FISHERMEN’S PERCEPTIONS OF FISHERMAN-SCIENTIST RELATIONS IN MAINE

Improving relations between fishermen and scientists is becoming increasingly important as fisheries scientists and managers work towards incorporating fishermen in research efforts and management decisions. The history of fishermen’s resentment towards scientists and scientific institutions, particularly in New England, illustrates significant obstacles towards such efforts. Understanding the dynamics of fishermanscientist relations, then, is imperative to furthering the success of participatory efforts. However, little research has been conducted to better understand the quality of fisherman-scientist relationships, and the factors that affect them. The purpose of this study is to explore the quality of fisherman-scientist relations from the perspective of commercial fishermen in Maine, and investigate influencing factors. Eighteen lobstermen from three ports in Maine were interviewed during Fall 2013 to better understand fisherman-scientist relations. Respondents were asked about their personal characteristics, their experiences interacting with scientists, and their general perceptions of fisherman-scientist relations, relationship trends, and fishery conditions. Interviews were transcribed and coded according to grounded theory. Two categories of comments relating to fisherman-scientist relations emerged: relationship context and relationship quality indicators. Six relationship quality indicators emerged: trust, receptivity, communication, influence, satisfaction and commitment. Four factors influencing trust also emerged: competence, integrity, credibility and accountability. Results indicate that commercial fishermen in Maine tend to perceive fishermanscientist relations in a negative manner. Fishermen’s homeport, education attainment and perception of resource health tend to have substantial effect on perceptions of the fisherman-scientist relationship. Results also suggest that relationship context is a potentially significant determinant of relationship quality. It was also found that trust was the relationship quality indicator most frequently mentioned, followed by receptivity, communication and influence. Of trust factors, competence was mentioned by all respondents, suggesting that fishermen’s perceptions of scientists’ competence is likely the most substantial factor affecting trust. Findings provide scientists and managers in Maine and elsewhere valuable insight into improving relationships with fishermen, and subsequently improving participatory research efforts.

I would also like to thank my fellow Marine Affairs graduate students, who provided me with not only much need distraction and relief from our academic studies, but also support and encouragement throughout my thesis. In particular, I'd like to acknowledge Emily Scott, who was always willing and able to answer my many questions, act as a sounding board, and offered unending support and reprieve through my hardest times. I can only imagine how lost I would have been without you…not to mention hungry sans my personal chef.
Lastly, but certainly not least, I'd like to thank my wonderful, loving parents who, no matter how crazy my endeavor, have always trusted and supported me with the upmost conviction. I cannot image where I'd be today without you. I cannot thank you enough.
The need for improvements in fisherman-scientist relations and cooperation in managing fisheries and conducting research has been emphasized both in recent fisheries management literature and in the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA, 2007;Feeney et al., 2010;Johnson and van Denson, 2007;Johnson, 2010;Kaplan and McCay, 2004;Hartley and Robertson, 2006;St. Martin et al., 2007). As such, the past decade has seen a significant increase in cooperative research (Feeney et al., 2010;Johnson, 2010).
However, the history of distrust and resentment between fishermen and scientists impedes the success of these efforts, evidenced by fishermen's reluctance to participate and scientist's reluctance to acknowledge the legitimacy of fishermen's knowledge (Hartley and Robertson, 2008).
The purpose of this study is to better understand the dynamics of fishermanscientist relations in Maine by exploring fishermen's perceptions, and the factors and experiences that influence them. This research will aim to better understand how 2 fishermen perceive fisherman-scientist relations, and what factors contribute to their perceptions.
Chapter Two will present background information on participatory research, as well as studies investigating perceptions of relationship quality and trust in various fields of study. An overview of Maine fisheries will also be presented. Chapter Three will describe the methodology used in the thesis, and provide an overview of the study sample interviewed. Chapter Four will provide the results of interview analyses. Chapter Five will discuss key findings, implications, and suggestions for future research. Lastly, Chapter Six will present conclusions.

Participatory research
In fisheries science, participatory research is defined as research that incorporates both scientists and fishermen (MSA, 2007). There are multiple levels of participatory research, which depend on the involvement of fishermen in research processes. The spectrum ranges from cooperative research, which involves low levels of fishermen participation, such as the use of catch data, to collaborative research, which involves high levels of fishermen participation, such as the inclusion of fishermen in developing research questions and methods (NRC, 2008). For the purpose of this thesis, the term participatory research includes all levels. There are several potential benefits of participatory research (Johnson and van Denson, 2007). First, participatory research can result in optimal data by widening the scope of knowledge and resources (Johnson and van Denson, 2007). Second, the inclusion of fishermen in research processes is thought to increase the legitimacy of data and regulations, which can increase compliance with fisheries regulations (Johnson and van Denson, 2007). Last, empirical evidence shows that participatory research bridges the gap between fishermen and scientists, vastly improving relations (Johnson and van Denson, 2007;Hartley and Robertson, 2006).
Studies focusing on the effects of participatory research on fisherman-scientist relations in New England, however, are minimal. The most notable research was conducted by Robertson (2006b, 2008), who explore fishermen's and scientists' perceptions of the benefits and challenges of efforts by the Northeast Consortium. Findings show that the involvement of fishermen in such research has resulted in improved communication, trust, respect and understanding between fishermen and scientists. Conversely, challenges exist due to a general distrust of fishermen toward scientists as a result of poor communication between the two parties, distrust of scientist's motives and interests, lack of shared values, and perceived negative attitudes of scientists towards fishermen (Hartley and Robertson, 2008).
The effects of participatory efforts on fisherman-scientist relations are complex.
On one hand, tumultuous relations between fishermen and scientists threaten to hinder the process and benefits of participatory research. On the other hand, efforts towards participatory research have proven to bridge the divide between groups by enhancing communication, respect, trust and understanding (Hartley and Robertson, 2008;Feeney et al., 2011). It can be concluded, then, that while the predominant assertion of current literature is that participatory research bridges gaps between scientists and fishermen, the success of these research programs are limited by the unstable nature of the relationships between these two stakeholder groups. Little research has been conducted to better understand how different factors influence relationships between fishermen and scientists. As such, the solution (participatory research) to a problem has been offered before the problem is fully understood.

Measuring Perceptions of Relationships
Though it is widely known that relations between scientists and fishermen in the northeast US are less than optimal, there are few studies that have attempted to assess the quality of the relationship by measuring perceptions. There is, however, extensive literature in the public relations field devoted to assessing organization-public relationships (OPR), which may provide a potential framework for assessing fishermanscientist relations. Ledingham and Bruning (1998) define OPR as "the state that exists between an organization and its key publics in which the actions of either entity impact the economic, social, political and/or cultural well-being of the other entity". Determining methods to measure the quality of these relationships has been the key focus of many public relations studies for the past few decades. In particular, studies aimed to define the characteristics that best represent the quality of the relationship. These characteristics, known as relationship dimensions, are used to construct surveys administered to actors within the relationship in order to measure relationship quality. Researchers have developed various models to measure relationship quality along a large variety of dimensions.

Definition
Referencing Studies

Trust
The level of one's confidence in and acceptance of their own vulnerability to another. Can be assessed as one's opinions of another's levels of integrity, dependability and competence.
Of the many relationship dimensions studies propose as significant indicators of relationship quality, trust, satisfaction, commitment, control mutuality, and openness emerged most often, and are considered the standard measures (Table 1).
These dimensions are widely used in public relations studies to measure relationship quality. However, it is not clear whether these dimensions would be appropriate or relevant in assessing fisherman-scientist relations. It would be useful, then, to further explore the OPR relationship dimensions in the context of fisherman-scientist relations, and in doing so begin to develop a framework specific to such relations.

Trust and influencing factors
While there is little literature assessing commercial fisherman-scientist relations by measuring perceptions, there is an extensive literature on trust between natural resource stakeholders and institutions. In particular, studies focus on trust between resource users and resource scientists and managers (e.g. Leahy & Anderson, 2007;Jacobsen et al., 2001;Gray et al., 2012;Glenn et al., 2012;Davenport et al., 2007).
The development of trust between stakeholders and institutions (e.g., government agencies, natural resource organizations) in the natural resource realm is dependent on a variety of factors (Table 2). Leahy & Anderson (2007) discuss public trust in management processes as hindered by lack of trust in the federal government, shared values and interests, procedural fairness, and technical competency (Table 2). Gray et al.'s (2012) research on trust between recreational fishermen and scientists demonstrates a high correlation between trust and both the health of the resource and levels of user participation in research and management processes. Likewise, Davenport et al.'s (2007) research on community members' trust of natural resource management emphasizes that past experiences and levels of participation influence trust. In particular, Davenport et al. (2007) find that instances in which participants experienced low engagement and empowerment, unclear communication, conflicting values and slow progress in participatory processes and outcomes affected levels of trust, and subsequently relations.  Davenport et al., 2007Glenn et al., 2012 Competence The degree to which scientific institutions are perceived as legitimate sources of knowledge. Davenport et al., 2007Leahy & Anderson, 2008Glenn et al., 2012 Engagement/Participation The level of past and present interaction between parties. Davenport et al., 2007Gray et al., 2012 Shared values/vision The degree to which both parties share interests and goals. Davenport et al., 2007Leahy & Anderson, 2008Glenn et al., 2012 Resource health/capacity The perceived level of resource health. Davenport et al., 2007Gray et al., 2012 Benevolence The degree to which scientific institutions are perceived as acting in stakeholders' best interests. Glenn et al., 2012 Receptivity The degree to which scientific institutions are perceived as open to fishermen knowledge. Glenn et al., 2012 Integrity The degree to which scientific institutions are perceived as using information objectively and morally. Glenn et al., 2012 Predictability The degree to which scientific institutions are perceived as consistent and reliable. Glenn et al., 2012 Credibility The degree to which scientific institutions are perceived as independent and impartial. Glenn et al., 2012Glenn et al. (2012 focused their research on trust within fisheries scientific communities, and posited nine components influencing trust levels. Lastly, both Gray et al. (2012) and Jacobson et al. (2011) discuss the role that scientist type has on stakeholder trust, finding that when highly associated with the federal government and regulations scientists are less trusted by stakeholders.
Notably, a considerable literature on trust and relationships exists outside the natural resource realm. While these studies are predominantly within the public relations field, and focus on trust between the public and organizations, they also provide an important overview of factors that influence trust. Most importantly, this research offers various categories of factors that influence trust (Table 3).

Categories of trust factors
Lane & Bachmann, 1998 micro-level (relationship specific) and macro-level (external) factors Whitener et al., 1998 individual, relational, and organizational factors Payne & Clark, 2003 dispositional, interpersonal and situational factors Dietz & Den Hartog, 2006 trustor, trustee and relationship characteristics There is considerable overlap among the categories of factors influencing trust from the natural resources literature and the public relations literature. In particular, themes related to the individual (e.g., fishermen demographics), the situation (e.g., the context of the relationship), and characteristics of relationships (e.g., levels of communication, etc.) are prevalent. This thesis research aims to explore how the factors identified in the literature relate to fishermen and scientists in Maine.

Maine
Fishermen and fishing organizations in Maine are involved in more participatory research projects than those in any other New England state ( Figure 1). As the Department of Marine Resources (2010) asserts in research priority documents: "Maine fishermen have become full partners in establishing the research questions and pursuing the answers to those questions through collaborative research. Maine has been a leader in the region for engaging fishermen, scientists, and managers in the quest for better information on which to manage its fisheries." (p.2) However, despite high industry involvement in participatory research in Maine, there is still tension between fishermen and scientists. In particular, Maine fishermen remain highly resentful of scientists (Cresta, 2012). This situation highlights the need to better understand fisherman-scientist relations in the state, and provides a useful context in which to conduct this research.
The lobster fishery dominates the fishing industry in Maine, accounting for over two thirds of annual landings (DMR, 2013). As such, this study focuses on Maine commercial lobster fishermen. The past few decades have seen record highs for lobster landings, with catch increasing 239.9% since 1995 (Table 4). However, recent years have seen the supply of lobster far surpass the demand, and as such ex-vessel prices have decreased dramatically (Table 4).  This study was conducted in three different ports in Maine: Freeport, Harpswell and Stonington ( Figure 2). To obtain data representative of different areas of the coast, the following criteria were used to select ports: 1. Location: Coastal Maine can be divided into three regions: Southern, Midcoast and Downeast. Each port selected represents one of these regions; Freeport is Southern, Harpswell Mid-coast, and Stonington Downeast.
Notably, Harpswell and Freeport are both located within Casco Bay. I purposefully chose two ports close to one another to examine how physical proximity to one another affected results.
2. Size: For the purpose of this study, port size will be measured by number of vessels operating out of the port and the value of annual landings of the port (Table 7). Maine fishing ports range in size, from 60+ vessels to less than 10.   (DMR, 2014). However, only the top ten ports by value are reported. Stonington is the largest port in Maine, but neither Freeport nor Harpswell are within the top ten ports.

Study Sample
A total of 18 fishermen were interviewed, six from each port. Permitted fishermen from each port were assigned numbers. The numbers were sorted using a random number generator and the first six fishermen from each port were invited to participate in the interviews. Of the fishermen contacted, only two of twenty did not participate, giving a response rate of 90%.

Data Collection
Interviews were conducted both in person and over the phone, and lasted between 20 minutes and 2 hours. Each interview consisted of three parts. Respondents were first asked a variety of demographic questions pertaining to their fishing activities, fishing operation size, age and level of education. Respondents were then asked a series of openended questions, which loosely followed an interview protocol (see Appendix A). This type of semi-structured interview was useful because it allowed for flexibility to follow leads, but also ensured there was some structure to the conversation (Bernard, 2002).
I began by asking fishermen to discuss interactions they have had with scientists, and prompted them to detail the circumstances of the interaction, how relations between themselves and the scientist(s) were during the interaction, and their level of satisfaction with their experiences. The sequence of questions was shaped by the comments and answers of the fishermen. Fishermen's responses were recorded in detail by hand during the interviews.
The interview concluded with a short structured survey using likert-scale questions (see Appendix A). There were three categories of survey statements: relationship statements, trend statements and resource statements. There were seven relationship statements, to which respondents responded from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). There were four trend comments, to which respondents responded from much worse (1) to much better (5). There were three resource statements, to which respondents responded from very poor (1) to excellent (5).

Quantitative
Structured surveys were analyzed by averaging responses for different demographic variables (port, level of education, age) to show possible trends in fishermen's perceptions.

Qualitative
Open-ended interviews were analyzed according to the grounded theory approach, through which the researcher identifies categories and themes that arise from interviews and begins to develop theories (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Grounded theory was used as it is a useful approach when conducting exploratory studies, and aims to develop theories that will act as a basis for further research. I coded interviews line by line, following a framework that I developed in the initial stages of coding ( Figure 3).

I began by
identifying what I call the "tone" of each comment. Tone indicates interviewees' general attitude when speaking about a particular topic, and was coded as negative, neutral or positive.
I then coded the category of each comment. Two categories emerged during coding: context and relationship quality indicators. Context comments were those that described the circumstance of the relationship or interaction that the respondent was discussing.
Two subcategories emerged within context comments, scientist type and interaction type.
Scientist type referred to the affiliation of the scientist that respondents were discussing (state, federal, university, etc.), and interaction type identified the setting of the interaction being discussed (public hearings, lobster zone meetings, observers on board, one-on-one, etc.). Relationship quality indicator comments were those that alluded to the respondents' perceptions of the quality of fisherman-scientist relations. Relationship quality indicators first emerged as groupings of specific aspects of the relationship that fishermen were discussing. For example, comments detailing the nature of dialog between fishermen and scientists or their attitudes towards one another when conversing were grouped as "communication comments". As more comments were added to the grouping, an operational definition of communication was formed, and it became a relationship quality indicator. In total, six relationship quality indicators emerged throughout coding: commitment, communication, receptivity, influence, satisfaction and trust (Table 9). Table 9. Relationship quality indicators

Relationship Quality Indicator Operational Definition
Trust Fishermen confidence in and acceptance of their own vulnerability to one another.

Receptivity
Fishermen/scientist open-mindedness to one another's ideas and opinions.

Communication
Respectful, open and transparent ongoing dialog between fishermen and scientists.

Influence
The power and influence fishermen perceive themselves as having within the relationship.

Satisfaction
Fishermen contentment with processes and outcomes associated with the relationship.

Commitment
Fishermen belief that the relationship is worthwhile.
Trust was by far the most prevalent relationship quality indicator, and it became apparent throughout coding that there were a variety of factors influencing respondents' trust of scientists, or their perceptions of scientists' trust of them. These factors are from here on discussed as trust factors. The four trust factors that emerged are competence, integrity, credibility and accountability (Table 10).

Trust Factor Operational Definition
Competence Fishermen perception of the legitimacy and accuracy of scientist's knowledge.

Integrity
Fishermen perception of scientist's honesty, benevolence and selflessness.

Credibility
Fishermen perception of scientists as acting in an independent and impartial manner.

Accountability
Fishermen perception of whether scientists are held responsible for their actions.
Once coding was complete, the numbers of comments in each tone (negative, neutral, positive) were summed for all interviews and for each demographic variable (port, education attainment, age). The prevalence of relationship quality indicators and and scientists. Direct quotes from respondents were also used to provide richer insight into the relationship between scientists and fishermen.

Limitations
Relationships are products of unique circumstances and actors, and as such vary greatly. Factors that may influence relationship quality between recreational fishermen and science institutions in Europe (e.g. Dedual et al., 2012) may be distinctive from those that influence relationship quality between commercial fishermen and scientists in Maine.
There can be some danger in applying theories developed from relationship case studies when conducting region-specific research. While literature discussing relations between stakeholders and scientific and management institutions in the natural resource realm exists, there has been minimal research conducted on fisherman-scientist relations in the Northeast United States. As such, this thesis utilized the grounded-theory approach, aiming to avoid biasing results with preconceived assumptions.
There are, however, dangers to heed when utilizing grounded theory. As an iterative process of coding, stories told and comments made during interviews are subject to the researcher's own biases, opinions and interpretation. One could argue that results may not be as objective as those obtained from quantitative research methods.
Furthermore, interviews conducted for this thesis were not voice-recorded to minimize discomfort of respondents. Interviews were recorded manually throughout the interview, possibly resulting in further researcher partiality. To triangulate qualitative results from the interviews and strengthen the overall findings, Likert-scale surveys were also administered.

Respondent Characteristics
Eighteen fishermen were interviewed for this study. Six of the respondents reported Freeport as their homeport, six Harpswell and six Stonington. The average age of respondents was 52 (Table 11). Ten respondents (  All respondents reported lobster as their primary fishery. Seven respondents (38.9%) have solely participated in the lobster fishery, while nine (50%) report having participated in a total of two to three fisheries and two (11.1%) in four to five (Table 11).
Additional fisheries mentioned include: scallops (diving and dragging), groundfish (hooking, dragging and gillnetting), tuna (rod and reel), shrimp, urchins, clams, mussels, and elvers. On average, respondents have been fishing commercially for 28 years (Table   11). Operational size was measured by four factors: boat size, crew size, number of traps set and average annual landings. Boat size ranged from 19 to 44 feet, and averaged 34 feet (Table 11). Crew size ranged from zero to two, and on average was one (Table   10). Respondents set between 140 and 800 lobster traps (800 is the maximum allowed), and on average set 650 (Table 11). Lastly, annual landings of lobster averaged 47,000 pounds, and varied from 2,000 to 150,000 pounds (Table 11).

Port Characteristics
Respondents' characteristics varied slightly by homeport. Harpswell fishermen were, on average, older than Freeport and Stonington fishermen, and, subsequently, had been commercially fishing the longest (Table 12). Though Stonington fishermen were on average younger than Freeport fishermen, respondents from both ports averaged 27 years fishing commercially (Table 12). The majority of Harpswell respondents had continued their education beyond high school; three had taken some college and one had completed college ( Figure 5). Half of Freeport respondents continued their education beyond high school; one had taken some college courses and two had completed college ( Figure 5).
Lastly, only one Stonington fishermen had continued his education beyond high school and finished college ( Figure 5).
Average operation size of respondents from each port varied (Table 12).
Harpswell fishermen averaged the smallest boat size, number of traps set, and annual landings. Freeport fishermen averaged the largest boat size and number of traps set.
However, the average annual landings (70,000 lbs) of Stonington fishermen were significantly higher than both Harpswell and Freeport (Table 12).

Survey Results
Overall, interviewees responded in a negative tone to survey statements. In particular, respondents tended to disagree with relationship statements (Figure 6a). Reponses to trend statements tended to be neutral ( Figure 6b). On average, respondents felt that relations, communication and respect between fishermen and scientists are getting neither worse nor better (μ=3.1, μ=3.1, μ=3, respectively).
However, respondents slightly disagreed that trust between both parties is improving Resource statement responses were varied (Figure 6c). In general, respondents tended to feel that the health of the lobster resource was good (μ=4.2). However, recent market prices were generally scored between very poor and poor (μ=1.6). As a result, respondents generally felt that the overall condition of the lobster fishery was slightly above average (μ=3.4).  Fishermen trust scientists' motives.
Scientists trust fishermen motives.
Fishermen trust scientists' knowledge.
Scientists trust fishermen knowledge.
Fishermen respect scientists.
Scientists respect fishermen.

Communication between fishermen and scientists is open and transparent.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Relations between fishermen and scientists are getting: Communication between scientists and fishermen is getting: Trust between fishermen and scientists is getting: Respect between fishermen and scientists is getting:

Much Worse
Much Better 1 2 3 4 5 The health of the resource is: Recent market prices for the resource are: In my opinion, the overall condition of the fishery is:

Homeport
Stonington fishermen tended to be the most negative (i.e. disagree more and/or agree less) when responding to relationship statements than other respondents ( Figure   7a). Notably, the only statement Stonington fishermen were more positive towards ( Stonington fishermen were also the most negative of respondents towards trend statements ( Figure 7b). On average, Stonington fishermen tended to believe that relations, communication, respect and trust between fishermen and scientists are getting worse (μ=2.8, μ=2.7, μ=2.2, μ=2.5, respectively). Harpswell fishermen, however, generally felt that relations, communication, respect and trust are getting slightly better (μ=3. 5, μ=3.5, μ=3.2, μ=3.5, respectively).
Fishermen from all ports generally responded that the recent health of the lobster resource is good (μ ≥ 4) ( Figure 7c). Conversely, respondents from all ports generally responded that recent market prices for the lobster resource are poor; Harpswell and Freeport fishermen (μ=1.2, μ=1.5, respectively) responding slightly more negatively than Stonington fishermen (μ=2). Responses to the overall condition of the lobster fishery were more varied. Freeport fishermen generally felt overall conditions were slightly below average (μ=2.8), and Harpswell fishermen generally felt they were slightly above  Fishermen trust scientists' motives.
Scientists trust fishermen motives.
Fishermen trust scientists' knowledge.
Scientists trust fishermen knowledge.
Fishermen respect scientists.
Scientists respect fishermen. Relations between fishermen and scientists are getting: Communication between scientists and fishermen is getting: Trust between fishermen and scientists is getting: Respect between fishermen and scientists is getting: The health of the resource is: Recent market prices for the resource are: In my opinion, the overall condition of the fishery is: average (μ=3.2). Notably, Stonington fishermen tended to feel the overall condition of the fishery was between good and excellent (μ=4.3).
All age groups tended to feel that the health of the lobster resource is good (μ ≥4), responses becoming more positive the younger the age group (Figure 8c). Similarly, all Fishermen trust scientists' motives.
Scientists trust fishermen motives.
Fishermen trust scientists' knowledge.
Scientists trust fishermen knowledge.
Fishermen respect scientists.
Scientists respect fishermen. age groups generally felt that the recent market prices of lobster are poor (μ ≤ 2), responses becoming more negative the older the age group. Responses to the overall condition of the lobster fishery varied. Younger fishermen tended to feel that the overall condition is good, while respondents from the ages of 45-64 generally felt conditions are slightly above average and older (65+) fishermen that overall conditions are slightly below average (μ=4.0, μ=3.5, μ=2.8, respectively).

Education Attainment
Respondents that did not complete school beyond high school tended to be the Fishermen that did not complete school beyond high school on average felt that relations, communication, respect and trust between fishermen and scientists are getting slightly worse, and were the most negative of all age groups (μ=2. 8, μ=2.8, μ=2.3, μ=2.5, respectively) ( Figure 9b). Fishermen that completed college and some college on average felt that relations, communication, respect and trust between fishermen and scientists are either staying the same or getting slightly better (μ ≥ 3).  Respondents of all education levels generally felt that the health of the lobster resource was good (μ ≥ 4) (Figure 9c). Conversely, respondents of all education levels tended to feel that recent market prices were poor (μ>2), those with some college completed feeling the most negative (μ=1). Fishermen with some college completed were also the most negative about the overall condition of the lobster fishery, on average responding that conditions are below average (μ=2.8). Respondents with college completed and with only high school completed tended to feel the overall condition of the fishery is good (μ=4, μ=3.5, respectively).

Interview Results
Based Tone patterns emerging from interviews tend to coincide with those that emerged from survey responses. Fishermen from Stonington tended to be the least positive respondents during interviews, and those from Harpswell the most positive. Fishermen who had not completed school beyond high school tended to be the most negative respondents during interviews, and those with some college the least negative. Tone by age group is the least varied; however, respondents from the ages 45 to 64 tended to be slightly less positive than others. Figure 10. Tone of interview comments by port, education level and age group.
Of the total comments made by interview respondents, 12.4% were categorized as context comments and 87.6% were categorized as relationship quality indicators.
Notably, the tone of context comments varied according to interaction type and scientist type. When discussing one-on-one interactions, such as having observers on board their vessel, respondents generally did so in a positive manner. However, when discussing interactions occurring in meeting settings, such as Zone Council meetings and DMR hearings, respondents adopted a negative attitude. In the case of scientist type, respondents tended to be positive when discussing interactions with University and NGO scientists, and negative when discussing interactions with State and Federal scientists.

Relationship Quality Indicators
Interviews were dominated by comments related to the quality of a respondent's relationship with scientists (relationship quality indicators). The six relationship quality  (Table 13).
Indicators most often emerged as either respondents' own perceptions of fishermanscientist relations, or as respondents' beliefs of scientists' perceptions of the relationship.
Of all the indicators, trust was discussed most often, accounting for 53% of total indicator comments, and mentioned by all respondents (Table 13, Figure 11). Though the remaining five indicators were each mentioned by over half of the respondents, none accounted for more than 13% of total indicator comments (Table 12, Figure 11).

Influence
The power and influence fishermen perceive themselves as having within the relationship.

Satisfaction
Fishermen contentment with processes and outcomes associated with the relationship.

Commitment
Fishermen belief that the relationship is worthwhile. 10 (55.6%) Figure 11. Relative frequency of relationship quality indicator comments.

Receptivity
Receptivity relates to the open-mindedness of fishermen and scientists toward one another's ideas and knowledge. Receptivity was mentioned by 16 of the 18 respondents, and accounted for 12% of all relationship quality indicator comments (Table 13, Figure   11). The majority of receptivity comments were mentioned in a negative manner. Positive mentions of scientist receptivity almost always occurred when respondents were discussing one-on-one interactions with scientists. When discussing such interactions, fishermen often felt scientists afforded them more respect and were more willing to engage in meaningful dialogue.

Communication
Communication relates to respectful and transparent dialogue between fishermen and scientists. Communication was mentioned by 12 of the 18 respondents, and accounted for 13% of all relationship quality indicator comments (Table 13, Figure 11).
The majority of communication comments were mentioned in a negative manner.

Most respondents indicated that communication was poor between fishermen
and scientists during meeting interactions. It became evident throughout most interviews that poor communication quality was, in large part, due to an actual lack of interaction that occurs at meetings. For instance, a Stonington fisherman noted, "There's not a whole lot of interaction at meetings-scientist speak their piece, lobstermen speak theirs, and that is that." Respondents frequently cited a fisherman's tendency to become impatient and "hot" at meetings as a hindrance towards productive and meaningful dialogue. Fishermen also expressed that scientists, particularly those from "outta state", do not respond well to the often blunt and harsh demeanor of most fishermen. Diversity of opinion among fishermen was also discussed as a barrier to communication. As one Stonington fisherman noted: "Lobstermen are fiercely individualistic, which can overwhelm scientists and managers in meetings, and then they just shut off to what guys [fishermen] are saying." The perceived attitude of scientists was also referenced as presenting a barrier to achieving quality dialogue between both parties. Many respondents expressed distaste towards the manner in which scientists seemed to present themselves, which they said discouraged their own efforts towards positive communication. As a Harpswell fisherman concluded when discussing meetings: "It's a lot how they [scientists] present themselves.
If they come down with a 'know it all' attitude they aren't going to be received well. If they are relaxed and open, things will go okay." Lastly, respondents often expressed frustration at the manner in which scientists relate their knowledge. Many felt that scientists do not thoroughly explain their research and results, and utilize "scientific jargon" that fishermen are not familiar with.

Positive communication comments almost always occurred when respondents
were discussing their one-on-one interactions with scientists. During these interactions, respondents expressed that communication was more amiable and open, and noted a sense of mutual respect. Furthermore, respondents who mentioned communication positively often commented that scientists were speaking on "the same level" as them.

Influence
Influence relates to fishermen's perceptions of the level of power and voice they hold within the scientist-fishermen relationship. Influence was mentioned by 10 of the 18 respondents, and accounted for 8% of all relationship quality indicator comments (Table   13, Figure 11). Influence was always discussed in a negative manner.
Many respondents expressed continual frustration with the level of powerlessness they felt when interacting with scientists, noting that no matter what fishermen do, nothing ever changes or goes their way. Often, respondents noted a greater sense of powerlessness when confronted with scientists at meetings. One Stonington fisherman commented, when discussing meetings; "They'll [scientists] listen to us, but don't do anything. Everything we say or do just gets filed in the back-they're going to do what they're going to do." The same fisherman also expressed perplexity that scientists continue the "charade of caring", saying: "It doesn't make much sense to have these meetings when they're going to do whatever [they want] anyways." Another Stonington fisherman felt that "if fishermen have more voice, more power, then more would attend meetings and there would be more cooperation [among scientists and fishermen]."

Satisfaction
Satisfaction relates to fishermen's contentments with the processes and outcomes associated with their interactions with scientists. Satisfaction was mentioned by 14 of the 18 respondents, and accounted for 8% of all indicator comments (Table 13, Figure 11).
Interestingly, 40% of satisfaction comments made were positive, a relatively high percentage amongst relationship quality indicators.
Negative satisfaction mentions often revolved around respondents' discontent with their inability to effect any change. Many respondents also expressed frustration that interactions with scientists had not fulfilled their expectations.
Positive satisfaction was most frequently mentioned when respondents were discussing one-on-one interactions with scientists. One Stonington fisherman discussed his gratification in working with a University scientist, stating: "I love to have scientists on board-we can all learn a lot from each other. I took out a UNH scientist on my boat once and [we] went diving. We both learned a lot. I've been fishing a long time, and I learned a ton." Similarly, a Freeport fisherman related the positive experience of having observers aboard his vessel: "I've taken observers out and done surveysit was no problem, I liked seeing them do their work, and appreciated them getting into the field." Notably, younger respondents tended to discuss satisfaction in a more positive manner than most. One respondent in his twenties explained this, stating: "I don't feel as restricted by regulations or as negative toward scientists [as older fishermen] because it has always been this way for me. I think many people my age feel similarly."

Commitment
Commitment relates to fishermen's belief as to whether the relationship is worthwhile or not. Commitment was mentioned by 10 of the 18 respondents, and accounted for 6% of all indicator comments (Table 13, Figure 11). The majority of commitment comments were mentioned in a negative manner.
Respondents who expressed little belief that fisherman-scientist relations are worthwhile cited time and effort constraints and their own indifference and perceived powerlessness as primary drivers. Those indifferent to the relationship often stated opinions of wanting to "stay out of the drama" and "just go to work, come home, and be left alone." Other respondents indicated they had been driven to not care, as one Stonington fisherman commented: "I don't go to meetings anymore because scientists weren't listening to what anyone had to say, and nothing was changing." Frequently respondents expressed lack of commitment to the relationship by stating they lack both time and money. One Harpswell fisherman noted that it is "too expensive to go to meetings" and that he could "not afford to be driving around and not be fishing for days." Others disagreed with having to do extra work without receiving compensation, feeling that more and more they are doing scientists' jobs for them.
Positive commitment was most frequently mentioned when respondents were discussing their desires to work toward sustaining both the ecosystem and industry. One Stonington fisherman in particular spoke in-depth about conservation projects he has been involved in, and emphasized his willingness to work with scientists further on such efforts.
Respondents also expressed a desire to work with scientists so that both parties could continue to learn from one another. When asked if he would be willing to participate in cooperative research efforts, a Harpswell fisherman responded, "If approached, I would. I would appreciate scientists knowing first hand what I do every day." Similarly, another Harpswell fisherman noted, "As well as to continue learning, fishermen want to work with scientists to save the industry."

Trust
Trust was by far the dominant relationship quality indicator discussed by the respondents. Respondents discussed fishermen's distrust of scientists as well as their perceptions of scientists' distrust of fishermen. Throughout these discussions, four distinct factors emerged that seemed to influence fishermen's trust and distrust of scientists: competence, integrity, credibility, and accountability (Table 14).  Figure 12). Generally, competence was discussed as either the respondent's own perception of scientist's knowledge, or the respondent's speculations of scientists' perceptions of fishermen's knowledge.
When discussing their own opinions, respondents most often did so negatively, criticizing a variety of aspects of scientist's competence. Many respondents expressed continual frustration with fish surveying and stock assessment methods. Respondents frequently noted that scientific methods lacked common sense, both temporally and spatially. In particular, respondents recounted witnessing survey trawls conducted in areas where there are no fish, and during off-seasons. As a Stonington fisherman questioned, "Would you go down to the Louisiana bayou and look for giraffes?" Perplexity was further expressed towards not only the methods by which surveys are conducted, but also the manner by which data are then used. When one Freeport fisherman was asked to elaborate on his frustration with scientific methods, he replied: "Well the science of trawls is totally ludicrous. Take one day, I'm hauling offshore and see a research trawl. I've got 36 fish to their one, and there's the first problem. And then they've got this phony formula they use on this phony data-you can't apply formulas to nature." A Harpswell fisherman expressed similar frustration when discussing the use of fisheries dependent data, saying, "They look at our landings data and think they know stuff, and then they recommend rules based on bogus data." He went on to discuss the absurdity of using landings data to compute stock populations, arguing that landings do not equate to fish populations.
Respondents also noted scientists' lack of experience on the water when mentioning competence. It was evident that the fishermen in this study placed high value on experience-based knowledge, which most found scientists severely lacking in. As one "Everyone everywhere is saying there is no cod, but I have been up and down the coast and on and off shore looking, and I have seen cod everywhere. I could've rowed my boat with cod, there was so much." Misgivings towards scientists' competence were also expressed by respondents' perceptions of scientist's arrogance. Respondents criticized that fishermen see holes in scientific knowledge that scientists refuse to acknowledge. As a Stonington fisherman expressed: "No one's got it figured-we don't know, they don't know. But the difference is they think they know. Respondents also specified language as a significant barrier in scientists' positive perceptions of fishermen's competence. One Stonington fisherman in particular discussed this at length, stating at one point: "There are some fishermen that are very smart fishermen, and know the ocean better than most, but they are very illiterate, cannot express themselves well in written or spoken word, so their knowledge of the ocean ecosystem gets disregarded [by scientists]." Only two fishermen mentioned competence positively. Positive comments were nondescript; one fisherman stating, "They seem to know what they are talking about" and the other commenting, "I don't generally disagree with the science stuff I read."

Integrity
Comments coded as integrity most often pertained to respondents' perceptions of scientists' selflessness, honesty and benevolence towards fishermen. Integrity was the second most frequently mentioned trust factor, accounting for 23% of total trust comments and mentioned by 13 of the 18 respondents ( Figure 12, Table 14). Overall, integrity was discussed in a negative manner, with only 3 of 13 respondents mentioning the factor in a positive light.
Respondents most frequently discussed scientist integrity in terms of selflessness/selfishness. As one Freeport fisherman discussed: "I don't trust them [scientists] because there are no consequences for them, so what does it matter to them? They are just looking out for themselves." A Stonington fisherman elaborated on this concept, saying: "If scientists went to work everyday and weren't finding any change or weren't proving anything, then they wouldn't have a job, so they go out and look for problems. Their job is to get information, whether it is right or wrong." Another Stonington fisherman reiterated perceptions of scientist self bias, stating: "More and more they are just looking out for themselves, rather than the well-being of fishermen.
[…] Seems to me they just keep creating problems so they can solve them and keep their job." Many respondents took discussions of scientist self bias a step further, expressing the belief that scientists are specifically "out to get us". A Stonington fisherman demonstrated this mentality, stating: "State and feds are just licking their chops, waiting for things to go bad so they can say 'I told you so'. But things just keep getting better, and they keep getting more frustrated because it'll mean less regulations for us [fishermen]." A few respondents mentioned their belief that scientists perceive fishermen as self-biased. While these comments were brief, the respondents were certain that scientists believe fishermen to be concerned only with their own well-being rather than conservation of the resource.
Lastly, some respondents expressed frustrations with what they see as scientist dishonesty. One Freeport fisherman in particular mentioned multiple occasions in which he felt lied to by scientists, recounting: "I have heard scientists saying one thing in private, but then towing another line in public when discussing management recommendations." Positive integrity comments made by respondents were brief and fleeting.
However, such comments generally acknowledged the difficult position today's scientists are in, and that, despite being misinformed, they are "probably alright guys".

Credibility
Comments coded as credibility were those that referenced respondents' perceptions of scientists' impartiality. Credibility was mentioned by 13 out of 18 respondents, and accounted for 17% of all trust factor comments (Table 14, Figure 12).
Overall, credibility was discussed in a negative manner, only two of 13 respondents mentioning the factor in a positive tone. In particular, two themes emerged when respondents discussed scientist credibility: management-bias and conservation-bias.
The majority of respondents were concerned by what this thesis has termed "management-bias", in which scientists are perceived as too closely linked with management entities and decision-making to act impartially. Though not all respondents cited management-bias directly, all respondents mentioned management and regulations when asked scientist-specific questions.
When discussing management-bias directly, respondents asserted that "they [scientists and managers] come from the same building up there" and are "pretty much in each other's pockets". Stonington fishermen in particular were adamant that scientists are management "puppets", one fisherman stating: "If managers want to make certain cuts or regulations, scientists will search for the proof to back them up." Conservation-bias indicates respondents' perceptions that scientists are inclined to value conservation above all else, and therefore lack credibility. Conservation-bias often emerged in comments related to the validity of scientific results and management suggestions. For instance, one Freeport fisherman, when discussing "science-backed regulations", stated: "They are putting us out of business for the sake of conservation, whether or not it is actually necessary." Respondents made only two positive credibility comments. One Freeport fisherman felt that management bias is lessening, stating; "These days science is becoming a matter of best science rather than trying to get grant money etc. It is less bureaucratic." Another Freeport fisherman expressed his preference towards non-governmental scientists, saying; "I feel better about university and NGO science. It is more exploratory and open, and less connected to regulations."

Accountability
Accountability relates to fishermen's perceptions of whether scientists are responsible for and affected by their own actions. Accountability was mentioned by half of the respondents, and accounted for 11% of all trust factors comments (Table 14, Figure   12). Accountability was always discussed in a negative manner.
Specifically, respondents mentioning accountability expressed suspicion towards scientists, as they believe that when scientists report incorrect findings (which are in turn the basis of regulations), only fishermen suffer the consequences. In one interview, a Freeport fisherman commented: "The decisions made based on science and scientists' suggestions are only costing the fishermen, not the scientists." Furthermore, respondents expressed a desire for scientists to be held accountable for their mistakes.

Overview
Six relationship quality indicators emerged in the interviews: trust, receptivity, communication, influence, satisfaction and commitment (Table 9). Of the six relationship quality indicator categories that emerged, trust was by far the most prevalent.
Communication, receptivity and influence were also important indicators. The four trust factors that emerged in the interviews included competence, integrity, credibility and accountability (Table 10). Overall, fishermen in this study discussed fisherman-scientist relations in a negative manner throughout the interviews. Perceptions of relationships varied depending on a variety of factors, including fishermen's characteristics, fishery conditions and the context of the fisherman-scientist interaction being discussed ( Figure   13). Figure 13. Potential factors influencing fisherman-scientist relations.
The following sections will explore the potential effects of a variety of factors on relationship quality and fishermen's perceptions of relations. The emergence of relationship quality indicators and trust factors and their connectivity to previous relationship studies will also be discussed. Lastly, suggestions will be made towards improving relations between fishermen and scientists, and towards potential future research efforts.

Effects of fishermen characteristics on perceived relationship quality
The trends that emerged when analyzing results by varying fishermen demographics shed light on possible factors affecting fishermen's perceptions of fisherman-scientist relationships. In particular, examining how perceptions vary by port may be quite telling.
There were two fishermen characteristics within the three ports in this study in which differences are notable: annual landings of lobster and fisherman's level of education. Harpswell fishermen in this study had received the most education (only two out of six not receiving education beyond high school) and landed the least lobster annually (28,300 lbs.), and were the most positive about fisherman-scientist relations.
Stonington fishermen, on the other hand, had received the least amount of education (only one out of six attaining education beyond high school) and landed the most lobster annually (70,000 lbs.), and tended to be the most negative about fisherman-scientist relations. Fishermen from Freeport fell in the middle on all fronts, averaging 43,000 pounds of landings annually, half receiving education beyond high school, and tending to be the most neutral regarding relations.
These results suggest a possible connection between fishermen's levels of education and fishing effort, and their perceptions of relations. It could be that Stonington fishermen average higher annual landings due to better resource health in colder, more northern waters. If high landings are in fact due to resource health, it is likely that the resource health could be influencing Stonington fishermen's negative perceptions of relations. It is also possible that Stonington fishermen are spending more time fishing and heading farther offshore than fishermen from Freeport and Harpswell, and hence landing more lobster. It is possible that those who invest more time and money into fishing are likely to perceive the fisherman-scientist relationship more negatively, particularly when scientists are perceived as being closely linked with management and regulation entities.
Fishermen's level of education likely plays one of the more important roles in fishermen's trust of scientists, and in relationship quality. The quantitative survey results and more qualitative interview results support each other, both showing that fishermen who have not had schooling beyond high school tend to perceive fisherman-scientist relations more negatively. This is likely due to the different type of knowledge that these fishermen hold; often a fisherman's experience-based understanding of science varies from that of scientists'. For instance, respondents with less education often expressed frustration over the methods used to conduct fish population assessments, not understanding why surveys occur in areas where there are likely no fish. While the justification of random sampling methods is well understood and accepted in the scientific world, those who are not trained in academic sciences are not likely to concur.
It is possible that fishermen who attended college in this study, where they likely interacted with faculty who are scientists or took formal science courses, perceive science and scientists differently from those who did not. These different understandings about science and scientists might hinder trust and communication between scientists and fishermen.

Effects of relationship context on perceived relationship quality
There were distinct trends throughout the interviews, connecting the way The majority of interactions discussed by respondents in this study were not oneon-one, but took place at some form of a meeting, such as a DMR public hearing. These interactions were most often discussed in a negative tone. It became evident throughout the interviews that fishermen felt powerless in these meetings, and often considered scientists' attitudes condescending. This is likely due to the format of such meetings, which were often described as panels of scientists and managers presenting data and Not only did the fishermen interviewed report limited engagement with scientists, but none had ever participated in any form of cooperative research, or had even been asked to participate. A study on stakeholder trust in natural resource science and institutions found that participation in fisheries management was the most significant variable tested that predicted levels of stakeholder trust (Gray et al., 2012). Such findings are likely parallel to fishermen's trust of scientists; those who have participated in cooperative research and fisheries science may be more apt to trust scientists. The lack of respondents' participation in cooperative research, therefore, may also be an important factor influencing the negative perceptions of fisherman-scientist relations found in this study. Gray et al. (2012) emphasized that level of resource health was related to relationship quality and levels of resource user trust towards science institutions, finding that when a resource is perceived to be in good health, resource users will be more trusting of scientists. However, the results of this thesis suggest otherwise, at least for commercial fishermen within Maine.

Effects of resource health on perceived relationship quality
Respondents across the three ports generally perceive the health of the lobster resource as good, and the overall condition of the fishery as just above average ( Figure   6c). However, the majority of comments about fisherman-scientist relations made during interviews were negative and all respondents alluded to trust issues when discussing poor relations between fishermen and scientists. Survey results also suggested that fishermen have limited trust of scientists, as on average respondents disagreed with the statements fishermen trust scientists' motives and fishermen trust scientists' knowledge. This suggests that, despite perceptions of good resource health, the fishermen interviewed in this study have low levels of trust toward scientists. This point is further emphasized when analyzing survey results by homeport. Stonington fishermen more strongly disagreed with trust statements than fishermen from Freeport or Harpswell, yet rated the condition of the fishery the highest.
There could be a variety of reasons to explain why fishermen do not seem to trust scientists, even though they rate the resource highly. Likely, fishermen's daily observations of ecosystem conditions on the water are not matching what they are hearing the scientists say. For example, one fisherman noted an abundance of v-notched lobsters in the water, despite scientists claiming a shortage, and expressed strong disbelief towards such claims. His perception of resource health clearly differed from the science that he had heard, and as such led him to distrust scientific data. Many other respondents repeated this fisherman's views. Perhaps, then, when fishermen perceive the resource as healthy and the science reports otherwise, they are less likely to trust scientists.

Emergence of relationship quality indicators and connectivity to OPR relationship dimensions
The six relationship quality indicators that emerged throughout this study have varying degrees of connectivity to the relationship dimensions discussed in the organization-public relations (OPR) literature. In particular, trust and commitment are relationship quality indictors that emerged in this thesis that OPR studies also emphasized as significant relation dimensions. In particular, trust and commitment definitions used in this study mirror those in OPR studies.
There are a variety of definitions of satisfaction used in the OPR literature. Some emphasize satisfaction as each party's positive feelings toward one another due to the meeting of their expectations (Huang, 2001), while others emphasize satisfaction of the parties with the relationship because it is beneficial (Stafford and Canary, 1991).
Satisfaction in this study tends to lean toward the latter characterization, the contentment of scientists and/or fishermen with the process and outcomes associated with their interactions and relationship, rather than favorability towards one another.
There are also many parallels between this study's relationship quality indicator, influence, and the OPR relationship dimension, control mutuality. Whereas most OPR studies define control mutuality as the degree to which both parties agree on the balance of power in their relationship (Stafford and Cannery, 1991;Hon and Grunig, 1999), this thesis conceptualizes influence as the amount of power or impact a fisherman perceives himself as having in the fisherman-scientist relationship. The distinction between these two definitions is important, as influence emphasizes an individual's (fishermen's) perception of personal power in a situation, whereas control mutuality emphasizes the level of agreement towards the balance of power between both parties (fishermen and scientists). This discrepancy highlights fundamental differences between organizationpublic relations and fisherman-scientist relations, and emphasizes the importance of developing relationship models specific to fisherman-scientist relations.
The OPR dimension "openness" also emerged from the interviews in this study, but is termed "communication" due to slight differences from the literature. The distinction between receptivity and communication in this thesis is important, and was readily apparent throughout interviews with fishermen. Communication more often emerged when fishermen were discussing the manner of dialogue and interaction between fishermen and scientists. For instance, differences in fishermen and scientists' language were often a hindrance to communication, as were perceived scientist and fishermen attitudes towards one another. Fishermen in this study also often expressed frustration towards what they perceived as scientist inability to clearly and thoroughly convey information.
The respondents' strong insistence of scientists' unwillingness to consider fishermen knowledge and perspectives led to the emergence of receptivity as a distinct relationship quality indicator. Unlike communication, receptivity was a common theme that appeared both within and beyond discussions detailing fisherman-scientist interactions and dialogue. In particular, receptivity surfaced while fishermen were discussing scientific research processes, indicating the tensions produced by the divergence of fisherman and scientist knowledge and experience. Notably, while fishermen were eager to express their belief of scientist's lack of receptivity towards their ideas, fishermen also often alluded to their own lack of acceptance and openness to scientist's information and concepts.

Potential causal relationships of relationship quality indicators
It is important to note that, while distinct in their definitions, the relationship quality indicators that emerged in this study are closely linked to one another. For instance, fishermen who alluded to receptivity and influence positively also tended to be positive when discussing satisfaction. In turn, fishermen with positive satisfaction comments tended to be more positive when discussing commitment. Previous studies also noted a cause and effect relationship when testing relationship dimensions as measures of organizational-public relations. Jo (2002) found a variety of correlations between dimensions, and suggested a causal flow from trust to satisfaction to commitment.
Similarly, Morgan and Hunt (1994, p. 24 Based on the results of this study and previous OPR studies, a potential causal model between relationship quality indicators can be developed ( Figure 14). It is possible that when levels of trust between fishermen and scientists are higher, there are apt to be higher levels of receptivity and communication. In turn, if fishermen and scientists perceive one another as more communicative and receptive, they are likely to feel they hold more influence in the relationship. Similarly, a relationship with high levels of receptivity, communication and influence will tend to result in satisfaction for those involved, and commitment to a relationship is likely to increase as satisfaction does.
Therefore, trust may play an antecedent role to commitment and receptivity, communication, influence and satisfaction are likely mediating variables in this model.  Spekman (1988, p. 79) describes trust as "the cornerstone of the strategic partnership". Indeed, trust is widely thought to be the main determinant of relationship quality in relationship literature (Spekman, 1988;Morgan and Hunt, 1994;Jo, 2003;Davenport et al., 2007;Glenn et al., 2012; Credibility also emerged in this study as an important factor influencing trust. The majority of credibility comments made by fishermen alluded to the belief that scientists and management entities are too closely related. This was also a theme that occurred in various studies of natural resource context relationships (Glenn et al., 2012;Jacobsen et al., 2012;Dedual et al., 2013). Glenn et al. (2012), for instance, cited lack of credibility, and management-bias in particular, as one of the most significant hindrances towards trust. It is reasonable to infer, then, that fishermen are less likely to trust scientists, and science in general, if they link them to management and regulations. The persistence of such views also provides insight into why this study, as well as the prevailing literature, find that fishermen and resource stakeholders are less likely to trust scientists affiliated with government organizations than those affiliated with non-profit organizations and universities (Glenn et al., 2012;Jacobsen et al., 2012;Dedual et al., 2013).

Trust and influencing factors
Accountability is the one trust factor that emerged that is exclusive to this study and is not discussed among other relationship studies. As such, it is important to take special note of accountability, despite that it was the least mentioned of all trust factors.
In particular, fishermen who discussed accountability expressed strong distrust of scientists due to the belief that there are no repercussions for scientists when their science is in fact wrong. It became clear throughout interviews that the fishermen interviewed feel scientists hold no actual stake in the health of the resource, and as such would not be affected by its health one way or the other. In particular, because scientists' incomes do not directly depend on the health of fishery resources, it is perceived by fishermen that they are not personally affected when the resource fails, or regulations tighten.

Improving Relations
Understanding how fishermen and scientists relate to one another, particularly how fishermen perceive such relations, is important for increasing industry participation in scientific processes. This study highlights numerous factors that could affect relations, and identifies areas in which improvements could be made. This study also found that more personal interactions with scientists led to more positive perceptions of the relationship, substantiating claims made by Hartley et al. (2008) that increased interactions between fishermen and scientists inproved relations. It is important to note, however, that none of the respondents of this study had ever participated in, or been asked to participate in, any form of cooperative research. A few fishermen offered the opinion that such cooperative efforts only engage a handful of the same large-scale fishermen. This is unfortunate, as almost all fishermen in this study expressed a desire to aid in scientific processes, not only wanting to share their ideas with scientists, but also eager to learn more about the ecosystem on which they depend.
Increasing more personal, hands-on interactions, particularly in a research setting, would likely have substantial impact on fisherman-scientist relations. Events such as the Maine Fishermen's Forum could be a useful step in this direction.

Additional Limitations and Future Research
Due to the lack of prior research conducted on fisherman-scientist relations, this study was conducted using grounded-theory, with the aim of developing a model that could be tested in future research. As such, fishermen's perceptions of fisherman-scientist relations were examined by qualitatively identifying relevant relationship quality indicators, trust factors, and potential factors affecting such perceptions. Future studies could use quantitative methods to further analyze the framework developed in this study.
There are a variety of areas that could be further explored, including the causal relationships among relationship quality indicators and the influence of factors such as fishery conditions and fishermen's demographics, operation size and fishing activity on perceptions of relationship quality. While the respondents of this study seem to be representative of the Maine lobstermen population (see Appendix B), it would be beneficial for future studies to engage larger respondent sample sizes. Lastly, future studies could widen the scope of this research by incorporating scientists' perspectives on the relationships between fishermen and scientists.

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION
This study highlights fishermen's perspectives on fisherman-scientist relations in Maine, and suggests a myriad of factors that likely affect relationship quality. The results of this study aim to develop a better understanding of the dynamics of fisherman-scientist relations and of fishermen's perspectives in hopes of providing fisheries scientists and managers with suggestions towards fostering better relations with commercial fishermen in Maine.
A few key themes emerged throughout this study that managers and scientists should consider. First, of the relationship quality indicators that emerged, trust was by far the most prevalent. Both this thesis and prevailing literature suggest trust as the largest determinant of relationship quality. As such, the trust factors that emerged in this study should be taken into serious consideration. For instance, fishermen's perceptions of scientist's competence, and their belief of scientist's perceptions of fishermen's competence, emerged again and again throughout interviews. Scientists and managers should heed such results when interacting with fishermen, and make efforts to better convey research methods and results.
Credibility also emerged as an important factor influencing trust. Specifically, all respondents of this study alluded to perceptions of scientist connectivity to management entities. This suggests that fishermen's distrust of science is likely due to a belief that science serves regulatory agendas. Clearly, scientists and managers must work together to some degree, but it is important the two entities appear less associated to maintain credibility in the eyes of the fishermen.
The results of this thesis also suggest that fishermen's perceptions vary depending on homeport. It is likely that factors that depend on geographic locations, such as resource health and demographics, have notable effects on trust and relationship quality.
Scientist and managers should consider this when interacting with different groups of fishermen. In particular, scientists and managers should aim to understand how the resource health and market prices within an area affect fishermen attitudes towards science and scientists.
The overall negative attitudes of fishermen towards fisherman-scientist relations in Maine suggest a need for change. The suggestion that personal interactions improve relationship quality should be considered, and efforts towards participatory research, particularly at the state-level, should be broadened. Lastly, it is important to continue research on the themes that emerged throughout this thesis, so as to better understand, and hence improve, the dynamics of fisherman-scientist relations in Maine.

Opening
Describe the general purpose of the interview and role of the participant. Explain confidentiality and get verbal consent. Discuss risks and benefits. Ask for any questions before beginning.

Demographic Information
Port: Primary Fishery: Fisheries involved in: Years fishing commercially: Boat size: Crew size: Annual landings (lbs): # of lobster traps: Age: Education:

Open-Ended Interview
Prompts are in italics. i) What were the circumstances of this interaction?
(2) Type of scientist you were interacting with?
(3) What was your role? Scientist role? (4) What lead to your involvement? ii) Tell me about the relations between yourself and the scientist during this process.
(1) Discuss the levels of communication, trust, respect and power between yourself and scientists in this process.

(a) Examples? (b) Why do you think it was this way? (2) Other aspects of the relationships?
iii) Were you satisfied with this experience and its outcomes? How and why?
(1) Was this process beneficial to you? To the scientist(s)? How?