Small-scale fisheries underpin food security, livelihoods and cultural identity for hundreds of millions of people worldwide, yet remain marginalised within dominant ocean governance and research agendas. Recent shifts toward justice-, equity- and rights-based approaches in ocean governance and policy signal important progress, but their rapid uptake risks remaining largely rhetorical if not grounded in meaningful changes to research practice. This paper draws on the experiential knowledge of researchers working across diverse geographical and institutional contexts to critically examine the structural conditions that shape research with small-scale fishing communities. We identify seven tensions that are recurring and cross-cutting within funding architectures, institutional incentive systems, and global policy agendas that constrain the ability of researchers to conduct ethical, co-produced and justice-oriented work. These include misalignments between global priorities and local realities, knowledge hierarchies, rigid funding models, and academic metrics that undervalue relational and collaborative processes. In response, we propose six principles to enable and guide more equitable research practices with small-scale fishing communities. We emphasise the need for the recognition of diverse knowledge systems and creative outputs, institutional reforms that value long-term partnerships and local impact, and strengthened training in reflexive and ethical research approaches. Framed as a multi-scalar call to action, this paper highlights the shared responsibilities of research funders, academic institutions, policy agencies, NGOs, and researchers in reshaping the systems that govern knowledge production that inform ocean governance. Advancing ocean sustainability requires not only new ideas but structural transformation to ensure that research with small-scale fishing communities is inclusive, accountable and just.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Renck et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: