Agroecology, scaling and interdisciplinarity
Abstract
Based on a review of its history, its present structure and its objective in the future, agroecology is defined as an integrative discipline that includes elements from agronomy, ecology, sociology and economics. Agroecology’s credentials as a separate scientific discipline were measured against the norms of science, defined by Robert King Merton (1973): communalism, universality, disinterestedness, originality and doubt. It is concluded that agroecology meets many of these norms and where it differs, it does so in a way that perhaps anticipates the manner and the direction in which the social position of science is changing. Accepting agroecology as a separate scientific discipline, the two main issues with which it must contend were considered to be those of scaling and interdisciplinarity. Scaling is a problem because results of agroecological research are typically generated at small spatial scales whereas applications are frequently implemented in larger, administrative units. A framework to convey information from science to decision-makers was proposed and tested in a case study of farm energy use. Interdisciplinarity is a problem because researchers from different disciplines see the world from different viewpoints, use different language, work at different locations and use different criteria to evaluate one another's work. Progress in this area is likely to be slow and driven by the need to justify the value of science to society.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Agroecology is largely and increasingly embraced by the scientific community.
“Agroecology is largely and increasingly embraced by the scientific community [4,5,9,10] and also by farmers themselves to meet more resilience and autonomy [11].”
From How Are Landscapes under Agroecological Transition Perceived and Appreciated? A Belgian Case Study (2020) · cites this paper as [9]
The paucity of empirical studies of holistic processes of agroecological transition beyond the farm scale becomes more acute as the scale of the territory increases.
“While agroecology has been called a multi-scale approach (Dalgaard, Hutchings and Porter 2003), the paucity of empirical studies of holistic processes of agroecological transition beyond the scale of a given farm becomes even more acute as we increase the scale of the territory in question.”
From Exploring the contradictions of scaling: action plans for agroecological transition in metropolitan environments (2020) · cites this paper as Dalgaard, Hutchings and Porter 2003
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 90 · Cited by 400
- Authors
- Dalgaard, T., Hutchings, N. J., & Porter, J. R.
- Corresponding author
- Dalgaard, Tommy
- Venue
- Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2003-11
- Volume
- 100
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 39-51
- ISSN
- 0167-8809 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2087658581
- Cited by
- 400
- References
- 90
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 27
- FWCI
- 11.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment (publishedVersion)
- VTechWorks (Virginia Tech) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Sustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis
- Keywords
- agroecology, scaling, interdisciplinarity, norms of science, science-policy interface, agricultural energy use, history of agroecology
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review