334
R. Hamilton et al.
are analytical workshops , where collective knowledge of participants is put into
perspective, and collaborative fi eldwork , where participants collaborate in scientifi c
procedures (sampling, interpretation) (Fraser et al. 2006 ; Huntington 2000 ) . Due to
its widespread use, we focus in this chapter on interviews as a means of documenting
LEK on fi sh spawning aggregations.
10.2.1 Interviews
Marine research and management interviews can range from informal exchanges to
highly structured questionnaires (Briggs 1986 ; Huntington 1998, 2000 ; Gubrium
and Holstein 2002 ) . Some interviews may be analyzed by dedicated computer
programmes [e.g. ANTHROPAC 4.92 (Borgatti 1996 ) ParFish www.fmsp.org.uk ].
One commonly used interview method is the semi-structured form in which the
interview fl ows relatively freely around a simple and predetermined core of questions. This allows the informant to introduce aspects of LEK with which they are
particularly knowledgeable and may be unexpected or completely unknown to the
interviewer. Interviews of single individuals are informative and detailed but biased
to the particular point of view and experience of the informant. Group interviews
may help the participants to encourage each other to provide information and assist
in recall, but can be dominated by particular individuals (Huntington 1998 ) .
Interviews can also be used as the basis for stock assessments in a way that not
only collects information in unmonitored fi sheries but can also engage stakeholders
in management planning. Beyond spawning aggregations, aggregating species often
need to be managed in the broader context of the whole fi shery. Stock assessments,
or at the least a better understanding of the overall fi shery, may be needed. An example
is ParFish, based on the logistical biomass growth model, in which interview data
from fi shers are used to construct ‘priors’ for the fi shery model. Combined with
other available information and opinions of fi shers about other aspects of their fi shery,
a stock assessment can be conducted and management planning discussed.
Important advantages of the interviews are that they (1) are inexpensive, (2) are
opportunities for establishing a rapport for increasing accuracy and honesty of
answers, (3) give in-depth coverage of given topics (semi-structured interviews),
(4) allow for data comparison for different geographical areas, (5) act as a starting
point to establish a trust between informants and interviewer that can aid in building
towards effective management, (6) allow for identifi cation of misunderstandings
regarding the marine environment, and (7) enable identifi cation of fi shery and
outreach needs. Disadvantages include (1) the time required, (2) that responses are
highly dependent on gear type used, (3) that some information may be diffi cult to
analyze and compare or to put in a suitable scientifi c context, (4) that some recorded
interviews may need translation if performed in the native language, potentially
introducing error and reducing the ease of information exchange, (5) that interviewers
need to be suitably skilled for semi-structured interviews, (6) that informants may
be unwilling to share information or purposely provide misleading information, and
(7) usually requires validation of information for management planning.
R. Hamilton et al.
are analytical workshops , where collective knowledge of participants is put into
perspective, and collaborative fi eldwork , where participants collaborate in scientifi c
procedures (sampling, interpretation) (Fraser et al. 2006 ; Huntington 2000 ) . Due to
its widespread use, we focus in this chapter on interviews as a means of documenting
LEK on fi sh spawning aggregations.
10.2.1 Interviews
Marine research and management interviews can range from informal exchanges to
highly structured questionnaires (Briggs 1986 ; Huntington 1998, 2000 ; Gubrium
and Holstein 2002 ) . Some interviews may be analyzed by dedicated computer
programmes [e.g. ANTHROPAC 4.92 (Borgatti 1996 ) ParFish www.fmsp.org.uk ].
One commonly used interview method is the semi-structured form in which the
interview fl ows relatively freely around a simple and predetermined core of questions. This allows the informant to introduce aspects of LEK with which they are
particularly knowledgeable and may be unexpected or completely unknown to the
interviewer. Interviews of single individuals are informative and detailed but biased
to the particular point of view and experience of the informant. Group interviews
may help the participants to encourage each other to provide information and assist
in recall, but can be dominated by particular individuals (Huntington 1998 ) .
Interviews can also be used as the basis for stock assessments in a way that not
only collects information in unmonitored fi sheries but can also engage stakeholders
in management planning. Beyond spawning aggregations, aggregating species often
need to be managed in the broader context of the whole fi shery. Stock assessments,
or at the least a better understanding of the overall fi shery, may be needed. An example
is ParFish, based on the logistical biomass growth model, in which interview data
from fi shers are used to construct ‘priors’ for the fi shery model. Combined with
other available information and opinions of fi shers about other aspects of their fi shery,
a stock assessment can be conducted and management planning discussed.
Important advantages of the interviews are that they (1) are inexpensive, (2) are
opportunities for establishing a rapport for increasing accuracy and honesty of
answers, (3) give in-depth coverage of given topics (semi-structured interviews),
(4) allow for data comparison for different geographical areas, (5) act as a starting
point to establish a trust between informants and interviewer that can aid in building
towards effective management, (6) allow for identifi cation of misunderstandings
regarding the marine environment, and (7) enable identifi cation of fi shery and
outreach needs. Disadvantages include (1) the time required, (2) that responses are
highly dependent on gear type used, (3) that some information may be diffi cult to
analyze and compare or to put in a suitable scientifi c context, (4) that some recorded
interviews may need translation if performed in the native language, potentially
introducing error and reducing the ease of information exchange, (5) that interviewers
need to be suitably skilled for semi-structured interviews, (6) that informants may
be unwilling to share information or purposely provide misleading information, and
(7) usually requires validation of information for management planning.