Means, meanings, and contexts: A framework for integrating detailed ethnographic data into assessments of fishing community vulnerability Courtney Lyons a,n , Courtney Carothers b , Katherine Reedy c a University of Alaska Fairbanks, School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences,17101 Pt. Lena Loop Rd., Juneau, AK 99801, United States b University of Alaska Fairbanks, School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences,1007 West 3rd Ave, Suite 100, Anchorage, AK 99501, United States c Idaho State University, Department of Anthropology, 921 S 8th Ave, Pocatello, ID 83209, United States article info Article history: Received 15 September 2015 Received in revised form 7 April 2016 Accepted 7 April 2016 Keywords: Fishing community Vulnerability Ethnography Pribilof Islands Alaska abstract Current efforts at assessing the vulnerability of fishing communities center around the creation of quantitative indices. The quantification of social data, however, has several drawbacks. These include the loss of detail, removal of historical context, and obscuring of power dynamics. The Means, Meanings, and Contexts (MMC) Framework is presented as an alternative methodology, one that allows for the in- tegration of qualitative social science into the understanding of community vulnerability, drawing upon ethnographic research techniques and theories of place-making. Place-making refers to the changing relationships between the physical support offered by a landscape (means), and the relationships among place, people, and lifestyle in a community (meanings). To adequately assess community vulnerability, researchers can collect data on both means and meanings within a community. Using these data, community vulnerability is assessed by responding to a series of 12 broad prompts. Responses to these prompts are summarized at three levels of detail: detailed textual description, tabular summary, and graphical summary. Using the Pribilof Island communities of St. George and St. Paul, Alaska as examples, this framework indicates that St. George is a highly vulnerable community, while St. Paul is moderately vulnerable. These results are in stark contrast with quantitative assessments of community vulnerability, which indicate that St. George is a low to moderately vulnerable community, while St. Paul is a highly vulnerable community. Tools like the MMC Framework, therefore, help make a place for important, but complex, qualitative social data, in fisheries management. & 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd. 1. Introduction Though fisheries management issues touch on numerous social concerns, including access to resources, economic benefits, safety, and equity, US management organizations have only recently be- gun to collect data on these topics and still struggle with how to best integrate them into the decision-making process. The passing of the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) in 1996 [1] served as an important impetus in the collection of sociocultural data in fish- eries management, mandating the inclusion of geographic, in ad- dition to user-group, communities in management analysis. It also created National Standard 8, a rule meant to provide for the sus- tained participation of communities engaged in or dependent upon fisheries by calling for managers to minimize economic im- pacts of management decisions on fishing communities according to the best available science and the extent practicable [2]. Despite the current interest in and support for inclusion of social data in fisheries management generated by this legislation integration of these data into management plans remains problematic. Budget constraints limit the amount of in-depth ethnographic fieldwork social researchers can perform [3]. Thus, the majority of data in- cluded in social analysis are garnered from secondary data sources, supplemented with fieldwork when budgets permit. To further complicate matters, even when solid social data are available, they often are summarized in formats (e.g., monographs) that are dif- ficult for managers to access and integrate into management frameworks. To address some of the difficulties associated with collecting and integrating sociocultural data, many have suggested a move toward quantifying social variables for use in management pro- cesses. Quantification of social data is seen as having several ad- vantages. These advantages include: data availability and com- parability across a broad range of communities, familiarity to re- searchers used to working with quantitative fisheries and eco- system data, as well as, suitability for predictive and widely gen- eralizable modeling exercises. Examples include the development of quantitative social indicators, e.g., [4–6], which can then be used Contents lists available at ScienceDirect journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol Marine Policy http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.04.022 0308-597X/& 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd. n Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: cdlyons@alaska.edu, courtney.lyons@gmail.com (C. Lyons), clcarothers@alaska.edu (C. Carothers), reedkath@isu.edu (K. Reedy). Please cite this article as: C. Lyons, et al., Means, meanings, and contexts: A framework for integrating detailed ethnographic data into assessments of fishing community vulnerability, Mar. Policy (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.04.022i Marine Policy ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎