Notes:• Juliahasbeenafacultymember

attheUniversityofMichigan’sSchoolforEnvironmentandSustainabilityforthepast30yearsandisamemberoftheNERRSScienceCollaborativeteamattheUniversityofMichigan.

• SheteachescoursesinCollaborativeNaturalResourceManagement,EnvironmentalConflictManagement,Negotiation,andMediation.

• Juliahaswrittenseveralbooksonconflictandcollaborationinthemanagementofpublicnaturalresources,includingherlatestonmarineecosystem-basedmanagement.

SummaryPoints:• TheNERRSScienceCollaborativeis

uniqueinitscollaborativeapproachtoresearchandinitsexplicitfocusonproducingscienceandproductsthatareusefulformanagement.Itengagesendusersinresearchwiththebeliefthatthescienceproducedwillbetrulyuseful.

• PriortoU-MbeingawardedthecontracttoadministertheScienceCollaborativeprogramin2014,JuliahadbeenworkingwithresourcemanagersinfederalagenciestohelpthemembedcollaborativeapproachesintheirmanagementandplanningprocessesbuthadneverworkedwithNERRSnoroncollaborativeprocessesinconductingresearch.

• ThegoalofthisprojectwastolearnaboutboththeNERRSsystemandcollaborativesciencebyreviewingprojectsthathadbeenconductedinthepreviousfiveyearswhenScienceCollaborativehadbeenadministeredbytheUniversityofNewHampshire.

SummaryPoints:• Ourassessmentinvolvedreviewing

ScienceCollaborativeresearchprojectreportstodeterminenotablecharacteristicsofcollaborativescienceandgleanlessonslearned.ThegoalwastounderstandthenatureofScienceCollaborativeprojects(whatexactlyiscollaborativeresearchasadministeredbytheNERRS?).WewantedtogatherinsightsthatcouldinformU-M’sScienceCollaborativeteamastheymovedforwardinadministeringtheScienceCollaborativeprogram.

• Welookedat31ScienceCollaborativeprojectsconductedbetween2010-2014.Ourassessmentresultsinawhitepaper,*whichIwillpresentonthefollowingslides.

*ThewhitepapercanbefoundontheUniversityofMichiganSchoolforEnvironmentandSustainabilityEcosystemManagementInitiativewebsite:http://seas.umich.edu/ecomgt/pubs/reports/NERRS_Science_Collaborative_APRIL_2017.pdf

SummaryPoints:Ourassessmentandtheresultingwhitepapertookthefollowingform.Weexaminedthecharacteristicsoftheresearchprojects:• WhatfocalissuesareaddressedbyScience

Collaborativeprojects?• Whatisthesystemofinteresttotheresearch?• Whatisthescaleofinterestandinfluenceforthe

research?• WhatisthenatureoftheScienceproduced?Thecharacteristicsofthecollaborativeprocess:• Whoservesinthecollaborativeleadrole?• WhoaretheintendedendusersofScience

Collaborativeresearch?• Whatisthelevelofenduserengagementin

projects?• Howareresearchresultsandproducts

disseminatedtoendusers?

Granteereflectionsontheirexperience:• Howdidinvolvementofintendedusersimpact

theappliedsciencecomponentsoftheproject?• Whatdidtheyfindmostchallengingor

unexpectedabouttheproject?• Didtheyhavealltheskillsetsontheteamthat

youneeded?Didtheirbudgetincludesufficientresourcestoexecutetheproject?

• Whatdotheyknownowthattheywishtheyhadknownwhentheystarted?

Thispresentationwillsharetheseresults,andprovidesummaryobservationsattheend.

SummaryPoints:• Asnotedonthepreviousslide,several

researchprojectcharacteristicsarediscussedinthewhitepaper,butforthepresentationIplantofocusonjusttwo-focalissuesandissuesofscale-sincetheyareparticularlyrevealingaboutcollaborativesciencewithintheNERRS.

SummaryPoints:Projectsfocusedonfourmajortopicalcategories:• StormwaterandWaterQuality-These

projectssoughttoaddresswaterqualityissuesfrompointandnonpointsourcepollution,withparticularfocusonunderstandinghydrologicandhydraulicflows,patternsofnutrientloading,andnewmethodologiesforstormwatermangement.

• ClimateChange,Adaptation,andLandUsePlanning-Theseprojectsfocusedoncreatingclimateadaptationplans,refiningclimatevulnerabilittyassessmenttechniques,and/orassesmentoflikelyclimatechangeimpactsonecosystemdynamics.

• EstuarineEcosystemDynamicsandHabitatResotration-Projectssoughttoprovideinsightaboutnaturaldynamicstohelpimprovemanagementandstewardshipofecosystems.

• EcosystemServices,Valuation,EconomicIncentives-Soughttoidentifyandquantifypriorityecosystemservicesandinvestigateeconomic-basedincentivesforrestorationandpreservation

Projectscouldhavemultipleprimaryandsecondaryfocalissuesdependingonhowindepththeprojectaddressedeachtopic.

SummaryPoints:• Itwasinitiallysurprisingtofindthatmost

projectswerefocusedatawatershedorregionalscale,ratherthanareservescale,giventhatprojectsfocusedonreservemanagementpriorities.

• However,thismakessenseinthinkingaboutthegoalofindividualreserves,whichistoimprovelocalestuarinehealthandsupportscience-informedmanagementofthelocalecologicalsystemswithinwhichreservesreside.Inordertodothis,itisimperativethatreserveslookbeyondtheirownboundaries,whichiswhatmostoftheseprojectsdid.

Projectscouldhavemultipleprimaryandsecondaryscalesdependingonhowindepththeprojectaddressedeachtopic.

SummaryPoints:• Weexaminedfourcharacteristics

ofthecollaborativeprocessforfacilitatingcollaborativeresearchbetweenscientistsandendusersofthescience.

SummaryPoints:AuniqueaspectofScienceCollaborativeprojectsistheyarerequiredtohaveateammember(“CollaborativeLead”)whoisexplicitlyresponsibleforensuringthatcollaborationoccursduringtheresearchprocessbetweenscientistsandendusers.TheRFPrequiresproposalstoidentifywhowillfillthisroleandwhattheirqualificationsarefordoingso.Projectshavecollaborativeleadsaswellasassistants.

Thisrolewasfilledbyindividualsfromanumberofdifferentdomains,including:• NERRSstaff(typicallytheCoastal

TrainingProgramCoordinator)• Academicexpertsincollaboration• Professionalfacilitatorsfromthe

privatesector• Outreachoreducationalorganizations

(e.g.SeaGrantorCoastalServicesCenter)

• Respected,knowledgeableindividualsfromregionalbridgingorganizationsthathadaconveningorpartnershipbuildingmission(i.e.CaliforniaCoastalConservancy,CoosWatershedAssociation)

SummaryPoints:• ScienceCollaborativeprojectsare

requiredtoidentifyandengageendusersofthescience.

• Itwasexpectedthattheprimaryintendedenduserswouldbethereservemanagers,butthiswasnotthecase.All31projectshadpublicsectorentitiesastheirprimaryendusers,whichreflectsthemissionofthereservestoenhancemanagementofthebroadercoastalecosysteminwhichthereserveresides.

Primaryendusersincluded:• Local,county,stateagencies,localplanners,

utilities-theseendusershavejurisdictionorplayacentralroleinthemanagementofresourcesthataffectestuarineecosysteminsomeway

• Environmentalandconservationorganizations-i.e.localandregionallandtrusts,researchnonprofits,watershedorganizations

• Privatesectororganizations-i.e.engineeringfirms,environmentalconsultants,fishermen,etc.

Projectscouldhavemultipleprimaryandsecondaryendusersdependingonhowindepththeprojectaddressedeachtopic.

9

SummaryPoints:• Inexaminingtheextenttowhich

enduserengagementoccurred,themajorityofprojectsprovidedfrequentopportunitiesforenduserinvolvementthroughstandingadvisorycouncils,workshops,andsitevisits.Manyendusersplayedcentralrolesindatagathering,monitoring,and,insomecases,dataanalysis.Onlyoneprojectwasfoundtohavealowlevelofengagementwithendusers.

SummaryPoints:• Therewerefourmajorpathways

bywhichprojectteamstransferredsciencetoendusers.

• Whileallprojectsproducedjournalarticles,finalreports,conferencepresentations,andotherformsofindirecttransfer,theirprimarymethodfortransferringsciencetoenduserswasmoredirect,interactive,andsubstantive.Thisisindicativeofcollaborativesciencechangingthetraditionalresearchparadigm.

• Only12%usedindirecttransferastheirprimarymethod,whichisnotablebecausethisisthepredominantpathwayintraditionalscientificresearch.

• Pleaseseethefinalreportforgreaterdetailoneachofthesetransfermethods.

SummaryPoints:• TheScienceCollaborativefinal

reportingguidelinesaskedsevenopen-endedquestionstogranteestoascertaintheirfinalthoughtsandreflectionsoncollaborativescienceprojects.Forthiswebinar,wechosetofocusonfourquestionspertinenttocollaborativescience.

• Granteeresponsesprovidedvaluableinsightsintowhatcollaborativescienceentails,howitisdifferentfromtraditionalscientificresearch,andtheuniquecharacteristicsofthereservesandNERRScommunity.

SummaryPoints:• Overhalfoftheresearchersindicatedthat

theinvolvementofintendedendusershadanotableimpactontheirresearchfocusandprocess,influencingtheirobjectives,methods,andpriorities.

• Endusersoftencontributednew,localknowledgeanddatathatresearchersotherwisewouldnothavebeenawareoforabletoaccess.

• Asurprisingimpactwasonresearchers’motivationsandunderstanding.Researchersstatedthattheinvolvementofendusersadvancedtheirownunderstandingandperspectivesontheissuesandincreasedtheirenthusiasmandenergyfortheproject.

• Someresearchersweresurprisedatendusers’preferencesfortheformoffinalproducts.Theylearnednewthingsaboutendusers’constraintsandneeds,whichwereimportantinshapingthefinalproducts

SummaryPoints:• Mostgranteesfoundthecollaborative

processtobechallenginginanumberofways,includingintegratingthecollaborativeprocesswiththeappliedscienceprocess.

• Personnelchangeshaveanoutsizedimpactoncollaborativeresearchbecauserelationshipsarefoundationalandmatterinauniqueway.

• Researchersweresurprisedbytheamountoftimeneededtoconductcollaborativeresearch.Collaborationinvolvesworkingwithmorepeopleandrequiresmorelogisticalcoordination.

• Lackoffamiliaritywithcollaborationwasakeychallengebecauseitisanewparadigmanddifferentfromhowscientistsaretraditionallytrainedtoconductresearch.

• Someweresurpisedbyendusers’enthusiasmfortheirprojectandnotedthatthisenergizedtheresearchprocess.

SummaryPoints:Althoughmostresearcherssaidtheycouldhaveusedmorefundingtocompletetheirprojects,whichisafrequentsentimentinacademicresearch,mostsaidtheywereabletomakeitworkbyleveragingadditionalskills/expertiseandbyimprovising.

• ThisisrevealingaboutthecultureoftheNERRScommunity.TheNERRSsystemhasacandoattitudeandisapttoproblemsolvetofindawaytoaddressresourcegapsininnovativeandresourcefulways.

• NERRSissuccessfulinimprovisinginthefaceoflimitedresourcesbecausetheyareembeddedinalargernetworkofagencies,organizations,andcommunities.Theyhavelongstandingpartnershipsinthisnetworkthatenableleveragingandinnovation

SummaryPoints:AncillaryBenefits:• Granteesnotedthattheyhadreceived

ahostofancillarybenefitsthattheybelievedtheywouldnothavereceivediftheirprojectswerenotconductedinacollaborativemanner.

ObservationsaboutCollaborativeScience:• Someresearchersnotedtheneedfor

scientiststoimprovetheirlisteningskillsanddisplayalevelofhumilityinworkingwithendusersthatisnotnecessarilycharacteristicofthetraditionalscientificprocess.

• Onechallengeisthatenduserssometimesneedtobeeducatedaboutaproject’srelevance.Sometimesresearchersseeaneedthatendusershavenotyetperceivedanditcanbedifficulttogettheminvolvedinearlystagesofproject.

SummaryPoints:• Wereadanumberofstatements

abouthowcollaborativeresearchinvolvementhadatransformativeimpactonresearchers.

• OneReserveManagerinvolvedinaprojectspotlightthetransformativeimpactofthecollaborativescienceprocess,notingthatitmadeeveryonebetterprofessionalsintheirdomains.

SummaryPoints:• ResearchersfundedthroughtheScience

Collaborativeareachievinginfluencebyworkingbeyondthetypicalacademic/practitionerboundarylineandexercisingleveragingstrategiesforaccessingadditionalresources,information,andconnectionsfortheirprojects.

• Projectsreflectedaninnovative,candomindsetthatisrepresentativeoftheNERRSsystemoverall.

• Projectstransferredsciencetoendusersthroughtheextendednetworkeachreservehascultivated.ThatnetworkisalsobeingexpandedbyScienceCollaborativeresearchprojects.NERRSaredeeplyembeddedwithinandnurturingcommunitiesconcernedwithestuarineecosystems.Thislevelofembeddednessisuniqueamongresourcemanagementagencies.

• Two-waylearningwasakeycharacteristicofcollaborativescienceprojects.Scientistsdidnothandoverknowledgetoendusersattheend,hopingitwouldbeusedinmostinstances;scientistsandendusersweretrulycollaborative,workingtogethertoenhancethepotentialoftheseprojects.

Questions&Responses:What are some of the issues research teams found related to integrating collaborative and applied science?Thebiggestissueisthatthecollaborativeresearchprocessisnewandunfamiliar,andresearcherswerenotaccustomedtocollaboratingwithnon-researchers.Thisintegrationofcollaborativeandappliedsciencerequiredthemtointegrateanewsetofactorsintotheresearchprocess,findnewwaystofacilitateongoingconversationwithendusers,andlearnhowtobestunderstandtheperspectivesandneedsofendusers-allthingsthatwereunfamiliar.

Were you able to distinguish between projects that were end user-initiated versus those that were proposed by scientists?Projectsthathadthehighestenduserengagementwerethosethatengagedendusersaheadoftheprojecttoseewhattheyneeded.Ifaprojectisgoingtobeusefultoendusers,researchersneedtositdownwiththembeforeaprojectbeginstounderstandtheirneeds,constraints,andpotentialcontentoffinalreportsorproducts-that’sthetruedefinitionof‘collaboration.’Someresearcherswithlessexperienceincollaborativeresearcharestillfiguringouthowtofacilitatethatdynamicandhowtobeflexibleandadaptiveinthefaceofthetimeandbudgetconstraintsassociatedwithresearchgrants.Researchersneedtoreallyunderstandthevalue-addedofeffectivecollaborationinordertotakethetimetonavigatethecomplexityofthecollaborativescienceprocess.

Questions&Responses:Do you have any insights into reducing barriers to conducting collaborative science?WehavenowgleanedtheseobservationsandlessonslearnedfromthepriorfiveyearsoftheScienceCollaborativewhereenduserintegrationwastheprimaryfocus.Nowthatweunderstandwhatthosechallengesorbarriersare,wearefocusingonlearninghowtoaddressthosechallenges.Afewthingstonote:• TheNERRAwebsitehasatooloneffectivecollaboration

(http://www.nerra.org/how-we-work/collaborative-project-toolkit/).

• TheScienceCollaborativehasfundedaScienceTransferprojectledbyChrisFeurtatWellsNERRthat’sbeingconductedinpartnershipwith12differentreservestolearnhowchallengesandconflictsincollaborativesciencehavebeenmanaged.Theprojectisjustgettingunderwaynow,buttheyhopetohaveapilottrainingconductedearlynextyear.ThefinalproductshouldbeavailableinayearandahalfandwillbehelpfulforcollaborativeresearchersbothinandoutsideoftheNERRSsystem.

Have you looked at other examples of similar programs, for instance NSF’s Coastal Seas Program? That’ssomethingthatMariaLemos(U-MProfessorandScienceCollaborativeTeamMember)islookingataspartofherresearchontheco-productionofscienceinanumberofdifferentprograms,butonethingwehopetodoistransferknowledgeacrossthesedifferentprograms.