312 Enabling Policies and Institutions for Sustainable Agricultural and Food Systems
The realist–positivist epistemology is a coherent and internally consistent par-
adigm which most agricultural professionals have drilled into them, or absorb dur-
ing their training, whether it is technical or social, and whether it is at an academic,
polytechnic or secondary level institute. But it is an epistemology which is increas-
ingly incompatible with the search for a sustainable society.
Kuhn (1970) has opened our eyes to the notion of coherent and internally
consistent paradigms which shift as the number of plausible knowledge claims
which are in conflict with them increases. We then move from a period of ‘normal
science’ during which people agree on the fundamental premises and occupy
themselves with questions within the paradigm, into a period of ‘post-normal’ sci-
ence, during which the paradigm itself is contested.
An increasing number of knowledge claims which are inconsistent with the
realist–positivist paradigm (Box 16.7) arise in current debates about agriculture
and the environment.
Box 16.7 Some claims at odds with the realist–positivist paradigm- Agriculture has multiple goals which are not mutually compatible. Hence the
assumption of unambiguous goals and the focus on ‘best technical means’ is
becoming irrelevant. The need for arbitration among contested goals is becom-
ing one of the key challenges in dealing with our natural resources. - Decisions about the use of natural resources are less and less a question of
expertise or the province of specialist institutions, and more and more deter-
mined by negotiation and agreement among stakeholders. The focus shifts
from result to process. The problems we are faced with have less to do with
instrumental problems, i.e. people–thing problems, and increasingly to do with
people–people relationships, i.e. social problems. This has important implica-
tions for agricultural science which has so far profiled itself as a biophysical and
technical activity. - In the conventional paradigm, innovation is seen to originate in science and to
be realized through the transfer and adoption of the results of science (the linear
model or transfer-of-technology (TOT) model). But it is increasingly clear that, in
practice, innovation emerges from interaction among various ‘actors’, i.e.
among people and collectivities as role playing and sense making beings. Each
one contributes to the final outcome (e.g. Kline and Rosenberg, 1986; Engel,
1995). Local knowledge, business ingenuity, farmer experimentation and inven-
tiveness are as important as expert knowledge and the role of specialized actors
such as scientists and farm advisors. - Agricultural development is conventionally seen as driven by technological
change. However, few would now disagree that price changes, improved insti-
tutional support (reducing transaction costs), conducive policy contexts, value
shifts and social organization can be necessary conditions for, and sometimes
the stimulus of, innovation.