Look at Florida, where this process is alreadyadvanced,� he said. You end up having ghettoswhere people live who service the big luxuryhotels, and theyTre out there only during the day.ItTs sort of like an apartheid situation. So alongwith this coastal development, you have peoplebeing marginalized and ghetto development goingon at the same time. That creates all kinds of prob-lems for inland counties that are near the coast.�Pressure also increases on traditional coastalindustries. Part of the story is whatTs happening tocommercial fishing,� Johnson said. In rural easternNorth Carolina, thatTs traditionally been one of theprimary sources of income for a lot of people. Ourpurpose is to identify where there may be problemsand make people aware of where the problems lie.�The coastal development project, still in the earlyStages, is the latest in a 15-year history of collab-oration for Johnson and Griffith. At first theyseem an unlikely duo. Johnson is big, loud and pas-sionate about numbers. Griffith is soft-spoken andeasygoing, more prone to literary references thanStatistics. Close up, the lines blur. Although heis based in the sociology department, JohnsonTstraining includes anthropology, and he frequentlypublishes articles in anthropology journals. Griffithholds degrees in anthropology, but his books andpapers are widely read by rural sociologists.We're social scientists, and we donTt see bound-aries,� Johnson said. We see problems, and wewant to study those problems. Often interdiscipli-nary work is the best way to approach them.�Their peers see added strength in the collabora-tion of two individually strong scientists. JeffJohnson is one of the few quantitative anthro-pologists in the world,� said Dr. B.J. Copeland, aprofessor of zoology at North Carolina StateUniversity. But things arenTt always quantitative,and David keeps you oriented to the social andcultural aspects. ThatTs where David and Jeff work-ing together are so important"in the interpre-tation. Both have contributed considerably to ourunderstanding of social and economic structure ofcoastal communities.�Jim Murray, associate director for outreach ofthe National Sea Grant Program, first worked withJohnson and Griffith when he was director ofextension for North Carolina Sea Grant. TheyTvealways been on the cutting edge with regard tocreativity and risk-taking,� Murray said. Jeff wasway out in front with his ability to turn socialscience research, specifically marine anthropol-ogy, from what historically has been qualitativework into quantitative research. This was 16 yearsago, at a time very few were doingit. He set the precedent, and hisname is synonymous nationallyfor quantitative techniques.One of the things that makesthem such a good team workingtogether is that their skills arecomplementary. Jeff is great atconceptualizing, at developing themethodology. DavidTs great atoperationalizing, doing the fieldwork, collecting the data to makethe methodology work. I trulybelieve theyTre leaders in theirfield. ECU is recognized as a, orthe, national leader in marineanthropology, and a large part ofthe reason is Jeff and David.�The collaborations started in1983 with a project designed tointerest recreational fishermen inunderutilized fish, such as shark,amberjack and sheepshead. Theidea was to reduce pressure on thestock of more popular fish. Drawingon the precedent of market researchers, Johnsonand Griffith used linguistics and semantics, first, tounderstand how people perceived fish and thento create a more desirable image for underutilizedspecies. Throughout the project, they worked along-YOU WANT TO HELP THE WORLD, BUT YOU ALSOWANT TO BE ABLE TO PUT FORTH IDEAS,� JOHNSONSAID. ALMOST EVERY ONE OF OUR PROJECTS HASBOTH AN ACADEMIC COMPONENT.AND AN APPLIED,OR PRACTICAL, COMPONENT. | WOULDN T DO SOME-THING THAT DIDNTT HAVE BOTH.�side Sea Grant extension specialists, producingboth academic articles and 31 educational prod-ucts"brochures, posters and cookbooks"targetedat fishermen.They succeeded so well that sharks and amber-jack have been removed from the underutilizedlist, and sharks are actually in danger of beingDrs. David Griffith, left, and Jeffrey Johnson likentheir collaborative process to tag-team wrestling.overfished. What happenedwas, when it went to beingrecreational, it also becamecommercial,� Johnson said.Since that first successfulproject, Johnson Apereme@suteenashave kept at least one mutu-Piece) U-loleye-heceyemm-beele)et-mmaetefour or five active projectseach is juggling at any onetime. Also among the lot willpemere) UCloleye-teleyenmmnsieemeiescascientists, including biolo-gists and economists, andsome solo work. Griffith,for example, is directing amela coyervaiarcehme) mt leemntieca.related to a special class ofwork visas. Johnson has beenrunning a study of people inisolation since 1991. Hisresearch subjects"scientistsPYCoavatelcouter-mmtemmatelccvcaeleceOn joint projects, they havetackled such issues as public perceptions ofseafood safety, the effects of fishing policy on fam-ilies and communities, conflicts among fishermenand public perceptions of environmental risks.People are pretty bad about judging risks to theenvironment and to themselves from the environ-ment,� Griffith said. E. coli is a classic example. E.coli kills just a handful of people every year. Even if9,000 people die from food-related exposure, thatTsout of 750 million exposures and it says nothingabout whoTs dying or whether they had pre-existingconditions or whether they were really riaesoycem-lerenensfood handling. Your risks of dying in a Car accidentare much higher than dying from eating stuff.�Concern over the toxic dinoflagellate Pfiesteriapiscicida falls into the same category and shows theharm in public misperception, he said. The prob-lem is, when people misunderstand or exaggeratecertain environmental risks, they encourage politi-cians and other people to essentially divert resourcesand time to look at these issues when, in fact, weknow there are these real environmental risks, likelead poisoning, rabies, PCB and problems in thefood supply,� he said. But if all this attention getsfocused away from them and onto some phantomenvironmental risk like pfiesteria, well, then thatTsjust a total waste of public funds. In terms ofpractical outcomes, thatTs how we would hope toinfluence them.�Their research sometimes tries to calm waters sothat opposing groups may eventually reach con-sensus. Such was the case when they conducted in-depth interviews about environmental problemswith recreational and commercial fishermen.While the two sides pointed to different causes(generally each other) for existing problems, bothheld the same ideals. They wanted a clean envi-ronment and plentiful resources. In the consensuslies a starting point for public policy discussions.Such practical applications can be found inmost projects Griffith and Johnson take on. Youwant to help the world, but you also want to beable to put forth ideas,� Johnson said. Almostevery one of our projects has both an academic com-ponent and an applied, or practical, component. |wouldnTt do something that didnTt have both.�The two have worked together so long thatthey often finish each otherTs sentences, some-times pausing for the other to add a salient point.They liken the collaborative process to tag-teamwrestling. One works awhile, then hands off to theother. Back and forth they go until the project isfinished. Complementary strengths and trust thateach will carry his weight make the collaborationwork. So does mutual admiration.JeffTs a lot better at analysis than I am,�Griffith said.DavidTs quite good at conceptualizing someideas, at thinking through how you collect dataPVavemm or bas C@estbubmr- lan eaneber-euam lelebenieyemy-lemmr-lelen berswith a touch of awe, HeTs not only good at writ-ing, but he likes to write. My thing is analysis.�Even as both bemoaned a backlog of intendedpublications, Johnson and Griffith also laid outplans for a new study. This one, involving biolo-gists and sea ice experts, will take them to theArctic to compare the environmental knowledgeof scientists and Native Alaskan whalers. Theyhope to show scientists how to make use of theaccumulated knowledge of the fishermen.The whaling captains have some knowledgeabout how the ice works and other things, andmaybe their knowledge is useful for scientists sothey can figure out where to put their experimen-tal stations, how best to use their resources to col-lect data, things like that,� Johnson said. Whatyou have to be able to do is show that even though{the fishermen] are not doing things in a scientif-ic way, theyTre valid in some of the things theyTveobserved. Once you can model something, onceyou can show scientists how people are thinkingand the logic behind it, it makes it easier to be able to compare.� By:30 -edge edge 31BACKGROUND PHOTO BY DANA EZZELL GAYee ee " """ "" ss "