View
221
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
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
7/25/2019 agricultura y sistemas de pensamiento
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/agricultura-y-sistemas-de-pensamiento 2/12
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
7/25/2019 agricultura y sistemas de pensamiento
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/agricultura-y-sistemas-de-pensamiento 3/12
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
7/25/2019 agricultura y sistemas de pensamiento
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/agricultura-y-sistemas-de-pensamiento 4/12
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
7/25/2019 agricultura y sistemas de pensamiento
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/agricultura-y-sistemas-de-pensamiento 5/12
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.
7/25/2019 agricultura y sistemas de pensamiento
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/agricultura-y-sistemas-de-pensamiento 6/12
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
7/25/2019 agricultura y sistemas de pensamiento
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/agricultura-y-sistemas-de-pensamiento 7/12
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
7/25/2019 agricultura y sistemas de pensamiento
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/agricultura-y-sistemas-de-pensamiento 8/12
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
7/25/2019 agricultura y sistemas de pensamiento
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/agricultura-y-sistemas-de-pensamiento 9/12
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
7/25/2019 agricultura y sistemas de pensamiento
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/agricultura-y-sistemas-de-pensamiento 10/12
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
7/25/2019 agricultura y sistemas de pensamiento
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/agricultura-y-sistemas-de-pensamiento 11/12
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.
7/25/2019 agricultura y sistemas de pensamiento
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/agricultura-y-sistemas-de-pensamiento 12/12
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
Recommended