An adolescent injury intervention : selecting targeted behaviours with implications for program design and evaluation

Objectives: This paper sought to identify the behaviour change targets for an injury prevention program; Skills for Preventing Injury in Youth, SPIY. The aim was to explore how such behaviours could subsequently be implemented and evaluated in the program. Methods and Design: The quantitative procedure involved a survey with 267 Year 8 and 9 students (mean age 13.23 years) regarding their engagement in risk-taking behaviours that may lead to injury. The qualitative study involved 30 students aged 14 to 17 years reporting their experiences of injury and risk-taking. Results: Injury risk behaviours co-occurred among three-quarters of those who reported engaging in any alcohol use or transport or violence related injury risk behaviour. Students described in detail some of these experiences. Conclusions: The selection process of identifying target behaviours for change for an injury prevention program is described. Adolescents’ description of such risk behaviours can inform the process of operationalising and contextualising program content and deciding on evaluation methodology. The design of an effective injury prevention program involves considerable preparatory work and this paper was able to describe the process of identifying the behavioural targets for change that can be operationalised and evaluated in the injury prevention program, SPIY.

Submission to KPMG review of the Federal Government Initiative to “analyse dementia program and services funded by the Department of Social Services"

The comments I make are based on my nearly twenty years involvement in the dementia cause at both a national and international level. In preparation, I read two papers namely the Ministerial Dementia Forum – Option Paper produced by KPMG Management Consultants (2014) and Analysis of Dementia Programmes and Services Funded by the Department of Social Services: Conversation Starter prepared by KPMG as a preparation document for those attending a workshop in Brisbane on April 22nd 2015. Dementia is a complex “syndrome” and as is often said, “when you meet one person with dementia, you have met one” meaning that no two persons with dementia are the same. Even in dementia care, Australia is a “lucky country” and there is much to be said for the quality and diversity of dementia care available for people living with dementia. Despite this, I agree with the many views expressed in the material I read that there is scope for improvement, especially in the way that services are coordinated. In saying that, I do not purport to have all the solutions nor claim to have the knowledge required to comment on all the programs covered by this review. If I appear to be a “biased” advocate for Alzheimer’s Australia across the States and Territories, it is because I have seen constant evidence of ordinary people doing extraordinary things with inadequate resources. Dementia care is not cheap and if those funding dementia services are primarily only interested in economic outcomes and benefits, the real purpose of this consultation will be defeated. In addition, nowhere in the material I have read is there any recognition that in many instances program funding is a complex mix of government (at all levels) and private funding. This makes reviewing those programs more complex and less able to be coordinated at a Departmental level. It goes without saying therefore that the Federal Government is not” the only player in this game”. Of all those participating in this review, Alzheimer’s Australia is best placed to comment on programs as it is more connected to people living with dementia and has probably the best record of consulting with them. It would appear however that their role has been reduced to that of a “bit player”. Without wanting to be critical, the Forum Report which deals with the comments made at a gathering of 70 individuals and organisations, only three (3) or 4.28% were actual carers of people living with dementia. Even if it is argued that a number of organisations present represented consumers, the percentage goes up only marginally to 8.57% which is hardly an endorsement of the forum being “consumer driven”. The predominance of those present were service providers, each with their own agenda and each seeking advantage for their “business”. The final point I want to make before commenting on more specific, program related issues, is that many programs being reviewed have a much longer history than is reflected in the material I have read. Their growth and development was pioneered by Alzheimer’s Australia organisations across the country often with no government funding. Attempts to bring about better coordination of programs were often at the behest of Alzheimer’s Australia but in the main were ignored. The opportunity to now put this right is long overdue.

Program, abstracts and related documents.

The context: Soil biodiversity and sustainable agriculture; Abstracts - Theme 1: Monitoring and assessment: Bioindicators of soil health: assessment and monitoring for sustainable agriculture; Practical tools to measure soil health and their use by farmers; Biological soil quality from biomass to biodiversity - importance and resilience to management stress and disturbance; Integrated management of plant-parasitic nematodes in maize-bean cropping systems; Microbial quantitative and qualitative changes in soils under different crops and tillage management systems in Brazil; Diversity in the rhizobia associated with Phaseolus vulgaris L: in Ecuador and comparisons with Mexican bean rhizobia; Sistemas integrados ganadería-agricultura en Cuba; Soil macrofauna as bioindicator of soil quality; Biological functioning of cerrado soils; Hydrolysis of fluorescein diacetate as a soil quality indicator in different pasture systems; Soil management and soil macrofauna communities at Embrapa Soybean, Londrina, Brazil; Soil macrofauna in a 24 - year old no-tillage system in Paraná, Brazil; Invertebrate macrofauna of soils inpastures under different forms of management in the cerrado (Brazil); Soil tillage modifies the invertebrate soil macrofauna community; Soil macrofauna in various tillage and land use systems on an oxisols near Londrina, Paraná, Brazil; Interference of agricultural systems on soil macrofauna; Scarab beetle-grub holes in various tillage and crop management systems at Embrapa Soybean, Londrina, Brazil; Biological management of agroecosystems; Soil biota and nutrient dynamics through litterfall in agroforestry system in Rondônia, Amazônia, Brazil; Soil-C stocks and earthworm diversity of native and introduced pastures in Veracruz, Mexico; Theme 2 : Adaptive management: Some thoughts on the effects and implications of the transition from weedy multi-crop to wead-free mono-crop systems in Africa; Towards sustainable agriculture with no-tillage and crop rotation systems in South Brazil; Effect of termites on crusted soil rehabilitation in the Sahel; Management of macrofauna in traditional and conventional agroforestry systems from India with special reference to termites and earthworms; Adaptive management for redeveloping traditional agroecosystems; Conservation and sustainable use of soil biodiversity: learning with master nature!; Convergence of sciences: inclusive technology innovation processes for better integrated crop/vegetation, soil and biodiversity management; Potential for increasing soil biodiversity in agroecosystems; Biological nitrogen fixation and sustainability in the tropics; Theme 3: Research and innovation: Plant flavonoids and cluster roots as modifiers of soil biodiversity; The significance of biological diversity in agricultural soil for disease suppressiveness and nutrient retention; Linking above - and belowground biodiversity: a comparison of agricultural systems; Insect-pests in biologically managed oil and crops: the experience at ICRISAT; Sistemas agricolas micorrizados en Cuba; The effect of velvetbean (Mucuna pruriens) on the tropical earthworm Balanteodrilus pearsei: a management option for maize crops in the Mexican humid tropics; The potential of earthworms and organic matter quality in the rehabilitation of tropical soils; Research and innovation in biological management of soil ecosystems; Application of biodynamic methods in the Egyptian cotton sector; Theme 4: Capacity building and mainstreaming: Soil ecology and biodiversity: a quick scan of its importance for government policy in The Netherlands; Agrotechnological transfer of legume inoculants in Eastern and Southern Africa; Agricultura urbana en Cuba; Soil carbon sequestration for sustaining agricultural production and improving the environment; Conservation and sustainable management of below-ground biodiversity: the TSBF-BGBD network project; The tropical soil biology and fertility institute of CIAT (TSBF); South-South initiative for training and capacity building for the management of soil biology/biodiversity; Strategies to facilititate development and adoption of integrated resource management for sustainable production and productivity improvement; The challenge program on biological nitrogen fixation (CPBNF); Living soil training for farmers: improving knowledge and skills in soil nutrition management; Do we need an inter-governmental panel on land and soil (IPLS)? Protection and sustainable use of biodiversity of soils; Cases Studies -- Plant parasitic nematodes associated with common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and integrated management approaches; Agrotechnological transfer of legume inoculants in Eastern and Southern Africa; Restoring soil fertility and enhancing productivity in Indian tea plantations with earthworms and organic fertilizers; Managing termites and organic resources to improve soil productivity in the Sahel; Overview and case studies on biological nitrogen fixation: perspectives and limitations; Soil biodiversity and sustainable agriculture: an overview.

Not all social cleavages are the same: On the relationship between religious diversity and party system fragmentation

Most studies examining the relationship between social cleavages and party system fragmentation maintain that higher levels of social diversity lead to greater party system fragmentation. However, most aggregate-level studies focus on one type of social cleavage:ethnic diversity. In order to develop a better understanding of how different cleavages impact electoral competition, this paper considers another type of social cleavage: religious diversity.Contrary to previous literature, higher levels of religious diversity provide incentives for cross-religious cooperation, which in turn reduces party system fragmentation. Using a cross national data set of elections from 1946-2011, the results show that, in contrast to most studies examining the effects of social cleavage diversity on the number of parties, higher religious diversity is associated with lower levels of party system fragmentation.

CGIAR research program on grain legumes

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background and context The Grain Legumes CRP was established to bring all research and development work on grain legumes within the CGIAR system under one umbrella. It was set up to provide public goods outcomes to serve the needs of the sustainable production and consumption of grain legumes in the developing world, capitalising upon their properties that enhance the natural resource base upon which production so unequivocally depends. The choice of species and research foci were finalised following extensive consultation with all stakeholders (though perhaps fewer end users), and cover all disciplines that contribute to long-lasting solutions to the issues of developing country production and consumption. ICRISAT leads Grain Legumes and is partnered by the CGIAR centers ICARDA, IITA and CIAT and a number of other important partners, both public and private, and of course farmers in the developed and developing world. Originally in mid-2012 Grain Legumes was structured around eight Product Lines (PL) (i.e. technological innovations) intersecting five Strategic Components (SC) (i.e. arranged as components along the value chain). However, in 2015, it was restructured along a more R4D output model leading to Intermediate Development Outcomes (IDOs). Thus five Flagship Projects (FP) more closely reflecting a systematic pipeline of progression from fundamental science, implementation of interventions and the development of capacity and partnerships to promote and adopt impactful outcomes: FP1) Managing Productivity through crop interactions with biotic and abiotic constraints; FP2) Determination of traits that address production constraints and opportunities; FP3) Trait Deployment of those traits through breeding; FP4) Seed Systems, post-harvest processing and nutrition; FP5) Capacity-Building and Partnerships. Another three cross-cutting FPs analyse the broader environment surrounding the adoption of outputs, the capitalising of investments in genomics research, and a focus on the Management and Governance of Grain Legumes: FP6) Knowledge, impacts, priorities and gender organisation; FP7) Tools and platforms for high throughput genotyping and bioinformatics; and FP8) Management and Governance. Five FPs focus on R4D; FPs 5 and 6 are considered cross-cutting; FP 7 has a technical focus and FP 8 has an overarching objective. Over the three year period since its inception in July 1012, Grain Legumes has had a total budget of $140 million, with $62M originally to come from W1/W2 and the remaining $78M to come from W3/bilateral. In actuality only $45M came from W1/W2 but $106M from W3/bilateral corresponding to 106% of expectation. Purpose, scope and objectives of the external evaluation Principally, the evaluation of Grain Legumes is to ensure that the program is progressing in an effective manner towards addressing the system-level outcomes of the CGIAR as they relate to grain legumes. In essence, the evaluation aims to provide essential evaluative information for decision-making by Program Management and its funders on issues such as extension, expansion and structuring of the program and adjustments in relevant parts of the program. Subsequent to the formal signing of the agreed terms of reference, the evaluation team was also invited to comment upon the mooted options for merging and/or disaggregating of Grain Legumes. The audiences are therefore manifold, from the CGIAR Fund Council and Consortium, the Boards of Trustees of the four component CGIAR centres, the Grain Legumes Steering, Management and Independent Advisory Committees, to the researchers and others involved in the delivery of R4D outcomes and their partner organisations. The evaluation was not only summative in measuring results from Grain Legumes at arm’s length; it was also formative in promoting learning and improvements, and developmental in nurturing adaption to transformational change with time. The evaluation report was written in a manner that allows for engagement of key partners and funders in a dialogue as to how to increase ownership and a common understanding of how the goals are to be achieved. We reviewed research undertaken before the CRPs but leading to impacts during Grain Legumes, and research commenced over the past 2.5 years. For related activities pre- and post-commencement of Grain Legumes, we reviewed the relevance of activities and their relation to CGIAR and the Grain Legumes goals, whether they were likely to lead to the outcomes and impacts as documented in the Grain Legumes proposal, and the quality of the science underpinning the likelihood to deliver outcomes. Throughout, we were cognisant of the extent of the reach of CGIAR centres’ activities, and those of stakeholders upon which the impact of CGIAR R4D depends. Within our remit we evaluated the original and modified management and governance structures, and all the processes/responsibilities managed within those structures. Besides the evaluation of the technical and managerial issues of Grain Legumes, we addressed cross-cutting issues of gender sensitivity, capacity building and the creation and nurturing of partnerships. The evaluation also has the objective to provide information relating to the development of full proposals for the new CRP funding cycle. The evaluation addressed six overarching questions developed from the TOR questions (listed in the Inception Report, 2015 [http://1drv.ms/1POQSZh] and others including cross-cutting issues, phrasing them within the context of traditional evaluation criteria: 1. Relevance: Global development, urbanisation and technological innovation are progressing rapidly, are the aims and focus of Grain Legumes coherent, robust, fit for purpose and relevant to the global community? 2. Efficiency: Is the structure and effectiveness of leadership across Grain Legumes developing efficient partnership management and project management across PLs? 3. Quality of science: Is Grain Legumes utilising a wide range of technologies in a way that will increase our fundamental understanding of the biology that underpins several PLs; and are collected data used in the most effective way? 4. Effectiveness: Are Product Lines strategic contributors to the overarching aims and vision for Grain Legumes? 5. Impact: Are the impact pathways that underlie each PL well defined, measureable and achievable; and are they sufficiently defined in terms of beneficiaries? Does progress towards achieving outputs and outcomes from the major research areas indicate a lasting benefit for CGIAR and the communities it serves? 6. Sustainability: Is Grain Legumes managing the increasing level of restricted funding in terms of program quality and effectiveness, including attracting and retaining quality staff? Questions for the evaluation of governance and management focused on accountability, transparency, the effectiveness and success of program execution, change management processes and communication methods, taking account of the effects of CGIAR reform. The three crosscutting issues were considered as follows: i) gender balance in program delivery, e.g. whether each PL is able to contribute to the increased income, food security, nutrition, environmental and resource conservation for resource-poor women and men existing in rural livelihoods; ii) are internal and external capacity gaps identified/met, is capacity effectively developed within each product line, and are staff at all levels engaged in contributing ideas towards capacity building; and iii) is there effective involvement of partners in research and activity programming, what are the criteria for developing partnerships, how they are formalised and how is communication between partners and within Grain Legumes managed? It was not in remit to search for output, outcomes or impact, however as highlighted later, much of our time was spent on searching for information to support claims of impact, since Grain Legumes had no effective dedicated M&E in place at the time of undertaking the review. Approach and methodology The evaluation was conducted when Grain Legumes had been operational for approximately 3 years. The approach and methodology followed that outlined in the Inception Report [http://1drv.ms/1POQSZh]. The CCEE Team based its findings, conclusions and recommendations on data collection from several sources:  review of program documents, communications with the CO, minutes and presentations from all management and governance committee meetings  review of previous assessments and evaluations  sampling of Grain Legume projects in 7 countries1  more than 66 face to face interviews, a further 133 persons in groups and 4 phone/Skype conversations: ICRISAT, ICARDA, CIAT and IITA staff, partners and stakeholders. Meetings with one Independent Science and Partnership Council (ISPC) member.  meetings with over 100 people in 16 external groups, such as farmers’ groups  online survey completed by 126 (33.4%) scientists who contribute to Grain Legumes and a number of non-CGIAR partners and Management representatives  bibliometric review of 10 publications within each PL to qualitatively assess the design, conduct, analysis and presentation of results  quantitative and qualitative self-assessment of the contributions of each of the PLs to the six criteria and 3 cross-cutting issues of evaluation mentioned above completed by PLCs (see below). We reviewed the Logical Framework that underpins the desired Goals, or Impacts of Grain Legumes, and the links between the outputs and inputs as they related to the organisational units of Grain Legumes. The logical framework approach to planning and management of Grain Legumes activities implies a linear process, leading from activities, outputs, outcomes, to impacts, but within such an approach there may be room for a more systems dynamics approach allowing for feedback at every step and within every step, in order to refine and improve upon the respective activities as new results, ideas, and directions come to light. We then developed a matrix that summarised quantitatively and qualitatively the contributions of each of the PLs to the six criteria and 3 cross-cutting issues of evaluation mentioned above. Main findings and conclusions Grain legume production and consumption remain of great importance to the food security of not inconsiderable populations in the developing world, and merit sustained research investment. We conclude that Grain Legumes continues to contribute significant returns to research investments by the CGIAR, and such investment should continue. The global research community looks to the CGIAR for leadership in Grain legumes, but needs to be assured of value adding when bringing CGIAR centres under the expected umbrella of synergy. However, there is considerable scope for improving the efficiency with which outcomes are achieved. We note that an absence of an effective M&E has hampered the assessment of the effectiveness of proposed impact pathways. Likewise progress has been hampered by the limited numbers of research partnerships with Advanced Institutes and by budgetary constraints (lamented for their stifling effects on continuation of ongoing exciting research). The unworkable management structure constrains the CRP Director’s leadership role; responsibility without authority will never lead to effective outcomes. Good fortune is responsible for many of the successes of Grain Legumes, underpinned by a devoted work force across the participating CGIAR centres and partners. The quality of the science is not uniformly high, and we believe that mentoring of scientists should be given priority where quality is poor. Simplified yet informative reporting is an imperative to this. World class science underpins the identification of, and molecular basis for, traits important for yield improvement and this expertise should be extended to all grain legume species, capitalising upon the germplasm collections. The linking of Grain Legumes with regional research and development consortia has been very successful, with outcomes aligning with those of Grain Legumes. We see that with declining funding consolidation of research effort based on likely successes will be necessary, and welcome the move afoot to incorporate grain legumes into an agri-food system focused on successful value chains that deliver sustainable outcomes. Relevance and Strategy Grain Legumes has geographic and disciplinary relevance, addressing the major supply chain issues of variety development seed system and agronomy, with some attention to quality and postharvest marketing systems. The CRP has provided the opportunity to cut ongoing and to initiate new research. Research funded by the Gates Foundation (Anon, 2014) suggests that the need for improvement is greatest in Africa and advocates reducing the number of crop by country combinations when resources are sparse. The lesser research investment in Latin America, however, is not in line with the regions’ dependency on legumes. In spite of the fact that there is no evidence of strong inter-partner CGIAR centre or internal synergy, the program is still moving ahead on most fronts in line with the overall project logframe. This is in spite of continual pushing and pulling by in particular donors and the CO. However, to quantify real impact, we believe Grain Legumes must have access to reliable baseline data on production and consumption, and this is missing. Similarly, there is little evidence of the proposed ‘Inclusive Market Oriented Development’ (IMOD) framework being used to assist with priority setting. The product lines, eight of which cover most of the historical programmes in place in the partner CGIAR centres at the commencement of the Grain Legumes, do not cover all the constraints for formal constraints analysis was not undertaken at the inception of the Grain Legumes, and some of this additionally identified research is undertaken under the umbrella of the FPs; this needs to be rationalised. We found the PLs to be isolated in activity, even with minimally-integrated activities within each PL, with little evidence of synergy between PLs. Even though the SCs should ensure a systems approach, as with the new FPs, we did not get a feel that this is so. The underplaying of agronomy, and production practices may be one reason for this. We believe that treating legume crops as if they were horticultural crops will increase farmer returns from investment. The choice of Flagship Projects makes sense, with the flow of activity firstly around crop management and agronomy followed by the logical sequence of trait discovery, incorporation into improved varieties, dissemination of those varieties through appropriate seed chains leading to market impacts, and the capacity building required at all steps. One obvious omission, however, is the lack of a central and strategic policy on the role of transgenics in Grain Legumes. We found four notable comparative advantages for Grain Legumes: the access to germplasm of component species, the use of the phenotyping facility at ICRISAT, the approach for village level industry for IPM, and the emphasis on hybrid pigeonpea. Efficiency Each centre has strong control of, and emphasis on, their ‘species’ domains, and ownership of the same detracts from possible synergy. Without synergy or value add, the Grain Legumes brings with it no comparative advantage over each centre continuing their own pre-CRP research agendas. We found little evidence of integration of programmes between centres and almost no cross-centre authorship of publications, such as could have occurred with the integrated cross-centre approaches to stress tolerance including crop modelling: the one publication (Gaur et al., 2015) on heat tolerance by ICRISAT, CIAT and ICARDA does not provide any keys to inter-centre collaboration. The integration of each centre with NARS and university research programmes is good, but the cross-centre links with NARS are poor. A better coordinated integration with Grain Legumes, , rather than through the individual centres, may reduce transactions costs for NARS, Monitoring and evaluation is, as noted throughout our report, one area of Grain Legumes research management that has not been given the attention it should have received. If it had have received proper attention, some of the issues of poor efficiency might have been nipped in the bud. A strong monitoring and evaluation system would have provided the baseline data and set the milestones that would have allowed both efficiency and effectiveness to be better appraised. We found no attempt to define comparative advantages of the CGIAR centres and their R4D activities, although practice showed the better grasp of CIAT in developing innovative seed distribution systems. During field visits and interviews, the CCEE Team observed shortcomings in the communication processes within Grain Legumes and with the broader scientific community and the public. For example, the public face of the program on the internet is out of date. Survey findings, however, suggest that information is shared freely and routinely within the PL within which scientists work. Some external issues, such as those with funding, low W1/W2 and poor sustainability of funding (especially if funding is top heavy with a few agencies), undermine research investment and confidence of partners in the system (e.g. as voiced by researchers working on crops and countries not included in TL III and the cessation of ongoing competitively-funded projects especially in India), but other issues attributable to the governance and management of the Grain Legumes, such as opaque integration of W3/bilaterals with W1/W2 funding require attention. Offsetting this, the existence of the Grain Legumes did mobilise additional funding [that it would not have if Grain Legumes did not exist]. We were concerned that Grain Legumes is simply not recognised outside of the CRP, with a limited www presence and centres promote themselves, rather than Grain Legumes (with exception in IITA). This is not a good move if one wishes to increase investment in the Grain Legumes. Although funding agencies require cost:benefit ratios, for example for each PL we faced difficulty in determining comparative value for money between investment in different types of research, and in being able to clearly attribute research and development outcomes to financial investment. There was also a time CCEE frame issue too. There is poor interaction with the private sector, notably in areas where they have a comparative financial advantage. We questioned in particular the apparent lack of interaction with the major agro-chemical companies, with respect to the development of herbicide tolerant (HT) grain legumes and the lack of evidence that the regulatory and trade aspects related to herbicide tolerant crops had been considered. Quality of science The quality of the science is highly variable across Grain Legumes, with pockets of real excellence that are linked to good levels of productivity, whereas other PLs are struggling to deliver quality publications, and outputs and outcomes that are based on these. There is much evidence of gradualism in terms of research output and outcomes, i.e. essentially the same activities that were ongoing at the time of the launch of Grain Legumes are still in place. However, there are examples of game changers including those from valuable investments in genomics, phenotyping, and bio-control. We were pleased to see large proportions of collaboration on publications with non-CGIAR centres, reflecting cooperation with partners in developed and developing countries. The value of collaboration when ensuring quality of science cannot be stressed highly enough both within the CRP, and with other global and national partners. PLs should be given incentives to collaborate with other CRPs and external institutions. There is little cohesion between PLs and with other CRPs as evidenced by publications, although there are some exceptions. We suspect the reasons for this are driven by funding. Productivity from the different PLs is also highly variable and it is not clear what other activities staff are engaged in since, in some PLs, they do not appear to lead to quality publications. Effectiveness Grain Legumes has been very effective in addressing component issues of research, but not the continuum from variety development to legumes on someone’s dinner plate. Our overall assessment of the effectiveness of Grain Legumes in stimulating synergy, innovation and impact indicate that gradualism is more prevalent than innovation. It also shows, as do publications, that there is little integration of disciplines or a focus on ‘systems’. The absence of socio-economists from research teams is evident in the general lack of an end user focus. However, research on genomics, plant breeding and seed systems have made great strides forward, on the brink of delivering impact. Agronomy has been a poor sister, but some of the competitive grants within Grain Legumes have unearthed some potential game changers, such as objective use of transplanting as an agronomic practice. As mentioned earlier, the lack of effective M&E (however, this was part of some major projects such as TL II/TL III), and therefore the ability to monitor impact pathways and achievement of impact, implies no systematic management of data. This creates difficulty when attempting to evaluate the achievement of the Grain Legumes objectives. One might have expected at least one attempt to try to develop publications between centres arguing for similar biologies/research approaches, bringing species together under one umbrella, but we did not find any evidence for this. It is most unfortunate that, due to budgetary cuts, the new ‘schemes’, e.g. competitive grants and scholarships, were cut off before gaining a foothold. With 8 species addressed by Grain Legumes, it is not unexpected that there will be little evidence of shared protocols across centres/species. One rare example was that hosted by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) on shared methods for phenotyping of legume germplasm. Researchers from CIAT, IITA, ICRISAT and three USDA stations attended, focusing in simple canopy temperature and root morphology measurements. It is our belief that as a set of research centres, the CGIAR centres should be focusing on the research for which they have a comparative advantage. While imposing the restructure to FPs, which is fine for development objectives and outcomes (funded through W3/bilateral), it is less so for a research institute, and the structure should not detract from the more basic work expected of an international CGIAR centre (or set of centres as in a CRP). Impact It is well known that research does not always lead to scientific breakthroughs. Also, activities such as plant breeding are long term; making impacts difficult to assess. We believe that sufficient progress with genomics and associated research has been made to warrant impact, but we are unable to quantify the levels of impact, or the timeframe for the same. Work in Grain Legumes has enormous potential for real impact in scientific research, commercial, farming, smallholder and household communities, much of which is being realised. However, the PLs need to become more adept at providing convincing cases that are strongly evidenced for these impacts, as this is likely to be a key factor in leveraging future funding. Claimed gains must be referenced against baseline data, and these are not always readily available. The CCEE Team realises that such impact evaluation represents a significant drain on resources, and Grain Legumes should determine whether the balance of costs to benefits favours such investment. Interviews conducted by the CCEE during site visits showed that PLs are quantifying the area of adoption of varieties, but in most cases they are not measuring the impact on environment, health/nutrition. Since the health and nutritional benefits and the environmental gains from growing legumes are major arguments for supporting grain legume research, the community is currently missing substantial opportunities to strengthen its own case for continued support. Whilst there are some impressive examples of considering the whole value chain, e.g. white beans from production through to export; in the main, the pipeline to end user is somewhat piece-meal, with no clear definition of the end user nor differential responsibility of Grain Legumes and of partners. The lack of robust time-defined impact pathways is highlighted in Section 7.4, and even though developed for PL5, timeframes are essential for measuring progress against prediction. Sustainability In summary, there is general acknowledgement that future funding is likely to become more limited, specifically in W1&2 and there is understandable concern over the support for the staff and basic infrastructure that underpin the Grain Legumes programme. For example, it is reported that staffing in parts of CIAT has been dependent on W1&2 and that this is too unstable to re-establish a critical mass. The present system whereby W3 and bilateral projects do not pay a realistic level of overheads means that such projects are being effectively subsidised by W1&2. This position is not sustainable in the long term as there will be a progressive but definite loss of basic skills and resources in the core centres. The only obvious options to prevent this outcome include a severe reduction in the fixed costs of the centres and/or a refusal to accept W3 and bilateral funding with an inadequate overhead component. In the latter case, there is an obvious danger that funders will move their resources away from the CGIAR system towards other, perhaps less expensive, suppliers of research, and possibly more relevant development expertise. This issue must be addressed. As the Grain Legumes moves into the future, and if sustainable funding cannot be assured, decisions must be made concerning a reduction in activities, keeping some caretaker breeding maintenance, and focus (as has TL III) on fewer species and a reduced geographic focus. Cross cutting issues: Gender, capacity building and partnerships Gender is not mainstreamed, but there is some evidence that this is improving, especially with dedicated gender specialists and the slow integration of gender across CRPs. There is a need to approach gender through the vision of agriculture as a social practice, with recognition of what changes will be acceptable culturally and what not, and capitalising upon the perceived and actual features of production and processing that grain legumes are primarily women-based crops. Gender awareness may be high among Scientists, but it appears to be a predominantly passive attribute with few proactively seeking opportunities for gender equity. It is, however, a sound sensitivity base on which to build. Nevertheless, examples of notable gender initiatives were identified during field visits. For example, in Benin, the development of biocontrol technologies has enthusiastically integrated diversity, engaging with women farmers’ and youths while maintaining cultural norms. Women are gathering and processing, youths are taking the product to market. The implication is that several groups benefit, rather than domination by the majority group. In Malawi, innovative approaches have been developed to improving nutrition for children, such as incorporating nutrient enriched bean flour products into snacks. In India, scientists collaborating with gender scientists and socio-economists are identifying the impact of mechanical harvesting on agricultural labour and the potential displacement of female labourers. In Kenya, a novel initiative is improving the accessibility of certified seed for new varieties. Seed suppliers have introduced small packs of grain legume seed at low unit cost, which are being purchased by young people and women. Capacity building efforts for external partners are not clearly aligned with the research mandate and delivery of Grain Legumes. However, there are a number of training activities that are being undertaken by Grain Legumes, largely through the W3/bilateral project. Gender balance never reaches parity, but it appears that efforts are made to include female participants. Within the evaluation timeframe it was not possible to conduct external surveys to further validate or review external capacity building efforts in Grain Legumes. Training of scientists is significant, with >40 benefiting. Postgraduate training is varied across PLs, and there is some opportunity to increase the numbers being supervised. We consider that support for postgraduates at ICRISAT could be better coordinated, satisfying more of the students’ needs. It is important, however, to follow up investments in capacity building by monitoring effectiveness, career progressions and so on. Training activities appear to be rather centre-specific, not following a coordinated programme managed by, nor at the level of, the Grain Legumes. Numbers of persons trained and their gender are important, but a measure of the effectiveness of the training is more important. Although optimism is expressed by the great majority of Research Managers that partnerships were working well to leverage knowledge and research capacities, scientists have a less favourable view, particularly in terms of their incentives to participate. It seems likely that the activities taking place within Grain Legumes were, in the most part, continuations of previous collaborations. This is not surprising in light of the reduction in the emphasis on partnerships as Grain Legumes evolved to a funded project, and the consequent lack of opportunity and ambition for establishing novel partnerships. Where they exist, partnerships are good on the whole, especially with US. They could be expanded where comparative advantages exist (for example with Canada and Australia for machine harvestable legumes), but some earlier identified partnerships, e.g. with Turkey, have not been capitalised upon. Others experience problems of variety access (the embargo on exports of some sources of materials from India), yet others do have relevance e.g. imported Brazilian varieties in pre-release in Ethiopia (even though two of the three are from CIAT materials). Governance and Management The standard format of committee structure and responsibilities is common to other CRPs, as are the attendant problems. One of the major problems is that the Grain Legumes Director has responsibility but no authority; hence, even with the support of the RMC, the Director is unable to ‘direct’ in the literal sense of the work the activities of Grain Legumes. We also see the same sense of helplessness with the role of the PLCs. They have responsibility but no authority in managing the affairs of their PL, and they have no access to funds with which to promote intellectual collaboration and cooperation. Minutes from governance and management meetings do not reflect the compromised weak position of the Director and the associated difficulties in the management of Grain Legumes. Nor do the minutes reflect concerns about the amount of time spent by scientists in meetings for planning, integration, evaluation and reporting. Many scientists reported significant opportunity costs in participating in the ongoing imposed [by the CO] evolution of Grain Legumes and CRPs in general. The changes brought in by the CO have not helped promote any greater authority and capacity of the Grain Legumes Director to direct. Likewise, they do not address any of the issues with the conflict of interest in having the Lead Centre chair the Steering Committee. Indeed, we believe that the combining of the Steering Committee with the Independent Advisory Committee, besides becoming unwieldy in number, annuls any sense of independence in advice offered to the Grain Legumes management. We have concerns with the declining proportion of W1/W2 funds (as expressed in the section on Sustainability), and believe that when basic financial planning takes place, integration of W1/W2 and W3/bilateral sources must occur, and be linked to anticipated outcomes and impacts. This will ensure a close alignment of collaborators’ and partners’ objectives and contributions to that of the Grain Legumes. We also queried the process for, and the formality, or lack of, surrounding, the approval of annual budgets, and the level of priority setting when budgets are cut. Recommendations for Grain Legumes The CCEE Team makes the following recommendations, critical issues are highlighted in bold, and those that require action by an entity other than the Grain Legumes Research Management Committee or Project Management united are identified in a footnote. Relevance and Strategy Recommendation 1: A period of consistency is necessary to raise confidence, morale and trust across scientists, managers and partners to foster the assembly of enduring Grain Legumes outcomes2.  There needs to be a concerted effort to undertake baseline studies and to implement a robust M&E activity during this period. Without these data the foundation for integrated research in grain legumes is jeopardised.  There is a strong need to link more closely with the private sector, especially where there are financial and other comparative advantages to do so. Recommendation 2: The agronomic and physiological trait targets of Grain Legumes (tolerance to changing climate patterns, to the pests and diseases of today and of the future, incorporation of quality traits and adaptations to intensive production systems [machine-harvestability and herbicide tolerance], and short season high yielding characters) are all worthy of continued investment when selecting for improved varieties.  There needs to be a common strategy, implemented across centres and species, as to how to address these trait targets through conventional and modern breeding approaches, but only if adequate funding is assured and secured and if a consistency and unity of purpose can be achieved across a large-scale. This should take the form of cross-species coordinated research programmes to address these breeding targets that cooperate across centres and make efficient use of facilities and other resources.  The CRP should undertake a detailed strategic review of the role of transgenics across the range of targets in the mandate crops. Efficiency Recommendation 3: The lack of an effective M&E process is a significant omission, not least in terms of more efficient use of resources and the lack of baseline data with which to measure impact, and must be rectified.  Reinforcing Recommendation 1, an effective M&E system initially directed towards baseline studies must be implemented.  Transaction costs may be reduced through bilateral projects, which are seen as more cost effective than W1/W2 where transaction costs are disproportionately higher. Recommendation 4: To improve communication and coordination within the CRP, and with a broader audience:  There is a priority need for a central database containing, names of staff associated with Grain Legumes and their time commitments, their responsibilities, and involvement in CRP activities, their progress and achievements, their publications, plans of training, travel, and other opportunities for interaction.  Regular global meetings of staff involved in managing PLs, the entire CRP management staff and the IAC are essential for effective coordination of all activity within Grain Legumes.  The website must be given a complete overhaul and improvement and then regular maintenance must be provided to keep it current. Quality of Science Recommendation 5: It is essential to continue investment in good science and to institute a change from gradualism in research output and outcomes to an expectation of innovative and concrete achievements that can be attributed clearly to people, centres and core facilities.  A cost:benefit analysis and subsequent strategic planning must be undertaken to justify further investment in the genomics and phenotyping facilities at ICRISAT especially as such technologies advance rapidly. Strategic planning and coordination must also be implemented for capitalising on the investment in crop simulation modelling. (The phenotyping facility of ICRISAT needs to focus on delivering some outcomes, not only outputs.)  PLs should be given incentives to collaborate with other CRPs and external institutions. The CCEE recommends special recognition of high quality collaborative papers, thereby encouraging increased quality of the research programmes and widening the penetration of research impacts.  More importance should be placed on the quality of publication, rather than quantity of outputs and there should be recognition of other types of outputs from Grain Legumes. The CRP Director must be party to this.  If staff are engaged in activities that relate more to impact than publication then this needs to be monitored and recorded and a clearer understanding developed of what constitutes a pathway to impact and how success of such activities can be evaluated. A system must be devised and incorporated into the M&E to enable recognition of other types of outputs (non- publication based) from Grain Legumes, e.g. varieties for breeders. Effectiveness Recommendation 6: To develop greater synergy, Grain Legumes should review management processes and the direction of research activities. In particular, far more extensive integration of research and knowledge exchange should take place across both African and Asian continents so that the best aspects of both can be shared. A multidisciplinary approach is recommended that considers processing solutions, as well as breeding solutions, to capitalise upon the nutritional benefits of the grain legume crops. We recommend:  A better collaboration with social scientists at the design stage of experiments in order to improve the utility of the work carried out and to understand its reach.  Supporting3 the adoption of best practice electronic data collection, central storage and open access, particularly of genomic data, for public use.  Given the focus on the link between phenotyping and genotyping, we note that there is a lack of congruence between the populations that are being phenotyped and those being genotyped, and therefore these could be better aligned within each species.  Concentrating investment external to Grain Legumes on scaling up production of varieties with the most promising trait profiles to meet the basic seed requirement.  Developing a more holistic approach that coordinates an understanding of the disease pathology and epidemiology, and of new chemicals before they become commercially available, together with agronomic practice such that recommendations can be made for growers. Continuing work to establish whether agronomic factors hold true in different environments and to assess GxE effects within breeding programmes. Such rigorous trial practices should be used to inform the evaluation of breeding lines and to provide phenotype data to associate with markers for traits such as heat, drought and herbicide tolerance.  Considering grain legumes as if they were vegetable crops in terms of the strategy for intensification of production, both from the management perspective and for seed systems, will be a useful development objective into the future. This will bring about more rapid intensification and is likely to increase farmer returns from investment. Recommendation 7: The CGIAR centres should focus in on the research for which they have a comparative advantage. While imposing the restructure to FPs, which is fine for development objectives and outcomes (funded through W3/bilateral) it is less so for a research institute, and should not detract from the more basic work expected of an international CGIAR centre (or set of centres in a CRP).  Collaborative approaches should be explored within Grain Legumes, e.g. similar biologies/research approaches, bringing species together under one umbrella. Similarly better alignment is needed to address the lack of congruence between the populations that are being phenotyped and those being genotyped.  Despite positive impacts from research in genomics, plant breeding and seed systems, the lack of an effective M&E, already mentioned elsewhere, has reduced the ability to monitor impact pathways. This must be addressed.  The absence of socio-economists from research teams is evident in the general lack of an end user focus. Responsibilities of the different actors in the whole value chain must be considered and identified when developing impact targets, and the pathway leading to them, for individual projects. People with socio-economist skills must be part of the team from project inception so that appropriate frameworks are incorporated for measuring and influencing sociological and economic changes brought about by Grain Legumes research. Impact Recommendation 8: PLs need to become more adept at providing convincing cases in which impact is strongly evidenced, as this is likely to be a key factor in leveraging future funding.  Claimed gains must be referenced against baseline data, and these are not always readily available. The CCEE Team realises that such impact evaluation represents a significant drain on resources, and Grain Legumes should determine whether the balance of costs to benefits favours such investment.  It is essential that Grain Legumes provides training to staff on what constitutes impact and how it can be recorded.  Specific, rather than generalised, potential impacts arising from activity within Grain Legumes should be defined at the time of justifying the programme of work and a pathway to impact should form part of the documentation prepared ahead of a piece of research commencing. . In other words, centres should submit work plans to Grain Legumes before they are undertaken using W1/W2 funds Recommendation 9: The reporting activity must be streamlined to a single (brief) format that can be used to report to Grain Legumes, Centres and to donors for special project activities4. Sustainability Recommendation 10: As Grain Legumes moves into the future, and if sustainable funding cannot be assured, decisions must be made concerning a reduction in activities, keeping some caretaker breeding maintenance, and focus (as has TL III) on fewer species and a reduced geographic focus. Zeigler (Director General of IRRI) states “…time and effort would be better spent … making tough decisions about which programs deserve the precious support.”  The present system whereby W3 and bilateral projects do not pay a realistic level of overheads means that such projects are being effectively subsidised by W1&2 and there will be a progressive but definite loss of basic skills and resources in the core centres. To prevent this outcome it is necessary to significantly reduce the fixed costs of the centres and/or refuse to accept W3 and bilateral funding without an adequate overhead component.  In the absence of long term certainty, the scale of the budget allocated to each of the new CRPs should be very conservative, a feature that can only be achieved by restricting/reducing the scope, probably quite significantly. Cross cutting issues: Gender, capacity building and partnerships Recommendation 11: The challenge for Grain Legumes is to achieve pro-active gender mainstreaming, which facilitates opportunities for gender diversity within all activities, from employment processes through research to end users.  Strategic measurable gender indicators need to be embedded in research design, for instance, through specific IDOs for each of the flagships projects. Accurate baseline data are also required to facilitate M&E reviews of progress.  Implementation of the Gender Strategy is the responsibility of everyone, not solely the Gender Team. Thus, ownership could be encouraged by setting personal development for key personnel objectives with specific outcomes, e.g. employment practices or research outcomes.  Recognising the positive gender initiatives in progress or planned, feedback must be communicated and integrated into broader research planning to share opportunities, methods and outcomes.  In addition to promoting gender equity in research, Grain Legumes also needs to ensure that working environments are gender sensitive and that recruitment processes, including promotion opportunities are equitable. Gender imbalance in management should be actively examined to identify further opportunities for developing female leadership. Recommendation 12: It is recommended that a training plan be devised to ensure that capacity building efforts are more clearly aligned with the research mandate, delivery and timeframe of Grain Legumes. Moreover, we recommend that ICRISAT develop a strategy to treat their new cohort of researchers more equitably in the future. Recommendation 13: To develop a more coherent strategic programme designed to eliminate overlap and promote synergy between programmes with common aims, Grain Legumes should hold a meeting with a range of partners. Governance Recommendation 14: Governance processes should be re-assessed and the structure altered to ensure that the Grain Legumes Director has the authority and budget control to drive the execution of strategy.  The ISC should be truly independent and given the power to influence strategic decisions before they become final. We also recommend that PLCs are provided with the authority to manage the direction and finances of their PL; and that ring-fenced funds are provided for the promotion of collaboration, coordination and staff training5. The way ahead In our view, having seen the ineffectiveness of much of the attempts [or lack of attempts] to harness synergies between multiple centres, and of the strength in few or sole centre partnerships, we believe that there is little to justify a full retention of the 8 legume species and 4 CGIAR centres in a CRP. TL I and II and PABRA have shown to be reasonably good cross-centre and single centre integrated programmes, but even they suffer from incomplete value chain approaches to increasing rural incomes while increasing food and nutritional security; they both need multi-faceted solutions which are not immediately forthcoming from Grain Legumes. It is important to embed Grain Legumes research within the agri-food systems these crops serve. Figure ES1 broadly shows the perceived current and potential degrees of synergy between centres, PLs and species, and is discussed more in the text. It is clear that the value chains for individual species from trait determination to nutritional impact have more cohesion than do the individual activities (e.g. trait deployment) across species. For this reason we believe that the future for research in Grain Legumes is best addressed by focusing on each of the species separately, and within an ecosystem framework; any synergy for research across species can be effected through communication and not necessarily through obligatory cooperative research. The ecosystem framework will allow for strengthening of agronomy type systems research, the arguments for benefits of inclusion of grain legumes in cropping systems, which is notable by its absence in much of what Grain Legumes currently undertakes. Figure ES1. Current and potential degrees of synergy between centres, PLs and crop species We therefore agree with the innovation in agri-food systems approach of the CG, and believe that Grain Legumes rightly belongs in the Dryland Cereals and Legumes Agri-food Systems. We believe that the option of combining the crops of dryland cereals and legumes in the cereal-legume-livestock systems of subsistence farming communities for whole-farm productivity is closest to the best way forward. Indeed the inclusion of grain legumes may not warrant even a CRP alone, rather the legume components should fit in with the major crops that determine the production systems. Legumes will always be subservient to the major cereals, as necessary adjuncts to the whole production system, providing both nutritional diversity and environmental services, neither achievable from cereals alone. Figure ES2. Most suitable option for integration of Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals into an Agri-Food Systems CRP Most suitable option for integration of Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals into an Agri-Food Systems CRP, which  Incorporates ex-Dryland Systems, Dryland Cereals, Grain Legumes, some HumidTropics, some ex-Livestock &Fisheries into a new CRP  Will cover full agri-food system VC for all 8 legumes in all ecologies, but must interact (dock) with the relevant AFS-CRPs for the dominant cereal in the relevant ecology  Hence, will need to negotiate with other Agrifood Systems-CRPs on who does what for legumes  In addition, responsible for sorghum and millet in the mixed dryland crop-livestock agro-ecologies For major game changers to be effected, we believe that the game has to change, and there is little evidence of this. The direction of CRPs is the correct route, but the journey has not yet come to its destination. A major change of game [such as the adoption of a Flagship Project approach as exemplified by the Australian CSIRO – where flagships contract services from centres of research excellence] would be painful to implant. The CGIAR system is going down the right pathway but it has not gone far enough.

LOW GENETIC DIVERSITY IN Wolbachia-INFECTED Culex quinquefasciatus (DIPTERA: CULICIDAE) FROM BRAZIL AND ARGENTINA

Culex quinquefasciatus is a vector of human pathogens, including filarial nematodes and several viruses. Although its epidemiological relevance is known to vary across geographical regions, an understanding of its population genetic structure is still incipient. In light of this, we evaluated the genetic diversity of Cx. quinquefasciatus and Cx. pipiens x Cx. quinquefasciatus hybrids collected from nine localities in Brazil and one site in Argentina. We used mitochondrial genes cox1 and nd4, along with the coxA and wsp genes of the maternally-inherited Wolbachia endosymbiont. The nd4 fragment was invariant between samples, whilst cox1 exhibited four haplotypes that separated two types of Cx. quinquefasciatus, one clustered in southern Brazil. Low sequence diversity was generally observed, being discussed. Both Brazilian and Argentinian mosquitoes were infected with a single Wolbachia strain. As reported in previous studies with these populations, cox1 and nd4 diversity is not congruent with the population structure revealed by nuclear markers or alar morphology. Future Cx. quinquefasciatus research should, if possible, evaluate mtDNA diversity in light of other markers.

Low genetic diversity in Wolbachia-Infected Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae) from Brazil and Argentina

Culex quinquefasciatus is a vector of human pathogens, including filarial nematodes and several viruses. Although its epidemiological relevance is known to vary across geographical regions, an understanding of its population genetic structure is still incipient. In light of this, we evaluated the genetic diversity of Cx. quinquefasciatus and Cx. pipiens x Cx. quinquefasciatus hybrids collected from nine localities in Brazil and one site in Argentina. We used mitochondrial genes cox1 and nd4, along with the coxA and wsp genes of the maternally-inherited Wolbachia endosymbiont. The nd4 fragment was invariant between samples, whilst cox1 exhibited four haplotypes that separated two types of Cx. quinquefasciatus, one clustered in southern Brazil. Low sequence diversity was generally observed, being discussed. Both Brazilian and Argentinian mosquitoes were infected with a single Wolbachia strain. As reported in previous studies with these populations, cox1 and nd4 diversity is not congruent with the population structure revealed by nuclear markers or alar morphology. Future Cx. quinquefasciatus research should, if possible, evaluate mtDNA diversity in light of other markers.

The impact of plant diversity and fertilization on fitness of a generalist grasshopper

In many environments land use intensification is likely to result in a decrease in species richness and in an increase in eutrophication. Although the importance of both factors for higher trophic levels such as insect herbivores is well documented, their impact has rarely been studied in combination. Herbivorous insects have a strong impact on the functioning of ecosystems and it is therefore important to understand how they are affected by eutrophication in high or low diversity environments. We used a grassland biodiversity experiment to investigate the combined effect of fertilization and plant diversity loss on the fitness of the generalist grasshopper Chorthippus parallelus by rearing grasshopper nymphs for four weeks in cages on unfertilized or fertilized (NPK) subplots across a species richness gradient from 1 to 60 plant species. Survival, the number of oothecae, body mass and the number of hatchlings were measured separately for each cage. Plant diversity had no effect on any of the grasshopper fitness measures, neither in unfertilized nor in fertilized plots. NPK-fertilization reduced grasshopper survival but increased body mass of males and reproductive success of the surviving females. Fertilization effects were not mediated by plant community structure, productivity or composition, suggesting that higher food plant quality was one of the main drivers. There was no interaction between plant diversity and fertilization on any of the measures. In conclusion, an increase in eutrophication, in both species-rich and species-poor grasslands, could lead to higher reproductive success and therefore higher abundances of herbivorous insects including insect pests, with fertilization effects dominating plant diversity effects.

Performance measurement and feedback in a public sector program

Establishing a framework for measuring the performance of public sector programs is fraught with dangers. Many public sector organisations are satisfied with measuring activity in programs and fail to see the need for establishing a framework that will meet the needs of participants and measure outcomes as well as activities. This paper explores how a government department in Queensland went about establishing a performance management framework to measure the outcomes and activities in a program that was a public private partnership. Findings indicate that using an iterative consultative approach performance measure can be put in place that are meaningful and assist the participants to review the program.

Resolving painful emotional experience during psychodrama

Unresolved painful emotional experiences such as bereavement, trauma and disturbances in core relationships, are common presenting problems for clients of psychodrama or psychotherapy more generally. Emotional pain is experienced as a shattering of the sense of self and disconnection from others and, when unresolved, produces avoidant responses which inhibit the healing process. There is agreement across therapeutic modalities that exposure to emotional experience can increase the efficacy of therapeutic interventions. Moreno proposes that the activation of spontaneity is the primary curative factor in psychodrama and that healing occurs when the protagonist (client) engages with his or her wider social system and develops greater flexibility in response to that system. An extensive case-report literature describes the application of the psychodrama method in healing unresolved painful emotional experiences, but there is limited empirical research to verify the efficacy of the method or to identify the processes that are linked to therapeutic change. The purpose of this current research was to construct a model of protagonist change processes that could extend psychodrama theory, inform practitioners’ therapeutic decisions and contribute to understanding the common factors in therapeutic change. Four studies investigated protagonist processes linked to in-session resolution of painful emotional experiences. Significant therapeutic events were analysed using recordings and transcripts of psychodrama enactments, protagonist and director recall interviews and a range of process and outcome measures. A preliminary study (3 cases) identified four themes that were associated with helpful therapeutic events: enactment, the working alliance with the director and with group members, emotional release or relief and social atom repair. The second study (7 cases) used Comprehensive Process Analysis (CPA) to construct a model of protagonists’ processes linked to in-session resolution. This model was then validated across four more cases in Study 3. Five meta-processes were identified: (i) a readiness to engage in the psychodrama process; (ii) re-experiencing and insight; (iii) activating resourcefulness; (iv) social atom repair with emotional release and (v) integration. Social atom repair with emotional release involved deeply experiencing a wished-for interpersonal experience accompanied by a free flowing release of previously restricted emotion and was most clearly linked to protagonists’ reports of reaching resolution and to post session improvements in interpersonal relationships and sense of self. Acceptance of self in the moment increased protagonists’ capacity to generate new responses within each meta-process and, in resolved cases, there was evidence of spontaneity developing over time. The fourth study tested Greenberg’s allowing and accepting painful emotional experience model as an alternative explanation of protagonist change. The findings of this study suggested that while the process of allowing emotional pain was present in resolved cases, Greenberg’s model was not sufficient to explain the processes that lead to in-session resolution. The protagonist’s readiness to engage and activation of resourcefulness appear to facilitate the transition from problem identification to emotional release. Furthermore, experiencing a reparative relationship was found to be central to the healing process. This research verifies that there can be in-session resolution of painful emotional experience during psychodrama and protagonists’ reports suggest that in-session resolution can heal the damage to the sense of self and the interpersonal disconnection that are associated with unresolved emotional pain. A model of protagonist change processes has been constructed that challenges the view of psychodrama as a primarily cathartic therapy, by locating the therapeutic experience of emotional release within the development of new role relationships. The five meta-processes which are described within the model suggest broad change principles which can assist practitioners to make sense of events as they unfold and guide their clinical decision making in the moment. Each meta-process was linked to specific post-session changes, so that the model can inform the development of therapeutic plans for individual clients and can aid communication for practitioners when a psychodrama intervention is used for a specific therapeutic purpose within a comprehensive program of therapy.

Internationalising the curriculum : attending to cultural diversity in teaching and learning across three faculties at QUT

This was a two-year project focusing on internationalising the curriculum within the context of the QUT Graduate Capabilities and teaching and learning issues within three Faculties. It was based on the assumption that there is an increased need for social and cultural responsiveness in curriculum that intersects local, national and global contexts and priorities. The Internationalising the Curriculum Project sought to challenge and support staff (academic and general) and students to engage with complex concepts of identity, values, awareness and sensitivity as they relate to internationalising the curriculum. The project took a case study approach to planning, implementation and evaluation in a way that complements and enhances platforms developed and emerging from the Indigenous Perspectives and cultural diversity projects already underway in Education, Creative Industries and QUT, Carseldine.

Effects of lead exposure on hippocampal metabotropic glutamate receptor subtype 3 and 7 in developmental rats

Background A complete explanation of the mechanisms by which Pb2+ exerts toxic effects on developmental central nervous system remains unknown. Glutamate is critical to the developing brain through various subtypes of ionotropic or metabotropic glutamate receptors (mGluRs). Ionotropic N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors have been considered as a principal target in lead-induced neurotoxicity. The relationship between mGluR3/mGluR7 and synaptic plasticity had been verified by many recent studies. The present study aimed to examine the role of mGluR3/mGluR7 in lead-induced neurotoxicity. Methods Twenty-four adult and female rats were randomly selected and placed on control or 0.2% lead acetate during gestation and lactation. Blood lead and hippocampal lead levels of pups were analyzed at weaning to evaluate the actual lead content at the end of the exposure. Impairments of short -term memory and long-term memory of pups were assessed by tests using Morris water maze and by detection of hippocampal ultrastructural alterations on electron microscopy. The impact of lead exposure on mGluR3 and mGluR7 mRNA expression in hippocampal tissue of pups were investigated by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction and its potential role in lead neurotoxicity were discussed. Results Lead levels of blood and hippocampi in the lead-exposed rats were significantly higher than those in the controls (P < 0.001). In tests using Morris Water Maze, the overall decrease in goal latency and swimming distance was taken to indicate that controls had shorter latencies and distance than lead-exposed rats (P = 0.001 and P < 0.001 by repeated-measures analysis of variance). On transmission electron microscopy neuronal ultrastructural alterations were observed and the results of real-time polymerase chain reaction showed that exposure to 0.2% lead acetate did not substantially change gene expression of mGluR3 and mGluR7 mRNA compared with controls. Conclusion Exposure to lead before and after birth can damage short-term and long-term memory ability of young rats and hippocampal ultrastructure. However, the current study does not provide evidence that the expression of rat hippocampal mGluR3 and mGluR7 can be altered by systemic administration of lead during gestation and lactation, which are informative for the field of lead-induced developmental neurotoxicity noting that it seems not to be worthwhile to include mGluR3 and mGluR7 in future studies. Background

A model for integrating clinical care and basic science research, and pitfalls of performing complex research projects for addressing a clinical challenge

The collaboration of clinicians with basic science researchers is crucial for addressing clinically relevant research questions. In order to initiate such mutually beneficial relationships, we propose a model where early career clinicians spend a designated time embedded in established basic science research groups, in order to pursue a postgraduate qualification. During this time, clinicians become integral members of the research team, fostering long term relationships and opening up opportunities for continuing collaboration. However, for these collaborations to be successful there are pitfalls to be avoided. Limited time and funding can lead to attempts to answer clinical challenges with highly complex research projects characterised by a large number of "clinical" factors being introduced in the hope that the research outcomes will be more clinically relevant. As a result, the complexity of such studies and variability of its outcomes may lead to difficulties in drawing scientifically justified and clinically useful conclusions. Consequently, we stress that it is the basic science researcher and the clinician's obligation to be mindful of the limitations and challenges of such multi-factorial research projects. A systematic step-by-step approach to address clinical research questions with limited, but highly targeted and well defined research projects provides the solid foundation which may lead to the development of a longer term research program for addressing more challenging clinical problems. Ultimately, we believe that it is such models, encouraging the vital collaboration between clinicians and researchers for the work on targeted, well defined research projects, which will result in answers to the important clinical challenges of today.

Influence of historical landscapes, drainage evolution and ecological traits on patterns of genetic diversity in Southeast Asian freshwater snakehead fishes

Snakehead fishes in the family Channidae are obligate freshwater fishes represented by two extant genera, the African Parachannna and the Asian Channa. These species prefer still or slow flowing water bodies, where they are top predators that exercise high levels of parental care, have the ability to breathe air, can tolerate poor water quality, and interestingly, can aestivate or traverse terrestrial habitat in response to seasonal changes in freshwater habitat availability. These attributes suggest that snakehead fishes may possess high dispersal potential, irrespective of the terrestrial barriers that would otherwise constrain the distribution of most freshwater fishes. A number of biogeographical hypotheses have been developed to account for the modern distributions of snakehead fishes across two continents, including ancient vicariance during Gondwanan break-up, or recent colonisation tracking the formation of suitable climatic conditions. Taxonomic uncertainty also surrounds some members of the Channa genus, as geographical distributions for some taxa across southern and Southeast (SE) Asia are very large, and in one case is highly disjunct. The current study adopted a molecular genetics approach to gain an understanding of the evolution of this group of fishes, and in particular how the phylogeography of two Asian species may have been influenced by contemporary versus historical levels of dispersal and vicariance. First, a molecular phylogeny was constructed based on multiple DNA loci and calibrated with fossil evidence to provide a dated chronology of divergence events among extant species, and also within species with widespread geographical distributions. The data provide strong evidence that trans-continental distribution of the Channidae arose as a result of dispersal out of Asia and into Africa in the mid–Eocene. Among Asian Channa, deep divergence among lineages indicates that the Oligocene-Miocene boundary was a time of significant species radiation, potentially associated with historical changes in climate and drainage geomorphology. Mid-Miocene divergence among lineages suggests that a taxonomic revision is warranted for two taxa. Deep intra-specific divergence (~8Mya) was also detected between C. striata lineages that occur sympatrically in the Mekong River Basin. The study then examined the phylogeography and population structure of two major taxa, Channa striata (the chevron snakehead) and the C. micropeltes (the giant snakehead), across SE Asia. Species specific microsatellite loci were developed and used in addition to a mitochondrial DNA marker (Cyt b) to screen neutral genetic variation within and among wild populations. C. striata individuals were sampled across SE Asia (n=988), with the major focus being the Mekong Basin, which is the largest drainage basin in the region. The distributions of two divergent lineages were identified and admixture analysis showed that where they co-occur they are interbreeding, indicating that after long periods of evolution in isolation, divergence has not resulted in reproductive isolation. One lineage is predominantly confined to upland areas of northern Lao PDR to the north of the Khorat Plateau, while the other, which is more closely related to individuals from southern India, has a widespread distribution across mainland SE Asian and Sumatra. The phylogeographical pattern recovered is associated with past river networks, and high diversity and divergence among all populations sampled reveal that contemporary dispersal is very low for this taxon, even where populations occur in contiguous freshwater habitats. C. micropeltes (n=280) were also sampled from across the Mekong River Basin, focusing on the lower basin where it constitutes an important wild fishery resource. In comparison with C. striata, allelic diversity and genetic divergence among populations were extremely low, suggesting very recent colonisation of the greater Mekong region. Populations were significantly structured into at least three discrete populations in the lower Mekong. Results of this study have implications for establishing effective conservation plans for managing both species, that represent economically important wild fishery resources for the region. For C. micropeltes, it is likely that a single fisheries stock in the Tonle Sap Great Lake is being exploited by multiple fisheries operations, and future management initiatives for this species in this region will need to account for this. For C. striata, conservation of natural levels of genetic variation will require management initiatives designed to promote population persistence at very localised spatial scales, as the high level of population structuring uncovered for this species indicates that significant unique diversity is present at this fine spatial scale.

Teaching new dogs old tricks. How the move to 24/7 interactive, integrated multimedia, multi-platform news and feature delivery is not really changing the skills employers demand of graduates

The journalism revolution is upon us. In a world where we are constantly being told that everyone can be a publisher and challenges are emerging from bloggers, Twitterers and podcasters, journalism educators are inevitably reassessing what skills we now need to teach to keep our graduates ahead of the game. QUT this year tackled that question head-on as a curriculum review and program restructure resulted in a greater emphasis on online journalism. The author spent a week in the online newsrooms of each of two of the major players – ABC online news and thecouriermail.com to watch, listen and interview some of the key players. This, in addition to interviews with industry leaders from Fairfax and news.com, lead to the conclusion that while there are some new skills involved in new media much of what the industry is demanding is in fact good old fashioned journalism. Themes of good spelling, grammar, accuracy and writing skills and a nose for news recurred when industry players were asked what it was that they would like to see in new graduates. While speed was cited as one of the big attributes needed in online journalism, the conclusion of many of the players was that the skills of a good down-table sub or a journalist working for wire service were not unlike those most used in online newsrooms.