f factors (structural, cultural and  relational) that may affect intersectoral collaboration. Being able to recognize these factors and understand them would not only allow program managers to potentially improve collaborative R & D initiatives, but it would most likely also place the parties involved i n a better position to reach consensus and resolve conflicts.  There are four  158  major findings that emerged from this study (and which w i l l be discussed in more details in the rest o f the chapter):  1) Structure is fundamental: it is at the basis o f efficient intersectoral collaboration processes. However, it cannot function alone; 2) Occupational  cultures and knowledge paradigms  play an important role, for they  influence the way actors interpret the world, as well as how they behave. Although differences i n cultures and paradigms can lead to disagreements, they can also translate  into benefits, by presenting fresh perspectives, and new  knowledge; 3) Interpersonal  relationships  and knowledge networks play a paramount role i n the  production and diffusion o f knowledge. Through relationships, cultural gaps can be overcome; 4) Integrators are key components o f knowledge systems and can be major assets i n intersectoral collaboration: their role can compensate for structural deficiencies, bridge cultures, and intensify the density o f knowledge networks.  Structural/actors Structure helps individuals function as 'collectives'; it is not only responsible for holding organizations together, but also for facilitating interaction among individuals, as well as between different organizations. In this study, structure involves organizations, but also their programs and infrastructures. There is no doubt that having adequate R & D programs and initiatives, as well as research facilities and personnel is crucial to the production o f new knowledge. To be efficient, however, R & D programs must be adapted to the capacities o f both the industry and the science sector.  They should also be fairly  simple and flexible (the idea being to encourage growers and scientists to participate, and  159  not to 'scare them away' with complicated and time-consuming administrative requirements). Other organizational strategies and tools, such as conferences, workshops, meetings, newsletters and websites, are very important, not only for the diffusion of information, but also for bringing industry and science closer.  The degree of organization of each sector (private and public) determines to large extent their capacity to manage knowledge processes. It was shown, in chapter VII, that the way each sector is organized influences greatly the topology of knowledge networks, and, consequently, the way knowledge flows among various actors. In this study, Prince Edward Island presented the best example of this: a highly organized industry and a small, but well integrated science sector, the two meshed into a single decision-making structure (i.e. the Aquaculture Management Board). This structure appears to favour exchanges and collaboration among growers, as well as between growers and scientists, and stimulates the production of new knowledge. British Columbia, on the other hand, presented a lack of structure in both the industry and the science sector, which seems to result in a low level of collaboration between them. However this could change in the near future with the development of a Shellfish Research Centre that seeks a better integration of the provincial R&D efforts, both in the private and public sectors.  In the  Magdalen Islands, an additional structural component is present in the science sector: a technology transfer/ extension officer.  This person is a bridge between growers and  scientists, intensifying knowledge flows between the two, but also helping organize research projects that meet the needs of the industry.  160  Cultural  factors  People interpret the world through cultural lenses and paradigms.  Cultures and  paradigms ultimately guide actions. Shellfish growers and aquaculture scientists do not share the same occupational culture, or the same knowledge paradigm.  The cultural  differences between growers and scientists are important factors affecting the way two groups perceive each other and interact with one another.  Differences in cultures and  paradigms can create barriers between the two groups and lead to emotionally charged conflicts.  However, cultural differences can also be beneficial i n the process o f  collaboration, for they can provide each party involved with novel perspectives on a problem and with knowledge that may complement their own.  This, in turn, may  stimulate the production o f new knowledge.  Although a cultural gap between shellfish growers and aquaculture scientists does exist (and w i l l most likely always remain), it appears to be much smaller than that described in the traditional views o f the 'industry-science disconnect'. Whether it is the fact that practically half o f the growers have a university degree, or the fact that the scientists are doing primarily applied research, or whether it is because growers and scientists have many common interests, it is clear that there are numerous features i n each group's culture that make the boundary between the two permeable. Additionally, all the participants (except, perhaps,  for one grower) demonstrated  a certain degree o f  willingness to work in closer collaboration with members o f the other sector. W e l l aware o f the differences between them, the participants i n each group seemed to agree that cultural differences could be overcome through enhanced communication, and that i n the  161  reciprocal understanding o f each other's needs and limitations lies the key to improved collaboration: "... there is always a certain reserve between the two groups too. Industry people see the scientists as 'brains' sitting in offices, and the scientists see growers as a bunch of 'roughand-readies', and don't necessarily appreciate the finer points of certain things. That's where getting together and talking, as people, is important: to get to know each other." (Grower interview #6) "Maintenant, i l faut s'apprivoiser, dans le sens que nous, on a nos facons de proceder en tant que scientifiques; eux ont leures facons de voir les choses, en tant que producteurs. Alors c'est de'trouver comment on peut en venir a un consensus." (Scientist interview #6) [Now we must 'tame' each other, in the sense that we have our ways to proceed as scientists; they have their own ways to see things, as producers. Therefore it is to find how we can come to consensus.]  Relational  factors  Social interactions - among shellfish growers, aquaculture scientists, as well as between growers and scientists - are truly the motor o f shellfish aquaculture knowledge development. The establishment o f both formal and informal relationships among groups of actors create networks, which become knowledge 'transaction spaces' (Castells, 1996; Choo and Bontis, 2002), as well as important knowledge.  'brewing' environments for new  Each actor comes into the network with his or her own stock o f knowledge,  and transmits part o f it through the linkages he or she has with other actors i n the network. C i m o l i and Constantino wrote: "Innovation is considered to be an interactive process [...] that evolves most successfully in a network i n which there is intensive interaction" (2001:59). Therefore, the capacity o f the network to diffuse information and produce new knowledge depends on the degree o f connectivity (or density) o f the  162  network, on the intensity o f the relationships among its members (and the resulting synergies), as well as on the diversity o f the knowledge stocks brought into the network.  Prince Edward Island has presented a dense network with a diversity o f actors involved. N o doubt there is, i n this case, a correlation between the structure, or degree o f organization o f each sector (industry and science) and the topology o f the existing knowledge network.  In the same logic, it appears that the lack o f sectorial cohesion  (organizational structure) may be a leading factor in the overall poor degree o f connectivity o f B . G . ' s knowledge network.  Trust is also an important factor in the  shaping o f knowledge networks, as relationships are often built on trust, or dissolved when trust is broken. O n the other hand, it is difficult to establish trust without some kind o f prior relationship. W h i c h brings us back to the importance o f communication,  for  only through communication can trust and relationships be established and maintained.  Integrators Relationships, however, are not always dyadic i n nature. T w o actors i n a network can be 'indirectly' linked, through a third person. integrator.  This person, then, plays the role o f  Integrators (whether organizational units or individuals) play a significant  part i n the integration and growth o f the knowledge network: they may connect different cliques within the network or may link members o f the network with actors 'outside' the network.  Sometimes, they can be responsible for increasing the flow o f knowledge  between actors (or cliques) that may not be connected otherwise (perhaps for structural or cultural reasons), by serving as mediators. Integrators were found i n all three knowledge  163  networks described in chapter V I I : the technology transfer officer i n the Magdalen Islands; the growers' association and the provincial ministry o f aquaculture in P.E.I., and; the private consultants and possibly the new research centre in B . C .  These integrators  also play an important role in the process o f intersectoral collaboration.  Towards a new culture of knowledge Although the participants  did recognize some  o f the benefits  related  to  intersectoral collaboration (such as the opportunity to learn more about each other, the access to different equipment, expertise and perspectives, and the grounding o f research), and showed their willingness to participate i n the process, they also acknowledged the challenges o f collaborating with the other sector.  Here are some o f the problems  repeatedly mentioned by the participants:  Major difficulties identified by the growers: •  Scientists' lack o f understanding o f industry's needs and limitations  •  Lack o f trust in the scientists' motives and/or methods  •  Lack o f visibility/ field time on the part o f the scientists  •  Timeframe too long to get results or feedback  Major difficulties identified by the scientists: •  Growers' lack o f understanding o f scientists' responsibilities and limitations  •  Growers' lack o f understanding o f the scientific methods  •  L o w availability/ lack o f commitment on the part o f the growers  •  Lack o f resources (time/ money) to increase time spent i n the field  164  Some o f these difficulties (the first two o f each group enumerated above) can most likely be attenuated, or even eliminated with improved communication between growers and scientists. Others may simply have to be understood and accepted by both groups as potential 'limitations' that w i l l have to be dealt with, and where compromises may have to be made. That said, there might be tools or mechanisms that could be put i n place i n order to help the two sectors manage these limitations: for example, the monthly Aqualnfo  newsletter distributed by the P.E.I. Ministry o f Fisheries, Aquaculture and  Environment allows the scientists to be more visible to the growers, while providing the industry with regular reports on the research being done.  Shellfish aquaculture knowledge is a bipolar system, i n the sense that it is composed o f two main groups o f components (the shellfish growers and the aquaculture scientists) that are distinct cognitive subsystems. Most likely, it w i l l always remain that way: and so it should. Despite the fact that the cultural differences between growers and scientists may translate into challenges for them in working together, these differences are also responsible for creating the distinctiveness o f each sector's worldviews and knowledge stocks. Without these differences, there would not be synergies, and the process o f intersectoral collaboration would not be such an effective strategy to increase innovation. Therefore, the diversity o f cultures and knowledge paradigms should not be perceived as obstacles to the process o f collaboration, but as a richness into which both sectors may tap.  165  Changes or improvements could be made, with regard to some o f the difficulties resulting from the structural and relational factors affecting intersectoral collaboration. Resources could be invested i n improving the organizational structure o f each sector and ensuring that the two are better connected.  This would most likely help enhancing  relationships between growers and scientists. However, as Cotgrove and B o x (1970:163) asserted: "The conflicts and strains between industry and science are to some extent inevitable. Each is a distinct system o f behaviour. They are different games, each with its own goals and rules. A n d you cannot play one game by the rules o f another."  However, a lot has changed i n the past 30 years since Cotgrove and B o x wrote that analysis.  A new culture o f knowledge - with its own sets o f rules - is now  developing: one that allows the industry and the science sector to 'play' together, without having to change their fundamental characters. This new culture o f knowledge not only favours increased collaboration between sectors, but it also encourages each to become more efficient at managing knowledge processes.  Intersectoral collaboration is not an  easy game though: it requires a lot o f time and patience, as w e l l as an open mind and willingness to compromise. Although this may demand a lot from each participant, it also gives a lot in return.  The danger, o f course, is i n loosing sight o f what each sector does; ending up, for example, trying to turn shellfish growers into researchers, and aquaculture scientists into producers.  Therefore the key to successful intersectoral collaboration is i n reaching a  consensus or finding a balance between what each sector needs and expects from the  166  other, and what each one can really give.  The only way to attained this balance is by  improving each sector's understanding o f the other, and by putting i n place the right tools and strategies (such as accessible and flexible collaborative R & D programs, strong knowledge networks, intersectoral management boards, extension offices, and monthly newsletters)  that  allow  them  to  come  together  and  interchange.  A  list  of  recommendations can be found in Appendix HI.  9.2 A r e a s for further research This study, although it was meant to be mainly exploratory, has truly only scratched the surface o f the subjects o f intersectoral collaboration and knowledge management. One could certainly dedicate an entire lifetime to the study o f either one o f these most complex issues. Thus, there are a lot o f questions that remain unanswered and many possibilities that need to be explored.  For one thing, it would be interesting to investigate the efficiency o f past and current collaborative R & D programs and initiatives.  In this study, I have found that only  a very small number o f the shellfish growers interviewed have participated i n such programs.  In order to improve the efficiency o f the programs developed, we need to  know what works and does not work. In the case o f shellfish aquaculture, is the low level o f participation due to: the lack o f accessibility o f the programs; the lack o f time, money, or interest on the part o f the growers; or other some factors?  One could also examine  some o f the successful collaborative programs in other countries (such as France, Spain and the United States) to determine how to improve programs i n Canada. Additionally, a  167  parallel with agricultural  extension models may also provide insights on the kinds o f  characteristics needed for successful intersectorial collaboration.  Another issue that would need further study is the growers' general perception o f scientists. The phenomenon o f trust is fascinating, but incredibly complex. It plays a fundamental role in interpersonal relationships and, I would argue, an especially important one in intersectoral collaboration.  Although some events may have led  growers to distrusts scientists, there seemed to be a much deeper distrust; one that I would qualify as almost 'mystical', i n the sense that it appeared to emanate from what has been called the 'public understanding o f science' (treated i n the works o f B . Wynne, o f W . Leiss and o f S. Jasanoff).  I think it would be useful to examine more closely the  reasons behind this lack o f trust, in order to a) ensure that past mistakes are not repeated, and b) perhaps help demystify some o f the growers' beliefs towards science and scientists. Additionally, many o f the growers interviewed i n this research said that they do not believe that the scientists working in the field o f aquaculture (regionally) have adequate knowledge. Is this simply a question o f perception, or is there truly a lack o f expertise i n the science sector? If so, is the problem with our educational institutions (i.e. with the kind o f programs available), or with the organizations hiring the scientists?  Although the time restrictions did not allow exploring the case o f shellfish aquaculture in aboriginal communities, this is an important topic, particularly i n British Columbia where an increasing number o f First Nations bands are involved i n this field o f activity. Because these groups have a culture and a social context that often differs from  168  n o n - a b o r i g i n a l groups, it is m o s t l i k e l y that w e w o u l d see different results r e g a r d i n g h o w they a p p r o a c h k n o w l e d g e , as w e l l as h o w they p e r c e i v e a n d interact w i t h aquaculture scientists.  A n o t h e r group that w a s not e x a m i n e d i n this study is w o m e n s h e l l f i s h growers. A l t h o u g h there are a s m a l l n u m b e r o f w o m e n i n v o l v e d i n the i n d u s t r y , I w a s unable to i n c l u d e a f e w o f t h e m i n m y research. H o w e v e r it w o u l d b e interesting to c o m p a r e h o w m e n a n d w o m e n i n s h e l l f i s h aquaculture deal w i t h k n o w l e d g e , a n d h o w they interact w i t h scientists.  T h e s e are o n l y a f e w e x a m p l e s o f the areas that c o u l d b e further studied. T h e r e is so m u c h m o r e that w e n e e d to understand about the factors affecting industry-science relationships, o r about those knowledge.  affecting  the p r o d u c t i o n , d i f f u s i o n a n d a b s o r p t i o n o f  S t i l l , w e m u s t n o t b e discouraged.  A s Francis B a c o n wrote:  "Scientia est  potentia", a n d therefore every little b i t o f k n o w l e d g e w e a c c u m u l a t e t o d a y about these issues gives us the potential to pose concrete actions to i m p r o v e o u r l i v e s t o m o r r o w .  169  BIBLIOGRAPHY Adler, P.S. (2002) 'Market, Hierarchy, and Trust: The Knowledge Economy and the Future Capitalism', i n Choo, C . W . , and N . Bontis. The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge. N e w Y o r k : Oxford University Press, pp. 23-46. Anonymous. (1990) Research and Development: Collaboration between Business and Higher Education. The Council for Industry and Higher Education. London: H M S O . Anonymous. (1995) Stretching the Tax Dollar - The Federal Government as Treasury Board o f Canada. Anonymous. (2001) Achieving Excellence: Investing in People, Knowledge Opportunity. Executive Summary - Industry Canada. Ottawa: O N .  'Partner'.  and  Bacon, F. ([1620] 1901) Novum Organum. N e w Y o r k : P.F. Collier and son. Barnes, B . and D . Edge. (1982) Science in Context: Readings in the Sociology Science. Cambridge: The Open University Press. Batten, D . , J. Casti, and R. Thord. (1995) Networks in Action: Economics and Human Knowledge. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.  of  Communication,  Blackler, F. (2002) 'Knowledge, Knowledge Work, and Organizations', i n Choo, C . W . , and N . Bontis, The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge. N e w Y o r k : Oxford University Press, pp. 47-64. Bellini, N . , and A . Piccaluga. (2001) 'The role o f university in constituency-building for industrial and territorial innovation: reflections on an Italian experience', in LopezMartinez, R., and A . Piccaluga, Knowledge Flows in National Systems of Innovation. M A : Edward Elgar, pp. 122-154. Berger, B J . (1994) 'Technology transfer in a time o f transition', i n Kassicieh, S.K., and H . R . Radosevich. From Lab to Market - Commercialization of Public Sector Technology. N e w Y o r k : Plenum Press, pp.29-60. Brown, J.S., and P. Duguid. (2002) 'Organizing Knowledge', i n Little, S.E., P. Quantas and T. Ray. Managing Knowledge. London: The Open University/ Sage Publications, pp. 19-40. Burt, R . S . , and M . J . Minor. (1983) Applied Network Analysis: A Introduction. London: S A G E Publications.  Methodological  170  Carazo, M . I . , I. Flit, and A . Hurtado. (2001) 'Policies and shared values i n the promotion of competitiveness: the Peruvian case', in Lopez-Martinez, R., and A . Piccaluga, Knowledge Flows in National Systems of Innovation. M A : Edward Elgar, pp. 248-289. Castells, M . (1996) The Rise of the Network Society. Volume I. The Information Economy, Society and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.  Age:  Ciborra, C . U . , and R. Andreu. (2002) 'Knowledge across Boundaries', i n Little, S.E., P. Quantas and T. Ray. Managing Knowledge. London: The Open University/ Sage Publications, pp.575-586. Choo, C . W . , and N . Bontis. (2002) 'Knowledge, Intellectual Capital, and Strategy', i n Choo, C . W . , and N . Bontis, The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge. N e w Y o r k : Oxford University Press, pp. 3-19. C i m o l i , M . , and R. Constantino. 2001. 'Systems o f innovation, knowledge and networks: Latin America and its capability to capture benefits', i n Lopez-Martinez, R., and A . Piccaluga, Knowledge Flows in National Systems of Innovation. M A : Edward Elgar, pp. 56-82. Collins, H . M . (1982) 'Tacit knowledge and scientific networks', i n Barnes, B . and D . Edge. Science in Context: Readings in the Sociology of Science. Cambridge: The Open University Press, pp.44-64. Cotgrove, S., and S. B o x . (1970) Science, Industry and Society. London: George A l l e n & U n w i n Ltd. Dalpe, R. and R. Landry. (1993) La Politique Technologique au Quebec. Montreal: Les Presses de l'Universitee de Montreal. Daymon, C , and I. Holloway. (2002) Qualitative Research Methods in Public and Marketing Communications. N Y : Routledge. Davenport, T . H . , and L . Prusak. (1998) Working Knowledge: How Manage what they Know. Boston: Harvard School Press.  Relations  Organizations  Day, A . (1989) Aquaculture in the Maritimes. Halifax: Nimbus Publishing L t d . Engel, P. and M . Salomon. (1996) ' R A A K S : a participatory action-research approach to facilitate social learning for sustainability development', i n Budelman, A . Agricultural R&D at the crossroads: Merging systems research and social actor approaches. Amsterdam: K I T Press.  171  Faulkner, W . (2002) 'Conceptualizing Knowledge Used i n Innovation: a Second Look at the Science-Technology Distinction and Industrial Innovation', i n Little, S.E., P. Quantas and T. Ray. Managing Knowledge. London: The Open University/ Sage Publications, pp.139-169. Fischer, H . M . , J. Brown, J.F. Porac, J.B. Wade, M . DeVaughn, and A . Kanfer. (2002) ' M o b i l i z i n g Knowledge i n Interorganizational Alliances', in Choo, C . W . , and N . Bontis, The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge. N Y : Oxford University Press, pp. 523-536. Frank, F. and A . Smith. (2000) The Partnership Handbook. H R D C Report: Labour Market Learning & Development Unit. Fusfeld, H.I. (1994) Industry's Future: Changing Patterns of Industrial Washington, D C : American Chemical Society.  Research.  Garavelli, A . C . , M . Gorgoglione, B . Scozzi. (2002) 'Managing knowledge transfer by knowledge technologies'. Technovation 22(2002) 269-279. Gibbons, M . , C . Limoges, H . Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M . Trow. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge - The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: S A G E Publications L t d . Gibbons, N . (1985) 'Culture o f the Blue Mussel (Mytilus edulis) at Refuge Cove, British Columbia: A pilot project'. Marine Resources Branch, Ministry o f Environment o f B C and Fisheries and Oceans Pacific Region, Information Report 5. 66p. Giddens, A . (1993) Sociology.  Oxford: Polity Press.  Godin, B . (1999) 'L'impact de la recherche en partenariat sur la production scientific'. Dossier de Recherche: 3 (3). Huilsman, A . , and A . Budelman. (1996) ' A crossroad for R & D : merging approaches on behalf o f sustainable development', i n Budelman, A . Agricultural R&D at the crossroads: Merging systems research and social actor approaches. Amsterdam: K I T Press. Jones, G . G . , and B . L . Jones. (1983) Methods for Setting Hatchery Produced Oyster Larvae. Innovative Aquaculutre Products Ltd. Information Report N o . 4, Marine Resources Branch o f the Ministry o f Environment o f B C . Jones, G . G . , C . L . Sanford, and B . L . Jones. (1993) Manila Clams: Hatchery and Nursery Methods. Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data, and B C Science Council. Kassicieh, S.K., and H . R . Radosevich. (1994) From Lab to Market of Public Sector Technology. N e w Y o r k : Plenum Press.  Commercialization  172  K i n g , N . (1998) 'Template Analysis', i n Symon G . , and C . Cassell. Qualitative and Analysis in Organizational Research. London: S A G E Publications.  Methods  Kobayashi, K . (1995) 'Knowledge Network and Market Structure: A n Analytical Perspective', i n Batten, D . , J. Casti, and R. Thord. Networks in Action: Communication, Economics and Human Knowledge. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 127158. Koebberling, U . , Derttmers, and Zolbord. (2001) BC Aquaculture R&D: Aproposed Organizational and Program Model. Vancouver: Science Council o f British Columbia. K u h n , T.S. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University o f Chicago Press. Laumann, E . O . , P . V . Marsden, and D . Prensky. (1983) 'The Boundary Specification Problem i n Network Analysis', i n Burt, R . S . , and M . J . M i n o r . Applied Network Analysis: A Methodological Introduction. London: S A G E Publications, pp. 18-34. Latour, B . and S. Wollgar. (1979) Laboratory Facts. London: S A G E Publications.  Life: The Social Construction  of Scientific  Lopez-Martinez, R., and A . Piccaluga. (2001) Knowledge Flows in National Systems of Innovation,. M A : Edward Elgar. Merton, R . K . (1973) "The Normative Structure o f Science.", i n Merton, R . K . The Sociology of Science. Chicago: The University o f Chicago Press, pp.267-278. Mulford, C L . 1984. Inter-Organizational  Relations.  Human Sciences Press, N e w York.  Myrand, Bruno. (1992) Colloque Mariculture Quebec. Ministere des Peches et Oceans / Conseil de l'Aquaculture et des Peches du Quebec. N i o s i , J. (1996) 'Strategic technological collaboration in Canadian industry: toward a theory o f flexible or collective innovation', i n Coombs, R., A . Richards, P. Paolo Saviotti, V . Walsh. Technological Collaboration. U K : Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 98-118. Nonaka, I. (2002) ' A Dynamic Theory o f Organizational Knowledge Creation', i n Choo, C . W . , and N . Bontis, The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge. N Y : Oxford University Press, pp. 437-462. Nonaka, I., R . Toyama, and N . Konno. (2002) ' S E C I , Ba and Leadership: a Unified M o d e l o f Dynamic Knowledge Creation', i n Little, S.E., P. Quantas and T. Ray. Managing Knowledge. London: The Open University/ Sage Publications, pp.41-67.  173  Pirquet, K . T . (1989) 'Evolution o f an Innovative Shellfish Hatchery', i n Canadian Aquaculture: 5(5). Quayle, D . B . (1988) 'Pacific Oyster Culture in British Columbia'. Can. Bull. Fish. Aquat.  SW.218:241p. Quayle, D . B . , and D . W . Smith. (1976) A Guide to Oyster Farming. Branch, Department o f Recreation and Travel Industry, B C .  Marine Resources  Roland, W . G . and T. A.Braodley. (1990) A Manual for Producing Oyster Seed by Remote Setting. Ministry o f Agriculture and Fisheries, B . C . Senker, J. and W . Faulkner. (1996) 'Networks, tacit knowledge and innovation', i n Coombs, R., A . Richards, P. Paolo Saviotti, V . Walsh. Technological Collaboration. U K : Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 76-97. Snow, C P . 1962. The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. University Press.  N Y : Cambridge  Stehr, N . (2002) Knowledge & Economic Conduct: The Social Foundation Economy. Toronto: University o f Toronto Press.  of the Modern  Stevenson, L , and H . Byerly. (1995) The Many Faces of Science: An Introduction Scientists, Values, and Society. Oxford: Westview Press.  to  Tacket, A . , and L . White. 2000. Partnership and Participation: Multiagency Setting. N . Y . : John W i l e y & Sons, L t d .  in the  Decision-making  Tiddens, A . (1990) Aquaculture in America: The Role of Science, Government and the Entrepreneur. Oxford: Westview Press. Trice, H . M . (1993) Occupational Subcultures in the Workplace. N Y : LLR Press. Umemoto, K . (2002) 'Managing Existing Knowledge is Not Enough.', i n Choo, C . W . , and N . Bontis, The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge. N Y : Oxford University Press, pp. 463-476. Ziman, J. (2000) 'Postacademic Science - Constructing Knowledge with Networks and N o r m s ' , i n Segerstrale, U . Beyond the Science Wars. N Y : State University o f N e w Y o r k Press.  174  APPENDIX I - INFORMATION SHEETS  Shellfish G r o w e r s  What kind of education or formation did you receive? Grade 12 or less only  •  Bachelor's  •  Master's  •  PhD  •  13. What is your primary source of knowledge regarding shellfish growing issues? Scientific journals Governmental agencies Other growers  • • •  Aquaculture magazines Universities In-house  • • •  21. How often do you have contact (either directly, by phone, or by email) with the following scientists? Never  A few times a year  A few times a month  A few times a week  Daily  a) DFO researchers  •  •  •  0  •  b) Provincial government researchers  •  •  •  •  •  *  c) University researchers  •  •  •  •  •  d) Private consultants  •  •  •  •  •  e) Others:  •  •  •  •'  •  22.  23.  What is generally the  main  purpose of these interactions?  a. b. c. d. e.  Providing information to scientists Obtaining information from the scientists Two-way sharing of information Collaboration on specific R&D programs or projects Debate or confrontational interaction  f.  Other:  How would you describe your relationship with scientists in general? a) Very good  b) Good  d) Bad  e) Very bad  f) Non-existent  175  24.  In any collaboration, trust becomes an important issue. To what extent do you trust scientists in general? Not at all  25.  not very much  fairly  a lot  completely  Have you ever participated in projects involving the following programs and/ or organizations? If so, could you tell me a bit more about your experience? a. b. c. d. e.  DFO's ACRDP AquaNet Science Council A provincial R&D program Others:  176  Aquaculture Scientists Organisation (agency/ department/ firm): • •  Federal government Educational institution  • •  Provincial government Private firm/ consultant  Location:  2.  2.  What kind of education or formation did you receive? •  Bachelor's  •  •  Master's  •  •  PhD  •  Other?  •  How often do you have contact (either directly, by phone, or by email) with members of the aquaculture industry? a) Never  26.  b) A few times a year  d) A few times a week  e) Daily  Providing information to the industry Obtaining information from the industry Two-way sharing of information Collaboration on specific R&D programs or projects  e)  Debate or confrontational interaction  f)  Other:  How would you describe your relationship with growers in general? a) Very good  23.  c) A few times a month  What is generally the main purpose of these interactions? a) b) c) d)  27.  J  b) Good  d) Bad  e) Very bad  0 Non-existent  Have you ever participated in projects involving the following programs and/ or organizations? If so, could you tell me a bit more about your experience? a. b. c. d. e.  DFO's ACRDP AquaNet Science Council A provincial R&D program Others:  177  A P P E N D I X II - N E T W O R K  SYMBOLS  The symbols used in this study were taken mainly from the works o f Mulford (1984) and Burt and M i n o r (1983). The following are examples o f the symbols used i n Chapter V I .  Link Strong link  Symmetrical links (flow going both ways)  •  Weak link  •  Asymmetrical link (unidirectional flow)  Dense network: each node has a degree (i.e. a number o f connections) o f 3 or more.  / / __  \  ""  y  Loose network: each node has a degree o f 2 or less, and/or links o f weak intensity.  Integrator: a node that links many others.  Cluster (series o f tightly linked nodes)  178  A P P E N D I X III - R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S  •  Examine the types o f infrastructure that exist within both the industry and the science sector in Prince Edward Island and Washington State, i n order to identify the features that foster successful intersectoral collaboration i n these regions.  •  Evaluate aquaculture collaborative programs such as AquaNet, the A C R D P , as well as provincial initiatives, in order to determine the efficacy o f these programs in fostering collaboration and increasing innovation capacity.  •  Develop long-term policy mechanisms that provide a platform for shellfish growers and aquaculture scientists to develop relationships and build enduring innovation capacity.  •  Identify organizations or individuals that could act as intermediaries or "brokers" to facilitate the establishment o f relationships between the parties involved.  •  Put i n place appropriate tools and mechanisms  allowing for  enhanced  communication and knowledge flow between growers and scientists. •  Develop strategies to encourage both sectors to interact regularly, and to involve more shellfish growers into collaborative R & D projects.  •  Investigate the distrust that exists between the two sectors i n order to find ways to build or re-establish trust.  •  Examine the existing knowledge networks in the field o f shellfish aquaculture, in order to better understand how knowledge is produced and diffused, and possibly use these networks to create linkages between the industry and science sectors.  179  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0091395/manifest

Comment

Related Items