Implicit Sociology, Interdisciplinarity and Systems Theories in Agricultural Science

Abstract

Recurring political and economic crises in agriculture lie behind policymakers' demands for more interdisciplinary, problem-solving approaches. This article examines different systems theories in agricultural sciences that claim to adopt interdisciplinarity and to bridge a supposed gap between the natural and social sciences. It analyses the debates and differences between so-called 'hard systems' and 'soft systems' approaches, or positivist and interpretative approaches. It aims to make the confrontation between these two approaches more legible as well as to reveal the shortcomings of each position. In particular, the implicit and unsophisticated sociology underlying the hard systems approach is a key issue. Critical realist theory is explored as an alternative to both the hard and the soft systems approach towards interdisciplinarity since it opens up space for thinking in a non-reductionist way about multiple determinations without rejecting the value of single disciplines for uncovering the working of important causalities.

Defining Terms for Integrated (Multi-Inter-Trans-Disciplinary) Sustainability Research

“…Wainwright [39] makes a similar observation related to geography's involvement in climate change research-there is a space where climate scientists advocate social changes without engagement with social science. This mirrors Jansen's [40] description of an implicit sociology-implicit meaning undeclared assumptions about how things are or even should be-related to climate change. This implicit sociology assumes the biophysical world to be facts and immutable to which people simply respond and make decisions accordingly.…”

“…Clair Hinrich [34] and Jansen [40] focus on the process of working within critical agri-food circles. Other work looks specifically at food quality and biodiversity [33].…”

Of Models and Meanings: Cultural Resilience in Social–Ecological Systems

“…Given the prevalence of modeling in the analysis of ecological systems, some suggest that cultural values and practices can be integrated into systems models, inasmuch as they direct behavior in predictable ways. However, this approach belies the dynamism of human behavior and culture, reducing it to a mechanistic and linear function (Jansen 2009). What is lost in this is farmers' proactive, creative, and diverse responses to environmental stresses (or economic or political stresses for that matter), a phenomenon that is well documented in the local knowledge literature (Richards 1986, de Boef et al 1993, Rhoades and Bebbington 1995.…”

“…There is also ample literature that acknowledges the validity of normative cultural valuation of landscapes, natural resources, and livelihood practices (Watson et al 2003, Xu et al 2005, Bottom et al 2009), as well as the "social limitations of adaptations" (Adger et al 2009). However, there is little that explores the relationships between empirical biophysical models and normative cultural models in ways that are robust, synergistic, and practical, although some movement is being made in that direction (Berkes and Jolly 2002, Stepp et al 2003, Jansen 2009, Meinke et al 2009). …”

Inter- and Transdisciplinarity in Bioeconomy

“…in research is critical to understand 'real-world' situations, to include the goals of various actors and to appreciate their perception of constraints and opportunities. The participatory approach also allows integrating local and farmers' knowledge with scientific knowledge, thus fuelling reciprocal learning processes (Darnhofer et al 2012;Janssen 2009). …”