Research Context and Case Selection

I chose to study inter-organizational learning between “enemies” in the salmon farming industry in British Columbia. The waterways of British Columbia are highly politicized natural resources because of their impact on a host of social and economic phenomena, including the habitat of the culturally iconic wild

salmon and the rights of First Nations. Almost from its inception, the salmon farming industry in British Columbia has been widely criticized for its salmon

growing practices. Salmon farming3 _{began in British Columbia in the 1970‟s and}

by the mid 1980s it grew rapidly. The commercial fishing industry, later joined by environmentalists, sports fishermen and First Nations, criticized the industry and

the provincial government4 _{for what they viewed as the negative impact that}

salmon farming in open net cages5 _{had on the marine habitat. In particular, they}

were concerned about the possible spread of disease or parasites from farmed to wild fish, the possible genetic pollution of wild fish due to escapes of farmed fish, the effects of effluent from farms on the marine environment, and the effects on marine life of pharmaceuticals used on farmed fish.

Opposition to the industry gained profile and momentum during the 1990‟s and its reputation deteriorated rapidly, as demonstrated by two government moratoriums and industry reviews, the passage of strict regulations, increasingly negative media coverage, the growing enmity of several First Nations, and increasingly sophisticated targeting by environmental groups (see Appendix A: Detailed Chronology of Events in the BC Salmon Farming Industry 1970 – 2009 for summary).

As a result of consolidation, in 2009 the industry is dominated by two

Norwegian owned firms: Marine Harvest and Mainstream (Cermaq). For almost a decade these firms (and their precursors) have been directly challenged in the

3

Salmon farming, as practiced in BC, consisted of placing juvenile salmon (smolts) into large net cages in the ocean, feeding them fish meal for 18 to 24 months until they reached market weight, then harvesting and processing them.

4

The provincial government granted the fish farming licenses and the ocean tenures to companies. The provincial and the federal government shared regulatory responsibility for the coastal area.

5

From the earliest days of the debate environmentalists supported growing salmon in closed containment systems. The industry claims that technology is not economically or environmentally viable.

media and the marketplace by the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform (CAAR), originally a coalition of local environmental non-government

organizations (NGOs) and First Nations6_{. While there have been instances of}

joint initiatives over the years, the stance of the firms, either directly or through the BC Salmon Farmers Association, was typically to deny, dismiss or in some way discredit CAAR‟s claims.

Recently, however, there has been a change in the nature of the interaction between Marine Harvest and CAAR. They successfully negotiated the

Framework for Dialogue (the Framework), an agreement to undertake five joint research projects. The two organizations have been interacting under its terms since early 2006. The first two projects undertaken under The Framework address the two most prominent issues: the impact of sea lice on the marine habitat and viability of closed containment systems. By way of contrast, Mainstream has made a distinct choice not to undertake joint initiatives with CAAR or any other NGOS, although globally the company does joint research with various educational and research organizations. This continued divergence in strategies, between Marine Harvest and Mainstream, seems to indicate that the Framework is not part of the evolution in the industry.

I chose this particular context and the organizations involved precisely because it represents an extreme and unique case of organizations confronting conflict over time. This research context is further enriched by contrasting strategies adopted by different protagonists. It is very special in the sense of allowing me to gain insights that I do not expect other situations and

6

organizations would be able to provide (G. Johnson et al., 2007; Yin, 2009). Additionally, by selecting this context of salmon farming in BC I was able to trace the inter-organizational dynamics and learning outcomes over time by comparing the data that I gathered with a prior data set, which I describe in the section 4.4.2 Issues in Salmon Farming Data Set.

Beginning in 2005, I participated in a study investigating issues in the global salmon farming industry. My exposure to the situation in BC raised a number of questions for me that were unrelated to the original premise of that study. Since 2005 I have actively followed developments in the industry, in particular via the headlines in the daily Intrafish American Newsletter (Norges Handels- og Sjofartstidende, n.d.), a division of a Norwegian publishing company. Following Siggelkow (2007). I used my knowledge of the situation to motivate my own research questions. Then, drawing on the existing literature I developed theoretical relationships to describe the conditions and practices of inter- organizational learning in situations of conflict. I have brought my deep understanding of this industry to bear at every stage of the design and development of my approach to this research. For example, my real time observations over an extended period give me an appreciation for the situation that enables me to focus on particular sequences of events rather than on the full narrative. The Framework is considered distinctive by all parties. This kind of voluntary shift in inter-organizational interaction and apparent learning is rare in protracted conflicts, and so I expected it would be an instructive case study of inter-organizational learning. According to Yin (2009) the quality of analysis is

enhanced if a researcher knows the subject matter from previous investigations and uses their “own prior expert knowledge” (2009, p. 161).

In addition, the ability to compare panel data from the first year of the Framework to data gathered almost five years later provided an excellent

opportunity to observe the dynamic evolution of the concepts under study, further develop my ideas, adding to the attractiveness of this case as a research context. The extended duration and depth of my involvement means my research can respond effectively to the repeated calls from senior scholars for more

longitudinal studies.

All of these reasons suggested the salmon farming industry in BC, and especially the negotiation and implementation of The Framework, as a good context for case study research on inter-organizational learning between “enemies” (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2009).