Bridging Disciplines, Knowledge Systems and Cultures in Pest Management

Abstract

The success of research in integrated environmental and natural resource management relies on the participation and involvement of different disciplines and stakeholders. This can be difficult to achieve in practice because many initiatives fail to address the underlying social processes required for successful engagement and social learning. We used an action research approach to support a research-based group with a range of disciplinary and stakeholder expertise to critically reflect on their engagement practice and identify lessons around how to collaborate more effectively. This approach is provided here as a guide that can be used to support reflective research practice for engagement in other integration-based initiatives. This paper is set in the context of an integrated wildlife management research case study in New Zealand. We illustrate how multi-, inter- and trans-disciplinary approaches can provide a framework for considering the different conversations that need to occur in an integrated research program. We then outline rubrics that list the criteria required in inter- and trans-disciplinary collaborations, along with examples of effective engagement processes that directly support integration through such efforts. Finally, we discuss the implications of these experiences for other researchers and managers seeking to improve engagement and collaboration in integrated science, management and policy initiatives. Our experiences reaffirm the need for those involved in integrative initiatives to attend to the processes of engagement in both formal and informal settings, to provide opportunities for critical reflective practice, and to look for measures of success that acknowledge the importance of effective social process.

A transdisciplinary approach to local waste management in New Zealand: Addressing interrelated challenges through indigenous partnership

“…This, however, remains unworkable within the current organisation and funding of research. It has been noted that funding organisations' typical requirement that intermediate and final "deliverables" be specified at the start of a multi-year project presents problems for TR, which aims to be responsive to stakeholder knowledge needs (Allen et al, 2014). As Dixon and Sharp [ 2 7 5 _ T D $ D I F F ] (2007, p. 230) point out, TR "research programmes cannot be expected always to specify which interdisciplinary outputs will occur at the beginning of the research".…”

“…during the development of a research funding application), involvement of stakeholders in problem definition, and co-leadership of TR projects by researchers and stakeholders (Lang et al, 2012;Polk, 2014;Talwar et al, 2011). The problem of unbalanced project ownership resulting from researcher control is also linked to institutional barriers to TR; while funding agencies may increasingly demand non-academic engagement in research projects, they have not acknowledged its implications for timelines, resourcing, and outcomes (Allen et al, 2014;Dixon & Sharp, 2007;Talwar et al, 2011).…”

Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation

“…Indeed, the social sciences have been applied to understand diverse conservation and environmental management problems including, but not limited to, water governance (Armitage et al, 2012;Bakker, 2012;Curran, 2015), fisheries management (Heck et al, 2015;Symes and Hoefnagel, 2010;Wilson et al, 2013), agriculture landscape management (de Snoo et al, 2013), wildlife management (Clark et al, 2008;Gore et al, 2011;Teel and Manfredo, 2010), avian conservation (Kingston, 2016;Veríssimo et al, 2014), protected areas (Brockington and Wilkie, 2015;Ferraro and Pressey, 2015;Lockwood, 2010), forest management (Agrawal and Gupta, 2005;Allen et al, 2014;Ostrom and Nagendra, 2006;Stanturf et al, 2012) and marine conservation planning (Aswani and Hamilton, 2004;Ban et al, 2013;Cornu et al, 2014). The social sciences have also been used to research conservation and environmental management at all scales from local (Bennett et al, 2010) to regional (Pietri et al, 2015) and global (Fleischman et al, 2014).…”

Science and Practice in NRM: Insights from connectivity restoration in the south west slopes of NSW

“…The field of knowledge exchange confronts the traditional notion of the scientist providing information through a uni-directional announcement, instead focusing on overcoming limitations on the relationship between research and implementation. These collaborations rely on understanding social processes of engagement (Allen et al 2014) and acknowledging the complex social-ecological context of undertaking restoration works on private land. Add to that the pragmatic issues that constrain what can actually happen on the ground, and the need for effective knowledge exchange practices becomes paramount.…”