In many ecosystems, linkages between ecological science and on-the-ground management remain fragmented. Traditionally, stakeholder engagement in rangelands tended to occur via one-directional outreach events at the conclusion of a project. Increasingly, however, researchers and managers are attempting to collaborate at multiple stages during the scientific process. In northeast Wyoming, the landowner-led Thunder Basin Grasslands Prairie Ecosystem Association invited a group of rangeland ecologists to participate in a stakeholder-driven research effort. Over ten years, a collaborative research program slowly emerged. Via more than ten different research projects, we have been exploring the separate and combined effects of wildfire, drought, black-tailed prairie dogs, wild ungulate grazing, livestock grazing, herbicide, seeding and prescribed fire on livestock production and conservation outcomes in a semi-arid rangeland ecosystem. Here, we reflect on lessons learned, successes, and challenges associated with this on-going research effort. In particular, from both researcher and manager perspectives, we interrogated 1) tradeoffs between collaborative and non-collaborative approaches, including the benefits and barriers associated with individual participation in collaborative research efforts, 2) specific dangers to avoid when building a collaborative research program, and 3) specific elements of the collaborative process that led to positive outcomes.
Results/Conclusions
In our case, collaborating at all stages of research resulted in more focused, locally-relevant, and problem-driven science. Our results contributed to measurable shifts in ecological understanding and management at local and regional scales. The process also revealed that collaborative research involves tradeoffs for both management and research communities. From a researcher perspective, stakeholder-driven work often results in scientific contributions that are incremental or regional rather than ground-breaking or globally-relevant. From a manager perspective, translating real-world problems into high-quality research projects can be very difficult, and results may not live up to expectations for timely solutions to pressing problems. For both sides, collaborative research on contentious issues involves huge commitments of time and trust. A specific danger of a collaborative program is the assumption by different stakeholder groups that research results will always support their management or policy agenda. One key element of success in our program has been an adaptive approach where experimental results are continually evaluated against local knowledge. If findings do not match local expectations, researchers are challenged to do additional projects that address the discrepancies. In most cases, resultant projects have led to a deeper understanding of the system that explicitly incorporates multiple knowledges.