IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agrhuv/v19y2002i1p3-23.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards a systemic research methodology in agriculture: Rethinking the role of values in science

Author

Listed:
  • Hugo Alrøe
  • Erik Kristensen

Abstract

The recent drastic developmentof agriculture, together with the growingsocietal interest in agricultural practices andtheir consequences, pose a challenge toagricultural science. There is a need forrethinking the general methodology ofagricultural research. This paper takes somesteps towards developing a systemic researchmethodology that can meet this challenge – ageneral self-reflexive methodology that forms abasis for doing holistic or (with a betterterm) wholeness-oriented research and providesappropriate criteria of scientific quality.From a philosophy of research perspective,science is seen as an interactive learningprocess with both a cognitive and a socialcommunicative aspect. This means, first of all,that science plays a role in the world that itstudies. A science that influences its ownsubject area, such as agricultural science, isnamed a systemic science. From thisperspective, there is a need to reconsider therole of values in science. Science is notobjective in the sense of being value-free.Values play, and ought to play, an importantrole in science – not only in form ofconstitutive values such as the norms of goodscience, but also in the form of contextualvalues that enter into the very process ofscience. This goes against the traditionalcriterion of objectivity. Therefore, reflexive objectivity is suggested as a newcriterion for doing good science, along withthe criterion of relevance. Reflexiveobjectivity implies that the communication ofscience must include the cognitivecontext, which comprises the societal,intentional, and observational context. Inaccordance with this, the learning process ofsystemic research is shown as a self-reflexivecycle that incorporates both an involved actorstance and a detached observer stance. Theobserver stance forms the basis for scientificcommunication.To this point, a unitary view of science asa learning process is employed. A secondimportant perspective for a systemic researchmethodology is the relation between the actual,different, and often quite separate kinds ofscience. Cross-disciplinary research ishampered by the idea that reductive science ismore objective, and hence more scientific, thanthe less reductive sciences of complex subjectareas – and by the opposite idea thatreductive science is necessarilyreductionistic. Taking reflexive objectivity asa demarcator of good science, an inclusiveframework of science can be established. Theframework does not take the establisheddivision between natural, social, and humanscience as a primary distinction of science.The major distinction is made between theempirical and normative aspects of science,corresponding to two key cognitive interests.Two general methodological dimensions, thedegree of reduction of the research world andthe degree of involvement in the researchworld, are shown to span this framework. Theframework can form a basis fortransdisciplinary work by way of showing therelation between more and less reductive kindsof science and between more detached and moreinvolved kinds of science and exposing theabilities and limitations attendant on thesemethodological differences. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Suggested Citation

  • Hugo Alrøe & Erik Kristensen, 2002. "Towards a systemic research methodology in agriculture: Rethinking the role of values in science," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 19(1), pages 3-23, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:19:y:2002:i:1:p:3-23
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1015040009300
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1015040009300
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1015040009300?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gerad Middendorf & Lawrence Busch, 1997. "Inquiry for the public good: Democratic participation in agricultural research," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 14(1), pages 45-57, March.
    2. Paul Thompson, 1992. "The varieties of sustainability," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 9(3), pages 11-19, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wassenaar, T. & Doelsch, E. & Feder, F. & Guerrin, F. & Paillat, J.-M. & Thuriès, L. & Saint Macary, H., 2014. "Returning Organic Residues to Agricultural Land (RORAL) – Fuelling the Follow-the-Technology approach," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 60-69.
    2. Lairez, Juliette & Lopez-Ridaura, Santiago & Jourdain, Damien & Falconnier, Gatien N. & Lienhard, Pascal & Striffler, Bruno & Syfongxay, Chanthaly & Affholder, François, 2020. "Context matters: Agronomic field monitoring and participatory research to identify criteria of farming system sustainability in South-East Asia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Douglas H. Constance, 2023. "The doctors of agrifood studies," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(1), pages 31-43, March.
    2. William Lacy, 2023. "Local food systems, citizen and public science, empowered communities, and democracy: hopes deserving to live," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(1), pages 1-17, March.
    3. Julia Brown, 2014. "Evaluating Participatory Initiatives in South Africa," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(2), pages 21582440145, April.
    4. Klerkx, Laurens & Leeuwis, Cees, 2008. "Institutionalizing end-user demand steering in agricultural R&D: Farmer levy funding of R&D in The Netherlands," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 460-472, April.
    5. Nadejda Komendantova & Marco Vocciante & Antonella Battaglini, 2015. "Can the BestGrid Process Improve Stakeholder Involvement in Electricity Transmission Projects?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-27, August.
    6. Joanna Ganning & Courtney Flint & Stephen Gasteyer, 2012. "A case study from the post-new deal state agricultural experiment station system: a life of mixed signals in southern Illinois," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 29(4), pages 493-506, December.
    7. Klaas Calker & Paul Berentsen & Gerard Giesen & Ruud Huirne, 2005. "Identifying and ranking attributes that determine sustainability in Dutch dairy farming," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 22(1), pages 53-63, March.
    8. Ana Trigo & Ana Marta-Costa & Rui Fragoso, 2021. "Principles of Sustainable Agriculture: Defining Standardized Reference Points," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-20, April.
    9. Rizwan Shabbir, 2014. "Institutional Development and Sustainable Growth for Livestock Sector in Pakistan," International Journal of Economics and Empirical Research (IJEER), The Economics and Social Development Organization (TESDO), vol. 2(10), pages 394-404, October.
    10. Laurent Umans, 1993. "A discourse on Forestry science," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 10(4), pages 26-40, September.
    11. Patricia Ann McKay & Christine A. Vogt & Laura Schmitt Olabisi, 2017. "Development and testing a diagnostic capacity tool for improving socio-ecological system governance," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 156-183, June.
    12. Hansen, J. W., 1996. "Is agricultural sustainability a useful concept?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 117-143.
    13. Ian J. Mauro & Stéphane M. McLachlan, 2008. "Farmer Knowledge and Risk Analysis: Postrelease Evaluation of Herbicide‐Tolerant Canola in Western Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 463-476, April.
    14. Aurélie Cardona & Cristiana Carusi & Michael Mayerfeld Bell, 2021. "Engaged Intermediaries to Bridge the Gap between Scientists, Educational Practitioners and Farmers to Develop Sustainable Agri-Food Innovation Systems: A US Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-13, October.
    15. Tahseen, Samiha & Karney, Bryan W., 2017. "Reviewing and critiquing published approaches to the sustainability assessment of hydropower," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 225-234.
    16. de Olde, Evelien M. & Bokkers, Eddie A.M. & de Boer, Imke J.M., 2017. "The Choice of the Sustainability Assessment Tool Matters: Differences in Thematic Scope and Assessment Results," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 77-85.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:19:y:2002:i:1:p:3-23. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.