“Expert groups under other ICES steering groups increasingly ask for support or include human dimension aspects in their Terms of Reference. We have also seen a slow increase in advisory requests that include a human dimension component.  

For example, in 2020, as part of a recurring advice request, the European Commission asked ICES to include levels of innovative gear uptake, to consider social, economic, and behavioural drivers, and to propose ways to overcome barriers to implementation. Human dimensions are now also included more systematically in the Ecosystem Overviews through attention to links between fishing activity at sea and communities on land. And most recently, we contributed to the advice on trade-offs between fisheries and offshore wind." ​

“Change hardly ever happens without some resistance. When you look back into the history of ICES, the evolution of human dimensions has followed a circuitous path. From the 1970s onwards, attempts were made to expand ICES science and advice to include human dimensions. But there were concerns that inclusion of social and economic analyses would politicize ICES advice and would somehow jeopardize its credibility. Some of this resistance comes from lack of familiarity with methods, tools, data, and knowledge, contributes to misconceptions about their relevance or use. Particularly in a science system that has traditionally relied on quantitative data, the value of qualitative data can easily be questioned. 

I am always so happy when participants on ICES training course “Practical introduction to basic applies social science methods" conclude that they had not realised how difficult doing social science is, and that they will start involving social scientists in their projects from now on. 

Social sciences and humanities do not taint advice, but situate it by providing context, for example on trade-offs. Many members of ICES community understand this and there is clear appetite to collaborate. But we also need to be aware that full integration of human dimensions research demands changes at the science–policy interface. 

Where human dimensions research is not routinely expected, it is rarely requested; where it is not requested, it is rarely included. In this way, ICES advisory system reproduces the very conditions that still keep human dimensions research at the margins. The challenge is no longer simply to add another dimension to existing science but to rethink how ICES defines problems and explores solutions, whose knowledge counts, and how experts from different disciplinary and practitioner backgrounds can work together to shape just and responsible futures for people and the sea."  ​

"It is never easy to work with people from different disciplines. People need to learn to speak each other's language and understand that different scientific disciplines have different ways of understanding the world.  

When experiential knowledge from stakeholders such as fishers is involved, I often hear fisheries biologists or modellers say,
"Interesting story from this fisher, but unfortunately I can't integrate anecdotal evidence in my model ". But anecdotal evidence doesn't mean it's not true; it just means that it hasn't been systematically collected.  

There is also a matter of scale: fishers have practice-informed, shared observations about the development of a fish stock in the area where they fish, while scientists look at this stock on a much larger scale. This means there can be discrepancies between how fishers and scientists assess a stock. But both can be 'true'. 

Social scientists can help fisheries scientists in collecting this experiential knowledge in a rigorous way. And where that has been done, it has enriched and often improved the evidence for management advice.  

I find that people who are genuinely open to working with scientists from different disciplines or with practitioners, after a while, really see the value of approaching a problem with different lenses." ​

“What currently remains absent is a clear demonstration of how fully integrated social-ecological fisheries advice could be produced and communicated within ICES. 

I know I've just said that ICES is about more than fisheries, but for fisheries we have a lot of quantitative data and tools such as bioeconomic models available, as well as qualitative data and information, to develop a worked example of the advice.  

If we can show advice requesters an example of what social-ecological fisheries advice could look like, I think we can dispel the myth that including human dimensions in fishing opportunities advice will somehow taint our credibility as a science organization. 

If in five years, we also see more social scientists employed in marine institutes and involved in interdisciplinary expert groups in ICES, that would also be a testament of success."