Beyond fisheries management:: The Phronetic dimension

This paper has two main sources of inspiration. Firstly, building on Flyvbjerg's 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 Aristotle's 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], 1 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. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.