agricultura y sistemas de pensamiento

7/25/2019 agricultura y sistemas de pensamiento

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/agricultura-y-sistemas-de-pensamiento 1/12

KEYNOTE ADDRESS

Systems Thinking n Practice in Agriculture

RICH RD

J

WDEN

Hawkesbury Agricultural College

University

of

Western Sydney Hawkesbury

Richmond

753

New South Wales Australia

STR CT

Reductionist science with its posi

tivistic philosophical roots and experi

mental research practices has generally

served agriculture well for around 150

yr. Technological innovations based on

the propositions generated through this

paradigm have played a profound role in

the extraordinary productivity growth

that has occurred in agriculture across

the globe.

Yet with recognition of its success in

this context is the realization of its inade

quacies from broader perspectives. There

is

an

increasing sense of unease about

degradation of biophysical environments,

distortions of socio-economic environ

ments, and dislocations of cultural envi

ronments too often associated with agri

cultural practices. There are calls for a

new science and praxis of complexity to

deal with these problematic relationships

between agriculture and the environ

ments in which it is conducted. Systems

thinking and practices are emerging as

useful in this regard. Two schools are

apparent within this broad movement.

The first ( hard ) approach comes from a

pedigree that includes systems analysis,

systems engineering, cybernetics, and ec

osystem biology. Assuming a world of

transforming systems, the hard sys

tems scientists in agriculture seek to de

sign new agro-ecosystems that are

at

once productive, stable, equitable, and

sustainable. the soft approach, with

its foundation in cognitive science, the

systemicity is transferred from the world

to the way of investigating the world.

Received August 16, 1990.

Accepted February 4, 1991.

1Keynote address, 85th Annual Meeting, American

Dairy Science Association, Raleigh, NC, June 1990.

This new paradigm presents considerable

challenge to conventional methods and

methodologies in research, education,

and extension in contemporary agricul

ture.

(Key words: systems, thinking, agricul

ture)

Abbreviation key: SR Farming Systems

Research.

PREF CE

Given the superior power and scope

of

the

new

idea,

we

might expect

it

to prevail rather quickly,

but that almost never happens. The problem is that

you can t embrace the

new

paradigm unless you

let

go

of the

old.

Marilyn Ferguson

The quarian Conspiracy

The basic proposition of this paper is that it

is time to let go of the old paradigm of agricul

tural science and embrace the new. This is a

profoundly difficult task. I have not only to

make the case for a change

in

the first place

but also to capture and relay the essence

of

the

new. This must be done in the face of a

clear recognition of the long history of success

of the prevailing paradigm; 2 the comfortable

certainty

of

the familiar; and 3) some signifi

cant confusion about the essence and details of

the systems approaches to agriculture. Under

such circumstances, I am quite aware that I

risk the fierce controversies, international

name-calling, and the dissolution of old friend

ships that Thomas Kuhn (40) posits are com

mon outcomes of debates about paradigm

shifts

What I propose, however, comes at a time

in American history singularly less controver

sial and turbulent than at the birth of the old

agricultural science in this country 140

yr

or so

ago. It is almost inconceivable now that the

reductionism and gradualism of the sciences of

von Liebig, Mendel, Darwin, and Pasteur and

of

the incrementalism and rationalism of the

neo-economists, Menger and Walras and Je-

1991 J Dairy Sci 74:2362-2373

2362

KEYNOTE ADDRESS

Systems Thinking n Practice in Agriculture

RICH RD

J

WDEN

Hawkesbury Agricultural College

University

of

Western Sydney Hawkesbury

Richmond

753

New South Wales Australia

STR CT

Reductionist science with its posi

tivistic philosophical roots and experi

mental research practices has generally

served agriculture well for around 150

yr. Technological innovations based on

the propositions generated through this

paradigm have played a profound role in

the extraordinary productivity growth

that has occurred in agriculture across

the globe.

Yet with recognition of its success in

this context is the realization of its inade

quacies from broader perspectives. There

is

an

increasing sense of unease about

degradation of biophysical environments,

distortions of socio-economic environ

ments, and dislocations of cultural envi

ronments too often associated with agri

cultural practices. There are calls for a

new science and praxis of complexity to

deal with these problematic relationships

between agriculture and the environ

ments in which it is conducted. Systems

thinking and practices are emerging as

useful in this regard. Two schools are

apparent within this broad movement.

The first ( hard ) approach comes from a

pedigree that includes systems analysis,

systems engineering, cybernetics, and ec

osystem biology. Assuming a world of

transforming systems, the hard sys

tems scientists in agriculture seek to de

sign new agro-ecosystems that are

at

once productive, stable, equitable, and

sustainable. the soft approach, with

its foundation in cognitive science, the

systemicity is transferred from the world

to the way of investigating the world.

Received August 16, 1990.

Accepted February 4, 1991.

1Keynote address, 85th Annual Meeting, American

Dairy Science Association, Raleigh, NC, June 1990.

This new paradigm presents considerable

challenge to conventional methods and

methodologies in research, education,

and extension in contemporary agricul

ture.

(Key words: systems, thinking, agricul

ture)

Abbreviation key: SR Farming Systems

Research.

PREF CE

Given the superior power and scope

of

the

new

idea,

we

might expect

it

to prevail rather quickly,

but that almost never happens. The problem is that

you can t embrace the

new

paradigm unless you

let

go

of the

old.

Marilyn Ferguson

The quarian Conspiracy

The basic proposition of this paper is that it

is time to let go of the old paradigm of agricul

tural science and embrace the new. This is a

profoundly difficult task. I have not only to

make the case for a change

in

the first place

but also to capture and relay the essence

of

the

new. This must be done in the face of a

clear recognition of the long history of success

of the prevailing paradigm; 2 the comfortable

certainty

of

the familiar; and 3) some signifi

cant confusion about the essence and details of

the systems approaches to agriculture. Under

such circumstances, I am quite aware that I

risk the fierce controversies, international

name-calling, and the dissolution of old friend

ships that Thomas Kuhn (40) posits are com

mon outcomes of debates about paradigm

shifts

What I propose, however, comes at a time

in American history singularly less controver

sial and turbulent than at the birth of the old

agricultural science in this country 140

yr

or so

ago. It is almost inconceivable now that the

reductionism and gradualism of the sciences of

von Liebig, Mendel, Darwin, and Pasteur and

of

the incrementalism and rationalism of the

neo-economists, Menger and Walras and Je-

1991 J Dairy Sci 74:2362-2373

2362



SYSTEMS THINKING AND PRACTICE 2363

rons, could have been adopted in such chaotic

times as the Civil War. Yet maybe this is

exactly why they were. Maybe it was when all

looked bleak and incredibly uncertain, and

complex, that humankind turned

to

science and

technology to simplify complexity and thereby

discover truth about the world as the basis

for developing guides for a more certain fu

ture.

Few can doubt the success

of

the applica

tion

of

what we might term the Liebigian

parad igm--based as i t is on the law

of

the

minimum--to the growth in agricultural pro

duction.

n

the US alone, it has been estimated

(35) that gross agricultural production in

creased sevenfold between 1880 and 1980, es

sentially through technological innovation.

rim f cie i t would be hard to sustain that the

science

of

simplification, which spawned such

progress, is now inadequate, yet this is the

posit ion that I, among many others, now sug

gest.

TH S NS OF UN S

The sense

of

unease about the inadequacy

of

reductionistic science

in

agriculture (as wen

as in many other areas

of

human endeavor)

comes precisely because

of

increasing evi

dence that in dealing with complexity by sim

plifying it to manageable bits , we fail

to

come

to

tenns with the real issues facing

humankind. Among these lie basic questions

about the way we interrelate with our environ

ments.

There is increasing concern that much

of

the progress in agricultural productivity is only

being achieved at the cost

of

long-term degra

dation

of

its biophysical and sociocultural en

vironments. Symptoms of serious inequities in

the trade >ffs between the needs

of

the present

and those

of

the future are beginning to cause

serious alarm as a wide spectrum

of

society

tries to grapple with issues as complex as

global warming and environmental degrada

tion. Within the domain

of

agriculture,

a

Greek chorus of criticism is now being heard

of

US agricultural institutions. Among the rea

sons cited for this are

.

environmental degradation; concerns for

animal

welfare, impacts on the health and safety of

farmers, agricultural workers and consumers; ad

verse nutritional effects of production and proces-

sing technologies; the extrusion of smaller family

farms from agriculture; the erosion

of

rural com

munities and the concentration of agricultural pr -

duction and economic wealth; adequate conserva

tion

d

CQIDDIeJCial

exploitation

of

fragiJe

lands

that sboald not be in cultivation. (7).

And all this in the face

of

the obscene paradox

where massive food surpluses co-exist

with hunger, obesity and concerns that the diet

is unsafe and/or

of

low nutritional value (17).

n the Third World, the situation is even

more serious.

Most [developing] countries are faced with the

problems of growing population, recurrent food

shortages, illiteracy, malnutrition. environmental

poUution. and economic and social disparities.

(63).

Robert Chambers (12) puts it more brutally:

. . . the extremes of

rural

poverty in the third

world, are an outrage, and this in spite

of

the

dramatic increases in agricultural productivity

associated with the green revolution .

That the issue is profound, even within the

US, is reinforced

by

the submission that

.

although blInkruptcies and foreclosures

have

dramatized

the

current

farm

crisis, agricul

ture s underlying problems extend well beyond

economics to the long

term

sustaiDability of

the

system itself. (66).

As agriculturists, we need to rethink our

fundamental perspectives on what we actually

mean by improvements in agricultural and ru

ral development. The language

of

reductionism

and positivism does not entertain the very

complex and dynamic phenomenon associated

with the quest for sustainable practices.

As new perspectives give birth to new

historic ages (24), it is clearly

time

to argue

loudly for a shift in thinking from

the

influ

ence

of

the Age

of

Productivity to that

of

the

new Age

of

Persistence. This submission is a

contribut ion to that shout as it highlights the

imperative for a new research paradigm in the

tradition

of

what has been called the science

and praxis

of

complexity (60): a paradigm

that can accommodate complexity, uncertainty,

and even chaos, both as aspects of the world

itself and of the way we humans construe

meanings

of

it. The issue

of

sustainability

or

persistence i llustrates this wen. As has been

pointed out agricultural sustainability can

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 74, No.7 1991

SYSTEMS THINKING AND PRACTICE 2363

rons, could have been adopted in such chaotic

times as the Civil War. Yet maybe this is

exactly why they were. Maybe it was when all

looked bleak and incredibly uncertain, and

complex, that humankind turned

to

science and

technology to simplify complexity and thereby

discover truth about the world as the basis

for developing guides for a more certain fu

ture.

Few can doubt the success

of

the applica

tion

of

what we might term the Liebigian

parad igm--based as i t is on the law

of

the

minimum--to the growth in agricultural pro

duction.

n

the US alone, it has been estimated

(35) that gross agricultural production in

creased sevenfold between 1880 and 1980, es

sentially through technological innovation.

rim f cie i t would be hard to sustain that the

science

of

simplification, which spawned such

progress, is now inadequate, yet this is the

posit ion that I, among many others, now sug

gest.

TH S NS OF UN S

The sense

of

unease about the inadequacy

of

reductionistic science

in

agriculture (as wen

as in many other areas

of

human endeavor)

comes precisely because

of

increasing evi

dence that in dealing with complexity by sim

plifying it to manageable bits , we fail

to

come

to

tenns with the real issues facing

humankind. Among these lie basic questions

about the way we interrelate with our environ

ments.

There is increasing concern that much

of

the progress in agricultural productivity is only

being achieved at the cost

of

long-term degra

dation

of

its biophysical and sociocultural en

vironments. Symptoms of serious inequities in

the trade >ffs between the needs

of

the present

and those

of

the future are beginning to cause

serious alarm as a wide spectrum

of

society

tries to grapple with issues as complex as

global warming and environmental degrada

tion. Within the domain

of

agriculture,

a

Greek chorus of criticism is now being heard

of

US agricultural institutions. Among the rea

sons cited for this are

.

environmental degradation; concerns for

animal

welfare, impacts on the health and safety of

farmers, agricultural workers and consumers; ad

verse nutritional effects of production and proces-

sing technologies; the extrusion of smaller family

farms from agriculture; the erosion

of

rural com

munities and the concentration of agricultural pr -

duction and economic wealth; adequate conserva

tion

d

CQIDDIeJCial

exploitation

of

fragiJe

lands

that sboald not be in cultivation. (7).

And all this in the face

of

the obscene paradox

where massive food surpluses co-exist

with hunger, obesity and concerns that the diet

is unsafe and/or

of

low nutritional value (17).

n the Third World, the situation is even

more serious.

Most [developing] countries are faced with the

problems of growing population, recurrent food

shortages, illiteracy, malnutrition. environmental

poUution. and economic and social disparities.

(63).

Robert Chambers (12) puts it more brutally:

. . . the extremes of

rural

poverty in the third

world, are an outrage, and this in spite

of

the

dramatic increases in agricultural productivity

associated with the green revolution .

That the issue is profound, even within the

US, is reinforced

by

the submission that

.

although blInkruptcies and foreclosures

have

dramatized

the

current

farm

crisis, agricul

ture s underlying problems extend well beyond

economics to the long

term

sustaiDability of

the

system itself. (66).

As agriculturists, we need to rethink our

fundamental perspectives on what we actually

mean by improvements in agricultural and ru

ral development. The language

of

reductionism

and positivism does not entertain the very

complex and dynamic phenomenon associated

with the quest for sustainable practices.

As new perspectives give birth to new

historic ages (24), it is clearly

time

to argue

loudly for a shift in thinking from

the

influ

ence

of

the Age

of

Productivity to that

of

the

new Age

of

Persistence. This submission is a

contribut ion to that shout as it highlights the

imperative for a new research paradigm in the

tradition

of

what has been called the science

and praxis

of

complexity (60): a paradigm

that can accommodate complexity, uncertainty,

and even chaos, both as aspects of the world

itself and of the way we humans construe

meanings

of

it. The issue

of

sustainability

or

persistence i llustrates this wen. As has been

pointed out agricultural sustainability can

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 74, No.7 1991



2364

BAWDEN

be defmed in different ways and sought

through different means (22). To some, sus

tainability relates to the sufficiency of food,

with agriculture being regarded by such a con

stituency, as

primarily

an instrument for

feeding the world. A second group recognizes

sustainability in an ecological context with a

concern for the disruption

of

biophysical eco

logical balances by nonhannonious prac

tices . To a third group, the concept of sus

tainability extends to

promoting vital, coherent, rur l cultures nd

encouraging the values of stewardship. self-reli

ance, humility

and

holism which

have

been

most associated with family farming.

Following Cotgrove (20) and Miller (47), a

fourth, mystic position can be added to this

array in presenting a world view that environ

mental problems caused through agricultural

(mal)practices are rooted in individual

consciences and morality; a reflection of our

twisted mentalities.

Although these respective perspectives rep

resent four very different weltanschauungen,

they all present the case in one way or another

for the idea of meeting the needs

of

the

present without compromising the ability of

future generations to meet their own needs

(22). And implicit in this is recognition that

current agricultural practices may have a wide

range

of

negative impacts that are detrimental

to the long-term integrity of both the biophysi

cal and sociocultural environments with which

they are so intimately interconnected. It is our

responsibility as agricultural scientists to en

sure that our ways of doing science are suffi

ciently pluralistic to respect each of these dif-

ferent world views.

Realization

of

the need for ways

of

dealing

scientifically with such negative externalities is

not new nor is the acute awareness of the

tension

of

difference that arises when different

ways of conducting science are brought to bear

on the same phenomenon. As has een noted

the disciplines

in

that [ and Grant] system

are characterized by certain fundamental differ

ences

in

philosophical and methodological posture

the

key axis

of this

typology

is

a dichotomiza

tion

of disciplines according to whether their

prin-

cipal mission is production enhancement (produc

tion science) or impact assessment (impact

science). (10).

Iournal

of

Dairy Science Vol. 74,

No 7

1991

This statement proves a fertile ground for

exploration of some

of

the fundamental

philosophical and methodological differences

in science that lead to the logic of systemic

approaches to agricultural development. So too

does the notion

of

what I might call the

dichotomization trap , for it lies at the heart

of our apparently mindless inability to embrace

new paradigms. According to Eileen Langer

(41), mindlessness is a psychotic condition in

which we respond to situations

, without considering their novel elements

and instead, relies on old distinctions rather

th n

creating new categories.

By accepting the duality of dichotomies, we

become entrapped in dilenunas of our own

creation.

n

the present context, therefore,

mindlessness represents a double jeopardy. As

the brief discussion about sustainability re

vealed, agriculturists must be mindful of

avoiding traps set by dualistic differences in

the way science is conducted as well as of

philosophical issues that conventionally are

considered beyond the domain of

scientists

altogether.

n other words, I posit that we need to

address critically the need for a new science of

agriculture that embraces oth production en

hancement and impact assessment while

transcending them both. This is the essence of

the paradigm for the new age, and, just as it is

appropriate as a science of agriculture, so too

must its implications for the sciences in agri

culture

be

established.

We

need to explore the

many philosophical and methodological as

sumptions in all

of

the sciences associated with

agricultural research that are usually left unex

plored, sometimes throughout an entire career

Any research--and, indeed,

extension-

related to issues of sustainability and of sus

tainable improvements in the quality of agri

cultural systems must include critical philo

sophical reviews of issues that are ethical and

moral as well as those that involve aesthetics.

As scientists, we must also explore other

philosophical territories concerned with our

ontological beliefs about the nature

of

the

world as well as epistemological beliefs about

the ways

by

which we come to know about

nature. And finally, there is a host of crucial

issues about reason and forms

of logic that



SYSTEMS 1HINKING AND PRACTICE

2365

need to be investigated

i

any mindful inves

tigation of new perspectives on agricultural

and rural development is to be achieved

BEYOND THE PRODUCTION·IMPACT

DICHOTOMY

The commentary about sustainability

re-

veals the complex, uncertain, and even para

doxical nature of agricultural development in

its broader context. A science that must ac

commodate such dimensions will be pro

foundly different from both the science of

limiting factors and that of negative externali

ties. Indeed, the very first prerequisite

of

such

a science is that it enables the researcher to

escape from the dichotomy trap set by the

production-impact duality (or any other for

that matter). According

to

our thesis

of

mind

lessness, this is asking a lot. The approach to

finding a common ground between polar oppo

sites is both endemic to Western thinking and

its greatest weakness. Consensual strategies are

rarely that. The common ground invariably

turns out to be the preferred ground of the

most powerful contestant while the conflict

between the differences remains unaddressed,

let alone unresolved

ever there was

n

impediment to innova

tive thinking, i t lies in what has

een

referred

to

s the mutual negationof conIDct (46).

To

escape being sucked into this dichotomy trap,

it is suggested that we need to learn how to

bring forth new worlds together. Robert Pir

sig (50) puts it more pungently when

he

sug

gests that kicking sand into the bull' s eyes is

an effective way off the horns of a dilemma

Herein lies the essence

of

the systemic

paradigm the deliberate intention of the

researcher to move to a new ground, or a new

order of wholeness i you will, and the readi

ness that he or she displays to exploit the

inherent surprises in so doing Perhaps the first

surprise to agriculturists reared in the produc

tion science tradition is that there is no unity

of

belief about the nature of the world or that one

needs different theories

of

knowledge

to

ex

plore it fully. Yet as has been posited (53), it is

not difficult

to

take issue on at least six

presuppositions

of

orthodox scientific inquiry

and its paradigm of positivism and reduc

tionism: 1 that there is one reality out there;

2) that it can be known objectively; 3) that

such knowledge is identical for all knowers; 4)

that knowledge is expressed in proposit ions

that are validated empirically (in the ideal form

in carefully controlled experiments); 5) that the

whole may be explained solely in tenns

of

the

sum of its parts and that the aim

of

inquiry is

to discover more and more fundamental ele

ments and processes; and 6) that explanation is

sought in

tenns of

linear, energetic cause and

effect. For the postpositivist scientist, however,

. . . whatever nature may be, or however the

quest for

troth w ll

tum out

n

the end,

the

events

we face today are as subject to as great a variety of

construction as our wits w ll enable us

to

conUive.

(37).

There is a curious paradox about the way

we go about our construing, and it clearly is a

manifestation

of

mindlessness. We operate as

i we are paying attention to the details of a

given situation and weighing an appropriate,

innovative response, when in fact we are not

41 . In other words, even when we think we

are thinking in a novel way and dealing with

unfamiliar issues in unfamiliar ways, invaria

bly we are not. It is so much easier, and thus

pervasive,

to

deal with unfamiliar issues in a

familiar way than it is to deal with familiar

issues in an unfamiliar way. The irony is that

. human

intelligence is the ability

to

spot

patterns of unanticipated

typ s

in unanticipated

places

at

unanticipated

times n

unanticipated me -

dia. (32).

THE ESSENCE OF SYSTEMICrry

The systems paradigm is based on the

predisposition and competencies

of

the

researcher

to

seek novel ways

of

patterning

strange experiences as well as seeking novel

patterns within those experiences.

The

frame

work for both levels

of

patterning lies in the

notion of

wholeness of

wholes within wholes

within wholes: each whole contains a

set

of

interacting subwholes while i t is i tself a sub

whole of a suprawhole.

At

each change of

'1evel

within

this

constellation, new surprises

lie in store, for unique properties emerge: a

phenomenon akin to the smprise

of

wetness

of the water born

of

the union

of

the gases

hydrogen and oxygen. This is as relevant to

those concerned with the behavior of suba

tomic particles as it is for those concerned with

the transaction involved in international trade.

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 74,

No 7

1991



2366

BAWDEN

As wholeness and emergent properties are

both vital dimensions

of

systemicity, so too are

interrelatedness and connectivity. Systems are

wholes (or are regarded as wholes) because

their parts are connected in such ways that

they give rise to a sense

of

wholeness (65). A

unity emerges through the interrelationships of

the parts in such a manner that the system is

different from the sum

of

its parts with behav

iors that display emergent properties.

As

every

system is both comprised of interacting sub

systems as well as being itself a subsystem

of

a higher order suprasystem, all systemic

analyses must concern themselves with several

different orders

of

complexity in their meth

odological procedures.

n

true systems approaches, then, those

that reflect what has been referred to as the

systems philosophy (42), both the issues being

investigated and the methodologies used in

their investigation are systemic. This, in turn,

means that the practit ioner is perforce a par

ticipant in any process

of

systemic inquiry for

.

wholeness means tha t a ll par ts belong to

gether, and that means they partake in each other.

Thus from the cen tra l idea tha t a ll

connected,

that each

is

a par t

of

the whole, comes the idea that

each participate

in

the whole. Thus paJticipation is

an implicit aspect of wholeness. (59).

And this concept has profound consequences

for the classical lineal model

of

the generation

of

technological innovation and its diffusion

through transmission and adoption. Can the

pure scientist ever make an observation that

is totally objective? Can biological

or

physical

or

social

or

economic worlds ever

be

t ruly known? Can an extension agent ever

really transfer a technology? Can an educator

ever really teach anyone anything?

Systemic analysis does not concern i tself

with the lineal logic

of causes and effects, nor

with problems and solutions, nor with starts

and finishes, nor with the unidirectional flow

of

information from generator, through trans

mitter, to receiver. Because

of

the connectivity

and interrelatedness

of

wholes within wholes,

systemic analysis is always recursive. This is a

difficult concept

to

grasp even from its formal

definition: a recursive phenomenon is a

product

of

multi-directional feedback (51).

Rather than accepting lines

of

simple causal

relationships, systemic practitioners accept that

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 74,

No 7

1991

problematic situations represent many faces

of a complex mess

of

issues held in net

works of mutual influences. It makes much

more sense under such circumstances to

talk of

improving problematic situations rather than

solving discrete problems, for

one

person s

solution is often someone else s problem.

The

systemic ideal is for strategies

of

intervention

that lead to improvement to whole systems and

to

their relationships with their environments,

Systemic thinking can also pose a consider

able threat to the experimental scientist who

has conventionally been quite content to con

trol the environment in the interest

of

reduced

variation. What distortions

to

t ruth do ex

periments represent? What sensitive interrela

tionships are actually shattered in the labora

tory in the quest for truth ?

SYSTEMS PR TI E

The first step in systems practice, as has

already been intimated, is to escape the trap

of

dichotomization. For the systemic practi

tioner, i t is not a matter

of

consensus

or

trade

offs between apparently polarized positions,

but an analysis

of

the patterns that emerge

when the reasons for the distinctions between

them are explored as

they were different

faces

of

the same reality. From this perspec

tive, agricultural production, for instance, is

not viewed as a process in opposition to envir

onmental conservation but as an issue

of

it.

The systemic agriculturist accepts that there

are many opportunities for developments that

represent improvements to the whole situation

and that are immanent among the relationships

that exist between farmers and their environ

ments. It is a matter

of

designing and utilizing

appropriate systems of inquiry that w ll reveal

them to all

of

the participants involved in the

situation. It is not that the apparent dichotomy

is ignored but rather that the different perspec

tives are explored in novel ways where the

dialectic tension that exists between apparently

opposing views is used as a trigger to bring

forth new worlds together .

Of course it is also

quite possible to escape the horns

of

the

dilemma by kicking sand in the bu ll s eyes

and come at the issue

of

food production,

farmer welfare, and environmental integrity

from quite a different integrated perspective

altogether.



SYSTEMS TIllNKING AND PRACTICE

2367

n any event, the key focus

of

such an

approach will be concentrated on what Peter

Checkland (13) recognizes s debates about

desirable and feasible changes. It is in this

context that it can be claimed that

. . . the most important feature of the systems

approach is that it is committed to ascertaining not

simply whether the decision maker s choices lead

to his desired ends, but whether they lead

to

ends

which are ethically defensible. (16).

The systemic thinking and practices that

will be involved in situations like this will

recognize the advantages of embracing the

spiritual with the conceptual, perceptions with

conceptions, passions with reason, integrated

wholes with isolated parts, intuition with crit

ical thought, the concrete with the abstract,

subjectivity with objectivity, the qualitative

with the quantitative, science with philosophy,

and of course, theory with practice. Systemic

practitioners, be they pure scientists or ap

plied , researchers or extensionists, will not

view these s dualities-as pairs

of

polar op

posites--but as different aspects

of

the same

phenomenon with neither aspect being prime

over the other. t is in the integration of each

with the other in the process of patterning

where each informs the other that the synergy

implicit in the glorious unity

of

opposites

(64) can be exploited.

CERT IN LOGIC

Clearly, the simple reasoning of induction

and deduction upon which positivist reduc

tionism is based is quite inadequate in the face

of

all of these interconnected dimensions

of

systemic inquiry. Gregory Bateson (2) has sug

gested an alternative in abduction: abductive

logic proceeds through metaphor and analog

t is is to t is as that is to

that-and

our daily

conversations are replete with examples even

if in the majority of cases, we are quite oblivi

ous to them. This calf looks just like her dam.

This sunset reminds me

of

summer evenings in

Vermont. This seems like the same situation

we faced in last year s markets. I have a

feeling that it is going to rain again. And so

on.

Actually, this last example has the essence

of what Kathleen Forsythe (26) has referred to

s isophor. Where metaphor is under-

standing one thing in terms of another

isophor is experiencing one thing in terms

of

another . Thus, isophor is the way the sense of

wholeness is grasped in any set

of

relation

ships be they between people or between peo

ple and their environments.

n

this instance, it

is the systems metaphor that allows us to

understand the pattern of such relationships as

systemic. The usefulness

of abductive reason

ing in exploring complex relationships comes

through the notion of searching for similari

ties in patterns across seemingly disparate

phenomena, (59) including the process of pat

terning itself, s previously emphasized.

There is a [mal distinction that I must make

here because it is a vital element in the confu

sion that continues to plague the systems

movement at large and its applications in agri

culture specifically. Essentially, the systems

movement has been born of two quite different

intellectual traditions, and the resulting distinc

tions in methodological approaches reflect

these. As Checkland

15

has suggested, the

word system is used to describe ontological

realities s they are accepted as existing in the

real world--a farm is a system, in this lan

guage. But the word sys tem has also been

used

s

an epistemological device for knowing

about the world, and here it is that the issues

associated with the farm are thought about

s

they were interrelated in some way or anoth

er. The distinction is often made between hard

systems approaches and soft systems ap

proaches to discriminate between these two

traditions. n order to highlight the foundations

from which each of these approaches is deve

loped, I now propose that as philosophical

traditions, they might be renamed on

tosystemics and episystemics , respectively.

n the former approach, analysis usually

proceeds from the two questions. Which sys

tem is being investigated, e.g., what is the

ecology

of

a particular dairy farm? What con

stitutes n improvement to its performance? n

the latter approach, the leading questions fol

low a different logic:

in

this messy and com

plex situation, which is somehow or another

associated with dairying, what seem to be the

issues that people perceive as problematic?

How can systems

of

inquiry (systemic thinking

and practices) be used to explore and eventu

ally improve them? This form of inquiry, as

indicated earlier, is participative. Because t

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 74, No.7, 1991



2368

BAWDEN

involves abstract interrelationships between the

issues being explored and those doing the ex

ploration, we might refer to this phenomenon

as an ecology of mind, to follow an idea of

Bateson (2). This change in awareness from

the ecology of a fann to that

of

an ecology

of

minds that are exploring issues associated with

the

functioning

of

that fann represents what

has been described as the shift in systemic

ity from reality to the process of inquiry into

reality (14).

This

vital distinction is regretta

bly rarely made in the ever increasing literature

appearing under the rubric of Systems Ap

proaches to Agriculture and Natural Resource

Management.

GRICULTUR L SYSTEMS ND

SYSTEMS GRICULTURE

The situation with regard to different sys

tems approaches to agricultural development is

confused, basically because most

of

them are

born of the ontosystemic tradition without that

being made explicit. Perhaps what is more

serious in adding to the confusion is the fact

that much of the literature on agricultural sys

tems

h s

little to do with the essence

of

whole

ness

or

with the exploration

of

the surprises

inherent in emergent properties. Furthermore,

in much of the so-labeled research into agricul

tural

or

farming or cropping systems

or

even

agro-ecosystems, the fanner client is anything

but a participant in the research process. Nei

ther is situation improvement nor the behavior

of

construed systems in their environments the

typical focus of the research.

I might use the new categories I have

created

to

explore these submissions. 1)

On-

tosystemic inquiry is concemed with the study

of

things as systems as they exist in the world

Farming systems research and agro-ecosystems

analysis are prime examples of this approach.

2) Episystemic inquiry is concerned not with

an external reality but on people s perceptions

of reality, on their mental processes rather than

on the objects of those processes (13). Sys

tems Agriculture, as developed at Hawkesbury

College at the University of Western Sydney

in Australia, is an example

of

where such an

approach is embraced as an important method

of establishing the domain of, and the subse

quent exploration of, improvements to messy

and complex problematic situations.

Journal

of

Dairy Science Vol. 74.

No

The cri tique that follows is not intended in

any way to present a comprehensive critical

review of the field Rather, its purpose is

merely to highlight some of the issues and

provide a bibliographic access to further de

velopments of respective themes. It will also

enable the proposed distinction between

episystemics and ontosystemics to be further

explored

F RMING SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE

It has recently been claimed that the fann

ing systems research (FSR) paradigm has be

come distorted by its connection by association

with any research that does not fall within the

conventional, institutional, categories of com

modity or disciplinary research (56).

The

original axioms of FSR were quite straightfor

ward: 1) that the development of relevant and

viable technology must be grounded in a u

knowledge

of

the existing farming system; and

2) that technology should be evaluated not

solely in terms of its technical performance but

in terms of its conformity to the goals, needs,

and socioeconomic circumstances

of

the tar

geted small-fann system as well. Now, howev

er, the FSR movement has become so eclectic

that the term FSR perspective has een intro

duced as a more suitable term for the generic

concept (11). Fresco (28) has classif ied FSR

into the two major strands of anglophone and

francophone; the latter is more akin to long

term land utilization, and the former is con

cerned more with incremental changes in tradi

tional farming systems. Others have suggested

that this is an insufficient typology. Sands

(56), for example, has proposed that within the

perspective, the following six, more precisely

defined areas of research activity can be recog

nized

1) farming systems analysis; 2) farming

systems adaptive research; 3) farming systems

component research; 4) farming systems base

line data analysis; 5) new farming systems

development; and 6) farming systems research

and agricultural development, although these

categories also embrace the three categories

suggested by Simmonds (58); 1)

FSR in the

strictest sense, 2) on-fann research, and 3) new

farming systems developments.

The variations among these approaches to

agricultural research and development that

justify their discrimination lie in the areas

of



SYSTEMS THINKING AND

PRACIlCE

2369

researcher intent, the extent of fanner partici

pation and the role

of

on-fann experimenta

tion, the degree of innovativeness involved,

and the extent

of

the involvement by research

ers from different scientific disciplines. Com

mon to all, however, is the ontosystemic logic

that sets the two guiding questions of the

perspective. What is the nature

of

the agricul

tural system under study? How can its per

fonnance

be

optimized through technological

innovation?

The primary objective

of

all of these fann

ing research approaches is to increase the pro

ductivity of small fanns, and central to their

framework is the ontosystemic concept of the

fann as a purposeful system:

A unique and reasonably stable arrangement of

farming enterprises that the household m n ges

according to well-defmed practices in response to

physical, biological and socio-economic envir0n

ments and in accordance with the household s

goals, preferences and resources.

(57).

The point has been made (49) that the foun

dation of FSR was really pragmatic rather than

theoretical or philosophical with an emphasis

on research to increase the production

of mar

ketable crops. In spite of this emphasis and

particularly given the prominence

of

FSR

through its role in the International Agricul

tural Research Centers, it is perhaps surprising

not to find a rigorous conceptualization

of

just

what

is that constitutes an agricultural or

fanning system. Those models that exist do

not extend much beyond descriptions

of

sets of

relationships between enterprises and the

household.

One fairly abstract model that betrays the

strong influence that farm management

economists have had on the development of

FSR

is provided by Dillon (21). He proposes

that the fann as a purposeful system includes

the following subsystems: 1) technical; 2) for

mal

structural; 3) psychological or infonnal

structural; 4) goals and values; and 5)

manage -

rial. This would place FSR in the general

systems typology (15) as a designed physical

system , which exists

by

virtue

of

some hu

man purpose which is their origin and to

serve a purpose even though this may be hard

to define explicitly . The multitude

of

pur-

poses that Ruth Gasson suggested can

be

iden

tified with fanning (29) adds particular poign

ancy to this last comment.

Other workers have developed an interest

ing perspective for farming systems by in

tegrating fann management foundations with

ecological ones. Models such

as

these have

facilitated the incorporation

of

quantitative

tools such as mathematical modeling, com

puter simulation, and optimization techniques

(31,49). shas been claimed (31, 48), there is

a plethora

of

materials now available about

quantitative models for

both

biological and

socioeconomic systems. Indeed, work in this

area has

been

so prolific that many see quan

titative models as the foundation of the FSR

perspective. The sophistication

of

expert sys

tems and their application to agriculture is now

enhancing this view, and a useful set of dis

tinctions has recently been proposed to charac

terize the increasing variety

of

approaches in

this domain (36). 1) Heuristic expert systems

come closest to the sort

of

seat

of

the pants

decision-making strategies used by recognized

experts; 2) real time expert controls are deci

sion tables used with sensor data in cybernetic

networks; 3) model-based expert systems link

simulation models and expert systems; 4) ex

pert data bases such as the national DHIA use

expert systems to facilitate infonnation

searches; and 5) problem-specific skills en

hance the application of expert systems con

cepts to agricultural problems.

It would be accurate to treat expert systems

as passive knowledge systems rather than as

knowing or learning systems. It would also be

accurate to present farming systems as

researched rather than researching systems.

There are those that argue that farming sys

terns approaches are more systematic than sys

temic (4, 33) and it has

been

even posited

that the problematic cbaracters of FSR, as it is

ctu ly conceived is scarcely discerned and that a

critical

ppro ch

to study and to developing

fann-

ing systems has hardly been developed. (8).

GRQ ECOSYSTEM

N

VSIS

IT

the foundations

of

the

FSR

perspective

were a mixture of fann management practices

and theories, tinged with an ecological per

spective, agro-ecosystem analysis and develop

ment is unashamedly ecological. As has been

pointed out (44), the concept of the agro

ecosystem as a managed natural system has

provided a focus for many research studies

Journal

of

Dairy Science Vol. 74,

No 7

1991



2370

BAWDEN

over the years. thas also acted

as

a vehicle for

educational strategies. However, as Conway

(19) suggests, most of these initiatives have

tended to concentrate on analysis of flows and

cycles

of

energy and matter and have thus had

little impact on the theory and practice of

agricultural development.

n Conway s own work. the concept

of

the

agro-ecosystem is given a different and power

ful reorientation through its presentation as a

cybernetic, self-regulating system. He provides

an interesting moot perspective on the true

ontological status

of

systems by positing that

there can be little doubt that the transformation

of

ecosystem

to

agro-ecosystem produces well-de

fined systems of cybernetic nature.

n

this way he neatly side steps the contro

versy regarding the actual nature

of

natural

ecosystems (23, 61, 64).

It has been suggested (18, 45) that the

essential behavior

of

agro-ecosystems can be

described by examination of the five systems

properties of: productivity, stability, sustaina

bility, equitability, and autonomy. Given the

clear exposition

of

the hierarchical nature of

agro-ecosystems, the claim that these are in

deed emergent properties can be, at least con

ceptually, readily accepted. However, others

(5) reviewing the agro-ecosystem approach

conclude that while the properties are useful

guides to improvements in agriculture, each is

replete with ambiguity

of

meaning. This is

exemplified for instance by the work of

Kingma (38) on productivity and Douglass

(22) on sustainability.

SYSTEMS GRI ULTURE

The final approach reviewed comes out of a

quite different intellectual tradition compared

with the ontosystemics of FSR and agro-eco

system analysis and development. Systems ag

riculture was born

of

an episystemic tradition

drawing heavily on learning theory, systems

philosophy, and soft systems methodology for

its foundations (6). Following Checkland (15),

the attempt has been to shift the systemicity

from the reality being observed (from a focus

on agricultural systems as ontological realities)

to the process of observing the reality (and the

episystemicity

of

systems of inquiry). The

work of West Churchman (16), Peter

10urnal

of

Dairy Science

Vol

74,

No.7 1991

Checkland (15) and Gregory Bateson (2) has

n particularly influential on systemic meth

odology, and Jerome Bruner (9), David Kolb

(39), Kurt Lewin (43), Carl Rogers (54), and

Peter Reason (52) have all contributed greatly

to the learning methodologies. The essence of

th Hawkesbury systems agriculture approach

is the notion of the creation of action

researching systems (3) in which people col

laborate together to explore complex

problematic situations critically with the aim

of

creating change that is socially desirable,

culturally feasible, and ethically defensible. t

demands the integrated use of a plurality

of

methodologies and also explicit discussion of

philosophical positions appropriate to each

such system of inquiry whenever it is used.

n

such an ecology of minds, traditional

roles-

researcher, extensionist, educator, client be-

come obscured. All behave as active inquirers

with each assisting the others as part of an

integrated system

of

inquiry.

One of the emergent properties of the in-

quiry system itself--one of the great sur

prises it represents is the notion of learning

as transcendental to the classical trinity of

activities of research, education, and extension.

Knowledge is not a commodity to be transmit

ted as a set

of

propositions or practical com

petencies. It is rather to be created experien

tially as the transfonnation of personal

experiences. Farmers or problematic situation

owners are not viewed as passive receivers of

expert knowledge, for under such circum

stances, they cannot learn. As Freire (27) saw

it, knowledge transfer models condemn the

receivers to being domesticated :

The person

who

is filled yanother with contents

whose

meaning

she or he

is

not aware of, which

contradicts

ber

or

his

way

of viewing the

world,

cannot learn because she or he is not challenged.

Ways of knowing and knowledge from the

context of participative

learning of

collabora

tive inquiry through action researching sys

tems--are empowering with the potential for

the emancipation of those who were previously

the victims of their ignorance. The active in

volvement of people in rural areas, working

together to explore systemically and improve

the complex problematic situations they expe

rience, in such a way that leads to their eman

cipation and the development of improved



SYSTEMS

1HINKING AND

PRACDCE 2371

quality

of

key relationships between them and

their environments,

is

the ideal to which the

Hawkesbury systems agriculture paradigm

aspires. Improvements come about

as

a result

of

all the participants exploring unanticipated

patterns in unanticipated ways, but aU from a

framework that respects interconnectedness

and the sense of wholeness. U

of

these col

laborators benefit as much from new ways

of

knowing as from new knowledge. The over

arching methodology

of

systems agriculture is

modified from that of Checkland s soft system

approach (13), as it provides the context in

which other methodologies, both systemic and

reductionist, can then be applied.

Cognizance is taken of the critiques of the

soft systems approach (25, 55), particularly as

it relates to its inherent functionalism (58), its

idealism (22), the lack

of

attention to ethical

dimensions I , and issues of power relation

ships (16, 24). Following the ideas

of

Jurgen

Habermas (30), Werner Ulrich (62), and

Michael Jackson (34), attempts are now being

made to incorporate aspects of critical theory

and heuristics into the approach. The central

aim of this dimension is to shift the purpose of

the approach from one of regulation to one

of

empowerment and emancipation based on col

laborative learning.

ON LUSION

As what we do in the world

is

function

of

the way we see it, there is a drastic need for us

to change the way we go about our seeing as a

prelude for fundamental shifts in the way we

do things. The central thesis

of

this paper is

that the complexity, dynamics, and even chaos

of contemporary agriculture deserves to be

treated as such. New ways

of

seeing the

world-of

perceiving it and making sense

of

those perceptions as a basis for informed

emancipating actions--ean

be

found within the

episysternic tradition.

The philosophies in which this tradition is

grounded are as eclectic

as

they are unconven

tional. The perspective and even practices will

be similarly different from classical agricul

tural research at all levels, from the biological

and physical sciences in agriculture to new

transdisciplinary science

of

agriculture.

It is argued herein that unless we, as

agriculturists, accept a shift in our thinking and

practices appropriate to the magnitude

of

a

new paradigm, agriculture and the environ

ments in which it is practiced will be pulled

into an ever declining involution with cata

strophic effects on the well being

of

mankind

and

of

the environments in which we all live.

The systemic paradigm calls for us to

rethink our views of our world (and of the way

its interrelated components are patterned) as

well as our ways of going about the way we

view our world.

this rethinking is to lead to

the sort

of

innovative and regenerative proc

esses leading to large-scale improvements in

the quality

of

relationships between people and

their environments, it must come from a belief

that new ways of knowing are crucial to pro

duce new knowledge.

As agricultural scientists, we must

be

pre

pared to question critically our beliefs about

what we really think constitutes improvements

to agriculture. We must also be prepared to

enter into debates about what shoul

be

as well

as creating visions about what oul be.

Our

focus must extend beyond what is effective

and efficient to embrace the ethical. We must

be prepared to state what we think is good and

what we

t ink is

bad, and we certainly must be

ready to discuss what is aesthetically accept

able and what is not.

Recursiveness and abductive logic must be

come as familiar to us

as

lineal thought and

induction and deduction have been for a cen

tury

and a half. And in ourrethinking, we must

learn how to come to terms with complexity

and chaos and develop learning strategies that

enable us to help others to deal with such

dimensions. n sum, we must

be

prepared to let

go the old and embrace the new science and

praxis

of

complexity.

REFEREN ES

1 Atkinson, C. J. 1989. Ethics: a lost dimension in soft

systems practice.

J.

AppI. Syst. Anal. 16:43.

2 Bateson, G. 1971. Steps to an ecology of mind. Balen

tine, New York,

NY

3 Bawden. R J. 1989. Towards action researching sys

tems. Action research fo r change and development. O.

Znber-Skerrit t, ed. Griff ith Dniv.. Brisbane, Aust.

4 Bawden, R. J. 1990. Of agricultural systems and

systems agriculture. Systems theory applied to agricul

ture and the food chain . E ls ev ie r App l. Sci. Publ.,

New York.,

NY

5 Bawden, R.

J

a nd R. lson. 1990.

The

purposes of

f ield-crop ecosystems: social and economic aspects.

Field crop ecosystems of the world. J. C. Pearson, ed.

Elsevier.

London

Engl.

Journal

o

Dairy Science Vol. 74, No.7. 1991



2372

BAWDEN

6 Bawden,

R. J., R.

D. Macadam,

R. J.

Packham,

and I

Valenline. 1984. Systems thinking

and

practices in the

education of agriculturalists. Agric. Syst. 13:205.

7 Bonnen,

J. T.

1983. Historical sources of U.S. agricul

tural productivity: implications

for R.

D.

policy

and

social science research.

Am.

J. Agric. Beon. 65:958.

8 Brouwer,

R, and K

Jansen. 1989. Critical introduc

tory

notes on farming systems research in developing

third world agriculture. Syst. Fract . 2:379.

9 Bruner, J. S. 1966. On knowing; essays for

the

left

hand. Atheneum,

New

York,

NY.

10 Buttel,

F.

H. 1985. The land

grant

system: a sociologi

cal

perspective on

value

conflicts

and

ethical issues.

Agric.

Human

Values 2:78.

11 Byerlee, D • L Harrington,

and D.

L. Winldemann.

1982. Farming systems research: issues

in

research

strategy and technology design.

Am.

J . Agr ic . Econ.

64:897.

12 Chambers, R 1983.

Rural

development putting the

last IIrSt.

Longman

Scientific

and

Technical,

New

York,

NY.

13Checkland. P. B. 1981. Systems thinking, systems

practice.

John Wiley

Sons.

New

York,

NY

14 Checkland,

P.

B. 1984. Systems thinking in manage

ment: the development of

soft

systems methodology

and

its implications

for

social science.

Self

organisa

tion

and

management

of

social systems.

H.

Ulrich,

GJ.B.

Probst, ed. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

15 Checkland, P.

B.

1988. Images of systems

and

the

sys tems image: president ia l address to ISGSR J.

AppI. Sys t. Anal. 15:37.

16 Churchman, C. W. 1971. The

way of

inquiring

sys-

tems: the design of inquiring systems.

Basic

ooks

New York, NY.

17

Clancy,

K. L

1986.

Human

nutrition, agriculture

and

human value. Agric. Human Values 1:10.

18 Conway, G. 1985. Agroecosystem analysi s. Agr ic .

Admin. 20:31.

19Conway,

G.

1987. The properties of agroecosystems.

Agric. Syst. 20:31.

20 Cotgrove, S. 1982. Catastrophe or cornucopia. Wiley.

New

York,

NY.

21 Dillon,

J. L

1984. The farm as a purposeful sys tem.

Dep.

Agric. Beon. Bus. Manage.,

Univ New

England,

Armidale, Aust. Mimeo.

22 Douglass, G.

K.

1984. Agricultural sustainability in a

changing

world

order. Westview Press, Boulder.

CO.

23

Engelberg, J.,

and

L. L Boyarsky. 1979. The non

cybernetic nature

of

ecosystems. Am. J. 114:317.

24Ferguson, M. 1980. The aquar ian conspiracy. J . P.

Tarcher,

Los

Angeles,

CA.

25 Flood, R. L. 1990. Liberating systems theory: human

relat ions. Vol. 42. Plenum, New York,

NY

26 Forsythe,

K.

1986. I sophor : poesi s of experience.

Notes fol lowing Eur. Mtg. Cybernetics

and

Systems

Res. , Vienna, Apr il 1986.

27 Freire, P. 1974. Education for cri tical consciousness.

Sheed

and

Ward, London, Engl.

28 Fresco,

L

1984. Comparing anglophone

and franco-

phone

approaches to farming systems research

and

extension.

Paper 4th

Annu. Conf.

Farming

Syst. Res.

Kansas State Univ., Manhattan.

29 Gasson, R. 1973.

Goa ls and

values of farmers. J .

Agric. Beon. 14:521.

30

Habem1as,

J.

1972. Knowledge

and

human

interests.

Heinemann, London, Engl.

Journal

of

Dairy Science Vol . 74.

No.7.

1991

31 Hart R. 1982. The ecolog ical systems conceptual

framework for agricultural research and development.

Read ings Farm . Syst. Res. Dev. 44. W. Shaner, P.

Fhilipp,

and

W.

Schmehl, ed.

Westview

Press, Boul

der , CO.

32

Hofstader, D.

and

C. Dennett . 1982.

The mind s

I.

Barton Books . Toronto , ON, Can.

33

Ho11

J. E.

and D.

Schaarl.

1985. Technological

change

in agriculture--lhe systems movement

and

power. Agric. Sysl. 28:69.

34 Jackson,

M.

C. 1982. The nature

of

soft systems

thinking:

the work of

Churchman,

Ackoff and

Check

land. J. AppI. Syst. Anal. 9: 17 .

35Iohnson, G. L 1984.

Academia

needs a

new covenant

for

serving

agriculture. Mississippi Agric. Forestry

Exp. Stn. Spec. PubI. , Mississippi State.

36Iones.

P. 1989. Agricultural applications of expert

systems concepts. Agric. Syst. 31:3.

37 Kelly, G. 1955.

The

psychology

of

personal con

structs. Vol. 1

and

2. W. W. Norton,

New

York, NY.

38

Kingma

O. 1985. Agribusiness, productivity,

growth

and development

in

Australian agriculture. Page

67

Res.

Monogr

22. Transnational Corp. Res. Project.

Univ. Sydney, Aust.

39 Ko1b, D. 1984. Experiential learning: experience as

the source

of

learning

and

development. Prentice Hall,

Englewood Cliffs,

NI

4OKuhn, T. S. 1970. The structure

of

scientific revolu

tions.

2nd

ed.

The

Univ. Press, Chicago, IL

41

Langer

E. 1982. Automated l ives . Psychol .

Today

April 1982 :60.

42

Laszlo, E. 1972. Basic constructs

of

systems philoso

phy. Systematics 10:40.

43 Lewin, K 1951.

Field

theory in social sciences.

Harper

and

Row,

New

York,

NY.

44

Lowrance, R, B. R Stinner,

and

G. House , ed.

1984. Agricultural ecosystems:

unifying

concepts.

Iohn Wiley

and

Sons,

New

York, NY.

45

Marten G.

1986. Productivity, stability, sustainability,

equitability and antonomy as properties for

agroecosystem assessment. Agric. Syst. 26:291.

46

Maturana

H.

R.,

and

F.

J.

Varela. 1988.

The

tree

of

knowledge. Shambhala Press. London, Engl.

47 Miller,

A. 1983.

The

influence of personal biases

on

environmental problem-solving. J. Environ. Manage.

17:133.

48 Morley. F.H.W. and D.

H.

White. 1985. Modelling

biological systems. Agricultural systems research for

developing count ries . No. 11. Aust . Ct r. Inl . Agr ic .

Res. Canberra, Aust.

49

Norman, D.

and

M. Collinson. 1985.

Farming

systems

research in theory

and

practice. Agricultural systems

research

for

developing countries. No. 11. Aust. Ctr .

Int . Agric . Res . Canberra, Ausl .

50

Pirsig.

R.

1974.

Zen and the art

of motorcycle mainte

nance. COIgi Books.

Eating.

London, Engl.

51 P as J . 1986. Sys tems psychology in the schools.

Pergamon Press,

New

York,

NY.

52

Reason, P • ed. 1988. Human inquiry in action: de

velopments

in new paradigm

research. Sage. Publ. ,

London, Engl.

53Reason, P •

and

Heron. 1986. Research with people:

the paradigm of cooperative experiential inquiry. Per

son-Centred Rev. 1:457.

54Rogers. C.

1961. On becoming a person.

Houghton

Mifflin,

Boston, MA.



SYSTEMS 1HINKING AND PRACTICE

2373

55 Rosenhead J. 1984. Debating systems methodology:

confl ic ting ideas about confl ic t and ideas . J. Appl.

Syst. Anal. 11:79.

56 Sands. D M 1986. Fanning systems research:

clarifi-

cation

of

t erms and concepts. Exp. Agr ic . 22:87.

57 Shaner. W. W • P. F. Philipps. and W. R. Schmehl.

1982.

Fanning

systems research and development: a

guideline for developing countries. Westview Press

Boulder CO.

58 Simmonds. N. W. 1985. The state of the

art

of farm-

ing systems research. World Bank Washington DC.

59

Skolimowski H. 1985. The co operative mind as a

partner of the creative evolution. 1st Int. Conf. Mind-

Matter Interaction. Univ. Estadnal Campinas Brazil.

60 Soedjatmoko 1985. The science and praxis of com-

plexi ty . Proc. Uni ted Nat ions Univ. Sympo. Mont-

pelier. The United Nations Univ. Tokyo Jpn.

61 Strong D. R. D. Simberloff. L. G. Akele and B.

Thistle ed. 1984. Ecological communities: conceptual

issues and the evidence. Princeton Univ. Press Prince-

ton NJ.

62 Ulrich W. 1988. Systems thinking. systems practice

and practical philosophy: a

program

of

research.

Syst.

Pract. 1:137.

6

United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural

Organisation. 1986. Relevance of education to rural

development report of Asian Prog. Educ. Innovation

Dev. Reg. r up Mfg. Bangkok Thailand.

64 Vayda A. P. and B . J. McKay. 1975.

New

directions

in

ecology and ecological anthropology. Annu. Rev.

Anthropol. 4:293.

65

Von

Bertlanffy. L 1981. A syste ms

view of

man.

Essays. P. A. La Violette ed. Westview Press Boul-

der CO.

66

Youngberg

G.

1985. Edi toria l. Am. J. Alterna tive

gric 1:1.

JomnaI of

D ai ry Sci ence Vol. 74

No.7

1991

agricultura y sistemas de pensamiento

Documents

Transcript of agricultura y sistemas de pensamiento