importance of quantitative research to agriculture and fisheries

Quantitative Fisheries Research

Our lab conducts research and participates in science advisory work to improve the management of ecologically and economically valuable marine resources..

Our science contributes to the sustainability and resilience of marine resources, ecosystems, fishing communities, and the seafood industry.

• Understand the influence of climate, harvest, and management on our fishery resources.
• Develop approaches to improve fisheries stock assessment and management.
• Advance the study of fish population structure and its implications for sustainable management and fishery resource resilience.
• Understand aspects of fish population biology and dynamics in relation to key factors (e.g., climate and ecosystem factors and fishing).

Lisa Kerr, Ph.D.

Associate Professor, UMaine School of Marine Sciences

Katie Lankowicz, Ph.D.

Postdoctoral Research Associate

Zachary Whitener

Senior Research Associate, Vessel Safety Officer

Jamie Behan

Quantitative Research Associate

Jerelle Jesse

PhD Graduate Student

Amanda Hart

Our diverse skill set addresses critical ecological questions that directly apply to fisheries management..

We conduct field sampling or partner with the fishing industry to collect data on focal species (e.g. Atlantic cod, bluefin tuna). We utilize mathematical and statistical modeling to understand how fish stocks respond to climate change, fishing, and management measures (e.g. management strategy evaluation). We also conduct stock identification analysis in the lab, utilizing structural and chemical analysis of fish hard parts (e.g. otoliths) to understand the origin of the fish we catch and integrate this information into models.

• Field Sampling
• Data Collection
• Mathematical Modeling
• Stock Identification

Lab Projects

Explore our quantitative fisheries research projects.

Northeast Climate Integrated Modeling (NCLIM)

Transforming fisheries' decision-making processes from dependent on historical observations to more a forward-looking process will require interdisciplinary research efforts that advance our knowledge and understanding …

Integrating Climate Impacts into Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Stock Assessment

Our project is examining atmospheric and oceanographic changes that may have impacted the distribution of giant bluefin tuna in the Gulf of Maine. This information …

The Open Knowledge Network to Meet Ocean Decision Challenges (OceanOKN)

Throughout history, people have been able to rely on their past experience to inform their decisions about the future. We are now entering a period …

Evaluating Alternative Harvest Control Rules for New England Groundfish

The New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) initiated a groundfish harvest control rule review so that fishery management can be sure they are prescribing the …

Snap-a-Striper

Striped bass catches have declined dramatically in recent years — with landings down by 90%, according to some estimates — leaving both scientists and fishermen …

Groundfish Management Strategy Evaluation

The impacts of climate change on marine fisheries resources are increasing. Some groundfish stocks, such as Georges Bank cod, have declined to record-low biomass in …

Evaluating Age Structure, Aging Bias and Mixed Stock Composition of Atlantic Bluefin Tuna in the Northwest Atlantic

Our project sets up long-term biological sample collections to fill in life history gaps, including age structure and stock mixing. We do this by using …

Evaluating the Importance of Chub Mackerel in the Diet of Highly Migratory Species

Our project seeks to investigate the foraging ecology of marlins (blue, white, round-scale spearfish) and tunas (bigeye, yellowfin) along the East Coast to identify the …

Assessing Allocation Strategies for Fisheries Affected by Climate Change

Our project aims to develop guidance and adaptive strategies for fishery managers grappling with climate change induced allocation challenges.

Windjamming on the Warming Gulf of Maine - Eos

Press Clips

Bluefin Tuna Milestone

Dr. Walt Golet and his Pelagic Fisheries Lab celebrate a significant sampling milestone.

Determining Where Bluefin Tuna Come From | On The Water

Convening climate experts.

In April, GMRI scientists hosted a modeling workshop for over 30 leading climate, oceanography, socio-economic, and fisheries experts. The group convened to discuss a question …

Quantitative assessment for sustainable agriculture

Framework will help nations gauge progress and pitfalls.

For the first time, scientists have assembled a quantitative assessment for agriculture sustainability for countries around the world based not only on environmental impacts, but economic and social impacts, as well. The Sustainable Agriculture Matrix, or SAM, provides independent and transparent measurements of agricultural sustainability at a national level that can help governments and organizations to evaluate progress, encourage accountability, identify priorities for improvement, and inform national policies and actions towards sustainable agriculture around the globe.

"This Sustainable Agriculture Matrix is an effort to promote accountability for nations' commitments towards sustainable agriculture," said project leader Xin Zhang of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. "We hope this can serve as a tool to bring the stakeholders together. Agriculture production is not only about farmers. It's about everyone."

Agriculture is fundamental to sustainability. However, the definition of "sustainable agriculture" and the ability to measure it have been difficult to quantify. The project to create the Sustainable Agriculture Matrix began in 2017 by bringing together about 30 stakeholders and experts from around the world -- including Oxfam, the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, the International Food Policy Research Institute, and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, as well as academic partners such as University College London, University of Queensland, University of California Berkeley and the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science -- to assess the impacts of agricultural production on a national scale around a diverse range of environmental, economic, and social dimensions of sustainability.

"Sustainable agriculture is a very complex concept and it means different things for different people, making it hard to assess," said Zhang. " To make the commitment to sustainable agriculture accountable, independent and transparent measurements of countries' sustainability are essential."

"The assessment of sustainability is not easy, especially given the dearth of social data across all countries. We hope with this matrix we can demonstrate the value of greater investment in social data to assess how agriculture affects and contributes to social equity as a critical dimension of agricultural sustainability," said co-author Kimberly Pfeifer from Oxfam America.

Globally, agriculture faces the challenge of increasing productivity to meet growing population demands for food, materials, and energy. Nations are tasked with developing a sustainable agriculture sector that is not only productive, but also nutritionally adequate, compatible with ecosystem health and biodiversity, and resilient. As a result, sustainable agriculture has been included as part of the Sustainable Development Goals ratified by all member countries of the United Nations in 2015.

The first edition of the matrix is composed of 18 indicators that measure the direct impacts of agricultural production on the environment and economy, and broader impacts on the whole society, recognizing that agriculture is deeply interconnected with other sectors. An emphasis in this first edition is on identifying trade-offs between performance indicators, such as between improved economic performance and reduced environmental performance, and also some less common examples of trade-offs such as increased agricultural subsidies did not necessarily improve human nutrition.

"There haven't been efforts that provide a comprehensive look at all three dimensions of agricultural impacts for countries around the world," said co-author Eric Davidson from the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. "The underlying concept of this matrix is a recognition that the agricultural system may have multiple impacts on sustainability."

For instance, while agricultural production may provide vibrant economic benefits to the farming community and national economic development, it might also add stress on the environment in terms of water use, nutrient pollution, and biodiversity loss. How and if the national agricultural sector provides a healthy and sufficient diet for its own population may influence social equality.

"The comprehensive assessment for the sustainability of a country's agriculture provides a great opportunity to reveal the full range of potential tradeoffs, as well as synergies, among multiple sustainability goals, and allows informed choices in view of local or policy priorities," said co-author Amy Heyman of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.

"While most countries have demonstrated strong tradeoffs between environmental and economic dimensions of agricultural sustainability, there are countries, such as the United States, showing some promising signs of achieving synergies between enhancing agricultural productivity and reducing environmental impacts," said co-author Guolin Yao from the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science.

"I want to broaden the view of agricultural management. It's not only about what's going on farm but what's going on in the market, during policy debates, and on our plates. Day-to-day consumer choices have a fundamental impact on what's being produced, as well as where and how it's being produced," Zhang said.

"The green revolution made it possible for humanity to feed huge population growth in past decades, but this came at the price of large impacts to the environment and a neglect of human nutrition and overall well-being," said co-author Kyle Davis of the University of Delaware. "Our SAM approach provides a promising step beyond the shortcomings of the green revolution while trying to build on the past successes of global agriculture."

As a next step, the SAM consortium, a project funded by the Belmont Forum, is launching with six pilot countries and regions, including USA, Austria, Brazil, Turkey, South Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa. The consortium will use the first edition of SAM indicators as a starting point to engage conversations and coordination among stakeholders, and to co-develop country cases to identify strategies towards sustainable agriculture.

"Having the assessment is an important first step toward agricultural sustainability, especially in marginal production areas in Africa," said SAM consortium partner Tafadzwa Mabhaudhi from the University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.

"This is a useful starting point for not only evaluating progress, but also identifying priorities for improvement, and informing national policies and actions towards sustainable agriculture," said co-author and SAM consortium partner Christian Folberth from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

Funding for the Sustainable Agriculture Matrix effort was provided by National Science Foundation and the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center. More information about the SAM project is available here: http://research.al.umces.edu/sam/

• Agriculture and Food
• Food and Agriculture
• Sustainability
• Environmental Policy
• Environmental Awareness
• Land Management
• World Development
• Environmental Policies
• Sustainable agriculture
• Agroecology
• Sustainable land management
• Environmental impact assessment
• Water resources
• Agriculture
• Slash and burn
• Environmental effects of fishing

Story Source:

Materials provided by University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science . Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference :

• Xin Zhang, Guolin Yao, Srishti Vishwakarma, Carole Dalin, Adam M. Komarek, David R. Kanter, Kyle Frankel Davis, Kimberly Pfeifer, Jing Zhao, Tan Zou, Paolo D'Odorico, Christian Folberth, Fernando Galeana Rodriguez, Jessica Fanzo, Lorenzo Rosa, William Dennison, Mark Musumba, Amy Heyman, Eric A. Davidson. Quantitative assessment of agricultural sustainability reveals divergent priorities among nations . One Earth , 2021; 4 (9): 1262 DOI: 10.1016/j.oneear.2021.08.015

Cite This Page :

Explore More

• Giant Meteorite Had Silver Lining for Life
• El Nino Oscillation 250 Million Years Old
• Role of Climate Change in Drought Intensity
• Plant Guard Cells Count Environmental Stimuli
• Plant CO2 Uptake Up by Nearly a Third Globally
• Rare Fossils of Extinct Elephants: Butchery
• New Insights Into Air Pollution Formation
• Scientists Build Modules for Synthetic Cell
• Life-Saving Spongelike 'Bandage'
• Why Do We Love Carbs? Pre-Neanderthal DNA

Trending Topics

Strange & offbeat.

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Why Publish?
• About Research Evaluation
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

1. introduction, 2. analytical framework, 3. literature search, 5. discussion, 6. conclusion, acknowledgement.

• < Previous

Research impact assessment in agriculture—A review of approaches and impact areas

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Peter Weißhuhn, Katharina Helming, Johanna Ferretti, Research impact assessment in agriculture—A review of approaches and impact areas, Research Evaluation , Volume 27, Issue 1, January 2018, Pages 36–42, https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx034

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Research has a role to play in society’s endeavour for sustainable development. This is particularly true for agricultural research, since agriculture is at the nexus between numerous sustainable development goals. Yet, generally accepted methods for linking research outcomes to sustainability impacts are missing. We conducted a review of scientific literature to analyse how impacts of agricultural research were assessed and what types of impacts were covered. A total of 171 papers published between 2008 and 2016 were reviewed. Our analytical framework covered three categories: (1) the assessment level of research (policy, programme, organization, project, technology, or other); (2) the type of assessment method (conceptual, qualitative, or quantitative); and (3) the impact areas (economic, social, environmental, or sustainability). The analysis revealed that most papers (56%) addressed economic impacts, such as cost-effectiveness of research funding or macroeconomic effects. In total, 42% analysed social impacts, like food security or aspects of equity. Very few papers (2%) examined environmental impacts, such as climate effects or ecosystem change. Only one paper considered all three sustainability dimensions. We found a majority of papers assessing research impacts at the level of technologies, particularly for economic impacts. There was a tendency of preferring quantitative methods for economic impacts, and qualitative methods for social impacts. The most striking finding was the ‘blind eye’ towards environmental and sustainability implications in research impact assessments. Efforts have to be made to close this gap and to develop integrated research assessment approaches, such as those available for policy impact assessments.

Research has multiple impacts on society. In the light of the international discourse on grand societal challenges and sustainable development, the debate is reinforced about the role of research on economic growth, societal well-being, and environmental integrity ( 1 ). Research impact assessment (RIA) is a key instrument to exploring this role ( 2 ).

A number of countries have begun using RIA to base decisions for allocation of funding on it, and to justify the value of investments in research to taxpayers ( 3 ). The so-called scientometric assessments with a focus on bibliometric and exploitable results such as patents are the main basis for current RIA practices ( 4–6 ). However, neither academic values of science, based on the assumption of ‘knowledge as progress’, nor market values frameworks (‘profit as progress’) seem adequate for achieving and assessing broader public values ( 7 ). Those approaches do not explicitly acknowledge the contribution of research to solving societal challenges, although they are sufficient to measure scientific excellence ( 8 ) or academic impact.

RIA may however represent a vital element for designing socially responsible research processes with orientation towards responsibility for a sustainable development ( 9 , 10 ). In the past, RIAs occurred to focus on output indicators and on links between science and productivity while hardly exploring the wider societal impacts of science ( 11 ). RIA should entail the consideration of intended and non-intended, positive and negative, and long- and short-term impacts of research ( 12 ). Indeed, there has been a broadening of impact assessments to include, for example, cultural and social returns to society ( 13 ). RIA is conceptually and methodologically not yet sufficiently equipped to capture wider societal implications, though ( 14 ). This is due to the specific challenges associated with RIA, including inter alia unknown time lags between research processes and their impacts ( 15–17 ). Independent from their orientation, RIAs are likely to influence research policies for years to come ( 18 ).

Research on RIA and its potential to cover wider societal impacts has examined assessment methods and approaches in specific fields of research, and in specific research organizations. The European Science Foundation ( 19 ) and Guthrie et al. ( 20 ) provided overviews of a range of methods usable in assessment exercises. They discuss generic methods (e.g. economic analyses, surveys, and case studies) with view to their selection for RIAs. Methods need to fit the objectives of the assessment and the characteristics of the disciplines examined. Econometric methods consider the rate of return over investment ( 21 ), indicators for ‘productive interactions’ between the stakeholders try to capture the social impact of research ( 22 ), and case study-based approaches map the ‘public values’ of research programmes ( 8 , 23 ). No approach is generally favourable over another, while challenges exist in understanding which impact areas are relevant in what contexts. Penfield et al. ( 6 ) looked at the different methods and frameworks employed in assessment approaches worldwide, with a focus on the UK Research Excellence Framework. They argue that there is a need for RIA approaches based on types of impact rather than research discipline. They point to the need for tools and systems to assist in RIAs and highlight different types of information needed along the output-outcome-impact-chain to provide for a comprehensive assessment. In the field of public health research, a minority of RIAs exhibit a wider scope on impacts, and these studies highlight the relevance of case studies ( 24 ). However, case studies often rely on principal investigator interviews and/or peer review, not taking into account the views of end users. Evaluation practices in environment-related research organizations tend to focus on research uptake and management processes, but partially show a broader scope and longer-term outcomes. Establishing attribution of environmental research to different types of impacts was identified to be a key challenge ( 25 ). Other authors tested impact frameworks or impact patterns in disciplinary public research organizations. For example, Gaunand et al. ( 26 ) analysed an internal database of the French Agricultural research organization INRA with 1,048 entries to identify seven impact areas, with five going beyond traditional types of impacts (e.g. conservation of natural resources or scientific advice). Besides, for the case of agricultural research, no systematic review of RIA methods exists in the academic literature that would allow for an overview of available approaches covering different impact areas of research.

Against this background, the objective of this study was to review in how far RIAs of agricultural research capture wider societal implications. We understand agricultural research as being a prime example for the consideration of wider research impacts. This is because agriculture is a sector which has direct and severe implications for a range of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. It has a strong practice orientation and is just beginning to develop a common understanding of innovation processes ( 27 ).

The analysis of the identified literature on agricultural RIA (for details, see next section ‘Literature search’) built on a framework from a preliminary study presented at the ImpAR Conference 2015 ( 28 ). It was based on three categories to explore the impact areas that were addressed and the design of RIA. In particular, the analytical framework consisted of: ( 1 ) the assessment level of research; ( 2 ) the type of assessment method; and ( 3 ) the impact areas covered. On the side, we additionally explored the time dimension of RIA, i.e. whether the assessment was done ex ante or ex post (see Fig. 1 ).

Analytical framework for the review of non-scientometric impact assessment literature of agricultural research.

Agricultural research and the ramifications following from that refer to different levels of assessment (or levels of evaluation, ( 29 )). We defined six assessment levels that can be the subject of a RIA: policy, programme, organization, project, technology, and other. The assessment level of the RIA is a relevant category, since it shapes the approach to the RIA (e.g. the impact chain of a research project differs to that at policy level). The assessment level was clearly stated in all of the analysed papers and in no case more than one assessment level was addressed. Articles were assigned to the policy level, if a certain public technology policy ( 30 ) or science policy, implemented by governments to directly or indirectly affect the conduct of science, was considered. Exemplary topics are research funding, transfer of research results to application, or contribution to economic development. Research programmes were understood as instruments that are adopted by government departments, or other organizational entities to implement research policies and fund research activities in a specific research field (e.g. programmes to promote research on a certain crop or cultivation technique). Articles dealing with the organizational level assess the impact of research activities of a specific research organization. The term research organization comprises public or private research institutes, associations, networks, or partnerships (e.g. the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and its research centres). A research project is the level at which research is actually carried out, e.g. as part of a research programme. The assessment of a research project would consider the impacts of the whole project, from planning through implementation to evaluation instead of focusing on a specific project output, like a certain agricultural innovation. The technology level was considered to be complementary to the other assessment levels of research and comprises studies with a strong focus on specific agricultural machinery or other agricultural innovation such as new crops or crop rotations, fertilizer applications, pest control, or tillage practices, irrespective of the agricultural system (e.g. smallholder or high-technology farming, or organic, integrated, or conventional farming). The category ‘other’ included one article addressing RIA at the level of individual researchers (see ( 31 )).

We categorized the impact areas along the three dimensions of sustainable development by drawing upon the European Commission’s impact assessment guidelines (cf. ( 32 )). The guidelines entail a list of 7 environmental impacts, such as natural resource use, climate change, or aspects of nature conservation; 12 social impacts, such as employment and working conditions, security, education, or aspects of equity; and 10 economic impacts, including business competitiveness, increased trade, and several macroeconomic aspects. The European Commission’s impact assessment guidelines were used as a classification framework because it is one of the most advanced impact assessment frameworks established until to date ( 33 ). In addition, we opened a separate category for those articles exploring joint impacts on the three sustainability dimensions. Few articles addressed impacts in two sustainability dimensions which we assigned to the dominating impact area.

To categorize the type of RIA method, we distinguished between conceptual, qualitative, and quantitative. Conceptual analyses include the development of frameworks or concepts for measuring impacts of agricultural research (e.g. tracking of innovation pathways or the identification of barriers and supporting factors for impact generation). Qualitative and quantitative methods were identified by the use of qualitative data or quantitative data, respectively (cf. ( 34–36 )). Qualitative data can be scaled nominally or ordinally. It is generated by interviews, questionnaires, surveys or choice experiments to gauge stakeholder attitudes to new technologies, their willingness to pay, and their preference for adoption measures. The generation of quantitative data involves a numeric measurement in a standardized way. Such data are on a metric scale and are often used for modelling. The used categorization is rather simple. We assigned approaches which employed mixed-method approaches according to their dominant method. We preferred this over more sophisticated typologies to achieve a high level of abstraction and because the focus of our analysis was on impact areas rather than methods. However, to show consistencies with existing typologies of impact assessment methods ( 19 , 37 ), we provide an overview of the categorization chosen and give examples of the most relevant types of methods.

To additionally explore the approach of the assessment ( 38 ), the dimensions ex ante and ex post were identified. The two approaches are complementary: whereas ex ante impact assessments are usually conducted for strategic and planning purposes to set priorities, ex post impact assessments serve as accountability validation and control against a baseline. The studies in our sample that employed an ex ante approach to RIA usually made this explicit, while in the majority of ex post impact assessments, this was indicated rather implicitly.

This study was performed as a literature review based on Thomson Reuters Web of Science TM Core Collection, indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-Exp) and the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). The motivation for restricting the analysis to articles from ISI-listed journals was to stay within the boundaries of internationally accepted scientific quality management and worldwide access. The advantages of a search based on Elsevier’s Scopus ® (more journals and alternative publications, and more articles from social and health science covered) would not apply for this literature review, with regard to the drawbacks of an index system based on abstracts instead of citation indexes, which is not as transparent as the Core Collection regarding the database definable by the user. We selected the years of 2008 to mid-2016 for the analysis (numbers last updated on 2 June 2016) . First, because most performance-based funding systems have been introduced since 2000, allowing sufficient time for the RIA approaches to evolve and literature to be published. Secondly, in 2008 two key publications on RIA of agricultural research triggered the topic: Kelley, et al. ( 38 ) published the lessons learned from the Standing Panel on Impact Assessment of CGIAR; Watts, et al. ( 39 ) summarized several central pitfalls of impact assessment concerning agricultural research. We took these publications as a starting point for the literature search. We searched in TOPIC and therefore, the terms had to appear in the title, abstract, author keywords, or keywords plus ® . The search query 1 filtered for agricultural research in relation to research impact. To cover similar expressions, we used science, ‘R&D’, and innovation interchangeably with research, and we searched for assessment, evaluation, criteria, benefit, adoption, or adaptation of research.

We combined the TOPIC search with a less strict search query 2 in TITLE using the same groups of terms, as these searches contained approximately two-thirds non-overlapping papers. Together they consisted of 315 papers. Of these, we reviewed 282 after excluding all document types other than articles and reviews (19 papers were not peer-reviewed journal articles) and all papers not written in English language (14 papers). After going through them, 171 proved to be topic-relevant and were included in the analysis.

Analysis matrix showing the number of reviewed articles, each categorized to an assessment level and an impact area (social, economic, environmental, or all three (sustainability)). Additionally, the type of analytical method (conceptual, quantitative, and qualitative) is itemized

In the agricultural RIA, the core assessment level of the reviewed articles was technology (39%), while the other levels were almost equally represented (with the exception of ‘other’). Generally, most papers (56%) addressed economic research impacts, closely followed by social research impacts (42%); however, only three papers (2%) addressed environmental research impacts and only 1 of 171 papers addressed all three dimensions of sustainable development. Assessments at the level of research policy slightly emphasized social impacts over economic impacts (18 papers, or 58%), whereas assessments at the level of technology clearly focused primarily on economic impacts (46 papers, or 68%).

The methods used for agricultural RIA showed no preference for one method type (see Table 1 ). Approximately 31% of the papers assessed research impacts quantitatively, whereas 37% used qualitative methods. Conceptual considerations on research impact were applied by 32% of the studies. A noticeable high number of qualitative studies were conducted to assess social impacts. At the evaluation level of research policy and research programmes, we found a focus on quantitative methods, if economic impacts were assessed.

Overview on type of methods used for agricultural RIA

a Mix of conceptual and qualitative methods.

b Mix of conceptual, qualitative, and quantitative methods.

Additionally, 37 ex ante studies, compared to 134 ex post studies, revealed that the latter clearly dominated, but no robust relation to any other investigated characteristic was found. Of the three environmental impact studies, none assessed ex ante , while the one study exploring sustainability impacts did. The share of ex ante assessments regarding social impacts was very similar to those regarding economic impacts. Within the assessment levels of research (excluding ‘others’ with only one paper), no notable difference between the shares of ex ante assessments occurred as they ranged between 13 and 28%.

The most relevant outcome of the review analysis was that only 3 of the 171 papers focus on the environmental impacts of agricultural research. This seems surprising because agriculture is dependent on an intact environment. However, this finding is supported by two recent reviews: one from Bennett, et al. ( 40 ) and one from Maredia and Raitzer ( 41 ). Both note that not only international agricultural research in general but also research on natural resource management shows a lack regarding large-scale assessments of environmental impacts. The CGIAR also recognized the necessity to deepen the understanding of the environmental impacts of its work because RIAs had largely ignored environmental benefits ( 42 ).

A few papers explicitly include environmental impacts of research in addition to their main focus. Raitzer and Maredia ( 43 ) address water depletion, greenhouse gas emissions, and landscape effects; however, their overall focus is on poverty reduction. Ajayi et al. ( 44 ) report the improvement of soil physical properties and soil biodiversity from introducing fertilizer trees but predominantly measure economic and social effects. Cavallo, et al. ( 45 ) investigate users’ attitudes towards the environmental impact of agricultural tractors (considered as technological innovation) but do not measure the environmental impact. Briones, et al. ( 46 ) configure an environmental ‘modification’ of economic surplus analysis, but they do not prioritize environmental impacts.

Of course, the environmental impacts of agricultural practices were the topic of many studies in recent decades, such as Kyllmar, et al. ( 47 ), Skinner, et al. ( 48 ), Van der Werf and Petit ( 49 ), among many others. However, we found very little evidence for the impact of agricultural research on the environment. A study on environmental management systems that examined technology adoption rates though not the environmental impacts is exemplarily for this ( 50 ). One possible explanation is based on the observation made by Morris, et al. ( 51 ) and Watts, et al. ( 39 ). They see impact assessments tending to accentuate the success stories because studies are often commissioned strategically as to demonstrate a certain outcome. This would mean to avoid carving out negative environmental impacts that conflict with, when indicated, the positive economic or societal impacts of the assessed research activity. In analogy to policy impact assessments, this points to the need of incentives to equally explore intended and unintended, expected and non-expected impacts from scratch ( 52 ). From those tasked with an RIA, this again requires an open attitude in ‘doing RIA’ and towards the findings of their RIA.

Another possible explanation was given by Bennett, et al. ( 40 ): a lack of skills in ecology or environmental economics to cope with the technically complex and data-intensive integration of environmental impacts. Although such a lack of skills or data could also apply to social and economic impacts, continuous monitoring of environmental data related to agricultural practices is particularly scarce. A third possible explanation is a conceptual oversight, as environmental impacts may be thought to be covered by the plenty of environmental impact assessments of agricultural activities itself.

The impression of a ‘blind eye’ on the environment in agricultural RIA may change when publications beyond Web of Science TM Core Collection are considered ( 53 ) or sources other than peer-reviewed journal articles are analysed (e.g. reports; conference proceedings). See, for example, Kelley, et al. ( 38 ), Maredia and Pingali ( 54 ), or FAO ( 55 ). Additionally, scientific publications of the highest quality standard (indicated by reviews and articles being listed in the Web of Science TM Core Collection) seem to not yet reflect experiences and advancements from assessment applications on research and innovation policy that usually include the environmental impact ( 56 ).

Since their beginnings, RIAs have begun to move away from narrow exercises concerned with economic impacts ( 11 ) and expanded their scope to social impacts. However, we only found one sustainability approach in our review that would cover all three impact areas of agricultural research (see ( 57 )). In contrast, progressive approaches to policy impact assessment largely attempt to cover the full range of environmental, social, and economic impacts of policy ( 33 , 58 ). RIAs may learn from them.

Additionally, the focus of agricultural research on technological innovation seems evident. Although the word innovation is sometimes still used for new technology (as in ‘diffusion of innovations’), it is increasingly used for the process of technical and institutional change at the farm level and higher levels of impact. Technology production increasingly is embedded in innovation systems ( 59 ).

The review revealed a diversity of methods (see Table 2 ) applied in impact assessments of agricultural research. In the early phases of RIA, the methods drawn from agricultural economics were considered as good standard for an impact assessment of international agricultural research ( 39 ). However, quantitative methods most often address economic impacts. In addition, the reliability of assessments based on econometric models is often disputed because of strong relationships between modelling assumptions and respective results.

Regarding environmental (or sustainability) impacts of agricultural research, the portfolio of assessment methods could be extended by learning from RIAs in other impact areas. In our literature sample, only review, framework development (e.g. key barrier typologies, environmental costing, or payments for ecosystem services), life-cycle assessment, and semi-structured interviews were used for environmental impacts of agricultural research.

In total, 42 of the 171 analysed papers assessed the impact of participatory research. A co-management of public research acknowledges the influence of the surrounding ecological, social, and political system and allows different types of stakeholder knowledge to shape innovation ( 60 ). Schut, et al. ( 36 ) conceptualize an agricultural innovation support system, which considers multi-stakeholder dynamics next to multilevel interactions within the agricultural system and multiple dimensions of the agricultural problem. Another type of participation in RIAs is the involvement of stakeholders to the evaluation process. A comparatively low number of six papers considered participatory evaluation of research impact, of them three in combination with impact assessment of participatory research.

Approximately 22% of the articles in our sample on agricultural research reported that they conducted their assessments ex ante , but most studies were ex post assessments. Watts, et al. ( 39 ) considered ex ante impact assessment to be more instructive than ex post assessment because it can directly guide the design of research towards maximizing beneficial impacts. This is particularly true when an ex ante assessment is conducted as a comparative assessment comprising a set of alternative options ( 61 ).

Many authors of the studies analysed were not explicit about the time frames considered in their ex post studies. The potential latency of impacts from research points to the need for ex post (and ex ante) studies to account for and analyse longer time periods, either considering ‘decades’ ( 62 , 63 ) or a lag distribution covering up to 50 years, with a peak approximately in the middle of the impact period ( 64 ). This finding is in line with the perspective of impact assessments as an ongoing process throughout a project’s life cycle and not as a one-off process at the end ( 51 ). Nevertheless, ex post assessments are an important component of a comprehensive evaluation package, which includes ex ante impact assessment, impact pathway analysis, programme peer reviews, performance monitoring and evaluation, and process evaluations, among others ( 38 ).

RIA is conceptually and methodologically not yet sufficiently equipped to capture wider societal implications, though ( 14 ). This is due to the specific challenges associated with RIA, including inter alia unknown time lags between research processes and their impacts ( 15–17 ). Independent from their orientation, RIAs are likely to influence research policies for years to come ( 18 ).

However, in the cases in which a RIA is carried out, an increase in the positive impacts (or avoidance of negative impacts) of agricultural research does not follow automatically. Lilja and Dixon ( 65 ) state the following methodological reasons for the missing impact of impact studies: no accountability with internal learning, no developed scaling out, the overlap of monitoring and evaluation and impact assessment, the intrinsic nature of functional and empowering farmer participation, the persistent lack of widespread attention to gender, and the operational and political complexity of multi-stakeholder impact assessment. In contrast, a desired impact of research could be reached or boosted by specific measures without making an impact assessment at all. Kristjanson, et al. ( 66 ), for example, proposed seven framework conditions for agricultural research to bridge the gap between scientific knowledge and action towards sustainable development. RIA should develop into process-oriented evaluations, in contrast to outcome-oriented evaluation ( 67 ), for addressing the intended kind of impacts, the scope of assessment, and for choosing the appropriate assessment method ( 19 ).

This review aimed at providing an overview of impact assessment activities reported in academic agricultural literature with regard to their coverage of impact areas and type of assessment method used. We found a remarkable body of non-scientometric RIA at all evaluation levels of agricultural research but a major interest in economic impacts of new agricultural technologies. These are closely followed by an interest in social impacts at multiple assessments levels that usually focus on food security and poverty reduction and rely slightly more on qualitative assessment methods. In contrast, the assessment of the environmental impacts of agricultural research or comprehensive sustainability assessments was exceptionally limited. They may have been systematically overlooked in the past, for the reason of expected negative results, thought to be covered by other impact studies or methodological challenges. RIA could learn from user-oriented policy impact assessments that usually include environmental impacts. Frameworks for RIA should avoid narrowing the assessment focus and instead considering intended and unintended impacts in several impact areas equally. It seems fruitful to invest in assessment teams’ environmental analytic skills and to expand several of the already developed methods for economic or social impact to the environmental impacts. Only then, the complex and comprehensive contribution of agricultural research to sustainable development can be revealed.

The authors would like to thank Jana Rumler and Claus Dalchow for their support in the Web of Science analysis and Melanie Gutschker for her support in the quantitative literature analysis.

This work was supported by the project LIAISE (Linking Impact Assessment to Sustainability Expertise, www.liaisenoe.eu ), which was funded by Framework Programme 7 of the European Commission and co-funded by the Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research. The research was further inspired and supported by funding from the ‘Guidelines for Sustainability Management’ project for non-university research institutes in Germany (‘Leitfaden Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement’, BMBF grant 311 number 13NKE003A).

Seidl R. et al.  ( 2013 ) ‘ Science with Society in the Anthropocene ’, Ambio , 42 / 1 : 5 – 12 .

Google Scholar

OECD . ( 2010 ) ‘Performance-Based Funding for Public Research in Tertiary Education Institutions’, Workshop Proceedings ' 2010. Paris : Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development .

Hicks D. ( 2012 ) ‘ Performance-based University Research Funding Systems ’, Research Policy , 41 / 2 : 251 – 61 .

Martin B. R. ( 1996 ) ‘ The Use of Multiple Indicators in the Assessment of Basic Research ’, Scientometrics , 36 / 3 : 343 – 62 .

Moed H. F. , Halevi G. ( 2015 ) ‘ Multidimensional Assessment of Scholarly Research Impact ’, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 66 : 1988 – 2002 .

Penfield T. et al.  ( 2014 ) ‘ Assessment, Evaluations, and Definitions of Research Impact: A Review ’, Research Evaluation , 23 / 1 : 21 – 32 .

Meyer R. ( 2011 ) ‘ The Public Values Failures of Climate Science in the US ’, Minerva , 49 / 1 : 47 – 70 .

Bozeman B. , Sarewitz D. ( 2011 ) ‘ Public Value Mapping and Science Policy Evaluation ’, Minerva , 49 / 1 : 1 – 23 .

Helming K. et al.  ( 2016 ) ‘ Forschen für nachhaltige Entwicklung. Kriterien für gesellschaftlich verantwortliche Forschungsprozesse (Research for Sustainable Development. Criteria for Socially Responsible Research Processes) ’, GAIA , 25 / 3 : 161 – 5 .

Cagnin C. , Amanatidou E. , Keenan M. ( 2012 ) ‘ Orienting European Innovation Systems Towards Grand Challenges and the Roles that FTA Can Play ’, Science and Public Policy , 39 / 2 : 140 – 52 .

Godin B. , Doré C. ( 2004 ) Measuring the Impacts of Science: Beyond the Economic Dimension . Montréal (Québec) : Centre Urbanisation Culture Société (INRS) .

Ferretti J. et al.  ( 2016 ) Reflexionsrahmen für Forschen in gesellschaftlicher Verantwortung. (Framework for Reflecting Research in Societal Responsibility) . Berlin : Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) .

Jacobsson S. , Vico E. P. , Hellsmark H. ( 2014 ) ‘ The Many Ways of Academic Researchers: How is Science Made Useful? ’, Science and Public Policy , 41 : 641 – 57 .

Levitt R. et al.  ( 2010 ) Assessing the Impact of Arts and Humanities Research at the University of Cambridge . Cambridge : University of Cambridge .

Donovan C. ( 2011 ) ‘ State of the Art in Assessing Research Impact: Introduction to a Special Issue ’, Research Evaluation , 20 / 3 : 175 – 9 .

Ekboir J. ( 2003 ) ‘ Why Impact Analysis Should not be Used for Research Evaluation and what the Alternatives Are ’, Agricultural Systems , 78 / 2 : 166 – 84 .

Morton S. ( 2015 ) ‘ Progressing Research Impact Assessment: A ‘Contributions’ Approach ’, Research Evaluation , 24 : 405 – 19 .

Reinhardt A. ( 2013 ) ‘Different Pathways to Impact? “Impact” and Research Fund Allocation in Selected European Countries’, in Dean A. , Wykes M. , Stevens H. (eds) 7 Essays on Impact. DESCRIBE Project Report for Jisc , pp. 88 – 101 . Exeter : University of Exeter .

Google Preview

European Science Foundation . ( 2012 ) The Challenges of Impact Assessment. Working Group 2: Impact Assessment . Strasbourg : European Science Foundation .

Guthrie S. et al.  ( 2013 ) Measuring Research. A Guide to Research Evaluation Frameworks and Tools . Cambridge : RAND Corporation .

Alston J. M. et al.  ( 2011 ) ‘ The Economic Returns to US Public Agricultural Research ’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics , 93 / 5 : 1257 – 77 .

Spaapen J. , Drooge L. ( 2011 ) ‘ Introducing' Productive Interactions' in Social Impact Assessment ’, Research Evaluation , 20 / 3 : 211 – 18 .

Bozeman B. ( 2003 ) Public Value Mapping of Science Outcomes: Theory and Method . Washington : Center for Science, Policy and Outcomes .

Milat A. J. , Bauman A. E. , Redman S. ( 2015 ) ‘ A Narrative Review of Research Impact Assessment Models and Methods ’, Health Research Policy and Systems , 13 / 1 : 18.

Bell S. , Shaw B. , Boaz A. ( 2011 ) ‘ Real-world Approaches to Assessing the Impact of Environmental Research on Policy ’, Research Evaluation , 20 / 3 : 227 – 37 .

Gaunand A. et al.  ( 2015 ) ‘ How Does Public Agricultural Research Impact Society? A Characterization of Various Patterns ’, Research Policy , 44 / 4 : 849 – 61 .

Bokelmann W. et al.  ( 2012 ) Sector Study on the Analysis of the Innovation of German Agriculture (Sektorstudie zur Untersuchung des Innovationssystems der deutschen Landwirtschaft) . Berlin : Federal Office for Agriculture and Food (BLE) .

Weißhuhn P. , Helming K. ( 2015 ) ‘Methods for Assessing the Non-Scientometric Impacts of Agricultural Research: A Review’. In ImpAR Conference 2015: Impacts of Agricultural Research-Towards an Approach of Societal V alues. Paris: INRA.

European Science Foundation . ( 2009 ) Evaluation in National Research Funding Agencies: Approaches, Experiences and Case Studies . Strasbourg : European Science Foundation .

Bozeman B. ( 2000 ) ‘ Technology Transfer and Public Policy: A Review of Research and Theory ’, Research Policy , 29 / 4 : 627 – 55 .

Hummer K. E. , Hancock J. F. ( 2015 ) ‘ Vavilovian Centers of Plant Diversity: Implications and Impacts ’, Hortscience , 50 / 6 : 780 – 3 .

EC . ( 2015 ) Better Regulation “Toolbox” . Brussels : European Commission .

Helming K. et al.  ( 2013 ) ‘ Mainstreaming Ecosystem Services in European Policy Impact Assessment ’, Ecosystem Services in EIA and SEA , 40 : 82 – 7 .

Thapa D. B. et al.  ( 2009 ) ‘ Identifying Superior Wheat Cultivars in Participatory Research on Resource Poor Farms ’, Field Crops Research , 112 / 2–3 : 124 – 30 .

Holdsworth M. et al.  ( 2015 ) ‘ African Stakeholders' Views of Research Options to Improve Nutritional Status in Sub-Saharan Africa ’, Health Policy and Planning , 30 / 7 : 863 – 74 .

Schut M. et al.  ( 2015 ) ‘ RAAIS: Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Innovation Systems (Part I). A Diagnostic Tool for Integrated Analysis of Complex Problems and Innovation Capacity ’, Agricultural Systems , 132 : 1 – 11 .

Jones M. M. , Grant J. ( 2013 ) ’Making the Grade: Methodologies for assessing and evidencing research impact’. In Dean A. , Wykes M. , Stevens H. (eds) 7 Essays on Impact. DESCRIBE Project Report for Jisc , pp. 25 – 43 . Exeter : University of Exeter .

Kelley T. , Ryan J. , Gregersen H. ( 2008 ) ‘ Enhancing Ex Post Impact Assessment of Agricultural Research: The CGIAR Experience ’, Research Evaluation , 17 / 3 : 201 – 12 .

Watts J. et al.  ( 2008 ) ‘ Transforming Impact Assessment: Beginning the Quiet Revolution of Institutional Learning and Change ’, Experimental Agriculture , 44 / 1 : 21 – 35 .

Bennett J. W. , Kelley T. G. , Maredia M. K. ( 2012 ) ‘ Integration of Environmental Impacts Into Ex-post Assessments of International Agricultural Research: Conceptual Issues, Applications, and the Way Forward ’, Research Evaluation , 21 / 3 : 216 – 28 .

Maredia M. K. , Raitzer D. A. ( 2012 ) ‘ Review and Analysis of Documented Patterns of Agricultural Research Impacts in Southeast Asia ’, Agricultural Systems , 106 / 1 : 46 – 58 .

Renkow M. , Byerlee D. ( 2010 ) ‘ The Impacts of CGIAR Research: A Review of Recent Evidence ’, Food Policy , 35 / 5 : 391 – 402 .

Raitzer D. A. , Maredia M. K. ( 2012 ) ‘ Analysis of Agricultural Research Investment Priorities for Sustainable Poverty Reduction in Southeast Asia ’, Food Policy , 37 / 4 : 412 – 26 .

Ajayi O. C. et al.  ( 2011 ) ‘ Agricultural Success from Africa: The Case of Fertilizer Tree Systems in Southern Africa (Malawi, Tanzania, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe) ’, International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability , 9 / 1 : 129 – 36 .

Cavallo E. et al.  ( 2014 ) ‘ Strategic Management Implications for the Adoption of Technological Innovations in Agricultural Tractor: The Role of Scale Factors and Environmental Attitude ’, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management , 26 / 7 : 765 – 79 .

Briones R. M. et al.  ( 2008 ) ‘ Priority Setting for Research on Aquatic Resources: An Application of Modified Economic Surplus Analysis to Natural Resource Systems ’, Agricultural Economics , 39 / 2 : 231 – 43 .

Kyllmar K. et al.  ( 2014 ) ‘ Small Agricultural Monitoring Catchments in Sweden Representing Environmental Impact ’, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment , 198 : 25 – 35 .

Skinner J. et al.  ( 1997 ) ‘ An Overview of the Environmental Impact of Agriculture in the UK ’, Journal of Environmental Management , 50 / 2 : 111 – 28 .

Van der Werf H. M. , Petit J. ( 2002 ) ‘ Evaluation of the Environmental Impact of Agriculture at the Farm Level: A Comparison and Analysis of 12 Indicator-based Methods ’, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment , 93 / 1 : 131 – 45 .

Carruthers G. , Vanclay F. ( 2012 ) ‘ The Intrinsic Features of Environmental Management Systems that Facilitate Adoption and Encourage Innovation in Primary Industries ’, Journal of Environmental Management , 110 : 125 – 34 .

Morris M. et al.  ( 2003 ) ‘ Assessing the Impact of Agricultural Research: An Overview ’, Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture , 42 / 2 : 127 – 48 .

Podhora A. et al.  ( 2013 ) ‘ The Policy-Relevancy of Impact Assessment Tools: Evaluating Nine Years of European Research Funding ’, Environmental Science and Policy , 31 : 85 – 95 .

Rodrigues G. S. , de Almeida Buschinelli C. C. , Dias Avila A. F. ( 2010 ) ‘ An Environmental Impact Assessment System for Agricultural Research and Development II: Institutional Learning Experience at Embrapa ’, Journal of Technology Management and Innovation , 5 / 4 : 38 – 56 .

Maredia M. , Pingali P. ( 2001 ) Environmental Impacts of Productivity-Enhancing Crop Research: A Critical Review . Durban : CGIAR .

FAO . ( 2011 ) ‘ Environmental Impact Assessment', Guideline for FAO field projects . Rome : Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations .

Miedzinski M. et al.  ( 2013 ) Assessing Environmental Impacts of Research and Innovation Policy .

Ervin D. E. , Glenna L. L. , Jussaume R. A. ( 2011 ) ‘ The Theory and Practice of Genetically Engineered Crops and Agricultural Sustainability ’, Sustainability , 3 / 6 : 847 – 74 .

Jacob K. et al.  ( 2012 ) ‘Sustainability in Impact Assessments - A Review of Impact Assessment Systems in selected OECD countries and the European Commission’ . Paris : Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development .

Röling N. ( 2009 ) ‘ Pathways for Impact: Scientists' Different Perspectives on Agricultural Innovation ’, International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability , 7 / 2 : 83 – 94 .

Dentoni D. , Klerkx L. ( 2015 ) ‘ Co-managing Public Research in Australian Fisheries Through Convergence-Divergence Processes ’, Marine Policy , 60 : 259 – 71 .

Helming K. et al.  ( 2011 ) ‘ Ex Ante Impact Assessment of Policies Affecting Land Use, Part A: Analytical Framework ’, Ecology and Society , 16 / 1 : 27 .

Stads G. J. , Beintema N. ( 2015 ) ‘ Agricultural R&D Expenditure in Africa: An Analysis of Growth and Volatility ’, European Journal of Development Research , 27 / 3 : 391 – 406 .

Raitzer D. A. , Kelley T. G. ( 2008 ) ‘ Benefit-cost Meta-analysis of Investment in the International Agricultural Research Centers of the CGIAR ’, Agricultural Systems , 96 / 1-3 : 108 – 23 .

Andersen M. A. ( 2015 ) ‘ Public Investment in US Agricultural R&D and the Economic Benefits ’, Food Policy , 51 : 38 – 43 .

Lilja N. , Dixon J. ( 2008 ) ‘ Responding to the Challenges of Impact Assessment of Participatory Research and Gender Analysis ’, Experimental Agriculture , 44 / 1 : 3 – 19 .

Kristjanson P. et al.  ( 2009 ) ‘ Linking International Agricultural Research Knowledge with Action for Sustainable Development ’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences United States of America , 106 / 13 : 5047 – 52 .

Upton S. , Vallance P. , Goddard J. ( 2014 ) ‘ From Outcomes to Process: Evidence for a New Approach to Research Impact Assessment ’, Research Evaluation , 23 : 352 – 65 .

The exact TOPIC query was: agricult* NEAR/1 (research* OR *scien* OR "R&D" OR innovati*) AND (research* OR *scien* OR "R&D" OR innovati*) NEAR/2 (impact* OR assess* OR evaluat* OR criteria* OR benefit* OR adoption* OR adaptation*)

The exact TITLE query was: agricult* AND (research* OR *scien* OR "R&D" OR innovati*) AND (impact* OR assess* OR evaluat* OR criteria* OR benefit* OR adoption* OR adaptation*)

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• X (formerly Twitter)
• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1471-5449
• Print ISSN 0958-2029
• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Goals, challenges, and next steps in transdisciplinary fisheries research: perspectives and experiences from early-career researchers

• Point-of-View
• Published: 05 August 2022
• Volume 33 , pages 349–374, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Elizabeth A. Nyboer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3004-009X 1 ,
• Andrea J. Reid 2 ,
• Amanda L. Jeanson 1 ,
• Rachel Kelly 3 , 4 ,
• Mary Mackay 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ,
• Jenny House 7 ,
• Sarah M. Arnold 8 ,
• Paul W. Simonin 9 ,
• Mary Grace C. Sedanza 10 , 11 ,
• Emma D. Rice 12 ,
• T. E. Angela L. Quiros 13 ,
• Andrea Pierucci 14 ,
• Kelly Ortega-Cisneros 15 ,
• Julia N. Nakamura 16 ,
• Valentina Melli 17 ,
• Stella Mbabazi 18 ,
• Mariana S. L. Martins 19 ,
• Anne Brigette B. Ledesma 20 ,
• Clara Obregón 21 , 22 ,
• Chepkemboi K. Labatt 23 , 24 ,
• Andrew N. Kadykalo 1 ,
• Michael Heldsinger 25 , 26 ,
• Madeline E. Green 5 , 6 ,
• Jessica L. Fuller 27 ,
• Milagros Franco-Meléndez 28 , 29 ,
• Matthew J. Burnett 30 ,
• Jessica A. Bolin 31 ,
• Solange Andrade-Vera 32 &
• Steven J. Cooke 1  

7638 Accesses

15 Citations

20 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Fisheries are highly complex social-ecological systems that often face ‘wicked’ problems from unsustainable resource management to climate change. Addressing these challenges requires transdisciplinary approaches that integrate perspectives across scientific disciplines and knowledge systems. Despite widespread calls for transdisciplinary fisheries research (TFR), there are still limitations in personal and institutional capacity to conduct and support this work to the highest potential. The viewpoints of early career researchers (ECRs) in this field can illuminate challenges and promote systemic change within fisheries research. This paper presents the perspectives of ECRs from across the globe, gathered through a virtual workshop held during the 2021 World Fisheries Congress, on goals, challenges, and future potential for TFR. Big picture goals for TFR were guided by principles of co-production and included (i) integrating transdisciplinary thinking at all stages of the research process, (ii) ensuring that research is inclusive and equitable, (iii) co-creating knowledge that is credible, relevant, actionable, and impactful, and (iv) consistently communicating with partners. Institutional inertia, lack of recognition of the extra time and labour required for TFR, and lack of skill development opportunities were identified as three key barriers in conducting TFR. Several critical actions were identified to help ECRs, established researchers, and institutions reach these goals. We encourage ECRs to form peer-mentorship networks to guide each other along the way. We suggest that established researchers ensure consistent mentorship while also giving space to ECR voices. Actions for institutions include retooling education programs, developing and implementing new metrics of impact, and critically examining individualism and privilege in academia. We suggest that the opportunities and actions identified here, if widely embraced now, can enable research that addresses complex challenges facing fishery systems contributing to a healthier future for fish and humans alike.

Similar content being viewed by others

Using Transdisciplinary Research Solutions to Support Governance in Inland Fisheries

The principles of transdisciplinary research in small-scale fisheries, transdisciplinary science for small-scale fisheries.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Fisheries science as a research discipline has made important intellectual contributions to some of the world's most complex environmental and societal challenges. Western fisheries science was initially developed to support the management of economically valuable commercial fisheries in the global north, focusing primarily on biological factors that regulate fishery productivity, or on stock assessment models to establish maximum sustainable yield and high economic output (Beverton and Holt 1957 ; Halliday and Pinhorn 1996 ; Halliday and Fanning 2006 ). Fisheries research and management now span diverse ecosystems around the globe in the service of various fisheries sectors (e.g., small-scale, ceremonial, recreational).

More recently, fisheries have been characterized as social-ecological systems (Ommer and Perry 2011 ), which address the complex interactions and multi-way feedbacks that exist among diverse actors, target species, and ecosystems (Schlüter et al. 2012 ). The study and management of fisheries are thus characterized by high levels of uncertainty. Widespread and rapid changes in the world’s aquatic ecosystems alter social-ecological relationships and can have profound effects on the livelihoods and lifeways of local communities (Andrews et al. 2020 ). The challenges facing fisheries as an industry, livelihood, and research discipline span disparate yet interconnected topics including governance, economics, food security, poverty alleviation, biodiversity conservation, climate adaptation, and social justice (Chuenpagdee and Jentoft 2019 ). These complex challenges have been recognized in the fisheries literature as ‘wicked problems’ (Jentoft and Chuenpagdee 2009 ; Turgeon et al. 2018 ); i.e., problems characterized as multi-dimensional, difficult to define, evolving, having competing and intrinsically diverse interests and conflict types, and without a single or immediate solution (Rittel and Webber 1974 ).

It is widely accepted in current fisheries research that no single discipline, source of knowledge, sphere of experience, or area of expertise can independently address the ‘wicked problems’ faced by fisheries (Jentoft and Chuenpagdee 2009 ; Haapasaari et al. 2012 ; Glavovic et al. 2015 ). For example, finding equitable and sustainable solutions for communities coping with large-scale environmental change (e.g., climate change) may require integration of community-based knowledge (e.g., local knowledge of ecosystem function), and data from social sciences (e.g.,., decision making processes, social dynamics of adaptation), economics (e.g., impact on value chains), political science (e.g., policy creation, governance theory), and ecology (e.g., responses of the biological community to environmental stress). Indeed, such questions necessitate a broad integration of perspectives across academic disciplines and knowledge systems. In some cases, local ecological knowledge (e.g., experiences, perceptions, stories, anecdotal information) has improved governance of fisheries resources by providing otherwise elusive insights that add to our collective understanding of the social-ecological dynamics of fishery systems (examples in Johannes et al., 2000 ; Azzurro 2011; Eckert et al., 2018). Although some fisheries challenges may have straightforward solutions, the complexity of many of these  problems  demand that fisheries research ‘transcend science’ by drawing on diverse knowledges. In this way, the research process and outcomes can better attend to the needs and values of diverse rights holders, local communities, practitioners, resource managers, and decision-makers (Cvitanovic et al. 2015 ; Chuenpagdee and Jentoft 2019 ; Reid et al. 2020 ; Barnes et al. 2021 ; Kadykalo et al. 2021a ). The uptake and application of transdisciplinary methodologies are increasingly recognized as effective at finding solutions to complex and dynamic problems facing fisheries and developing equitable and legitimate management approaches (Turgeon et al. 2018 ). Transdisciplinarity extends beyond multi- and interdisciplinary methodologies that incorporate collaborative elements and integrate data across academic disciplines (Klein 1990 ) to support cooperative approaches and partnerships which enable knowledge exchange across science-policy-practice divides (Turgeon et al. 2018 ; Bennett 2019 ; Kelly et al. 2019 ; Barnes et al. 2021 ).

Transdisciplinary approaches have spurred the development of new frameworks for managing and studying fisheries, many of which have roots or direct parallels with long-standing approaches to looking after fisheries (e.g., Indigenous fisheries that commonly manage whole systems and are inherently adaptive; Berkes 2018 ). Two of these frameworks, i.e., ecosystem-based fishery management (Macher et al. 2021 ) and adaptive co-management (Armitage et al. 2010 ; Stöhr et al. 2014 ), emphasize the need for integrative approaches that move beyond just biological considerations and consider the social, ecological, economic, and institutional dimensions of fisheries (Turgeon et al. 2018 ). Within these frameworks, the roles of scientists have shifted. Researchers must become fluent in diverse disciplinary ‘languages’ (Andrews et al. 2020 ), learn complex communication skills (Macher et al. 2021 ), navigate when their voices are critical and when they are not as useful (Chuenpagdee and Jentoft 2019 ), and learn how to respectfully combine and uphold the validity of multiple knowledge types (Steelman et al. 2019 ; Reid et al. 2020 ; Barnes et al. 2021 ). In addition, researchers are taking on new responsibilities at the science-policy-practice interface (Cvitanovic et al. 2015 ; Fabian et al. 2019 ; Kadykalo et al. 2021b ) and must learn how to frame their findings in a way that is relevant to decision-makers. Engaging in transdisciplinary fisheries research (TFR) requires substantial investments in time and training to navigate the co-production of knowledge with diverse partners who may have different management goals, accessibility to information, and communication styles or needs (Mauser et al. 2013 ; Evans and Cvitanovic 2018 ; Kelly et al. 2019 ; Andrews et al. 2020 ).

These demands can be intense, particularly for early career researchers (ECRs) (Chapman et al. 2015 ; Turgeon et al. 2018 ; Kelly et al. 2019 ). Despite widespread calls for transdisciplinary research, there are still barriers in personal, financial, technical, and institutional capacity to carry out and support TFR. Proper training can be difficult to offer and access, and opportunities to discuss common goals and strategize best practices are limited. To provide a forum for such critical dialogue, we held a global collaborative workshop for ECRs who work or aim to work in TFR. The objective of the workshop was to gather the perspectives of ECRs to identify big picture goals for the field, characterize and understand the main barriers for conducting TFR, and identify actions for researchers and institutions that can enable TFR. The goal of this paper is to share reflections from that workshop to spark dialogue and prospective thinking on the goals, challenges, and future potential for this expanding field.

Our workshop took place on September 21, 2021, as part of the World Fisheries Congress (WFC) in Adelaide, Australia (held virtually due to the COVID-19 pandemic). We assembled a diverse international team of fisheries researchers in early career stages who use or aspire to use transdisciplinary methodologies in their work. We define ‘early career’ to include graduate students in Master’s or PhD programs, as well as professionals in the first five years following their highest degree.

After registering for the WFC, participants could sign up for the workshop online on a first-come first-served basis (with a limit of 20 spots in the initial registry) if they qualified as an ECR and identified the ongoing or potential for transdisciplinary research in their field. Other participants were recruited via targeted invitation to offer spots to ECRs who missed the online sign-up window, and to fill gaps in global representation (although still drawn from within the WFC pool). Targeted recruitment (led by EAN) involved reading titles and abstracts of registered WFC participants and emailing invitations to individuals who fit the target demographic. In total there were 29 participants: four organizers (EAN, AJR, ALJ, SJC), 16 sign-ups, and nine recruits. Among the recruits were two individuals (RK, MM) who were asked to co-lead the workshop based on their expertise in the field. All participants who contributed to the activities before, during and after the workshop are co-authors on this manuscript, with representation from 26 countries across six continents (Fig.  1 a, Appendix A1). Most participants were in the academic system at the graduate student or postdoctoral level, although some participants hailed from the consulting, practitioner, government, and non-governmental (NGO) sectors (Fig.  1 b). The types of freshwater and marine fisheries represented were from the commercial, small-scale, Indigenous, subsistence, recreational, and aquaculture sectors (Fig.  1 c) as defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO 2012).

A Countries of residence and/or research location of the author team. Countries shaded blue (darker tones) are where members of the author team reside and/or carry out research. Countries shaded orange (lighter tones) are where members of the author team conduct research but do not reside. See Appendix A1 for full list. B Career stages and sectors of participants. C Types of fisheries represented by participants in the workshop (participants could choose more than one)

The organizers and workshop facilitators aimed to foster inclusivity, diversity, and equitability as much as possible. To reduce language barriers, we used online translation tools (e.g., Google Translate ) to translate all written documents and communications into requested languages and employed closed captioning during the Zoom session. Additionally, we provided live technical support during the Zoom meeting, and saved all video recordings, chat logs, and transcripts to share with participants after the meeting. Multiple models of participation outside of the live workshops were offered to participants to accommodate individuals with poor internet connections or time zone conflicts. For example, we used online forms, interactive ‘Mural’ boards ( https://www.mural.co/ ), and opportunities for post-workshop reflections (via e-mail).

The exercise of building the knowledge base for this article proceeded in three stages: (i) a pre-workshop individual brainstorming session, (ii) a three-hour live Zoom ( https://zoom.us/ ) event (i.e., the workshop), and (iii) post workshop reflections and writing. For the brainstorming session, each participant was asked to complete an online survey via Google Forms in the week prior to the workshop to provide details about research interests and thoughts on two key questions. These questions were:

Based on your experience as an ECR, what do you believe are key goals for TFR in the future? Think about intellectual challenges and important areas of future research to guide the field and to produce knowledge that is important for sustainable fishery systems.

What are some challenges faced by ECRs working in transdisciplinary settings? How can these barriers be overcome? For each challenge, please identify a possible solution

The brainstorming session provided time to contemplate discussion points and ensured that all voices were heard regardless of whether people could not attend the workshop or preferred to be less vocal in the workshop setting. Responses were submitted up to one day before the workshop. Responses were then read by two organizers (ALJ, EAN) and rapidly collated and categorized into four key themes for each discussion question before the workshop (Appendix A2).

For the workshop, we established an ethical and respectful community of practice by opening with a land acknowledgement (led by AJR) that invited participants to reflect on the place they were joining from, recognizing the unique and enduring relationship that exists between Indigenous Peoples and their traditional land and territories. We felt such acknowledgements were important steps to recognizing the need to reduce the harms of colonialism—especially in transdisciplinary fisheries research which is partially concerned with reconciling relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples, and nature. Participants were then given time to introduce themselves and their personal research backgrounds to the group. One hour was allotted per question to consider and discuss thoughts on each topic. First, a summary of the online responses (led by ALJ) was presented, and then participants were assigned to three breakout groups. Workshop leaders guided the discussion and kept notes, and participants could provide input orally or by using interactive Mural boards to write down key points. A short plenary followed each breakout period to share highlights. The workshop closed with reflective words from a later career mentor and established TFR colleague (SJC).

After the workshop, a systematic analysis was conducted on all outputs. The Mural boards from each breakout group were first analyzed separately by categorizing ‘sticky notes’ into themes within each board (Appendix A3). Perspectives from the three Mural boards were then combined and grouped into larger categories including: goals , barriers, considerations for researchers , and actions for ECRs, established researchers, and institutions . To ensure all participants’ points and concerns were captured accurately, the Zoom video recordings were transcribed in full. A codebook was developed through inductive processes and refined over two rounds of coding (conducted by EAN, Appendix A4). The first round of coding was used to categorize and summarize the data into broad themes, and the second round was used to focus on specific sub-themes and categories that emerged from the Mural board analysis. Subsequently, the responses from the Google Form were cross-checked with themes and categories that emerged from the workshop.

The ECRs in the workshop (i.e., the authors, herein referred to as ‘we’) provide a synthesis of perspectives emerging from the Google Form , Zoom workshop, and post-workshop reflections. We outline big-picture goals for TFR as a field and match each goal with high-level considerations for researchers conducting TFR. Next we discuss key barriers to conducting TFR and identify several specific actions for ECRs, established researchers, and institutions that can enable this type of work (Fig.  2 ). We include three boxes with examples of extant strategies or new models of action for how changes to current norms can be made; boxes are based on participants’ experiences.

Diagram outlining key points in each of the part of the manuscript: goals and considerations, barriers, and actions that can enable TFR

Given the broad range of perspectives and contexts represented in our workshop, goals, considerations, barriers, and actions that we present are unsurprisingly generic. We acknowledge that variations in political situation, governance approach, industry standard, and economic capacity among fisheries, regions, countries, continents, and the global north vs. global south mean that translating our suggestions into achievable actions will look different across geographies and contexts. Barriers and challenges will be substantially higher in regions with less support and funding for TFR (i.e., much of the global south). We further acknowledge that despite our collaborative approach, the group of people whose views are presented here does not entirely represent the perspectives and experiences of all global ECRs. Our team was drawn from individuals able to attend an online international congress, and thus excludes those without access or resources to attend. Despite these limitations, we observed parallel experiences and congruity of responses among participants. This manuscript was developed collaboratively with all authors (i.e., workshop participants); the views presented below are thus broadly representative of the experiences of the ECRs who attended this workshop, and likely have relevance in the broader context of TFR.

Workshop outcomes

A first critical step to any fisheries research project will be to determine whether transdisciplinary approaches are indeed necessary to answer the question at hand. We suggest researchers should use a transdisciplinary approach any time there are diverse and competing ways of understanding the problem (cause, effect, and solution), and when outcomes carry high stakes for multiple actors (Pohl and Hadorn, 2007 ). The following goals, considerations, barriers, and actions assume that a transdisciplinary approach has already been determined to be appropriate for a given research agenda.

Big-picture goals and considerations for transdisciplinary fisheries research

We identified that crucial aims for TFR are to dismantle traditional disciplinary and institutional silos through processes of co-production, and to find innovative solutions to complex fishery problems by forming novel alliances and collaborations among interested partners. Below we outline four big-picture goals that fit under these aims along with considerations that can help researchers achieve those goals.

Goal 1: Embody transdisciplinary approaches during all stages of research

Consideration 1: be open-minded and adaptable, goal 2: ensure fisheries research is inclusive and equitable, consideration 2: critically evaluate the research process and our role within it, goal 3: design fisheries research so that it is credible, relevant, actionable, and impactful., consideration 3: be solutions-oriented, goal 4: consistently and clearly communicate with all partners throughout a project, consideration 4: communicate in ways that are sensitive to cultural and sectoral differences, barriers to conducting transdisciplinary fisheries research.

Although the big picture goals and considerations outlined above are useful for framing the direction of TFR, we also identified several barriers to conducting transdisciplinary work. Discussion of barriers was prominent during the workshop; however, we summarize them in three key points as details on barriers have been addressed in several recent works (Hein et al. 2018 ; Jarvis et al. 2020 ; Kelly et al. 2019 ; Österblom et al. 2020 ).

Barrier 1: Institutional inertia leads to lack of support for TFR

The incongruity between intention and action described above for academic institutions also emerged in the realm of funding opportunities (Sievanen et al. 2012 ; Said et al. 2019 ), a barrier that was especially relevant for those of us living in developing countries that are already limited in research funds. We discussed difficulties in finding grants tailored to transdisciplinary work as well as lack of financial support to conduct dissemination of findings and community engagement. Generally, the sentiment was that funding systems are stagnant despite a purported desire to change. Funding agencies claim to be advancing transdisciplinary research; however, review and evaluation committees tend to favour straight-forward, low-risk projects that can be easily evaluated and measured for success. This is an example of culture within a system (sensu Schein 2017 ) reinforcing institutional and disciplinary norms.

Barrier 2: Lack of recognition for the additional time and emotional labour involved with TFR

Barrier 3: lack of mentorship and few opportunities for development of skills required to be effective transdisciplinary fisheries researchers, actions for ecrs, established researchers, and institutions to enable transdisciplinary fisheries research.

In the following section we outline several key actions that can be taken by ECRs, established researchers, and institutions to help overcome barriers and enable TFR. We supplement these sections with three boxes outlining concrete strategies or new models for enacting change based on our experiences.

Actions for early career researchers

Ecr action 1: develop a peer mentorship and/or community mentorship network, box 1—development of peer mentorship networks.

Peer mentoring can provide a much-needed opportunity for ECRs to learn how to become more transdisciplinary researchers, providing training and support to move away from traditional academic working styles which are often highly hierarchical and centered on individual success. Peer mentoring can be done as groups or in pairs and provides academic, career, social and psychological benefits (Lorenzetti et al., 2019 ). The additional challenges faced by transdisciplinary researchers make peer mentorship particularly useful because it allows ECRs to cultivate long-term supportive professional relationships (Kensington-Miller, 2018 ), which are essential when traditional mentor/mentee relationships fall short. Peer mentorship also provides additional emotional support and encouragement (McGuire and Reger 2003 ), and assists ECRs with developing research skills and navigating academic institutions (Lorenzetti et al., 2019 ) ECRs at the Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods (RIEL) at Charles Darwin University established a reading group to learn together about intersectional feminist values and how to apply them within the context of academia and environmental research. The group combines Mac Namara et al.’s ( 2020 ) peer mentoring model with a book club structure. Members take turns choosing topics for discussion, enabling them to consider how to work as researchers and support one another. Topics have included power dynamics encountered as ECRs, how success is measured in academia, and how to improve representation of marginalized voices. Learning together about the structural and cultural barriers faced by ECRs reveals the shortcomings of traditional approaches to academia. The group functions as a place to build relationships, share anxieties and successes, and learn from others’ perspectives and approaches. The network also provides a safe space for voices to be heard and for critiques and self-reflection to occur. The lack of hierarchy in these relationships enables ECRs to learn together and construct their own work culture away from their own disciplines (Kensington-Miller, 2018 ).

ECR Action 2: Clearly describe and communicate processes and methods used in TFR

Actions for established researchers, established researcher action 1: be available for consistent and holistic mentorship, established researcher action 2: make space for ecr voices, actions for institutions.

Institutional changes are among the most difficult to enact due to institutional inertia and bureaucracy, but they are also perhaps the most transformative given the scale on which they occur. The ideas we present here are lofty, but sorely needed to realize the promise of TFR.

Institution Action 1: Be willing to critique and dismantle academic individualism and the academic “superiority complex”

Box 2—a case study on reimagining lab hierarchies.

The “Centre for Indigenous Fisheries” (CIF; launched in January 2021) at the University of British Columbia comprises a team of researchers who work together as just that – a team . The CIF’s research is not about any one person, it’s about all. As such, the group collectively decided against naming the lab after any one team member. Each student in the CIF belongs to a research project that is partnered with Indigenous communities and/or organizations. Most students work in paired contexts, where they can support one another on interrelated aspects of a larger project or program. Students develop independently as well as collectively, receiving context-specific training and research support through these interactions, and each week team meetings are led by a student coordinator to discuss project progress. It is through this multi­layered mentorship model, which will soon be bolstered by an Indigenous Advisory Council for the CIF (launching in 2022), that student training needs are fulfilled to become well-rounded, highly skilled, and independent yet deeply collaborative researchers that are needed to solve the problems we face today. By following this model, students receive extensive training and guidance from academics, their diverse advisory committees, the communities they engage with, specialized departmental courses that are co-developed with Indigenous partners, as well as one another (see Box 1 ). This nested approach is fluid and non­hierarchical, where students find mentors in their supervisor(s) and advisors, instructors, peers, practitioners, and partners to suit different stages of their research process and meet the needs that arise along their learning experience (Fouché and Lunt 2010 ). This both minimizes risk for students and can help alleviate mentor/mentee power imbalances that might exist or arise (Jones and Brown 2011 ).

Institution Action 2: Establish functional education and mentorship programs for ECRs in TFR

Institution action 3: build funding structures that support all parts of tfr.

Funders need to critically examine how they solicit and evaluate research funds and rethink who is represented on selection committees (e.g., include non-academics) (Nyboer et al. 2021 ). Finally, funding for TFR needs to be allocated more equitably and in ways that do not reinforce the usual reward schemes based on publications as the primary measure of impact. Having strategic funding opportunities for the global south or those from racialized or Indigenous communities is essential for realizing what TFR can offer. This is even more important to TFR in some developing countries where funding is limited and tends to adhere to more mainstream approaches. A good example of such funding is the Global Challenges Research Fund- UK Research and Innovation Network that focuses on marine cultural heritage and uses arts and humanities to produce less traditional yet impactful research outputs. Funded projects have produced crafts, music videos, children's books, 3D models, museums, expeditions, cultural festivals, and community boat building associations among other things that promoted their way of life.

BOX 3—ArcticNet as an institution looking to make chang e

ArcticNet is an example of an institution (although not specifically fisheries focused) that has evolved over time to promote transdisciplinary research and support ECRs in this field. ArcticNet is a research network established in 2003 that supports natural, social, and health science in the Canadian Arctic and stands out from similar networks by turning their transdisciplinary language around synergy, knowledge exchange, training, and communication into concrete actions. For instance, ECRs can access funding to attend training to develop their understanding of Indigenous perspectives and how to engage in ethical research. Inuit ECRs with non-academic backgrounds can apply for dedicated funding that supports community-led research and receive support from regional Inuit advisors who also review research proposals and promote community and Inuit perspectives across the Network. Results are shared with both northern residents who can receive support to attend the annual scientific meeting (ASM) for free, and policymakers through regional summary reports that include ECR results. Such steps from a large institution support and inspire ECRs, and the results of these changes are obvious and visible. For example, the ASM has shifted from a standard scientific conference to one where most posters rely on plain language and visuals to share results. There are line-ups to access the community-based presentation sessions, and a dedicated ‘Student Day’ features career development panels and research elevator pitches. Everyone from field assistants to Professors Emeritus dance the night away to an Inuk band after the conference banquet.

Institution Action 4: Critically rethink and implement new ways of measuring impact

In this paper, we synthesize the perspectives and experiences of ECRs from around the world who work (or aim to work) in TFR. Although we acknowledge that TFR is not the only effective  approach to fisheries research, it has been shown to be successful at finding solutions to complex and dynamic problems since it is adaptable and responsive to specific challenges in a wide variety of contexts. The findings of our workshop aligned well with outcomes of aseveral recent papers investigating this topic (e.g., Turgeon et al. 2018 ; Kelly et al. 2019 ; Andrews et al. 2020 ; Sellberg et al. 2021 ). Each of these pieces  addressed the common theme that, although TFR is widely acknowledged as critical to bridge science-policy-practice boundaries and to address the ‘wicked problems’ facing fisheries, support for this work is lacking. There is a disconnect between the expectations placed upon ECRs to be the generation that 'fixes the problem', and the actual support that is provided to do so; this can manifest in declines in mental health with ECRs making serious personal sacrifices in the face of demands to uphold scientific rigour, societal impact, community engagement, and self-care (Sellberg et al. 2021 ). Barriers to TFR revolve largely around current academic structures, cultures, and metrics of impact that do not uphold or recognize efforts required to support TFR (Singh et al. 2019 ). Here we suggest several avenues that can and should be enacted now to lower these barriers. A critical finding that bears further recognition is that barriers to achieving these actions are higher in low-to-middle income countries. Researchers already experiencing discrimination for other reasons (e.g., race, gender) will be further disadvantaged. Networks, academic / mentorship support, and funding are especially necessary in the global south where coastal populations are disproportionately more reliant on fisheries for food security and employment (Golden et al. 2016 ), where fewer research funds are available (Weyl et al. 2021 ), and where mentorship opportunities are lacking. It is critical that researchers from the high-income countries facilitate redistribution of funds via collaborations and partnerships in LMICs and ensure equitable sharing of benefits including access to resources. An noteworthy outcome of the COVID-19 pandemic is that the normalization of virtual conferences has allowed for increased inclusivity across various groups (e.g., different income brackets, global north vs. global south, ECR vs. established professional) (Davids et al. 2021 ). In our workshop this format was powerful. It highlighted that the day-to-day tasks of conducting TFR are profoundly different given various contexts,  and that best practices will vary based on the research question, location, groups involved, and team size. On the other hand, the striking similarity and congruence in perspectives highlight the common goals and considerations we share as transdisciplinaryECRs despite our widespread geopolitical experiences. Fisheries science as a discipline has evolved and grown from its historical quantitative and natural science origins toward a broader, holistic, systems-oriented view that embraces both ecological and human dimensions. Here we argue that it is time for all actors in fisheries research to take action to support and uphold the value of these approaches.

Andrews EJ, Harper S, Cashion T, Palacios-Abrantes J, Blythe J, Daly J, Eger S, Hoover C, Talloni-Alvarez N, Teh L, Bennett N, Epstein G, Knott C, Newell SL, Whitney CK (2020) Supporting early career researchers: insights from interdisciplinary marine scientists. ICES J Mar Sci 77:476–485

Article   Google Scholar  

Armitage D, Berkes F, Doubleday N (2010) Adaptive co-management: collaboration, learning, and multi-level governance. UBC Press, Vancouver

Google Scholar  

Azzurro E, Moschella P, Maynou F (2011) Tracking signals of change in Mediterranean fish diversity based on local ecological knowledge. PLoS ONE 69:e24885. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0024885

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Barnes HM, Harmsworth G, Tipa G, Henwood W, McCreanor T (2021) Indigenous-led environmental research in Aotearoa New Zealand: beyond a transdisciplinary model for best practice, empowerment, and action. AlterNative 17:306–316

Bennett NJ (2019) Marine social science for the peopled seas. Coast Manag 47:244–252

Berkes F (2018) Sacred ecology. Routledge, New York

Beverton RJH, Holt SJ (1957) On the dynamics of exploited fish populations. Fish Investig 19:1–533

Bobek E, Tversky B (2016) Creating visual explanations improves learning. Cogn Res Princ Implic 1(1):27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-016-0031-6

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Brandt P, Ernst A, Gralla F, Luederitz C, Lang DJ, Newig J, Von Wehrden H (2013) A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecol Econ 92:1–15

Brasier MJ, McCormack S, Bax N, Caccavo JA, Cavan E, Ericson JA, Weldrick CK (2020) Overcoming the obstacles faced by early career researchers in marine science: lessons from the marine ecosystem assessment for the Southern Ocean. Front Mar Sci 7:692

Britz PJ, Hara MM, Weyl OLF, Tapela BN, Rouhani QA (2015) Scoping study on the development and sustainable utilisation of inland fisheries in South Africa, Volume 1: Research Report. WRC Report No TT 615/1/14, South Africa

Chapman JM, Algera D, Dick M, Hawkins EE, Lawrence MJ, Lennox RJ et al (2015) Being relevant: practical guidance for early career researchers interested in solving conservation problems. Global Ecol Conser 4:334–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/jgecco201507013

Christian K, Johnstone C, Larkins JA, Wright W, Doran MR (2021) A survey of early-career researchers in Australia. Elife 10:1–19

Chuenpagdee R, Jentoft S (2019) Transdisciplinarity for small scale fisheries governance, analysis, and practice, vol 21. MARE Publication Series. Springer, New York, p 479

Book   Google Scholar  

Cooke SJ, Rytwinski T, Taylor JJ, Nyboer EA, Nguyen VM, Bennett JR, Smol JP (2020) On “success” in applied environmental research—What is it, how can it be achieved, and how does one know when it has been achieved? Environ Rev 28:357–372

Cooke SJ, Nguyen VM, Chapman JM, Reid AJ, Landsman SJ, Young N, Hinch SG, Schott S, Mandrak NE, Semeniuk CA (2021a) Knowledge co-production: a pathway to effective fisheries management, conservation, and governance. Fisheries 46:89–97

Cooke SJ, Nguyen VM, Young N, Reid AJ, Roche DG, Bennett NJ, Bennett JR (2021b) Contemporary authorship guidelines fail to recognize diverse contributions in conservation science research. Ecol Solut Evid 2:e12060

Cundill G, Roux DJ, Parker JN (2015) Nurturing communities of practice for transdisciplinary research. Ecol Soc 20:22

Cvitanovic C, Hobday AJ, van Kerkhoff L, Wilson SK, Dobbs KA, Marshall N (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 Manag 112:25–35

Cvitanovic C, Shellock RJ, Mackay M, van Putten EI, Karcher DB, Dickey-Collas M et al (2021a) Strategies for building and managing ‘trust’ to enable knowledge exchange at the interface of environmental science and policy. Environ Sci Policy 123:179–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/JENVSCI202105020

Cvitanovic C, Mackay M, Shellock RJ, van Putten EI, Karcher DB, Dickey-Collas M (2021b) Understanding and evidencing a broader range of ‘successes’ that can occur at the interface of marine science and policy. Mar Policy 134:104802

Davelaar D (2021) Transformation for sustainability: a deep leverage points approach. Sustain Sci 16:727–747

Davids R, Scheelbeek P, Sobratee N, Green R, Häesler B, Mabhaudhi T, Chatterjee S, Venkateshmurthy NS, Mace G, Dangour A, Slotow R (2021) Towards the three dimensions of sustainability for international research team collaboration: learnings from the sustainable and healthy food systems research programme. Sustainability 13(22):12427

Davies SW, Putnam HM, Ainsworth T, Baum JK, Bove CB, Crosby SC, Bates AE (2021) Promoting inclusive metrics of success and impact to dismantle a discriminatory reward system in science. PLoS Biol 19(6):e3001282

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Dlouhá J, Heras R, Mulà I, Salgado FP, Henderson L (2019) Competences to address SDGs in higher education—a reflection on the equilibrium between systemic and personal approaches to achieve transformative action. Sustainability 11(13):3664

Eigenbrode SD, O’Rourke M, Wulfhorst JD, Althoff DM, Goldberg CM, Merrill K, Morse W, Nielsen-Pincus M, Stephens J, Winowiecki J, Bosque-Pérez NA (2007) Employing philosophical dialogue in collaborative science. Bioscience 57:55–64. https://doi.org/10.1641/B570109

Evans MC, Cvitanovic C (2018) An introduction to achieving policy impact for early career researchers. Palgrave Commun 41:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0144-2

Fabian Y, Bollmann K, Brang P, Heiri C, Olschewski R, Rigling A, Stofer S, Holderegger R (2019) How to close the science-practice gap in nature conservation? information sources used by practitioners. Biol Cons 235:93–101

FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) (2012) Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries. FAO, Rome

Filyushkina A, Ryu H, Kadykalo AN, Murali R, Campagne CS, Washbourne CL, Peter S, Saidi N, Sarzynski T, Pisa PF, Ávila-Flores G, Amiar T (2022) Engaging at the science -policy interface as an early-career researcher: experiences and perceptions in the field of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Ecosyst People (In Press) 00:000–000

Fisher JR, Wood SA, Bradford MA, Kelsey TR (2020) Improving scientific impact: how to practice science that influences environmental policy and management. Conserv Sci Pract 2(7):e210

Fouché C, Lunt N (2010) Nested mentoring relationships: reflections on a practice project for mentoring research capacity amongst social work practitioners. J Soc Work 10(4):391–406

Frisk E, Larson KL (2011) Educating for sustainability: competencies & practices for transformative action. J Sustain Educ 2(1):1–20

Gale AP, Chapman JO, White DE, Ahluwalia P, Williamson AKJ, Peacock KR, Cooke SJ (2021) On embracing the concept of becoming environmental problem solvers: the trainee perspective on key elements of success, essential skills, and mindset. Environ Rev e-First. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2021-0040

Glavovic B, Limburg K, Liu KK, Emeis KC, Thomas H, Kremer H et al (2015) Living on the margin in the Anthropocene: engagement arenas for sustainability research and action at the ocean–land interface. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:232–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/jcosust201506003

Golden C, Allison EH, Cheung WWL, Dey MM, Halpern BS, McCauley DJ, Smith M, Vaitla B, Zeller D, Myers SS (2016) Fall in fish catch threatens human health. Nature 534:317–320

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Haapasaari P, Kulmala S, Kuikka S (2012) Growing into interdisciplinarity: how to converge biology, economics, and social science in fisheries research? Ecol Soc 17:6. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04503-170106

Halliday RG, Fanning LP (2006) A history of marine fisheries science in Atlantic Canada and its role in the management of fisheries. Proc Nova Scotian Inst Sci 43:159–183

Halliday RG, Pinhorn AT (1996) North Atlantic fishery management systems: a comparison of management methods and resource trends. J Northwest Atl Fish Sci 20:1–144

Hansson S, Polk M (2018) Assessing the impact of transdisciplinary research: the usefulness of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impact. Res Eval 27(2):132–144

Hein CJ, Ten Hoeve JE, Gopalakrishnan S, Livneh B, Adams HD, Marino E, Weiler CS (2018) Overcoming early career barriers to interdisciplinary climate change research. Wires Clim Change 9:e530

Hernandez-Aguilera JN, Anderson W, Bridges AL, Fernandez MP, Hansen WD, Maurer ML, Ilboudo Nébié EK, Stock A (2021) Supporting interdisciplinary careers for sustainability. Nat Sustain 4:374–375. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00679-y

Hobday AJ, Spillman CM, Eveson P, Hartog JR (2016) Seasonal forecasting for decision support in marine fisheries and aquaculture. Fish Oceanogr 25:45–56

House J, Kleiber D, Steenbergen DJ, Stacey N (2022) Participatory monitoring in community-based fisheries management through a gender lens. Ambio. 00:000-000.

Jarvis RM, Borrelle SB, Forsdick NJ, Pérez-Hämmerle KV, Dubois NS, Griffin SR et al (2020) Navigating spaces between conservation research and practice: are we making progress? Ecol Sol Evi. https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-831912028

Jeanson AL, Soroye P, Kadykalo AN, Ward TD, Paquette E, Abrams AE, Cooke SJ (2020) Twenty actions for a “good Anthropocene”—perspectives from early-career conservation professionals. Environ Rev 28(1):99–108

Jentoft S, Chuenpagdee R (2009) Fisheries and coastal governance as a wicked problem. Mar Policy 33:553–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/jmarpol200812002

Johannes RE, Freeman MM, Hamilton RJ (2000) Ignore fishers’ knowledge and miss the boat. Fish Fish 1(3):257–271

Jones R, Brown D (2011) The mentoring relationship as a complex adaptive system: finding a model for our experience. Mentor Tutor Partnersh Learn 19(4):401–418

Kadykalo AN, Cooke SJ, Young N (2021a) The role of western-based scientific, indigenous and local knowledge in wildlife management and conservation. People Nat 3(3):610–626. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan310194

Kadykalo AN, Buxton RT, Morrison P, Anderson CM, Bickerton H, Francis CM et al (2021b) Bridging research and practice in conservation. Conserv Biol 35(6):1725–1737. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi13732

Karcher DB, Cvitanovic C, Colvin RM, van Putten IE, Reed MS (2021) Is this what success looks like? Mismatches between the aims, claims, and evidence used to demonstrate impact from knowledge exchange processes at the interface of environmental science and policy. Environ Sci Policy 125:202–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/JENVSCI202108012

Kelly R, Mackay M, Nash KL, Cvitanovic C, Allison EH, Armitage D et al (2019) Ten tips for developing interdisciplinary socio-ecological researchers. Socio-Ecol Pract Res 1:149–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-019-00018-2

Kemp A (2013) Collaboration vs individualism: what is better for the rising academic? Qualit Rep 18(100):1–8

Kensington-Miller B (2018) Surviving the first year: new academics flourishing in a multidisciplinary community of practice with peer mentoring. Prof Dev Educ 44(5):678–689

Klein JT (1990) Interdisciplinarity: history, theory, and practice. Wayne State University Press, Detroit, Michigan

Klein JT (2009) Creating interdisciplinary campus cultures: a model for strength and sustainability. Wiley, San Francisco

Lang DJ, Wiek A (2021) Structuring and advancing solution-oriented research for sustainability. Ambio 51:31–35

Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P et al (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci 7:25–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11625-011-0149-X/TABLES/3

Lewis JM, Ross S, Holden T (2012) The how and why of academic collaboration: disciplinary differences and policy implications. High Educ 64(5):693–708

Lorenzetti DL, Shipton L, Nowell L, Jacobsen M, Lorenzetti L, Clancy T, Paolucci EO (2019) A systematic review of graduate student peer mentorship in academia. Mentor Tutor Partnersh Learn 27(5):549–576

Mac Namara SC, Rauh AE, Blum MM, Russo N, Green MA, Nangia S (2020) Peer mentoring for women in STEM. In: ASEE virtual annual conference content access, June 2020

Macher C, Steins NA, Ballesteros M, Kraan M, Frangoudes K, Bailly D, Bertignac M, Colloca F, Fitzpatrick M, Garcia D, Little R, Mardle S, Murillas A, Pawlowski L, Philippe M, Prellezo R, Sabatella E, Thebaud O, Ulrich C (2021) Towards transdisciplinary decision-support processes in fisheries: experiences and recommendations from a multidisciplinary collective of researchers. Aquat Living Resour 34:13. https://doi.org/10.1051/alr/2021010

Mackinson S (2022) The fall and rise of industry participation in fisheries science – a European story. ICES J Mar Sci. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsac041

Mauser W, Klepper G, Rice M, Schmalzbauer BS, Hackmann H, Leemans R, Moore H (2013) Transdisciplinary global change research: the co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5:420–431

McGuire GM, Reger J (2003) Feminist co-mentoring: a model for academic professional development. NWSA J 15:54–72

McPhearson T, Raymond CM, Gulsrud N, Albert C, Coles N, Fagerholm N, Vierikko K (2021) Radical changes are needed for transformations to a good Anthropocene. Urban Sustain 1(1):1–13

Miller TR, Wiek A, Sarewitz D, Robinson J, Olsson L et al (2014) The future of sustainability science—a solutions-oriented research agenda. Sustain Sci 9:239–246

Monroe JB, Baxter CV, Olden JD, Angermeier PL (2009) Freshwaters in the public eye: understanding the role of images and media in aquatic conservation. Fisheries 34(12):581–585. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8446-3412581

Nash JM, Collins BN, Loughlin SE, Solbrig M, Harvey R, Krishnan-Sarin S, Spirito A (2003) Training the transdisciplinary scientist: a general framework applied to tobacco use behavior. Nicotine Tob Res 5:S41–S53

Nyboer EA, Nguyen VM, Young N, Rytwinski T, Taylor JJ, Lane JF, Cooke SJ (2021) Supporting actionable science for environmental policy: advice for funding agencies from decision makers. Front Cons Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2021.693129

Ommer RE, Perry RI (2011) Social-ecological systems in fisheries. In: Ommer RE, Perry RI, Cochrane K, Cury P (eds) World fisheries: a social-ecological analysis. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Österblom H, Cvitanovic C, van Putten I, Addison P, Blasiak R, Jouffray JB, Bebbington J, Hall J, Ison S, LeBris A, Mynott S, Reid D, Sugimoto A (2020) Science-industry collaboration: sideways or highways to ocean sustainability? One Earth 3:79–88

Pannell JL, Dencer-Brown AM, Greening SS, Hume EA, Jarvis RM, Mathieu C, Mugford J, Runghen R (2019) An early-career perspective on encouraging collaborative and interdisciplinary research in ecology. Ecosphere 10:e02899

Pohl C, Hadorn GH (2007) Principles for designing transdisciplinary research. Oekom Verlag, Zurich, Switzerland

Pooley SP, Mendelsohn JA, Milner-Gulland EJ (2014) Hunting down the chimera of multiple disciplinarity in conservation science. Conserv Biol 28(1):22–32

Ravenscroft J, Liakata M, Clare A, Duma D (2017) Measuring scientific impact beyond academia: an assessment of existing impact metrics and proposed improvements. PLoS ONE 12(3):e0173152

Reid AJ, Eckert LE, Lane J-F, Young N, Hinch SG, Darimont CT, Cooke SJ, Ban NC, Marshall A (2020) “Two-Eyed Seeing”: an indigenous framework to transform fisheries research and management. Fish Fish 22:243–261

Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1974) Wicked problems in man-made futures: readings in society, technology, and design. Hutchinson Educational, London

Said A, Chuenpagdee R, Aguilar-Perera A, Arce-Ibarra A, Gurung T, Bishop B, Leopold M, Márquez-Pérez A, de Mattos SM, Pierce G, Nayak P, Jentoft S (2019) The principles of transdisciplinary research in small-scale fisheries: analysis and practice in transdisciplinarity for small-scale fisheries governance. Publication Series, New York

Schein EH (2017) Organizational culture and leadership, 5th edn. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken

Schlüter M, McAllister RRJ, Arlinghaus R, Bunnefeld N, Eisenack K, Hölker F, Milner-Gulland EJ, Müller B (2012) New horizons for managing the environment: a review of coupled social-ecological systems modeling. Nat Resour Model 25:219–273

Sellberg MM, Cockburn J, Holden PB, Lam DPM (2021) Toward a caring transdisciplinary research practice: navigating science, society, and self. Ecosystems and People 17:292–330

Sherman S (2011) Changing the world: the science of transformative action. Positive psychology as social change. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 329–345

Sievanen L, Campbell LM, Leslie HM (2012) Challenges to interdisciplinary research in ecosystem-based management. Conserv Biol 26:315–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01808.x

Singh GG, Farjalla VF, Chen B, Pelling AE, Ceyhan E, Dominik M et al (2019) Researcher engagement in policy deemed societally beneficial yet unrewarded. Front Ecol Environ 17(7):375–382

Smith LT (2021) Decolonizing methodologies: research and indigenous peoples. Zed Books Ltd, London

Steelman TA, Andrews E, Baines S, Bharadwaj L, Bjornson ER, Bradford L, Cardinal K, Carriere G et al (2019) Identifying transformational space for transdisciplinarity: using art to access the hidden third. Sustain Sci 14:771–790

Steiner G, Posch A (2006) Higher education for sustainability by means of transdisciplinary case studies: an innovative approach for solving complex real-world problems. J Clean Prod 14:877–890

Stöhr C, Lundhold C, Crona B, Chabay I (2014) Stakeholder participation and sustainable fisheries: an integrative framework for assessing adaptive co-management processes. Ecol Soc 19:14. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06638-190314

Stokols D (2014) Training the next generation of transdisciplinarians. In: O’Rourke M, Crowley S, Eigenbrode S, Wulfhorst J (eds) Enhancing communication & collaboration in interdisciplinary research. Sage Publications, Los Angeles, CA, pp 56–81

Strasser B, Baudry J, Mahr D, Sanchez G, Tancoigne E (2019) “Citizen science”? Rethinking science and public participation. Sci Technol Stud 32:52–76

Turgeon K, Hawkshaw SCF, Dinning KM, Quinn BK, Edwards DN, Wor C, Parlee CE et al (2018) Enhancing fisheries education and research through the Canadian fisheries research network: a student perspective on interdisciplinarity, collaboration, and inclusivity. FACETS 3:963–980

Weyl OLF, Barkhuizen L, Christison K, Dalu T, Hlungwani HA, Impson D, Sankar K, Mandrak NE, Marr M, Sara JR, Smit NM, Tweddle D, Vine NG, Wepener V, Zvavahera M, Cowx IG (2021) Ten research questions to support South Africa’s Inland fisheries policy. Afr J Aquat Sci 46:1–10. https://doi.org/10.2989/1608591420201822774

Whitmer A, Ogden L, Lawton J, Sturner P, Groffman PM, Schneider L et al. (2010) The engaged university: providing a platform for research that transforms society. Front Ecol Environ 8: 314–321

Wilson ME, Laufer AE, Howard EM, Wong-Ala JATK (2021) Lessons from the trenches: students’ perspectives of their own marine transdisciplinary education. Front Mar Sci 7: 592368

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Daniel Ten Veen for volunteering to provide live technical support during the Zoom event. We also thank the organizing board at the World Fisheries Congress (WFC) for supporting this workshop, and especially Jane Ham for all direct communication with WFC. We are grateful to our mentors who have encouraged and enabled our development as transdisciplinary researchers. Funding was provided to EAN by the Fonds de Recherche du Quebec – nature et technologie grant number 295667.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, Carleton Technology and Training Centre, Ottawa, ON, 4440KK1S 5B6, Canada

Elizabeth A. Nyboer, Amanda L. Jeanson, Andrew N. Kadykalo & Steven J. Cooke

Centre for Indigenous Fisheries, Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, The University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4, Canada

Andrea J. Reid

Centre for Marine Socioecology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, 7005, Australia

Rachel Kelly & Mary Mackay

Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, 7000, Australia

CSIRO Oceans & Atmosphere, Castray Esplanade, Battery Point, Hobart, TAS, 7001, Australia

Mary Mackay & Madeline E. Green

Centre for Marine Socioecology, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 49, Hobart, TAS, 7001, Australia

Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Ellengowan Dr, Casuarina, NT, 0810, Australia

Jenny House

Independent, Fort Simpson, NWT, Canada

Sarah M. Arnold

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University, 215 Tower Road, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA

Paul W. Simonin

Graduate School of Fisheries and Environmental Sciences, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki, 852-8521, Japan

Mary Grace C. Sedanza

Institute of Aquaculture, College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of the Philippines Visayas, 5023, Miagao, Iloilo, Philippines

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA

Emma D. Rice

Field Science Center for Northern Biosphere, Akkeshi Marine Station, Hokkaido University, Hokkaidô, Japan

T. E. Angela L. Quiros

COISPA Tecnologia & Ricerca, Stazione Sperimentale Per Lo Studio Delle Risorse del Mare, Bari, Italy

Andrea Pierucci

Department of Biological Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

Kelly Ortega-Cisneros

Strathclyde Centre for Environmental Law and Governance (SCELG), University of Strathclyde Law School, Glasgow, UK

Julia N. Nakamura

DTU Aqua, National Institute of Aquatic Resources, North Sea Science Park, 9850, Hirtshals, Denmark

Valentina Melli

Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries, Entebbe, Uganda

Stella Mbabazi

Fisheries Ecosystems Laboratory (LabPesq), Oceanographic Institute, University of São Paulo (USP), Brazil - Praça do Oceanográfico, 11 - sala 107 - Cidade Universitária, São Paulo (SP), Brazil

Mariana S. L. Martins

Institute of Fisheries Policy and Development Studies, College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of the Philippines Visayas, 5023, Miagao, Iloilo, Philippines

Anne Brigette B. Ledesma

Environmental and Conservation Sciences, College of Science, Health, Engineering and Education, Murdoch University, 90 South St, Murdoch, WA, 6150, Australia

Clara Obregón

Harry Butler Institute, Murdoch University, 90 South St, Murdoch, WA, 6150, Australia

School of Geography and Environmental Sciences, Ulster University, Cromore Rd, Coleraine, BT52 1SA, UK

Chepkemboi K. Labatt

Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute-KMFRI, Ocean and Coastal Systems, PO Box 81651-80100, Mombasa, Kenya

Department of Marine Science, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, 9054, New Zealand

Michael Heldsinger

RPS Group, Oceans and Coastal Sector, Level 2/27-31 Troode St, West Perth, WA, 6005, Australia

Department of Biological Sciences, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

Jessica L. Fuller

Programa de Doctorado en Ciencias con mención en Manejo de Recursos Acuáticos Renovables, Departamento de Oceanografía, Universidad de Concepción, Concepción, Chile

Milagros Franco-Meléndez

Centro de Investigación Oceanográfica COPAS-Sur Austral, EPOMAR, Departamento de Oceanografía, Universidad de Concepción, Concepción, Chile

Centre for Functional Biodiversity, School of Life Science, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa

Matthew J. Burnett

School of Science, Technology and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, QLD, Australia

Jessica A. Bolin

Charles Darwin Research Station, Charles Darwin Foundation, Puerto Ayora, Galápagos Islands, Ecuador

Solange Andrade-Vera

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth A. Nyboer .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests in the publication of this work.

Data availability

No new data were generated for this study.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

1. List of countries where workshop participants live and/or conduct research

2. summaries of participants' responses to the online google forms presented during the workshop..

Discussion Question 1: Based on your experience as an ECR, what do you believe are key goals for TFR in the future? Think about intellectual challenges and important areas of future research to guide the field and to produce knowledge that is important for sustainable fishery systems.

Include transdisciplinary perspectives during all stages of research

Engage with diverse stakeholders to understand non-academic needs, concerns, and requirements.

Co-design and co-produce studies with all relevant stakeholders, rights holders, and decision makers.

Engage with fisheries as socio-ecological systems for a holistic approach to finding solutions.

Ensure fisheries research is inclusive, relevant, and equitable

Consider social context and potential socio-environmental and/or intersectoral conflicts.

Addresses inequalities and empower marginalized and/or vulnerable groups.

Engage in bias recognition and reduction at both individual and institutional levels.

Ensure research itself is not part of the problem (i.e., research does not exclude marginalized voices).

Ensure fisheries research is impactful, solution oriented, and transformative

Implement transdisciplinary fisheries research within management (i.e., government agencies).

Build trust with stakeholders and rights holders (example: sign non-disclosure agreements).

Paying specific attention to the concrete on-the-ground research impacts; people on the ground should be assessing impact.

Improve and promote communication between researchers, policy makers, and fisheries managers

Include communication with policy/decision makers during postgraduate training.

Encourage alternative communication formats (i.e., policy briefs, infographics) that are more targeted for management, practitioners, and policy makers.

Discussion Question 2 : What are some challenges faced by ECRs working in transdisciplinary settings? How can these barriers be overcome? For each challenge, please identify a possible solution.

Institutional inertia and barriers lead to lack of support for transdisciplinary research

Facilitate access for ECRs to transdisciplinary mentors.

Provide more financial support for ECRs in transdisciplinary research.

Improve opportunities for interdisciplinary education at universities and in professional development settings.

Lack of opportunity for skill development to engage in transdisciplinary research

Create more mentoring programs for transdisciplinary research in universities and beyond.

Ensure opportunities for ECRs to engage with end-users, policy makers, stakeholders, and rights holders.

Provide ECRs training in facilitation and negotiation, interpersonal skills, stakeholder engagement, policy

Lack of funding opportunities and recognition for transdisciplinary research

Incentivize transdisciplinary fisheries research through grants, awards, recognition schemes, job opportunities; but exercise caution around attracting shallow attempts at these approaches.

De-emphasize disciplinary metrics of evaluation.

Ensure alternative metrics for measuring ‘success’ amongst ECRs.

Acknowledge the extra time required to understand multiple discipline and knowledge structures, and to engage in co-production.

Lack of transdisciplinary networks for ECRs

Encourage networking through transdisciplinary conferences and other activities.

Share transdisciplinary research opportunities more widely with ECRs.

Create regional/global collaborative networks that mobilize ECR research and outputs and amplify younger researcher voices.

Recognizing who can contribute in these settings vs. who doesn’t have access; how do we build the network out in equitable ways?

Link to categorized Mural board

https://app.mural.co/invitation/mural/wfc2021ecrworkshop0407/1631924266000?sender=uc9876a0592cbf094c3530448&key=afa22fdc-49d2-43bc-880a-91dfa8012031

1. Embody transdisciplinary approaches during all stages of research

dismantle traditional disciplinary and institutional silos

co-create new knowledge

novel alliances and collaborations

1.1 Engage with fisheries as socio-ecological systems for a holistic approach to finding solutions.

push to appreciate social science findings

ensure qualitative data is collected properly

understand the sociocultural contexts

1.2 Co-design and co-produce studies with all relevant stakeholders, rights holders, and decision makers.

include bottom-up communication

encourage new ways of listening

communication and collaboration

build trust

don’t make assumptions about what is important to stakeholder

2. Ensure fisheries research is inclusive (legitimate), relevant (salient), credible, and equitable

1.1 Understand non-academic concerns.

social context

socio-environmental and/or intersectoral conflicts

1.2 Address inequalities and empower marginalized and/or vulnerable groups

bias recognition and reduction

methods used do not exclude marginalized voices

non-tokenistic

3. Ensure fisheries research is impactful, solution oriented, and transformative

3.1 Define goals through co-development

collaborative problem identification

ensure knowledge translation

3.2 Build trust with stakeholders and rights holders

4. Consistently and clearly communicate with policy makers, fisheries managers, governing bodies, communities, and all other relevant stakeholder groups

4.1 Communicate science to the public, to policy makers, managers, stakeholders

4.2 Develop alternative communication formats

re-envision research outputs

encourage engagement

B. CHALLENGES/BARRIERS

1. Institutional inertia and barriers

1.1 Academic isolation – don’t fit in anywhere

Bullet Bullet no clear departmental home

1.2 Mismatch between institutional (university) ambition and support

universities don’t have structures in place

limits on advisory committee makeup

institutional incentives for fast, low-risk project

1.2 Individualism and individual glory promoted

PIs and authors on papers must be individuals and not community groups

difficult to come into community contexts and not seem self-serving

1.3 Disciplinary norms within fisheries

favours quantitative approaches

inherent condescension within the academy towards non-academics

academic innovation of TD approaches questioned

1.4 Lack of funding opportunities (ambition mismatch, like universities)

difficulties finding grants

lack of funding allocated for project scoping and communication

lack of equitable funding for global south vs. global north

1.5 Lack of transdisciplinary networks for ECRs

lack of support network

struggles to connect and collaborate

Lack of recognition for the time and emotional labour

2.1 Longer timescales required to allow for integration and trust relationships with communities

little support for low-campus-residency models

Acknowledging the extra time required for funding and degree requirements

2.2 Metrics for valuing TDFR are not oriented in a way that facilitates good process

2.3 Emotional labour and energy required

Bullet relationship building and conflicts with a community group stakeholder

2.4 Pressure of having to know all disciplines

Lack of mentorship and few opportunities for development of skills

3.1 Knowledge translation workshop facilitation, community engagement

communication issues

communication suggestions

3.2 How to do research with impact; ‘best practices’ guides not available.

buzzwords – how to enact them

3.3 Extra work / burden of having to unlearn institutional structures/norm

3.4 Need to self-advocate

4. Other struggles

4.1 Disconnect between expectations felt by ECRs and perceived support

4.2 Mental health in terms of security and job security

lack of space for ECR voices

wo rse for minority groups

C. HOW TO ACHIEVE GOALS

1. Be self-reflexive and honest in the research process

honest and transparent about our methods,

self reflexive

positionality

equity and humility

develop shared languages

2. Be open minded and adaptable

willing to evolve

accept that you might never reach consensus -

shift norms within academic systems to transition towards locally led research

continual feedback and communication at each point.

3. Be solution oriented

actionable change that can implemented on the ground

focus stakeholder needs and requirements

documenting and sharing how we do TDFR

align goals with longer term projects

4. Communicate in ways that are sensitive across culture and sector

ask partners how they would like the research to be communicated

D. ACTIONS TO LOWER BARRIERS

1. Build up mentorship network (ECR)

initiate co-mentorship or peer-mentorship

networking through conferences

community mentorship

develop a best practices guide.

communicate social processes and methods used in TFR

Reforming fisheries education

2. Be available for good mentorship (Senior)

facilitate access to transdisciplinary mentors

create opportunities for ECRs to engage with non-academic partners

training in facilitation and negotiation

stakeholder engagement skills

3. Allow junior voices to be heard (Senior)

we must be problem solvers

lack of opportunity to make those changes.

4. Be willing to critique academic superiority (institution)

critique individualism

not everything is there to be studied

deconstructing academia is innovation

5. Build functional education and mentorship programs (institution)

mentoring programs for transdisciplinary research

improve opportunities for transdisciplinary learning

reform fisheries education towards more practical frameworks.

incentivize TD projects

ensure adequate mentorship.

build institutional flexibility to amplify marginalized

6. Support all parts of TFR (institution)

formal recognition of the time it takes

financial support for ECRs in TFR

grants, awards, recognition schemes

financial support for knowledge exchange

strategic funding opportunities for the global south

7. New ways of measuring impact

promote, appreciate, value

de-emphasize disciplinary metrics

value engagement

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Nyboer, E.A., Reid, A.J., Jeanson, A.L. et al. Goals, challenges, and next steps in transdisciplinary fisheries research: perspectives and experiences from early-career researchers. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries 33 , 349–374 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-022-09719-6

Download citation

Received : 11 January 2022

Accepted : 08 July 2022

Published : 05 August 2022

Issue Date : June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-022-09719-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Social-ecological systems
• Sustainability
• Knowledge transformation
• Co-production
• Institutions

Advertisement

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research