Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:57:00.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Taking a pragmatic behavioral approach to alternative agriculture research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Leslie Aileen Duram
Leslie Aileen Duram
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901-4514; duram@siu.edu.
Get access

Abstract

This article seeks to stimulate thought on the philosophy behind agricultural research. Pragmatism is identified as a philosophical basis for studying environmental issues that focus on human behavior. The ways in which this approach is applicable to the study of alternative agriculture are illuminated. “Behavioral pragmatists” differ from “behavioral positivists” in their aim, focus, process, and approach to research. I describe the main goals of the pragmatic behavioral approach: accepting a systems approach to study the interrelationships between humans and the environment; gaining understanding through human experiences; viewing problems as whole complex “problematic situations”; and promoting social activism and appropriate policy formulation. Combining qualitative and quantitative methods is often most effective. Pragmatism allows for holistic analysis that incorporates numerous factors that influence human uses of the environment. A specific example shows how behavioral pragmatism is effective in research on alternative agriculture.

Keywords

pragmatismbehavioral research
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , June 1998 , pp. 90 - 95
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Alexander, T. 1991. The technology of desire: John Dewey, social criticism, and the aesthetics of human existence. In Durbin, P. (ed). Europe, America, and Technology: Philosophical Perspectives. Kluwer, Amsterdam. pp. 109–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Alexander, T. 1995. Educating the democratic heart: Pluralism, traditions and the humanities. Studies in Philosophy and Education 12:245–259.Google Scholar
3.Beck, R.N. 1969. Perspectives in Philosophy. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
4.Bennett, J.W., and Dahlberg, K.A.. 1990. Institutions, social organization, and cultural values. In Turner, B., Clark, W., Kates, R., Richards, J., Mathews, J., and Meyer, W. (eds). The Earth as Transformed by Human Action: Global and Regional Changes in the Biosphere over the Past 300 Years. Cambridge University Press, New York, N.Y. pp. 69–86.Google Scholar
5.Berry, W. 1986. The Unsettling of America: Culture and Agriculture. Sierra Club, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
6.Blaikie, P. 1985. Political Ecology of Soil Erosion in Developing Countries. Longman, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
7.Boal, F.W., and Livingstone, D., eds. 1989. The Behavioural Environment: Essays in Reflection, Application, and Reevaluation. Routledge, London, England.Google Scholar
8.Castle, E. 1996. A pluralistic, pragmatic and evolutionary approach to natural resource management. In Light, A. and Katz, E. (eds). Environmental Pragmatism. Routledge, London, England. pp. 231–250.Google Scholar
9.Charon, J.M. 1979. Symbolic Interactionism. Prentice Hall, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
10.Clancy, K. 1990. Agriculture and human health. In Edwards, C., Lal, R., Madden, P., Miller, R., and House, G. (eds). Sustainable Agricultural Systems. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, Iowa. pp. 655–665.Google Scholar
11.Dewey, J. 1958. Experience and Nature. Dover, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
12.Duram, L. 1997. A pragmatic study of conventional and alternative farmers in Colorado. Professional Geographer 49(2):202–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Emel, J., and Peet, R.. 1991. Resource management and natural hazards. In Peet, R. and Thrift, N. (eds). New Models in Geography: The Political Perspective. Unwin and Hyman, Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 49–76.Google Scholar
14.Frazier, J. 1981. Pragmatism: Geography and the real world. In Harvey, M. and Holly, B. (eds). Themes in Geographic Thought. Croom Helm, London, England. pp. 61–72.Google Scholar
15.Gleick, J. 1987. Chaos: The Making of a New Science. Viking, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
16.Goering, P., Norberg-Hodge, H., and Page, J.. 1993. From the Ground Up: Rethinking Industrial Agriculture. Zed Books, London, England.Google Scholar
17.Golledge, R. G. 1981. Misconceptions, misinterpretations, and misrepresentations of behavioural approaches in human geography. Environment and Planning A 13:1325–1344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Hallberg, G. 1987. Agricultural chemicals in ground water: Extent and implications. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 2:3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Harshorne, C., and Weiss, P.. 1931. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Vol. 5. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
20.Jacobson, M.F., Lefferts, L.Y., and Garland, A.W.. 1991. Safe Food: Eating Wisely in a Risky World. Living Planet Press, Los Angeles, California.Google Scholar
21.Jackson, W. 1980. New Roots for Agriculture. Univ. of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.Google Scholar
22.James, W. 1907. Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. Longman &; Green, New York, N.Y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Kloppenberg, J., and Geisler, C.. 1985. The agricultural ladder: Agrarian ideology and the changing structure of U.S. agriculture. J. Rural Studies 1:59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Light, A., and Katz, E. (eds). 1996. Environmental Pragmatism. Routledge, London, England.Google Scholar
25.Lorenz, E. 1984. Predictability: Does the flap of a butterfly's wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas? Tellus 36A:98–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.McDuffie, H., Dosman, J., Semchuk, K., Olenchock, S., and Senthilselvan, A.. 1995. Agricultural Health and Safety: Workplace, Environment, Sustainability. Lewis, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
27.Merchant, C. 1992. Radical Ecology: The Search for a Livable World. Routledge, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
28.Miles, M., and Huberman, A.. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.Google Scholar
29.Nash, R. 1990. American Environmentalism: Readings in Conservation History. 3rd ed.McGraw-Hill, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
30.Smolik, J., Dobbs, T., and Rickerl, D.. 1995. The relative sustainability of alternative, conventional, and reducedtill farming systems. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 10:25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31.Soule, J.D., and Piper, J.K.. 1992. Farming in Nature's Image: An Ecological Approach to Agriculture. Island Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
32.Thayer, H.S. 1970. Pragmatism: The Classic Writings. New American Library, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
33.Wescoat, J.L. 1987. The “practical range of choice” in water resources geography. Progress in Human Geography 11:41–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34.Wescoat, J.L. 1992. Common themes in the work of Gilbert White and John Dewey: A pragmatic appraisal. Annals Assoc. American Geographers 82:587–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35.White, G.F. 1961. The choice of use in resources management. Natural Resources J. 10:20–40.Google Scholar
36.White, G.F. 1972. Geography and public policy. Professional Geographer 24(2):101–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37.Wolpert, J. 1964. The decision process in spatial context. Annals Assoc. American Geographers 54:537–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38.Zaring, D. 1996. Federal legislative solutions to agricultural nonpoint source pollution. Environmental Law Review 26:10128–10137.Google Scholar