Investigators' Blog

Congratulations to Te Pūnaha Matatini’s Acting Deputy Director Dr Siouxsie Wiles who was named a Blake Leader 2016 from the Sir Peter Blake Trust on July 1.

Siouxsie leads the Bioluminescent Superbugs Lab at the University of Auckland. She has spearheaded many efforts to combat barriers for women in science, including running a successful crowd-funding campaign with Executive Manager Kate Hannah earlier in the year to send copies of Dr Nicola Gaston’s book Why Science is Sexist to senior decision-makers in science. Siouxsie has also been praised for her willingness  to speak out on scientific issues of public importance.

Read more about Siouxsie’s leadership skills at the Sir Peter Blake Trust website or watch the Sir Peter Blake Trust video below.

New Zealand’s leading thinkers and doers are out to reframe innovation in a series of online data-driven discussions from August 1-5.

Technical expert Keoni Mahelona and Antarctic researcher Dr Victoria Metcalfe are just some of the leading figures coming together to start an online conversation about the state and role of innovation in New Zealand.

The online campaign is the result of a partnership between Te Pūnaha Matatini, a New Zealand Centre of Research Excellence, and Figure.NZ, a charity devoted to getting people to use data about New Zealand.

“The Reframing Innovation conversations are an opportunity to see New Zealand innovation in a completely new way,” said Lillian Grace, CEO and Founder of Figure.NZ.

“We’ve asked some of New Zealand’s best and brightest to write about innovation from their perspective, but underpinned by publicly available data that helps build an accurate and useful picture of New Zealand’s situation and performance.”

The team are hoping to show New Zealanders that innovation is for and by everyone.

“Aotearoa New Zealand has a history of inventiveness – from Polynesian navigation techniques to the introduction of refrigerated shipping, and social and political innovations such as universal suffrage,” said Professor Shaun Hendy, Director of Te Pūnaha Matatini.

“But what does innovation mean today for our society, culture, and economy?”

Join the online, data-driven conversations from August 1-5. Visit tepunahamatatini.ac.nz for more information or follow #innovationNZ on Twitter.

Meet Professor Tava Olsen from the University of Auckland. Tava is a Director at the New Zealand Centre for Supply Chain Management and was recently appointed Deputy Director – Industry and Stakeholder Engagement here at Te Pūnaha Matatini. Tava brings with her a wealth of experience in supply chain management and operations research. We recently caught up with Tava to find out more about her work and what she hopes to achieve in her new Te Pūnaha Matatini role.

Tell us about your research, including projects aligned with Te Pūnaha Matatini

My research is generally in the area of mathematical modelling applied to operations and supply chain management. For example, I am interested in how contracts can be set up in the red meat industry that create win-wins for both farmers and processors in what is a very fragmented industry. I use tools such as game theory to approach this problem. Most of the problems I look at involve randomness in some form and I am very interested in modelling risk and uncertainty.

What attracted you to the role of Deputy Director – Industry and Stakeholder Engagement?

There are large synergies between this role and another of my currently roles, director of the Centre for Supply Chain Management (CSCM). In both roles I seek to build links between industry and the university, although CSCM is focussed around supply chain and Te Pūnaha Matatini is broader. I very much believe in the importance of industry engagement with academia and vice versa. We have a lot to learn from each other. Also, I would like to see the University become the first place industry looks to get their difficult problems solved. This is often the case in Northern Europe but in New Zealand industry often doesn’t think of coming to us.

What role do you think Te Pūnaha Matatini can play when working with industry?

Te Pūnaha Matatini should be able to facilitate networks and connections. I would love to see us getting teams of cross-disciplinary students working with industry and supervised by Te Pūnaha Matatini staff to solve challenging problems. I think this could add significant value to both industry and to our staff and students. I saw something like this working very well at the University of Michigan when I was there and I would very much like to get a programme similar to theirs started here.

We’re starting a conversation. An online, data-driven conversation that seeks to demonstrate the diversity of innovation in Aotearoa New Zealand.

From August 1 – 5 we’re working with Figure.NZ to bring together the country’s thinkers and doers for a series of online data-driven discussions that explore the state and role of innovation across the country.

Aotearoa New Zealand has a history of inventiveness – from Polynesian navigation techniques to the introduction of refrigerated shipping, and social and political innovations such as universal suffrage. But what does innovation mean today for our society, culture, and economy?

We want to show Aotearoa New Zealand that innovation is for and by everyone.

Join the conversation
Join the conversation by following the blog posts of the country’s leading thinkers and doers or follow #innovationNZ on Twitter.

Want to start your own conversation?
Search for figures, data charts and maps compiled by Figure.NZ using the search box or Figure.NZ business guided search. Sign-up for a FigureNZ account to save content of interest to your very own data board and tell us about it on social media:

Twitter:
#innovationNZ
@FigureNZ & @PunahaMatatini

Facebook:
@FigureNZ & @tepunahamatatini

Bloggers:

By Caleb Gemmell and Catherine Webb

The Equity Office – Te Ara Tautika – at the University of Auckland has published an equity profile of the university for 2014. The purpose of these yearly publications is admirable – to transparently report how the university is progressing towards its goals of ethnic, gender and disability equity. Upon reading it, however, we were puzzled by the presentation of some of the data. So, in the helpful spirit of our previous Not Such a Silly Idea blog series, we started doing a little deconstruction.

Page 47 is about women in the ‘academic pipeline for advancement to senior positions. It shows the presence of women in the university from junior positions (undergraduate students) through to senior positions (professors).

There are several issues with this graph. First of all, can you tell what the Y axis is trying to measure? The numbers are too small to be a sheer headcount. A percentage, then. Eventually, we worked out that this is the percentage made up by women of the total FTE (full-time equivalent). Please label your axes.

Secondly, this graph looks deceptively like a time-series. It gives the impression that we are following a cohort of women over time through their academic careers (which would actually be very useful, by the way). However, the data is simply a snapshot in time across many categories. Truly, there is no reason for this data to be presented in a line graph; this is an ordinal scale, and the categories are discreet. It would be better represented by something like a bar chart.

The report’s use of the term ‘academic pipeline’ to describe the chart suggests that the report’s authors are attempting to show the retention of women as they progress through university careers, to gain an idea of where and with what magnitude women drop out of academia. Unfortunately, the overall impression we get from this graph – that women’s university careers tend to wane above Assistant Lecturer[1] until an uptick in the Senior Leadership Team – is not a valid conclusion to draw from a snapshot of data that compares the results of non-contemporary cohorts.

Another reason the pipeline analogy is inappropriate here is that it implies it is normal to progress from student to staff, and from teaching staff to management. This is not the norm. It is fairly unusual to enter the workforce as a teaching academic with little prior experience. The inclusion of the Senior Leadership Team on the end of this progression is especially strange, since many of those positions are not academic at all – for instance, directors of HR, library, or finance – and certainly don’t require you to be a professor first!

So, we tried to present the Equity Office’s information in a more useful way.

This pulls out the clearest information the data has to offer, showing how the gender composition of each academic position has changed since 2000. Whereas the line graph appeared to prompt lateral comparison, this graph highlights the change over time within each category. It cannot be called a pipeline, but it is useful!

You can see that there is now a more granular breakdown, including HoDs and deans. We did this to be more informative and to smooth the sudden jolt between professors and senior leadership. Something we noticed, apart from the greatly improved gender ratio in almost every category in 2014, was the huge change in the ‘Heads of Departments and Schools’ category. We realised that the Faculty of Arts and the Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences (FMHS) were the only faculties which included both departments and schools, and that the schools were created additionally after 2000. That meant a greater number of heads in total, but not necessarily a greater proportion of women.

[1] The use of the category Assistant Lecturer, is its self curious, since no such employment position exists at the University of Auckland. The report’s authors say that the Assistant Lecturer category “…includes GTAs [graduate teaching assistants] tutors etc.” However, GTAs are typically postgraduate students, so would be represented twice in this data. The position of Tutor at UoA has not been in current use for several years, having been replaced by the position of Professional Teaching Fellow (PTF), which is presumably included in the etc. Missing from data are post-doctoral fellows, research fellows and senior research fellows. These positions often make up a sizable fract of many departments, the latter two positions being comparable in seniority to the positions of Lecturer and Senior Lecturer. The data is further confused by the fact that the mid-ranges of the pipeline might be better thought to consist of three parallel streams: PTFs (responisible for teaching only), Research Fellows (typically engaged in research, but not teaching), and Lecturers (engaged in both research and teaching).

Meet Stephen Marsland – a professor of scientific computing in the computer science cluster of the School of Engineering and Advanced Technology (SEAT) at Massey University. Stephen is also Te Pūnaha Matatini’s new Theme Leader: Complex Data Analytics. “Data is cool at the moment… but it would be nice to see people using it well and understanding what they can and can’t infer from analysis,” Stephen says. Find out more about Stephen’s research and what he hopes to achieve in his new role in the below Q&A.

Tell us about your research, including projects aligned with Te Pūnaha Matatini

My first area of research is the mathematics of shape analysis. This is primarily concerned with geodesics on the diffeomorphism group, which is a mathematical way of describing how flows of smooth, invertible transformations can deform one shape into another in the shortest possible way. I also study invariants to the actions of the groups that can deform images.

More related to Te Pūnaha Matatini is my work in machine learning, which has two parts at the moment: I’m thinking about manifold learning, where we try to find low-dimensional representations of high-dimensional data, and I’m also thinking about dealing with learning about multiple sources of data where all that you see is the combination of the sources. The first is a popular question, but I’m thinking about it very much from the point of view of differential geometry, and how that can help. I’ve got multiple projects going on there with collaborators in England and China.

The second project is with Marcus Frean, another Te Pūnaha Matatini principal investigator. So for example, you might see images of an object on different backgrounds, and you want to work out that the object and the background are different pieces of information.

I’ve got a very big project called AviaNZ going on that combines the shape analysis and machine learning, which is looking at birdsong recognition, in the hope that we can develop algorithms that will recognise birds from their calls and then infer the number of birds from how they are calling.

Finally, I’m interested in complex systems in their classic sense, both complex networks (which are networks with properties such as scale-freeness, or that are small worlds) and also systems where the interactions between agents cause the emergence of high-level properties. I’ve got a variety of projects with students looking at this, including in health, marriage systems, and soon, the evolution of barter (this last one will be funded by Te Pūnaha Matatini).

What attracted you to the role of Theme leader: Complex Data Analytics?

Data analytics underlies everything that we are trying to do in Te Punaha Matatini, but it isn’t really getting the recognition as a subject in its own right. I’m hoping that by exploring more of the links with the other themes I can make people more aware of how much data analytics there is going on, and what tools are available.

How can complex data analytics benefit New Zealand?

Data is cool at the moment (big data is mentioned everywhere) but it would be nice to see people using it well and understanding what they can and can’t infer from analysis. We collect data everywhere on everything, but lots of it doesn’t actually get used for much. For example, there are thousands of automatic recorders around New Zealand recording birdsong. But unless you have tools to analyse the data, you’ve just got a lot of memory used up storing sound that nobody will ever pay any attention to. Turning data into information isn’t easy, but it has to be done, and done well, to make the collection of the data worthwhile.

We recently caught up with Principal Investigator Dr Michael Plank, a senior lecturer in the School of Mathematics and Statistics at the University of Canterbury. Mike has taken on the role of Theme Leader: Complexity and the Biosphere while Alex James is on hiatus. As a research theme leader, Mike will be steering Te Pūnaha Matatini’s research projects that build a better understanding of New Zealand’s environment and the interactions between biodiversity, the economy, and human decision-making.

Tell us about your research, including projects aligned with Te Pūnaha Matatini

My research is in biological modelling and ranges from the very small (intracellular dynamics) to the very large (marine ecosystems). A common theme in my research is investigating how collective phenomena emerge from interactions among individuals, whether on the scale of single human cell, or the scale of an ocean. I am interested in the insights that relatively simple mathematical models can give into the ways these complex systems function – and why they sometimes go wrong.

One of my projects aligned with Te Pūnaha Matatini is modelling the emergent behaviour of fishers stemming from their decisions about which species or sizes of fish to target. Principles from ecology suggest that natural predators tend to spread their effort according to the productivity of their prey. So why shouldn’t humans behave like natural predators and spread their fishing efforts according to the productivity of the fish? If this really happens, it could change the way we design fishing regulations from top-down control to a bottom-up approach that recognises the effect of the fish stock on the behaviour of fishers as well as the other way round.

What attracted you to the  role of Theme Leader: Complexity and the Biosphere?

We have some really exciting projects going on in the Biosphere theme. I’m really looking forward to a new project that will look at the interplay of ecological dynamics, geospatial data, and social attitudes to map the effectiveness of large-scale predator control. Other projects include investigating the effects of social contact networks on epidemic spread, and harnessing the huge potential of citizen science to enhance conservation projects.

We have some amazing scientists and students involved with these projects and I’m excited to work with them and see how we can turn the scientific results into real impacts for New Zealand’s unique ecosystems.

How can research using complex systems, networks, and data assist New Zealand’s environment?

New Zealand is facing a range of pressing environmental issues, including loss of our endemic native flora and fauna, agricultural pest invasions, and management of our fisheries. We have a large amount of data relating to these, for example the Department of Conservation’s tier 1 monitoring programme, and catch data from our Quota Management System. At the same time, we’re investing substantial money and resources into these areas, but we’re not always making full use of the data that are available. Te Pūnaha Matatini’s research programme has the potential to really add value to our conservation dollar by helping us target our resources to areas where they will have the most impact.

Taking a complex systems and network approach also gives us opportunities to look at environmental issues at a larger spatial scale, rather than focusing on projects in isolation. As a simple example, a predator control programme in an area of Department of Conservation land might reduce or even eliminate the possum population in the short-term. But if there is adjacent, privately owned land without any control, the possums are likely to re-invade in the long-term. Viewing the whole country as an interconnected network gives us a better ability to predict long-term outcomes, and therefore a better chance of eliminating possums for good.

By Jonathan Goodman

Never do things by halves, jump in the deep end, give it a go, eat your vegetables, trust your supervisors. This is all good advice and I now realise I must have taken it, having presented at the first conference I have ever attended, then attending another conference three days later run by an organisation I had never heard of before. I have also joined the Te Pūnaha Matatini Whānau committee based solely on my supervisor’s advice. Before I go on, I must admit that all of these actions have proved to be worthwhile and rewarding.

The first conference was the Te Pūnaha Matatini cross-theme hui. This was the first Te Pūnaha Matatini gathering I have attended since joining the Centre of Research Excellence as a PhD student at the start of the year. The hui consisted of a series of short talks, including my first at a conference, interspersed with four rounds of the “Research Knockout” – a game designed by Alex James. The game started with the creation of teams of 3-5 researchers from Te Pūnaha Matatini’s three research themes. Each team then generated a potential research project. Each round of the knockout consisted of pairing up the groups and amalgamating their ideas into an enhanced version. This continued until there were just two groups remaining. In the grand finale, there was a final presentation followed by a vote. The winning research topic was ‘Measuring the impact of the communication of science’.

The question of science outreach also came up at the conference run by the New Zealand Association of Scientists (NZAS). The conference was held at Te Papa in Wellington and celebrated the 75^th anniversary of the Association. The conference had a selection of engaging speakers looking at the role of scientists in the past, the present, and into the future. A number of speakers talked about science communication.

One of the presenters, Simon Nathan, spoke about James Hector and how he effectively pushed the cause of New Zealand science, through his role of Chief Government Scientist, by constantly reminding politicians about the value of science. Rebecca Priestley talked about how science outreach was different back in the days of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR). Instead of scientists engaging in outreach programs, interested journalists and citizens would phone and be able to speak directly with the scientist who was in the best position to answer their queries. Te Pūnaha Matatini’s own Shaun Hendy presented on how social media is currently the only way scientists are able to directly communicate with the population without the risk of their message being obscured. His three guidelines for public engagement were very apt.

Researchers should:

1) Not be d!@#s

2) Get on social media

3) See rule number 1.

The other major theme of the conference was the structure of the pathways inside and outside academia for emerging researchers. I will touch on this in another blog post on the Te Pūnaha Matatini Whānau page.

Having had a rewarding weekend forming connections with talented scientists, and with the science community as a whole, I will sign off hoping that I have followed Shaun’s rules.

Jonathan Goodman

When: Thursday May 12, 5 pm-6:30pm
Where: Auditorium, Auckland Museum
Cost: free – bookings required. Please register attendee names at friends.events@aucklandmuseum.com or call 09 3026249 or 09 3067923.

What is the first duty of scientists in a crisis – to the government that funds them, to the employer who pays them, or to the wider public, desperate for information? And what if these obligations clash?

On May 12 Te Pūnaha Matatini, a Centre of Research Excellence, is bringing together researchers and journalists to explore the role of scientists in times of public need.

Professor Shaun Hendy, Director of Te Pūnaha Matatini, finds that in New Zealand, the public obligation of the scientist is often far from clear and that there have been many disturbing instances of scientists being silenced.

Shaun leads the conversation that was prompted by research for his new book, Silencing Science. On the panel, Shaun is joined by Drs Siouxsie Wiles and Matheson Russell from the University of Auckland, and Radio New Zealand science broadcaster Veronika Meduna. Moderating the panel discussion is freelance journalist and writer Damian Christie.

Shaun’s book Silencing Science, published by Bridget Williams Books and out May 12, will be available to purchase at the end of the discussion.

Bookings essential.
To ensure a seat please register at friends.events@aucklandmuseum.com or call 09 3026249 or 09 3067923.