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


831-ubc_2003-0497.pdf [ 8.45MB ]
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

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 I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L M E N T O F T H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R T H E D E G R E E O F M A S T E R O F S C I E N C E m T H E F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E S T U D I E S (Department of Resources Management and Environmental Studies, Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability) We accept this thesis a£ confgHrringT^ the required standard T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A M a y 2003 © Erika Samek Paradis, 2003 In 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 requirements 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 that 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 reference and study. I f u r t h e r agree that permission f o r extensive copying 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 granted by the head of my department or 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 understood that copying 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 ain s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n permission. 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 i i TABLE OF CONTENTS i i i LIST OF TABLES v i LIST OF FIGURES v i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v i i i CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION Why intersectoral collaboration? 3 The challenges behind intersectoral collaboration 4 Industry-science relationships in shellfish aquaculture 5 Research purposes '. 8 Outline 10 CHAPTER II - THE SOCIAL PROCESSES OF KNOWLEDGE 2.1 A Knowledge-Based Approach to Resources Management 11 2.2 The Nature of Knowledge 13 2.3 The Cultures behind Knowledge 15 Occupational cultures 16 The culture of science 18 The culture of industry 20 2.4 Social Networks and Knowledge Flows 21 Social networks 22 Knowledge networks 23 2.5 Managing Relationships, Managing Knowledge 25 CHAPTER III - A BRIEF HISTORY OF SHELLFISH AQUACULTURE KNOWLEDGE IN THREE PARTS OF CANADA 3.1 The Development of Shellfish Aquaculture Knowledge 29 The Magdalen Islands, Quebec 32 Prince Edward Island 37 Vancouver Island, British Columbia 43 3.2 Tracking Knowledge 49 in CHAPTER IV - APPROACH AND METHODS 4.1 Research Approach 50 4.2 Data Collection 52 Background research 52 Study Areas 53 Sampling 56 Interviews 58 4.3 Data Analysis 62 4.4 Data Validi ty and Research Limitations 63 CHAPTER V - CHAPTER V - OCCUPATIONAL CULTURES AND KNOWLEDGE PARADIGMS 5.1 Occupational Life and Culture 68 The occupational life of shellfish growers 68 The shellfish grower culture 74 The occupational life of aquaculture scientists 78 The aquaculture scientist culture 83 5.2 Paradigms of Knowledge 87 The shellfish grower knowledge paradigm 87 The aquaculture scientist knowledge paradigm 94 5.3 Conclusion: The closing gap between two cultures 99 CHAPTER VI - INDUSTRY- SCIENCE RELATIONSHIPS Frequency 102 Purpose 106 Quality 107 Communication 109 Trust 113 In Summary 118 CHAPTER VII - NETWORKS OF KNOWLEDGE RELATIONSHIPS Shellfish aquaculture knowledge and networks of relationships 122 iv Knowledge networks in the Magdalen Islands 124 Knowledge networks in Prince Edward Island 127 Knowledge networks in British Columbia 133 The role of knowledge networks: Conclusion 139 CHAPTER VIII - PERSPECTIVES ON INTERSECTORAL COLLABORATION 8.1 Advantages, disadvantages and challenges to intersectoral collaboration 141 Complimentary knowledge/ distinctiveness of perspectives 143 Knowledge production, transfer and use 144 Perks and annoyances 147 8.2 Government intervention 149 8.3 What is needed for effective collaborative R & D 153 Key factors for success 153 Improvements 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 159 Cultural factors 161 Relational factors 162 Towards a new culture of knowledge 163 Towards a new culture of knowledge 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 L I S T O F T A B L E S Table 1 Number of growers sampled in each study region 57 Table 2 Typology of the scientists' sample 58 Table 3 Level of education and average years of experience of shellfish growers 69 Table 4 Primary sources of information for shellfish growers 78 Table 5 Level of education and average years of experience of aquaculture scientists .80 Table 6 The knowledge paradigms of 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 of relationships between shellfish growers and aquaculture Scientists 108 Table 9 Participants perspectives on intersectoral collaboration 142 vi L I S T O F F I G U R E S Figure 1 Variables related to organizational knowledge 27 Figure 2 Shellfish aquaculture production in 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 of interaction with scientists working in various Organizations 103 Figure 7 Scientists' frequency of interaction with shellfish growers 105 Figure 8 Growers' level of trust towards scientists in general 114 Figure 9 Model of the network of relationships framing shellfish aquaculture knowledge in the Magdalen Islands 125 Figure 10 Example of a network of relationships framing shellfish aquaculture knowledge in Prince Edward Island 129 Figure 11 Example of a network of relationships framing shellfish aquaculture knowledge in British Columbia 134 A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S 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 of the Networks of Centres of 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 of Anthropology and Sociology, who agreed to be my supervisor and invited me to jo in his research team, thus allowing me to explore both the fields of aquaculture and of sociology. He has provided me with great support through the entire study. I would also like to thank Dr. Brian Elliott, also professor at the Department of Anthropology and Sociology, for his advice during the developmental phase of this research, and for his valuable input regarding my interview schedules. Finally, I am deeply grateful to Dr. Les Lavkulich, director of the Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, for his guidance and support. V l l l 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 of knowledge, but also as a necessary approach to resolve the complex issues involved in the goal of 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 in 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 in intersectoral collaboration, over the past decades (Fusfeld, 1994; Nios i , 1996;Godin, 1999). The importance given to the management of knowledge, or more precisely, to the management of knowledge processes (i.e. production, transfer and absorption), has come mainly with the realization that, in this 'new economy', knowledge is the key to productivity and competitiveness (Castells, 1996). Thus, many organizations are now re-evaluating their own capacities of producing, accessing and absorbing knowledge, in 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, in the past decades, there have been indications of a significant increase in the level of interaction between the sectors of industry and science (Godin, 1999). This trend, increasingly fostered by government through R & D policies and funding strategies, 2 aims at enhancing the flow of information between scientists and industry members, and intensifying the production of new knowledge. Why 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 of collaboration, involving relationships (formal and informal) of different intensities. Intersectoral collaboration is not solely concerned with the production of new knowledge, but also with the transfer of existing knowledge between sectors. Thus, industry members and scientists can collaborate by working together on R & D projects, or simply by exchanging information. Some of the most common advantages associated with intersectoral collaboration are: • The sharing of the costs and risks associated with R & D ; • The pooling of other resources (labs, machinery, samples, labour, etc); • The creation of relationships and synergies; • The reduction of duplication and of 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 of 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 of 3 social scientists, many of them warning against changes in the production of scientific knowledge (Ziman, 2000). 1 The challenges behind intersectoral collaboration Despite these concerns, and believing that the benefits of intersectoral collaboration outweigh any disadvantages, the Canadian federal and provincial governments - and now a number of universities - continue to encourage scientists and industry members to work together. However, the fact is that science and industry operate within different contexts (Fusfeld, 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 of the results). Sometimes, the difficulties faced by scientists and industry members seem to have much more intangible roots: several authors in the field of sociology have associated these difficulties with the existence of a certain cultural gap or disconnect between science and industry (Cotgrove and Box, 1970; Ziman, 2000). However, other scholars have somewhat disregarded this argument and suggested that the success of intersectoral collaboration depends mainly on the development of the appropriate policies (Niosi, 1996), and the establishment of the proper infrastructure (Combs et al., 1996). Nevertheless, the fact is that this type of collaboration between 1 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. 4 industry and science is a fairly new phenomenon and that we still know only very little about the factors that come to play in the process of intersectoral collaboration. Using the case of shellfish aquaculture in Canada, this study takes a broad sociological approach in the investigation of industry-science collaboration, in an attempt to identify some of the factors that may affect it. Since, ultimately, it is the processes of knowledge that we are attempting to improve through heightened cooperation between industry members and scientists, this study examines some of the social processes by which shellfish aquaculture knowledge is produced, diffused, and absorbed. Seventeen shellfish growers and thirteen aquaculture scientists in three different regions of Canada (the Magdalen Islands in Quebec, Prince Edward Island, and Vancouver Island in British Columbia) were interviewed. Industry-science relationships in shellfish aquaculture In Canada, shellfish aquaculture is a new, promising field of activity in terms of economic benefits (mainly for remote coastal communities), but also in terms of opportunities for advances in scientific knowledge. Within 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 of the production comes from a small number of big (often vertically integrated) companies, the industry consists predominantly of small family businesses 2 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. 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 in the field of shellfish aquaculture (whether working in government laboratories, in educational institutions, or with consulting firms) are also part of 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 of knowledge in 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 of the new global, knowledge-based economy (previously discussed) are already being felt by the shellfish aquaculture industry. New 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 of 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 of this study resulted from two main concerns: the first involves the efficiency of 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 of the literature addressing the subject of intersectoral collaboration appears to take an economic approach, and to focus mainly on large, hi-tech industries, the idea of exploring this subject through a relatively small industry, and with a sociological approach was very exciting. The second concern is in the nature of 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 of advancing each other's knowledge, one may ask: are growers' and scientists' ways of processing knowledge compatible? What is the nature of 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 wel l maintained." Therefore, in order to be able to develop effective collaboration between growers and scientists, we must first understand the process of collaboration itself, as well as the parties involved. This study uses qualitative methods to seek an understanding of the various factors - structural, cultural and relational - that may affect the process of 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 of 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 in 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 of collaboration between growers and scientists, and that is precisely what this study was intended to do. 9 Outline Chapter II presents an overview of some of the concepts exploited in this thesis. It reviews some of the early theories regarding the cultures of science and industry ( C P . Snow, 1962, and; Cotgrove and Box, 1970), and examines the more contemporary concept of 'occupational cultures' (Trice, 1993). It also explores the subject of 'knowledge', and the concepts of '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 in this study. Chapter IV provides an overview of the development of shellfish aquaculture in three regions of Canada. Chapter V examines the occupational cultures and knowledge paradigms of shellfish growers and aquaculture scientists, in 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 in which they interact. Chapter VI investigates the current state of grower-scientist relationships in each study region while Chapter VII presents information on some of the knowledge networks that were observed in these regions. Chapter VIII explores the participants' views on intersectoral collaboration. Finally, Chapter IX summarises the main findings of 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 of life through the extensive exploitation of natural resources. Industries have grown, constantly improving on their methods of 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 of making use of them were jeopardizing the health of the environment, and consequently, the very quality of our own lives. A s a result, some measures were initiated in an attempt to regulate the exploitation of natural resources, and studies were undertaken to address the lack of knowledge regarding the environment and impacts of human activity upon it. Today, with the growing recognition of the interdependence of 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 of a resource must be: economically viable, environmentally benign, and socially acceptable. In other words, resources management, in the new millennium, is concerned with finding strategies to maintain the economic benefits associated with the exploitation of natural resources, while protecting the environment, and being duly cognisant of 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). Indeed, one of the strategies increasingly utilized by all three sectors - although particularly by government - has been the fostering of 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 of sharing the costs and risks associated with R & D , a significant benefit for both partners is the stimulation and enhancement of their capacity for knowledge production (which w i l l be discussed further in this chapter). The importance of scientific knowledge for the advancement of society was accepted, almost universally, a long time ago. However, it is only recently that we have begun to recognize the value of other sources of knowledge, such as tacit or ' local ' knowledge (Senker and Faulkner, 1996). From stories and songs of Native Americans, to the skills of farmers in Nepal, knowledge is now increasingly sought and found outside the boundaries of 'normal' science (Kuhn, 1962). Industry is now perceived as a significant source of 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 of the objectives of this strategy are to: 1) increase the production of 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 of knowledge and perspectives on issues that are common to both sectors. 2.2 The Nature of Knowledge The origin, nature and role of knowledge in society have long been subjects of reflection by philosophers, historians and sociologists. Francis Bacon (1620) wrote in his Novum Organum: 'Scientia est potentia' (meaning 'Knowledge is potential'), that the power of knowledge is in its potential to set things in motion, to engender change (Stehr 2002). Today, many fields of research (especially social sciences, economics and management) are taking a closer look at the phenomenon of 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 of society and a growing force in economic improvement (Castells, 1996; Choo and Bontis, 2002). 13 According to Davenport and Prusak (1998), knowledge is "a fluid mix of 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 of organized statements of facts or ideas, presenting a reasoned judgement or an experimental result". Adler (2002) describes knowledge as "the relatively permanent record of 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 of knowledge into either a tacit or an explicit form. Tacit knowledge (encompassing skills, methods and mental models) is embedded in 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 of knowledge is an important one and w i l l be further discussed later on in this chapter. Traditionally, knowledge has also been classified into the following types: know-what (facts/ information); know-why (explicit knowledge of the principles and laws of 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/ know-how); encultured (refers to process of 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 in the nature of knowledge, as well as the complexity that must be faced when attempting to analyze it. Additionally, it demonstrates that knowledge is not developed in 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 of the social circumstances in which they function, as well as of the nature of 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 of the factors that frame these processes, by exploring two important phenomena: occupational cultures and social networks. 2.3 The Cultures behind Knowledge Anthony Giddens (1993:31) defines culture as "the values the members of 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 of a sense of 'we-ness' that creates in 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 of 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 of organizational studies, a lot of 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 of 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. Tr ice (1993) also proposes that there are certain forces facilitating group identity: 1) esoteric' knowledge and expertise (the belief of possessing a special kind of knowledge, shared only by a few other people); 2) consciousness of kind (the boundaries determined by people in regards to who is ' l ike ' 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 in social value or status associated to an occupation); 5) primary reference group (the sense that, because of 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 of 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 in order to find particular species of fish; or what depth the gear must be set, in order to maximize the catch. It is this rich and unique body of 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 in the framing of knowledge processes. Thus, i f different occupations lead to different cultures, and to different stocks of knowledge, where does it leave industry and science? What kinds of values, beliefs and norms are associated with each sector? How distinct are their cultures and what impact does it have on the type of knowledge they hold? There is a very rich literature, in the field of sociology, suggesting the existence of a certain 'gap' or 'disconnect' between the two sectors. This gap has been attributed to a number of factors, one of them being the fundamental differences in the cultures of these sectors. In their analysis of the role of scientists in society, Cotgrove and Box (1970:35) affirm that industry and science are in fact "two distinct social systems, with different goals, values, and norms." 17 The culture of science The idea of science being a culture may be a concept broadly accepted in today's society, however it has not always been so. It is in great part the work carried on the subjects of the organization of science and the social construction of 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 of science. C P . Snow (1962:10) explained that, although scientists in different fields do not always understand each other, "there are common attitudes, common standards and patterns of behaviour, common approaches and assumptions" that make science a culture, in the anthropological sense of the word. Before that perspective emerged, science was mostly perceived as value-free and guided by strong norms that insured its objectivity. Communality, organized scepticism, universality and disinterestedness were the fundamental standards o f scientific research that Robert Merton (1942; 1973) identified, and which became known as the'norms of science'. Today, these same norms are still held by many members of the scientific community (particularly in 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 of findings remain the principal standards by which a scientist's credibility and the validity of research are determined. These, along with distinct cultural forms such as language (e.g. the use of Latin in taxonomy) and symbols (e.g. the periodic table in chemistry), are at the foundation of the culture of science. In the scientific community, logic, homogeneity, 18 independence, hierarchy, and recognition are some of 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 of the roles of science - and consequently of its loci o f production - has engendered the development of 'subcultures' o f science: in academia, there is the traditional fundamental or 'pure' science, and the growing applied science; in 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 of consultancy firms (Fusfeld, 1994). Although these subcultures of science have slightly different sets of 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 Box (1970) suggested that the most distinctive feature of science is its 'social character'. The production of 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 pre-existing frame of reference composed of theories and laws accepted by the scientific community (Collins, 1992). A s mentioned above, the validation of scientific knowledge is done chiefly through the peer review process. The value given to new knowledge in basic science is often related to the degree in which it advances understandings of nature, 19 but also by the frequency by which the work is cited in publications respected by the community. Somewhat in contrast, in applied science or R & D , the value of new knowledge is often related to its usefulness to help solve a particular issue, or a market-oriented problem. Finally, scientific knowledge is public property: it is created, in most cases, to be shared with the other members of the scientific community. The culture of industry Industry (the commercial enterprise concerned with the output of 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 of science (Cotgrove and Box, 1970; Fusfeld, 1994). Growth, competitiveness, innovation, and efficiency are some of 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 in industry is more often an "intermediate product required in production o f goods and services" (Kobayashi, 1995:130). It is mostly tacit (see definition above) in nature: it resides in the experiences, the skills and the routines of individuals and organizations, and is generally transferred through apprenticeship (Blackler, 2002). The validation of new knowledge is based often on reputation (that of the individual or organization where the knowledge originated from), and also on the results it generates. Above all , the value of new knowledge in industry is ultimately determined by its usefulness in bringing/insuring profit. That is why 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 of nodes and links' (Batten et al., 1995). There are many different kinds of networks: transportation (roads) networks, information networks, economic (inter-firm) networks, etc. Social networks can be defined as sets of actors linked by formal or informal relationships (e.g. patron-client, mentor-apprentice, business partnership, consultant, kinship, friendship, neighbour). What makes a group of actors part of a network is the importance of 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 of 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 of permanence in every network, social networks are dynamic. They develop and change over time: growing or shrinking in size as linkages form or break off; varying in stability and cohesion as relationships intensify or weaken. Thus, the network influences the actors' behaviour, which, in turn, can affect the structure and nature of 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 of 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 of relationships. Therefore, i f the phenomenon investigated is knowledge, the boundaries of 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 of people. The result of 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 of individuals (companies, organizations, etc). The linkages can be mechanisms specially put in place to facilitate the diffusion of knowledge (i.e. transportation and telecommunication), but they can also be pre-existing relationships that facilitate knowledge processes (i.e. the production and diffusion of knowledge). The stock of 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 3 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. 24 often used to describe particular groups of actors who share more intense relationship within a larger network. There can be many cliques within a network (Burt, 1983). Other important features of social networks are integrators (often referred to as "brokers"). Mulford (1984:181) refers to the integrator as "the organizational entity (board, staff, or person) charged with coordinating the services o f autonomous organizations". 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 in the production and transfer of knowledge, for they insure the cohesion among different parts of the network, and may allow access to different sources of knowledge by establishing connections with other loci o f knowledge production (external to the network). Therefore, integrators not only facilitate the flow of knowledge among the various actors, but they may also enhance the network's knowledge stocks with external sources. Although the use of network theory may be a simplistic way of presenting complex systems of social relationships, it does allow us to see clearly how the different components in these systems are connected, and to understand how each system behaves as a whole. Also , it can help us to map some of the loci o f knowledge production, as well as how knowledge travels in society (Cimoli and Constantino, 2001). 25 2.5 Managing Relationships, Managing Knowledge In the past decade, a number of experts in various fields (social scientists, economists, information experts, firm managers) have come to agree that knowledge has become one of the most important engines of social and economic development (Castells,1996; Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Stehr, 2002). Thus, the performance of private and public organizations - and therefore, of nations - increasingly depends on their efficiency in 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 of existing knowledge, out there, in the minds of people (a significant fraction of which resides in industry and science). Unfortunately, the fact that this knowledge exists does not necessarily mean that it is being used efficiently. The increasing awareness of this fact has driven many organizations to reassess their efficiency at producing, mobilizing and using knowledge (Choo and Bontis, 2002). The production of 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 and adapted to the organization's needs), before it can be used (Choo, 2002). The capacity to seek and 26 absorb new knowledge is especially critical for organizations with little knowledge production capabilities (Fusfeld, 1994). We 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 of the objectives of the emerging field of knowledge management. A s 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 in 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. This may facilitate communication between them, however their r Identity/ Nature Purpose/ Agenda Environment Capabilities/ Resources Figure 1 Variables related 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 of knowledge. That is one of the arguments, discussed at the beginning of this chapter, for encouraging intersectoral collaboration. In order to adapt to the changing world, new knowledge is constantly needed. A s suggested by Ikujiro Nonaka (2002: 437): "communities of interaction contribute to the amplification and development of new knowledge". Thus, i f the secret to adaptation lies - at least partly - in 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 of occupational cultures and of knowledge networks through the case study of shellfish aquaculture in three regions of Canada. The investigation of 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 of 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 of the history of shellfish aquaculture in each study region, in order to understand how this field of activity has grown, and what are some of 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 of molluscs, although crustaceans (such as prawns and lobsters) and echinoderms (such as sea urchins) are often included in the definition. A relatively young industry in Canada, the culture of shellfish finds its roots in Ancient Rome; oyster seeds were imported from Gaul and grown locally with a 'stick and bag' method, which can still be found today in some parts of France (Tiddens, 1990). A t first, the farming of shellfish was mainly practiced in places where wi ld 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 of various species of shellfish lead to the development of hatchery and nursery technologies, as well as more efficient growing and harvesting techniques. Today, part of the industry has become quite sophisticated, with for example, advances in remote setting, floating upwelling systems ( F L U P S Y ) 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 As i a were the leaders in the development of 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 of 29 entrepreneurs on each coast laboured for more than a decade at adapting foreign technologies and developing some of their own: armed with their dreams, their innovative minds and a lot of patience, they were the pioneers of shellfish aquaculture in North America. A t the same time, many scientists saw in this growing activity a new field of research, with new sources of funding. In the 80s, advances in the field of biotechnology (such as the development of 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 of the industry on the marine environment. However, many areas of shellfish aquaculture remain in need of 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 in Canada is a 58 mil l ion dollar industry 4: it has surpassed the wi ld 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 Mani la clam (Tapes phUippinarum) on the West Coast are the most economically important shellfish aquaculture species (totalling 55 mil l ion dollars in 2001, or almost 95% of the total landed value). The two biggest producers are Prince Edward Island, with 50% of 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), 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 in 2001. 31 working on projects related to shellfish aquaculture have a background in 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 of the scientists working in the field of 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 health-related 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 of varying ecological, social and political factors, the development of the industry has occurred differently in each province: variations also exist on a local scale. Each province in Canada presents its own particular history of the development of shellfish aquaculture knowledge in terms of 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 of these histories: that of the Magdalen Islands in Quebec, of Prince Edward Island, and of Vancouver Island in British Columbia. The Magdalen Islands, Quebec Research on shellfish aquaculture in Quebec began in the Magdalen Islands in the 1970s, however commercial production only began in the mid 80s (almost a decade 5 Quote from Gary Caine (provincial aquaculture regional operations chief), in 'Shell Game', the Times-Colonist, June 11, 1995: A l . Victoria, B.C. 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 in Quebec, the sector generates more than 140 jobs and has returns of approximately $625,000 6 . Experiments with mussel and oyster culture began in 1973, at the provincial fisheries research station in the Magdalen Islands. That year, French experts were invited to Quebec - as part of 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 of 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 of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) regained jurisdiction over the fisheries sector in the G u l f of 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-de-la-Madeleine (STMEVI). That same year, following a visit to Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, 'longline' culture techniques were introduced in Quebec: this important development allowed the industry to make the shift from small-scale culture to large-scale commercial mussel aquaculture (Myrand, 1992). 6 Statistics Canada, Agriculture Division, 2001. 33 Very quickly, the interest in shellfish culture spread to other parts of the province: promoters and research institutions, such as the Centre Aquacole Marin de Grande-Riviere (another M A P A Q research centre, in Gaspesie), universities, consultancy firms, and processing plants became interested in examining the potential of this new industry. D F O funded many pilot projects through its Programme Essais et Experimentation Halieutiques et Aquicoles. Soon, these players joined in what was called the Table Maricole, an organization composed of D F O , the M A P A Q , the Regroupement des Mariculteurs du Quebec ( R M Q ) , and later on, the Societe de Developpement de I'Industrie Maricole (SODIM) 7 . The organization's mandate was to coordinate the efforts to put in place the necessary conditions for the development of the industry. According to Bruno Myrand (1992), research and development activities in shellfish aquaculture during the 1980s can be categorized under seven themes: 1) siting potential; 2) seed supply; 3) production parameters; 4) quality of the product; 5) processing; 6) adaptation and development of technology, and; 7) management. Thus, right from the beginning, the science sector was the primary source of shellfish aquaculture knowledge and a driving force in the development of the industry in Quebec. However, as the industry sector grew, shellfish growers became increasingly active in the production of new knowledge, as well as in the transfer of knowledge from sources outside the province. B y 1985, there were 8 mussel operations in the Magdalen Islands, making it the most important region for shellfish aquaculture in Quebec. The Guide de Demarrage d'une Entreprise Maricole. Comite Sectoriel de main-d'oeuvre des peches maritimes - SODIM et Emploi Quebec. 2000. 34 following year, the mussel production climbed to approximately 50 tonnes (a 225% increase in 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, in Prince Edward Island. The negative effect of this episode was especially felt in Quebec where two people had died and close to 100 had become i l l from the toxic shellfish: mussel growers lost thousands of 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 8. Then followed a few harsh winters which, added to the unresolved problem of summer mortality of mussel seeds and markets that had not recovered after 1987, resulted in a significant decrease in the number of 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. Wi th the creation of 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 intensified their experimentation with Giant scallop (Placopecten magellanicus) 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 of scallop culture in Quebec had already been determined - through research - in other parts of the 8 DFO Statistics, Agriculture Division, 2001. 35 province, the next objective was to find ways of insuring seed supply. R E P E R E is still ongoing today, making it one of the longest-running R & D programs in shellfish aquaculture. Some of 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 in 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 in 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 of a biologist hired through the Societe de Developpement de I'Industrie Maricole (SODIM), a funding agency established by the M A P A Q in 1997. Green urchins have also been grown experimentally, at different times in the past 20 years. A n important factor in the development of the shellfish aquaculture knowledge in the Magdalen Islands is undoubtedly the constant support of 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 of dollars over the past 20 years), but also 36 infrastructure for the sector to develop. Its investments in R & D and technological transfer, as well as its constant efforts to involve the industry as wel l as other organizations have lead to important advances and have contributed to make Quebec one of the world leaders in the research and development of 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 of 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 of the tenures located along the northern and eastern coasts of the Island (Anonymous, 1998). Over the years, the industry has not only become an important source of economic wealth for the province, but it also a significant source of new knowledge for the entire country. The culture of shellfish in P.E.I, began in the early 1900s, with oyster farming: it is believed that the American oyster was one of the first species in Canada to be subjected to attempts at cultivation (Anonymous, 1998). However, difficulties in obtaining high and constant seed supply have made oyster aquaculture a most difficult activity. To remedy to this situation, the Canadian federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) set up, in 1965, an experimental oyster hatchery at the Ellerslie Fisheries Station, and although the process of 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 of obtaining seeds: 1) they could catch seeds on cultch (material serving as substrate) placed in 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 of 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, in 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 in 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 of rafts, buoyed long-lines, or fences) was shown to accelerate growth, improve the 9 DFO - Underwater World website. 38 quality of the meat, and decrease losses to predation. 1 0 In 1995, the Department of 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 of 4 to 6 years and competing with the still strong local fishery - as wel 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. On the other hand, the culture of Blue mussels has been a fast growing industry in P.E.I., and is now the second most important 'fishery' on the Island, with an export value of more than $23 mil l ion in 2001. 1 1 Mussel aquaculture began in the 1970s, with a Belgian-born tobacco grower named Joe Van den Bremt. Wi th the collaboration of the Department of Fisheries and Environment, he set out to find a way to produce mussels with a higher quality than the wi ld ones, and that could be harvested year-around, since it is in 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 1 0 DFO - Underwater World website. 1 1 DFO Statistics, Agriculture Division, 2001. 39 under a series of rafts. However this experiment failed, with the ice eventually dismantling the rafts (Anonymous, 1998). Then followed a series of 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 of mesh stockings, known as 'socks', was eventually adopted: the socks were filled with spats (juveniles) and attached to aluminium piping, which were attached to buoys. 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 of the rope-cultured mussel industry. Another important step for the mussel industry was the development of winter harvesting technology, a collaborative effort between growers, the Department of 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 of the industry was the development of a unique holding system, invented in the late 1970s by Brian Fortune (one of the biggest grower/processor on the Island), with the assistance of D F O . Each tank in the system can hold up to 500 pounds of 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 of the product, by providing the mussels with a self-cleaning period. Unt i l recently, mussels 40 were sold fresh only, however new packaging techniques (developed by the Island processors, in collaboration with the Food Technology Centre and the D F A E ) now allows the distribution of 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 of Fisheries, Aquaculture and Environment began a monitoring program. Unfortunately, these preventive measures could not prevent the disastrous events of December 1987, when a mysterious toxin in P.E.I, mussels shut down the entire Atlantic shellfish aquaculture industry for approximately two months. A team of about 50 scientists from various organizations in P.E.I, and other maritime provinces worked around the clock to establish the identity of the unknown toxin. Finally, a professor from the University of 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 of Island Blue, remain the main aquaculture product being grown in P E L In fact, 80% of 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 1 0 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). By 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 1 2 P.E.I. Aquaculture and Fisheries Research Initiative. Pamphlet, Department of Fisheries and Environment: Charlottetown. 43 of 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 in different areas, was put in 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 in the water, thus avoiding excessive fouling (Quayle, 1988). Growers also experimented with various methods of culture, mostly adapted from methods used in other parts of the world: stake culture, rack and stick culture, string culture, and tray culture were all off-bottom, semi-intensive methods of production (in contrast to the more intensive raft culture method broadly used today). However, the greatest difficulty remained seed supply, for breeding of the wi ld stocks varied significantly from one year to another. This situation was to change in the late 1970s, with the introduction of remote setting methods in B . C . , by Gordon and Bruce Jones of Innovative Aquaculture Products Ltd. The two growers - with no scientific background, but a lot of 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 of the first oyster hatchery in B C , on Lasqueti Island (Pirquet, 1989). They also wrote two extensive reports on the remote setting of hatchery-produced oyster larvae, which were published by the provincial government for the industry. 44 This was an important step in the development of the industry, introducing a whole different field of knowledge for growers in British Columbia, and giving them more control over a phase of production which, until then, had been mostly in the hands of nature, of the scientists, or of the foreign seed producers. B y the mid-80s, many growers use would use remote setting methods to reduce the costs of seed (buying only small bags of larvae instead of cases of clutched seed) and increase the quality of 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 of Agriculture and Fisheries) in the Saanich Inlet, and a series of experiments were carried out in order to determine the specific guidelines for remote setting of oysters. This project was a collaborative effort involving growers and scientists from the University of 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 in the development of the shellfish aquaculture knowledge in B . C . during the 60s, 70s and 80s, was Dr. Dan Quayle, working on oyster culture with the Marine Resource Branch (BC Environment Ministry) and later on with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) at the Pacific Biological Station (PBS). Quayle's work on the biology and the culture of the Pacific 45 oyster was extensively published: one of these publications was the first comprehensive 'Guide to Oyster Farming' in B C (Quayle and Smith, 1976). In 1988, he wrote: 'Pacific Oyster Culture in British Columbia' , a legacy to the scientific community, but also to the industry of all the knowledge produced and accumulated over his long career. Another important source of knowledge in shellfish aquaculture was Dr. N e i l Bourne, who was head of clam and scallop research, at P B S during the 1980s. Bourne investigated the feasibility of growing Japanese scallops (already grown very successfully * 13 in Japan) in British Columbia. The research was a joint project between P B S and the Marine Resource Branch, in collaboration with an aquaculture centre in Japan. A small experimental hatchery was built to develop artificial spawning and feeding techniques. A s the demand for Mani la clams increased, in the mid 1980s, growers began to experiment with this species. Innovative Aquaculture Products and Redonda Sea Farms were also key players in developing clam hatchery and nursery techniques (Jones et al. 1993). Norm Gibbons (Redonda Sea Farms Ltd) was also one of the first growers in B . C . to experiment with mussel culture. Based on the knowledge from the East coast (Maritimes and Maine), he worked on determining the feasibility of 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: A2. 46 Today the industry is composed of approximately 250 companies, producing about 8, 320 tonnes of shellfish (6, 800 of which are oysters), for an estimated value of $15, 700, 000. 1 4 The majority of 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 of available water for shellfish aquaculture, new regions are now being considered. The Pacific oyster and the Mani la clam remain the principal shellfish aquaculture species grown in the province. However the production of Japanese scallops and Blue mussels are slowly increasing, and new species, such as geoducks and Pinto abalones, are also being explored for culture purposes. Many of the knowledge producers of 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 of shellfish aquaculture knowledge in government agencies seemed to have significantly decreased over the past decade G u dged by the number of related publications for that period and the present number of scientists working in that field). The Pacific Biological Station does some research on shellfish diseases: the information is posted on the D F O website. Also , a National Aquatic Animal 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 of B C has been particularly active, in the past decade, 1 4 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 C H A P T E R I V - A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S 4.1 - Research Approach We have seen, in 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 of knowledge, it also holds significant challenges for the actors involved. A s it is the case for any kind of collaboration process, there are factors that foster this process, and factors that hinder it. The main purpose of this study is to identify some of the factors that may affect collaboration between members of industry and scientists, by using shellfish aquaculture in Canada as a case study. Because these factors are most likely varied in nature, the challenge with such an endeavour was to find an approach (or a combination of approaches) that allowed for an investigation of the different realms involved in intersectoral collaboration (i.e. the structural, cultural and relational realms). The approach used by Huijsman and Budelman (1996), in their study of agricultural R & D , was chosen for its relevance to the objectives of this study. First, it takes the 'social actor perspective', where the production and adoption of knowledge are seen as "part of 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 of 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 of knowledge, along with key factors like the presence or absence of 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 of broader social context where the actors (in our case, shellfish growers and aquaculture scientists) and interactions among them are considered the key factors in the production, transfer and absorption of knowledge. The main goal of this research is thus to investigate some of 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 of this exploratory research would greatly vary depending on the socioeconomic and political context in which the industry has developed, a comparative analysis of three different study areas across Canada was chosen as the best way to capture the diversity of existing situations. The research is based on a series of 31 interviews with a number of growers and scientists in each study region. Using essentially qualitative methods, the study draws from the experiences and perspectives of the participants to determine how shellfish aquaculture knowledge is 51 produced, diffused and validated, and to explain the current state of 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 of the themes are defined a priori, but there is also some degree of flexibility, allowing for other themes to emerge through the study. A template (series of 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 - Data Collection Background research The first step in this research was a review of various documents relating to the history and the present state of 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 of 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 in each province, providing me with an overview of some of the issues regarding industry-science relationships. Also , quite by chance, I had the opportunity of meeting and interviewing the director of the Station Technologique Maricole des Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Qc), during his visit to 52 Vancouver, in the summer of 2001. The unique context in 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 of a dozen islands located in the G u l f of 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 of their l ives 1 5 . Tourism and the salt mines are also two important employers on the Islands. Figure 3 The Magdalen Islands, Quebec. 1 5 www. 53 The shellfish aquaculture sector is composed of 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. On Prince Edward Island, agriculture is the main industry, followed by tourism (the fastest growing industry, with more than one mil l ion visitors each year), and fisheries (cod, herring, tuna, and lobster). Although it is the smallest province in Canada, the Island is the largest producer of cultured shellfish in the country (approximately 20,000t/year or almost 59% of the Canadian production). 1 6 Comprising more than 120 companies, six processing plants, equipment designers and manufacturers, distributors ands retailers, as wel 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 in terms of how shellfish aquaculture knowledge was/is produced and diffused within the sector. The eastern part of 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). 1 6 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 of salmon fisheries and the closing of many lumber companies and paper mills in the past decade have made life increasingly difficult for Island residents. To remedy, in 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 of 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 of 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 in B . C . 1 7 British Columbia Western Economic Diversification Report, Cooper & Lybrand Consulting, 1997. 55 Figure 5 Study area on Vancouver Island. Sampling A s explained in chapter U l , shellfish growers come from a wide variety of 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 in each sector (Daymon and Holloway, 2002). Since there were only six growers and six scientists in the Magdalen Islands, I decided that six informants in each sector would also be selected for the two other study areas, for a total of 18 growers and 18 scientists. Participants were selected according to various criteria. For shellfish growers, it was determined that owners and managers of shellfish aquaculture companies would be the best informants for the study. Two of the managers were also biologists doing a fair amount of 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 my background research, some of the 'bigger' and 'smaller' growers on each coast, as well as some of the pioneers, and some of the growers that had participated in collaborative R & D projects with scientists were identified. The main sampling parameters for the growers were to have at least one 'b ig ' 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, in each study region. O f course, since there were only six growers in 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 pre-selected sampling areas, and a few informants in each study area were selected in a more random and opportunistic manner. A l l the selected growers agreed to an interview, and 17 were eventually interviewed: one of the growers in the Magdalen Islands being away on a vacation (see Table 1). Although there are a few female growers in Canada, the participants in this study were all male. Table 1 Number of 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 of 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 in 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 in Moncton (N.B.) , but does regular visits to P.E.I, to assist in 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 in P.E.I.). In the case of Vancouver Island, there are, again, only half a dozen scientists at the most that fall within the selection criteria mentioned above, four of whom participated in the study. Therefore, a total of 13 scientists were interviewed (Table 2). Table 2 Typology of the scientists' sample. Federal Agency Provincial Agency Educational Institution Private Firm/ Consultant 1 9 2 1 Interviews The majority of 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 in the study. The one-to-one 58 interviews were conducted in person, during the period from July to November, 2002, either in the participants' offices or homes, or in public places. A t the beginning of each interview, the participants were informed that their identity would remain confidential, and also that, to insure confidentiality, the data collected would be presented in aggregate. A t the end of the interviews, informants were asked i f they would agree to sign a consent form, written in accordance with the ethics policy of the University of British Columbia. A l l agreed to sign. The interviews lasted between one to three hours, averaging one and a half hours. Twenty-seven of the thirty-one interviews were tape-recorded, and subsequently fully transcribed (verbatim). Two of the participants did not feel comfortable with the recorder, thus only written notes were taken. Two other interviews occurred in places simply too noisy to use the recorder, so written notes were also taken. This study being part of a bigger research project, the interviews with French participants were translated to Engl ish . 1 8 I opted for semi-structured interviews to explore the research questions, because this method of data collection provides a great deal of social context, which helps in producing better understanding of 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. 1 8 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. 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 of the first one) for the scientists. A series of about 40 questions was originally developed, based partly on some of the literature on the nature of each sector (science and industry), as well as on the phenomenon of 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 of comparison for the analysis. These questions were put on an 'information sheet' that was filled for each of the 31 informants: again, there were two variations of the information sheet, one for growers and one for scientists (see Appendix 1). The schedules can be divided in four major sections: 1) work life; 2) perspectives on knowledge and the other sector; 3) state of 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 in terms of either 'structural' factors, or 'relational' factors. This categorization (cultural, structural and relational) has often been used in 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 of codes was then developed for each category, however not all the data were coded, for some of 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 of comparison were produced for this study: first, a comparison of the commonalities and differences between shellfish growers and scientists, across all three study areas and; second, a comparison of the types of interactions (nature, frequency, etc) that exist between the two sectors in each study area, as well as of the networks of 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) in each sector of 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 of 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 of the developing theory' (2002:163). Saturation, in 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, in the past decades, there have been two emerging phenomena (observed across many sectors, and in 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 of efficiency and maximize the benefits of knowledge (Choo and Bontis, 2002; Little et al., 2002). The second phenomenon is the increase in intersectoral collaboration. Collaborative R & D , in particular, appears to have become one of government's favourite strategies in its effort to improve innovation capacities and knowledge flows (Fusfeld, 1994; Godin, 1999). We have seen, in the Chapter i n , how the industry and the science sector o f shellfish aquaculture have developed in Canada, adapting 'foreign' knowledge to local conditions, and generating new knowledge of their own. We have also seen that shellfish aquaculture is a growing industry; one presenting great economic potential, but also facing important challenges and raising a number of 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 of government has been the promotion of cooperation between shellfish growers and aquaculture scientists, by creating programs that strongly encourage the two sectors to form partnerships in 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, in turn, have significant impacts on the process of collaboration itself, as wel 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' in nature, as. many of 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 in two distinct cultures, and that what Trice (1993) calls the 'consciousness o f k ind ' , 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 in the framing of knowledge in each sector. 67 5.1 Occupational L i fe and Cul ture We have determined, in chapter H., that cultures consist of shared values and norms, as well as in the material goods produced by a group of people (Giddens, 1993). They manifest themselves through ideologies and cultural forms. We have also established that, through social interactions, a sense of unity or 'we-ness' can be generated among the members of an occupation (Trice, 1993). In the following section, I examine the occupational lives of shellfish growers and aquaculture scientists in order to create a general portrait o f each sector, and highlight some of the differences and commonalities between them. Based on these findings, and using mainly the arguments presented in the work of 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 in this particular case study indicate that the distinctiveness between the two cultures may not be as unambiguous as that presented in the 'traditional' understanding of science and industry (e.g. in the works of Cotgrove and Box, 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 in the past. The occupational life of shellfish growers Altogether, 17 shellfish growers were interviewed. They represented some of the diversity that can be found in the Canadian shellfish aquaculture industry (i.e. big and 68 small producers, growers/processors, and producers of various species). They were asked to talk about their education, their reasons for becoming growers, as wel l as their motivations and goals regarding their work. The participants also provided some details regarding their operations (activities, markets, number of employees), and the nature of their work (changes, difficulties encountered, needs). Nine of 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 in aquaculture, through a university program. Growers in British Columbia presented a slightly higher level of education than growers in the other two provinces. The average years of experience per grower in Prince Edward Island and British Columbia are 18.5 and 16 years respectively: practically double that of growers in the Magdalen Islands (with an average of 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 of the 17 growers have backgrounds as commercial fishermen (six of whom have only a high-school education). This may be an important factor, since it Table 3 Level of education and average years of experience of shellfish growers. Level of education QC PEI BC High school 3 3 1 Community college/ CEGEP 1 - 1 Bachelor's degree - 3 3 Graduate degree 1 - 1 Total number of growers 5 6 6 Average years as grower 9.6 18.5 16 69 has been argued that the sharing of a similar background can contribute to bringing a sense of unity among people (Giddens, 1993; Trice, 1993). The great majority of the shellfish growers interviewed mentioned that they had chosen this occupation primarily because it allows them to continue residing in 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 of Canada where work is not easily found. According to the growers, shellfish aquaculture in these regions is a good way to earn a l iving, or a good complementary source of 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 of 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 in a particular location of 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) Ha l f of the participants mentioned that 'seeing the product grow/ go out on the market' is a great source of satisfaction. A small number of growers said that 'solving problems/ seeing things work' is satisfying for them. Four informants (three in P.E.I, and one in B.C. ) identified 'money' as a source of motivation. Some of the business goals identified by the growers were: 'vertical integration', 'increasing production', 'creating jobs' , and 'developing/ accessing new markets'. A small number of growers in P.E.I, and B . C . also mentioned: 'increasing the value of the operation, in order to sell it and retire'. Three of the growers interviewed in P.E.I, and one in B . C . process their own product, whereas the majority of the other growers sell their product mostly to local 71 processors. The majority of the growers in this study (12 out of 17) employ only between two and six people, mostly on a seasonal base (these are considered the 'small ' operations in the industry). Three of the growers (one in each case study) employ more than six, but less than 50 people, and two others (one in P.E.I, and one in B .C. ) each employ 50 or more employees (these are considered the 'b ig ' operations in the industry). Ten growers have identified 'mechanization' as a major change in the nature of 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 of the difficulties faced by the growers in 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 in both the Magdalen Islands and in 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 of 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 of concerns (each grower naming a few), while in 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 of the mussel industry in that province. Four of the growers (two in the Magdalen Islands and two in P.E.I.) identified 'technical support/ technology transfer' as their main need to develop their business. In the Magdalen Islands, a small number of 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 of 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. You 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, in 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 of the participants mentioned 'more scientific research' as a need for the industry's prosperity. One grower explained that, in 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. However, the question remains: Is there such a thing as a 'shellfish grower culture'? I have already defined 'culture' as consisting of values, norms and material goods common to a group of people, and creating a sense of unity among its members (Giddens, 1993). In support of the view that there is a 'shellfish growers' culture, we have already seen that the majority of the growers do share a number of similar values (or ideas about what is good or desirable): a 'remoteness/coastal lifestyle', 'independence/owning a business', and 'growing a product'. Many also value 'innovation' and 'making profits'. Although the interviews did not reveal much about the norms growers might follow, a small number of participants did refer to some of 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 in 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 of 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 of the growers' efforts to improve the industry, but also the reflection of their individual ingenuity, which gives them a sense of 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 of 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 in tasks' is one of the forces that seem to act upon the growers. Indeed, the 'production of a food source' and the 'generation of employment' are undoubtedly two tasks that are highly valued in our society, and that, according to the participants, are a.common source of 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 of having built something. In P.E.I., this pride seems to be a 'collective' phenomenon among mussel growers, in the sense that they mostly expressed their pride in terms of the work they have accomplished as an industry, and in terms of 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 of unity. On the other hand, it appears to alienate (at least in part) oyster growers. 76 This sense of 'we-ness' does not appear to be as strong in 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, in B . C . , it is the controversy around their occupation that gives shellfish growers their sense of 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 in the Magdalen Islands, was expressed mostly in terms of personal efforts and achievements. Trice (1993) suggests that 'cultural forms' (the expressions of cultures) also contribute to reinforcing the sense of '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 F L U P S Y ' , 'socking material', 'spatting period', and 'remote 77 setting'). They also have in common a series of 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 of the occupation are the members' primary reference group" (1993:26) is another force strengthening occupational cultures. Interestingly, one thing that clearly emerged in this study is of the importance of the (grower) community as 'primary reference group' to most of the participants. When growers were asked to identify, among a series of choices, what they consider their 'primary source of information regarding shellfish aquaculture', the majority of them (almost 65%) answered 'other growers' (see table 4). 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 in the next chapters. Table 4 Primary sources o f information for shellfish growers. Values represent the number of growers who chose a particular category, and percentage. Sources of information Number of Growers % Scientific journals Aquaculture magazines Government agencies Universities 1 0 1 0 5.9 0.0 5.9 0.0 64.7 j j j j e r growers I J l In-house 4 23.5 78 A l l the factors mentioned above contribute to developing and maintaining what Trice calls 'occupational ethnocentrism', or a sense of "we-ness" among the shellfish growers. B y interacting with one another, growers come to "see themselves in terms of 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 of shellfish growers. A s we have seen, this sense of unity among growers varies from one province to another, and appears to be the strongest in Prince Edward Island. We w i l l also see, further in this chapter (as well as in the following chapters), that this sense of we-ness among shellfish growers is also expressed when the informants talk about scientists: the 'we' versus 'them', or the notions of 'insider' and 'outsiders' then frequently surface in 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 in shellfish aquaculture, and about their motivations to do their work. Some questions also addressed the kinds of research they are involved in, as well as the roles they see themselves playing in the development of the industry. A l l the aquaculture scientists interviewed have a background in biology. In B . C . , scientists have a higher level of education, as three out of four have a PhD (see table 5). They also present a higher average in years of experience (19.5 years per scientist). 79 P.E.I, participants follow with an average of 15.7 years of experience per scientist, and Quebec come last, with 14.2 years per scientist. Table 5 Level of education and average years of experience of 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 Average years as aquaculture scientist 14.2 15.7 19.5 The sources of motivation and satisfaction for aquaculture scientists are varied. Ha l f of the informants said that the feeling of 'being useful' is what motivates them to do their work, and seven out of thirteen mentioned that 'finding solutions/solving problems' is a great source of satisfaction: " 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..." [ 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 of scientists identified 'innovation' as a source of motivation. Two informants in 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 in their work lives, and two of them mentioned 'quality of the product' as a source of 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 in B . C . mentioned 'money' as an important source of motivation to do his work. A l l the participants mentioned that nearly 100% of their research is applied in nature (such as carrying capacity studies; development of culture methods for new species; shellfish diseases; and work on invasive species). Most of the research is done collaboratively, with a number of scientists (often from diverse fields and organizations) and industry members working together. Interestingly, more than half of 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 of the scientists said that 'industry' and/or the 'mandate of their agency' mostly determine the types of studies they carry out: this concurs with the fact that 10 out of the 13 scientists interviewed are working for organizations that specifically have a mandate to assist the aquaculture industry in it's development (see chapter IV, 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 of the participants mentioned that their 'personal interests' partly determines what research they get involved in. Ha l f o f the scientists (four in the Magdalen Islands, two in P.E.I, and one in B.C. ) perceive their role in the development of 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 of experience in aquaculture, explained: " 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 in each case study, plus the consultant in B .C . ) mentioned having more than one role: they see themselves as 'administrators/ program managers/ coordinators'. Three participants mentioned 'knowledge transfer' as being part o f their 82 role. Two scientists (in P.E.I, and B.C. ) perceive their role as 'stewards of 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 of the scientists identified 'engineering' as an area of research they think should be developed for the industry to prosper. Another (the one with a PhD) mentioned 'genetics' as an important area for development. 'Seed supply' and 'environmental impacts' were also mentioned. Two scientists in 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 of the informants said that 'developing new/ native species' for aquaculture should be one of the focuses of research. Two scientists (one in P.E.I, and one in B .C . ) mentioned that it is difficult to determine what the focus of 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 of the aquaculture scientists in 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 in nature), for it is a science carried on mostly in the context of application (this w i l l be discussed further in the next section). Another interesting fact is that some of 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 of 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 in 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 of the scientists' work). Despite these significant linkages to industry, what clearly emerged in this study is the importance accorded by the aquaculture scientists to the respect of certain norms of science. This was reflected by the omnipresence of what Ziman (2000) calls 'the elements of the scientific ethos' in the participants' narratives. Indeed, the scientists, in their answers and comments, often referred to some of the Mertonian 'norms of science' (see chapter II): things that, as a scientist, one must or must not do. For example, many 84 scientists mentioned the importance of 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) Also , some participants expressed a concern with insuring that the knowledge they produce remains public knowledge (Merton's norm of '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 of the Mertonian norms not mentioned very often during the interviews with aquaculture scientists is 'disinterestedness'. Only one scientist referred to the importance of objectivity in 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 in this study (regardless of the province or the organization in which they are working): 1) the predominantly applied nature of 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 of the values and norms of science. Thus, aquaculture scientists do share a number of values and most of them seem to abide by particular norms (mainly scientific methods). However, as we have seen, some of the values and norms identified in this study differ from those described in the 'traditional' views of science (Kuhn, 1962; Cotgrove and Box, 1970; Merton 1942;1973). In fact, I w i l l argue that the features of the 86 culture associated with the scientists in this case study seem to better correspond to what has been described as the 'new culture of 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 of this 'new culture of science' and the way knowledge is produced, transferred and validated among aquaculture scientists. 5.2 Paradigms of Knowledge We have seen, in Chapter n, that knowledge is embrained (meaning that it is dependent of the individual's own cognitive capabilities), embodied (in actions), encultured (framed in values, beliefs and norms), embedded (in systemic routines and technologies) and encoded (Blackler, 2002). Thus, a person's knowledge is framed, in 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 of 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 the particular way knowledge is approached by each group, i.e. through their knowledge paradigms. Part of the data supporting this claim were found scattered throughout the interviews in the participants' various comments, and part of it comes from a series of 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 of 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 shellfish growers, knowledge is valuable i f it can be used, and quickly. Indeed, 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 of 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!' Mais crime, faire 9a comme 9a, c'est bien trop d'ouvrage: 9a [n'a] pas de bon sens! 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 of this study do not indicate that there are any particular norms guiding the production of knowledge among shellfish growers, other than, perhaps, profitability. A small number of participants did mention that the costs of 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. Un 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, in the sense that it is mostly embodied in 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: ". . .al l 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' in their routines and understandings (of the interactions between the shellfish and the marine environment, as well as of the impacts of their own actions on the production processes). Finally, much of the growers' knowledge is 'encultured', in the sense that much of 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 of its tacit nature, the growers' knowledge is not easily transferable (see chapter II). Part of it can be acquired either through apprenticeship (when there is a mentor available), or through social interactions, which are greatly dependent on the types of relationships among the growers (this particular point w i l l be further discussed in chapter VI) . However, according to the growers, much of 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 i f you listen to somebody else!" (Grower interview #11) Finally, the issue of 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 of production, the reduction of costs, or the increase in the quality of the product) is the main 'validation mechanism' 93 in the industry. The reputation of 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 of growers as an important criteria: "My 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. We have seen, in the previous section, that many of the characteristics of the 94 aquaculture scientists' culture are not consistent with that of 'traditional' science. Instead, the aquaculture scientists' culture appears to correspond more closely to Ziman's 'new culture of science' or 'postacademic science' (2000). In this view, it is suggested that, as a 'new mode of knowledge production' is emerging (Gibbons et al., 1994), some of the values and norms associated with the culture of science are changing. According to Gibbons and his colleagues, this new mode of knowledge production translates into a science that is: application-oriented (rather than primarily cognitive); transdisciplinary and heterogeneous (rather than disciplinary and homogenous); as well as socially accountable and reflexive. Interestingly (as I w i l l demonstrate), all o f the 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 of their knowledge from mentors in academia. However, as was the case for shellfish growers, the majority of the aquaculture scientists in this study have had to create for themselves a great deal their own knowledge regarding the culture of shellfish in Canada (see Chapter m). Using some of 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 in the previous section, the type of research aquaculture scientists do is primarily applied in nature, and largely driven by the needs of the industry and the mandate of the organizations for which the scientists work. In fact, we have seen 95 that the majority of the scientists interviewed have identified 'the needs of industry' as the main factor determining the kind of 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 of 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 of 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 in 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 in the traditional science), but rather a tool used either to assist or control the industry's development (as many of these scientists are also resource managers/ consultants to policy-makers). In fact, in their opinion, that is mainly where the value of knowledge stands (i.e. in its potential for action). However, as explained earlier in this chapter, the majority of informants also mentioned validity as an important factor in the production of 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 of 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 of the norms of science (i.e. the norm of '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 of 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 of social accountability and reflexivity have also transpired from the aquaculture scientist knowledge paradigm. Indeed, many of the scientists interviewed in this study acknowledged the importance of public opinion and of their own role and responsibilities as 'knowledge producers'. The following comments by two of the participants clearly illustrate the scientists' awareness of the impact of 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 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 in the context of application increases the sensitivity of scientists and technologists to the broader implications of what they are doing." One scientist expressed the importance he perceives of understanding the industry's point of view in 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 of knowledge production' are present in the knowledge paradigm of the aquaculture scientists, making it different from that of traditional science. I have also demonstrated some of the impacts these features have on the nature of 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 of kind ' (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 of science'. We have also seen that there are numerous differences in the features of 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 in this study may not be quite as 'distinct' as depicted by Cotgrove and Box (1970). This can be largely associated with the fact the culture and knowledge paradigm of the scientists in this study present features that differ from traditional science and that appear perhaps more compatible with those of industry. These differences and commonalities in the cultures and knowledge paradigms of 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 wil l 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 of 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, in Chapter HI, that part of 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 of 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 of the other sector, we may be able to draw a clearer picture of the nature of industry-science relationships in shellfish 101 aquaculture in Canada. Furthermore, this may allow us to identify some of the factors that affect these relationships. A series of three structured or close-ended questions (see Appendix 1) were presented to both growers and scientists, asking them to describe some aspects of their relationships with the other sector. These questions had as their objective an assessment of 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 is easy with members of the other sector. Additionally, growers were asked to rate the extent to which they trust scientists in general, whereas the question for scientists was an open-ended one, asking them whether they feel that trust is an issue in relationships between growers and scientists. Frequency In this study, two distinct types of growers can be identified: a) those who interact with scientists on a fairly regular basis; and b) those who very rarely do. A s shown in Figure 6, growers 2 to 6, and 11 have monthly interactions with scientists working in various organizations. Three of these growers even have weekly contacts with scientists: growers 3 and 11 are developing new aquaculture species in 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 P E I B C 1 111 • Federal • Provincial B Academia H Consultancy firm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Growers Figure 6 Growers' frequency of 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 , in the case of 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 of 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 of what is happening in 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 of scientific expertise in B . C . was not always so, for there were, in the past, scientists whom they respected and trusted. Four of 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, YES , 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 of the 17 growers interviewed have said to have some contacts with provincial scientists, on a yearly basis at the least, reflecting the relative importance of the provincial organizations for the industry (or, at the least, the higher degree of 'visibil i ty ' o f these scientists). In the Magdalen Islands, all but one informant have occasional interactions with scientists working for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), however it appears most of these contacts are in 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. 1 9 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. 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 in mind that the scientist/grower ratio in the Magdalen Islands is 1:1, whereas in P.E.I, and B . C . it is more in the vicinity of 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 in 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 of growers and scientists, the main purpose for interacting with members of the other sector is a 'two-way sharing of information'. The participants have indicated that, in most cases, these interactions happen in an informal way (sometimes face-to-face, in the field, or, more often, on the telephone). Some of these interactions, however, occur in a more formal setting (at various meetings, workshops and conferences, or through R & D projects). Five of the participants identified 'collaboration on R & D projects' as the main purpose for interacting with members of the other sector. Very few informants answered 'providing information' or 'obtaining information', which demonstrates that in general the flow of information between the two groups is mostly symmetrical (see chapter U). Only one grower could not answer this question, due to his lack of contact with scientists. 106 Table 7 M a i n purpose for interactions between shellfish growers and aquaculture scientists. Values represent the number of informants who chose a particular answer. QC growers scientists P.E.I, growers scientists B.C. growers scientists Providing information - - 1 Obtaining information - 2 1 1 Two-way sharing of information 3 5 3 2 4 1 Collaboration on R&D projects 2 1 1 1 Debate/ Confrontational -Quality The majority of 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 of the growers during the interviews, none of them chose to qualify their relationships with scientists as 'bad' or 'very bad ' / " Three of the growers in 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 of relationships between shellfish growers and aquaculture scientists. Values represent the number of 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 1 - 2 2 Bad - - - - - -Very bad - - - - - -Non existent - - 3 - 3 -In P.E.I., half of the growers interviewed affirmed being satisfied with their relationships with the scientists at the Ministry of 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 of interaction with scientists. On the other hand, more than half of the scientists interviewed described their relationships with growers as 'very good', while the others qualified them as 'good ' 2 1 . Two of the scientists even consider some of these growers 'friends'. 2 1 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] much so that we wonder what it could really bring us.] (Grower interview #5) 1 0 9 Although a difference in the educational background between growers and scientists may be a factor in this (for all three growers mentioned above went to high school only), I would argue that this 'difference in 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 of 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) [.. . i f 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 of growers in P.E.I, and the majority of the growers interviewed in 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 in communication between growers and scientists appears to be greater in 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 of 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 Divis ion of the Ministry of Fisheries, Aquaculture and Environment ( M F A E ) . Overall, the scientists interviewed also feel that communication between them and members of the industry can be difficult. Most of the scientists acknowledged that the 'divergence of perspectives' between the two groups could hinder communication: ", 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 in 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 PhD." (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 user-friendly way." (Scientist interview #8) The scientists in B . C . (except for the consultant) also mentioned that, with more time and resources, they would be able to go out in the field more often and communicate more with shellfish growers. One informant also acknowledge that a certain lack of trust on the part of 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 of trust, and more particularly, trust towards science and scientists has been extensively studied, especially in the field of sociology of 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 of trust (see Appendix 1), I realized that the growers' comments during the course of the interviews revealed a lot more about their level of trust towards scientists, than the answers to the structured question did. What I found is that the majority of the growers interviewed, for various reasons, do not have much trust in scientists in general. In many cases, the distrust is directed at the organization for which the scientists are working (e.g. DFO) , rather than at the scientists themselves. The scientists, on the other hand, appear to be aware of the growers' lack of trust towards them. They, in turn, also have their own issues in 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 in general', and given a series of choices. A s shown in Figure 8, there was very little variation in the answers given: the majority of the growers replied that they 'fairly' trust scientists in 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 of trust towards scientists in general. The level of 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 of 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 of such a situation (with scientists from various organizations) seem to have led many growers to either completely loose their trust in scientists, or to become more cautious in 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 in collaboration as a mean to get their research funded: "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 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 in particular) are more concerned with avoiding public controversy and protecting their own job, than with assisting the industry in 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 of trust towards the scientists working with Department of 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 of 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 DFO scientist on my beach!" (Grower interview #12) Another grower explained: "...we've always been a little apprehensive about DFO 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 of the growers' lack of trust towards them. Three of 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 of them, of obtaining the growers' trust. This need can probably be related to the fact that, in many cases, the growers are the scientists' clients. The majority of 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 of scientists mentioned having their own difficulties trusting growers, sometimes, when doing a project in 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 of the experiment. Another admitted having, in the past, some concerns about the validity of 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 of the relationships between shellfish growers and aquaculture scientists in the Magdalen Islands appears to be much better than it is in the other two studied regions, where it seems to be fairly comparable. However, by 'putting back' the findings within the context of 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 in the Magdalen Islands have a much higher frequency of interaction with scientists (compared to the other two provinces), can easily be explained by three circumstances: a) the industry is still very much in the 'developmental' phase (whereas the P.E.I, and B . C . industries are mostly in the 'commercial ' phase); b) the growers are few and fairly isolated, and; c) there are many scientists working in 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 of 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 wel l as the Aqualnfo notes), appear to be more 'connected' with the scientists. In the case of British Columbia, the lack of 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 of trust - seems, at first look, more important in British Columbia. There, growers are generally dissatisfied with the scientists, and scientists - except for the consultant - c l a im to have only little time (or, more precisely, resources) to develop their relationships with the industry. The apparent lack of 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 ( if not even more) in the Magdalen Islands, between four of the growers interviewed and the scientists at the Station Technologique Maricole. Indeed, three of 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 of the industry are resulting in increasing demands on the growers, and leading to more tension between the two groups. 119 Thus , 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 can lead to the w r o n g conclus ions . M o r e o v e r , b y l o o k i n g at the broader context o f knowledge relat ionships i n shel l f i sh aquaculture, some interesting patterns were identi f ied, 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 were soon recognized as very relevant to the study. Indeed, a l though the focus o f this research is p r i m a r i l y o n grower-scientist relat ionships, it became clear that other types o f k n o w l e d g e relat ionships around the two groups c o u l d not be ignored, because o f their impact o n the p r o d u c t i o n and d i f fus ion o f knowledge . Therefore, the f o l l o w i n g chapter is an attempt to demonstrate the existence o f ' k n o w l e d g e networks ' i n each study reg ion, as w e l l as the important role they p l a y i n the creation and transmiss ion o f shel l f ish aquaculture k n o w l e d g e i n Canada. 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 We 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 ) . We have established, in Chapter U , that knowledge is 'dynamic', in the sense that it is created and validated mainly through social interactions. A s explained by Nonaka: "Although ideas are formed in the minds of individuals, interactions between individuals typically play a critical role in 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 of knowledge, as wel l as in its diffusion (Fischer et al., 2002). We have seen in the previous chapter that, overall, shellfish growers do not appear to interact very frequently with aquaculture scientists. Thus, i f the majority of the growers interviewed (11 out of 17) do not rely (or very little) on aquaculture scientists to acquire new knowledge (see Figure 6), and considering that only two of 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 We have seen, in Chapter V , that more than 60% of 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 in the production and transfer of shellfish aquaculture knowledge than they actually do. What I found, instead, is that the growers interviewed (especially those in P.E.I, and B .C . ) acquire a great part of the knowledge they need mainly through a number of 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 of 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 in collaboration with other scientists, as well as with other actors working in the field of shellfish aquaculture (such as growers, industry associations, processors and hatcheries). Therefore, what emerged through the interviews is the existence, in the field of shellfish aquaculture, of networks of relationships, which appear to have in important role in the framing of knowledge processes. These knowledge networks are thus composed of the various actors involved in shellfish aquaculture (with their individual stocks of knowledge), and of the relationships among these actors (which are the linkages allowing 122 knowledge to flow through the network). A s mentioned in chapter II, this study uses knowledge processes as the framework for identifying the networks and their boundaries (Burt, 1983). In other words, of 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 of 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 of the interviews. This type of '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, in order to identify the knowledge networks that exist in each study area. B y mapping some of the knowledge relationships mentioned by the participants during the interviews, I w i l l demonstrate that the role of these networks in the production and transfer of knowledge is a significant one. The following sections present three models (or sociograms) providing an overview of the key actors in the production and transfer o f shellfish aquaculture knowledge, and some examples of the linkages among them that are impacting on knowledge processes. 2 3 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 of interaction between growers and scientists in the Magdalen Islands is fairly high, three of the five growers interviewed have identified 'other growers' as their primary source of 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 in the field of shellfish aquaculture in the Islands are: the six growers (two scallop growers - one of 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). There is one processor (mainly a fish processing plant) and no hatchery. There is no local aquaculture association either. Wi th so few local actors, some of these growers and scientists have developed fairly intimate relationships with one another. However, the majority have also established 'long-distance' relationships, with actors in other parts of Canada. One of 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 of information as 'in-house', which in this case is knowledge developed within a small cluster that includes two other 'sister companies' (one in Quebec, one in Nova Scotia). He 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 in Quebec). On the other hand, 'scallop b ' seems to have only one connection, with the S T M I M . This connection, however, is a strong one, based on many years of 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.] He has also developed connections with growers in P.E.I, (through consultations, conferences and workshops). 'Mussel b ' is a younger entrepreneur (new in the business) who has developed - out of necessity - an asymmetrical relationship (see Chapter IT) with the other, more experienced, mussel grower (going to him most often to seek information). Scallop a Mussel a CAMGR (Gaspesie) ( J O Growers in \ Grower P.E.I. O i n N . B . IFREMER (France) UQAR (Rimouski) Direction \ Regionale IML - DFO (Rimouski) DFO (Moncton, NB) Figure 9 Mode l of the network of relationships framing shellfish aquaculture knowledge in the Magdalen Islands. 2 4 Information regarding this grower comes from a preliminary interview (October 2001), and from interviews with scientists working at the Station. 125 The oyster grower too has connections in P.E.I., through a business relationship (with a very experienced grower/processor he buys his seed from). He also has a relationship with a grower he used to know, when working as a fisherman in New Brunswick: "J 'ai beaucoup appris de [A], un producteur au Nouveau Brunswick..." (Grower interview #1) [I learned a lot from ' A ' , a producer in 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 of the scientists at the STMEVI, however he feels that the relationship was not very beneficial to him, because - according to him - the information seemed to go only one way: from him to the scientist: "On 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 in that project: it 's been 3 years and nothing really has come out of it!] He 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 of the scientists at the Station have developed close relationships, even friendships, with certain growers. In some cases, the exchanges of 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 of 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 in Moncton, N B . A relationship with the scientists at the Institut Francais de Recherche pour VExploitation de la Mer ( I F R E M E R ) was also mentioned. Knowledge networks in Prince Edward Island A n important feature of shellfish aquaculture in 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 of them are also processing shellfish. A s explained in chapter HI, each bay/river system has a representative who plays the role of intermediary between the local growers and the P.E.I. Aquaculture Alliance. The aquaculture scientists on the Island are few. 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 of P.E.I./Atlantic Veterinary College; and second, through the Aquaculture Management Board, uniting the industry, the provincial Ministry of Fisheries, Aquaculture and Environment ( M F A E ) , and D F O (see chapter EI). 127 These connections among the various actors, in addition to the many others mentioned by each of the participants, form a large and dense network of knowledge relationships that greatly facilitates the production and diffusion of shellfish aquaculture knowledge on the Island. Figure 10 shows three bay or river systems ( ' A ' , ' B ' and ' C ' ) , with growers, bay representatives and processors. 2 5 I have demonstrated, in chapter V , that growers rely mostly on each other to acquire new information (see table 4). Indeed, half of the growers interviewed in P.E.I, mentioned that the growers in 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 in 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: 2 5 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. 128 "I know a lot of the bigger growers [processors] are willing to share their information too: it's quite a learning experience. You talk to them, and they don't mind telling you anything that they might know." (Grower interview #9) Bay/river system 'B' Bay/river system ' C o # Bay/ river representative Processor Other scientific \ Organizations ' in the Maritimes DFO Monr.ton Grower inN.B. Figure 10 Example of a network of relationships framing shellfish aquaculture knowledge in Prince Edward Island. Four of the six growers interviewed have mentioned friendships or close business relationships with either one of 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 of information between processors and 'smaller' growers, however, are not necessarily only unidirectional 2 6: these 'smaller' growers may also provide the processors with information from other areas. There are also other 'inter-bay/river' relationships (some of which are illustrated in Figure 10), allowing knowledge to flow between different areas. For example, a grower interviewed in bay ' A ' has a son (also a grower) working in river ' C . Another grower in 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 of P.E.I.) can be somewhat limited: " don't see a lot of guys from this side of the Island going to the other side of the Island. You 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 of 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 of information. The representatives seems to meet 'formally' with the other growers mostly in times of crisis (e.g. a disease outbreak, or the emergence of 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 of many of 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 of the growers also mentioned having some kind of knowledge relationship with scientists working at the Ministry of Fisheries, Aquaculture and Environment ( M F A E ) : "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 New Brunswick). However, I suspect that mussel growers also have connections outside the Island: some growers did mention having to expand in Nova Scotia, due to the lack of available water acreage left in P.E.I, (which could lead to the creation of 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. A s shown in Figure 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 in 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 of knowledge relationships. In fact, we could qualify this network as 'mature', uTthe 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 of Fisheries, Aquaculture and Environment, are obviously fundamental components of this network, because of 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 of new knowledge, and prominent actors linking different parts of the network. Knowledge networks in British Columbia Although the shellfish aquaculture industry in B . C . is, in many ways, comparable to the one in 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 of organization and topology of 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 of 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 of actors more or less connected. Figure 11 presents some of the linkages that exist among growers in the Desolation Sound (area A ) and Baynes Sound (areas B) regions 2 7, the main scientific organizations involved in the field shellfish aquaculture on Vancouver Island. Many growers in area ' A ' are connected through a local, however weak, cooperative. A small Hatchery ' Z ' (WA) f\ Scientists ' in the U.S. Scientists on the East coast o (WA) Boat builders/ machine shops Malaspina (CSR) • Big company with biologist/manager • Hatchery Figure 11 Example of a network of relationships framing shellfish aquaculture knowledge in 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 of growers in this area have developed friendships over the years, and they wil l ingly 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 in P.E.I., perhaps because many growers either send their product to a processing plant in Vancouver, or sell it themselves. However, hatcheries seem to be important components in the network. A s mentioned in chapter JJJ, the hatcheries have been growing shellfish for decades, and they have been (and continue to be) responsible for a great part of the shellfish aquaculture knowledge production in B . C . Four of the six growers interviewed mentioned that they acquire information from the hatchery where they buy their seed. One grower, involved in the culture of mussels and scallops, explained that his close friendship/ business relationship with one of the leading hatchery/grower in B . C . allows him to obtain a lot of 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 of a shellfish hatchery (also one of the biggest producer and processor on the west coast) in Washington State, who is a world-leader in the development of 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 of the growers - a biologist/ manager with a big company in area ' B ' - argued that the lack of expertise 'outside' the industry has lead him 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 wil l 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 a relationship with boat builders and equipment manufacturers : "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 of the growers interviewed mentioned a relationship with the Association (one of the informants is actually on the organization's board of 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 in the near future, for the Association is currently re-structuring and re-defining its mandate. Furthermore, the organization has recently entered in a partnership with Malaspina's new Centre for Shellfish Research (see chapter III), which could lead it to play a much more important role in the diffusion of 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 of contracted work with both industry members and government agencies. Three of 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 of 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 in B . C . , for they allow new knowledge to be produced collectively (e.g. the Gorge Harbour carrying capacity study, carried out by a team of 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 of shellfish aquaculture are with the Ministry of 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 of the informants have mentioned any kind of 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 IV), collaboration between the two agencies 138 does not seem to be as frequent today. Again, the Centre for Shellfish Research may change this situation in the future by serving as a link among the scientists. The role of knowledge networks: Conclusion I have demonstrated that there exist networks of knowledge relationships that involve many linkages other than the grower-scientist ones, and that these linkages also play an important role in the production and diffusion of shellfish aquaculture knowledge in Canada. We have seen that, although numerous shellfish growers may not have much contact with scientists, they have knowledge relationships with other actors in the network (often, other growers), and that it is these relationships that appear to provide the flow of 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 of the world. I have also shown that the structure (topology) of each knowledge network and the nature of the linkages that compose them may have a direct impact on how the knowledge flows between growers and scientists, as wel l as among the actors in 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 of shellfish aquaculture knowledge. 139 CHAPTER VIII - PERSPECTIVES ON INTERSECTORAL COLLABORATION "Great discoveries and improvements invariably involve the cooperation of many minds." A . G . Bell We have seen in the previous chapters that, in shellfish aquaculture, the industry and science sectors are two distinct occupational cultures, and that culture does affect the way the members of each sector deal with knowledge, as well as the way they may interact with one another. We have also examined the current state of industry-science relationships in three parts of 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 of shellfish aquaculture knowledge in 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 my 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 of the interviews, there was a series of questions aiming at allowing the growers and the scientists to express their own thoughts and 1 4 0 V. opinions regarding intersectorial collaboration. This provided a way for me to verify i f my 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 in shellfish aquaculture. It was exciting to see that what I had perceived as important factors affecting intersectoral collaboration were indeed being echoed in the last few answers given by each informant, as well as a small number of additional factors that had not been previously identified. Three significant results emerged from this last section of the study: 1) the 'distinctiveness of perspectives' between growers and scientists is identified by almost half of the informants as both an advantage or benefit, and as a difficulty and/ or challenge in collaborative R & D ; 2) despite the various criticisms expressed by the informants in regards to intersectoral collaboration, all 31 participants agree that it is 'a good thing' (at least in theory), and that governments should continue encouraging it, and; 3) communication/ finding ^common grounds and respect were identified by the majority of 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 of the advantages or benefits ( if any) for members of their own sector in working with members of the other sector. They were then asked to identify any disadvantages or difficulties, and challenges that they could perceive in doing so. Results are presented in 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. Table 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 Reliability of the results Knowledge transmission capacities Access to laboratories and technicians Access to funding Helps growers understand scientific methods Grounds research Access to site and equipment Opportunities for research Disadvantages Different perspectives Timeframe (too long) Results can hurt industry Time-consuming 'Strings attached' (government agenda) Timeframe (too short) Lack of understanding/respect of scientific protocol Need to justify methods 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 of the other sector as they can offer 'complementary knowledge/ different perspectives' 2 9 that may helping finding the solution to a problem more rapidly: "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 of the participants (the majority of 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 in 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) 2 9 '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. 143 Both groups (growers and scientists) seem to agree that more/improved communication could solve this difficulty: first by increasing each sector's understanding of 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 We have seen that a 'difference in 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 of the scientists interviewed, working in 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 On 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 of 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 of informants (both growers and scientists) acknowledged that the 'timeframe for knowledge production' poses difficulties when working with members of 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) On 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 of growers mentioned that one benefit from working with scientists could be the transfer of knowledge (through scientists) from other R & D projects, other fields of research, or other parts of 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 of 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 of the results obtained in 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 in the previous chapters) an important factor hindering the establishment of 146 trust towards scientists. Three growers (all in B.C.) mentioned that partnerships with government scientists often 'come with strings attached' 3 0, which can be a disadvantage: "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 of '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 in some cases. For example, two growers in 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 of growers 3 0 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. 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 of the scientists identified 'access to site/ equipment' as an advantage. One scientist perceives collaboration with shellfish growers as a source of 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 of availability/ commitment' on the part of the growers was also identified as a disadvantage by a small number of 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 Government intervention To the question 'should governments continue to foster intersectoral collaboration', the majority of 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 of 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 of intersectoral collaboration, only a small number of growers and scientists answered that there should be 'none', while the majority of the participants agreed that, indeed, there should be some level of 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 of 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 of 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 of loosing their objectivity. Another explained that collaborative R & D should not be done at the detriment of fundamental science. One concern mentioned by a scientist in 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 in the Magdalen Islands. In fact, the particularities of their context (i.e. their geographic isolation, and the small size of the shellfish aquaculture industry) combined to the recent trend in 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, in 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 of 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 in the province of Quebec are beginning to get more actively involved in shellfish aquaculture R & D , funding from new sources is coming to the Station. However, the problem remains, as the number of 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 of wanting to put their money in as many projects as possible in order to increase their 'visibil i ty ' on the R & D scene. Thus, each organization invests only a small amount of 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 of scientists in the Magdalen Islands, is the increasing power the new trend in governmental funding strategy is giving the industry in regards to R & D . Consequently, scientists feel they are loosing some of 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 PCRDA. 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 in Canada, it provides an example of some of the consequences (good and bad) of 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 of 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 of the participants (growers and scientists) identified 'communication' as a key factor. A small number of 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. Two 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 of answers. Some growers mentioned the issue of 'accountability on the part of 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 of growers answered 'more expertise/ field time for scientists' as a much-needed improvement, while two others perceive a need for 'more scientists' altogether. "More face-to-face interactions between scientists and growers' is another improvement identified by two growers. According to three growers in 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 re-established: 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 of 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 of their situation (described earlier in this chapter). 8 . 4 Implications for this study A n important factor in any kind of collaboration is the 'willingness' o f each party to participate and to make the process work. I have established, in the chapter, that there is, indeed, a general willingness on the part of the growers and the scientists to collaborate with one another. We have also seen that each group has its own perceptions 155 of 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 of 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 of knowledge (local and scientific) are necessary to R & D . In Chapter V I , I have discussed the importance of communication and trust in the process of intersectoral collaboration. Here, growers and scientists have reaffirmed this argument. Indeed, they both agree that 'more/ improved communication' and the 'respect of 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 of 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 of one another. It has also underlined some of the difficulties that may result from 'over-util izing' this strategy (i.e. the case of 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 of scientific research. However, international competition has also grown: mussel producers in New Zealand are frequently competing with growers in 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 of the products, increasing, and new products are also constantly emerging. Thus, the pressures of 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 of the Canadian shellfish aquaculture industry. Increased intersectoral collaboration is believed to be one of 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 of some of their goals, collaboration between the two groups is not without difficulties: as there exist factors that facilitate the process of 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 in place for the process to have any chance of 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 of 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 of any of these conditions can greatly jeopardize the collaborative process. There are, in fact, a multitude of 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 in 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 of the chapter): 1) Structure is fundamental: it is at the basis of 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 in 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 in the production and diffusion of knowledge. Through relationships, cultural gaps can be overcome; 4) Integrators are key components of knowledge systems and can be major assets in intersectoral collaboration: their role can compensate for structural deficiencies, bridge cultures, and intensify the density of 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 of new knowledge. To be efficient, however, R & D programs must be adapted to the capacities of 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 in the process of 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 of 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 of the 'industry-science disconnect'. Whether it is the fact that practically half of 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 in 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 of willingness to work in closer collaboration with members of the other sector. We l l aware of the differences between them, the participants in each group seemed to agree that cultural differences could be overcome through enhanced communication, and that in the 161 reciprocal understanding of 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 'rough-and-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 of shellfish aquaculture knowledge development. The establishment of 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 'brewing' environments for new knowledge. Each actor comes into the network with his or her own stock of knowledge, and transmits part of it through the linkages he or she has with other actors in the network. C imol i and Constantino wrote: "Innovation is considered to be an interactive process [...] that evolves most successfully in a network in which there is intensive interaction" (2001:59). Therefore, the capacity of the network to diffuse information and produce new knowledge depends on the degree of connectivity (or density) of the 162 network, on the intensity of the relationships among its members (and the resulting synergies), as well as on the diversity of the knowledge stocks brought into the network. Prince Edward Island has presented a dense network with a diversity of actors involved. N o doubt there is, in this case, a correlation between the structure, or degree of organization of each sector (industry and science) and the topology of the existing knowledge network. In the same logic, it appears that the lack of sectorial cohesion (organizational structure) may be a leading factor in the overall poor degree of connectivity of B .G. ' s knowledge network. Trust is also an important factor in the shaping of knowledge networks, as relationships are often built on trust, or dissolved when trust is broken. On the other hand, it is difficult to establish trust without some kind of prior relationship. Which brings us back to the importance of communication, for only through communication can trust and relationships be established and maintained. Integrators Relationships, however, are not always dyadic in nature. Two actors in a network can be 'indirectly' linked, through a third person. This person, then, plays the role of integrator. Integrators (whether organizational units or individuals) play a significant part in the integration and growth of the knowledge network: they may connect different cliques within the network or may link members of 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 in all three knowledge 163 networks described in chapter VII: the technology transfer officer in the Magdalen Islands; the growers' association and the provincial ministry of 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 of intersectoral collaboration. Towards a new culture of knowledge Although the participants did recognize some of 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 of research), and showed their willingness to participate in the process, they also acknowledged the challenges of collaborating with the other sector. Here are some of the problems repeatedly mentioned by the participants: Major difficulties identified by the growers: • Scientists' lack of understanding o f industry's needs and limitations • Lack of trust in the scientists' motives and/or methods • Lack of visibility/ field time on the part of the scientists • Timeframe too long to get results or feedback Major difficulties identified by the scientists: • Growers' lack of understanding of scientists' responsibilities and limitations • Growers' lack of understanding of the scientific methods • L o w availability/ lack of commitment on the part of the growers • Lack of resources (time/ money) to increase time spent in the field 164 Some of these difficulties (the first two of 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 in place in order to help the two sectors manage these limitations: for example, the monthly Aqualnfo newsletter distributed by the P.E.I. Ministry of 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, in the sense that it is composed of two main groups of 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 of each sector's worldviews and knowledge stocks. Without these differences, there would not be synergies, and the process of intersectoral collaboration would not be such an effective strategy to increase innovation. Therefore, the diversity of cultures and knowledge paradigms should not be perceived as obstacles to the process of collaboration, but as a richness into which both sectors may tap. 165 Changes or improvements could be made, with regard to some of the difficulties resulting from the structural and relational factors affecting intersectoral collaboration. Resources could be invested in improving the organizational structure of 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 Box (1970:163) asserted: "The conflicts and strains between industry and science are to some extent inevitable. Each is a distinct system of behaviour. They are different games, each with its own goals and rules. A n d you cannot play one game by the rules of another." However, a lot has changed in the past 30 years since Cotgrove and Box wrote that analysis. A new culture of knowledge - with its own sets of 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 of 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 of time and patience, as wel 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, of course, is in loosing sight of 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 in 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 of the other, and by putting in 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 o f recommendations can be found in Appendix HI. 9.2 Areas for further research This study, although it was meant to be mainly exploratory, has truly only scratched the surface of the subjects of intersectoral collaboration and knowledge management. One could certainly dedicate an entire lifetime to the study of either one of these most complex issues. Thus, there are a lot of questions that remain unanswered and many possibilities that need to be explored. For one thing, it would be interesting to investigate the efficiency of past and current collaborative R & D programs and initiatives. In this study, I have found that only a very small number of the shellfish growers interviewed have participated in such programs. In order to improve the efficiency of the programs developed, we need to know what works and does not work. In the case of shellfish aquaculture, is the low level of participation due to: the lack of accessibility of the programs; the lack of time, money, or interest on the part of the growers; or other some factors? One could also examine some of the successful collaborative programs in other countries (such as France, Spain and the United States) to determine how to improve programs in Canada. Additionally, a 167 parallel with agricultural extension models may also provide insights on the kinds of characteristics needed for successful intersectorial collaboration. Another issue that would need further study is the growers' general perception of scientists. The phenomenon of 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 ' , in the sense that it appeared to emanate from what has been called the 'public understanding of science' (treated in the works of B . Wynne, of W . Leiss and of S. Jasanoff). I think it would be useful to examine more closely the reasons behind this lack of trust, in order to a) ensure that past mistakes are not repeated, and b) perhaps help demystify some of the growers' beliefs towards science and scientists. Additionally, many of the growers interviewed in this research said that they do not believe that the scientists working in the field of aquaculture (regionally) have adequate knowledge. Is this simply a question of perception, or is there truly a lack of expertise in the science sector? If so, is the problem with our educational institutions (i.e. with the kind of programs available), or with the organizations hiring the scientists? Although the time restrictions did not allow exploring the case of shellfish aquaculture in aboriginal communities, this is an important topic, particularly in British Columbia where an increasing number of First Nations bands are involved in this field of activity. Because these groups have a culture and a social context that often differs from 168 non-abor ig ina l groups, it is most l i k e l y that w e w o u l d see different results regarding h o w they approach knowledge , as w e l l as h o w they perceive and interact w i t h aquaculture scientists. A n o t h e r group that was not e x a m i n e d i n this study is w o m e n shel l f i sh growers. A l t h o u g h there are a s m a l l number o f w o m e n i n v o l v e d i n the industry, I was unable to inc lude a few o f them i n m y research. H o w e v e r it w o u l d be interesting to compare h o w m e n and w o m e n i n shel l f i sh aquaculture deal w i t h knowledge , and h o w they interact w i t h scientists. These are o n l y a few examples o f the areas that c o u l d be further studied. There is so m u c h m o r e that w e need to understand about the factors affecting industry-science relat ionships, or about those affecting the product ion, d i f f u s i o n and absorption o f knowledge . S t i l l , w e must not be discouraged. A s F r a n c i s B a c o n wrote: "Scientia est potentia", and therefore every l itt le bi t o f k n o w l e d g e w e accumulate today about these issues gives us the potential to pose concrete actions to i m p r o v e our l ives tomorrow. 169 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adler, P.S. (2002) 'Market, Hierarchy, and Trust: The Knowledge Economy and the Future Capitalism', in Choo, C .W. , and N . Bontis. The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge. New York : 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 'Partner'. Treasury Board o f Canada. Anonymous. (2001) Achieving Excellence: Investing in People, Knowledge and Opportunity. Executive Summary - Industry Canada. Ottawa: O N . Bacon, F. ([1620] 1901) Novum Organum. New York: P.F. Collier and son. Barnes, B . and D . Edge. (1982) Science in Context: Readings in the Sociology of Science. Cambridge: The Open University Press. Batten, D . , J. Casti, and R. Thord. (1995) Networks in Action: Communication, Economics and Human Knowledge. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Blackler, F. (2002) 'Knowledge, Knowledge Work, and Organizations', in Choo, C .W. , and N . Bontis, The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 47-64. Bel l in i , N . , and A . Piccaluga. (2001) 'The role of university in constituency-building for industrial and territorial innovation: reflections on an Italian experience', in Lopez-Martinez, 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 of transition', in Kassicieh, S.K., and H.R. Radosevich. From Lab to Market - Commercialization of Public Sector Technology. New York: Plenum Press, pp.29-60. Brown, J.S., and P. Duguid. (2002) 'Organizing Knowledge', in 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 Methodological Introduction. London: S A G E Publications. 170 Carazo, M. I . , I. Fli t , and A . Hurtado. (2001) 'Policies and shared values in 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 Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Ciborra, C . U . , and R. Andreu. (2002) 'Knowledge across Boundaries', in 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', in Choo, C .W. , and N . Bontis, The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 3-19. C imol i , M . , and R. Constantino. 2001. 'Systems of innovation, knowledge and networks: Latin America and its capability to capture benefits', in 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', in 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. Box. (1970) Science, Industry and Society. London: George Al l en & Unwin 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 Relations and Marketing Communications. N Y : Routledge. Davenport, T . H . , and L . Prusak. (1998) Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage what they Know. Boston: Harvard School Press. Day, A . (1989) Aquaculture in the Maritimes. Halifax: Nimbus Publishing Ltd. Engel, P. and M . Salomon. (1996) ' R A A K S : a participatory action-research approach to facilitate social learning for sustainability development', in 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 in Innovation: a Second Look at the Science-Technology Distinction and Industrial Innovation', in 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) 'Mobi l i z ing Knowledge in 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 Research. Washington, D C : American Chemical Society. 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 Ltd. Gibbons, N . (1985) 'Culture of the Blue Mussel (Mytilus edulis) at Refuge Cove, British Columbia: A pilot project'. Marine Resources Branch, Ministry of Environment of 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 of sustainable development', in 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 No . 4, Marine Resources Branch of the Ministry of Environment of 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 - Commercialization of Public Sector Technology. New York: Plenum Press. 172 K i n g , N . (1998) 'Template Analysis ' , in Symon G. , and C. Cassell. Qualitative Methods and Analysis in Organizational Research. London: S A G E Publications. Kobayashi, K . (1995) 'Knowledge Network and Market Structure: A n Analytical Perspective', in Batten, D . , J. Casti, and R. Thord. Networks in Action: Communication, Economics and Human Knowledge. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 127-158. Koebberling, U . , Derttmers, and Zolbord. (2001) BC Aquaculture R&D: Aproposed Organizational and Program Model. Vancouver: Science Council o f British Columbia. Kuhn, T.S. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Laumann, E .O. , P . V . Marsden, and D . Prensky. (1983) 'The Boundary Specification Problem in Network Analysis ' , in Burt, R.S. , and M . J . Minor . Applied Network Analysis: A Methodological Introduction. London: S A G E Publications, pp. 18-34. Latour, B . and S. Wollgar. (1979) Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. London: S A G E Publications. 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 of Science.", in Merton, R . K . The Sociology of Science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp.267-278. Mulford, C L . 1984. Inter-Organizational Relations. Human Sciences Press, New York. Myrand, Bruno. (1992) Colloque Mariculture Quebec. Ministere des Peches et Oceans / Conseil de l'Aquaculture et des Peches du Quebec. Nios i , J. (1996) 'Strategic technological collaboration in Canadian industry: toward a theory of flexible or collective innovation', in 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 of Organizational Knowledge Creation', in 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 Mode l of Dynamic Knowledge Creation', in 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 of an Innovative Shellfish Hatchery', in 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. Marine Resources Branch, Department of Recreation and Travel Industry, B C . Roland, W . G . and T. A.Braodley. (1990) A Manual for Producing Oyster Seed by Remote Setting. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, B . C . Senker, J. and W . Faulkner. (1996) 'Networks, tacit knowledge and innovation', in 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. N Y : Cambridge University Press. Stehr, N . (2002) Knowledge & Economic Conduct: The Social Foundation of the Modern Economy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Stevenson, L , and H . Byerly. (1995) The Many Faces of Science: An Introduction to Scientists, Values, and Society. Oxford: Westview Press. Tacket, A . , and L . White. 2000. Partnership and Participation: Decision-making in the Multiagency Setting. N . Y . : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 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.' , in 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 Norms' , in Segerstrale, U . Beyond the Science Wars. N Y : State University of New York Press. 174 A P P E N D I X I - I N F O R M A T I O N S H E E T S Shellfish Growers 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 • Aquaculture magazines • Governmental agencies • Universities • Other growers • 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 few times A few times Daily a year a month a week a) DFO researchers • • • 0 • b) Provincial government researchers • • * • • • c) University researchers • • • • • d) Private consultants • • • • • e) Others: • • • • ' • 22. What is generally the main purpose of these interactions? a. Providing information to scientists b. Obtaining information from the scientists c. Two-way sharing of information d. Collaboration on specific R&D programs or projects e. Debate or confrontational interaction f. Other: 23. 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 not very fairly a lot completely all much 25. 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. DFO's ACRDP b. AquaNet c. Science Council d. A provincial R&D program e. Others: 176 Aquaculture Scientists Organisation (agency/ department/ firm): • Federal government • Provincial government • Educational institution • Private firm/ consultant Location: 2. What kind of education or formation did you receive? • Bachelor's • • Master's • • PhD • • Other? J 2. How often do you have contact (either directly, by phone, or by email) with members of the aquaculture industry? a) Never b) A few times c) A few times d) A few times e) Daily a year a month a week 26. What is generally the main purpose of these interactions? a) Providing information to the industry b) Obtaining information from the industry c) Two-way sharing of information d) Collaboration on specific R&D programs or projects e) Debate or confrontational interaction f) Other: 27. How would you describe your relationship with growers in general? a) Very good b) Good d) Bad e) Very bad 0 Non-existent 23. 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. DFO's ACRDP b. AquaNet c. Science Council d. A provincial R&D program e. Others: 177 A P P E N D I X I I - N E T W O R K S Y M B O L S The symbols used in this study were taken mainly from the works of Mulford (1984) and Burt and Minor (1983). The following are examples of the symbols used in Chapter V I . L ink 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 of connections) of 3 or more. / Loose network: each node has a degree of 2 or less, and/or / _ _ " " links of weak intensity. \ y Integrator: a node that links many others. Cluster (series of 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 of infrastructure that exist within both the industry and the science sector in Prince Edward Island and Washington State, in order to identify the features that foster successful intersectoral collaboration in 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 of 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 of relationships between the parties involved. • Put in 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 in order to find ways to build or re-establish trust. • Examine the existing knowledge networks in the field of 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 


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



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"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items