Boundary construction in mandated science : the case of ICES' advice on fisheries management

Abstract

What is the relationship between science and politics? What should it be? How are their respective roles conceived and acted out in practice? Should science and politics be clearly separated? How? Are there cases in which they can be usefully mixed? What cases are those, and are there some ways of mixing that are better than others? This project explores such questions by examining relationships between ICES fisheries advice and decision-making in fisheries management. While traditional conceptions portray science as a rather autonomous entity, this case examines a context in which such conceptions are particularly prone to be challenged. First, scientific advice that forms direct inputs into policy-making is better characterized as ‘research’ or ‘mode-2 science’ than as autonomous science. Second, advisory science on fisheries management is ‘post-normal’ insofar as its knowledge claims are uncertain, values disputed and decisions urgent. Here, fact and values easily become entangled, which in turn challenges conceptions of autonomous science. How is the science-politics boundary constructed here? <br>Since ICES advice constitutes the formal and highly important link between science and politics in fisheries, it offers a concrete location for studying boundary dynamics. Although this project mainly mobilizes Science and Technology Studies theory (in particular Actor Network Theory) it not only seeks to contribute to this literature, but considers how insights generated from such perspectives may contribute to the ongoing discourses on fisheries science and management. <br>The thesis demonstrates that a comprehensive understanding of the construction, maintenance and transgression of the boundary between fisheries advisory science and management cannot be limited to studies of ‘boundary work’ as discursive practices; it also requires examinations of practices in scientific knowledge production, the material embodiment of this knowledge, its use in policy-making, and conditions on which its stability depends. Forms of uncertainty in ICES fisheries advice are explored and are demonstrated to challenge conceptions of a clear-cut science-politics boundary. The thesis proposes ways in which the science and politics of fisheries can be reconsidered by the development of a framework for enabling evaluations of fisheries management systems. This is expected to enhance communication across disciplines concerned with fisheries management, and to promote systemic learning.

Hva er forholdet mellom politikk og vitenskap? Med et utgangspunkt i Science and Technology Studies teori (primært ANT), undersøker jeg dette forhold i en case, nemlig forholdet mellom det Internasjonale Havforskningsråds (ICES) fiskerirådgivning og fiskeriforvaltning, der forestillingen om en uavhengig vitenskap er særlig utfordret. ICES vitenskap er ‘post normal’ for så vidt at kunnskapsgrunnlaget er usikkert, verdiene diskutable og beslutningene haster – en situasjon der verdier og fakta fort sammenfiltres. <br>Jeg viser at en grundig forståelse av grenselinjene mellom rådgivende fiskeriforskning og politisk forvaltning krever en undersøkelse av vitenskapens metoder, hvordan de former politiske beslutningsprosesser, og hvilke antagelser de bygger på. Forskjellige former for usikkerhet i ICES rådgivning undersøkes og vises at utfordre forestillingen om en klar grense mellom politikk og vitenskap. Avhandlingen inviterer til refleksjon over politikk og vitenskap gjennom utviklingen av et rammeverk, som kan muliggjøre en systematisk evaluering av fiskeriforvaltningssystemer, og stimulere systematisk læring.