Integrated Pest Management: Bridging Disciplines, Knowledge Systems, and Cultures
Bridging Disciplines, Knowledge Systems, and Cultures in Pest Management (Allen et al. 2013)
Abstract Overview
Problem Statement: Effective integrated environmental and natural resource management research necessitates diverse disciplinary and stakeholder participation. However, many initiatives fail due to neglected social processes crucial for successful engagement and social learning.
Methodology: The authors employed an action research approach to facilitate critical reflection within a research group (comprising various disciplines and stakeholder expertise) on their engagement practices. This aimed to identify strategies for more effective collaboration.
Purpose of Paper: This approach is presented as a guide to support reflective research practice in other integration-based initiatives.
Context: The study is situated within an integrated wildlife management research case study in New Zealand.
Key Frameworks & Tools:
Multi-, inter-, and trans-disciplinary approaches are used to structure the different types of conversations required in an integrated research program.
Rubrics listing criteria for inter- and trans-disciplinary collaborations are outlined and exemplified with effective engagement processes.
Core Findings/Implications: The experiences confirm the necessity for integral initiatives to:
Actively manage engagement processes in both formal and informal settings.
Provide opportunities for critical reflective practice.
Adopt measures of success that acknowledge the vital role of effective social processes.
Introduction: The Imperative for Integrated Management
Challenge in Environmental/Natural Resource Management: Success often relies on the coordinated actions of decision-makers across various scales, from local (
e.g., farms) to regional and beyond.Difficulty in Pest Management: Achieving effective participation and coordination is particularly challenging in pest management, characterized by conflicting social perspectives and worldviews (Allen et al. 2001).
Beyond Technical Solutions: Managing the constructive involvement of diverse disciplines and stakeholders requires as much emphasis as developing technical problem-solving abilities.
Call for Integration: There is a significant need to foster more integrated approaches that promote the free sharing of knowledge and experience among different groups (Margles et al. 2010).
New Zealand Context: A national biosecurity review in New Zealand specifically called for greater coordination and collaboration in vertebrate pest management (Hellstrom et al. 2008).
Evolving Science Programs: An increasing number of natural resource management science programs are adopting collaborative or social learning approaches (Tress et al. 2005; Allen et al. 2011; Robinson et al. 2012).
Broadening the Scope of Science:
Conventional Approach: Typically, a science team independently develops and manages research, often defined by a single discipline, which can be detrimental to other disciplinary epistemologies (Miller et al. 2008).
This linear process involves hypothesis development
ightarrow fact-finding to prove/disprove
ightarrow conclusions (published or modeled)
ightarrow delivered to stakeholders for incorporation (Wadsworth 1998).
Broadened View: Involves disciplines and stakeholders more overtly in hypothesis development and implementation planning. This ensures research aligns better with stakeholder requirements, enhancing on-the-ground impact. It also helps stakeholders understand the biases, assumptions, and limitations of the science.
Collaborative Adaptive Management:
An increasing number of researchers and practitioners are embracing this broader view.
They share theories and methods, demystifying science and emphasizing collaborative learning-by-doing.
These programs adhere to collaborative problem-solving and dispute-resolution principles, prioritizing shared definitions, cultural sensitivity, inclusion, and empowerment among diverse stakeholders (Allen and Kilvington 2005; Plummer and Armitage 2007; Jacobson et al. 2009).
Challenges in Collaborative Research:
The collaborative and social aspects often remain implicit in conventional research proposals and published conclusions, leading to less rigorous review and implementation compared to technical components.
To maintain relevance and rigor, the science community must explicitly apply robust methodological practices for these elements, ensuring appropriate peer review and skilled implementation (Allen and Kilvington 2005; Reed 2010).
Goal of the Study: To facilitate processes where a wider range of disciplines and stakeholders can engage on equal terms with mutual respect. This applies to both the theoretical design of integrated initiatives and the practical relationship/trust building essential for successful engagement.
Ongoing Nature of Engagement: Given that many initiatives support collaboration and adaptive management, engagement processes must be continuous (Plummer and Armitage 2007; Allen and Jacobson 2009).
Recent Emphasis in Literature: Researchers are increasingly addressing the social challenges of inclusive, adaptive, and learning-based approaches (Campbell 2005; Margles et al. 2010; Podesta´ et al. 2012; Robinson et al. 2012). The focus is shifting from merely identifying barriers to contributing practical ideas, tools, and experiences.
Transdisciplinary Expansion: Beyond interdisciplinary research, a key challenge is integrating other knowledge systems (
e.g., local, traditional) by including practitioners, community, and Indigenous groups as partners, thereby engaging in transdisciplinary collaborations (Apgar et al. 2009; Jahn et al. 2012).Importance of Reflection: Literature highlights the need for reflection among all participants to foster collaborative and integrated knowledge production (Plummer and Armitage 2007; Podesta´ et al. 2012). However, current research practice often lacks guides for developing such critical reflection.
Program Context and Engagement Framing: New Zealand Pest Management
New Zealand's Unique Pest Problems: The country faces unique animal pest issues affecting both biodiversity and primary production.
Native predators and grazers (all birds) are largely extinct (Wilson 2004), leaving ecological niches open for introduced animals, many of which became widespread pests (Cowan and Tyndale-Biscoe 1997).
Out of 31 exotic mammal species with wild populations, 25 are actively managed as pests (Parkes and Murphy 2003).
Significant Pest Impacts:
Possums (Trichosurus vulpecula): Cause severe decline of native tree species and destroy native bird nests (PCE 2011). They are the primary vector for bovine tuberculosis (TB), threatening New Zealand's beef and dairy exports (Coleman and Caley 2000). Estimated annual production losses across agriculture, horticulture, and forestry are approximately NZ52 million (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2009).
Stoats (Mustela erminea) and Feral Cats (Felis catus): Account for an estimated 50\% of juvenile brown kiwi (Apteryx mantelli) deaths in the wild each year (McLennan et al. 1996).
Diverse Management Landscape: Feral pests are found across various NZ landscapes, including production lands, conservation lands, local government lands, and Māori-owned land.
Stakeholder Groupings: Include individuals and corporate organizations owning production lands, those with lands under conservation covenant, public land managers, local government, and Māori land owners.
Necessity for Coordinated Action: Effective pest management requires diverse stakeholders to adopt good practices and work coordinately across linked landscapes.
Research Initiatives at CWMC: The Centre for Wildlife Management and Conservation (CWMC) at Lincoln University focuses on increasing native biodiversity recovery.
Key Programs:
"Pest Control for the 21st Century" (PC21)
"Completing the Arsenal for Possum and TB Control" (CAPTB)
Research Themes:
Technical: Development of new toxicants and baits (improved safety, field efficacy, low residue risk, welfare, cultural considerations), and new resetting control technologies for long-term pest suppression.
Social: Identifying integrative processes to support stakeholders in pest management decision-making.
Expertise Engaged:
Scientific: Animal ecology, wildlife management, pharmacology, toxicology, food manufacturing, design engineering.
Social Science: Multi-stakeholder engagement, outcomes planning, indigenous knowledge.
Advisory and Advocacy Groups:
Industry Advisory Group: Representatives from major New Zealand end-user bodies (Regional Councils, Department of Conservation, TBfree New Zealand).
Nga¯ Matapopore ('The Watchful Ones'): A national Māori advisory and advocacy group. Crucial for integrating pest management science with Ma¯tauranga Ma¯ori (Māori knowledge) to ensure solutions align with Māori cultural aspirations.
An Action Research Approach to Engagement
Social Research Objective: Identify processes that integrate ecology, culture, and local knowledge into pest management decision-making, while building upon Tikanga (Māori cultural guidelines based on worldview and intergenerational learning).
Action Research Definition: An approach for critical reflection on processes to instigate change in practice (Kemmis 2009) and foster social learning in complex interpersonal/organizational settings (Ison 2008; Flood 2010).
Goal: Not merely to understand existing social arrangements, but to effect desired change, generate new knowledge about collaboration, and empower participants (Huang 2010).
Alignment: This methodology is consistent with calls for improving engagement in research by supporting critical reflection on factors that either foster or impede cooperative knowledge production (Plummer and Armitage 2007; Podesta´ et al. 2012).
Critical Reflection: Involves challenging socially restrictive assumptions/beliefs and considering how to enable transformative social action and change (Finlay 2008).
Practitioner Involvement: Action research engages practitioners (researchers and partners) in systematic inquiries to improve their practices, achieve desired outcomes, and contribute to wider end-user goals.
Distinction from Informal Evaluation: While researchers constantly make informal engagement judgments, action research necessitates developing specific skills for more critical reflection and evaluation.
Project's Starting Point: Focused on the core spectrum of disciplinary, multi-, inter-, and trans-disciplinary research. This builds on previous integrated catchment management research (Allen et al. 2011) and aimed to embed evaluative thinking earlier.
Methodology for Engagement: Individual discussions and focused workshops around the development of rubrics served as entry points for examining engagement across the disciplinary spectrum.
Rubrics: Easily applicable assessment tools, commonly used in education (Oakden 2013). They consist of:
A list of criteria: What constitutes significant elements of an activity or task.
Graduations of quality: An evaluative range or scale to assess performance.
Purpose of Rubrics in Study: To support critical reflective practice and formative assessment of the research team's collaborative initiatives.
Development of Criteria: Based on expert contributions (from team members with engagement expertise), a literature review, and workshop insights from other team members.
Benefit: Facilitated in-depth discussions within the team about effective integrated engagement, offering insights that externally developed rubrics could not.
Case Studies: Different researcher groups provided case studies to illustrate practical collaborations.
Facilitation and Collaboration: The lead author facilitated discussions, with an Australian-based researcher acting as a critical friend. All authors contributed to paper development through personal conversations, phone, and email on successive drafts. This mixed-method approach was chosen for its economy and effectiveness in fostering critical reflection and active involvement under time and budget constraints.
Modes of Engagement in Practically-Oriented Research: Integrated Science
Core Principle: To achieve integrated resource management through collaborative and learning-based approaches, researchers and stakeholders must better understand and respect multiple social perspectives.
Levels of Engagement: Approaches are needed to foster closer engagement both among different disciplines and between research teams and diverse stakeholders.
The Engagement Spectrum (Fig. 1): Applied research programs typically require conversations across a spectrum comprising disciplinary, multi-disciplinary, inter-disciplinary, and trans-disciplinary research.
Inter- and Trans-disciplinary Collaborations: These are primarily integration-based, characterized by a strong need for active dialogue and learning across different social and disciplinary perspectives.
Transdisciplinary Discussions: Serve as a forum for reflection on societal and research objectives, guiding decisions on research approaches and directions that best meet societal needs. These discussions set the overall
directionof the research.Interdisciplinary Discussions: Once the problem is defined (often informed by transdisciplinary collaborations), these discussions focus on
howto link disciplines, share data and information to developsolutions.Disciplinary Discussions: Remain crucial for providing depth and understanding within individual fields, contributing to the overall strength and depth of scientific knowledge.
Multidisciplinary Research: An additive approach combining efforts from more than one discipline. While cooperation may be required, researchers generally work and publish within their traditional disciplines. This is a common configuration.
Paper's Focus: Due to the inherent difficulties in managing them, this paper specifically focuses on integration-based approaches (inter- and trans-disciplinary).
Transdisciplinarity
Definition Challenge: A universally agreed-upon definition of transdisciplinarity remains elusive (Jahn etal. 2012).
General Acceptance: It is broadly understood that transdisciplinary collaborations integrate the experiences and worldviews of researchers with those of diverse stakeholder groups (
e.g., land managers, policymakers, local communities, indigenous communities).Objectives: These collaborations aim to establish research priorities, foster research that helps diverse parties achieve common outcomes, and generate new knowledge and understanding (Allen et al. 2011).
Nature of Discussions: Likely to involve unique epistemological and ontological perspectives that may be unfamiliar to the participating science disciplines (Eigenbrode et al. 2007; Miller et al. 2008).
Focus: Conversations center on
areas and interests to inquire intoandpeople’s values, rather than the intricate details of methodologies or technologies.Ethical and Power Issues: These discussions also often address fundamental questions such as who has the right to benefit from, decide on, or manage new technologies (Allen et al. 2011).
Criteria for Well-Developed Transdisciplinary Collaborations: The research group identified key criteria (Table 1) emphasizing:
The importance of relationships.
Development of a shared language and understanding of broad stakeholder visions.
Clarity of research direction.
Effective communication.
Table 1: Rubric for Evaluating Research Team's Transdisciplinary Collaborations
Well-developed (Good example of best practice):
Clear L
ong-term relationships with stakeholders beyond individual projects.Shared definitions (technical and non-technical).
Clear and shared understanding of wider long-term stakeholder vision(s).
Research leaders can demonstrate how their research contributes to these visions.
Discussions lead to research directions understood by key stakeholders.
Good communication back to research team.
Developing (Some good examples, some emerging areas):
Evidence of developing relationships beyond individual projects.
Shared definitions are being developed.
Stakeholders are encouraged to outline their long-term vision(s).
Research leaders can explain research contribution to the wider vision.
Discussions contribute to research directions.
Good communication among some of the research team.
Under-developed (Lack of best practice in most areas):
Little or no evidence of relationships beyond individual projects.
Few efforts towards shared definitions.
Few discussions exploring longer-term stakeholder visions.
Focus on research outputs rather than outcomes.
Poor communication back to research team.
Interdisciplinarity
Nature: Integrated research involving coordinated and collaborative inquiry into a common problem.
Typical Elements: Unified problem formulation (informed by transdisciplinary work), sharing methods and data, and potentially developing new research questions.
Ideal Scenario: Collaborators ideally accept, understand, and sometimes apply each other's disciplinary methods and approaches (Eigenbrode et al. 2007).
Inclusion of Knowledge Systems: Local and traditional knowledge systems are considered to contribute in a manner similar to discipline-based knowledge systems.
Processes: Involve the sharing, creation, and synthesis of knowledge among various disciplines and other knowledge systems (Morse et al. 2007).
Criteria for Effective Interdisciplinary Collaborations: The research team identified practical criteria (Table 2) focusing on:
Problem definition and research direction.
Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of individual disciplines and knowledge systems.
Fostering a quality team environment.
Effective team communication (a common criterion across integrated initiatives).
Table 2: Rubric for Evaluating Research Team's Interdisciplinary Collaborations
Well-developed (Good example of best practice):
Clear recognition of the research task and its fit within the wider management environment.
Good knowledge of how different disciplines can contribute.
A good team environment that encourages data and information sharing.
High trust and respect between disciplines, avoiding epistemological sovereignty.
Focus on outcomes for both researchers and end users.
Good opportunities for multidisciplinary authored publications.
Good communication back to research team.
Developing (Some good examples, some emerging areas):
Developing recognition of the research task and its fit within the wider management environment.
Evidence of efforts to identify where different disciplines can contribute effectively.
Evidence of efforts to create a good team environment that encourages data and information sharing.
Processes in place to build trust and respect between disciplines, without epistemological sovereignty.
Some awareness and focus on outcomes for researchers and end users.
Some opportunities for multidisciplinary authored publications.
Good communication among some of the research team.
Under-developed (Lack of best practice in most areas):
Little clear recognition of the research task and its fit within the wider management environment.
Little knowledge of where different disciplines can contribute.
Little evidence of efforts to create a good team environment that encourages data and information sharing.
Few processes in place to build trust and respect between disciplines, without epistemological sovereignty.
Little awareness and focus on outcomes for researchers and end users.
Few opportunities for multidisciplinary authored publications.
Poor communication back to research team.
Using Multiple Approaches to Support Program Engagement
CWMC Strategy: The programs at the Centre for Wildlife Management and Conservation (CWMC) utilize a range of engagement approaches to foster collaboration and integration.
Hierarchical Engagement: Integrated programs must engage people across various decision-making levels, with each level providing context for the others.
Examples of Transdisciplinary Collaborations
Principle: These collaborations harness and empower the creativity resulting from diverse stakeholder groups thinking together, leading to a better understanding of varied needs and worldviews, ensuring project responsiveness.
Focus: Two examples illustrate the research team's links with members of the Nga¯ Matapopore advisory and advocacy group.
Nga¯ Matapopore Hui (Formal Meetings):
Objective: To closely link pest management science with Ma¯tauranga Ma¯ori (indigenous knowledge) and ensure CWMC's solutions align with Māori cultural aspirations.
Structure: The Nga¯ Matapopore advisory group, established in 2010, has held five hui (meetings) in different parts of New Zealand.
Cultural Immersion: The geographic spread allowed hau kainga (local people) to participate. Researchers engaged with local Māori and the Nga¯ Matapopore team, experiencing Iwi (tribe) culture on marae (traditional tribal meeting places).
Protocol: Each hui followed traditional Māori meeting protocol, typically involving a two-night stay on the Marae, blending informal and formal cultural processes.
Initial Engagement: More time was dedicated at the beginning of meetings to introductions and connecting discussions to the people's origins and the local environment.
Shift in Presentation Style: Researchers condensed their usual data-rich, 20-minute PowerPoint presentations. Instead, they focused on personal introductions covering underlying ethical approaches, aims, outcomes, and 2-3 key 'take-home' messages. This shifted the emphasis from technical 'how-to' details to broader 'what-to-do-and-why' aims and implications for researchers and end-users.
Benefits: Provided Nga¯ Matapopore members with ongoing insights into research, fostered links between researchers and iwi/hapu (sub-tribe) representatives (guiding individual initiatives), built scientists' capacity to understand tikanga and Ma¯tauranga Ma¯ori, and ensured culturally integrated solutions.
Fieldwork (Hands-on Engagement):
Context: A recent major field trial of a new resetting toxicant delivery system for stoats.
Participants: Research team, members from Nga¯ Matapopore, and the Industry Advisory Group.
Experience: The site was challenging (difficult access, terrain, high rainfall), with long working days in harsh conditions.
Outcomes: Fostered a strong sense of teamwork. Non-research members gained direct insights into the work, and informal conversations provided researchers with valuable end-user perspectives.
Cultural Reinforcement: An Iwi representative acknowledged the team's efforts, reporting back to Nga¯ Matapopore. This representative also organized a meal featuring traditional Māori foods (tı¯tı¯ - Puffinus griseus, and paua - Haliotis iris), many of which were new to the team. This meal provided an opportunity to discuss the research's importance for future generations, strengthening solidarity.
Impact: A researcher noted a profound sense of solidarity in the field, supporting an integrated perspective aimed at a 'greater good'.
Examples of Interdisciplinary Collaborations
Focus: Interdisciplinary dialogue typically centers on methodology, data sharing, and scale.
Two Examples: Communication between biophysical and technical disciplines, and bridging biophysical and social disciplines.
Technical Disciplinary Engagement:
Context: Work at the intersection of ecology, toxicant/bait development, and design engineering, leading to interdisciplinary outputs (e.g., Eason et al. 2010; Blackie et al. 2011, 2013; Dilks et al. 2011).
Case Study: Development of a technology for safe toxicant deployment within a multi-resetting pest animal control device.
Problem Statement: Broadly applied toxicants raise target specificity and social concerns. Single-set traps are often unfeasible due to servicing difficulties (distance, scale).
Innovative Solution: A species-specific device that dispenses a toxicant and then resets. The animal removes the toxicant through natural self-grooming after exiting the device.
Interdisciplinary Contributions:
Ecologists: Monitor and demonstrate device efficiency in the field.
Toxicologists: Develop toxicant formulations with sufficient dosage, appropriate paste consistency, and palatability.
Engineers: Design a device that meets ecological requirements, delivers the specified toxicant, and operates efficiently and sustainably in natural environments for extended periods.
Communication Method: Initially relied on meetings and iterative feedback. Ecologists presented needs, while toxicologists and engineers proposed solutions.
Early Challenges: Engineers initially underestimated the physical rigors of field conditions, and ecologists did not fully grasp the complexities of engineering requirements.
Iterative Improvement: The process involved iterative feedback, with designs being assessed, and all three disciplines collaboratively discussing successes and failures. This led to incremental improvements until the device was effective enough to achieve conservation goals (e.g., increased kiwi populations).
Social Research Goal: To improve the efficiency and efficacy of these interdisciplinary interactions beyond simply 'getting there in the end'.
Adapted Practice: Meetings are now held in various locations—engineering labs, design studios, and actual field sites—to provide members of each discipline with a broader understanding of related disciplines. This also enhances product development feedback, allowing engineers, for instance, to observe prototypes in real-world conditions and identify challenges and promising results firsthand.
Integrating Social and Bio-physical Sciences:
Challenges: Significant collaboration difficulties arise when epistemologies differ widely, particularly between constructivist-based (interpretive) and positivist-based (technical solution-focused) researchers (e.g., Campbell 2005; Sievanen et al. 2011).
Specific Difficulties (Roughley and Salt 2005; MacMynowski 2007) / Contributing Factors (Sievanen et al. 2011; Robinson et al. 2012):
Diverging perspectives on the role and drivers of humans within ecosystems.
Issues concerning scale and data compatibility.
Social and cultural researchers are often involved too late in the research process.
Absence of clear frameworks for integrating natural and social sciences.
Expectations from natural scientists that social scientists primarily serve as educators, obstacle removers, or outreach coordinators, rather than scholarly researchers.
CWMC Approach: The action research orientation of this social research strand was explicitly used to bridge this biophysical-social science gap. Socio-cultural scientists developed engagement framings (as described in this paper) to catalyze discussions and critical reflection among other disciplinary team members.
Outcome: These opportunities provided valuable insights into the broader research process and communication strategies.
Discussion and Implications
Rubrics' Role: After three years, the study does not claim to have discovered universally applicable rubrics. Instead, their value lies in being adaptable to specific contexts and participants, primarily raising early awareness of collaborative challenges within the program.
Progress Indicators: Early progress is evidenced by the reflective insights of the multi-author writing team, which includes end-users, technical, ecological, and social scientists.
Impact of Stronger Collaborations: Enhanced collaboration supports more effective engagement in technical research areas.
Example: Feedback from Nga¯ Matapopore advocating against aerially applied toxicants led to more rigorous discussions amongst researchers and Māori. This resulted in the consideration of resetting toxicant delivery systems as a more culturally acceptable intermediate approach.
Framework Utility: The multi-, inter-, and trans-disciplinary framework proved a useful guide for critical reflection on various collaborative initiatives.
Beyond Formal Meetings: Effective collaboration requires more than just formal meetings; it demands time investment to build trust and respect among disciplines and stakeholders (Haapasaari et al. 2012).
Time is crucial for grappling with unfamiliar concepts and cultures, and for fostering the friendship and collegiality recognized as vital for integrative success (Campbell 2005).
Budgetary Pressures: These additional time demands for relationship building are often not adequately accounted for in project plans and budgets, especially at the project's outset, creating pressure on participants (Phillips et al. 2010).
Mitigation: Existing social relationships and prior experience in inter-cultural/disciplinary work can significantly shorten this initial engagement phase.
Long-term View: As collaborative adaptive management initiatives become more established, robust relationships will support collaborations extending beyond the lifecycle of single projects (Allen and Jacobson 2009).
Bridging Communication Gaps: Those initiating trans- and inter-disciplinary discussions must actively focus on bridging common communication gaps, specifically between science knowledge and management decisions, agencies and communities, and different science disciplines.
Multiple Engagement Approaches: Recognizing the need for diverse engagement initiatives is fundamental to integrated project success.
Utilizing field experiences, frameworks, diagrams, and stories helps participants find common ground and discuss desired outcomes.
A blend of formal and informal communications is almost always necessary, catering to varied dialogue and learning needs, and allowing creative and spontaneous developments to emerge.
Action Research as a Guide: The action research approach provided an effective methodology for critical reflective inquiry.
It was particularly useful for bridging social and biophysical research by defining a clear role for engagement and social learning experts in developing reflection and interaction frameworks.
Participation Challenge: Experience shows that not all individuals are equally interested in participating in critical reflective practice, often seeing it as an additional workload.
Effectiveness: It is often more effective to engage a few genuinely committed co-researchers in a smaller case study (as done in this paper) than to involve a larger number of less willing participants (Allen and Jacobson 2009).
Ongoing Process: This approach marks the beginning of an ongoing exercise throughout the program, with future topics likely to shift towards issues of extension.
Evaluation of Integrated Programs: Successful integration cannot be solely judged by disciplinary milestones, as solutions often arise from new perspectives generated through inter- and trans-disciplinary engagement.
Need for New Measures: Integrated programs require new measures of success.
Rubrics' Contribution: The rubrics presented in this paper contribute to both the content and methods for identifying appropriate measures.
Intermediate Indicators: Must consider the strength of relationships and the functionality of cross-disciplinary and cross-stakeholder teams.
Research Context Metrics: Beyond individual productivity, focus on how well teams foster collaborative innovation (
e.g., data sharing, multi-authored papers linking diverse knowledge systems).Management Context Metrics: Look for evidence and metrics related to empowerment and effective partnerships.
Reflexive Practice: Activities within this reflexive practice significantly support both collaboration and the building of collaborative capacity.
Concluding Comments
Overarching Goal: Collaborative endeavors like those described aim to improve efforts towards achieving long-term societal outcomes.
Learning Outcome: Through working on inter- and trans-disciplinary approaches, the authors learned to communicate more effectively.
Reflexive Approach: This fosters a more reflexive approach to communication and engagement, grounded in understanding how individual work contributes to other disciplines, knowledge systems, and cultures.
Continuous Improvement: The lessons learned enhance personal practice and, when documented, contribute to the ongoing efforts of practitioners and researchers to better harmonize disciplines and knowledge cultures in addressing conservation and environmental challenges (Margles et al. 2010).
Acknowledgments
Funding: Provided by the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.
Gratitude: Extended to numerous stakeholders for their support and goodwill in making participatory action research possible. Special thanks to Marina Apgar and three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments.