**STUDY TITLE**: University Research Initiative on the Effects of
Offshore Petroleum Development in the Gulf of Mexico

**REPORT TITLE**: Designing a Social Science Research Agenda for the
Minerals Management Service in the Gulf of Mexico.

**CONTRACT NUMBER(S)**: 14-35-0001-30470

**SPONSORING OCS REGION**: Gulf of Mexico

**APPLICABLE PLANNING AREA(S)**: All

**FISCAL YEAR(S)**: 1991, 1992

**COMPLETION DATE OF REPORT**: May 1993

**COST(S)**: FY 1991: \$0.0; FY 1992: \$99,946.00.

**CUMMULATIVE PROJECT COSTS**: \$99,946.00.

**PROJECT MANAGER(S)**: Paul Sammarco.

**AFFILIATION(S)**: Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium (LUMCON).

**ADDRESS**: 8124 Hwy, 56, Chauvin, La 70344.

**PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS\***: Robert Gramling and Shirley Laska.

**KEY WORDS**: Social Science; Research; Gulf of Mexico; Outer
Continental Shelf; Offshore Oil; Social Impacts.

**BACKGROUND**: On September 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th, at a workshop in
New Orleans funded by Minerals Management Service (MMS) through the
Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium (LUMCON), a group of social
scientists from all over the U.S., Canada, and Norway met with
representatives of MMS and LUMCON, to design a social science research
agenda for MMS in the Gulf of Mexico. This report describes the process
by which the workshop was organized and conducted, and (in Appendix D)
presents the descriptions of the recommended projects to implement that
agenda.

**OBJECTIVES**: The intent of the workshop was to recommend a social
science research agenda for the MMS\'s Service\'s Environmental Studies
Program for the Gulf of Mexico, at a sufficient level of detail to
describe specific studies, the justification for those studies, and the
methods required to perform the stated objectives of each project.

**DESCRIPTION**: There were five main elements agreed upon for the
scheduling and structure of the workshop.

First, approximately one month before the workshop was to take place
each of the participants received an information packet prepared by the
co-conveners and MMS personnel.

Second, the workshop itself was run by professional facilitators. Use of
facilitators allowed the co-conveners to become participants in the
intellectual work of the meeting, and provided the necessary skills to
ensure that the group remained focused, and ensure that the sessions ran
smoothly. Once the facilitators were chosen, they also became part of
the planning process.

Third, the facilitators interviewed (by telephone) about a third of the
workshop participants, and produced extensive notes on the background of
the participants, their ideas for research themes, and their general
concerns about, and advice for, the workshop. These interviews provided
information for planning the workshop. Some of the concerns expressed in
the phone conversations were addressed in the plenary sessions; in
addition, the ground rules proposed to the group reflected some of the
concerns expressed in the phone interviews.

Fourth, a field trip was planned as the first on-site experience of the
workshop. It was designed to immerse the participants in the OCS oil and
gas industry. The field trip took the participants by boat through the
coastal environment of Louisiana (where most of the support activity for
OCS activity exists) and then offshore to see some of the development.
Not only did this give the participants an opportunity to see how unique
the OCS resource extraction activities are, but also it allowed the
participants to meet one another, to begin networking and to discuss the
OCS activities that would be the focus of the workshop. By the first day
of actual workshop activities, the participants were prepared both
interpersonally and topically to begin collaboratively to develop the
agenda.

Fifth, the actual workshop was structured around three plenary and a
number of breakout sessions. The beginning plenary session introduced
the project, set the ground rules and determined the broad sub-area
topics for the four or five breakout groups. No attempt was made to set
the themes of the breakout groups beforehand. To do so would have caused
the workshop co-directors to have interjected their perceptions of the
broad topics. It was the intent of the project to have the workshop
participants\--key experts in the field\--do that. This was recognized
as a risky design but essential to have the workshop product be truly
the result of the workshop. Five breakout groups were agreed upon during
the initial plenary session. Three of the work groups focused on the
research needed to assess and monitor impacts on 1) individuals and
families, 2) communities and 3) regional/state entities. The fourth
group examined the needed research concerning the role of policy in
monitoring and mitigating socioeconomic impacts, and the fifth group
(other) worked on the issues that had been raised in the plenary
session, but that did not fit neatly into the typology. After deciding
what the most important projects were within their specific charge, the
work groups broke into smaller groups, or assigned individuals to
provide the first draft of the proposed project description. A second
plenary session was planned for the middle of the workshop to assess the
progress of the breakout groups and to determine how to address any
problems were being encountered which could be addressed. This session
resulted in a clarification of the expected project description
outcomes. Additionally, some groups discovered that they were producing
similar proposals. Two of the breakout groups combined for the final
breakout effort and other smaller groups evolved with members from more
than one group. At the end of the workshop a third plenary session
evaluated and ranked the projects.

**SIGNIFICANT CONCLUSIONS**: Workshop participants suggested that MMS
consider carefully the packaging of the project components, using both
theoretical and methodological criteria as well as practical criteria in
place at MMS with regard to preparing and distributing RFPs. Carefully
considering what should be changed in the way the funded projects are
packaged may have a very positive payoff in terms of implementing a
socioeconomic impact research program.

**STUDY RESULTS**: The workshop resulted in the recommendation of
eighteen specific studies which were ranked by the workshop participants
in order of priority. Each recommended study was described using a
standardized format which discussed the following elements:

Title

Region

Proposed Period of Performance/Level of Effort

Applicable Planning Areas

Description of Proposed Project

Objectives:

Methods/Study Design:

Products

Justification

Current Status of Information on this Topic

Applicability of Information to Issues of Regional or Programmatic

Concern

Qualifications of Investigators

**STUDY PRODUCTS**: Gramling, R. and S. Laska. 1993. A Social Science
Research Agenda for the Minerals Management Service in the Gulf of
Mexico. A final report prepared by Louisiana Universities Marine
Consortium for the U. S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management
Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Office, New Orleans. LA. Contract number MMS
14-35-0001-30470, OCS Study 93-0017. 69 pp.

**\* P.I.s affiliation may be different than that of the Program
Manager.**