Co-designing a research programme for impact: lessons learned from practice by Aotearoa New Zealand’s Biological Heritage National Science Challenge Ngā Koiora Tuku Iho

References

• BHNSC (New Zealand’s Biological Heritage National Science Challenge Ngā Koiora Tuki Iho). 2018. Strategy 2019–2024. [accessed 2019 June 1]. https://bioheritage.nz/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/STRATEGY-FINAL-JULY092018.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• BHNSC (New Zealand’s Biological Heritage National Science Challenge Ngā Koiora Tuki Iho). 2020. Goals for Our Strategic Outcomes. [accessed 2022 September 18]. https://bioheritage.nz/goals-for-our-strategic-outcomes/.
   Google Scholar
• BHNSC (New Zealand’s Biological Heritage National Science Challenge Ngā Koiora Tuki Iho). 2023. About Us. [accessed 2022 September 18]. https://bioheritage.nz/about-us/.
   Google Scholar
• Brandsen T, Honingh M. 2018. Definitions of co-production and co-creation. In: Brandsen T, Steen T, Verschuere B, editors. Co-production and co-creation: engaging citizens in public services. New York: Routledge; p. 9–17. doi:10.4324/9781315204956.
   Google Scholar
• Brandt P, Ernst A, Grallaac F, Luederitz C, Lang DJ, Newig J, Reinert F, Abson DJ, Wehrdenaef Hv. 2013. A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecological Economics. 92:1–15. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cash DW, Borck JC, Patt AG. 2006. Countering the loading-dock approach to linking science and decision making: comparative analysis of El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) forecasting systems. Science, Technology, & Human Values. 31(4):465–494. doi:10.1177/0162243906287547.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jager J, Mitchell RB. 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America. 100(1):8086–8091. doi:10.1073/pnas.1231332100.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Castree N, Braun B. 2001. Social nature: theory, practice and politics. Malden (MA): Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Chambers JM, Wyborn C, Ryan ME, Reid RS, Riechers M, Serban A, Bennett NJ, Cvitanovic C, Fernández-Giménez ME, Galvin KA, Goldstein BE. 2021. Six modes of co-production for sustainability. Nature Sustainability. 4(11):983–996. doi:10.1038/s41893-021-00755-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cole A. 2017. Towards an indigenous transdisciplinarity. Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering & Science. 8:127–150. doi:10.22545/2017/00091.
   Google Scholar
• Design Council UK. 2023. Double Diamond. [accessed 2023 January 15]. https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/our-work/skills-learning/tools-frameworks/framework-for-innovation-design-councils-evolved-double-diamond/.
   Google Scholar
• DOC (Department of Conservation). 2020. Te Mana o Te Taiao – Aotearoa New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy 2020. Wellington: Department of Conservation.
   Google Scholar
• Duncan R. 2013. Converting community knowledge into catchment nutrient limits: a constructivist analysis of a New Zealand collaborative approach to water management. Nature and Culture. 8(2):205–225. doi:10.3167/nc.2013.080205.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan R. 2016. Ways of knowing–out-of-sync or incompatible? Framing water quality and farmers’ encounters with science in the regulation of non-point source pollution in the Canterbury region of New Zealand. Environmental Science & Policy. 55:151–157. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.10.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan R. 2020. Co-designing for research impact: lessons learned from practice in Aotearoa New Zealand. Prepared for New Zealand’s Biological Heritage National Science Challenge. [accessed 2022 August 2]. https://bioheritage.nz/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/LC3849_Codesigning-for-research-impact-FINAL-REPORT.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Duncan R, Robson-Williams M, Edwards S. 2020a. A close examination of the role and needed expertise of brokers in bridging and building science policy boundaries in environmental decision making. Palgrave Communications. 6(1):1–12. doi:10.1057/s41599-020-0448-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan R, Robson-Williams M, Fam D. 2020b. Assessing research impact potential: using the transdisciplinary outcome spaces framework with New Zealand’s national science challenges. Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online. 15(1):217–235. doi:10.1080/1177083X.2020.1713825.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ezrahi Y. 1990. The descent of Icarus: science and the transformation of contemporary democracy. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fazey I, Bunse L, Msika J, Pinke M, Preedy K, Evely AC, Lambert E, Hastings E, Morris S, Reed MS. 2014. Evaluating knowledge exchange in interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder research. Global Environmental Change. 25:204–220. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Filipe A, Renedo A, Marston C. 2017. The co-production of what? Knowledge, values, and social relations in health care. PLOS Biology. 15(5):e2001403. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2001403. pbio.2001403.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M. 1994. The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Gieryn TF. 1983. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review. 48(6):781–795. doi:10.2307/2095325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansson S, Polk M. 2018. Assessing the impact of transdisciplinary research: the usefulness of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impact. Research Evaluation. 27(2):132–144. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvy004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harcourt N, Robson-Williams M, Tamepo R. 2022. Supporting the design of useful and relevant holistic frameworks for land use opportunity assessment for indigenous people. Australasian Journal of Water Resources. 26(1):116–130. doi:10.1080/13241583.2022.2031571.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hikuroa D. 2017. Mātauranga Māori: the ūkaipō of knowledge in New Zealand. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand. 47(1):5–10. doi:10.1080/03036758.2016.1252407.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howarth C, Lane M, Morse-Jones S, Brooks K, Viner D. 2022. The ‘co’ in co-production of climate action: challenging boundaries within and between science, policy and practice. Global Environmental Change. 72(102445):1–10. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102445.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff S. 2004. The idiom of co-production (Chapter 1); Ordering knowledge, ordering society (Chapter 2). In: Jasanoff S, editor. States of knowledge: the co-production of science and social order. London: Routledge; p. 1–45.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff S. 2005. Designs on nature: science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson JT, Howitt R, Cajete G, Berkes F, Louis RP, Kliskey A. 2015. Weaving indigenous and sustainability sciences to diversify our methods. Sustainability Science. 11:1–11. doi:10.1007/s11625-015-0349-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones D, Hikuroa D, Gregory E, Ihaka-McLeod H, Moko-Mead TT. 2020. Weaving mātauranga into environmental decision-making. New Zealand Science Review. 76(1–2):49–54. doi:10.26686/nzsr.v76i1-2.7833.
   Google Scholar
• Kawharu, M., and Tapsell, P. 2021. Expanding Takarangi: applying a Māori values-led model of team leadership in science and technology. In: Amoamo M, Kawharu M, Ruckstuhl K, editors. He Pou Hiringa: grounding science and technology in te Ao Māori. Wellington: BWB Texts; p. 17–34.
   Google Scholar
• Kukutai T, McIntosh T, Boulton A, Durie M, Foster M, Hutchings J, Mark-Shadbolt M, Moewaka Barnes H, Moko-Mead TT, Paine S-J, et al. 2021. Te Pūtahitanga: a Tiriti-led science-policy approach for Aotearoa New Zealand. Auckland: Ngā Pae o te Maramatanga.
   Google Scholar
• Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas CJ. 2012. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science. 7(1):25–43. doi:10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latour B. 1993. We have never been modern. Translated by Catherine Porter. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Louder E, Wyborn C, Cvitanovic C, Bednarek AT. 2021. A synthesis of the frameworks available to guide evaluations of research impact at the interface of environmental science, policy and practice. Environmental Science & Policy. 116:258–265. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2020.12.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maas TY, Pauwelussen A, Turnhout E. 2022. Co-producing the science–policy interface: towards common but differentiated responsibilities. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 9(1):1–11. doi:10.1057/s41599-021-01017-z.
   Google Scholar
• Macfarlane A, Macfarlane S. 2019. Listen to culture: Māori scholars’ plea to researchers. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand. 49(sup1):48–57. doi:10.1080/03036758.2019.1661855.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Māngai R. 2019. Submission of Rauika Māngai on New Zealand’s research, science & innovation strategy. Wellington: Rauika Māngai.
   Google Scholar
• Māngai R. 2020. A guide to vision Mātauranga: lessons from Māori voices in the New Zealand science sector. Wellington: Rauika Māngai.
   Google Scholar
• Mark S, Hagen P. 2020. Co-design in Aotearoa New Zealand: a snapshot of the literature. Auckland: Auckland Co-design Lab, Auckland Council. [accessed 2020 July 1]. https://knowledgeauckland.org.nz/publications/co-design-in-aotearoa-new-zealand-a-snapshot-of-the-literature/.
   Google Scholar
• Mason R, Boutilier M. 1996. The challenge of genuine power sharing in participatory research: the gap between theory and practice. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health. Fall. 15(2):145–152. doi:10.7870/cjcmh-1996-0015. PMID: 10166891.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• MBIE (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment). 2015a. National Science Challenges performance framework guidance document (1). [accessed 2019 February 1]. https://www.mbie.govt.nz/assets/21ad1b6da3/nsc-performance-framework-guidance-document.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• MBIE (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment). 2015b. National Statement of Science Investment 2015-2025. [accessed 2019 February 1]. https://www.mbie.govt.nz/assets/2eaba48268/national-statement-science-investment-2015-2025.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• MBIE (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment). 2017. The impact of science: discussion paper. [accessed 2019 February 1]. https://www.mbie.govt.nz.
   Google Scholar
• MBIE (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment). 2018. Letter to BHNSC regarding outcome of mid-way review dated 19 November 2018 with Report of the Review Panel to the Science Board annexed. [accessed 2023 May 1]. https://bioheritage.nz/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/science-board-decision-letter-novemb.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• MBIE (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment). 2019a. The impact of research: position paper. [accessed 2019 November 1]. https://www.mbie.govt.nz.
   Google Scholar
• MBIE (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment). 2019b. National Science Challenges performance framework 2019. [accessed 2023 June 11]. https://www.mbie.govt.nz/assets/2e50d9535a/national-science-challenges-performance-framework.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Mbie (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment). 2021. Te Ara Paerangi Future Pathways Green Paper 2021. Wellington: Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.
   Google Scholar
• MBIE (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment). Undated. National Science Challenges. [accessed 2022 September 1]. https://www.mbie.govt.nz/science-and-technology/science-and-innovation/funding-information-and-opportunities/investment-funds/national-science-challenges/.
   Google Scholar
• Mercier O, Jackson AM. 2019. Mātauranga and science – introduction to special issue on mātauranga and science. New Zealand Science Review. 75(4):63–64. doi:10.26686/nzsr.v75i4.7839.
   Google Scholar
• MfE (Ministry for the Environment). 2020. National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020. ME1518, Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.
   Google Scholar
• MfE (Ministry for the Environment). 2021. Natural and Built Environments Bill: Parliamentary paper on the exposure draft. [accessed 2021 August 1]. https://environment.govt.nz/publications/natural-and-built-environments-bill-parliamentary-paper-on-the-exposure-draft/.
   Google Scholar
• Miller CA. 2004. Climate science and the making of a global political order. In: Shiela Jasanoff, editor. States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. London: Routledge; p. 46–66.
   Google Scholar
• Miller CA, Wyborn C. 2020. Co-production in global sustainability: histories and theories. Environmental Science & Policy. 113:88–95. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.01.016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell C, Cordell D, Fam D. 2015. Beginning at the end: the outcome spaces framework to guide purposive transdisciplinary research. Futures. 65:86–96. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2014.10.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muru-Lanning M. 2012. Māori research collaborations, mātauranga Māori science and the appropriation of water in New Zealand. Anthropological Forum. 22(2):151–164. doi:10.1080/00664677.2012.694171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nadasdy P. 1999. The politics of TEK: power and the “integration” of knowledge. Arctic Anthropology. 36(1/2):1–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nadasdy P. 2021. How many worlds are there? Ontology, practice, and indeterminacy. American Ethnologist. 48(4):357–369. doi:10.1111/amet.13046.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nastar M. 2023. A critical realist approach to reflexivity in sustainability research. Sustainability. 15(3):2685. doi:10.3390/su15032685.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norström AV, Cvitanovic C, Löf MF, West S, Wyborn C, Balvanera P, Bednarek AT, Bennett EM, Biggs R, de Bremond A, Campbell BM. 2020. Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nature Sustainability. 3(3):182–190. doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M. 2001. Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• O’Connor RA, Nel JL, Roux DJ, Lim-Camacho L, van Kerkhoff L, Leach J. 2019. Principles for evaluating knowledge co-production in natural resource management: incorporating decision-maker values. Journal of Environmental Management. 249:109392. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109392.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliver K, Kothari A, Mays N. 2019. The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research? Health Research Policy and Systems. 17(1):1–10. doi:10.1186/s12961-019-0432-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ostrom E. 1996. Crossing the great divide: coproduction, synergy, and development. World Development. 24(6):1073–1087. doi:10.1016/0305-750X(96)00023-X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plummer R, Blythe J, Gurney GG, Witkowski S, Armitage D. 2022. Transdisciplinary partnerships for sustainability: an evaluation guide. Sustainability Science. 17(3):955–967. doi:10.1007/s11625-021-01074-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polk M. 2015. Transdisciplinary co-production: designing and testing a transdisciplinary research framework for societal problem solving. Futures. 65:110–122. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2014.11.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robert G, Locock L, Williams O, Cornwell J, Donetto S, Goodrich J. 2022. Co-producing and co-designing (Elements of Improving Quality and Safety in Healthcare). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781009237024.
   Google Scholar
• Robson-Williams M, Norton N, Davie T, Taylor K, Kirk N. 2018. The changing role of scientists in supporting collaborative land and water policy in Canterbury, New Zealand. Case Studies in the Environment. 2(1):1–5. doi:10.1525/cse.2018.001271.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roux DJ, Stirzaker RJ, Breen CM, Lefroy EC, Cresswell HP. 2004. Framework for participative reflection on the accomplishment of transdisciplinary research programs. Environmental Science & Policy. 13(8):733–741. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2010.08.002.
   Google Scholar
• Sheppard B, Sarrazin H, Kouyoumjian G, Dore F. 2018. The business value of design. McKinsey Quarterly, 25 October. [accessed 2020 July 1]. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/mckinsey-design/our-insights/the-business-value-of-design.
   Google Scholar
• Srinivasan MS, Elley G. 2018. The cycle of trust building, co-learning, capability development, and confidence building: application of a co-innovation approach in a multi-stakeholder project. Case Studies in the Environment. 2(1):1–8. doi:10.1525/cse.2018.001255.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor LB, Fenemor A, Mihinui R, Sayers TA, Porou T, Hikuroa D, Harcourt N, White P, O’Connor M. 2021. Ngā Puna Aroha: towards an indigenous-centred freshwater allocation framework for Aotearoa New Zealand. Australasian Journal of Water Resources. 25(1):27–39. doi:10.1080/13241583.2020.1792632.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tengö M, Andersson E. 2022. Solutions-oriented research for sustainability: turning knowledge into action. Ambio. 51:25–30. doi:10.1007/s13280-020-01492-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tengö M, Hill R, Malmer P, Raymond CM, Spierenburg M, Danielsen F, Elmqvist T, Folke C. 2017. Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond – lessons learned for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 26:17–25. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson MA, Owen S, Lindsay JM, Leonard GS, Cronin SJ. 2017. Scientist and stakeholder perspectives of transdisciplinary research: early attitudes, expectations, and tensions. Environmental Science & Policy. 74:30–39. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner JA, Klerkx L, Rijswijk K, Williams T, Barnard T. 2016. Systemic problems affecting co-innovation in the New Zealand agricultural innovation system: identification of blocking mechanisms and underlying institutional logics. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences. 76:99–112. doi:10.1016/j.njas.2015.12.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turnhout E, Metze T, Wyborn C, Klenk N, Louder E. 2020. The politics of co-production: participation, power, and transformation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 42:15–21. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2019.11.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Kerkhoff L. 2014. Knowledge governance for sustainable development: a review. Challenges in Sustainability. 1(2):82–93.
   Google Scholar
• Van Kerkhoff L, Pilbeam V. 2017. Understanding socio-cultural dimensions of environmental decision-making: a knowledge governance approach. Environmental Science & Policy. 73:29–37. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.03.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vargas C, Whelan J, Brimblecombe J, Allender S. 2022. Co-creation, co-design, co-production for public health: a perspective on definition and distinctions. Public Health Research & Practice. 32(2):e3222211. doi:10.17061/phrp3222211.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wickson F, Carew AL, Russell AW. 2006. Transdisciplinary research: characteristics, quandaries and quality. Futures. 38(9):1046–1059. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2006.02.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wyborn C, Datta A, Montana J, Ryan M, Leith P, Chaffin B, Miller C, Van Kerkhoff L. 2019. Co-producing sustainability: reordering the governance of science, policy, and practice. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 44(1):319–346.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young D. 2021. Wai Pasifika: Indigenous ways in a changing climate. Dunedin: Otago University Press.
   Google Scholar