Search

Ten Australians and one New Zealander provide reflections on the influence of Julie Thompson Klein's work on and in inter- and trans- disciplinarity. Even taking into account that this article is based on a small number of contributions from only one corner of the world, the reflections demonstrate the influence of a diverse array of Klein's academic work, the ground-breaking nature of her book "Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory, and Practice," the meticulousness of her scholarship that makes her voice authoritative, and the added benefits of personal connections. The contributions also demonstrate the value of reflective narratives in providing a more rounded and richer picture of an academic's influence than traditional metrics, including -- in Julie Thompson Klein's case -- non-citable enhancement of thinking and orientation, catalytic effects when her ideas are combined with others, and practical value in making sense of events and circumstances. Most importantly, assembling reflective narratives provides a window onto the unique attributes and contributions of individual researchers, educators and practitioners, illustrating and affirming the richness of differences and the importance of valuing and capitalising on them. Recognition of such diversity is not only essential to help individuals identify the strongest contributions they can make, but also critical for good inter- and trans- disciplinary research, education and practice.

Reports on Aotearoa New Zealand's research, science, and innovation (RSI) system suggest the sector could improve its social responsibility and create more social value. However, researchers and innovators within the sector find this challenging. Through qualitative interviews and a national survey of RSI system participants, this study explores the current perceptions, practices enacted, and support given around responsible research and innovation practices. Findings indicate that researchers and innovators have diverse understandings of what responsible research and innovation entails, viewing anticipation and reflexivity-aligned practices as the most important aspects of responsible research and innovation. Participants feel most supported by research organisations and funding bodies to enact such aspects of responsible practice. However, they perceive a discrepancy, across all dimensions explored, between what researchers and innovators should do, and what they actually do in terms of enacting responsible practices. Thus, significant room for improvement is identified, particularly regarding practices that align with researchers' and innovators' obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and requirements under Vision Mātauranga. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For the past decade, collaboration has been the preferred method of devising land and water policy in Aotearoa New Zealand to achieve agreed outcomes. However, the use of collaboration in policymaking is at a crossroads, as some argue it is unrealistic to expect stakeholders and tangata whenua with competing interests to work in partnership on contentious policy issues. To help clarify the future direction of collaboration, this paper provides authorising agencies (those with responsibility for the policy problems) with prompts to reflect ex ante on the advantages and disadvantages of pursuing collaboration. Based on a retrospective review of collaborations in New Zealand's land and water policymaking, and a two-day symposium with collaboration practitioners, we identify situations that are potentially less suited to collaboration owing to factors that are challenging to overcome through process design. Four issues that affect the success of collaborations are identified: the nature of the policy problem, the personal and collective qualities of those involved, power relationships, and the collaborative process. Finally, we draw together practical lessons from history, the symposium, and the literature to develop a list of questions for authorising agencies to use to reflect on the advantages and disadvantages of pursuing collaboration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Criterion-related validities and inter-rater reliabilities for structured employment interview studies using situational questions (e.g. 'Assume that you were faced with the following situation ... what would you do?') were compared meta-analytically with studies using past behaviour questions (e.g. 'Can you think of a time when ... what did you do?'). Validities and reliabilities were further analysed in terms of whether descriptively-anchored rating scales were used to judge interviewees' answers, and validities for each question type were also assessed across three levels of job complexity. While both question formats yielded high validity estimates, studies using past behaviour questions, when used with discriptively anchored answer rating scales, yielded a substantially higher mean validity estimate than studies using the situational question format with descriptively-anchored answer rating scales (.63 versus .47). Question type (situational versus past behaviour) was found to moderate interview validity, after controlling for whether studies used answer rating scales. No support was found for the hypothesis that situational questions are less valid for predicting job performance in high-complexity jobs. Sample-weighted mean inter-rater reliabilities were similar for both situational and past behaviour questions, provided that descriptively-anchored rating scales were used (.79 and .77, respectively), although they were slightly lower (.73) for past behaviour question studies lacking such rating scales., Considerable research has been conducted with the aim of identifying procedures which can improve the criterion-related validity of the employment interview. One of the most profound and consistent findings from [...]

Abstract The world needs to produce more food, more sustainably, on a planet with scarce resources and under changing climate. The advancement of technologies, computing power and analytics offers the possibility that 'digitalisation of agriculture' can provide new solutions to these complex challenges. The role of science is to evidence and support the design and use of digital technologies to realise these beneficial outcomes and avoid unintended consequences. This requires consideration of data governance design to enable the benefits of digital agriculture to be shared equitably and how digital agriculture could change agricultural business models; that is, farm structures, the value chain and stakeholder roles, networks and power relations, and governance. We argue that this requires transdisciplinary research (at pace), including explicit consideration of the aforementioned socio‐ethical issues, data governance and business models, alongside addressing technical issues, as we now have to simultaneously deal with multiple interacting outcomes in complex technical, social, economic and governance systems. The exciting prospect is that digitalisation of science can enable this new, and more effective, way of working. The question then becomes: how can we effectively accelerate this shift to a new way of working in agricultural science? As well as identifying key research areas, we suggest organisational changes will be required: new research business models, agile project management; new skills and capabilities; and collaborations with new partners to develop 'technology ecosystems'. © 2018 The Authors. © 2018 The Authors. Journal of The Science of Food and Agriculture published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Selwyn Waihora Project was a research project supporting a collaborative policy-making process to set environmental limits in the Selwyn Waihora catchment in New Zealand's South Island. In this Design Report we reflect on this project based on data collected from a range of project participants approximately two years after project completion. The data collection was guided by the Integration and Implementation Sciences framework (i2S). On the basis of participant responses, and the authors' first-hand experiences working on the project, we present insights for transdisciplinary research. Through the questions asked by the i2S framework insights emerged on: what it means to honour community values; the importance of context but that projects can pay too much attention to it; boundary objects to foster integration across multiple knowledge systems; the value of intra-team narratives for translation; the importance of considering the losers of the research; and sharing the burden of uncertainty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Byline: Bruce Small Sustainability models are analysed and the ontological relationship between the dimensions of sustainability are discussed. A sustainable values framework generated from some New Zealand research is presented. The focus is then narrowed predominantly to social sustainability and technological development. It may be argued that in democratic societies the science community and the government have a duty to take into account the attitudes, values and beliefs of the public, regarding development of Promethean technologies. However, attitudes, values and beliefs about technologies evolve and change across time, place and culture. Different stakeholder groups may contest sustainable development of a new technology in at least two different ways: firstly, facts regarding the effects of the technology may be disputed (i.e. the science is contested) and; secondly, normative values regarding the technology and its applications may also be contested.

Achievement of an esthetic single-tooth restoration in the anterior segment is a difficult task for the restorative dentist. A case is described in which two congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisors were replaced with single-tooth implants. A new technique was used to restore the teeth provisionally with a polyethylene ribbon and resin replacement. Light-cured staining systems for acrylic resins and ceramics were employed to customize both the provisional and final restorations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study provides empirical evidence of the link between outlook and practice among farmers, foresters, and growers in New Zealand. Specifically, we use a large, nationally representative survey to assess how foci on production and environmental outcomes influence the adoption of six good management practices aimed at increasing agricultural sustainability. We then show that while environmentally oriented and production-oriented decision-makers are statistically more prepared to take risks, all rural decision-makers are more likely to adopt new technologies and good practices after seeing their relative advantages successfully demonstrated. Next, we show that social and professional networks are small, often limited to five or fewer operators, which begs the question about how the risk-averse operators become informed about good practice. Hence, we ultimately analyse trust in order to identify other credible demonstrators or informants. We find that veterinarians are the most trusted source of information and that government (at all levels) is the least. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]