3.8 Article

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

Journal

AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES
Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages 39-52

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS AS
DOI: 10.1080/13241583.2016.1162763

Keywords

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

Funding

  1. Carlton Connect Initiative at the University of Melbourne
  2. Melbourne Sustainability Society Institute

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available