Caracterización de las cepas de S aureus

The previous scenario of Civic Science illustrates the integral limitations of a science only approach, chiefly that Conservation Scientists still maintain power and distribution of knowledge. This is articulated well by Gieryn (1983) who describes how science demarcates itself from other forms of intellectual activities to preserve its authority and autonomy, thus perpetuating its control on knowledge production. Therefore the next scenario to be considered is the ‘Boundary Work Scenario’, an attempt to differentiate and bring other knowledge sources into the decision making process. The initiation of Boundary Work in management demands the creation of an intermediary, a boundary straddling organization which is able to mediate the divide between science and policy, offering a solution within environmental management that allows for the legitimization of ‘other’ knowledge sources (Guston, 2001). Boundary Work achieves this by providing a network for actants interaction through contestation and negotiation that results in the provision and translation of ‘other’ knowledge to compliment the input of science (Guston, 2001). This scenario represents the closest scenario to that predicted by Renganathan (2004) to occur through future constructions where partnerships found between “scientists, universities, conservation groups, local government, and communities” are likely to result in new information gathering processes which “may not be purely scientific as it will be based on local and indigenous knowledge systems” (p. 103).

While Renganathan does not focus on this future construction she does give examples of the management used by Rakiura (Stewart Island) Maori on their Titi93 harvests, which will be considered further in this Chapter. Using the case study of a cross-cultural participatory research partnership, or ‘Boundary Work’, occurring with Titi in Southern New Zealand (Henrik Moller et al., 2009) it can be seen how such a network may develop in a Kererū management context. The partnership that took place with Titi management involved Conservation Scientists and the Rakiura Māori, who through the Rakiura Tītī Islands Administering Body (RTIAB)94, a boundary organization, intended to develop traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and solve the problem as co-operatively problematized by both the Rukiura and Conservation Scientists as a need to achieve improved harvesting (Moller, 2009; Moller et al., 2004; Stephenson & Moller, 2009).

This research undertaken through the RTIAB is different from ‘the Great Kererū Count’ in the Civic Science scenario, which represented a one-way flow of information from the Intéressed Public to

93 _{Otherwise known as sooty shearwater or Puffinus griseu. Titi will again be used here in order to allow for} direct displacement from one frame of reference to the next, allowing for ‘free association’.

94 _{The Rakiura Tītī Islands Administering Body (RTIAB) is a “committee of 10 members elected by the} community to give effect to the Ngāi Tahu Settlement Act (1998) provisions. The RTIAB has special responsibilities for developing bylaws and management plans for what were formerly known as the “Crown Tītī Islands”. Crown Islands were mistakenly retained by the Crown for the use of other Rakiura Māori who wrongly missed out on allocations on the Beneficial Islands. Ownership of the Crown Tītī Islands was then returned to Ngāi Tahu iwi (tribe) in 1998 as part of redress for broken Treaty of Waitangi promises to provide ongoing access to mahinga kai (food gathering places) for Māori” (Henrik Moller et al., 2009, p. 3)

Conservation Scientists to interpret. The RTIAB by comparison was a boundary spanning collaboration, an inflow and mixing of both TEK and science from which management decisions were then made. Core conditions for the RTIAB to function included “trust between parties, effective communication of the science, equitable decision-making responsibility, and building scientific capability and monetary support to enable meaningful participation” ( Moller et al., 2009, p. 2). Above all, the fundamental requirement identified for success of this boundary organization was mutual respect for each party’s knowledge base e.g. science and TEK. One major distinction between this network and the current Kererū management network is that cultural harvest of the Titi is lawful, with network control achieved by the Rakiura Māori95 (ibid) however such differences also provide contrast between the differing approaches to provide more depth to the ANT analysis. Titi is also not currently classified as endangered96 and is located in remote offshore islands in Southern New Zealand unlike the Kererū, which is often located in areas with significant human populations. Kererū, as a charismatic species has more public recognition which would undoubtedly assemble more opposition to any attempt to harvest them. From a management perspective this dual use of science and TEK in boundary organizations could help intéress both Conservation Scientists and Māori in a solution for Kererū. This dual use, however, is unlikely to sufficiently enrol the Intéressed Public in any proposed solution.

The Titi network briefly referred to reveals how the involved Conservation Scientists created and then took power in the boundary spanning research organization that was intended to facilitate the TEK held by the Rukiura. This resulted in the intermediary of knowledge between Rukiura and the Scientists being controlled and selectively manipulated to allow it to fit within their scientific parameters and methodology, only using TEK when it slotted in with their framework and providing for a more ‘effective’ means of data gathering (Moller, 2009). Examining the interaction between the Conservation Scientists and the Titi in this case results in the interrogation of the scientific realism claim and the efficiency of the knowledge negotiated within the Rakiura Titi Island Administering Body (RTIAB) boundary organization. This resulted in some Titi refused to enrol in the problematization, obscuring their numbers from sampling methods and resulting in inaccuracies in the knowledge produced (Stephenson & Moller, 2009). From this analysis it can be seen how boundary organizations exhibit the potential to redistribute and translate the network to gain power in favour of those who control such organizations. Boundary work in this case can ultimately be seen

95 _{Rukiura tangata whenua are provided power through legislation of the Government and mediation through} the Waitangi Tribunal (Moller, Berkes, Lyver, & Kislalioglu, 2004). This power is conditional and can be withdrawn if conditions imposed such as suitable harvest are not met, however is unlikely to be as Kaitiaki or guardians principles are currently being employed (ibid)

96 _{There are currently estimated to be over 5 million Titi in the 36 offshore Titi Isalnd Though Titi is currently} exint in most regions of mainland New Zealand (J. Newman, Scott, Moller, & Fletcher, 2008)– There is an effort underway to re-introduce Titi from these offshore inslands to Cape Kidnappers Sanctuary in Hawke's Bay (Morgan, 2010)

to be about ‘differentiating’ rather than boundary spanning, or at least only spanning when convenient as seen when the Conservation Scientists took over the RTIAB and only selectively used TEK when it fit within their scientific framework. Moller (2000) implies that this lack of acknowledgment of TEK or other knowledge sources (not just by scientists or resource managers) in this case might be due to a "fear of the unknown" (p. 15), and the need to maintain control over knowledge generation. The ideals of Boundary organisations create an OPP through which even science is forced to pass. In this context it was inconsequential as Conservation Scientists co-opted the RTIAB but if another actant controlled the group a shift in knowledge output could conceivably occur. Actants in this case were required to enrol and interact with the RTIAB in order to have their knowledge translated, while those who do not seek to negotiate either enrolled in the translation or diverged. In the Titi case this is represented by the Intéressed Public who were not translated into the network and thus push for a divergence to a network which is not managed by Rukiura (Moller, 2009; Moller et al., 2009). A push in this case could take any number of forms including a circulation of a petition to try force the Government into ending or changing the current management practices. The Intéressed Public could also attempt to notify and mobilize the Disintéressed Public [which is arguable an even bigger macro-actant in the Titi network than in the Kererū network] as an actant in the network which is less easily ignored, forcing a new translation.

Applying this insight from a ‘Boundary Work Scenario’ to a theoretical future Kererū network reveals how Conservation Scientists and tangata whenua may ‘co-produce’ knowledge which could allow for a return to cultural harvest in some regions while demonstrating how power in the network would likely still remain with the Conservation Scientists, through their control of the boundary organization, and therefore ultimately with the Government. This is an outcome not dissimilar to the Civic Science network. In pursuing such a network it would be important to allow for putting aside of the scientific realist claim within the boundary organization, but this is unlikely to happen as Gieryn (1983) describes, using historic examples, how Scientists use boundary work to gain and control power, credibility, and resources. Even if convergence in knowledge were to occur within the boundary organization, such a situation would perpetuate a dualism of TEK and science. This would allow for Conservation Scientists and tangata whenua to gain power, while failing to enrol other actants seen in the historical network such as Kererū and the Intéressed Public who would not contribute to the ‘co production’ of knowledge. As a result actants which failed to enrol would be removed and un-intéressed in any resulting management decisions. The punctualization and stabilization of the network requires the effective enrolment of all actants in the network, which is the starting point for the final scenario; an attempt to imagine a network dominated by a more inclusive approach to knowledge production and decision-making.