Making anglers count: the
rhetoric of quantification in
English angling policy
Chris Bear
Geoff Whitman
(Angling Times,
December 2006)
Outline of talk
•
•
•
•
•
•
Background and methodology
Theoretical approaches
Competing quantifications of anglers
Defining angling- inclusions, exclusions and context
Enacting angling
Conclusions
WP 2.4
Angling in the consumption
economy
Integrated rural
development
WP 2.1
Environmental visions
WP 2.5
Institutional
environment
WP 2.3 Angling and
river processes
WP 2.2 Biodiversity
and fish ecology
Stakeholder input
AIRE project outline
Methodology
• Focus is the institutional context of angling
• Semi-structured interviews with employees of
institutions, such as EA, NFA, S&TA, NAFAC etc
• 10 days of observant participation with EA and NFA
• Policy documents, press releases, organisational
literature
Theoretical background
• Numbers, ‘truth claims’ and evidence-based policy
making Numbers, ‘truth claims’ and evidence-based
policy making
• Enumerology and ethnostatistics
• Rhetoric
• Ontological politics
Numbers, ‘truth claims’ and evidence-based
policy making
• Numbers traverse knowledges, they create realities, are
used to make ‘truth claims’ [Foucault, 1982] and have
become ubiquitous within ‘evidence-based’ policy making
and its emphasis on rational choices [Sanderson, 2002].
• Studies of quantification have examined the ways in which
numbers:
– produce ‘worlds to be organised, controlled, manipulated,
studied, and known’ (Barnes and Hannah, 2001: 379).
– allow individuals (whether humans or otherwise) to be
combined into new categories which allow phenomena to
be ‘more easily…acted upon’ (Abram et al, 1998).
Enumerology and ethnostatistics
• Ethnostatistics:
– “the empirical study of the professional creation, use, and interpretation
of statistics and numerals in scholarly research” [Gephart, 2006, p.417].
• In contrast to more formal statistics, with its emphasis on codified rules,
ethnostatistics argues that such knowledges are incomplete and that such
users:
– “…necessarily rely on ad hoc knowledge, rules of thumb, and other
aspects of actual situations and contexts to produce, compose and
understand the meaning of statistics” [Gephart, 2006, p. 418]
• Ethnostatistics works at three levels but level 3 is most relevant to us. This:
– “…uses literary and textual-analysis methodologies to understand how
statistics are used in texts and documents to make persuasive claims
about organizational realities” [2006, p. 419. Emphasis added]
Rhetoric
• Classical sense of rhetoric: the ‘art of persuasion’ through verbal, written
or visual means.
• Rhetoric also involves taking a critical look at social science [but also
natural science] methodologies and the frames that such methodologies
both use and produce.
• Rhetoric can be seen as a ‘moving force’ that is constantly drawing
people into arguments while simultaneously pushing others away
[Carrithers, 2005, p. 578].
– Can ‘push’ or ‘pull’ through language of convincing, persuading,
dissuading, encouraging and discouraging of people
• Others have argued that rhetoric involves a ‘performance’ [Fernandez
1986] or a measure of ‘self persuasion’ which then forms the basis of
persuading others [Billig, 1996; Nienkamp, 2001].
Ontological politics
• Law and Urry (2004) put forward two main points of
interest/use to us:
1. They argue that social enquiry and its methods are productive they help to make social worlds (i.e. they enact the social world)
and realities rather than simply describing a single world in different
ways.
2. Following from this if social methods are productive then they can
be active in choosing to some extent the social worlds they want to
make - that is they are political.
• Mol (1999):
– “…reality is historically, culturally and materially located” [1999, p.
75] and consequently there are multiple possible realities that can
be shaped or enacted depending on the choices we make
concerning our practices.
The major players in the numbers game
• Environment Agency- statutory responsibilities for river
management, development of angling and the sale of
rod licenses
• Sport England- a government agency that is designed
to ‘sustain and increase participation in community sport’
[Sport England, 2007]
Contested Counts
• Variety of figures produced by organisations about the number of
anglers
– Source of controversy because of the vast differences
• Environment Agency (Fishing for the Future, 2006):
– ‘Our figures show that more than 4 million people, over 12 years
old, in England and Wales went angling last year’ [p.5]
• Environment Agency (rod licence sales, 2006-2007)
– 1,281,537 licences sold
• Sport England (Active People survey, 2006)
– 281,083 (number of adults fishing at least once a month)
Numbers as facts
• Unproblematic portrayal of figures as single, factual realities:
– “The questionnaire was designed with an expert Advisory Group
of leading academics. It was fully piloted and tested for
reliability.” (Sport England, 2006)
– Rod licence sale numbers “are not estimates, they are money in
the bank” (Environment Agency representative, Angling Times,
2006)
– ‘Our figures show that more than 4 million people, over 12 years
old, in England and Wales went angling last year’ (Environment
Agency, Fishing for the Future: Angling in 2015, 2006)
Contesting ‘facts’
• However, concerns over discrepancies
• On Sport England’s figures:
– “If these figures weren’t so pathetically wrong, and with serious
ramifications for angling, they would be laughable” (Keith Arthur,
Angling Times, 2006)
– “It is very worrying that Sport England’s figures for fishing are so
off target. In 2005, the EA sold 1.25 million rod licenses for
freshwater fishing- these are not estimates, they are money in
the bank” (Environment Agency representative, Angling Times,
2006)
Contesting ‘facts’
• On Environment Agency figures:
– “…the EA tells us how many people buy licences - there are last
year 1.2 million or whatever. They also tell us there’s 4 million
anglers… Who are they trying to kid? Government? You know it’s a
lot of smoke.” (Angling Governing Body representative, interview,
2007)
– “People look at these data and misinterpret the data there and what
it means… They tend to do a survey and multiply up
basically…when you go to national they’re looking to spin the data,
dare I say- they just pick on the good news and ignore a lot of the
factors which are there in the background [EA representative
interview, 2006]
Defining Anglers
• Contestation not just about the numbers themselves
– Not just about counting, but about what, or who, counts
– Three definitions of an angler:
• Someone who buys an EA licence (EA rod licence sales
figures)
• Someone who has been fishing at least once in the past year
(EA Public Attitudes to Angling survey)
• Someone who has been fishing at least once in the past
month (Sport England Active People survey)
• However, all of these definitions are problematic because of the
methodologies used to construct who counts.
– Methods, counts and who is counted are all contested
– Different methodologies used to produce different counts
– All employ inclusions and exclusions
Problems with counting anglers
• “It perhaps shows the need to be cautious with surveys. Sport England
did a telephone survey…and based on that they worked out that there’s
something like 297,000 [anglers], which is surprising when we sell 1.2
million rod licences. So we know as an absolute minimum there’s 1.2
million anglers. And the surveys we’ve done suggest much higher
figures than certainly Sport England gave…So Sport England’s got it
totally wrong” [EA representative interview]
• “The Environment Agency said ‘we’ve got the right figures because we
know how many licences are sold’. First of all…a sizeable minority of
people buy two licences, because a licence covers you to use two rods.
Quite a lot of people… must have two licences because they’re fishing
for carp particularly and they use three rods so they need two licences,
but those count as two people because they’ve got two licences”
[Angling governing body representative interview]
Who counts- Inclusions and exclusion
• Who doesn’t count as an angler?
– Children (EA figures only count those aged 12 and over, while Sport
England counts only those aged 16+)
– Sea anglers (not included in the EA licence figures)
– Those who have not bought licences but have fished (not included in
the EA licence figures)
• Virtual anglers?
– EA licence data can include individuals who:
• Use more than one rod (and therefore need more than one
licence)
• Buy a number of day or week licences, rather than a single
annual licence)
– Companions (who might consider ‘themselves to have been
freshwater fishing’ [EA, 2002]
• So the figures variously deflate (through exclusions) and inflate (through
double-counting and interpretations of ‘going fishing’)
– This determines who can be considered in angling policy (and,
therefore, which anglers are enacted)
Numbers and rhetoric
•
Conceptions of ‘angling’ – numbers
and context
– Sport England shows angling as
one of a number of forms of
‘sport and active recreation’
– EA discussions of angling give a
different context
• Angling viewed on its own
• Anglers as a percentage of
the total population
•
Sport England contextualises
angling as unimportant, whereas the
EA’s rhetoric suggests it has
widespread benefits and importance
SPORTS AND RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
% of the
adult
population
(16 plus)
taking part
at least
once a
month
Number of adults
(16 plus)
taking part at
least once a month
1. Recreational walking (mod intensity 30+ mins)
20.0
8,142,693
2. Swimming (all)
13.8
5,625,539
3. Gym (incl. exercise bikes/rowing machines)
11.6
4,722,762
4. Recreational cycling (mod intensity 30 + mins)
7.8
3,175,650
5. Football (all)
7.1
2,910,684
6. Running/jogging
4.6
1,872,819
7. Golf/Pitch and Putt/Putting
3.6
1,457,347
8. Badminton
2.2
900,332
9. Tennis
2.1
874,040
10. Aerobics
1.5
608,671
11. Yoga
1.4
559,250
12. Squash
1.2
500,679
13. Keep fit/sit ups
1.1
437,840
14. Bowls (all)
1.0
407,135
15. Horse Riding (Any)
1.0
401,916
16. Weight training
1.0
393,932
17. Cricket
0.9
380,366
18. Fishing (all)
0.7
281,083
Enacting angling
• The various methodologies result in multiple constructions of angling and
anglers.
– Law and Urry (2004) argue that methods of social inquiry result in the
enacting of multiple realities
– However, we argue that it is the acting on results of methods that
produce these multiple realities
Enacting angling
• “Well yes, because the feeling is that the funding - it’s this ‘will the
funding follow the numbers?’ If the funding’s going to follow the numbers
and the numbers are wrong - if the numbers are excessively understated,
the funding will differ” [Angling governing body representative]
• “…you have to be careful with the rod license figures…they signed up to
a 1% increase every year. Now, amazingly, they said they managed to
increase them by 1% this year. Now, I don’t believe that. I believe they
cooked that somehow because how can you increase the figures by
exactly the amount you were trying to increase them by?” [Angling
governing body representative]
• “I think they [Sport England] got an artificially low figure…the EA got
upset about the figures because obviously it weakened their case about
spending lots of money on angling development” [Angling governing body
representative]
Reflections
•
We suggest that it is not just different methods that produce different
realities [ontological politics] but the differential acting on the outcomes
of these methods
•
Here rhetoric is used to persuade others about particular realities that
are the outcomes of methods- that is people are persuaded that
particular methods produce ‘better realities’ by the rhetoric that
surrounds these.
•
Once a phenomenon has been singled out for counting the nature of
that phenomenon is altered- different ways of counting can therefore
generate different phenomena and meanings associated with these.
•
Numbers can be interpreted differently within organisations- people
can critique the assumptions or practices behind the numbers
generated within organisations.
•
Those that count numbers are also subject to social processes [i.e.
giving monetary values to angling]- that is numbers can be ‘fudged’ or
‘manipulated’ in some way