Leadership for systems change: Researcher practices for enhancing research impact in the prevention of chronic disease.

Introduction: Strengthening systems for chronic disease prevention is essential. Leadership for systems change is an important key to strengthening systems. Leadership in prevention research for supporting systems change remains a relatively abstract concept and there is limited empirical information about the leadership practices of prevention research teams when viewed through a complexity lens. In this paper we examine and describe some systems leadership practices for creating change through prevention research, as identified in a series of six case studies. Methods: A qualitative approach incorporating semi-structured interviews, participant observation, and document review was used to facilitate an in-depth investigation of the research topic. Results: Several researcher practices for enhancing research impact in the prevention of chronic disease were distilled from the data pertaining to how they sought to create change. These included persuasive communication, compassion and deep listening, reflective practice, and embedding themselves within the systems they sought to change. Discussion: The findings provide insights that may assist prevention researchers and other practitioners dedicated to creating change in chronic disease prevention.

River basin governance enabling pathways for sustainable management: A comparative study between Australia, Brazil, China and France.

Successful river basin governance is challenged by actor engagement in the various stages of planning and management. A governance approach for determining priorities for actors for sustainable management was developed, based on a river basin diagnostic framework consisting of four social-institutional and four biophysical indicators. It was applied in river basins in Australia, Brazil, China and France. Actors diagnosed current and target capacity for these indicators, and estimated synergistic influences of interacting indicators. The results reveal different priorities and transformative pathways to achieve basin plan outcomes, specific to each basin and actor groups. Priorities include biodiversity for the Murray-Darling, local water management needs for the São Francisco and Yellow rivers, and improved decision-making for the Adour-Garonne. This novel approach challenges entrenched views about key issues and actor engagement roles in co-implementation of the basin plan under existing prevailing governance models, with implications for engagement and international collaboration on basin governance.

Governing in the Anthropocene: are there cyber-systemic antidotes to the malaise of modern governance?

ABSTRACT: The Anthropocene imposes new challenges for governments, demanding capabilities for dealing with complexity and uncertainty. In this paper we examine how effective governing of social-biophysical dynamics is constrained by current processes and systems of government. Framing choices and structural determinants combine to create governance deficits in multiple domains, particularly in relation to the governing of complex larger-scale social-biophysical systems. Attempts to build capability for governing 'wicked problems' are relevant to sustainability science and Anthropocene governance, but these have mostly failed to become institutionalised. Two cases studies are reported to elucidate how the systemic dynamics of governing operate and fail in relation to espoused purpose. In the UK attempts to enact 'joined-up' government' during the years of New Labour government reveal systemic flaws and consistent praxis failures. From Australia we report on water governance reforms with implications for a wide range of complex policy issues. We conclude that innovations are needed to build capacity for governing the unfolding surprises and inherent uncertainties of the Anthropocene. These include institutionalising, or structural incorporation, of cyber-systemic thinking/practices that can also enhance empowerment and creativity that underpins sustainability science.

Towards appropriate mainstreaming of "Theory of Change" approaches into agricultural research for development: Challenges and opportunities.

Food insecurity persists in many parts of Africa and Asia, despite ongoing agricultural research for development (AR4D) interventions. This is resulting in a growing demand for alternative approaches to designing and evaluating interventions in complex systems. Theory of Change (ToC) is an approach which may be useful because it enables stakeholders to present and test their theories and assumptions about why and how impact may occur, ideally within an environment conducive to iterative reflection and learning. However, ToC is yet to be appropriately mainstreamed into development by donors, researchers and practitioners. We carried out a literature review, triangulated by interviews with 26 experts in African and Asian food security, consisting of researchers, advisors to programs, and donors. Although 17 (65%) of the experts had adopted ToC, their responses and the literature revealed four challenges to mainstreaming: (i) different interpretations of ToC; (ii) incoherence in relationships among the constituent concepts of ToC; (iii) confused relationships between ToC and project "logframes"; and (iv) limitations in necessary skills and commitment for enacting ToC. A case study of the evolution of a ToC in a West African AR4D project over 4 years which exemplified these challenges is presented. Five recommendations arise to assist the mainstreaming of ToC: (i) select a type of ToC suited to the relative complexity of the problem and focal system of interest; (ii) state a theory or hypotheses to be tested as the intervention progresses; (iii) articulate the relationship between the ToC and parallel approaches (e.g. logframe); (iv) accept that a ToC is a process, and (v) allow time and resources for implementers and researchers to develop ToC thinking within projects. Finally, we suggest that communities of practice should be established among AR4D and donor organisations to test, evaluate and improve the contribution that ToCs can make to sustainable food security and agricultural development.

Science-policy processes for transboundary water governance.

In this policy perspective, we outline several conditions to support effective science-policy interaction, with a particular emphasis on improving water governance in transboundary basins. Key conditions include (1) recognizing that science is a crucial but bounded input into water resource decision-making processes; (2) establishing conditions for collaboration and shared commitment among actors; (3) understanding that social or group-learning processes linked to science-policy interaction are enhanced through greater collaboration; (4) accepting that the collaborative production of knowledge about hydrological issues and associated socioeconomic change and institutional responses is essential to build legitimate decision-making processes; and (5) engaging boundary organizations and informal networks of scientists, policy makers, and civil society. We elaborate on these conditions with a diverse set of international examples drawn from a synthesis of our collective experiences in assessing the opportunities and constraints (including the role of power relations) related to governance for water in transboundary settings.

Building learning catchments for integrated catchment managing: designing learning systems based on experiences in the UK and South Africa.

We examine challenges and opportunities for developing 'learning systems' for integrated catchment managing (ICMg) drawing on our experiences in two contexts: UK and South Africa (SA). Our research question is: what is it that we would have to experience to claim that a catchment was a learning catchment? We suggest that any valid answer to this question will arise in social relations in context-determined ways. From this perspective ICMg is an emergent 'performance' of stakeholders engaged in mutual action, or social learning (SL), in which understandings and practices are transformed in situation improving ways. These questions are relevant given recent reviews suggesting that implementation of the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) is not nurturing adaptive management. Our European and SA experiences demonstrate that it is possible to invest in social learning as a governance mechanism for water managing, but key constraints exist. Our SA work based on (i) appreciating the situation, especially the history, and (ii) contextual appreciation and design of learning systems (as a result of (i)) is described in response to these constraints. We conclude that more attention on developing an effective praxis for ICMg is required.