(PDF) Analysis across case-based global sustainability projects: an emerging challenge for ocean conflict research in the Anthro

Maritime Studies (2023) 22:48 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-023-00323-3 RESEARCH Analysis across case‑based global sustainability projects: an emerging challenge for ocean conflict research in the Anthropocene Marion Glaser1,2 · Samiya Ahmed Selim1,3 · Raquel De la Cruz‑Modino4 · Ingrid van Putten5 · Shankar Aswani Canela6 · Adina Paytan7 · Leo X.C. Dutra8,9 · Nadine Heck10 · Siddharth Narayan10 · Warwick Sauer6 · Wiebren Johannes Boonstra11 · Bernadette Snow12,13,14 Received: 20 December 2022 / Accepted: 18 July 2023 © The Author(s) 2023 Abstract A growing number of global ocean conflict studies over the last decade have set out to advance sustainability in the Anthropo- cene. Many of these research projects use multiple case studies to extract lessons for wider contexts. The methods used by these studies, and the extent to which their results have validity beyond the individual case study, often remain unclear. This paper explores the challenges in performing cross-case analysis within what we denote as case-based globally focussed sustainability projects (CB-GSPs) and indicates solutions by combining information from semi-structured interviews with leading scientists from eight CB-GSPs. We identify six distinct challenges that are common across these studies with regard to generating action- able knowledge through cross-case analysis. Based on these findings, we propose a set of best practice recommendations for scientists, project partners, and funders to co-produce actionable knowledge for global projects on ocean conflict. Keywords Cross-case analysis · Ocean conflict · Global sustainability · Research project design and practice Ocean conflict research humanity as a monolithic force (the “Anthropos”) thus sim- plifying the diversity of contexts, social dynamics, and power For studies on global ocean sustainability challenges to be relations (Biermann et al. 2016) behind conflicts. relevant and actionable across local to global scales, active At the same time, maritime disputes have been at the core of marine social sciences are essential (McKinley et al. 2020). global empire-building for centuries (Carvalho & Leira, 2022), Much research on global ocean sustainability has represented and the law of the sea is a developing body of international 7 * Marion Glaser Institute of Marine Sciences, University of California, Santa

Cruz 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA 8 1 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Leibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research (ZMT), Organization, Oceans and Atmosphere, QLD, Brisbane 4072, Bremen, Germany Australia 2 Institute of Geography, University of Bremen, Bremen, 9 Centre for Marine Socioecology, University of Tasmania, Germany Private Bag 129, Hobart, TAS 7001, Australia 3 University of Liberal Arts Bangladesh (ULAB), Dhaka, 10 Department of Coastal Studies, East Carolina University, Bangladesh Campus Way, 850 NC‑345, Wanchese, Coastal, NC 27981, 4 Instituto Universitario de Investigación Social y Turismo, USA Universidad de La Laguna, 38200, La Laguna, Tenerife, 11 Department of Geosciences, Uppsala University, Villavägen Spain 16, 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden 5 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research 12 Scottish Association for Marine Science, Oban, Argyll, Organization, Oceans and Atmosphere, TAS, Hobart, Scotland Australia 13 6 Law School, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland Department of Anthropology, Department of Ichthyology 14 and Fisheries Science, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, Institute for Coastal and Marine Research, Nelson Mandela South Africa University, Gqeberha, South Africa 13 Vol.:(0123456789) 48 Page 2 of 23 Maritime Studies (2023) 22:48 agreements, treaties, and customs which reflect the politi- rely on multiple case studies selected across world regions, cal character of the sea and support order, productivity, and cultures, and climate zones (e.g., Balvanera et al. 2017, Bel- peaceful relations among users. Over time, the ocean realm langer et al. 2020; Alexander, 2020)1. The knowledge and is increasingly affected by competition and conflicts (Jouffray tradition of working with a single case study of a marine et al. 2020), and the manifestations of these differ between human-nature complex are long-established in subjects system levels. While global factors such as fishing subsidies such as maritime anthropology and marine sociology. But are often prominent conflict drivers (Skerrit et al. 2023), their important questions remain unanswered on how these case embeddedness into case-specific contexts shows that region- study traditions are applied and integrated into inter- and ally rooted knowledge is needed to understand social dynamics transdisciplinary scientific analyses that aim to go beyond and conflicts. individual case contextuality and complexities to produce There is no quintessential definition of conflict in insights and solutions on global issues. As climate change, the social sciences. There is, however, a general con- population growth, and competition for resources advance, sensus that conflicts revolve around material and imma- the global increase in ocean conflicts arising from inequity terial resources and involve haves and have-nots (Col- and inequality is a prime example and our focus here. lins 2022:3). Resources in this understanding include The number of projects in transdisciplinary global sus- natural (e.g., land, energy, and minerals) and economic tainability research that use multiple case studies has grown resources (e.g., money and technology), but also cultural over the past decade, in line with global initiatives such as (e.g., identity and reputation) and social resources (e.g., Future Earth. This development builds on an earlier genera- social networks). Important to note here is that these tion of integrated, in-depth, long-duration case studies that resources—e.g., energy or social relations—do not in focussed on specific world regions. In the ocean and coastal and of themselves produce conflict. Only a change in realm, examples are the MADAM project for North Brazil the condition of these resources can produce conflict. (Saint Paul and Schneider, 2010), SUCOZOMA for the Bal- Such changes can relate to how accessibility and control tic Sea region, and SPICE for archipelagic Indonesia. From of resources are politically organized; how the benefits these earlier efforts, a new type of contemporary global sus- of resources are distributed among groups; how much tainability research appears to have developed that we here people contribute to making resources available and are call “case-based global sustainability projects” (CB-GSPs). appreciated for it; and how the environmental harms that CB-GSPs employ multiple case studies to explore com- come from resource use are felt. When people feel that monalities and contrasts in order to gain insights on global justice in any one of these conditions is violated, there environmental sustainability issues. This implies the need is potential for conflicts to develop (adapted from Moore to find a middle ground between generic (internationally 1978: 15-44). To turn potential conflicts into overt con- relevant) and specific knowledge relating to one or several flicts requires that people experience grievances, i.e., case studies. the emotions that come with losing something dear, and they need to overcome the fear of losing life chances, defeatism, and acquiescence. The open conflict thus pre- State of the art: Case studies in sustainability supposes a process where people, often together with research others, reconsider and reinterpret current conditions of resources, what mutual obligations underpin these, and The social sciences, including anthropology, sociology, psy- how they feel about it in terms of fairness and justice chology, political science, and others, look back on over a (Collins 2022: 3-5). century of case study work (Aswani 2019). There is also International studies on ocean conflict and other marine a long history of case studies in natural science research, governance issues (e.g., Pinsky et al. 2018; Spijkers et al. including and preceding Darwin’s famous study of finches 2019 from international relations) employ globally applica- on the Galapagos Islands (Flyvbjerg 2006) to the present ble models and concepts. An increasing number of global day with the long-term ecological research sites (LTERs)2. studies, however, are relying on case studies. While there are Case studies can support theory building by providing examples of single case studies employed to demonstrate a detailed, fine-grained, multifactorial insights which allow general finding (e.g., Estévez et al. 2020), many studies now for contextually grounded understandings of individual and system behaviors. They are a classical approach to asking 1 In the same spirit of working locally for global sustainability, in “how and why” questions in complex situations where the 2015, FAO published the voluntary SSF guidelines (https://​www.​ boundaries between a focal issue and its context are often fao.​org/​in-​action/​globe​fish/​fishe​ry-​infor​mation/​resou​rce-​detail/​en/c/​ 338797/) that have been implemented in different regions, giving rise to different comparative studies; see The Small-Scale Fisheries Guide- 2 lines. https://​link.​sprin​ger.​com/​book/​10.​1007/​978-3-​319-​55074-9 https://​ltern​et.​edu/​core-​resea​rch-​areas/ 13 Maritime Studies (2023) 22:48 Page 3 of 23 48 unclear (Yin 2009; Grantham 2021). Case studies are often We explore the following questions: What are the chal- concerned with explaining particular processes rather than lenges for reliable and effective cross-case research in with formulating more generally applicable “truths.” Case global ocean conflict and sustainability research projects, studies (of the human world) examine the ideas, interpre- and what is the scope for those who participate in, fund, tations, and perspectives of people involved using diverse and administer such projects to support the generation of approaches: scholars of historical cases use archival data actionable ocean and coastal sustainability knowledge for (diaries, reports, etc.), while human geographers and inter- the Anthropocene? disciplinary sustainability researchers work with an explor- atory, sometimes action-based, research approach, which triangulates diverse data sources and relies on the active Methods participation of multiple stakeholders (e.g. Pereira et al.; 2020; Norström et al. 2020). The research proceeded in six steps: (1) the identification of Comparative case studies can attribute causality in situ- key variables for the analysis of the CB-GSPs, (2) the selec- ations where many different causes may be responsible tion of relevant ocean research projects, (3) the design of for an outcome while it is not feasible or desirable to use a semi-structured interview script to guide interviews with a control group or (quasi)-experimental design. They those responsible for the selected projects (4) the execution can thus explore how context influences an outcome and of the interviews, (5) the analysis of the interview data, and how to tailor an intervention to context to move towards (6) the review of conclusions with representatives of other intended outcomes (Goodrick 2014; Benasso et al. 2022). ocean focused research projects in May 2023. Comparative case studies support middle-range theory As the first step, a series of online focus group discus- development, a term coined by Robert Merton (see Udehn sions on cross-case analysis were held. Several of these and Hedström, 2009) which refers to theories located mid- included mostly NOCRISES3 research team members, but way between knowledge which is specific to one case and an inter-project meeting of 13 global ocean research pro- knowledge in “general theory” with its (claim to) universal jects funded by the Belmont Forum was the key to identify- applicability. As an important part of middle-range theory ing key variables of interest. As the second step, a compila- building and testing, case study comparisons provide a fine tion of interdisciplinary ocean research projects was carried resolution that can reveal deeply contextual perspectives out by various co-authors conducting online searches for on the relationships that drive system dynamics in specific global ocean projects that were either operating or had contexts (Grantham 2021). In this approach, quantitative finished in recent years, and asking diverse colleagues to methods can strengthen standardization and comparison point out relevant projects. Eight relevant projects were thus of the complex social-ecological dynamics of case studies identified, and the semi-structured interview was designed (Flyvbjerg 2006; Grantham 2021). Qualitative methods can in view of the criteria established under (1). As we were be employed to assess contextual depth and detail. Mixed- searching for recent and current global projects, the total method approaches combine these respective strengths and number of projects found was small and has not increased enable triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data to in the year of subsequent discussions we have had on this reveal commonalities and differences across case studies. work. We would thus argue that selection biases are likely While multiple case studies became prevalent in inter- to be negligible. disciplinary research in the late 1990s and early 2000s, The semi-structured key informant interviews (KII) were subsequent efforts, such as the development of the social then conducted. This task was shared by several co-authors ecological systems framework (Ostrom 2009; Poteete et al. (MG, SS, NH, IvP, and AP) who conducted online semi- 2010), created synergies between case-based learning and structured discussions with key scientific staff of the identi- more widely applicable cross-case analysis. fied global ocean projects. Interviews covered at least four main questions (listed in Appendix, Data Table A). Due to the small number of interviewees (who were thus considered Objectives key informants), pretesting was found to be neither neces- sary nor feasible. Key informants were the lead scientists of This paper explores the institutional context and methods of the selected ocean CB-GSPs. Interviewers recorded Zoom case study-based approaches in collaborative global ocean meetings or took notes. (conflict) research. We identify major challenges and offer The analysis of interview data was performed in an solution pathways and best practices for scientists, local iterative qualitative manner, reading notes and viewing non-academic partners, and members of funding consortia to improve cross-case study analysis in global sustainability 3 The first initiative for the research here reported came from the and ocean (conflict) research. NOCRISES project (further details in the Acknowledgements). 13 48 Page 4 of 23 Maritime Studies (2023) 22:48 interview recordings, with the aim of summarizing and actionable case study information to develop solutions as identifying themes. Analytical categories were thus devel- well as to generate knowledge synergies on themes of global oped related to the main challenges, solutions, and related relevance. Their objectives also include the development of stakeholder-specific best practices to facilitate cross-case generic concepts, theories, frameworks, and tools which analysis in ocean conflict CB-GSPs. Finally, on the occa- are to be widely, and ideally globally, applicable. Column sion of an inter-project meeting between representatives of 6 of Table 1 indicates that qualitative and mixed-method six global ocean projects (of which five were not included approaches which focus on participation and inclusion are in the selected eight) to identify shared findings and rec- typically used7. ommendations4, the major recommendations of this paper Changes in social science career development strategies were confirmed. have contributed to CB-GPSs becoming a main feature in the contemporary global ocean and coastal sustainability sci- ence. While theoretical developments in the social sciences Results and discussion were classically published in books, editorial interests, sci- entific metrics based on indexed journals, and institutional The objectives, funders, operation period, and number of career demands have shifted knowledge production in the cases or countries for the eight current and recent5 ocean social sciences and humanities towards publishing journal (conflict) studies6 examined for this paper are presented in articles. Researchers are also increasingly required to show Table 1. Conflict is either explicitly mentioned or strongly the international relevance of their work, so multi-author, implicit in the objectives of all projects in Table 1, and it is collaborative analyses of multiple cases in journal articles therefore an important connecting feature of these projects, have become an academic strategy (e.g., Guillotreau et al. with natural resource use conflicts as the prevailing conflict 2018). type. There are clear potentials for research across cases in the global ocean sustainability, governance, and conflict realms. Case‑based global sustainability projects The complexity and multi-level character of challenges in research and practice frequently force researchers to review Seven of the eight projects explicitly adopt a multi-case the limits of their disciplines and the analytical scales and approach to address wider, global ocean issues, supporting levels they focus on. With its context-specific focus on the our initial concept of an emergent type of “case-based global social, ecological, technical, and other processes that drive sustainability projects” (CB-GSPs) for the ocean realm. One a specific system and its outcomes, the case study approach project was described as explicitly not using a case-based allows for a contextualized, in-depth understanding of a spe- approach (ONE OCEAN HUB) but working in five countries cific complex system situation. Cross-case analysis can then and explicitly seeking co-analysis between what arguably investigate a focal issue, such as ocean conflict, in relation might therefore also be denominated as “cases” here. to the differing contexts of diverse bounded systems (the All ocean-conflict CB-GSPs listed in Table 1 are sup- cases). The comparative approach juxtaposes commonalities ported by research teams with considerable experience in and differences between cases. Case typology development their respective case study regions, and all aim for effective then seeks “to minimize within-group variance while maxi- and meaningful analysis across regions and/or case stud- mizing between-group variance” (Bailey 1994:1; Glaeser ies. Their cases are multiple local, regional, national, or 2023a, b). specific environments such as deltas or islands. These pro- Box 1 summarizes the main results of our interviews jects have dual objectives: to collect locally grounded and with project scientists on project-specific approaches, strengths, and challenges (for full interview responses, see Data Table B, Appendix). Points 1–3 in Box 1 highlight 4 This took place May 23–24th 2023, in Berlin, Wissenschaftsforum the importance and high expected potential of a case-based Germany, with representatives of ShipTRASE, Multiframe, Ocean- approach in global ocean research. Five of the seven rep- front, ONE OCEAN HUB, MARISCO, and the German CRA Oceans resentatives of ocean (conflict) CB-GSPs interviewed for projects (BMBF 03F0845A). Recommendations produced at this workshop can be viewed under https://​hifmb.​de/​event/​trans​disci​plina​ this paper reported collaborative learning and capacity- ry-​resea​rch-​for-​ocean-​susta​inabi​lity/ building in the project team and transfer of knowledge 5 As of June 2022 between cases as key in their projects, and three emphasized 6 Table 1 only includes projects with an intended global reach, not pro- the importance of indicators for their cross-case analysis jects that focus on single global regions such as SPICOSA, GOBAMP (I & II), EMPAFISH (https://​cordis.​europa.​eu/​proje​ct/​id/​6539/​repor​ ting/​es), or AKTEA (http://​aktea​platf​orm.​eu/​who-​we-​are/) which are, 7 however, all suited to network diverse cases in regional settings into See Dahlet et al. (this Special Issue) on methods in ocean conflict larger social-ecological units (Glaser & Glaeser, 2023a, b). research. 13 Table 1  Selected case-based global ocean sustainability research projects (CB-GSPs) Project name Globally relevant project objec- Period Funder Number of case studies Case Study Level Stated approach/methods for tives cross-case analysis NOCRISES (Negotiating ocean Understand conflict generation and 2020–2023 Belmont Forum/JPI Oceans 8 regions (Canary Islands/Spain Sub-regional Collaborative approach using a Maritime Studies conflicts among rivals for dynamics; co-develop tool(s) to [Joint Programming Initiative Hawaii, Seychelles, coastal core set of methods across case sustainable and equitable prevent, mitigate, and manage Healthy and Productive Seas Bangladesh, Azores, Fiji, studies: governance mapping, solutions) (www.​nocri​ses.​de ocean conflicts and Oceans (JPI Oceans) is Papua New Guinea, North process tracing, cultural consen- and https://​www.​youtu​be.​com/​ a Pan-European intergovern- Brazil) sus analysis, artistic productions watch?v=​Pf_​Riy3t​DGU)] mental platform that increases with community engagement the efficiency and impact of (2023) 22:48 research and innovation for sustainably healthy and pro- ductive seas and oceans] OCEANS PACT (Ocean Enable scaling up of insights, 2020–2023 Belmont Forum/JPI Oceans 6 regions (South Africa, India, Mixed, cross-level Action-oriented, co-designed, sustainability pathways for tools, and conflict resolution Brazil, Norway/Barents Sea, transdisciplinary processes that achieving conflict transforma- practices that foster global ocean Baltic Sea, USA) softly guided solution-oriented tion) [https://​ocean​spact.​eu/​ sustainability; promote social case-specific inquiry; drawing index.​php] cohesion and reflect local norma- methodological, analytical, and tive aspirations, “while fostering transformative insights across wider sustainability imperatives” cases GULLS (Global understanding Create predictive systems to 2013–2018 Belmont Forum 6 regions (Brazil, India, Regional-national Vulnerability assessments, social and learning for local solu- inform about the consequences Mozambique Channel, South- modelling, and ocean literacy tions) [http://​www.​marin​ehots​ of coastal changes; deliver ern Benguela (South Africa), sharing; conducted jointly by pots.​org/​index.​php/​featu​red-​ alternative options for adapta- the Solomon Islands, South participants from Australia, proje​cts/​gulls] tion and transformation within East Australia) Brazil, India, Madagascar, coastal communities; define their Mozambique, New Zealand, long-term economic, social, and South Africa, the UK, and the environmental implications USA across all case studies ONE OCEAN HUB (Fair and To support integrated, evidence- 2020–2024 Global Challenges Research Initially, 5 regions (Ghana, Regional-national Initially, 5 research programs inclusive decision-making for based, and inclusive responses Fund (GCFR), UK Namibia, South Africa, across disciplines (law and arts, a healthy ocean whereby peo- to multiple threats to the ocean; Solomon Islands, South policy, informatics, educa- ple and planet flourish) https://​ to bridge disconnections in law, East Atlantic) were reduced tion, history, anthropology, oneoc​eanhub.​org/ science, and policy and integrate due to budget cuts to South and philosophy) to integrate governance frameworks to bal- Africa, Ghana, Namibia, and biology, physics, chemistry, ance multiple ocean uses with regionally South Pacific and oceanography, ecology, math- conservation and sustainable Caribbean ematics, socio-environmental fisheries with socio-economic sciences, and law then moved to and cultural factors; to advise on overarching themes and global coherent, flexible, pro-poor, and international working group for gender-sensitive, climate-proofed cross-learning and transparent laws and policies across human rights, sciences and technology, and trade & investment realms Page 5 of 23 48 13 Table 1  (continued) 48 Project name Globally relevant project objec- Period Funder Number of case studies Case Study Level Stated approach/methods for tives cross-case analysis 13 MULTIFRAME (Assessment To increase the knowledge base 2020–2023 Belmont Forum/JPI Oceans 6 case countries: Sweden, Sub-regional Multi-use data bank; participa- Framework for successful and capacity of public and pri- Mozambique, Norway, USA, tory development of multi-use development of viable ocean vate actors for ocean multi-use Brazil, France scenarios for case study regions, Page 6 of 23 multi-use systems) https://​ systems, by providing open- compatibility matrices hubs.​belmo​ntfor​um.​org/​ source tools, assessment results, groups/​multi-​frame-​proje​ct/ and best practice examples. Sup- port actionable decision-making on optimal combinations of uses, with consideration for equitable distribution of benefits while avoiding/minimizing harm TBTI (Too Big to Ignore) [http://​ Addressing issues and concerns 2010–pre- Multiple supporting organiza- 6 world regions: Africa, Asia Global Interactive governance and toobi​gtoig​nore.​net/] affecting the viability and sent tions and Oceania, Europe, Latin governability assessment frame- sustainability of small-scale fish- America, Caribbean, North work (GAF) frameworks, survey eries through a global research America templates network DELTAS (Catalyzing action Pull together interdisciplinary 2013–2017 Belmont Forum Coastal 2012– 3 delta regions: Ganges-Brah- Regional Range of approaches, includ- towards sustainability of expertise, global human capital Coastal Vulnerability maputra Delta, Mekong Delta, ing theoretical framework deltaic system deltas) https://​ and resources, modelling frame- Amazon Delta development, co-development www.​resea​rchga​te.​net/​publi​ works, data, and local partner- of integrative modelling frame- cation/​30350​3444_​Catal​ ships to understand the workings work and decision tool, data yzing_​action_​towar​ds_​the_​ of these complex coupled consolidation and dissemina- susta​inabi​lity_​of_​deltas socio-ecological systems and tion, development of vulner- inform sustainable management ability indices, and outreach and policy decisions and communication of research products V2V (Vulnerability to Viability) A transdisciplinary global partner- 2020–2027 Canada SSHRC partnership 12 case studies: Bangladesh, National sub-regional Transdisciplinary, community- [https://​www.​v2vgl​obalp​artne​ ship and knowledge network India, Indonesia, Japan, engaged research in six coun- rship.​org/] with 100 members from Africa, Malaysia, Thailand, Ghana, tries in Asia and six countries Asia, Canada, and internation- Malawi, Nigeria, Senegal, in Africa ally to identify factors contribut- South Africa, Tanzania ing to the vulnerability of SSF and engage collaboratively with small-scale fishing communi- ties, key NGOs, government, university partners, and others to enhance SSF viability Maritime Studies (2023) 22:48 Maritime Studies (2023) 22:48 Page 7 of 23 48 (GULLS, V2V, and DELTAS). Defining key analytical and characteristics of a project (2) Selection of case stud- areas that allow for learning across cases while recog- ies (3) Communication, language, and participation (4) nizing contextual differences was also seen as central for Project design with (a) Organizational structures and pro- cross-case analysis by three project representatives (ONE cesses and (b) Research methods (5) Timing, funding, and OCEAN HUB, V2V, and OCEANS PACT). political and institutional contexts (6) Funders’ project administration structures and processes. Box 1 Summary of interview results on cross-case analysis in selected ocean-based CB-GSPs Inception and characteristics of a project 1. How central to the project was the intention to analyze across NGOs, the private sector, and local communities (and also case studies to generate globally relevant results? For 6 projects, local government) are often not involved in formulating cross-case analysis was said to be very or reasonably central, ideas during the development stage of a project proposal while the interviewees on ONE OCEAN HUB stated that contex- tual in-case learning rather than case comparison was the focus but only participate during later stages of a project as con- in the diverse regions this project operates in but that the global tributors, contractors, implementers, or research subjects. relevance of results was also central and the focus of a project This can cause misunderstandings, lower these stakehold- working group. ers’ interest and commitment, make it difficult to recog- 2. What was the project’s approach to analyzing across case stud- nize and fulfil their capacity-building needs, and generate ies? All projects developed a coherent approach, and all but the ONE OCEAN HUB project had a shared research agenda for all conflict and disaffection. For transdisciplinary research to in-project cases. The GULLS, NOCRISES, and V2V projects rely become more effective, it is critical that the study focus on shared methods to facilitate analysis across cases; ONE OCEAN be co-developed by all important contributors and stake- HUB allows methods and agendas to emerge as part of in-country holders. To achieve this, research agendas and processes transdisciplinary work; and OCEANS PACT is developing analyti- cal guidance for a set of (predefined) analytical areas (including need to be co-developed at the case study level in the early drivers & root causes of conflicts and power dynamics). design phase of a project. A shared understanding of the 3. Strengths of the adopted approach: 5 of 7 project-related theoretical framework in which co-developed research respondents reported collaborative learning and capacity-building questions are situated is also required so that the meaning in the project team, with effective contextually embedded learning of core concepts, the research methods to be employed, the and transfer of learning between cases as strengths. The imple- mentation of cross-case analysis through indicators (GULLS, types of data to be collected, and the main project imple- V2V, and DELTAS), and the definition and development of shared mentation steps are agreed at the outset. These discus- key analytical areas to allow for learning across cases in the light sions between project members and other key stakehold- of contextual differences were also seen as central strengths. ers, including those from outside academia, will allow the 4. Challenges of the adopted approach. Progress in cross-case identification of key project context variables and capac- analysis was seen to be challenged by (1) a target conflict between the need for flexibility and contextual grounding of ity limits. Funding bodies need to allocate resources and “within-case” work and the quest for widely applicable results time so that project design phases can be employed to to support global analysis (GULLS and ONE OCEAN HUB). confirm and build trusted relations and processes on the One trade-off being between the local applicability and relevance basis of which local stakeholders and partners, as well as of indicators and their usefulness for global analysis (GULLS and MULTIFRAME). (2) Weaknesses in capacity-building case study researchers from different regions of the earth, for non-academic participants in case study teams (V2V). (3) are able to engage (Breckwoldt et al. 2021). Collaborative The development, or danger, of (case-based) “scientific silos” and inclusive initial design and implementation phases within projects (GULLS, OCEANS PACT, and NO CRISES). between academic and non-academic project participants, (4) Differences in case/country teams’ (a) capacities, (b) funding levels, (c) disciplinary composition, and (d) how teams apply a as well as across disciplines and case study teams, reduce method (MULTIFRAME and NOCRISES). (5) Different starting the risk of “scientific silos” and conflicts in CB-GSPs. dates for funding country/case study work hamper collaborative A main challenge for case-based projects, which aim planning and implementation across case studies. (GULLS and for global analytical relevance, is to select methods NOCRISES). and tools that are appropriate, applicable, and relevant across multiple case studies. Globally relevant transdis- ciplinary science needs to engage with issues and pro- Major challenges in global ocean sustainability cesses that are important for regional and local actors and conflict research while also allowing for comparison across sites. Different research approaches may be required in different social Below, we identify and discuss six key challenges for and cultural case contexts and/or by different members ocean-related CB-GSP effectiveness based on co-authors’ of an interdisciplinary research team with diverse types discussions and key informant interviews: (1) Inception and levels of expertise. If project co-development focuses 13 48 Page 8 of 23 Maritime Studies (2023) 22:48 on intercultural consensus-building to use diverse com- months into the project. Thus, one existing case study binations of quantitative and qualitative methods at the (Bangladesh) was strengthened, and a North Brazilian case level while securing a shared methodological core to case study was added to the NOCRISES project. allow cross-case analysis, this might become a strength Our interviews revealed that such adaptation in the of CB-GSPs. selection of case studies is common in global multi- case projects. While a scientifically well-framed, robust Selection of case studies approach to case selection advances globally relevant analysis, the realities of working with existing networks Case-based research requires clear case selection criteria and the need for other contextual factors to be favorable that relate to commonalities and differences across cases. (e.g., funding, local community and partner interest and Contemporary global sustainability projects face a num- approval and a committed case research team) require ber of obstacles to a methodologically robust case selec- an adaptive and “opportunistic” approach to case study tion. In the NOCRISES project, case studies started with selection. This creates the challenge of identifying the agreed, science-led criteria. These criteria referred to meaning and contribution of each individual case study the development status of a country (low, high, and mid- in international/global analyses, which can be addressed dle) and location in one of the global ocean change hot- by a typology of cases. spots (Hobday et al. 2014). At the same time, the quest A promising approach to assessing the meaning of results for longer-term, grounded science to link to policy and from a case study for a global research question is arche- change processes led to quality criteria for case study type analysis. Where representative “archetypal” patterns are teams: team members were to have local and regional identified, for instance in human–nature interactions or con- connectedness, and leading case study scientists were to flict development trajectories, the insights gained through be well-linked in relevant networks for their case study archetype or syndrome analysis can strengthen causal analy- regions. At the proposal stage of the NOCRISES project, sis, facilitate meta-analysis of diverse data in sustainability six case regions (Hawaii, the Torres Straits, coastal Bang- research, and thus support the transfer of knowledge between ladesh, the North-East Atlantic, the Canary Islands, and places and system levels (Eisenack, 2012; Sietz et al. 2019; the Seychelles) were selected according to these criteria. Oberlack 2019). Archetypes can be discrete units or nested The first project year showed differences in the regional within each other (Lüdeke et al. 2004). Situating case stud- and local grounding of different teams in their respec- ies within a typology of coastal and marine social-ecolog- tive case study regions and in the ease with which key ical systems (CM-SES) (see Glaser and Glaeser, 2023a, b; non-academic stakeholders in different regions accepted Glaeser 2023b) applies the principles of archetype analysis becoming “part of a case study.” Some NOCRISES case to the marine and coastal realms. In line with this, we argue study teams were already actively involved in research that to be globally relevant, cross-case analysis needs to be in “their” regions and able to embed NOCRISES project situated within a consistent case typology. objectives within their longer-term collaborations and networks. Other country teams, though familiar with the Communication, language, and participation setting and problems in “their” case regions, met with diverse obstacles such as regional resistance and political To achieve coherent analysis across cases, an inclusive turmoil, a lack of timely case study funding, and resist- project design phase should produce a set of objectives ance by local communities to what they saw as “helicopter and questions within an agreed conceptual and theoretical research” driven by external agendas. The COVID pan- framework that is understood and accepted by all project demic added challenges such as the inability to connect participants. Since most project teams include scientists with people in lockdowns, the fear of getting or spreading and practitioners with multiple backgrounds and experi- infection, and local reluctance to speak to people wearing ences, some mutual clarification of discipline-related jar- facemasks. Thus, some originally planned case studies gons and specific context is usually needed. A sharing of were dropped; the original systematic case study selection relevant publications or “prepared for purpose” materials criteria were not fully implementable. on pertinent topics and an in-person kick-off meeting to At the same time, opportunities arose for establishing align and discuss procedures and expectations and foster new NOCRISES case studies in regions not originally interactions in the project team may prove helpful to link selected. Interested academics of those regions from the disciplines and forms of knowledge. The recognition of networks of NOCRISES team members indicated readi- local knowledge as a legitimate and valuable element and ness to collaborate, even with some own funding, and two eye-level engagement between scientists and the hold- new PhD candidates brought their own scholarships a few ers of such knowledge are key conditions for in-depth, 13 Maritime Studies (2023) 22:48 Page 9 of 23 48 well-grounded case studies (Breckwoldt et al. 2021, project participants are needed, along with mechanisms Proulx et al. 2020). for conflict resolution and procedures for including novel To transport locally and regionally rooted diversity and local perspectives. An agreement on the sharing and into global analysis, inclusive and effective methods for use of case study data is needed. Most funding programs participation and communication are required. This is a lack guidelines on these, and with few exceptions, fund- key challenge for CB-GSPs. In each case study context, ing is not currently available to resolve issues that need to it is important to understand what aspects of the research be addressed before project proposals are finalized. The can inform the day-to-day activities of non-academic early project development stage requires a coordinated stakeholders and how best to involve local stakeholders and funded effort that includes all prospective project in respectful knowledge exchange and communication members in co-design, co-production, and co-delivery about research goals, processes, results, and outcomes. efforts, and clarity and agreement on what the project Open, frequent, friendly, and inclusive communica- requires from individual participants with respective tion within a project and between a project and its wider resources (Fleming et al. 2023). stakeholders in a supportive and collaborative atmosphere Globally relevant analysis is unlikely to emerge in an increases the motivation of participants, and the depth of entirely self-organized manner. Project design needs to inclusiveness, and thus improves research quality. Work- assign responsibilities, and include processes and struc- ing with local champions from beyond academia that can tures for cross-case analysis. Since many project members link research to action is important. Virtual meetings may focus their work at the case level, the responsibilities enable networking across the globe, but language barriers for cross-case analysis need to be explicit and clear. They can disadvantage whole regions (e.g., English language may be embedded in the project structure through the- deficits across North and North-East Brazil prevent rep- matic work packages that operate across case studies (as resentatives of local and regional stakeholders from effec- in the OCEANS PACT and the GULLS projects, Table 1), tively engaging in international meetings). Language and or specific members of case study teams may be assigned digital access can also bias against the inclusion of less to collaborate across cases to drive a project’s cross-case educated or less affluent stakeholder groups. Such groups study analysis (as in the NOCRISES project). may then be spoken for rather than contribute themselves, or their views and knowledge may be excluded. Virtual (b) Research methods Selecting research methods and meetings between case study teams across time zones tools has implications for project design, with specific carry good potential, but there are challenges in terms challenges for cross-case analysis. In some projects in this of inclusiveness and in coordination. Sharing the burden study (OCEANS PACT and ONE OCEAN HUB), each of inconvenient online (night or early morning) meeting case study followed its own methodological approach times between project members across the globe is one with a focus on shared themes. This limits the options of them. Linking globally requires special efforts, in par- for local stakeholders to determine key issues. In con- ticular from practitioners for whom other priorities may trast, where issues and problems to be addressed by the prevail. All groups which are expected to engage in glob- research are determined at the case study level, they ally focussed sustainability analysis need clearly defined may differ between case studies, and cross-case analysis terms and objectives for their involvement, and the articu- becomes difficult where results were generated in differ- lation and agreement of benefits, time, and deliverables ing case contexts with different research methods and on from the research back to participants involved in case different key issues. studies (e.g., communities and governments) needs to be Three of the global ocean-conflict-related research ensured. projects discussed here (GULLS, NOCRISES, and V2V) apply a core set of shared methods across their cases, Project design thus avoiding some of these challenges. We now briefly explore the pros and cons of applying the same method Project design covers the institutional and organiza- across several case studies in ocean conflict research. tional features of a project. It needs to be guided by how In an exemplary fashion, we focus on the potentials and research methods are expected to achieve effective project challenges of three methodological approaches that are operation including cross-case analysis. used by the NOCRISES project for case-based and cross- case ocean conflict research: Governance mapping, art- (a) Organizational structures and processes Clear and based creative approaches, and process tracing. effective project structures and processes and agreed roles Governance mapping (GM) examines the structure for all involved are important for achieving project goals. and functioning of a governance system as it responds to Accessible and regular communication channels for all a system stressor. In seven easily understandable steps, 13 48 Page 10 of 23 Maritime Studies (2023) 22:48 GM enables groups of affected people to agree on “who” Art-based creative approaches are a newcomer among makes governance decisions on the stressor in question, the growing diversity of inclusive, enabling methods in “what’ the powers and responsibilities of these actors transdisciplinary sustainability and conflict research which are, and “how” these are exercised (Dutra et al. 2019). directly involve local stakeholders. They can involve a GM can be undertaken with participants that hold diverse variety of culturally embedded arts and creative practices positions towards the system stressor in focus. Vave et al. exercised by often relatively powerless conflict parties (in review) outline how formal and informal rules, norms to (co-)produce a creative output to express their experi- and regulations address conflicts and related challenges ences and visions of a better future in often non-verbal in ocean governance, and discuss how such typically ways (Strand et al. 2022). Local leadership is crucial in the plural and contradictory institutional contexts influence process of identifying the focus of and the specific crea- governance decisions. They find that GM can reveal the tive approaches (e.g. painting, stitching, sculpture, music, cultural characteristics of informal governance systems story-telling, film-making) to be used in a creative practive and their different impacts across world regions. GM also intervention (CPI) (Galafassi et al. 2017; Heras et al. 2021). reveals the diverse recollections of stakeholders: In Fiji Art-based interventions enable culturally specific crea- and Hawaii, GM showed that ethnic, traditional leaders tive work at the level of a case study region (e.g., embroi- determine informal governance rules, in Bangladesh, dery by rural coastal women in Bangladesh8). The process the method revealed local economic and political power of creating artistic products and these products themselves holders to set informal governance rules with polarizing can facilitate the expression of the positions and expe- effects on the distribution of benefits and costs arising riences of otherwise excluded stakeholders in an ocean from stressor-related governance decisions. The seven conflict. In a multi-stage facilitation process (consisting of GM steps allow flexibility at the level of the individual problem identification, idea development, implementation, case and facilitate the identification of actual and latent exhibition, and outreach), CPIs can contextualize conflict conflicts. These features bear clear positive potential for environments at the case level while, as observed in NOC- cross-case analysis. RISES fieldwork in Bangladesh and Brazil, also providing The knowledge of participants in a GM group is “emotional release” to the artist. Early NOCRISES results reflected in the data obtained. GM group members’ par- show that, by supporting knowledge exchange and capac- tial understanding of governance systems may indicate ity building among creative agents, CPIs can also enable systemic problems but can also show the constraints of community building and empowerment. Both the process the GM approach. Recent NOCRISES case studies using of developing and implementing creative practices and the GM (Bangladesh and Fiji) show that while the method artistic end product(s) can help to transform conflict situ- reveals issues at the case level, it does not support com- ations into avenues towards positive future change (Gla- munities with their resolution. An additional step might ser et al. 2023, Galafassi et al. in preparation). enable GM, at the case level, to address conflict manage- CPIs in NOCRISES ocean conflict research have ment and resolution. With this, cross case analysis will involved (non-local) art facilitators who co-developed have a solid case-level approach that also includes con- artistic processes and products with local people. The flict management and transformation paths. major aims of the CPIs formulated in the NOCRISES pro- On the positive side, GM has been capable of identi- ject were empowerment, skill sharing, capacity building, fying shared issues and conflict types across case stud- knowledge exchange, and community building. Beyond ies, such as corruption, even where individual pieces of shared ethical standards, CPIs, guided by artists and art case research focussed on different system stressors (e.g., facilitators, challenge scientists to engage with unfamiliar fish scarcity and disaster management). Since inclusive quality criteria for the creative process. Conflicts between research requires key issues to be identified locally, these the arts and sciences can thus occur. International artists are likely to differ between cases. It remains an open and art facilitators engaged in NOCRISES case studies question whether, for GM to generate wider and practice- have for instance stated: “Art is about more than commu- relevant knowledge across cases, individual cases need to nication;” “Art aims not to communicate but to express;” focus on the same governance challenge. There is thus a and “Art and artists should not be instrumentalized for possible target conflict between the need for the inclusive, locally led choice of focal issues for GM and the potential 8 NOCRISES fieldwork (see https://​www.​leibn​iz-​zmt.​de/​en/​news-​at-​ of GM for delivering results beyond the case study level. zmt/​news/​overv​iew/​embro​idery-​art-​and-​coast​al-​confl​icts-​exhib​ition-​ Nonetheless, GM is an important method for ocean con- on-​t he-​displ​aceme​nt-​of-​women-​in-​bangl​adesh-​as-a-​result-​of-​t he-​ flict studies with a clear potential for cross-case analysis. blue-​econo​my.​html( 13 Maritime Studies (2023) 22:48 Page 11 of 23 48 communicating scientific messages” 9 . People in case approach towards PT tends to be most frequently used study regions who generate creative outputs are also (Boonstra et al., 2023). likely to develop their own objectives for engaging with PT is particularly suited for studying complex causal a CPI. In Bangladesh, women displaced by a large-scale interactions between variables. Complex causality can Blue Economy energy/seaport investment sought not so include the following features: low proximity (many inter- much to express and communicate their painful experi- vening variables between cause and effect), high multi- ences of displacement, as researchers expected them to, causality (many variables operating together to produce but sought new skills and income sources from their CPI an outcome), interactivity (none of the causes alone is engagement. The divergence between the CPI objectives sufficient to produce the outcome), non-linearity (a pro- of local people and pre-formulated project aims also cess exhibiting threshold effects), and equifinality (the appeared in a Brazilian CPI in November 2022 (Gala- same cause is linked to the same outcome through differ- fassi et al, in prep) where again, the search for new skills ent causal mechanisms depending on contextual condi- (in this case, the making of an animated film) prevailed tions) (Boonstra et al., 2023). With its explicit attention among local participants of the CPI while the project to complex causality, PT is an attractive method for inter- sought to “envoice” them by facilitating their creative disciplinary and cross-case analysis of marine conflicts work. Responding to emerging local objectives can lie (Spijkers and Boonstra 2019). beyond the capacities of creative practice facilitators and As an original within-case method, PT is not automati- scientists in ocean conflict research projects. But target cally applicable in cross-case analysis. A number of stud- conflicts between art facilitators, researchers, and local ies explore ways in which PT can be used for cross-case artists need to be identified, local priorities taken seri- analysis (Beach and Pedersen 2016; Bennett and Checkel ously, and included early in project design. 2015; Trampusch and Palier 2016; Beach 2017; Saylor Art-based creative approaches allow culturally rooted 2020; Waldner 2015; Garcia-Montoya and Mahoney art forms to generate and show (possibly otherwise inac- 2020, Beach et al. 2022). The crux of PT in cross-case cessible) knowledge. If such case-level knowledge is analysis is to distinguish case-specific or non-systematic linked and compared beyond the individual case study, mechanisms or processes and their parts from systematic this supports cross-case analysis. With the growth in ones (Beach and Pedersen 2016: 309) by paying attention globally accessible media and the increasing importance to contextual conditions, causal and process homogene- of “the visual” 10, CPIs expand the opportunities for a ity (Beach and Pedersen 2016: 89-90; Beach et al., 2022) wider understanding, in particular of the experiences of and process heterogeneity. Based on these suggestions, marginalized conflict parties, beyond the boundaries of Boonstra et al. (this Special Issue) argue that the compari- the individual case and beyond academia into arenas that son of studies using PT needs to account for differences affect decision-making and public perceptions. regarding (a) the focus of the study (macro and micro Process tracing (PT) is known as a political science phenomena especially); (b) theorization (deductive and method (Beach 2017), but it is also an established wider inductive reasoning especially); (c) the perspective on research tradition. To understand causality, within-case causal mechanisms (deterministic and probabilistic per- analysis is done based on the chronological order of spectives especially); and (d) generalizability (is casing events. Reasoning (causal attribution) then links an out- and case selection made explicit). Cross-case comparison come to the events that led up to it. PT is therefore also becomes problematic when studies using PT differ too described as “doing history backwards” (Boonstra and de much on these four aspects. In a recent paper, Beach et al. Boer 2014: 263). By mapping out both local and global (2022) offer a methodological pathway towards compara- events in time, scholars aim to either discover (induction) tive, cross-case PT that iteratively integrates increasingly or test (deduction) the explanatory power of causal mech- diverse cases. anisms. Counterfactual reasoning is often used to unveil PT has great potential for CB-GSPs primarily because causal mechanisms. In maritime studies, a deductive the method can examine the interaction between social and ecological drivers as well as emergent behavior, both central features of global processes which are conven- tionally understood from a systems perspective (Schlüter 9 Social scientists entering natural science-led sustainability research et al. 2019). This is the reason why PT was used in the in the 1990s also feared and rejected instrumentalization. Learning from this somewhat parallel earlier experience of power balance in NOCRISES project to compare causal pathways of cases building interdisciplinarity might be drawn from how a now main- that feature the same outcome (namely, conflict). Nev- stream social science in sustainability research sets out to work with ertheless, as pointed out, cross-case comparison is chal- the arts. lenging due to the different disciplinary backgrounds of 10 For example, see www.​artsf​ortra​nsfor​matio​ns.​earth 13 48 Page 12 of 23 Maritime Studies (2023) 22:48 the involved scholars, and because case studies are imple- implementation of research methods, and collaborate in mented with different approaches towards focus, theory, data analysis, the teams in a CB-GSP need to cooperate philosophy of science, and case selection. This diversity during all stages of project development. This requires a has to be observed and accounted for in the comparison shared common project timeline in which different stages of cases. Boonstra et al. (2023) point to a lack of atten- of a project (early design, start of funding, and reporting tion to the micro-sociology of conflicts—i.e., to how periods) are synchronized across case studies. So far, this conflicts are caused by a series of events in time and has often been difficult to achieve. The NOCRISES pro- space in which people interact with different emotions ject is but one example. The official project start was June and interpretations, and to “external validity,”—i.e., to 2020, with funding expected from the USA, Germany, what populations, settings, and variables in the causal Sweden, and Australia. South Africa was to be a funder mechanisms that have been identified can be general- as well, but backed out of the approved project, resulting ized. These new ways of using PT in maritime studies in uncertainty and delays for two case studies. These were are reflected in NOCRISES work. For example, the pop- eventually resolved, but the delays made the synchroniza- ulation of cases which studies in NOCRISES currently tion of case study planning and implementation across aim to generate knowledge about is still quite broad; for the seven case studies of the project impossible. Some instance, in terms of “marine environments” or “natural case studies had to start work as their funding arrived on resources,” case studies are situated in deltas, islands, schedule, while others still waited for their funds a full and other coastal landscapes. Explaining how these dif- year into the 3-year project. This is not an unfamiliar sce- ferent categories or “sets” (Mahoney 2021) are related is nario in current CB-GSPs, and it greatly reduces projects’ instrumental for making valid comparisons. potential for cross-case analysis. Where funding delays This short section shows that the choice and imple- affect some, but not all of a project’s case study work, the mentation of research methods greatly affect the poten- concerted development of shared approaches within that tial for cross-case analysis in ocean conflict research. A project, and thus its global reach and relevance, become deeper discussion of rapidly developing methods in cross- very difficult to achieve, and the likelihood of conflicts case ocean conflict studies is outside the scope of this within the project. article but taken up in other articles in this SI (Boonstra Other projects report similar experiences. A GULLS et al 2023.; Dahlet et al. 2023) as well as in a further project report states: “More could have been achieved recent work (Vave et al. under review) and offers promis- with higher levels of funding, including ear-marked ing terrain for additional research. funding for project oversight and international coordi- nation. One country has not yet received its funding a year into the project”11. In an online meeting of the then Timing, funding, and political and institutional contexts 13 funded Belmont JPI Oceans projects on Friday, June 18th, 2021, several of the projects, all of which are CB- Regulatory differences for fieldwork between case study GSPs, reported staggered and delayed funding and asso- regions including diverse travel restrictions and lock- ciated problems with collaborative planning, initiation, downs related to the COVID pandemic hampered cross- and coordination of fieldwork across case study regions. case coordination. Case studies also progressed at differ- Project members and leaders saw this as endangering pro- ent speeds because of the need to respect and not overtax jects’ coordinated planning, data collection, and analy- local communities in very different contexts. sis, all core requirements of global sustainability research Those who fund and administer global research pro- work. jects also have important impacts on how cross-case The NOCRISES, GULLS, and ONE OCEAN HUB research can be implemented. International research projects witnessed funding delays or cuts from some collaborations that are based on globally distributed partner countries which resulted in the loss of selected case studies are often co-funded from different national case studies and up to a full year difference in starting sources and administered individually by the national times between case studies. Situations in which some agencies that fund the various country/case teams. For members of an international project team are funded and instance, the Belmont Forum, an important funder of CB-GSPs in the 2020s, relies on national co-funding of its global research. This is an important step forward for 11 Source: GULLS project presentation to Belmont Mid-term Meet- global sustainability research which, however, still faces ing, September 2014, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, accessed online some key obstacles. To co-develop ideas, coordinate the June 10, 2021. 13 Maritime Studies (2023) 22:48 Page 13 of 23 48 under pressure from their national funding agency to international financial report also appears unnecessary. deliver as promised while other members are not funded It is needed only if budgets are internationally allocated or funded much later and therefore unable to progress in and distributed, an arrangement which would also greatly line with their funded colleagues obstructed coordinated support the potential for cross-case analysis. within-project work planning and introduced imbalances A single consistent reporting format and time sched- and conflict sources into project teams. Such dynam- ule will render research in CS-GSPs more effective as a ics, caused by the funding and administration structure, truly global pursuit of agreed objectives across case study impede the establishment of the collaborative processes teams, in line with shared criteria. We suggest that coor- so important for analysis across case studies. A centrally dinated, simultaneously disbursed, reliable funding and administered or reliably synchronized disbursement of “one stop” reporting for all CB-GSPs to a single institu- funds for CB-GSPs would greatly strengthen the options tion is needed to enable such progress. for cross-case work in global research. Such one-stop disbursement processes may also reduce funding asym- metries within CB-GSPs between Global North and Summary and outlook Global South case study research. There are important key actors and roles during the plan- Funders’ project administration structures and processes ning, implementation, analysis, and conclusion phases of ocean conflict-related and other CB-GSPs that affect the The implementation of CB-GSPs is hampered where success of these projects and of their cross-case analysis in such projects, or parts of them, are simultaneously sub- particular. Best practices for globally relevant and locally ject to more than one set of funding, administration, and meaningful case-based sustainability research are depend monitoring procedures for the same work. Where diverse on an actor’s position within or towards a research project. funders’ national guidelines are being followed, key As a summary of our results, Fig. 1 presents the main stages of subprojects (such as the design phase, contracts challenges faced by ocean (conflict) CB-GSPs in their of key staff, exchange of results, preparation of publica- quest to generate internationally relevant and meaningful tions, and other outputs) are likely not to coincide, and results while also focusing on the contextual grounding concerted cross-case work can thus be (and has been and relevance of project work in the individual case study reported to have been) impeded or even prevented. In the region. In order to more firmly establish the link between global projects funded by the Belmont Forum, members reseach and practice, Fig. 1 also links our findings and of the funding consortia require reports according to their ideas for the solution of the identified main challenges to a different national criteria, formats, and time schedules, set of best practice recommendations for three main actor/ while additional global-level project reporting require- stakeholder types in CB-GSPs: project scientists (includ- ments follow yet another format, timeline, and inter- ing leaders and team members), other project partners and nal logic. Multiple reporting requirements, to national stakeholders, and funders. Best-practice recommendations funders, and to an international consortium hamper are presented with attention to the project stage. project progress by taking up scientists’ time for multi- Figure 1 reflects the consensus we encountered that ple reporting. Target conflicts that are linked to diverse scientists from diverse countries, disciplines, and institu- funder-specific objectives also appear. This undermines tions as well as non-academic local partners and funders consensus-building in project teams. A single, interna- have essential roles in case-based, transdisciplinary tionally agreed approach to proposal writing, funding, and global research, and it summarizes the key results of this reporting in which CB-GSPs undertake each requirement paper. By linking identified challenges to proposed solu- only in relation to one institution, in line with one set of tions (on the left side) and then “unpacking” these solu- criteria, is needed. Multiple national reporting schedules tions into actor-specific best practice recommendations and styles, with an additional level of international report- (on the right side), Fig. 1 provides a strategic starting ing, often with different criteria and timelines, reduce the point for the main actors in CB-GSPs, which is based periods during which in particular senior researchers can on the currently available collective knowledge of scien- focus on actual research, can cause target conflicts in pro- tists in ocean conflict projects. While elements of Fig. 1 ject teams, and undermine project potentials, in particu- will continue to be subject to debate and review, the com- lar those for cross-case research. In international projects mitted (best practice level engagement of each project with nationally funded and administered sub-budgets, an stakeholder group is clearly essential. 13 48 Page 14 of 23 Maritime Studies (2023) 22:48 The complexity, and the synergies and complementari- et al. 2008) which applied governance theory as a research ties evident in the web of connections between individual framework to the global fisheries setting. Subsequent the- challenges and the multiple solutions and actor-specific oretical developments in interactive governance theory best practices that can contribute to resolving them is were based on various international case studies and are shown in Fig. 1. This figure thus supports individual- reflected in a series of books and articles published by project stakeholders in adapting their own approaches to the MARE Center12. These works address global fisher- better address major challenges. ies governance issues in the context of a wide range of We conclude by discussing two key recommendations case studies in the framework of interactive governance for improving the inclusiveness and reach of case research theory and have produced key policy outputs such as the in CB-GSPs: 1) Effective networking and 2) recogniz- Guidelines for sustaining small-scale fisheries1313 clearly ing the diversity of types of coastal and marine social- showing how cross-case work can support global sustain- ecological systems. These are included in the “Solutions” ability objectives. column of Fig. 1 but merit further discussion here. Recognizing types of coastal and marine Effective networking social‑ecological systems The characteristics of their associated social networks In view of the growing consensus that research needs to potentials, and of the actors and connections they consist enable answers for the planet as a whole, case study work of, affect the impact of CB-GSPs. Like other CB-GSPs, needs to assess the meaning, significance, and relative the NOCRISES project has researchers from different importance of a case in a global context. This requires disciplines and backgrounds, including social scientists, a framework of reference within which each case can be environmental researchers, educators, and marine biolo- situated. gists, from diverse research institutions and at different Diverse social-ecological system typologies have been career stages, who are part of a diverse and growing set proposed. Evolving from early research which diagnoses of interconnected social networks. The analysis of such “messy SES” (Alessa et al. 2009), such work increasingly social and social-ecological networks (Schröter and Gla- responds to the complex character of SESs with qualita- ser 2020; Glaser and Schröter 2020) has key potential tive, quantitative, and mixed approaches (for reviews, see for case-based global ocean conflict and sustainability Oberleder et al. 2019; Sietz et al. 2019). While more work research. For the social-ecological systems surround- has been done on land-based SES, typologies for coastal ing ocean fisheries, Estévez et al. (2020) see a transition and marine social-ecological systems exist. Early coastal towards collaborative governance and note that collabo- and marine system typologies focus on the natural system ration requires stakeholder capacity for designing and features of coasts (Buddemeier et al. 2008) and oceans implementing legitimate and scientifically robust man- (Hobday et al. 2014), and more recently, interdiscipli- agement plans in collective action arenas with scope for nary coastal and marine social-ecological system (CM- participatory decision-making. SES) typologies have been initiated (Glaser and Glaeser, The complexity, dynamic nature, and need for long- 2023a, b; Glaeser, 2023). term horizons which are characteristic of transdiscipli- With the I-ADApT decision support tool 14 (Bundy nary case-based sustainability research are well sup- et al. 2016; Guillotreau et al. 2018), an explicitly case- ported by active social networks. Networks are dynamic based approach was designed to assess diverse marine and and adaptive, and crucially, they can operate beyond the coastal governance responses to social-ecological change duration of a project. Established research networks, or and to derive a multidimensional typology of CM-SES networks established in the wake of concluding projects and their responses to change. Addressing the need for a (such as the TBTI; see Table 1), follow up on different sufficient number of case studies to allow for conclusions (spin-off) issues related to their “mother” projects. Networking may involve local/regional/national and 12 global researchers and other stakeholders potentially add- https://​marec​entre.​nl/​publi​catio​ns/​annual-​report/​mare-​publi​cation-​ series/ ing societal impact across system levels and scales (Ger- 13 http://​www.​fao.​org/3/​i8347​en/​I8347​EN.​pdf hardinger et al. 2018). An example is the international 14 I-ADApT (Assessment based on Description and responses and fishgovfood network, initiated with EU funding during Appraisal for a Typology) see https://​imber.​info/​scien​ce/​regio​nal-​ the 2002 MARE Conference. It resulted in the book “Fish progr​ams-​worki​ng-​groups/​human-​dimen​sions-​worki​ng-​group-​hdwg/​ for Life: Interactive Governance for Fisheries” (Kooiman imber-​adapt/ 13 Maritime Studies (2023) 22:48 Fig. 1  Challenges, key elements for their solution, and stakeholder-specific best practice for facilitating cross-case analysis in ocean CB-GSPs Page 15 of 23 48 13 48 Page 16 of 23 Maritime Studies (2023) 22:48 from the I-ADApt typology, the V2V project (see Table 1 “Viable pathways to sustainability” in ocean conflict and Appendix), a recent CB-GSP with an 8-year time research (as is the title of this special issue) will need horizon (which is unusually long in contemporary prac- explicit management of the challenges we identify here tice), is currently implementing 12 case studies in Africa to increase the global relevance and impact of case-based and Asia15. research, and we hope to have provided an important ele- In a pioneering attempt at constructing the com- ment of this evolving process. ponents of a multi-level global “typology of typolo- This paper provides new insights on how to conduct gies” for coastal and marine social-ecological systems, cross-case analysis more effectively in terms of under- Glaeser (2023b) contrasts knowledge-based and curiosity- standing the global significance of ocean conflict cases. driven typologies and identifies several focal variables for Global (ocean) sustainability projects (CB-GSPs) that CM-SES typologies. To overcome the limitations of sin- include multiple actors linked by complex relations gle-case analyses, Bodin et al. (2019) suggest a typology and rules are a prominent feature in marine social sci- of causal relationships connected with social-ecological ence research. We will need to move beyond general state- networks. Since typologies are heuristic tools, the quest ments that are merely illustrated by single cases to effec- for a single valid typology is likely to be misguided— tive multi-case research. A major challenge for cross-case as is the quest for a single valid SES definition (Glaser research is showing what a case study actually signifies et al. 2012). Current SES typologies need to be further in relation to a wider, global issue, such as the growing developed and collated to provide what global projects, incidence of ocean conflicts we have focused on here. including those on ocean conflicts, need: consistent Although tensions will remain between unique, com- global frameworks in which in-depth case studies can be plex systems (the cases) and the fundamental “levelling” situated. Such framing would support the generation of features of global analyses, when conclusions are based generic and/or transferable knowledge and the assessment on multiple cases, global analysis requires case-level work of the meaning and significance of cases. Any case typol- within broader analytical frameworks. Such frameworks ogy (e.g. I-ADApT or the typology suggested by Glaeser, or typologies are needed to enable effective global anal- 2023a) needs a sufficient number of implemented case ysis based on multiple cases. They should identify and studies as well as continuous adaptation and development. retain the key features of individual cases which are The growing number of case-based global sustainability needed to inform effective, context-specific solutions, research projects needs to connect and collaborate at and but also situate the meaning of a case study in a wider across multiple levels. Ocean conflict research is well frame. The combination of case typologies and actor- placed to engage here and would benefit from increasing specific best practices that we suggest here addresses the its global relevance. challenges of working at and beyond the case level for scientists, other partners in transdisciplinary research, and Outlook the funders of such international research. Our “best practice” suggestions for those engaged in The CB-GSP we identify here as a new category of global planning, implementing and facilitating globally relevant project is predominant in ocean conflict research and it but regionally rooted and societally impactful (right part has arisen in parallel to an also increasing focus on quan- of Fig. 1) should facilitate pathways for ocean conflict titative” big data” analysis in ocean science (Liu et al. research projects of the CB-GSP type to expand their 2016; Guidi et al. 2020). Synergies between these com- impact beyond the individual, locally grounded, inclusive, plementary approaches will need to be explored. and actionable case research so as to address wider ocean conflict and sustainability issues. This requires a collabo- rative further development of best practices by scientists, funders and project partners. 15 These are struggling with the contextualization of the “one fits all” aspects of the IADApt tool, as revealed in our Key Informant inter- view with the PI (IvP) in February 2022. 13 Appendix Maritime Studies Table A  Cross-case analysis in selected CB-GSPs Project name 1. How central was the project aim 2. What was the project approach to 3. What were the strengths of the 4. Pitfalls/challenges of the adopted to analyze across case studies to gen- analyzing across case studies? adopted approach? approach? erate globally relevant results? Very central/ Fairly central/ Second- ary/ Unimportant (2023) 22:48 NOCRISES (Negotiating ocean con- Very Central - The project started A shared research agenda on the Effective collaborative learning and The selection of case study regions flicts among rivals for sustainable out with a set of generic globally basis of a “state of the art” litera- team-building on methods for the could not but follow a number of and equitable solutions) relevant questions and objectives ture review and based on an agreed study of (ocean) conflicts; identi- practical criteria, so the repre- and then searched for case studies menu of methods to be applied at fying similar conflicts in different sentativeness of cases is in doubt; to generate information on these the case study level (process trac- regions of the earth (e.g., small- a concentration on methods has in ing, governance mapping, cultural scale fishers vs a multiplicity of the ongoing first half of the project consensus analysis, and creative other ocean users and uses) perhaps reduced focus on results; arts). The aim is to apply a core set fieldwork and in-person meetings of methods across case studies were hampered by COVID OCEANSPACT (Ocean sustainabil- Fairly Central - Not a full compara- An “analytical generalization It allows learning across cases in Cross-case analyses can become ity pathways for achieving conflict tive approach since cases in global approach” develops guidance light of contextual differences, superficial; differences between transformation) North and South are so different: on (predefined) analytical areas networking, and capacity building researcher teams in how the analysis in the North, people trust and feel (like drivers & root causes of among researchers to generate is performed hard to handle & lead they can influence the system, here conflicts; power dynamics); based pluralistic/flexible understanding to ambiguity; different perceptions science “observes; in the South, on reflections and analytical to prevent being too dogmatic; of the role of research and science fewer options for communities to frame; work packages have core generate understanding of contex- (e.g., action orientation or not); influence blue growth and more conflict analysis themes in conflict tual differences misconception of what action can/ activist scholars and contextual analysis themes (drivers, power should be; not necessarily action learning; comparative work may dynamics of conflicts); aiming for that results in outcome in 3 years, be overambitious a conceptual theory to show that can be more long-term and progress conflict can have negative or posi- over time on a pathway; this creates tive outcomes; mainly qualitative, friction in project; soft follow up participatory and action-oriented makes it hard to get project run data collection in COVID times; fragmentation, turning into scientific silos that take their own direction; organiza- tional problem: needs to be flexible with implementation but also core organization and communication needed to deliver shared results Page 17 of 23 48 13 Table A  (continued) 48 Project name 1. How central was the project aim 2. What was the project approach to 3. What were the strengths of the 4. Pitfalls/challenges of the adopted to analyze across case studies to gen- analyzing across case studies? adopted approach? approach? 13 erate globally relevant results? Very central/ Fairly central/ Second- ary/ Unimportant Page 18 of 23 GULLS (Global understanding and Very Central - We selected several To ensure comparison, case studies Strong coordination and consensus Different start dates due to funding learning for local solutions) cases of “hotspots of change” used consistent tools; conducted building between participants schedules; for some sites specific (fast-warming marine areas and group meetings to discuss methods increased the confidence in requirements had to be adapted to areas experiencing social tensions and results; each case study was country teams; students/postdocs accommodate the needs of non- as a result) because these areas are carried out by a cross-nation team working in several case studies academic participants; cultural and in urgent need of adaptation and to work on impacts, social aspects, were empowered to build network language issues; different capaci- resilience building. Our goals were and models (for each project and leadership; Particularly the ties of national teams to cover all to pinpoint resulting problems component: communication and social and economic vulnerability components-e.g., systems modelling and identify how each location education, ocean and climate component had good representa- component not well covered; fund- manages change and identify what modelling, sensitivity of species tion from all hotspots and brought ing for a final face-to-face workshop commonly works well in order to important to fisheries, social and together compatible data sets was missing; GULLS was mainly a make some global recommenda- economic vulnerability, govern- and methods. The participatory set of discrete and largely independ- tions ance & systems modelling); the development of this component ent subprojects (i.e.; components) work aimed to understand the enhanced the skills of all team rather than an integrated project but perspective and background of members; Similarly, existing some commonalities were identified. each country/case team; using a methods were applied in different More exchange between components participatory approach hotspots (e.g., ocean and climate and an overall synthesis and integra- modelling and species sensitiv- tion was needed to make project ity) but here capacity building for outcomes more than the sum of the method co-development by teams components. with diverse experience from across the case studies was less. ONE OCEAN HUB Unimportant - We have case studies Multiple institutions collaborate It is a collaborative and applied UK budget cuts reduced funding but we do not work on comparing in a “living laboratory” in which research for development impact cases; equitable partnerships in the (in-country) case studies are used; which we can and do measure different countries to work for the there are in-country directors and through interviews; an interna- development of those countries some researchers from participat- tional impact working group exists through “in context learning” is ing country teams are part of an our focus; global reach of project international working group which work is also central may develop ocean governance interventions MULTIFRAME (Assessment Fairly Central - The project aims We are a “one issue project,” the We frame some common issues in Working as an interdisciplinary team Maritime Studies Framework for successful develop- to adapt an originally European same questions are applied to all different geographical contexts and with only one social scientist makes ment of viable ocean multi-use concept to other contexts across cases but each case study has its identify new multi-use combina- for the imbalance between applied systems) the globe focussing on synergies own combination of ocean multi- tions and issues and critical science so finding com- between ocean uses rather than just use. We identify shared cross-case mon ground to work together is dif- multi-use issues ficult; funding is not equal between (2023) 22:48 North and South partners, hard to build good relations to new partners through videoconferencing Table A  (continued) Project name 1. How central was the project aim 2. What was the project approach to 3. What were the strengths of the 4. Pitfalls/challenges of the adopted to analyze across case studies to gen- analyzing across case studies? adopted approach? approach? erate globally relevant results? Maritime Studies Very central/ Fairly central/ Second- ary/ Unimportant DELTAS (Catalyzing action towards Fairly Central - Not the whole pro- A nested approach with 9 partners in Scientifically, it allowed and You lose local specificity when work- sustainability of deltaic systems) ject aimed to be globally relevant. a large consortium: Some indica- enforced “inter-delta learning:” ing across cases (i.e., here deltas). If Some activities were only for tors of vulnerability and exposure everyone learnt something new; you want global relevance, you will (2023) 22:48 one of our three large river deltas were assessed globally, and then most scientists had experience be less informative for local plan- (Amazon, Ganges/Brahmaputra, we looked at where our 3 “case in one delta, it increased mutual ning; for the qualitative (soft social) and Mekong). Some partners deltas” appear in the overall risk understanding, and allowed the science; a larger budget would have worked on a global scale. Some landscape. The socio-ecological transfer of solutions; our indicator- been needed for all three deltas to WPs were cross-cutting on delta- risk was assessed for all three del- based methodologies were more be empirically researched. We used related knowledge. One activity tas in a modular, indicator-based suited to global work. desk-based indicators; their valida- looked at all deltas globally. approach with some cross-cutting tion on the ground was challenging; indicators for all three deltas to locally appropriate fine-tuning of compare delta challenges and indicators was needed. A follow- patterns. We also had project up to make outcomes usable in the members working only on one local context would have been good. delta (e.g., Eduardo Brondizio’s For the global discourse (i.e., to tell ethnology team on Amazon Belém a story about the three case deltas) water challenges) our indicators were useful, less so for local debate and implementation Vulnerability to viability (V2V) Very Central - Cross-case analysis is IADApt is the central method The final V2V research template will How does the project continue to our starting point and guides us which guides us. But we will have be comprehensive and inclusive. Each contribute after it is over? You need another, more comprehensive case study can also apply the issue- enough common ground to build assessment approach as a precur- based IDApt template multiple times “lasting” knowledge. Cross-cultural sor to the IADApt case study and templates are a challenge and take implement this to develop a final time; to look at a project as a pro- template to be applied to all 12 cess is not encouraged in academia; case studies how do case study participants benefit?; capacity building in case study work is a challenge Interviews were conducted online by one of the co-authors; interviewees/project respondents were leading members of their respective CB-GSPs Page 19 of 23 48 13 48 Page 20 of 23 Maritime Studies (2023) 22:48 Table B  Summary of interviewees' ideas for future case-based global sustainability projects (CB-GSPs) • A realistic timeline and budget and the right sort of partners from communities, government, and NGO sectors are needed. “All this is decided in the design stage of the project.” • Opportunities for global comparison need to be designed for and coordinated; fieldwork needs to be planned, funded, and implemented; delays or changes need to be communicated and the overall design needs to have contingency plans • The scientist does not only want to be a small piece in the big matrix, thus the coordinator needs to have an overall “herding function” and explain the need to cover the different cases (i.e., deltas). That is not easy for a coordinator. • If you want a global view, the number of partners increases, and budget limits come to bear more strongly. The framework needs to be devel- oped first and then targeted partners need to be invited to fulfil specified tasks. Planning at the beginning is key. • Need to check that those who are allocated tasks have the capacity to fulfil them; match the distribution of tasks to the distribution of fund- ing; ensure that the project coordinator has a scientific vision for the project. This is not necessarily given when a private company coordi- nates. • Time and capacity are needed • For big projects: (1) think of additional clustering into case types to introduce extra options for comparison (e.g., between cases in the global North; it is easier to learn from similar cases, different dimensions of comparison of case studies; (2) longer projects, more funding for empirical work and ambitious project management are needed; now case selection is driven by countries` eligibility for funding; funding for external collaborators is needed (researchers and others); need to be able to collaborate on a more equal basis with community collabora- tors (e.g., small scale fishers); (3) better to identify case types first and then collaborators; mediation via an organization might be good but that limits free competition for projects; a boundary organization that helps to pre-organize case studies might work; (4) if transdisciplinary research is the aim, funding for non-academic partners is needed; do not fund projects that have no ambition/experience in working with local people. Different core ambitions/sets of research; natural science cross-case comparisons seem easier than studies that contain social complexities. • A set of core methods needs to be combined with flexibility to complement and adapt them to context. • Simultaneous start of funding for all case studies/research teams and one set of reporting requirements within one project timeline is needed (rather than each national funder following their separate, and at times mutually inconsistent procedures); this is important for a global multi- case project to generate synergies through cross-case team collaboration • Project design: When working with indigenous communities, project design is challenging because trust and co-creation are key but not all “tools” fit with all cultures. This needs to be discussed early, during project framing; we need longer projects to allow for early redesign and starting problems (5 rather than 4 years). • Funding: The time frame including start and end dates for all funding agencies should be coordinated, and the degree of support should match the (planning and reporting) effort required from project scientists. The central funding (by a single partner country or by a central one-stop agency) would help project cohesion and dynamics. • Organization: Project teams that have experience with collaborative work, and are trusted locally are likely to be more successful. Frequent meetings (at least monthly) of all participants and in-person kick-off meetings are important; distributed leadership is good (e.g., co-chairs, topic leads, national coordinators…); where time zones and distance make interaction hard, a post- COVID communication strategy needs to be designed (e.g. go beyond emails and phone calls with Miro board, interactive tools, shared documents, online meetings). 13 Maritime Studies (2023) 22:48 Page 21 of 23 48 Acknowledgements The first ideas for this paper were drafted by Benasso, Sebastiano, Dejana Bouillet, Tiago Neves, and Marcelo Par- MG (who is a member of and coordinator of two case studies in the reira do Amaral. 2022. Landscapes of lifelong learning policies NOCRISES project) for a talk at a MARE conference session on June across Europe comparative case studies. Palgrave MacMillan. 29–30th 2021. The ideas were then developed in a collaborative pro- Bennett, A., and J.T. Checkel. 2015. Process tracing: From philosophi- cess between co-authors. Thanks are due to all key staff of the ocean- cal roots to best practices. In Process tracing. From metaphor to related CB-GSPs that we interviewed, to Peter Arbo for comments analytical tool, ed. A. Bennett and J.T. Checkel, 3–38. Cambridge: on the first draft, to Merle Sowman and Ralf Tafon for comments and Cambridge University Press. suggestions on subsequent versions as part of a two-stage internal “pre- Biermann, F., X. Bai, N. Bondre, W. Broadgate, C.T. Arthur Chen, O.P. review review, and to a further two anonymous reviewers who kindly Dube, J.W. Erisman, M. Glaser, S. van der Hel, M.C. Lemos, S. undertook the final external review. Seitzinger, and K.C. Seto. 2016. Down to Earth: Contextualizing the Anthropocene. Global Environmental Change 39: 341–350. Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​gloen​vcha.​2015.​11.​004. DEAL. MG, SS IvP, RCM, AP, NH, and WB were partly funded by Bellanger, M., C. Speir, F. Blanchard, K. Brooks, J.R.A. Butler, S. the CRA Oceans (Belmont Forum) NOCRISES project. WS and BS Crosson, R. Fonner, S. Gourguet, D.S. Holland, S. Kuikka, B. were partly funded through the GCRF One Ocean Hub project. Le Gallic, R. Lent, G.D. Libecap, D.W. Lipton, P.K. Nayak, D. Reid, P. Scemama, R. Stephenson, O. Thébaud, and J.C. Young. Declarations 2020. Addressing marine and coastal governance conflicts at the interface of multiple sectors and jurisdictions [Review]. Frontiers Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests. in Marine Science 7: 544440. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.3​ 389/f​ mars.2​ 020.​ 544440. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Bodin, Ö., S.M. Alexander, J. Baggio, et al. 2019. Improving network Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, approaches to the study of complex social–ecological interdepend- adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, encies. Nature Sustainability 2: 551–559. as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the Boonstra, W.J., L. Dahlet, B. Eriksson, et al. 2023. Understanding and source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate analysing the complex causality of conflicts over marine environ- if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this ments through process tracing. Maritime Studies 22: 25. https://​doi.​ article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless org/​10.​1007/​s40152-​023-​00314-4. indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not Boonstra, W.J., and F.W. de Boer. 2014. The historical dynamics of included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended social–ecological traps. Ambio 43 (3): 260–274. use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted Breckwoldt, A., P.F.M. Lopes, and S.A. Selim. 2021. Look Who’s use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright asking - reflections on participatory and transdisciplinary marine holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​ research approaches. Frontiers in Marine Science 8: 694. https://​ org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/. doi.​org/​10.​3389/​fmars.​2021.​627502. Buddemeier, R.W., S.V. Smith, D.P. Swaney, C.J. Crossland, and B.A. Maxwell. 2008. Coastal typology: An integrative “neutral” tech- nique for coastal zone characterization and analysis. Estuarine, References Coastal and Shelf Science 77: 197–205. Bundy, A., R. Chuenpagdee, S.R. Cooley, O. Defeo, B. Glaeser, P. Guillotreau, M. Isaacs, M. Mitsutaku, and R.I. Perry. 2016. A Alexander, K. 2020. Conflicts over marine and coastal common decision support tool for response to global change in marine sys- resources: Causes, governance and prevention. Earthscan Oceans. tems: The IMBER-ADApT Framework. Fish Fish 17: 1183–1193. Alessa, L., A. Kliskey, and M. Altaweel. 2009. Toward a typology for https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​faf.​12110. social-ecological systems. Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Carvalho, B., and H. Leira, eds. 2022. The sea and international rela- Policy 5 (1): 31–41 http://​ejour​nal.​nbii.​org. tions, 280. Manchester University Press. Aswani, S. 2019. Perspectives in coastal human ecology (CHE) Collins, R. 2022. Explosive conflict: Time-dynamics of violence. for marine conservation. Biological Conservation 236: Routledge. 223–235. Dahlet, L.I., S.A. Selim, and I. van Putten. 2023. A review of how Bailey, K.D. 1994. Typologies and taxonomies. An introduction to clas- we study coastal and marine conflicts: is social science taking sification techniques. Vol. no. 07/102). Sage, Thousand Oaks/Lon- a broad enough view? Mar Stud 22: 29. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​ don/New Delhi: Sage University Sage Universities paper series on s40152-​023-​00319-z. quantitative application in the social sciences. Series. Dutra, L.X.C., I. Sporne, M. Haward, S. Aswani, K.L. Cochrane, S. Balvanera, Patricia, Rafael Calderón-Contreras, Antonio J. Castro, Frusher, M.A. Gasalla, S.M.F. Gianesella, T. Grant, A.J. Hob- María R. Felipe-Lucia, Ilse R. Geijzendorffer, Sander Jacobs, day, S. Jennings, E. Plagányi, G. Pecl, S.S. Salim, W. Sauer, Berta Martin-Lopez, et al. 2017. Interconnected place-based M.B. Taboada, and I.E. van Putten. 2019. Governance map- social–ecological research can inform global sustainability. Cur- ping: A framework for assessing the adaptive capacity of marine rent Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 29 (2017): 1–7. resource governance to environmental change. Marine Policy Beach, D., G. Camacho, and M. Siewert. 2022. Going beyond the sin- 106: 103392. gle case: Comparative process tracing as a tool to enable gen- Eisenack, K. 2012. Archetypes of adaptation to climate change. In eralizations about causal processes. https://​doi.​org/​10.​33774/​ Human/nature interactions in the Anthropocene: Potentials of apsa-​2022-​fpx3v. social-ecological systems analysis, ed. M. Glaser, G. Krause, Beach, D. 2017. Process-tracing methods in social science. Oxford B. Ratter, and M. Welp, 107–122. Routledge. research encyclopaedia of politics. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​acref​ Estévez, R.A., C. Veloso, G. Jerez, and S. Gelcich. 2020. A participa- ore/​97801​90228​637.​013.​176. tory decision making framework for artisanal fisheries collabora- Beach, D., and R.B. Pedersen. 2016. Causal case study methods: Foun- tive governance: Insights from management committees in Chile. dations and guidelines for comparing, matching, and tracing. Ann Natural Resources Forum 44 (2): 144–160. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ Harbor: University of Michigan Press. 1111/​1477-​8947.​12200. 13 48 Page 22 of 23 Maritime Studies (2023) 22:48 Fleming, A., E. Bohensky, L.X.C. Dutra, B.B. Lin, J. Melbourne- Grantham, R. 2021. Seasonal dynamics in ecosystem services – a case Thomas, T. Moore, S. Stone-Jovicich, C. Tozer, J.M. Clarke, L. study of small-scale fisheries, PhD thesis. Australia: James Cook Donegan, M. Hopkins, S. Merson, T. Remenyi, A. Swirepik, and University, Townville. C. Vertigan. 2023. Perceptions of co-Design, co-proDuction and Hedström, P., and L. Udehn. 2009. Analytical sociology and theories co-Delivery (Co-3D) – insights for climate science. Vol. 30. Cli- of the middle range. In The Oxford handbook of analytical soci- mate Services. ology, ed. P. Hedström and P. Bearman, 25–50. Oxford: Oxford Flyvbjerg, B. 2006. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. University Press. Qualitative Inquiry 12 (2): 219–245. Heras, M., D. Galafassi, E. Oteros-Rozas, L. Berraquero-DÍaz, and I. Galafassi, D., T. Daw, L. Munyi, K. Brown, C. Barnaud, and I. Ruiz-Mallén. 2021. Realising potentials for arts-based sustain- Fazey. 2017. Learning about social-ecological trade-offs. ability science. Sustainability Science 16 (6): 1875–1889. https://​ Ecology and Society 22 (1): 2. https:// ​ d oi. ​ o rg/ ​ 1 0. ​ 5 751/​ doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11625-​021-​01002-0. ES-​08920-​220102. Hobday, A.J., and G.T. Pecl. 2014. Identification of global marine hot- Garcia-Montoya, L., and J. Mahoney. 2020. Critical event analysis in spots: sentinels for change and vanguards for adaptation action. case study research. Sociological Methods & Research 52 (1): Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 24: 415–425. 480–524. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​00491​24120​926201. Jouffray, et al. 2020. The blue acceleration: The trajectory of human Gerhardinger, Leopoldo C., Philipp Gorris, Leandra R. Gonçalves, expansion into the ocean. One Earth Perspective 2 (1): 43–54. Dannieli F. Herbst, Daniele A. Vila-Nova, Fabiano G. De Car- Kooiman, J., M. Bavinck, R. Chuenpagdee, R. Mahon, and R. Pullin. valho, Marion Glaser, Ruben Zondervan, and Bruce C. Glavovic. 2008. Interactive governance and governability: An introduction. 2018. Healing Brazil’s Blue Amazon: The Role of Knowledge Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies 7 (1): 1–11. Networks in Nurturing Cross-Scale Transformations at the Front- Lüdeke, M.K.B., G. Petschel-Held, and H.-J. Schellnhuber. 2004. Syn- lines of Ocean Sustainability. Frontiers in Marine Science 4 (395): dromes of global change: The first panoramic view. GAIA -Eco- 17. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​fmars.​2017.​00395. logical Perspectives for Science and Society 13: 42–49. https://​ Glaeser, B. 2023a. From global sustainability research matrix to typol- doi.​org/​10.​14512/​gaia.​13.1.​10. ogy: a tool to analyse coastal and marine social-ecological sys- Liu, Y., Q. Meng, L. Chao, and G. Zhongwen. 2016. Big data in ocean tems. Regional Environmental Change 16 (2): 367–383. https://​ observation: opportunities and challenges. Big Data Soc 212–222. doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10113-​015-​0817-y. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-3-​319-​42553-5_​18. Glaeser, B. 2023b. Typology: Analysis as decision support: A sum- Mahoney, J. 2021. The logic of social science. Princeton University marizing attempt chapter 18 in Glaeser B. & Glaser M. (2023) Press. Coastal Management Revisited, 271–277. Cambridge Scholars Norström, A.V., et al. 2020. Principles for knowledge co-production in Publishing. sustainability research. Nature Sustainability 3: 182–190. Glaser, M., and B. Glaeser. 2023a. Towards a framework for cross-scale McKinley, E., T. Acott, and K. Yates. 2020. Marine social sciences: Look- and multi-level analysis of coastal and marine social-ecological ing towards a sustainable future. Environmental Science & Policy systems dynamics. Regional Environmental Change 14 (6): 2039– 108: 85–92. 2052. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10113-​014-​0637-5. Oberlack, Christoph, Diana Sietz, Elisabeth Bürgi Bonanomi, Ariane Glaser, M., and B. Glaeser. 2023b. Cross-scale and multi-level analysis de Bremond, Jampel Dell'Angelo, Klaus Eisenack, Erle C. Ellis, of coastal and marine social-ecological systems dynamics. Cam- Graham Epstein, Markus Giger, Andreas Heinimann, Christian bridge Scholars Publishing. Kimmich, Marcel T.J. Kok, David Manuel-Navarrete, Peter Mes- Glaser M., Galafassi D, Bhowmik J, Khan A, Pintér M, Selim S, Md serli, Patrick Meyfroidt, Tomáš Václavík, and Sergio Villamayor- Rahman A, Chowdury M, Barboza RSL 2023. Arts-based pro- Tomas. 2019. Archetype analysis in sustainability research: mean- cesses to address ocean conflicts Panels 61 & 68. In Methods for ings, motivations, and evidence-based policy making. Ecology equity and inclusiveness in ocean conflict studies and manage- and Society 24 (2): 26. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.5​ 751/E ​ S-1​ 0747-2​ 40226. ment: Lessons from the Field MARE conference, Amsterdam, June Moore, B., Jr. 1978. Injustice: The social bases of obedience and 29th 2023. revolt: The social bases of obedience and revolt. M.E. New York: Glaser, M., and B. Schröter. 2020. Generating knowledge on net- Sharpe. works in environmental governance. Human Ecology Review 26 Ostrom, Elinor. 2009. Understanding institutional diversity. New (2). open access. Haven: Princeton University Press. Glaser, M., G., Krause, A., Halliday, and B. Glaeser. 2012. Towards Pereira, L., et al. 2020. Transformative spaces in the making: key les- global sustainability analysis in the Anthropocene. In Chapter 10, sons from nine cases in the Global South. Sustainability Science Human-Nature Interaction in the Anthropocene: Potentials of 15: 161–178. Social-Ecological Systems Analysis. eds Glaser, M., et al., 193– Poteete, A.R., M.A. Janssen, and E. Ostrom. 2010. Working together: 222. Routledge. Collective action, the commons, and multiple methods in practice. Goodrick, D. 2014. Comparative Case Studies, Methodological Briefs: Princeton University Press. Impact Evaluation 9. Florence: UNICEF Office of Research https:// Pinsky, Malin L., Gabriel Reygondeau, Richard Caddell, Juliano www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/brief_9_comparativecasestud- Palacios-Abrantes, Jessica Spijkers, and William W.L. Cheung. ies_eng.pdf. 2018. Preparing ocean governance for species on the move. Pol- Guidi, L., A., Fernandez Guerra, C., Canchaya, E., Curry, F., Foglini, icy must anticipate conflict over geographic shifts. Science 360 J.-O., Irisson, K., Malde, C.T., Marshall, M., Obst, R.P., Ribeiro, (6394): 1189–1191. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1126/​scien​ce.​aat23​60. J., Tjiputra, and D.C.E. Bakker. (2020). Big Data in Marine Sci- Proulx, MaryJane, Lydia Ross, Christina Macdonald, Shayla Fitzsim- ence, eds. Alexander, B., Heymans, J. J., Muñiz Piniella, A., Kel- mons, and Michael Smit. 2020. Indigenous traditional ecologi- lett, P., and Coopman, J. (Future Science Brief 6 of the European cal knowledge and ocean observing: A review of successful Marine Board). European Marine Board. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5281/​ partnerships. Frontiers in Marine Science 8: 703938. https://​ zenodo.​375579. doi.​org/​10.​3389/​fmars.​2021.​703938. Guillotreau, P., A. Bundy, and I. Perry. 2018. Global change in marine Saint Paul, U., and H. Schneider. 2010. Mangrove dynamics and systems integrating natural, social, and governing responses, 329. management in North Brazil. In Ecological Studies Series, Routledge: Routledge Studies in Environment, Culture and Society. 287–298. Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer. 13 Maritime Studies (2023) 22:48 Page 23 of 23 48 Saylor, R. 2020. Why causal mechanisms and process tracing should Spijkers, J., G. Singh, R. Blasiak, T.H. Morrison, P. Le Billon, and alter case selection guidance. Sociological Methods & Research H. Österblom. 2019. Global patterns of fisheries conflict: Forty 49: 982–1017. years of data. Global Environmental Change 57: 101921. Schlüter, M., K. Orach, E. Lindkvist, R. Martin, N. Wijermans, Ö. Strand, M., and B. Rivers Snow. 2022. Reimagining ocean steward- Bodin, and W.J. Boonstra. 2019. Toward a methodology for ship. Arts-based methods to ‘hear’ and ‘see’ indigenous and explaining and theorizing about social-ecological phenomena. local knowledge in ocean management. Frontiers in Marine Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 39: 44–53. Science 9: 886632. Schröter, B., & Glaser, M. 2020. Generating sustainability-supporting Trampusch, C., and B. Palier. 2016. Between X and Y: How process knowledge on social networks in the governance and management tracing contributes to opening the black box of causality. New of social ecological systems [Special issue]. Human Ecology Political Economy 21: 437–454. Review, 26(2). open access https://​press​files.​anu.​edu.​au/​downl​ Vave, R., S.A., Selim, I. E., Van Putten, N., Heck, L.X.C., Dutra, S., oads/​press/​n8844/​html/​contr​ibuto​rs.​xhtml?​refer​er=​&​page=​13. Narayan, J., Das, S., Carrizales, K., Johnson, M., Glaser, D., Sietz, D., U. Frey, M. Roggero, Y. Gong, N. Magliocca, R. Tan, P. Kenison, C. K., Leslie, S.A., Nelsen, A., Paytan, and A.V.M. Janssen, and T. Václavík. 2019. Archetype analysis in sustain- Levu. (in review). Mapping the governance landscape for ability research: Methodological portfolio and analytical fron- marine resource conflicts in Bangladesh, Fiji, and Hawai'i: The tiers. Ecology and Society 24 (3): 34. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5751/​ tricky business of engagement and capturing local community ES-​11103-​240334. perceptions. Skerritt, Daniel J., Anna Schuhbauer, Sebastian Villasante, Andrés Waldner, D. 2015. Process tracing and qualitative causal inference. M. Cisneros-Montemayor, Nathan J. Bennett, Tabitha G. Mal- Security Studies 24: 239–250. lory, Vicky W.L. Lam, Robert I. Arthur, William W.L. Cheung, Yin, R.K. 2009. Case study research: design and methods. SAGE: Louise S.L. Teh, Katina Roumbedakis, Maria L.D. Palomares, Fourth. and U. Rashid Sumaila. 2023. Mapping the unjust global dis- tribution of harmful fisheries subsidies. Marine Policy 152: Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to 105611. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​marpol.​2023.​105611. jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 13