Progress towards sustainable agriculture hampered by siloed scientific discourses

Abstract

There is no consensus in society on how to achieve sustainability. Scientists’ limited experience in reflecting on their guiding assumptions, combined with a tendency to inflate their own research findings, hinders interdisciplinary dialogue and limits the usefulness of science. Through bibliometrics and discourse analysis, we analysed highly cited articles on agroecology and sustainable intensification. In broad terms, agroecology prioritizes diversity while sidelining productivity and adheres to relational epistemology, while sustainable intensification emphasizes boosting crop production while reducing environmental impact within a reductionist epistemology. Both discourses claim to have the solution to agricultural sustainability but are largely inexplicit about their guiding assumptions and their own limitations, and rarely engage with research in the other discourse. Interdisciplinary dialogue based on transparent and self-critical reflection on the assumptions and limitations of research could increase the relevance of science in societal dialogues about alternative pathways towards sustainable agriculture. Two major discourses for agricultural sustainability, agroecology and sustainable intensification, have produced extensive research bases, but do not engage or overlap with each other. This analysis examines how these ‘silos’ may hamper further research.