Beyond fisheries management: The Phronetic dimension

This paper has two main sources of inspiration. Firstly, building on Flyvbjergʹs “Making Social Science Matter”[Flyvbjerg B. Making social science matter: why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003], I argue that the contribution of the social sciences to fisheries resource management must essentially be “phronetic” (after Aristotleʹs phronesis, i.e. practical wisdom), in contrast to the “scientific” (Aristotle: episteme) contribution of the natural sciences. Secondly, inspired by the recent publication “Fish for Life: Interactive Governance for Fisheries” [Kooiman J, Jentoft S, Pullin R, Bavinck M, editors. Fish for life: interactive governance for fisheries. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press; 2005], I hold that phronesis is basically what the notion of governance adds to management. Governance is the broader concept, inviting a more reflexive, deliberative and value-rational methodology than the instrumental, means-end oriented management concept. I claim that for interdisciplinarity to work in fisheries it is essential to recognize the fundamental methodological differences that exist between the social and natural sciences.