Doing water research differently for innovation in regional water productivity in Australia

Abstract

Research in innovation studies suggests that appropriate starting conditions are required if alignment of research to practice and policy is to be enabled. To achieve this alignment, a scoping exercise is required and must involve those people and institutions that have an interest in the research. This paper describes a consultation process to develop a Blueprint for Regional Water Productivity in Australia through a new research initiative at the University of Melbourne. This Blueprint was developed through a two-stage consultation project in which opportunities and constraints for system innovation in regional water productivity in Australia were identified and discussed with key stakeholders without pre-empting research or development questions. In this paper, we ask: Did this consultation process constitute a platform for innovation in research practices? In addressing this question, we describe this process and suggest that it constituted a fledgling platform for innovation in research practices characterised by new social arrangements, material exchanges and the discursive object of `innovation systems'. However, the potential for institutional change from this platform will depend on continued deliberation between water sector actors in new routines of research-development practice, and collective action through the formalisation of new partnerships between researchers, practitioners and policy-makers.

Keywords:

• Sustainability transitions
• system innovation
• innovation platforms
• research policy
• water management

1. Introduction

1.1. The case of innovation in regional water productivity (RWP) in Australia

Innovation in water management demands long-term and effective linkages between research and practice (Wallis and Ison 2011; Huntjens et al. 2012; Daniell, Coombes, and White 2014). In Australia, where water issues are being historically framed by the resource’s temporal and spatial availability, the need for water innovation is critical. The country’s extreme climatic conditions – which range from seasonal droughts to severe floods – frequently alter river flows and groundwater recharge, leading to an extremely variable availability of freshwater to both the environment and population (Potter and Zhang 2009). In the light of this, Australian policy reforms over the past decade have made significant improvements in addressing challenges linked to the access (mediated by variability) and allocation (mediated by the complexity of multiple water uses such as social, economic, environmental and cultural) of water (Tan 2010). These include, for example, the recognition of Indigenous rights and interests in water and national guidelines for state and territory-based water planning and management. However, this work is far from complete and much remains to be done across urban and rural Australia to improve the productivity of water resources for agricultural (Molden et al. 2010) and environmental uses (Aber et al. 2001). In particular, water productivity requires a process of ‘system innovation’ in which multiple linked and co-evolving technological, social and institutional innovations lead to fundamental change and reorientation of water management systems (Fam et al. 2014; Fam and Lopes 2015). Globally, scholars of innovation recognise system innovation as a process that is socially and territorially embedded, and culturally and institutionally contextualised (Lundvall 1992; Elzen and Wieczorek 2005; Coenen, Benneworth, and Truffer 2012; Fuenfschilling and Truffer 2013). Along with this realisation comes the concept of ‘innovation systems’ (Kemp and Rotmans 2005). The main idea underlying this concept is that innovation cannot simply arise from research and development (R&D) initiatives through a linear flow from science to new knowledge or practice product. On the contrary, innovation from a systemic perspective emerges by the interaction of different parts or components making up a system (Wieczorek and Hekkert 2012) which implies that such systemic interaction should be adequately organised and supported, as we will argue in Section 1.2.

The Australian water sector has undergone a period of rapid change in the 10 years since 2004. Prompted by water scarcity, inefficient irrigation practices and environmental degradation of catchments, the Australian Government instituted the major reform effort in 2004, the National Water Initiative (see Dovers, Grafton, and Connell 2005). It is within this context that Australian governments, communities and the water industry are seeking new ways of understanding and managing water for a range of cultural, societal, environmental and economic benefits (Brown, Farrelly, and Loorbach 2013; Bettini et al. 2015; Fam and Lopes 2015), applying more systemic perspectives. This paper reports on a research project with the explicit aim of generating new thinking and research practice to enhance water productivity in regional Australia. The goal of enhancing water productivity is important as it seeks to institute more efficient use of this resource through timely, appropriate and shared uses. For the purposes of this inquiry, regional water productivity is defined as: ‘the combination of outcomes produced, such as food, fibre, income, social well-being and ecological benefits, and the social, economic and environmental costs incurred per unit of water used’ (RWP Innovation Round 2 Survey unpublished report 2013). The descriptor of ‘regional’ refers here to water managed for use in regional settings in Australia and outside the main population centres of the state and territory capitals, including for agricultural, mining and community uses, as distinct from urban water uses. Research to support regional water productivity enhancement has been commissioned through the Carlton Connect Initiative which recognises that:

Australia’s role as a global food producer, the sustainability of urban and rural communities, and the balance of our ecosystems rely on the effective management of our water systems. This challenge is intensifying due to a rising population and a changing climate (see http://carltonconnect.com.au/).

We identify the goal of regional water productivity as a significant system innovation challenge for water engineering professionals and policy-makers alike, and one that must also be addressed by research institutions as they seek to play a role in generating new knowledge and practices for water resources management.

1.2. Exploring platforms for innovation to improve the connection between research and practice

Scholars of innovation recognise an ongoing tension between a systemic view of innovation and one that posits innovation as an adoption and diffusion process (Nettle, Brightling, and Hope 2013), and the resultant roles for research. Conventional perspectives on innovation, such as ‘linear’ or ‘pipeline models’, emphasise that innovation constitutes the delivery of science-based technologies (derived from research settings) to ultimate end users (Roling 2006; Klerkx, Van Mierlo, and Leeuwis 2012). Both the system innovation (analysing how systems change) and innovation systems (analysing how to organise innovation) perspectives, however, understand innovation as a process of socio-technical change (Geels 2004; Klerkx, Van Mierlo, and Leeuwis 2012) which is both performed in, and performative of, new linkages, new knowledge, new rules/roles and new coalitions and organisations (Markard and Truffer 2008, 1). As Foxon et al. (2005) note, the multiple dimensionality (or systemic) nature of innovation is characterised by the range of interacting components that needs to be coordinated to achieve change.

In this paper, we thus take innovation to be an emergent process of production of new social arrangements, new symbolic practices and new materialities (e.g. products) (Suchman 2003). While some scholars identify innovation as an emergent property of interaction among social entities (e.g. stakeholders) (Roling and Wagemakers 2000), we seek to emphasise the inherently heterogeneous nature of innovation as the ‘work’ or sustained effort of coordinating and managing diverse people, materials and representations in particular times and places. Here, we take inspiration from science studies scholars and, in particular, proponents of Actor Network Theory (Callon 1986; Latour 1987; Law 1999; Verran 2002) who posit that social, material and symbolic practices (Shapin and Schaffer 1985) are all equally or (‘symmetrically’) important in enacting or performing (Mol 2002) the objects, realities and possibilities of our worlds.

In seeking to better understand how to enable and support innovation taking this systemic perspective, scholars of agricultural innovation and more recently, policy-makers have developed the metaphor of ‘platforms for innovation’ or ‘innovation platforms’ (Hounkonnou et al. 2012). Platforms for innovation are understood as configurations of social elements (e.g. social networks, institutional arrangements) that enable innovation and, in particular, contain the possibility of enabling institutional change. For research to play effective roles on such platforms, it has been argued that this requires different ways of setting the agenda for research and innovation, allocating funding for research, as well as determining and organising the different roles research plays in innovation processes and connects with societal stakeholders in partnerships (Klerkx and Leeuwis 2008; Pittens et al. 2014; Schut et al. 2014; Dentoni and Klerkx 2015). Hence, the systemic approach to innovation supported by innovation platforms also requires innovation in terms of how research practices are organised: hence the platform for innovation both influences how innovations to enhance regional water productivity are taking place and how research to support that process is organised. In other words, the platform for innovation in water productivity at the same time is a platform for innovation in research practice.

Despite a growing literature on the topic of systemic approaches to understanding and organising system innovation in water management (Brown, Farrelly, and Loorbach 2013; Bettini et al. 2015; Fam and Lopes 2015), there is still limited knowledge about how these initiatives applying systemic perspectives work out in the Australian context, and what this implies for research practice. Therefore, this paper aims to inform and support water resources management in the context of continuous learning about and negotiating the disparate roles and practices of this endeavour, and how research practices can better support this. In this paper, we analyse development of a consultation process as part of a new approach by the University of Melbourne to working with industry and communities on sustainability issues. This new approach is embodied in the University’s Carlton Connect Initiative (CCI) and, in particular, its flagship Regional Water Productivity Innovation Hub. This project formed part of the Innovation Hub activities and aimed to identify the major factors opportunities and constraints to improving societal (including environmental) benefits from water from the perspectives of researchers, industry, practitioners and communities. These opportunities and constraints were used to inform the development of an agenda for innovation in regional water productivity. This agenda is represented by a Blueprint for Innovation in Regional Water Productivity (the Blueprint) (Stewardson et al. 2014) which was produced in 2014.

We ask: Did this consultation process constitute a platform for innovation in research practices? In asking this question, we are concerned with whether this process contained the possibility for innovation in research practices from which different ways of scoping and forming research-industry collaborations to meet societal goals for sustainable water management might emerge. We aim to add to current knowledge on the key practices and challenges of designing platforms for innovation in water management.

2. Methodology

The research reported in this paper involved two main methods for engaging diverse participants in developing an innovation agenda for regional water productivity. The first was an online survey in two rounds using an adapted Delphi method involving professionals and practitioners in water resource use and management. This method was developed at the RAND Corporation in late 1950s with the objective to collect and synthetise experts’ judgements (Okoli and Pawlowski 2004). Since its first application, this method has been used by a diverse range of disciplines and topics mostly linked to planning, decision-making and policy research (Gordon and Pease 2006) and applied to generate solutions and analysis of complex problems (Carrera and Mack 2010). The approach is useful in decision and research contexts where values are disputed and/or where interests are contested (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993). In contrast to conventional methods of inquiry, post-normal methodologies like Delphi help to deal with research and decision settings with unknown factors and high levels of uncertainty (Mayumi and Giampietro 2006).

The Delphi method is an iterative process of expert elicitation and consultation (Thompson et al. 2009) for defining and analysing complex issues (Doria et al. 2009). It is a method for structured group communication that formally integrates multiple and conflicting views allowing consensus to rise regarding particularly contentious and multidimensional problems (Moore et al. 2009; Carrera and Mack 2010). The method encompasses many variants. However, the main features account for: application of a standardised questionnaire; anonymity of participants; equal opportunity of all incumbents to participate; iteration (at least two rounds); management and consolidation of views by a facilitator/s; the opportunity for participants to review their own and others’ comments (feedback loop); and statistical aggregation from individual answers to group answers (Gordon and Pease 2006; Doria et al. 2009; Elmer et al. 2010).

We chose to adapt the Delphi method to an online survey (in two rounds) which aimed to canvass a broad range of expert views on opportunities and constraints to innovation in regional water productivity. Following Moore et al. (2009), we applied the Delphi method with an emphasis on collecting multiple and contested arguments from water sector stakeholders, rather than necessarily building consensus or agreement. This is consistent with the application of this method defined as Policy Delphi (Moore et al. 2009) or Argument Delphi (Kuusi 1999). As the Delphi method does not require statistical sample design, we selected participants following a non-probability sample, specifically a convenience sample (Bryman 2004). Our sample of 290 people comprised a mixture of key water sector actors from academia, government, industry and communities across Australia. These actors were identified using a purposive, snowball sampling approach based on professional contacts of the members of the Regional Water Productivity Innovation Hub and the Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute at the University of Melbourne. Our sample design focus was to canvass different communities of practice in water use and management; different jurisdictions (e.g. Australian states and territories); and different river/catchment systems (e.g. tropical and temperate), thus seeking to represent as much as practicable the spectrum of water use and management in Australia. We invited participants from each state and territory to undertake the survey, however, the respondents who completed both survey rounds were predominately from Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales and Western Australia (see Stewardson et al. 2014, 34–35). The survey response rate for Round 1 was 30.5% and for Round 2 was 38%.

As Figure 1 shows, the first round of the survey on ‘Regional Water Productivity and Innovation’ (administered in April 2013) was framed as a ‘brainstorming’ exercise, with open-ended questions on: a proposed (working) definition of ‘regional water productivity’; the main opportunities and constraints to improving the current status of regional water productivity; the relative importance of different innovation domains and activity areas to achieving transformation in regional water productivity; and opinions on a proposed conceptual framework for innovation in regional water productivity. This first round thus involved mainly forecasting by both seeking consensus (e.g. on levels of agreement on the definition of ‘regional water productivity’); and different or more ‘extreme’ views from respondents. A total of 288 people were invited to participate in the initial round of the questionnaire. Ninety-two positive responses (32% of response rate) were obtained. Questions for the first round were developed through a collaborative and iterative approach with researchers in the Regional Water Productivity Innovation Hub (of the Carlton Connect Initiative) including individual elaboration to group validation on the quality and accurateness of questions (involving all research team members).

Figure 1. Summary of consultation process for Blueprint for Regional Water Productivity (Stewardson et al. 2014).

Qualitative and quantitative information obtained in the Round 1 survey was analysed providing a summary of responses (expert judgements) in a written report. While the first round included a mix of close and open-ended questions, Round 2 was primarily based on close-ended questions. In Round 2, the questionnaire was sent to those 92 participants from the first round and 61 agreed to participate (66% response rate). In the second round of the survey, participants were asked to re-consider and/or revise their original judgments based on the analysis of first-round responses. The second round sought primarily to narrow down and rank information (according to relative importance and level of agreement). In each survey round, questions were peer-reviewed by members of the R&D Advisory Team for the Regional Water Productivity Innovation Hub and by two expert reviewers.

The Delphi process was resource intensive for both researchers and respondents. It would have been difficult to engage respondents in another round due to the time commitment involved in doing the survey (20–30 min each round). The additional analysis required to complete another survey round would have constrained the ability to provide input to the Blueprint development as the time frame for providing this to project stakeholders (e.g. the Strategic Advisory Committee) was set early in 2013.

The second main component of the consultation process to inform the innovation agenda for regional water productivity was a Regional Water Productivity and Innovation Stakeholder Workshop (the Stakeholder Workshop) held on 19 September 2013. This workshop brought together eight water industry, community and government experts with Carlton Connect Initiative Regional Water Productivity Innovation Hub researchers to consider the results of the online survey and further refine key ideas for improving and progressing regional water productivity. The purpose of the Stakeholder workshop was not to gain representative input from stakeholders but to use the results of the Delphi survey as a basis for a discussion with key experts to: share and synthesise the key findings from the online survey and to identify any further opportunities and constraints for how regional water productivity can be progressed and improved. It also aimed to identify key areas for strategic and coordinated action to progress and improve regional water productivity. With a total number of 14 workshop participants, the goal of stimulating productive discussion and building trust and interest in future potential collaborations was achieved. Evidence of this is provided in the workshop evaluation where all participants either strongly agreed or agreed that this was a good way of engaging water experts in ‘thinking about innovation in regional water productivity’ (see Ayre, Nettle, and Erazo-Bobenrieth 2014) (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Adapted Delphi survey process.

The third key component of consultation in the agenda setting process was the Strategic Advisory Committee established for the Regional Water Productivity Innovation Hub. This Committee of eight members met four times during the process (in 2012/13) and provided advice and comment on both the process itself and the draft Blueprint for Innovation in Regional Water Productivity (Stewardson et al. 2014) produced in November 2013.

The outcomes of the survey and the workshop informed the development of the draft Blueprint. This document was drafted by members of the Regional Water Productivity Innovation Hub R&D Advisory Committee made up of the lead researchers in projects funded by the University of Melbourne under the Carlton Connect Initiative Regional Water Productivity Innovation Hub including the research that is the subject of this paper. It was formally endorsed by the Strategic Advisory Committee for the Regional Water Productivity Innovation Hub made up of senior bureaucrats from federal and state government agencies with responsibilities for water management and use.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Ideas from water sector stakeholders on innovation in regional water productivity: examples from a survey and workshop on innovation in regional water productivity

Both the survey and workshop on Regional Water Productivity innovation, developed as part of the innovation agenda setting process for the Carlton Connect Initiative Regional Water Productivity Innovation Hub, produced rich and voluminous information on opportunities and constraints for improving Regional Water Productivity in Australia. It is beyond the scope of this paper to present the survey and workshop results in detail. However, some principal findings are noted here to illustrate how the consultation process enabled novel thinking and established new social arrangements and enrolled particular material resources for ‘progressing innovation’ (Nettle, Brightling, and Hope 2013) in regional water productivity.

In Round 1 of the survey on ‘Regional Water Productivity and Innovation’, respondents were asked to consider a conceptual framework for innovation in Regional Water Productivity. This framework was based on a systems perspective of innovation in water use and management and was developed from the literature (Asheim 2011; Wieczorek and Hekkert 2012) and in discussion with Regional Water Productivity Innovation hub researchers. It was used as a basis for structuring mainly open-ended questions about the relative importance of, and opportunities and constraints related to ‘innovation domains’ and ‘innovation activity areas’ in Regional Water Productivity. The structured questioning process of the survey was also designed to reveal ‘outlying’ or more radical visions and ideas for change.

The conceptual framework for ‘innovation in Regional Water Productivity’ was modified according to both Round 1 and Round 2 survey results and from feedback at the stakeholder workshop for Regional Water Productivity Innovation. Figure 3 below shows the evolution of this framework at the level of ‘innovation domains’ in three stages. Final rankings of the relative importance of different ‘innovation domains’ to improving Regional Water Productivity were obtained in Round 2 of the survey (see Table 1) and provided an indication of priority areas for further discussion in the subsequent stakeholder workshop and in drafting the Blueprint document.

Figure 3. Evolution of the framework for innovation in regional water productivity (RWP).

Table 1. Innovation domains and activity areas in regional water productivity: round 2 survey rankings of ‘essential’ and ‘high priority’ (aggregated) to achieving improvements in regional water productivity.

Innovation domain and ranking	Innovation activity areas and ranking
Governance (48%)	Effective water policy development and implementation (91%) Recognition and use of scientific, indigenous and local knowledge (80%) Effective water rights frameworks (77%)
Research and development systems (45%)	Definition and prioritisation of practice and policy-relevant to R&D (89%) Research well aligned with policy practice (86%) Well-targeted government investment (86%)
Water use and practices (41%)	Environmental waster use and management (86%) Irrigation water use and management (80%) Better water use and re-use (77%)
Education, training and communication systems (30%)	Development of skills and knowledge to use, manage and trade water (82%) Development of skills and processes to develop and implement evidence-based decision-making (82%) Enhanced mechanisms to support collaboration (61%)
Infrastructure and information services (30%)	Effective practices for evaluation, reporting and prediction of water services (75%) Water accounting (70%) Modernisation of water delivery infrastructure on-farm and in-channel (64%)
Water planning and operations (25%)	Adaptive water planning (84%) Effective water accounting (73%) Risk management (73%)
Economic and market systems (16%)	Water pricing and markets (73%) Valuing non-monetary costs and benefits (73%) Definition of multiple costs and benefits (73%)

Qualitative statements (survey responses) on opportunities and constraints to improving Regional Water Productivity were also obtained in Round 1 of the survey. These were thematically analysed according to the initial conceptual framework for ‘innovation in Regional Water Productivity’ and ‘outlying’ elements identified. Through a question aimed to provoke respondents to ‘think outside the box’ and provide more ‘extreme’ views on what the outcomes of successful transformation in regional water productivity might be, additional ideas on desirable future change in Regional Water Productivity (qualitative statements) were identified by respondents. The question was:

Having thought about the current opportunities and constraints for change in regional water productivity, we would now like you to consider what some of the future possibilities for change or transformation in this area might be. As a result of influences such as climate change, world food demand, and the changing nature of farming, there is an opportunity to recognise and re-imagine our multiple uses and values of regional water. New and different food systems, new connections between urban and rural communities and new ways of managing our shared resources will emerge from exploring the possibilities for transformational change in water together. What are the possibilities for transforming regional water productivity? We would like you to imagine that it is 2030 and Australia’s regional water productivity has improved far beyond what anyone had imagined was possible back in 2013. The Prime Minister gives the report on what has been achieved.

Overall, the responses provided to this question were consistent with the main opportunities and constraints to improving the current status of regional water productivity identified by respondents in the earlier section of the survey. This consistency was, in particular, related to: the recognition, application and articulation of the multiple values and uses of water; developing approaches for quantifying costs/benefits of social, environmental, cultural and economic aspects of water under variability and uncertainty (e.g. through improved R&D and governance); and collaboration across industry, government and communities in managing water. Specific example of responses to the question included:

•	Government environmental water holders using market behaviour in line with economic productivities of agriculture to maximise joint outcomes.
•	The formation of legislated regional water productivity bodies.
•	Local government water services to be provided by expert boards operating on a commercial basis.
•	Well-developed water markets and trading in all fully developed catchments and aquifers, with trading systems similar to those used on the ASX [Australian Stock Exchange].
•	There are easy ways for farmers to trade water outside of irrigation districts and the agricultural industry is accountable for its use.
•	The success of environment water trusts and their innovative strategies.
•	Creation of an effective ‘water grid’.
•	Hydropower and other alternative energy sources are being used to help drive irrigation infrastructure.
•	Real-time, automated river flow management.
•	The whole community is involved with water use decision, and farmers could be paid for environmental benefits they provide (Ayre 2012).

Respondents in Round 1 of the survey also provided comments on how a working definition of ‘regional water productivity’ could be improved. The themes (ideas) relating to the definition that were raised most were: the need to define the relevant spatial and temporal scale; the need to identify whether the definition presents ‘water productivity’ as an objective or a measure; the need to identify the context to which the definition applies; and that the term ‘productivity’ is suggestive of ‘economic productivity’. The definition was re-drafted based on these comments and presented in Round 2 where 63% of respondents ‘agreed’ with the modified definition.

The stakeholder workshop was designed to review key findings from the survey with a range of water sector experts (n = 14, as previously noted) including eight non-University of Melbourne participants from the agricultural sector, community sector and government including catchment management authorities. The innovation domains identified as the three ‘most important’ for progressing innovation in regional water productivity were considered in the workshop and further elaborated in terms of key opportunities and constraints for this area (Table 2).

Table 2. Summary of discussion points at the stakeholder workshop on innovation in regional water productivity (19 September 2013).

Innovation domain	Key opportunities	Key constraints
Governance	To outline the ‘ideal’ industry reform process including architecture and optimal governance arrangements Developing a governance system that is capable of planning for extremes of climate risks	nineteenth-century governance arrangements for water for twenty-first-century governance
Research and development	The application of existing knowledge not just creating new knowledge Have a portfolio approach that would include short-term and long-term projects as well as higher risk projects New methods for defining the case for research – that develops partnerships between the problem/need, the practitioners, the community, researchers Prioritise, synthesis and use of current knowledge in new ways If the vision is right, then research topics tend to fall out of that Need core detailed studies that can then be extrapolated over larger areas – need to measure the right things in the right way so that bigger change can be supported	Time frames and incentive structures in R&D work actually works against interdisciplinary work Absence of critical information as well as the existing information is not used well on the benefits of water for the environment Conceptualisation of systems is often too simple or too complex to be useful Lack of critical mass in collaboration across the research effort results in patchy and low-impact research work Effects and impacts on social and environmental issues are not systematically described or measured
Infrastructure and information services	Integration of information and more efficient data collection Improving efficiency in water use on farm and in river Better understanding and acceptance of the benefits and impacts of water use e.g. the environmental cost of species loss Bureau of Meteorology to hold more integrated data-sets in the future	Not sure what to measure for social and ecological benefits of water use Loss of a central research and development organisation (e.g. Land and Water Australia)

Participants contributed further insights into some key innovation ideas in development for the Blueprint and in a formal evaluation of the event either strongly agreed or agreed that the workshop process generated useful insights that will be useful in future Regional Water Productivity R&D (100%; n = 8)). They also reported having learnt from others through the workshop process and either strongly agreed or agreed that they picked up new ideas or information from other participants (100%; n = 8).

3.2. Did the consultation process for regional water productivity constitute a platform for innovation in research practices?

Here, we elaborate the metaphor of ‘platform of innovation’ (Ison et al. 2011) as a ‘multi-stakeholder coalition’ (Roling 2006) to include sets of heterogeneous – symbolic, material and social – knowledge practices (Ayre and Verran 2010). Inspired by Shapin and Schaffer’s typology (1985) of ‘technologies of knowledge production’, we understand that innovation in research (and all other knowledge production endeavours) will emerge from new, stabilised configurations of research practices, or what innovation systems scholars have called ‘platforms’ (Leeuwis 1995). In the case of the CCI, the consultation process for Regional Water Productivity emerged as a fledgling ‘platform for innovation’ (Roling 2006) or ‘innovation platform’ (Kilelu, Klerkx, and Leeuwis 2013) in research. Constituted from emergent social arrangements, materials and symbols, this platform or assemblage (Turnbull 1995; deLanda 2006) of diverse practices, mobilised new meanings, activities and so-called ‘boundary objects’ (Star and Greismer 1999) for improving water management in Australia.

For example, a key symbolic or representational practice of the consultation process ‘platform for innovation’ was the conceptual framework for our collective object of inquiry: ‘Innovation in Regional Water Productivity’. This framework was based in innovation systems theory and designed as a tool to support reflection by researchers and other experts on what is required to improve Regional Water Productivity. As a leader in the project noted: ‘It [the innovation systems approach] gave us as at University a better understanding of where we could make a contribution through our research and who we need to work with within the [innovation] system’ (CC researcher personal communication, February 5, 2014).

The conceptual framework formed a basis for communication about the innovation challenge of improving Regional Water Productivity and was used in the online survey, stakeholder workshop and Blueprint document. Key social practices of the consultation process were the deliberative forums we designed, such as the survey, the Regional Water Productivity and Innovation Stakeholder Workshop, and the Strategic Advisory Committee (for the CCI Regional Water Productivity Innovation Hub). Within these forums, a diverse range of expert practitioners and researchers shared their different perspectives and interests on Regional Water Productivity. Following Hounkonnou et al. (2012), we recognise these social practices of the consultation process as a: ‘… platform experiment in dense interaction among national policy makers, senior officials, scientists, NGOs, civil society representatives and donors .. .as a whole’ (80). The deliberative forums established (e.g. online survey) and stabilised networks (e.g. Strategic Advisory Committee) between actors and created new relationships as meanings and ideas were debated, shared, contested and agreed upon. And finally, material practices were also a key component of the consultation process and included: creating meeting spaces; and the financial practices of administering multiple grants (e.g. funds exchanges; contract development, etc.) to support activity in the Regional Water Productivity Innovation Hub.

The consultation process for developing an innovation agenda for regional water productivity demonstrated emergent routines (Steyaert and Jiggins 2007) of research practice as described above. These novel routines embody a different way of doing research for the CCI at the University of Melbourne and provide possibilities or conditions for innovation in research. A key aspect of these research practices was an attention to design. Considerable effort or ‘work’ was invested by CCI researchers in the consultation process with explicit attention to maintaining openness, and providing opportunity for ongoing reflection, iteration and interaction among both researchers and industry and community participants. For example, the focus of the Round 1 survey was to gather a broad range of ideas about regional water productivity through a set of questions aimed to prompt ‘brainstorming’ and ‘visioning’. We then presented these ideas back to survey respondents for further consideration and elaboration in Round 2 of the survey and to key experts in the Stakeholder Workshop. Together, these practices of sharing and deliberation produced knowledge about issues of regional water productivity performed in and through the embodied interactions between researchers and water sector actors and their institutions both virtually (through the online survey) and face-to-face (through the Stakeholder Workshop and regular meetings of the Strategic Advisory Committee and R&D Committee).

However, it is important to ask: what meanings and actions did these emergent research practices effect? Or in other words, what, dynamics or possibilities did this fledgling platform for innovation unleash? The Blueprint document was finalised and launched publically by the Federal Minister for the Environment on 12 June 2014. The Minister stated of the Blueprint, ‘this is what Universities should be doing’ (Carlton Connect Initiative 2014). However, it remains to be seen what new institutional dynamics or arrangements may manifest or sustain themselves from this nominal commitment by government to the Blueprint initiative. It is too early to say what the more unsettling, or conversely galvanising, aspects of the process may be for either the broader water sector or the University of Melbourne itself. However, the consultation process that informed the development of the Blueprint was designed to enable water sector stakeholders to provide advice and input on priorities for innovation in regional water productivity. As von Korff et al. (2012) note, design practice for participation in water management is an emerging field which has been pursued in some cases by participation practitioners but not commonly by researchers. This study therefore provides a useful case of researchers engaging in design practice for collaborative priority setting in research-development. In this case, we (as social scientists working within an interdisciplinary research team), had a role in providing guidance on participatory processes including the design, conduct and evaluation of the Delphi survey and Stakeholder Workshop. In particular, we worked closely with both members of the R&D Committee and the Strategic Advisory Committee of key water sector actors to articulate and validate the findings of the engagement activities. In this way, the elements of the consultation process were collaboratively developed to an extent possible given the time frame and resources for the project.

There remains an issue of what the broader benefit of the Blueprint document is to water sector stakeholders and what participation in the consultation process might have engendered for those involved. By enrolling key water sector stakeholders through the Strategic Advisory Committee, the University sought to consolidate the commitment of the peak government water sector agencies and industry bodies represented in a form of ‘joint ownership’ of the Blueprint. However, it remains to be seen the effect this will have on any future funding or new institutional arrangements related to progressing the numerous ‘opportunities’ for innovation in regional water productivity it identifies. The promise of the Blueprint – to ‘realise a vision’ for regional water productivity (Stewardson et al. 2014, 13) – is contingent, as a key project member noted, on the remaining task of ‘developing the partnership models to tackle each of the opportunities outlined in the Blueprint’ (CC researcher, personal communication, February 5, 2014).

So, what of the future role or interest of industry and community members who committed their time and expertise to the consultation process? This dispersed community of experts is a critical part of achieving any outcomes from the CCI process of setting an innovation agenda for regional water productivity. At the Stakeholder Workshop, participants provided some reflections on the approach (including the consultation process described here). One participant, for example, suggested that a limitation of the current innovation agenda-setting process was not attending explicitly to a theory of learning:

… you’ve [CCI/UM researchers] identified what I think is a very valid list of the contemporary issues, but I’m not seeing that there’s a commitment to adaptive learning being articulated at the same time. And I think that [adaptive learning] is implicit in the way you’re approaching it [Regional Water Productivity innovation] and wishing it to be achieved by partnerships etc.…but the difficulty is that researchers can get involved in all of this and it just be one more muddle up…I mean the big difference [in adaptive management approaches] is that there is a commitment to testing hypotheses at the front end of an adaptive management approach; it’s not just ‘let’s have a go and see what works’ … (Regional Water Productivity and Innovation Stakeholder Workshop participant, 19 September 2013)

Another participant was concerned about how the Blueprint document (discussed in detail at the Stakeholder Workshop) would be used and what implications it had for future action. The issue s/he identified was one of not yet having clear or transparent governance arrangements to embed the Blueprint in water policy and practice:

I’ve been thinking about the governance as well…how are you guys [CCI/UM researchers] going to make decisions? How do you think you’re going to go about translating this into action? (Regional Water Productivity and Innovation Stakeholder Workshop participant, 19 September 2013)

The CCI Regional Water Productivity Innovation Hub representatives responded at the workshop by saying that the governance aspects of the Blueprint are yet to be determined. This remains a critical aspect of realising the potential for innovation from this process in practice, policy and in research. Meeting this challenge will require further investment and an attention to ‘co-design’ (von Korff et al. 2012) of new partnership models for innovation (as noted above). Garnering widespread ‘ownership’ of the Blueprint beyond the CCI researchers involved in the consultation process is also an outstanding challenge of the next steps in co-designing partnership arrangements to progress innovation in water resources management practice and policy.

4. Conclusion

Using the case of innovation agenda setting in the Regional Water Productivity Innovation Hub of the Carlton Connect Initiative at the University of Melbourne, we have shown that a consultation process can enact or perform (de Laet and Mol 2000) emergent possibilities for innovation in regional water productivity. We suggest that the consultation process is also a fledgling platform for innovation in research practices which enabled thinking and communication about opportunities, threats and priorities for enhancing for improving the contribution of research for improving regional water productivity, their articulation and translation in a Blueprint for Innovation in Regional Water Productivity (Stewardson et al. 2014), and strategic social arrangements for enacting innovation (e.g. through a Strategic Advisory Committee consisting of policy-makers and other key water sector stakeholders). However, we recognise that more ‘work’ needs to be done to formalise and enact institutional alliances and ‘partnership models’ to effect enduring improvements in water resources management practice and policy.

We suggest that there are several key lessons on how this research process enabled possibilities for ‘concerted action’ and generating new knowledge (Ison et al. 2011) for regional water productivity. Firstly, the process was characterised by the collaborative development of a conceptual design for ‘innovation in regional water productivity’ (inspired by an innovation systems perspective). Using the concept of ‘innovation systems’, rather than that of ‘research priority setting’, as our starting point for this research-led collaboration, guided us to consider the complexity and diversity of the range of interests and objectives in water resources management, and who might need to be involved to address the priorities in innovation identified in the Blueprint. The concept of ‘innovation systems’ functioned as a so-called ‘boundary object’, a guiding device to which multiple stakeholders can connect and over which they can develop a meaningful dialogue, as has also been observed elsewhere (Klerkx et al. 2012; Nicolini, Mengis, and Swan 2012; Tisenkopfs et al. 2015). However, while the discourse of ‘innovation systems’ provided a boundary object to enhance the collaboration, the process itself did not collaboratively produce clear designs (e.g. prototypes, programmes of demands, visualisations of future systems – see (Bos et al. 2009; Schulz et al. 2015)) to act as vehicles to support further enactment of conceptual designs for ‘innovation in regional water productivity’. Secondly, the consultation process enabled concerted action and knowledge building through interaction and deliberation on ‘innovation in regional water productivity’ in multi-stakeholder settings (e.g. through the online survey, Stakeholder Workshop and the Strategic Advisory Committee). These multi-stakeholder settings are recognised as critical forums for engaging diverse institutions in innovation. And finally, the consultation process provided an imperative for developing new kinds of material exchanges within the institutional setting for the research. For example, the multiple faculties of the University represented in the research had to determine new ways of working together to manage project finances and support research personnel.

Together these elements of the research process – the conceptual focus on ‘innovation’ as the basis for our inquiry into opportunities and constraints to improving regional water productivity, the focus on deliberation in stakeholder engagement (through the Delphi survey design and stakeholder workshop) and the material exchanges in research administration – embodied an emergent set of research practices or ‘routines’ (Millerand et al. 2013) which have the potential to drive institutional change. As others have identified (Klerkx and Leeuwis 2008; Fisher and Maricle 2014; Pittens et al. 2014), this change can arise from multi-stakeholder research-development processes (such as this one). However, in this case, it will depend on continued co-development and formalisation of new routines of research-development practice within research institutions such as the CCI at the University of Melbourne, which requires considerable institutional innovation as observed elsewhere (Schut et al. 2015; Turner et al. 2015). The potential for institutional innovation from emergent research practices, such as those described here, will depend on the co-design of and investment in: opportunities for systemic learning (Ison et al. 2014) through participatory approaches to understanding and pursuing innovation in research-development involving researchers, policy-makers and expert practitioners; new adaptive governance mechanisms such as new partnerships between research institutions, governments, industry and communities (Blackmore, Ison, and Jiggins 2007; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007); and new ways of integrating policy change with practice change (Moore et al. 2014).

Generating and sustaining new routines of research-development practice will also require creativity, reflexivity and continued funding by research institutions to cover the costs of experimentation and interaction (Klerkx and Leeuwis 2008; Roux et al. 2010; Hounkonnou et al. 2012, 80; Botha et al. 2014; Schut, Klerkx et al. 2015). Doing water research differently is resource intensive and the scope of the consultation work for the innovation agenda setting process, both in terms of time and resources, was much larger than we had initially conceived. It also requires a commitment by researchers to live with tensions inherent in contested epistemologies and managing different expectations and objects of inquiry. Investing time, energy and intellectual and other resources in participating in the regional water productivity agenda setting process was a challenge for some involved, particularly for those who were not working as leaders in the various CCI Regional Water Productivity Innovation Hub research projects. Therefore, articulating to researchers the benefits of participating in the development of consultation processes (in this case, for example, in the co-development of online survey questions and stakeholder workshops) is an important role for research institutions and incentives for such participation must be explored and provided to researchers. This may include formal recognition and support for leadership roles in innovation agenda setting and participation in interdisciplinary research teams.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Margaret Ayre holds a Bachelor of Forest Science (Hons.) and doctorate (History and Philosophy of Science) from The University of Melbourne. Her doctoral thesis was on the development of contemporary, cross-cultural and sea management strategies on Aboriginal estates in north-eastern Arnhem Land, Northern Territory. She has worked as: a land/water management planner; lecturer with the Bachelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education; a senior policy officer on the development of national oceans policy; a Postdoctoral Research Fellow CSIRO in collaborative water planning; and a senior research fellow (since 2010) with Rural Innovation Research Group in the Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences at the University of Melbourne where she works on transdisciplinary projects investigating responses to climate variability, effective catchment management, agricultural and regional development and Indigenous ‘caring for country’. An applied social scientist, her research interests are in the production of scientific knowledge and the relationship between science, technology and society in natural resource management policy and practice, agricultural development and Indigenous community-based land and sea management.

Ruth Nettle leads the Rural Innovation Research Group in the Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences at the University of Melbourne. Ruth conducts engaged research often as part of transdisciplinary teams involving industry groups, communities and stakeholders to develop knowledge that is utilised by these groups to inform policies, strategies and the design and evaluation of change interventions. Ruth’s research focus contributes to systemic analysis of complex problems in agriculture and natural resource management including the study of farmers’ goals and values in farming, workforce development systems, the changing role of agricultural extension and the contribution of theories of resilience applied to issues of water resources management, climate adaptation and farming systems. Ruth’s work in research began after an earlier career in farm advice, extension programme design and delivery and private consultancy in rural development.

Manuela Erazo Bobenrieth holds an honours degree in Social Anthropology (Chile) and a Master of Environment (Australia). Her professional and research interests are grounded in the interaction of socio-ecological systems, this with the aim of producing sound social and environmental knowledge to better inform policies and strategies towards the sustainable, and culturally contextualised, management of natural resources. She has worked on socio-environmental topics for seven years, in Chile, South-East Asia and Australia. She has experience working on projects about carbon emissions mitigation; sustainable management of water resources; vulnerability and adaptation to climate change; community natural resource management; and conservation of marine and terrestrial ecosystems.

Laurens Klerkx is an associate professor at the Knowledge, Technology and Innovation Group of Wageningen University, The Netherlands. He does research and teaching on dynamics of agricultural knowledge and innovation systems. Topics include the roles of intermediaries, innovation platforms, co-innovation mechanisms, agricultural advisory systems, research agenda setting mechanisms. He works in several countries, such as Chile, Mexico, Kenya, Ghana, Ethiopia, Tanzania, The Netherlands, Norway and New Zealand. He has published over 60 peer-reviewed articles, and is a reviewer for several journals in his field. Besides being active in academic research and teaching, Laurens’ work informs policy-makers, through contributions in policy-oriented publications and invited presentations for organisations like Ministries of Agriculture, Economic Affairs and Innovation in New Zealand, Australia and The Netherlands, the World Bank, the European Commission and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the Carlton Connect Initiative at the University of Melbourne who funded this research. We would also like to acknowledge the members of the Carlton Connect Regional Water Productivity Innovation Hub and the Melbourne Sustainability Society Institute for their expert contributions, support and interest in this project. Thank you also to the members of the Rural Innovation Research Group writing group in the Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences at the University of Melbourne and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback on earlier drafts of this paper, including a preliminary version of this paper that was presented at the 11th European International Farming Systems Association (IFSA) Symposium, 1–4 April 2014, in Berlin.