Doing integration in catchment management research: Insights into a dynamic learning process

Learning from collaborative research on sustainably managing fresh water: implications for ethical research–practice engagement

“…In this case, coinitiation was only conducted by a stakeholder group and local researchers in one country, and therefore, a subset of all project participants. However, the subsequent design of project activities and their implementation and evaluation were all collaboratively conducted across a large team of international and local participants, enabled by a mix of online and face-to-face Farms, Rivers and Markets Project (2012), Ayre and Nettle (2015) Cocreation phases:…”

“…• Coinitiation: senior academics at the University of Melbourne, Monash University, and MDFRC in discussion with government and industry partners; upon receipt of funding, researchers were recruited, and the final team included 54 people across four research institutions • Codesign: senior University of Melbourne academics who wrote the funding proposal, which included a framework for transdisciplinary research (Ayre and Nettle 2015); procedural ethics were obtained by social scientists to undertake an inquiry into integration in catchment management research; design elements for community and industry engagement included a Farmer Reference Group and a Catchment Management Reference Group with representatives from key agricultural industry professions (dairy, cropping, and horticulture) and water management and policy arenas (e.g., irrigation systems, catchment management, and federal and state governments), respectively • Coimplementation: researchers at various sites, including University of Melbourne, Latrobe University, and Monash University in Melbourne, and MDFRC in Albury; field trials and workshops were established at the University of Melbourne campus at Dookie, and field trials occurred on commercial farms in the Goulburn Valley in northeast Victoria; researchers worked in teams to address joint research questions and project milestones; new joint research questions emerged as the project was implemented and led to new knowledge for managing water for the dual purpose of irrigation and environmental benefit (Farquharson et al 2017) • Coevaluation: through an action research process led by social scientists, a set of participatory evaluation principles and criteria were codeveloped by researchers in the project and used to coevaluate the transdisciplinary research process Cocreation phases:…”

Climate change and transdisciplinary science: Problematizing the integration imperative

“…Because climate science projects are often positioned at the confluence of science, policy, and practice, inclusion of different stakeholders and disciplines in knowledge production is often a high priority (Boon et al, 2014). As the argument goes, effective adaptation to climate change requires informed policy making, which in turn will require research paradigms to evolve toward an integration of natural and social science approaches and local knowledge (Ayre and Nettle, 2015;Lynch et al, 2008).…”

“…The essay is situated in the context of climate change adaptation, a field increasingly characterized by transdisciplinary discourse and methodological experimentation (Ayre and Nettle, 2015;Kerstin and Barth, 2014;Serrao-Neumann et al, 2015;Romero-Lankao et al, 2013). Adaptation takes place at a number of scales, from local to global; thus integrating knowledge and producing policy-relevant solutions are seen as particularly urgent (Adger et al, 2005;Dilling and Lemos, 2011).…”

Factors influencing successful collaboration for freshwater management in Aotearoa, New Zealand

“…When successful, collaboration can lead to higher-quality and enduring agreements (Innes and Booher 2010, Lubell and Lippert 2011, Rinkus et al 2015. It can raise social capital and improve relationships between stakeholders (Mandarano 2009, Floress et al 2011) and can enhance social learning and result in more creative solutions (Fischer et al 2014, Ayre andNettle 2015). When collaborations fail, however, hard-earned trust between stakeholders and public authorities can be eroded, adversarial positions may be resumed, and stakeholders' confidence in the use of alternative planning forums may be undermined.…”