Linking science and practice: The pros and cons of the participatory research model (2007)

The subtitle of Ecological Restoration & Management is ‘Linking science and practice’. As someone who has been an ecologist for nearly 25 years, it is interesting to reflect on what this means and how the concept has changed over this period. I started my career working on some fundamental questions about plant ecology and ecophysiology, where the main audience was the scientific community. I had minimal interaction with the managers of the public land where my ecological work was undertaken. Over the last few years, however, I became involved in a research and development programme that took a very different approach to linking science and practice and has led me to appreciate the importance of the human dimension in the research process. My recent work has involved managing multiple research projects in the Native Vegetation and Biodiversity Sub-program of Land, Water & Wool (http://www.landwaterwool.gov.au). The Land, Water & Wool (LWW) programme was a joint venture between Australian Wool Innovation Limited and Land & Water Australia that ended in March 2007. These two organizations formed a partnership to address natural resource management (NRM) issues in the context of commercial wool enterprises. This need was identified by the wool industry in order to meet government and community expectations, in addition to the expectations of many woolgrowers. The difference between this and the previous research that I had been involved with is that woolgrowers and the research teams worked closely together throughout the project, with woolgrowers helping to identify the research issues that were important to their enterprises. Woolgrowers were also involved, to varying degrees, in activities such as collecting data, sitting on project steering committees, having an input into the communication products arising out of the projects and acting as ‘champions’ of the projects. The model used by LWW falls under the heading of ‘participatory research’, which is conceptually and operationally still in its infancy in the natural resource management/environmental sector. Although a range of different activities are labelled as ‘participatory research’, the overall concept is to incorporate local people's knowledge into scientific research – in other words, there is recognition that ‘expert knowledge’ is not the only relevant form of knowledge. Participatory research, therefore, differs from the traditional ‘transfer of technology’ approach to science, which involves formal researchers who are responsible for providing scientifically valid research results, extensionists who ‘transfer’ the research message, and clients (such as farmers) who have the role of the adopters or rejectors of innovations developed by others (Probst et al. 2003). Participatory research is also seen by some as a mechanism for adaptive research. Much of the participatory research related to resource management has been used in agricultural research, where this model is increasingly seen as best practice for working in complex, uncertain research environments (Kerckhoffs et al. 2006). Yet, this model is just as relevant for ecological projects, where the research environments are also complex and uncertain and where social aspects are part of the complexity. Another motivation to apply the model in ecosystem management is that private land managers are responsible for looking after nearly 70% of the Australian landmass, so researchers working on the management and restoration of biodiversity will often need to engage with this sector. Participatory research is seen as a way to improve the relevance and value of the research to a management context and help ensure technology transfer to managers. In the health sector, for example, participatory research is seen as a methodology for partnering with communities to develop interventions that are acceptable to community members, for evaluating and demonstrating the effectiveness of the intervention with community members, and for sustaining the intervention beyond external funding (Macauley & Ryan 2003). In LWW, the participatory research model was seen as beneficial to the outcomes of the projects by both woolgrowers and researchers involved in the sub-programme (Coutts 2006). Around 70 woolgrowers worked closely with research teams in the Native Vegetation and Biodiversity Sub-program throughout the life of the projects. In one of the regional projects, woolgrowers identified fire as an important factor to investigate as part of the research component of the project. This led to some new findings on the interactions between fire and grazing, and on the ongoing research in this area. In another region, woolgrowers worked with the research team to identify a set of ‘big questions’ that would test relationships between biodiversity and production that were relevant to their wool-growing operations. Without active woolgrower participation in LWW, it is unlikely that the importance of ‘sense of place’ would have been identified. Sense of place is a multilayered concept, which emerges from involvement between people, and between people and place (Pretty 2006). These examples demonstrate some of the benefits of using a participatory research model. Being able to demonstrate that woolgrowers had taken an active part in the research process, in my view, also brought added credibility to the research findings (especially for the farming community) and made them relevant to the local and regional settings in which each project was embedded. Although participatory research approaches have gained popularity within governments, universities and science-funding bodies in recent years (particularly in agricultural research and increasingly in ecosystem management and restoration), several factors are still seen as constraining the potential of these approaches to realize better outcomes. Kerckhoffs et al. (2006) have summarized many of these constraints using the published literature and their own research. The list included frequent overestimation of the ability of participatory approaches to realize immediate change in a given local context; concerns regarding the limits and biases inherent in local forms of knowledge, and continued disincentives for scientists to undertake such research. As long as the publication of novel science in specialized journals remains the main determinant of scientific credibility and reward, Kerckhoffs et al. (2006) believe that scientists will be reluctant to enter into this type of research. The social distance between many farmers and scientists has also been identified as a potential constraint (Probst et al. 2003). There were some aspects of the participatory research approach that caused concern in LWW, which are additional to those listed in the previous paragraph. One of these was that research results were sometimes communicated in public before they had been through a peer-review process. The approach taken by the Sustainable Grazing Systems Program, which ran into similar concerns, is outlined in Andrew et al. (2003). Here, the authors describe a process where researchers were asked to provide tentative conclusions (hunches) based on summaries and trends in data. These ‘hunches’ were well received by producers, but many researchers were still uncomfortable with the process. The most important finding in Andrew et al. (2003) related to how closely the hunches were to the final, more detailed analysis and findings. Only 2 of the 50 hunches were refuted by subsequent detailed analysis with 78% being fully supported. The remaining hunches were either not tested, or were inconclusive. The study concluded that hunches might provide a very useful device for fast tracking the communication of research findings to leading producers, despite the unease of some scientists. This approach could potentially be a useful model for future research programmes that use the participatory research model. For the participatory research model to be successful, research projects need to be flexible and adaptable and be carried out by scientists and local individuals/groups who are dedicated and want to work together. In LWW, another essential element of effective research was having strong communication and delivery support, so that the products coming out of the programme could be tailored to specific audiences. Although woolgrowers were one of the main audiences, material was also developed for extension officers, policy-makers, research scientists and the broad community. Publishing papers in scientific journals was an important part of this process, but as mentioned previously, sometimes this came after the results had been communicated to other audiences. Managing expectations about what the research partnership can and cannot deliver is one of the challenges of using the participatory approach. This editorial has focused on scientists working more closely with farmers, because that is where much of the participatory research has occurred. However, as managers of public land (i.e. local government and state government agencies) have a greater capacity to undertake their own research compared to most of the farming community, I suggest that a more participatory approach to research with public land managers could have valuable outcomes as well. There is a range of pros and cons associated with this approach, but if performed well, it has the potential to encourage greater ownership and uptake of research results. In other words, it can improve the links between science and on-ground practice. In agricultural research, Kerckhoffs et al. (2006) go as far to say that it may be the only viable methodology for improving the sustainability of different production systems. Whether that is the case or not, I would suggest that longer-term participatory learning and action research processes could well function as a key to real progress in science and practice, if they include identifying a clear strategy to pursue strategic research questions. With the continuing decline of biodiversity in Australia, and the urgent need for large-scale restoration and rehabilitation projects, identifying effective research, development and extension models is an imperative.