Novel biotechnologies for eradicating wasps: seeking Māori studies students’ perspectives with Q method

References

• Baker M. 2012. The korowai framework: assessing GE through tribal values. New Genetics and Society. 31(1):87–98. doi: 10.1080/14636778.2011.597984
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barry J, Proops J. 1999. Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology. Ecological Economics. 28:337–345. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00053-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown SR. 1980. Political subjectivity: applications of Q methodology in political science. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brown SR. 1993. A primer on Q-methodology. Operant Subjectivity. 16:91–138.
   Google Scholar
• Coyle F, Fairweather J. 2005. Space, time and nature: exploring the public reception of biotechnology in New Zealand. Public Understanding of Science. 14:143–161. doi: 10.1177/0963662505050110
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cram F, Phillips H, Tipene-Matua B, Parsons M, Taupo K. 2009. A ‘Parallel Process'? Beginning a constructive conversation about a Māori methodology. Bioethical Inquiry. 1(1):14–19. doi: 10.1007/BF02448902
   Google Scholar
• Dearden PK, Gemmell NJ, Mercier OR, Lester PJ, Scott MJ, Newcomb RD, Buckley TR, Jacobs JME, Goldson SG, Penman DR. 2017. The potential for the use of gene drives for pest control in New Zealand: a perspective. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand. 48(4):225–244. doi: 10.1080/03036758.2017.1385030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards P, Trafford S. 2016. Social licence in New Zealand – what is it? Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand. 46(3–4):165–180. doi: 10.1080/03036758.2016.1186702
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Esvelt, K. 2016. Sculpting evolution: daisy drive systems. [accessed 2018 Jul 18]. http://www.sculptingevolution.org/daisydrives.
   Google Scholar
• Esvelt KM, Gemmell NJ. 2017. Conservation demands safe gene drive. PLOS Biology. 15(11):1–8. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2003850
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldson SF, Bourdot GW, Brockerhoff EG, Byrom AE, Clout MN, McGlone MS, Nelson WA, Popay AJ, Suckling DM, Templeton MD. 2015. New Zealand pest management: current and future challenges. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand. 45(1):35–58. doi: 10.1080/03036758.2014.1000343
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haar J. 2003. An Indigenous Perspective on Biotechnology in New Zealand: A Maori Scientist Perspective. Socially and Culturally Sustainable Biotechnology. Hamilton, Foundation for Research. Science & Technology. 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Harry D, Howard S, Shelton BL. 2000. Indigenous Peoples, Genes and Genetics: What Indigenous Peoples Should Know About Biocolonialism Wadsworth, Nevada, Indigenous People’s Council on Biocolonialism.
   Google Scholar
• Hindmarsh R, Du Plessis R. 2008. GMO regulation and civic participation at the “edge of the world”: the case of Australia and New Zealand. New Genetics and Society. 27(3):181–199. doi: 10.1080/14636770802326869
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hudson M, Ahuriri-Driscoll A, Lea M, Lea R. 2007. Whakapapa – a foundation for genetic research? Bioethical Inquiry. 4:43–49. doi: 10.1007/s11673-007-9033-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hudson M, Roberts M, Smith L, Tiakiwai S-J, Hemi M. 2012. The art of dialogue with indigenous communities in the new biotechnology world. New Genetics and Society. 31(1):11–24. doi: 10.1080/14636778.2011.597979
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hudson M, Roberts M, Smith LT, Hemi M, Tiakiwai S-J. 2010. Dialogue as a method for evolving Mātauranga Māori: Perspectives on the use of embryos in research. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples. 6(1):54–65. doi: 10.1177/117718011000600105
   Google Scholar
• Hutchings J. 2004. Claiming our ethical space – a Mana Wahine conceptual framework for discussing genetic modification. He Pukenga Korero. 8(1):17–25.
   Google Scholar
• Hutchings J, Taupo K, Barnes A. 2012. Future Food Technologies and Māori well-being: He peka kai, he peka taonga. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
   Google Scholar
• King CM. 2017. Liberation and spread of stoats (Mustela erminea) and weasels (M. nivalis) in New Zealand, 1883–1920. New Zealand Journal of Ecology. 41(2):163–177. doi: 10.20417/nzjecol.41.29
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuh GD. 2008. High-impact educational practices: what they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
   Google Scholar
• Lester PJ, Beggs JR. 2019. Invasion success and management strategies for social Vespula wasps. Annual Review of Entomology. 64:51–71. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ento-011118-111812
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lester PJ, Beggs JR, Brown RL, Edwards ED, Groenteman R, Toft RJ, Ward DF. 2013. The outlook for control of New Zealand’s most abundant, widespread and damaging invertebrate pests: social wasps. NZ Science Review. 70(4):56–62.
   Google Scholar
• McDonald E. 2017. Exploring public acceptance of novel technologies for pest control. Seminar for Manaaki Whenua: Landcare Research. [accessed 2019 Feb 15] http://www.biologicalheritage.nz/resources/highlights-2017/impact-2-eliminate-threats/combating-pest-threats/research-projects/public-perceptions.
   Google Scholar
• MacIntyre P, Hellstrom J. 2015. An evaluation of the costs of pest wasps (Vespula species) in New Zealand. Wellington: Department of Conservation and Ministry for Primary Industries; p. 44.
   Google Scholar
• Mead, ATP. 2018. Māori perspectives and gene editing. 5th Oceania Congress for Conservation Biology, Te Papa, Wellington.
   Google Scholar
• Mead HM. 2003. Tikanga Maori. Wellington: Huia Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Research Science and Technology. 2007. Vision Matauranga: unlocking the innovation potential of Maori knowledge, resources and people. Wellington: Crown Copyright.
   Google Scholar
• Munshi D, Kurian PA, Morrison T, Morrison SL. 2016. Redesigning the architecture of policy-making: Engaging with Māori on nanotechnology in New Zealand. Public Understanding of Science. 25(3):287–302. doi: 10.1177/0963662514548629
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• New Zealand's Biological Heritage National Science Challenge. 2018. Vision Mātauranga: Vision Mātauranga Classifications. [accessed 2019 Jan 24]. http://www.biologicalheritage.nz/about/vision-matauranga.
   Google Scholar
• Norton DA, Young LM, Byrom AE, Clarkson BD, Lyver POB, McGlone MS, Waipara NW. 2016. How do we restore New Zealand’s biological heritage by 2050? Ecological Management & Restoration. 17(3):170–179. doi: 10.1111/emr.12230
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owens, B. 2017. Behind New Zealand’s wild plan to purge all pests. Nature. 541(7636):148–150.
   Google Scholar
• Piaggio AJ, Segelbacher G, Seddon PJ, Alphey L, Bennett EL, Carlson RH, Friedman RM, Kanavy D, Phelan R, Redford KH, et al. 2016. Is It time for synthetic biodiversity conservation? Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 32(2):97–107. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2016.10.016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, M, JR Fairweather. 2004. South Island perceptions of biotechnology. Christchurch: Agribusiness Economics Research Business. Research Report No. 268.
   Google Scholar
• Ruckstuhl K, Thompson-Fawcett M, McRae H. 2014. Māori and Mining: Indigenous perspectives on reconceptualising and contextualising the social licence to operate. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 32(4):304–314. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2014.929782
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell JC. 2014. A comparison of attitudes towards introduced wildlife in New Zealand in 1994 and 2012. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand. 44(4):136–151. doi: 10.1080/03036758.2014.944192
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell JC, Innes JG, Brown PH, Byrom AE. 2015. Predator-Free New Zealand: Conservation Country. BioScience. 65(5):520–525. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biv012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Satterfield T, Roberts M, Henare M, Finucane M, Benton R, Henare M. 2005. Culture, Risk, and the Prospect of Genetically Modified Organisms as Viewed by Tāngata Whenua. Whakatane: Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi.
   Google Scholar
• Sheed, TM. 2014. Māori political agency : a q-­method study of Māori political attitudes in New Zealand [PhD]. Canterbury University.
   Google Scholar
• Sheed T, McDonald LTAoT. 2017. The diverse stories of Māori political agency: a Q method study. Political Science. 69(3):214–226. doi: 10.1080/00323187.2017.1414572
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sleenhoff S, Cuppen E, Osseweijer P. 2015. Unravelling emotional viewpoints on a bio-based economy using Q methodology. Public Understanding of Science. 24(7):858–877. doi: 10.1177/0963662513517071
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith LT. 1999. Decolonizing methodologies: research and indigenous peoples. London: Zed Books.
   Google Scholar
• Te Momo F. 2007. Biotechnology: the language of multiple views. Biotechnology Journal 2(9): 1179–1183. doi: 10.1002/biot.200700123
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Towns DR, Atkinson IAE, Daugherty CH. 2006. Have the harmful effects of introduced rats on islands been exaggerated? Biological Invasions. 8(4):863–891. doi: 10.1007/s10530-005-0421-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Eeten MJG. 2001. Recasting intractable policy issues: the wider implications of the Netherlands civil aviation controversy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 20(3):391–414. doi: 10.1002/pam.1000
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watts S, Stenner P. 2012. Doing Q methodological research: theory, method and interpretation. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Webler T, Danielson S, Tuler S. 2009. Using Q method to reveal social perspectives in environmental research. Greenfield, MA: Social and Environmental Research Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Wilkinson R, Fitzgerald G. 2014. Social acceptability of the trojan female technique for biological control of pests. Melbourne: Victorian Government of Environment and Primary Industries.
   Google Scholar