PERSPECTIVE
published: 10 June 2021
doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.627502
Look Who’s Asking—Reflections on
Participatory and Transdisciplinary
Marine Research Approaches
Annette Breckwoldt 1* , Priscila F. M. Lopes 2 and Samiya A. Selim 1,3
1
Social-Ecological Systems Analysis, Social Science Department, Leibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research (ZMT),
Bremen, Germany, 2 Departamento de Ecologia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), Natal, Brazil,
3
Center for Sustainable Development, University of Liberal Arts (ULAB), Dhaka, Bangladesh
Edited by:
Rochelle Diane Seitz,
College of William & Mary,
United States
Reviewed by:
Claudia Baldwin,
University of the Sunshine Coast,
Australia
Simon Foale,
James Cook University, Australia
*Correspondence:
Annette Breckwoldt
annette.breckwoldt@leibniz-zmt.de
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Marine Conservation
and Sustainability,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Marine Science
Received: 09 November 2020
Accepted: 18 May 2021
Published: 10 June 2021
Citation:
Breckwoldt A, Lopes PFM and
Selim SA (2021) Look Who’s
Asking—Reflections on Participatory
and Transdisciplinary Marine
Research Approaches.
Front. Mar. Sci. 8:627502.
doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.627502
Marine conservation transdisciplinary researchers often get to the field with a previously
designed question, often formulated outside the actual geographical, social, cultural and
ecological setting in which the research projects are supposed to be anchored. Involving
people on the ground in the initial phase of formulating the questions and setting the
research agenda is still uncommon. Once in the field, transdisciplinary researchers may
or may not have the support of local communities to sample their data, although they
will regularly need to count on these same communities if a collaborative regime is to
be pursued and informed by the research outcome. This paper discusses measures
that can be taken by marine fisheries and marine conservation researchers to improve
participation in, and ownership of, the research by local counterparts, most importantly
members of the communities where research is being conducted. The data was
generated with a purposively sampled survey of 18 members of our research networks.
Key proposed measures derived from this data include: (1) build rapport; (2) engage and
exchange; (3) be accommodating and attentive; and (4) be respectful. Knowing who is
asking the questions and assuring that all stakeholders have a voice in this process
becomes especially relevant under extreme circumstances (e.g., disasters, pandemics),
when problems are numerous but can only be accessed by those on the ground. We
advise for faster progress in transforming academic and funding environments for true
“level-playing-field” transdisciplinary and co-designed research projects that can help
change top-down research tendencies.
Keywords: transdisciplinary research, research questions, marine conservation, stakeholder, participation and
inclusion, co-design, build rapport
INTRODUCTION
Research collaboration is often understood as a partnership between different scientific research
groups. Collaborating improves research quality and diversity (e.g., represented by different
geographies), and provides new approaches to problems and different sources of knowledge. These
collaborations have increasingly included transdisciplinary research, as the complexity of many
societal problems expose the limitations of “traditional” disciplinary approaches. The goals of
nature conservation, for example, are hardly ever achieved through a pure ecological lens, as
humans make use of most of the landscapes and seascapes of the planet (Bennett and Roth, 2019).
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org
1
June 2021 | Volume 8 | Article 627502
Breckwoldt et al.
Look Who’s Asking
to improve transdisciplinary research so that it raises the profile
of people on the ground (Chakraborty and Kaplan, 2020) so
that their research priorities are also (inter-)national research
priorities. Much needs to change for local communities to be “in
the driver’s seat” of research (Cripps, 2018; Schmidt et al., 2020),
and making research relevant for local stakeholders could help
dramatically improve conservation outcomes, by empowering
communities to pursue their own nature-related interests (Peres,
2011; Barley Kincaid and Rose, 2014).
Transdisciplinarity has become part of marine conservation,
although it still needs to properly integrate both different
disciplines and knowledge systems (e.g., Davies et al., 2020;
Vierros et al., 2020). This means rethinking transdisciplinary
approaches from question framing to interpretation of results
(Bracken et al., 2015; Partelow et al., 2019; Davies et al., 2020;
Freitas et al., 2020; Wisz et al., 2020).
Similarly,
participatory
research
(disciplinary
or
transdisciplinary), done in collaboration with local communities,
have been increasingly adopted in marine conservation (Ban
et al., 2013; Foale et al., 2017; Turner et al., 2017). However,
questions remain regarding the degree of participation and
autonomy assigned to local communities. On the natural science
side of marine conservation, participatory research has been
widely driven by the necessity to collect data, rather than the
necessity to connect with stakeholders. Insights from social
science have led to a more emancipatory outlook, by pointing out
conservation-related misunderstandings, unfulfilled expectations
and social injustices, including exclusionary decision-making
processes, failure to consider equity and local people’s needs
and livelihoods, or even dispossession of areas and resources
(West, 2006, Filer, 2014; Clifton and Foale, 2017; Bennett, 2018).
Since natural and social sciences have started to develop stronger
dialogue around shared interests, it is expected that the next
steps will be both more transdisciplinary and participatory
(Davies et al., 2020).
Such a change of course is welcome, given that recent global
calls invite us all to rethink conservation in general—and marine
conservation in particular—in order to make it inclusive and
just, from deciding what conservation wants to achieve, to how
the unavoidable costs and eventual benefits will be shared (de
Vos, 2020). Achieving this leap in inclusivity requires a change
in focus to who is framing the research question? Are they
based on local interests and within the actual geographical,
social, cultural, and ecological setting in which the research
projects are supposed to be anchored? Are the questions that
the local people and institutions would like/need to ask being
considered by academics? How do these questions translate into
actual collaboration between researchers and stakeholders? Does
information flow both ways (e.g., Partelow et al., 2019)? Whose
lens is used to undertake the data analysis, draw conclusions, and
write recommendations? Are the research questions and projects
responding to local research and knowledge generation needs
(e.g., Foale, 2001)? Reflecting on these questions may help guide
conservation toward a transdisciplinary and participatory path
where not only the academic voices and expertise are heard.
With a focus on marine (protected) areas and small-scale
fishing projects, and examples from Bangladesh, Brazil, Fiji, and
India, this paper aims to trigger and re-awaken the much-needed
discussion on the potential overlaps between initially funded
research questions, and those questions that are relevant for
the local stakeholders (e.g., Marijnen et al., 2020). By drawing
on experts’ opinions, we discuss whether transdisciplinary
participatory research is going beyond stakeholder participation
in data collection (or as information providers), to being agents
that also shape the process of identifying the most meaningful
questions. Finally, we propose some preliminary insights on how
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org
MATERIALS AND METHODS
To understand how the views and demands of stakeholders on
the ground are being considered in the recent setting of research
questions and agenda, we shared a survey via email among our
professional networks, after identifying colleagues working in
transdisciplinary and/or participatory conservation. Out of 20
directly contacted colleagues in June 2019, 18 fully completed the
surveys by October 2019. We asked our colleagues to provide
information from ongoing or past research projects focusing
on small-scale fisheries, marine protected or managed areas in
Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Fiji, and India. The semi-structured
survey (Supplementary Appendix) included 22 questions on:
• Approaches and requests by the community stakeholders to
investigate aspects they deemed relevant;
• Options and rationale to accommodate these whenever
possible;
• Funding options;
• Consequences for the research and the rapport to the
communities, the application of results, and the overall
relevance of the project; and
• Researcher and stakeholders’ perceptions and experiences.
We included only those colleagues who we knew were
already engaged in participatory transdisciplinary conservation
(purposive sampling) to understand whether and how they
actually succeed in doing so. Given their scientific approach, it
is not surprising that most of the researchers in the survey have
been contacted by community members asking to investigate
specific issues. We accept this bias (as well as the small sample
size) for the purpose of this perspective, yet we are aware that in
many more cases, especially in more disciplinary studies, locals’
previous demands were possibly not utilized in research.
With the open feedback questions, we opted for a qualitative
assessment of the information provided by our colleagues.
Specifically, we sought for commonalities in the responses,
which were then analyzed collectively. Some important quotes
from the researchers themselves (Table 1) showcase key aspects,
contextualities and sub-themes of their transdisciplinary work.
RESULTS
The main findings of the survey can be summarized under
three main themes: (1) the need for participation beyond
data collection, (2) acknowledgment and mitigation of an
2
June 2021 | Volume 8 | Article 627502
Breckwoldt et al.
Look Who’s Asking
TABLE 1 | Summary of insights by transdisciplinary researchers working with marine socio-ecological systems (2019 survey).
Insight
How?
Why?
Quotes
1. Invest in rapport
a. Plan for extra time
b. Keep in touch
1. Participatory research depends on social relations,
and these require time and effort. Building rapport is
essential not only for good data, but also for meaningful
data
2. Although regular meetings are difficult to organize on
a regular basis, find ways to keep in touch with the
diverse community stakeholders throughout the
project. If on site meetings are not always possible,
invest in other communication platforms (social media,
WhatsApp groups, etc.) where stakeholders can
discuss research results and change the course of the
research, if necessary.
2. Engage and
exchange
a. Practice truly
networking
b. Be ready for other
points of view: there is
more to it than it meets
the eyes
c. Be humble: they may
know more than you do
1. The more you connect with local organizations, key
people and local leaders, the more (reliable) information
you will have access to and the higher are the chances
that you will actually hear what people want to say. You
may be heard better in return.
2. Involve as many stakeholders as possible to have a
better grasp of the problem. Different stakeholders may
frame it in different ways, according to their interests
3. This may be a hard pillow to swallow for some, but
participatory research might show you that you got your
hypotheses wrong. Pay attention to how stakeholders
interpret facts and make connections between cause
and effect.
3. Be
accommodating
and attentive
a. Adopt the policy of
leaving no one behind
(unless they ask for it)
b. Be aware of power
grabbing
1. The research design should have enough room to
accommodate the various communities’ desires and
aspirations. This includes from respecting their
(individual and communal) autonomy to participate or
not in any phase to leaving time and funding to
investigate some of their own priorities.
2. Understand the governance landscape (incl.
corruption), chances are that only the powerful will have
a voice, leaving others without the opportunity to
express their unbiased opinions.
4. Be respectful
a. Keep in mind that
communities and
community members
are not guinea pigs
b. Make promises you
can keep
1. Stakeholders, especially members of diverse
communities, are not the means to answer the research
question. If they feel used and not see why they should
participate in your research, not only your project may
fail, but you may close the doors for future truly
participatory research.
2. Scientists often have little decision-making power,
but the beginning of a research project can create
expectations of how the responses will change the
locals’ lives (for better or worse). Managing
expectations is crucial for maintaining reliable
relationships
1 and 2. “Researchers have to approach the local people first
(from all walks of life, not just the local representatives/NGOs),
go on transect walks, have key informant interviews, focus
group discussions—to understand the scenario. If the locals
are consulted, their views are incorporated in research design
and results, then there is a fair chance that local communities
can be more involved and interested. For instance, I had
worked on a pictorial book in Noakhali, southern Bangladesh,
on climate change adaptation. After it was printed, I took
back several copies for to those who we photographed and
interviewed. The response was remarkable—we were able to
work further with the same communities, as they saw
first-hand the results of our research. “ (Bangladesh, S17)
1. “To change this, more networking is necessary, specific
funding to reach both scientific and societies’ demands and
more integrative work among actors involved in these matters
are essential features. In developing countries, where you are
usually trying to survive as a researcher or an extensionist,
and where effective organizational networks are usually
missing, this is a very hard and usually unsustainable activity.”
(Brazil, S10)
2. “Fishers wished to enter the no-take zone during the swell
season to catch sardines. . .but managers argued that fishers’
presence in the MPA would affect the sharks, one of the main
local (tourist) attractions. Turns out fishers increased their
fishing and type of fishing (demanding the use of fresh
sardines to catch tuna and billfish) due to increased tourism;
i.e., MPA managers were afraid the fishers would interfere
with the success of tourism, but fishers were fishing more
exactly to attend their (tourists’) demand” (Brazil.Fernando de
Noronha).
3. “. . .For the identification of three priority areas for
threatened freshwater dolphins in the Sundarbans, we relied
on long-term information collected through a network
established among captains of tourist vessels.” (Bangladesh,
S18)
1a. “Maybe, after initiating research elaborated by the
researchers and following presentation and discussion of the
results from these studies, future research could be proposed
accommodating communities’ demands or directed to solve
problems perceived by local people.” (Brazil, S1)
1b. “. . .Following a survey focusing on two villages in the
area, other villages felt “left behind,” consequently a larger
survey was designed, covering all of the 150 fisher villages in
the region, with overwhelming response to this general survey
had brought to light (India, Chilika Lagoon).” (India, S13)
2. "My 30 years of research in Brazil had one main obstacle:
the Brazilian environmental governmental agencies. Obstacles
were through visits in the sites (and punitive behaviors with
fishers); through favoring prestigious politicians (in detriment
of fishers), and through draconian legislation that did not have
the support of researchers and fishers." (Brazil, S6)
". . . it is extremely important to address issues to deal with
the socio-ecological problems of fishers and including them in
real time policy making as a core to understand what will be
sustainable in terms of problem solving and also projects. If
they are not included in the mainstream financial systems and
keep on only being the tools of testing many theories from
conservation to climate change adaptation, none will be
sustainable. It’s probably not about choosing from any one of
them (popular or scientific). It is the amalgamation of both to
tackle problems.” (Bangladesh, S12)
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org
3
June 2021 | Volume 8 | Article 627502
Breckwoldt et al.
Look Who’s Asking
aspects related to the heterogeneity of stakeholder groups (e.g.,
age, gender and profession), local politics (sometimes old or fresh
conflicts), socioeconomic problems, local power asymmetries,
financial obligations and hurdles, or differing environmental
perceptions. Therefore, if a project is supposed to be collaborative
and transdisciplinary, this should be made evident throughout,
and such an engagement and research relationship cannot be
rushed; it takes time and hence requires longer project cycles.
Time that usually does not exist if the study is guided and
funded by conventional research approaches, where scientists
are majorly assessed and graded on bibliometric indicators
of performance (Bornmann and Marx, 2014). Specific and
accommodating research calendars, funding deadlines, previous
trips and meetings are needed to define the logistics of a project,
as well as the demands and engagement of the involved persons.
agenda mismatch between funded and needed research, and
(3) emphasizing the power of the transdisciplinary processes of
learning together.
Participation Beyond Data Collection
Among the interdisciplinary researchers surveyed, local
participation goes far beyond data collection, provision of
information and valuable support in fieldwork (Table 1). Yet,
often, there is still no clear acknowledgment of the stakeholders’
role in transdisciplinary research beyond data collection and
provision of information. Hence, how can we move toward
having local communities as agents that help identify meaningful
research questions and co-develop research protocols? And how
can research institutions accommodate projects and allocate
funding that integrate local knowledge and requests, and use
these for innovative future research pathways (e.g., Outeiro et al.,
2019; Davies et al., 2020).
An Agenda Mismatch
There is mismatch in the marine research agendas on several
levels. First, there is a clear geographic mismatch between where
the research is designed and funded, and where the urgent
research needs are (Oliveira Júnior et al., 2016). Also, while
scientists from developed countries tend to have the funding to
carry out the research, it has been argued that local scientific
knowledge and scientists from developing countries are the ones
capable of better linking up the research findings with policy
makers and have a better understanding of local stakeholder
needs (Cvitanovic et al., 2015). Lastly, the funding bodies or
donors, which often are from developed countries, have different
agendas (e.g., poverty, gender, environment), which do not
necessarily consider the interlinkages between these issues in the
geographic foci of the research (Oliveira Júnior et al., 2016).
Research needs to evolve and first and foremost researchers need
to expand their horizons. As researchers, we often start with our
hypotheses and take it to the field site and try to test and find
answers around it. I think that needs to change and made more
relevant to the local context. (Bangladesh, S17).
Working with researchers who intend to have locals’
participation from the beginning shows us that this approach
is indeed possible—albeit often complicated. To have people
involved, from the designing of ideas, field research, and
interpretation of results requires a broad understanding of
existing networks and socioecological relations. For example:
what marine resources are used? How are these harvested?
What is the cultural and economic importance of each resource?
The aspect of spending “free time” (i.e., additional time to the
initially planned research time) in the communities to build a
relationship, trust and to be accessible as researcher is therefore
vital. Most local communities are indeed interested, but are tired
of promises, research visits without visible effect and no support.
According to our colleagues, more transparent consultations
are needed, with real intentions to incorporate the information
gathered (Figure 1).
“Specific funding to reach both scientific and societies’ demands
and more integrative work among actors involved in these matters
are essential features. In developing countries, where you are
usually trying to survive as a researcher or an extensionist, and
where effective organizational networks are usually missing, this
is a very hard and usually unsustainable activity.” (Brazil, S10).
There is also mismatch between project timeframes and
allowing the flexibility and time to build in local demands.
Rapport remains one of the most important moments of applied
research. If we want to include “popular demand” in our
research, we need to spend time listening to people and building
social relations. A deeper understanding of local social-ecological
system is needed to build strong hypothesis and approaches. This
includes providing robust training to students and researchers
interested in social-ecological applied research, encompassing the
need to include local demands in research and building rapport,
and how this can translate into actual collaboration between
researchers and stakeholders.
“In my experience most projects use consultative meetings only
to comply with donor or Government requirements, rather
than to actually address concerns, discuss potential benefits and
evaluate impacts. Due to these lackings, community meetings are
generally viewed as presentations by NGOs rather than a two-way
information-sharing platform.” (Bangladesh, S18).
This includes being prepared to acknowledge the fact that
stakeholders may understand their resources better than many
researchers. It is also important to be flexible with initial research
interests and demands—as they may not be compatible with local
demands—and try to reduce the gap between the priorities of the
research project and the priorities of the stakeholders. This is also
what is meant by co-designing research, which remains difficult
(e.g., Polk, 2015; Sugiyama et al., 2017). The researchers from
the survey know the types of settings that can make it difficult
to generate a whole “community perspective” on the research
questions they might like answered. These settings can include
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org
Learning Together
The accumulated experience of transdisciplinary researchers
has therefore taught them some powerful lessons, which we
summarize here in four interrelated pieces of insights (Table 1
and Figure 1).
4
June 2021 | Volume 8 | Article 627502
Breckwoldt et al.
Look Who’s Asking
FIGURE 1 | Four insights from interdisciplinary researchers working with coastal communities. Insight 1: Invest in rapport by planning to (a) dedicate enough time to
communities and (b) keeping in touch with them. Insight 2: Engage and exchange: (a) invest in networking, (b) be open to new points of view and sources of
knowledge, (c) be humble. Insight 3: Be accommodating and attentive to communities’ aspirations by (a) leaving no one behind and (b) avoiding creating
mechanisms that promote power grabbing or imbalance. Insight 4: Be respectful by (a) not treating communities as a simple means to test scientific hypotheses and
(b) by promising them only what can be reasonably delivered.
Insight 1 regards the need to invest in rapport in order
to truly listen to those on the ground. This requires,
for example, establishing meaningful partnerships. It takes
time to build meaningful rapport with communities (again,
problematic for time-constrained research calls) and once it
is established, it needs to be nurtured (Abbe and Brandon,
2014). Transdisciplinary researchers seem to be aware of that
and often maintain their fieldwork on the same site for many
consecutive research rounds, which also helps them see more
tangible results. Meanwhile, during and in between research
periods, it is important to stay in touch with the communities to
maintain the rapport.
Insight 2 pertains to the need to engage with communities and
exchange knowledge. This begins with acknowledging the power
of networking to facilitate not only knowledge exchange, but also
trust building. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic,
much of fieldwork has been stalled (Sastry et al., 2020), except for
studies that rely on strong connections with those on the ground,
be they NGOs or fishers’ associations (authors’ own experience).
From the local perspective, networking may also represent a
chance to have access to external support during an unexpected
crisis, as the one caused by the pandemic. Better connected
communities are likely to have been more engaged in relief
campaigns during this crisis, for example, as researchers reach
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org
out to their partners and advocate for immediate action (Bennett
et al., 2020). Networking may also represent an opportunity
for knowledge co-production and for knowledge exchange in
general (Reed and Abernethy, 2018). Knowledge sharing is a
two-way street if researchers and communities are ready for it
(Johannes et al., 2000; Mauser et al., 2013). Accepting that we have
incomplete knowledge or a biased view is not necessarily easy, but
it can build bridges and also accelerate knowledge accumulation
(Butler et al., 2012).
"What I understood from my experience is, currently for
Bangladesh fisheries sector, it is extremely important to address
issues to deal with the socio-ecological problems of fishers and
including them in real-time policy-making to understand what
will be sustainable in terms of problem solving and also projects.
If they are not included in the mainstream financial systems
and keep on only being the tools of testing many theories
from conservation to climate change adaptation, none will be
sustainable. It’s probably not about choosing from any one of them
(popular or scientific). It is the amalgamation of both to tackle
problems.” (Bangladesh, S12).
Insight 3 refers to the need to being accommodating,
including when faced with unpredictable situations related to
the interaction of coastal communities. This comprises, for
5
June 2021 | Volume 8 | Article 627502
Breckwoldt et al.
Look Who’s Asking
already seeing the need for such flexibility with the recent
COVID 19 pandemic, as both funding bodies and ongoing
funded projects are having to adapt the focus of their work
to meet the new demands caused by the pandemic on local
communities. At the same time, COVID 19 has highlighted
the importance for academics of having partners in the
communities they work with. Thus, without disregarding the
significant changes of the last decades that favored more inclusive
approaches (e.g., Massarella et al., 2021), the time is ripe for
a paradigm shift that will truly include those who are at
the forefront of ocean conservation: from framing research
questions onward.
example, the flexibility to include or exclude community
members, respecting their agency and based on Free,
Prior and Informed Consent, or the sensitivity to perceive
that favoring some in detriment of others can lead to
power grabbing (Green and Adams, 2015). Based on the
authors’ own experience, it is normal that the first to
join an initiative are the most articulate and confident
individuals, and/or those related to leadership. Although it
is positive and often necessary to have the support of leaders
(Gutiérrez et al., 2011), true partnerships should encourage
wide participation and power balance within the limits
of the initiative.
Directly following from this, Insight 4 regards being respectful
of communities’ expectations and desires. It is important for
researchers to know that once dealing with people it is not
acceptable to simply see them as means to test hypotheses. People
need to know what they are getting into and accept to join or
not based on a realistic picture (Suich, 2013). It is normal that
communities want to see fast results or changes in legislation, but
these are often beyond the immediate capacity of researchers, and
this should be clear from the outset.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The original contributions presented in the study are based
on findings from the article/Supplementary Material, further
inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.
ETHICS STATEMENT
Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on
human participants in accordance with the local legislation
and institutional requirements. The patients/participants
provided their written informed consent to participate in
this study.
(A HOPEFULLY NOT FINAL) DISCUSSION
Some of the main challenges faced by those who want to
advance a participatory transdisciplinary agenda include: (1).
how to continue a project long enough to accommodate local
research demands, (2). understanding the importance of the
local social-ecological setting and knowledge, and (3). keeping
the promises to the communities one is working with. These
challenges are especially due to inherent funding limitations
and project durations that do not accommodate for truly
interdisciplinary research while demand researchers to perform
according to bibliometrics indicators. Also, these challenges
can be worsened by embedded local socioeconomic problems,
such as local violence, lack of health care services, and wider
issues around inequality, corruption and poor governance.
Thus, it may be the case that the immediate and urgent
local demands at low levels of local organization are not
directly related to the researcher’s questions. In addition, the
time investment required by local people to propose research
questions must be noted, as not all of them may be willing
to make such personal investment, at the expense of their
regular activities.
Despite these limitations, to integrate scientific and popular
demand for science, it is cardinal to have a productive
team of people who can try relentlessly for innovative ways
to answer questions and keep the primary resource users’
demands and necessities also at the core of the research.
Secondly, current research funding models will need to be
flexible enough to accommodate such dynamic processes of
research and engaging with local communities, keeping research
away from something resembling a “donor culture”, where
the wishes of the donor are to be granted even if they
disrespect or ignore local cultures (West, 2006). We are
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
The study was jointly designed and developed by AB, PL, and SS,
as was the methodology. The survey was mainly conducted by
PL and SS with their respective colleagues. The analysis was done
mainly by AB, and the manuscript was structured and written
jointly by all authors.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
To all researchers who have provided critical information
acquired through their experiences. The authors Special thank
to all communities, NGOs and grassroots organizations who
have helped transdisciplinary researchers gather and discuss
pivotal information to build better and more inclusive models of
coastal conservation. PL thanks CNPq for a productivity grant
(301515/2019-0). Finally, the authors thank IMBeR (http://imber.
info/) for enabling international exchange in unique ways and
providing excellent opportunities to learn from each other, such
as those leading to this study.
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online
at:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2021.
627502/full#supplementary-material
6
June 2021 | Volume 8 | Article 627502
Breckwoldt et al.
Look Who’s Asking
REFERENCES
conservation amidst violent conflict. Polit. Geogr. 87:102253. doi: 10.1016/j.
polgeo.2020.102253
Massarella, K., Nygren, A., Fletcher, R., Büscher, B., Kiwango, W. A., Komi, S., et al.
(2021). Transformation beyond conservation: how critical social science can
contribute to a radical new agenda in biodiversity conservation. Curr. Opin.
Environ. Sustain. 49, 79–87. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2021.03.005
Mauser, W., Klepper, G., Rice, M., Schmalzbauer, B. S., Hackmann, H., Leemans,
R., et al. (2013). Transdisciplinary global change research: the co-creation of
knowledge for sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5, 420–431. doi:
10.1016/j.cosust.2013.07.001
Oliveira Júnior, J. G. C., Silva, L. P. S., Malhado, A. C. M., Batista, V. S., Fabré, N. N.,
and Ladle, R. J. (2016). Artisanal fisheries research: A need for globalization?
PLoS One 11:e0150689. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150689
Outeiro, L., Rodrigues, J. G., Damasio, L. M. A., and Lopes, P. F. M. (2019).
Is it just about the money? A spatial-economic approach to assess ecosystem
service tradeoffs in a marine protected area in Brazil. Ecosyst. Serv. 38:100959.
doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100959
Partelow, S., Fujitani, M., Soundararajan, V., and Schlüter, A. (2019).
Transforming the social-ecological systems framework into a knowledge
exchange and deliberation tool for comanagement. Ecol. Soc.
24:15.
Peres, C. A. (2011). Conservation in Sustainable-Use Tropical Forest Reserves.
Conserv. Biol. 25, 1124–1129. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01770.x
Polk, M. (2015). Transdisciplinary co-production: designing and testing a
transdisciplinary research framework for societal problem solving. Futures 65,
110–122. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2014.11.001
Reed, M. G., and Abernethy, P. (2018). Facilitating co-production of
transdisciplinary knowledge for sustainability: working with canadian
biosphere reserve practitioners. Soc. Nat. Resour. 31, 39–56.
Sastry, N., McGonagle, K., and Fomby, P. (2020). Effects of the COVID-19 crisis
on survey fieldwork: experience and lessons from two major supplements
to the U.S. Panel Study of Income Dynamics. Surv. Res. Methods 14,
241–245.
Schmidt, L., Falk, T., Siegmund-Schultze, M., and Spangenberg, J. H. (2020).
The objectives of stakeholder involvement in transdisciplinary research.
A conceptual framework for a reflective and reflexive practise. Ecol. Econ.
176:106751. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106751
Sugiyama, M., Asayama, S., Kosugi, T., Ishii, A., Emori, S., Adachi, J., et al.
(2017). Transdisciplinary co-design of scientific research agendas: 40 research
questions for socially relevant climate engineering research. Sustain. Sci. 12,
31–44. doi: 10.1007/s11625-016-0376-2
Suich, H. (2013). Evaluating the Household Level Outcomes of Community
Based Natural Resource Management: the Tchuma Tchato Project and Kwandu
Conservancy. Ecol. Soc. 18:25.
Turner, L. M., Bhatta, R., Eriander, L., Gipperth, L., Johannesson, K., Kadfak,
A., et al. (2017). Transporting ideas between marine and social sciences:
experiences from interdisciplinary research programs. Elem. Sci. Anth. 5:14.
Vierros, M. K., Harrison, A.-L., Sloat, M. R., Crespo, G. O., Moore, J. W., Dunn,
D. C., et al. (2020). Considering Indigenous Peoples and local communities
in governance of the global ocean commons. Mar. Policy 119:104039. doi:
10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104039
West, P. (2006). Conservation Is Our Government Now: The Politics of Ecology in
Papua New Guinea (New Ecologies for the Twenty-First Century). Durham, NC:
Duke University Press Books, 352.
Wisz, M. S., Satterthwaite, E. V., Fudge, M., Fischer, M., Polejack, A., St.
John, M., et al. (2020). 100 opportunities for more inclusive ocean research:
cross-disciplinary research questions for sustainable ocean governance and
management. Front. Mar. Sci. 7:576. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2020.00576
Abbe, A., and Brandon, S. E. (2014). Building and maintaining rapport in
investigative interviews. Police Pract. Res. 15, 207–220. doi: 10.1080/15614263.
2013.827835
Ban, N. C., Mills, M., Tam, J., Hicks, C. C., Klain, S., Stoeckl, N., et al. (2013).
A social–ecological approach to conservation planning: embedding social
considerations. Front. Ecol. Environ. 11, 194–202. doi: 10.1890/110205
Barley Kincaid, K., and Rose, G. A. (2014). Why fishers want a closed area in their
fishing grounds: exploring perceptions and attitudes to sustainable fisheries and
conservation 10 years post closure in Labrador, Canada. Mar. Policy 46, 84–90.
doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2014.01.007
Bennett, N. J. (2018). Navigating a just and inclusive path towards sustainable
oceans. Mar. Policy 97, 139–146. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2018.06.001
Bennett, N. J., Finkbeiner, E. M., Ban, N. C., Belhabib, D., Jupiter, S. D., Kittinger,
J. N., et al. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic, small-scale fisheries and coastal
fishing communities. Coast. Manage. 48, 336–347. doi: 10.1080/08920753.2020.
1766937
Bennett, N. J., and Roth, R. (2019). Realizing the transformative potential of
conservation through the social sciences, arts and humanities. Biol. Conserv.
229, A6–A8.
Bornmann, L., and Marx, W. (2014). How to evaluate individual researchers
working in the natural and life sciences meaningfully? A proposal of methods
based on percentiles of citations. Scientometrics 98, 487–509. doi: 10.1007/
s11192-013-1161-y
Bracken, L. J., Bulkeley, H. A., and Whitman, G. (2015). Transdisciplinary research:
understanding the stakeholder perspective. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 58,
1291–1308. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2014.921596
Butler, J. R., Tawake, A., Skewes, T., Tawake, L., and McGrath, V. (2012).
Integrating traditional ecological knowledge and fisheries management in the
Torres Strait, Australia: the catalytic role of turtles and dugong as cultural
keystone species. Ecol. Soc. 17, 1–19.
Chakraborty, A., and Kaplan, L. (2020). The Architecture of Inequitable Research
- Researchers Must Improve the Working Conditions for Local Collaborators.
Bonn: Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE).
Clifton, J., and Foale, S. (2017). Extracting ideology from policy: analysing the social
construction of conservation priorities in the Coral Triangle region. Mar. Policy
82, 189–196. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.03.018
Cripps, G. (2018). Science Shared. Nature News Feed. Nature 562:23.
Cvitanovic, C., Hobday, A. J., van Kerkhoff, L., Wilson, S. K., Dobbs, K., and
Marshall, N. A. (2015). Improving knowledge exchange among scientists and
decision-makers to facilitate the adaptive governance of marine resources: a
review of knowledge and research needs. Ocean Coast. Manage. 112, 25–35.
doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.05.002
Davies, H. N., Gould, J., Hovey, R. K., Radford, B., and Kendrick, G. A. (2020).
Mapping the marine environment through a cross-cultural collaboration. Front.
Mar. Sci. 7:716. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2020.00716
de Vos, A. (2020). The Problem of ‘Colonial Science’. Scientific American. Available
online at: www.Scientificamerican.com (accessed July 2020).
Filer, C. (2014). The double movement of immovable property rights in
Papua New Guinea. J. Pac. Hist. 49, 76–94. doi: 10.1080/00223344.2013.876158
Foale, S., Wini, L., and Fernandes, L. (2017). The Arnavon Community Marine
Conservation Area: A Review of Successes, Ongoing Challenges, and Lessons
Learned. A Report to the MACBIO Project. Suva: IUCN.
Foale, S. J. (2001). ’Where’s our development?’ Landowner aspirations and
environmentalist agendas in Western Solomon Islands. Asia Pac. J. Anthropol.
2, 44–67. doi: 10.1080/14442210110001706105
Freitas, C. T., Espírito-Santo, H. M. V., Campos-Silva, J. V., Peres, C. A., and Lopes,
P. F. M. (2020). Resource co-management as a step towards gender equity in
fisheries. Ecol. Econ. 176:106709. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106709
Green, K. E., and Adams, W. M. (2015). Green grabbing and the dynamics of
local-level engagement with neoliberalization in Tanzania. J. Peasant Stud. 42,
97–117. doi: 10.1080/03066150.2014.967686
Gutiérrez, N. L., Hilborn, R., and Defeo, O. (2011). Leadership, social capital and
incentives promote successful fisheries. Nature 2, 5–8.
Johannes, R., Freeman, M. M. R., and Hamilton, R. J. (2000). Ignore fishers
knowledge and miss the boat. Fish Fish. 1, 257–271.
Marijnen, E., de Vries, L., and Duffy, R. (2020). Conservation in violent
environments: introduction to a special issue on the political ecology of
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
potential conflict of interest.
Copyright © 2021 Breckwoldt, Lopes and Selim. This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the
original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original
publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No
use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
7
June 2021 | Volume 8 | Article 627502