Skip to main content
Log in

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

Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alrøe, H. F. (2000). “Science as systems learning. Some reflections on the cognitive and communicational aspects of science.” Cybernetics and Human Knowing 7(4): 57–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alrøe, H. F. and E. S. Kristensen (2001). “Towards a systemic ethic. In search of an ethical basis for sustainability and precaution.” Environmental Ethics (forthcoming).

  • Alrøe, H. F., M. Vaarst, and E. S. Kristensen (2001). “Does organic farming face distinctive livestock welfare issues? - a conceptual analysis.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14(3): 275–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alrøe, H. F., and E. S. Kristensen (2000). “Research, values and ethics in organic agriculture - examples from sustainability, precaution, nature quality, and animal welfare.” In P. Robinson (ed.), Two Systems - One World, EurSafe 2000 Congress on Agricultural and Food Ethics. Copenhagen: Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, P. B., C. Emmeche, N. O. Finnemann, and P. V. Christiansen, eds. (2000). Downward Causation. Minds, Bodies and Matter. Århus: Aarhus University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayala, F. J. (1974). “Introduction.” In F. J. Ayala and T. Dobzhansky (eds.), Studies in the Philosophy of Biology (pp. vii–xvi). London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballentine Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bawden, R. J. (1992). “Systems approaches to agricultural development: The Hawkesbury experience.” Agricultural Systems 40: 153–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohr, N. (1949). “Discussion with Einstein on epistemological problems in atomic physics.” In P. A. Schilpp (ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist (pp. 200–241). Evanton, Illinois: The Library of Living Philosophers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohr, N. (1985). “Kundskabens enhed.” In Naturbeskrivelse og menneskelig erkendelse. Udvalgte artikler og foredrag fra årene 1927-1962 (pp. 19-39). Rhodos, Copenhagen [Danish version originally 1957. English version in The Unity of Knowledge, New York: Doubleday & Co., 1955].

  • Bossel, H. (1999). Indicators for Sustainable Development: Theory, Method, Applications. A Report to the Balaton Group, International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brier, S. (1998). “The cybersemiotic explanation of the emergence of cognition. The explanation of cognition, signification, and communication in a non-Cartesian cognitive biology.” Evolution and Cognition 4(1): 90–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callicott, J. B., L. B. Crowder, and K. Mumford (1999). “Current normative concepts in conservation.” Conservation Biology13(1): 22–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland, P. B. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester, UK/New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1948). Reconstruction in Philosophy, 2nd ed. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1991). Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, Illinois [original edition 1938].

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglass, G. K. (1984). “The meanings of agricultural sustainability,” in G. K. Douglass (ed.), Agricultural Sustainability in a Changing World Order (pp. 3–29). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmeche, C., S. Køppe, and F. Stjernfelt (1997). “Explaining emergence: Towards an ontology of levels.” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 28: 83–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmeche, C., S. Køppe, and F. Stjernfelt (2000). “Levels, emergence, and three versions of downward causation,” in Downward Causation. Minds, Bodies and Matter (pp. 13–34). Århus: Aarhus University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foerster, H.v. (1984). Observing Systems, 2nd ed. Seaside, California: Intersystems Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, D. (1999). “Animal ethics and animal welfare science: bridging the two cultures.” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 171–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, E. and H. Skolimowski (1974). “The search for objectivity in Peirce and Popper.” In P. A. Schilpp (ed.), The Philosophy of Karl R. Popper (pp. 464–519). La Salle, Illinois: The Open Court Publ. Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn, T. F. (1983). “Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists.” American Sociological Review 48: 781–795.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gremmen, B. and H. v. d. Belt (2000). “The precautionary principle and pesticides.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12: 197–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and Human Interests. London: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, I. (1999). The Social Construction of What? Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, B., H. F. Alrøe, and E. S. Kristensen (2001). “Assessing the environmental impact of organic farming, with particular regard to Denmark.” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 83: 11–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Headland, T. N., K. L. Pike, and M. Harris (eds.) (1990). Emics and Etics: The Insider/Outsider Debate. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeyer, J. (1997). “Biosemiotics: Towards a New Synthesis in Biology.” European Journal for Semiotic Studies 9(2): 355–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonas, H. (1984). The Imperative of Responsibility. In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E. E. and R. E. Nisbett (1972). “The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior.” In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins and B. Weiner (eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior (pp. 79–94). Morristown, New Jersey: General Learning Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Køppe, S. (1990). Virkelighedens niveauer. De nye videnskaber og deres historie [Levels of reality. The new sciences and their history]. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic Cultures. How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krell, R. (ed.) (1997). Biological Farming Research in Europe. REU Technical Series no. 54, FAO.

  • Kristensen, E. S. and N. Halberg (1997). “A systems approach for assessing sustainability in livestock farms.” In J. T. Sørensen (ed.), Livestock Farming Systems. More than Food Production. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Livestock Farming Systems. EAAP Publication No. 89 (pp. 16–30). Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1983). “Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world.” In K. Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay (eds.), Science Observed (pp. 141–170). London: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B., and S. Woolgar (1979). Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockeretz, W. (2000). “Organic farming research, today and tomorrow.” In T. Alföldi, W. Lockeretz, and U. Niggli (eds.), IFOAM 2000 - The World Grows Organic, Proceedings of the 13th International IFOAM Scientific Conference (pp. 718–720). Zurich: Hochschulverlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockeretz, W. and M. D. Anderson (1993). Agricultural Research Alternatives. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as Social Knowledge. Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1989). Ecological Communication. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1995). Social Systems. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maturana, H. R. and F. J. Varela (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maturana, H. R. and F. J. Varela (1987). Kundskabens træ. Den menneskelige erkendelses biologiske rødder. Århus: ASK [English version, 1992, The Tree of Knowledge - the Biological Roots of Human Understanding. Boston: Shambala].

    Google Scholar 

  • Middendorf, G. and L. Busch (1997). “Inquiry for the public good: Democratic participation in agricultural research.” Agriculture and Human Values14: 45–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Riordan, T. and J. Cameron (eds.) (1994). Interpreting the Precautionary Principle. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (1999). Environmental Indicators for Agriculture. Volume 1: Concepts and Framework. OECD.

  • Olesen, J. E. (1999). “Perspectives for research on cropping systems.” In J. E. Olesen, R. Eltun, M. J. Gooding, E. S. Jensen, and U. Köpke (eds.), Designing and Testing Crop Rotations for Organic Farming. Proceedings from an International Workshop (pp. 11–21). DARCOF Report no. 1. Foulum: Danish Research Center for Organic Farming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patzel, N., H. Sticher, and D. L. Karlen. (2000). “Soil fertility - phenomenon and concept.” Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 163: 129–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. (1868). “Some consequences of four incapacities.” Journal of Speculative Philosophy2: 140–157. Reprinted in N. Houser and C. Kloesel (eds.), The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings, Volume 1 (1867-1893), 1992, pp. 28-55. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. (1871). “Fraser's The Works of George Berkeley.” North American Review 113: 449–472. Reprinted in N. Houser and C. Kloesel (eds.), The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings, Volume 1 (1867- 1893), 1992, pp. 83-105. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. (1877). “The fixation of belief.” Popular Science Monthly 12: 1–15. Reprinted in N. Houser and C. Kloesel (eds.), The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings, Volume 1 (1867-1893), 1992, pp. 109-123. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. (1903). “An outline classification of the sciences.” Collected Papers1: 180–202. Reprinted in Peirce Edition Project (ed.), The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings, Volume 2 (1893-1913), 1998, pp. 258-262. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, A. (1995). The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1957). The Poverty of Historicism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1998). Conjectures and Refutations. The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, 5th ed. London: Routledge [original edition 1963, Routledge & Kegan Paul].

    Google Scholar 

  • Rollin, B. E. (1996). “Ideology, 'value-free science', and animal welfare.” Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science Suppl. 27: 5–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouse, J. (1987). Knowledge and Power. Toward a Political Philosophy of Science. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, J. S. (1997). “From reductionism to holism in ecology and deep ecology.” The Ecologist 27: 147–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandøe, P., M. Hagelsø, and L. L. Jeppesen (1996). “Concluding remarks and perspectives.” Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science Suppl. 27: 109-115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandøe, P., L. Munksgaard, N. P. Bådsgård, and K. H. Jensen. (1997). “How to manage the management factor - assessing animal welfare at the farm level.” In J. T. Sørensen (ed.), Livestock Farming Systems. More than Food Production. Procceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Livestock Farming Systems. EAAP Publication No. 89 (pp. 221–230). Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, P. C., T. Dietz, and G. A. Guagnano (1995). “The new ecological paradigm in social-psychological context.” Environment and Behaviour27(6): 723–743.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, D. (1997). Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tannenbaum, J. (1991). “Ethics and animal welfare: The inextricable connection.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 198(8): 1360–1376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P. B. (1995). The Spirit of the Soil. Agriculture and Environmental Ethics. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P. B. (1996). “Sustainability as a norm.” Society for Philosophy & Technology 2(2): 75–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P. B. (1997). “The varieties of sustainability in livestock farming.” In J. T. Sørensen (ed.), Livestock Farming Systems. More than Food Production. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Livestock Farming Systems. EAAP Publication No. 89 (pp. 5–15). Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uexküll, J. v. (1982). “The theory of meaning.” Semiotica 42(1): 25–82 (special issue).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, W. (1990). “What is called 'Critical systems thinking'.” In B. H. Banathy and B. A. Banathy (eds.), Toward a Just Society for Future Generations. Proceedings 34th ISSS Annual Meeting, Volume 1 (pp. 4–14). Pomona, California: ISSS, California State Polytechnic University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, W. (1994). Critical Heuristics of Social Planning. A New Approach to Practical Philosophy. Chichester: Wiley [original edition Paul Haupt, 1983].

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, R. (2000). The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Windelband, W. (1998). “History and natural science.” Theory & Psychology Journal 8: 5–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, L., D. Flemming, and H. Vogtman (1996). “Reflections on the past, outlook for the future.” In T. V. Østergaard (ed.), Fundamentals of Organic Agriculture, Proceedings of the 11th IFOAM International Scientific Conference, August 11-15, 1996, Volume 1 (pp. 259–270). Copenhagen: IFOAM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zanoli, R. and R. Krell (eds.) (1999). Research Methodologies in Organic Farming. REU Technical Series no. 58. Rome: FAO.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Alrøe, H.F., Kristensen, E.S. Towards a systemic research methodology in agriculture: Rethinking the role of values in science. Agriculture and Human Values 19, 3–23 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015040009300

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015040009300

Navigation