LWA’s Social & Institutional Research Programme Canberra, 18-19 May 2010 Steve Dovers, Richard Price, Ken Moore

1. LWA’s Social & Institutional Research ProgrammeCanberra, 18-19 May 2010Steve Dovers, Richard Price, Ken Moore

2. Why us? • Steve – social scientist; scoping study and first program plan, later giving to and taking from LWA. • Richard – anti-social scientist; PIERD Act; LWA from the start; midwife and obstetrician to the birth and early years. • Ken – double-dip SIRPer, innocent of this ppt. • Quiz question – who put the pictures in?

3. The life story… • The Foreplay Years • Prophylactics and Withdrawals >> • The Conception • SIRP’s early years (what middle age?) • Achievements: the child’s a credit to us… • The Gaps and Not-So-Goods • Lessons from a short life, if… • But first…

4. But first… • Why are we, or should we, be here discussing a social sciences program when most other LWA programs were not constructed in this way?-- do we need one – a pause to rethink?-- a discipline based program in a sector- and issue-focused world?

5. The Foreplay Years • Early escapades in social sciences and NRM:-- agricultural economics, geography, history, extension, adoption … no blank slate, now or ever. • National Soil Conservation Program, and onto LWRRDC:-- adoption research-- quantifying and qualitatively identifying benefits.

6. Prophylactics and Withdrawals(or, it should’ve happened earlier – who and what got in the way?!) • Lack of coherence/support from social scientists (who are so good at whingeing…) • A perceived blur between policy research, policy development and policy advocacy • Dedicate a program or embed into others? • It seems a good idea, but how… • People from government

7. The Conception • Peter Chudleigh – an early but lone Board advocate • Jason Alexandra – an excitable and vocal Board advocate • Leith Boully – a ‘gents-the-time-has-come’ Board advocate • Richard Price – a ‘this-took-me-nine-years’ Staff advocate • Scoping study (Mobbs & Dovers 1999):-- broad scope (social, legal, economic, policy, institutional…)-- the role and sensitivities of ‘policy research’.-- should there be a Program...-- or should social sciences be embedded?

8. SIRP’s Early Years • The first program plan. • Early foci:- exciting and attracting social scientists >> -- testing social science methods for NRM fit-- mixing the economic, legal, sociological and political science ingredients (can we work together, or are we best focussing on our strengths?) -- it’s OK to publish!

9. “The child’s a credit to us…” • Unprecedented focus on social sciences in NRM, and on NRM by (some) social scientists. • Increased comprehension of breadth and relative merit/relevance of social science disciplines. • Guiding (some) social scientists to applications. • Some very low cost-high output research. • The PhD program. • Trial, proving (or not) and communication of timely topics – eg citizens jury project

10. Mishaps & Misdemeanours • Mixed and raised expectations >> • Ignored broader issues of governance. • Ditto the law (… many manifestations). • Fadism? (eg. whither soils) • Inability to comprehend books as product. • Not bringing cognate sectors and NRM together (emergencies, public health, community development). • Not bringing in senior social scientists from outside NRM for review and steering.

11. Lessons from a short life, if… • … we renew intelligent investment in social sciences • What’s the need for social sciences in NRM, and what matching needs in cognate sectors? • A statutory authority (again), or have the timesovertaken such a construction? • Another form of program, ARC key centres, embedded elsewhere as appropriate…? • Separate status versus dispersed integration of the social sciences? • Other experiences (LWA not unique): RAC, BRS SS unit, GBRMPA, Bushfire CRC Program C, CERF-NERP.