WG1 Themes and questions meeting 2021-06-09

Minutes for meeting to prepare for the MARE presentation "Themes and questions: results from a deliberative exercise on constructing social economies of dried fish".

Presentation overview

Presenters: Ratana Chuenpagdee, Sayeed Ferdous

Contributors: Tara Nair, Nireka Weeratunge

Summary: We report on the activities and outcomes of an internal, deliberative process seeking to identify key themes and research questions on social economies of dried fish in Asia. Elements of deliberation emerge from ongoing scoping research and the team's transdicsiplinary expertise.

Reference

• DFM WG1 Country team priorities - summary of the presentations made by Research Teams in December
• DFM WG1 Themes and outputs - compiled list of themes and questions that cut across the different Research Team presentations

Discussion points

• DEREK: The emphasis in this presentation should really be on the process aspects of the work, rather than the substance of the themes themselves. The challenges of creating categories of themes could possibly be discussed.
• NIREKA: Regarding the process: as a research team, I recall we went to our literature review and our own research, and looked for important points. I am not necessarily willing to be listed as a co-author for this presentation.
• TARA: Perhaps we can use a term other than “co-author”, something a bit less formal? Ratana and Sayeed can be listed as the main authors.
• DEREK: We should list others as contributors, “with support from…”
• SAYEED: It is an honour to be listed as an author, but I have not really been involved in DFM work over the past several months. Ratana can plan, however it would be unfair to leave everything up to her. I am happy to execute as part of the team, but can’t contribute much to the planning.
• DEREK: I note that the Bangladesh findings are not yet included in the Roundtable. It would be useful to include the empirical findings here if it is possible. These themes are points of connection across the project. Can we perhaps take themes from Thailand and Bangladesh and see if we can compare empirical findings?
• RATANA: This process began (for me) at the meeting at Cox’s Bazar. The idea of Working Groups came out of the focus on our own case studies, without us getting together. But looking at the document from the earlier WG1 meeting: this process got us thinking about themes of taste, heritage, etc., which later became guiding questions for the Visualization contribution, an initial part of the project knowledge mobilization. So there is a co-learning process. To situate the connections in the overall project research process, it can be helpful to have:
  • A list of the online tools (Zotero, etc.)
  • Background on why Alexia is doing her research, what she has done
  • What has happened with WG 2 & 3.
• NIREKA: Ratana has reminded us of some of the processes that have occurred in the past months. In that sense, would it make sense to put this before the visualization presentation, so the methods/process are clearer?
• DEREK: There is also a focus on the content of the themes, not just the process, which was what guided the placement of this particular presentation at the end of the roundtable. But we are also open to moving it up.
• RATANA: Not too many papers have been written about methods of knowledge co-creation as process. To make this work, we need to write an internal report, as a kind of working document for others to comment on, so we don’t lose track. I can put together a draft for this conference paper, then work together with Sayeed to put together a presentation.
• NIREKA: this would work. It is also great to have empirical data from two contrasting countries, South and South-East Asia.
• SAYEED and TARA also agree with this approach.
• DEREK: This could be a good basis for an eventual publication. Alexia’s work is also concerning process, but specifically on communication.
• DEREK and ERIC: Alexia’s role is not something that was purposefully created by DFM. Alexia comes from a biology background, but was seeking an international project in which to conduct research for a Master's thesis on communications, and approached us. Her initial understanding of "communications" was guided more by a model that prioritized effectiveness of message transmission, as encountered in business studies. But she has been prompted through work with Derek, Fabiana, and Eric to think about the social dimensions of communications as well, including how social relations (friendships and rivalries, trust and apprehension) impact the organization of research initiatives. We have not been directly involved in the research due to the conflict of interest. She will present her results at the MARE Conference itself.
• NIREKA: Could Tina be a discussant for RT2? RATANA: Or Mostafa? DEREK: Siddiqur? ERIC: Or a discussant who can comment as an outsider? NIREKA: John Koorian? Someone from the South? RATANA: Or Emdad, who could be brought into WG1?

ACTION

• DEREK will create and circulate a list of potential discussant/facilitators.
• ERIC will send the list of capacity-building workshops to Ratana.
• RATANA will put together a plan and share with the group.
• SAYEED will work with RATANA to put together the presentation.