WWW.WAS.ORG • WORLD AQUACULTURE • SEPTEMBER 2013 17 and the compromises that may be needed. Some of the compromises may include the need to work through primary interviewers, e.g., due to time and language constraints, the confounding of results from research team interactions and hierarchies, and the dilemmas of what to do when negative social issues are discovered in the field, such as domestic violence and sexual exploitation of workers. The AFS GAF researchers need to take more notice of such ethical issues. Ethical questions pervade feminist (and therefore gender) research. Marilyn concluded her presentation by saying that there are no actual “feminist methods,” just feminist use of good research methods that remain true to feminist principles of gender equality and can contribute valuable perspectives to fisheries research. As a case study, she then generated an active examination of how more detailed information on the qualitative characteristics and motivations of women in the largely quantitative economic study by Taiwo Mafimisebi (Nigeria) may have added additional value to the economic research. Mobilization is Needed to Achieve Gender Equality In opening the session in honor of Dr. M.C. Nandeesha (1957-2012), I traced how the AFS gender in aquaculture and fisheries efforts resulted from his specific and visionary efforts. I noted his early steps of holding symposia on women in fisheries in the AFS Indian Branch and in Cambodia and Indo-China countries, followed by getting a “toe in the door” at the triennial Asian Fisheries and Aquaculture Forums. Early activities, such as a women-in-fisheries photo competition, were non-threatening means for introducing the topic. Nandeesha also brought in partners and worked to get the formal WIF/GAF symposia in AFS made academically respectable through well-published proceedings and awards. His own publications showed a concern for: (a) how institutions, such as CARE-Bangladesh, delivered on their policy promises on gender equality through changing their staff recruitment policies; (b) getting the basic facts and statistics together to track gender in education and research agencies; and (c) how the AFS was faring in electing women Councillors. Dr. Nandeesha was a visionary committed to social justice and with an intuitive understanding of how to motivate others to act and bring about institutional change. His loving wife, Rajeswari Dayal B said of him: “so though Nandeesh is not with us physically, his thoughts and deeds are there to guide us through these difficult times.” To uncover views and gather ideas of what works and what is still needed to strengthen networking in gender, Meryl Williams, Poh Sze Choo, and Dr. M.C. Nandeesha before his untimely death, surveyed experts. The survey received 41 (78 percent from women) detailed and thoughtful responses, addressing the four step process of forming influencing networks (based on Actor Network Theory2). The first step, Problematisation, in which the problems and the “actors” are defined, received the greatest attention from respondents, and showed that considerable progress is being made in general understanding of the issues, even though much more specific detail is needed. The set of people involved is still small and limited in its extent, especially in aquaculture. The second step, Interessement, in which others are recruited to the network, is still weak, but survey respondents provided a rich set of ideas on how to do it. They stressed the needs for leaders and champions in the right places, but felt that an active core group of these had not yet emerged. Researchers and grassroots organizations must get together if any progress is to be made. The third step, Enrôlement, in which roles for action are defined and actors formally accept their roles, is even further behind Interessement. Clearly, little progress can be made until the critical people are convinced to step up. The final step, Mobilisation, during which the primary actors act as spokespeople and start to mobilize the passive actors, relies on achieving much more progress with Interessment and Enrôlement, unless a major opportunity for rapid progress can be found. Group members presented pros and cons and the challenges of holding stand-alone events on women/gender, noting the difficulties in getting sufficient attention at a mainstream conference such as 10AFAF, versus the problem that a significant number of GAF4 presenters were only able to attend because they were also presenting in other sessions. After GAF4, a small group met to further discuss the next steps and agree on an action plan, covering items from the immediate aftermath of GAF4 to what GAF5 would look like, the opportunities for other GAF events at forthcoming conferences. A small group agreed to follow-up on getting funding to develop a gender in aquaculture and fisheries “101” course. The action plan also included the need for a bolder strategy, networking with other networks of similar interests and the importance of developing and getting funded site-specific collaborative research to help improve the quality of research. Links • Website genderaquafish.org/ • Facebook www.facebook.com/pages/AFS-Gender-in- Aquaculture-and-Fisheries/181176555231544 • Twitter @Genderaquafish • Flickr www.flickr.com/groups/genderaquafish/ Notes Meryl J. Williams, meryljwilliams@gmail.com 1 The first five events were: 1998 Asian Women in Fisheries (Chiang Mai, Thailand), 2001 Global Women in Fisheries (Kaohsiung, Taiwan), 2004 Global Gender and Fisheries (Penang, Malaysia), 2007 2nd Global Gender and Fisheries (Kochi, India), 2011 3rd Global Gender in Aquaculture and Fisheries (Shanghai, China). See Genderaquafish.org for the proceedings and other information. 2 Callon, M. 1986. Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In: John Law, ed. 1986. Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjExNDY=