There is an abundance of research aiming to provide recommendations about how to transform agriculture towards sustainability, but different recommendations can sometimes be completely at odds with each other and it is often difficult for practitioners and even for researchers from other fields to interpret these conflicting recommendations. A more open dialogue of assumptions and limitations in research would make contrasting research findings more intelligible and valuable in discussions on sustainability.
– With our article we hope to show that there is a diversity within research about what sustainable agriculture is; all research takes some perspective, no research is “neutral” or describes the whole. We believe that research could have more relevant input to societal discussions on sustainability if researchers not only saw it as their role to deliver ‘facts’ on how to achieve sustainability, but also spoke openly about the basic assumptions and limitations of their research’ says Klara Fischer, researcher and senior lecturer in environmental communication at the Department of Urban and Rural Development at SLU.
Two dominant but different strands of research
In the study, the group investigated two dominant strands of research on sustainable agriculture – agroecology and sustainable intensification. The analysis found that these two strands are based on different perspectives on what sustainable agriculture is, use different theories and methods, and have different ideas about how to achieve sustainable agriculture. At the same time both strands are unclear about how choices such as about empirical focus, theories and methods, create limitations regarding what we can learn about sustainable agriculture.
– The lack of transparency about the limitations that we identified in the two dominant research strands is problematic, as it suggests that each field considers that its own approach is sufficient for solving key challenges in agriculture. In this way, science contributes to polarized discussions on sustainability in agriculture and hinders a wider understanding of what each scientific approach can and cannot contribute in the quest towards sustainability, says Fischer.
Klara Fischer hopes for greater awareness within the research community about that all research rests on basic assumptions, and that conscious and unconscious choices during the research process affect what research can contribute to the conversation on sustainable agriculture. If researchers in general became humbler about their own limitations, and more interested in listening to others, it would lead to a more relevant role for research in the sustainability conversation.
Devoted to interdisciplinarity
The research for the article was performed with support of the Interdisciplinary Academy (IDA) at SLU. The five authors of the article, Klara Fischer, Giulia Vico, Helena Röcklinsberg, Hans Liljenström and Riccardo Bommarco, together formed one of the two IDA groups 2022-2023. Through IDA, the researchers could devote one day a week for eight months discussing interdisciplinarity in agricultural research. All five belonged to different institutions and academic disciplines - something that was both an advantage and a challenge.
– In our discussions and joint writing, we could make use of our broad competence and diverse experiences, but this diversity also sometimes made our joint work difficult, leading to misunderstandings and slowing progress. Writing the article as an interdisciplinary team was an important learning process for us, says Klara Fischer.
Link to article
Link to article in Nature Sustainability: Progress towards sustainable agriculture hampered by siloed scientific discourses
