A great read Hamish. This cuts to the core of what I had hoped my career was about - "enhancing" (I use 'improving') fire management practice and outcomes (policy being a means to this end) with new knowledge (science, other experiences & critical review). While some things have improved, others have not. There is resistance to change, poor investment/resources for science (although I believe a lot can be done with a small investment), politics (probably the big one in a public good space) and apathy (not recognising the big challenge already in our faces) as barriers. My approach has always been optimistic - we can do 'things' to improve. My initial post-post-departure feeling is a little less complimentary ... I hope it improves (both my attitude and the world that is feeding it !).
I started my career with in-in-agency researchers who could work with decision-makers & practitioners to conduct small useful projects. This was seen by some as not having sufficient rigour & not transparent in a conflicted environment (increasing lobbying to stop logging & burning) and not cost effective in an increasing neo-liberal public sector. So research was stopped, tendered out or at best pushed into a supposedly collaborative University-Agency space. The barriers were not dealt with, just moved to someone else's desk.
CRC's & other collaborative Centres have evolved, so there is movement towards collaboration & user-driven research, but the priorities now more driven by politics are still a challenge.
I hope these issues are generational and will soon be 'better'.
You rightly point to the human factors that influence research credibility and even selecting the right projects. I firmly believe that researchers, decision-decision-makers & practitioners need to 'swap jobs' for a day or two to understand the others' world (& world view). Together we can beat the turkeys (sorry I mean barriers) to really improving what we do to get the outcomes we need !
Like you I didn't even get to sustainable fire regimes !!!
Thanks very much for your thoughtful comment Mike. You've improved fire management Down Under in many ways. I would love to rope you in for a guest post here - waddya say?
I agree with your optimism. It's essential because the opposite is self-defeating. And we dearly need more investment in government science. I've been enjoying sitting in at the DEECA offices, as I did at RFS before that - something I'm keen to continue. And I'm working on getting NHRA to set up a national Early and Mid-Career network for academics and practitioners, to increase connections and also make sure the next gen gets a seat at the decision making table (at the least in a visiting capacity).
A great read Hamish. This cuts to the core of what I had hoped my career was about - "enhancing" (I use 'improving') fire management practice and outcomes (policy being a means to this end) with new knowledge (science, other experiences & critical review). While some things have improved, others have not. There is resistance to change, poor investment/resources for science (although I believe a lot can be done with a small investment), politics (probably the big one in a public good space) and apathy (not recognising the big challenge already in our faces) as barriers. My approach has always been optimistic - we can do 'things' to improve. My initial post-post-departure feeling is a little less complimentary ... I hope it improves (both my attitude and the world that is feeding it !).
I started my career with in-in-agency researchers who could work with decision-makers & practitioners to conduct small useful projects. This was seen by some as not having sufficient rigour & not transparent in a conflicted environment (increasing lobbying to stop logging & burning) and not cost effective in an increasing neo-liberal public sector. So research was stopped, tendered out or at best pushed into a supposedly collaborative University-Agency space. The barriers were not dealt with, just moved to someone else's desk.
CRC's & other collaborative Centres have evolved, so there is movement towards collaboration & user-driven research, but the priorities now more driven by politics are still a challenge.
I hope these issues are generational and will soon be 'better'.
You rightly point to the human factors that influence research credibility and even selecting the right projects. I firmly believe that researchers, decision-decision-makers & practitioners need to 'swap jobs' for a day or two to understand the others' world (& world view). Together we can beat the turkeys (sorry I mean barriers) to really improving what we do to get the outcomes we need !
Like you I didn't even get to sustainable fire regimes !!!
Thanks very much for your thoughtful comment Mike. You've improved fire management Down Under in many ways. I would love to rope you in for a guest post here - waddya say?
I agree with your optimism. It's essential because the opposite is self-defeating. And we dearly need more investment in government science. I've been enjoying sitting in at the DEECA offices, as I did at RFS before that - something I'm keen to continue. And I'm working on getting NHRA to set up a national Early and Mid-Career network for academics and practitioners, to increase connections and also make sure the next gen gets a seat at the decision making table (at the least in a visiting capacity).
We should talk about what might be useful. I have more time than I used to ...
Deal. Send me an email, I don't know how to contact you now you've dropped off the public service perch