Watertrust Australia
Unlocking the Murray-Darling Basin water debate through layered research
Australian water policy discussions — particularly around the Murray-Darling Basin — have been stuck for years. We partnered with Watertrust Australia and researchers from the University of Canberra to map where people actually agree and disagree, using a research method that cuts through the noise of entrenched positions. The result was rich qualitative and quantitative data that gives policymakers a real path forward.
Outcomes
- Conducted 60+ research sessions with experts and people with a stake in Murray-Darling Basin water policy
- Supported Indigenous researchers in engaging with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives
- Developed detailed insights into public views on water policy priorities and objectives
- Delivered rich qualitative data in a structured repository designed for ongoing analysis and sense-making
A policy conversation in gridlock
The Murray-Darling Basin's water is over-allocated, and the stakeholders who depend on it — farmers, Indigenous communities, environmentalists, governments — often struggle to find common ground. The reasons run deep: political agendas, cultural differences, competing economic interests, and clashing social values. Without understanding what's actually driving the disagreement, meaningful negotiation is nearly impossible.
Watertrust Australia, a non-profit research and policy organisation, came to us to test a novel approach. Together with researchers from the University of Canberra, we designed and conducted a Q-methodology study — a research method that maps different viewpoints and reveals unexpected alignments among the voices shaping the water debate. We also provided training to Indigenous researchers, ensuring that Indigenous perspectives were captured in culturally appropriate ways.
Surfacing what people really think — and why
We conducted over 60 Q-methodology research sessions, recruiting and engaging participants from across the water policy landscape. Each session went well beyond surface-level opinions. We facilitated nuanced discussions that uncovered the complex reasoning behind individual perspectives — themes like climate change impacts, land and water ownership, Aboriginal water rights, and irrigation access.
Through a structured grid exercise, participants sorted 41 statements while unpacking their reasoning and context. These conversations revealed the very language and concepts underpinning today's water policy debates. By exploring how people interpret individual words and terms, we unlocked subtle but significant insights into what's actually shaping — and stalling — the policy discussion.
Building a foundation for ongoing analysis
We designed each research session to guide participants through the Q-methodology process in an accessible way — providing enough structure to ensure rigour while creating space for people to openly express their thoughts and feelings.
Working with Watertrust, we also built a structured research evidence and data repository. This purpose-built system brings together collective interview data and individual records, making it easy for the Watertrust team to conduct quick analysis or deep dives. The qualitative data we captured and collated is formatted to support further sense-making and inform future policy work.
