!

"
#
$
%
Agronomy [ ournal vol ume 100, | ssue 3 2008 771
Published in Agron. J. 100:771776 (2008).
doi:10.2134/agronj2007.0073
Copyright 2008 by the American Society of Agronomy,
677 South Segoe Road, Madison, WI 53711. All rights
reserved. No part of this periodical may be reproduced
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic
or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or
any information storage and retrieval system, without
permission in writing from the publisher.
C
Uvvvw: vvsv.vcu in agriculture and food systems
is fragmented into distinct projects, organized by dis-
ciplines, and focused on relatively narrow segments of the
whole. Production and economic returns provide indicators
of em ciency using current monetary measures, and these are
seen as independent from any valuation of the environmental
and social impacts of systems. Tere is onen duplication across
national boundaries or state lines as we attempt to cover all
important aspects of the food system in each of our research
and education institutions. Given the complexity of challenges
in agriculture and food, one objective is to commit more energy
to transdisciplinary approaches that enable us to look at the
whole picture in a systemic way. We consciously use the term
transdisciplinary to mean the integration of methods and
information from several disciplines, as compared to multi-
disciplinary that means a collection of disciplines that are not
necessarily integrated (Caporali et al., 2007). Te other objec-
tive important to the Nordic Region, where university faculties
are small and there is limited research support, is exploring
potentials for working across national boundaries to make em -
cient use of what is available. Te Nordic Agroecology Program
is developing a coordinated education strategy to meet these
two research objectives. Tis systems approach addresses pro-
duction, economic, environmental, and social challenges that
must be solved to produce food and maintain a livable environ-
ment. In this paper we describe the planning of an integrated
systems approach to education, both transdisciplinary and
multinational, that contributes to research and has potential
applications in other ecoregions.
Te past half century has seen an explosion in the human
population and unprecedented pressure on natural resources
and our life support system on the planet (Tilman et al.,
2002). Just as numbers of individuals of other species expand
in response to availability of food and other resources, we have
used technology and fossil fuels to multiply and extend our
reach and exploitation to every corner of the earth. Never in
history has one species come to dominate such a large propor-
tion of the land and sea, and to em ciently harvest, mine, trans-
port, process, and discard a growing proportion of the earths
natural resources each year. Te magnitude of the human pop-
ulation challenge has been described in general by Smil (2000),
Brown (2006), and others, and in an aggregated and quantita-
tive way by Brown and Ugliati (1999). As they all explain, there
is no way that we can continue to expand our numbers, in spite
of the onen favorable indicators provided by a short-term, neo-
classical economic model that shows progress in terms of gross
national product, while externalizing many costs to other areas
of the world or to the future (Ikerd, 2005).
&'()*&+)
Research in agriculture has strongly focused on discipline-oriented, natural science-based approaches to increasing production
with success measured by short-term, neoclassical economic evaluation. is strategy has contributed to impressive increases in
food production over the last half century. Growing concerns include environmental impacts, changes in rural communities,
and distribution of benets of current agricultural systems. One major theme of this paper is a holistic, ecological, and transdis-
ciplinary strategy for research in the agriculture and food sector, including attention to production and economics along with
environmental and social factors. Agroecology provides an integrative alternative to the conventional division of research into
specialized disciplines. e other primary theme is potential for a broader geographical approach to research, using the Nordic
Region model as a case study for designing an educational platform to integrate research with teaching. We believe that students
must develop a capacity to deal with future complexity and uncertainty, and thus be prepared to search out and answer di cult
questions that have not yet been asked. In a university culture of curiosity and commitment, we need learning landscapes that
prepare students to deal with change, embrace multiple dimensions of the food challenge, and establish participatory interac-
tions with clients, communities, and organizations. In connecting scientists and consumers with the origins of their food and
building awareness of the importance of the natural environment, we encourage wider support by society for research toward
long-term sustainable agriculture and food supplies. We provide a working model of how to plan regional, transdisciplinary
research to sustain agriculture and food systems.
Transolsclpllnary Researcb tor a Sustalnable Agrlculture ano
Fooo Sector
C. A. Francls,* G. Llebleln, T. A. 8relano, L. Salomonsson, U. Geber, N. Srlskanoarajab,
ano v. Langer
C.A. Francis, Dep. of Agronomy and Horticulture, Univ. of Nebraska,
Lincoln, NE 68583-0910; G. Lieblein and T.A. Breland, Norwegian
Univ. Life Sciences, s, Norway; L. Salomonsson, U. Geber, and N.
Sriskandarajah, Swedish Univ. Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden; V.
Langer, Copenhagen University, Denmark. Adapted from the Fourth Annual
Bentley Lecture, Univ. of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 19 Oct.
2006 [available at http://www.rr.ualberta.ca/Whats%Happening/Bentley-
lecture/; verined 14 Feb. 2008]. Received 23 Feb. 2007. *Corresponding
author (cfrancis2@unl.edu).
772 Agronomy [ ournal vol ume 100, | ssue 3 2008
Decisions driven by a business model where success is mea-
sured by the quarterly bottom line tend to mask the inequities
and impacts of uncontrolled economic growth on the wellbe-
ing of millions and the health of the environment. Tis could
be called an unanticipated emergent property of a once-success-
ful economic model described by Ikerd (2005) in Sustainable
Capitalism, a model that has evolved to where it serves a few
rather than all of society.
Successes of the Green Revolution in improving food pro-
duction over the past nve decades have been described by
Tilman et al. (2002), and we recognize that advances in wheat
(Triticum aestivum L.) and rice (Oryza sativa L.) yields in fact
were due to more than the enorts of a handful of plant breed-
ers. Tere was a concerted enort in CIMMYT and in IRRI by
a multidisciplinary team that worked across national borders
to improve genetics, solve agronomic problems in the neld, and
even confront policy challenges when these were slowing agri-
cultural development. Tilman et al. (2002) acknowledge some
of the unintended consequences such as reduction in genetic
diversity of crops, increasing dependence on nnite energy and
other production resources, and new concentrations of harm-
ful pesticides, nutrients, and greenhouse gases in the environ-
ment. Future security of agriculture and the food sector will
require us to view production in relation to long-term resource
use (Smil, 2000), growth of the human population (Brown,
2006), and impact of intensined land use on ecosystem services
(Daily, 1996; Millenium Ecosystem Assessment Board, 2006).
Agroecology, denned as the ecology of food systems, takes into
account these broad issues and multiple variables, and explores
them in terms of ecological principles in a whole systems con-
text (Francis et al., 2003; Gliessman, 2007). Tis perspective is
in line with the U.S. National Research Council (2003) priori-
ties for future research that goes beyond productivity and eco-
nomics to focus on food and the environment, human health,
and communities.
How can a regional integrated research/teaching program
make a unique contribution to solving the major questions that
face us today? Many of us in universities believe that transdisci-
plinary education leading to well-focused and relevant research
is one key to asking the right questions and dealing with com-
plex problems in the food system, in the environment, and in
social institutions dedicated to their improvement. In recent
decades much of agricultural education has relied on nnding a
technological nx for most challenges, one component at a time,
while largely ignoring ecology and broader approaches to ana-
lyze and improve whole systems. Factors dim cult to measure
such as ecosystem services are excluded from conventional eco-
nomic analysis (Daily, 1996), while complicated issues such as
distribution of benents are put to one side as externalities in the
calculation of gross national product or total export earnings
(Ikerd, 2005). Too onen we have len the study of large issues in
the hands of economists and political scientists, while those in
agronomy in fact have a better focus on the biophysical realities
and limits that in the long term will impact the sustainability
of our food systems.
In the Nordic Region, the agroecology education program
contributes to research using an experiential learning approach
well grounded in the historical literature of adult education
(Dewey, 1942; Kolb, 1984; Mezirow, 2000). We approach this
challenge with integrated disciplines and a team from several
countries. In this forum paper we provide the rationale for
organizing such a team and the planning methods used in the
Nordic program, and present a summary of ongoing research
that is integral to the agroecology learning landscape.
*,(,&*+-./*01*0)0,(.02.)-,.
3,&*2024.3&25(+&/,
We recognize at the outset that research within an agroeco-
systems perspective is one dimension of learning, where farm-
ers, academics, and students all engage in searching out prior
information (from experiences and the literature); organize,
plan and test new alternatives (using large-scale neld strips
or experimental plots, or surveys of consumer opinions and
behavior); and evaluating, communicating, and applying the
results (farming practices, technical publications). We believe
that identifying key food system constraints in the Nordic
region and integrating study of these issues into teaching pro-
grams will lead to planning a transdisciplinary research agenda
that taps into the talents of faculty at our several universities.
In August 2005 a 1-d workshop was convened in Stange,
Norway, with participation of key players in agroecology
education and research. We brainstormed the successes and
challenges in the current global food system, and how this
could impact the Nordic region in the future. Some of the
major challenges (summarized in Fig. 1) include fossil fuel and
chemical dependence, monocultures and loss of biodiversity,
dependence of most farmers on subsidies, potential disruption
of a specialized production system, and inequitable distribu-
tion of food in the present system. It was obvious that many of
these questions required study from a transdisciplinary vantage
point, and would need research perspectives and methods
that include both biophysical and social science strategies. We
decided that adequate measure of success in a research program
would require attention to multiple sustainability factors,
beyond the present focus on crop yields, animal production,
and short-term economic returns. Te planning goals reported
by Francis et al. (2006) are elaborated here.
An early decision was that scarce resources could be deployed
most em ciently if we agreed on key issues for research and on
a regional agenda. Incorporating these research priorities into
an agroecology teaching program would expand the human
resource and lead to several intermediate results. Priorities
include learning about improved production technologies for
sustainable systemsincluding organic farming, integrated sys-
tems appropriate to small- and medium-sized family farms, and
multiple measures or indicators of system success. By incorporat-
ing these priorities into an experiential learning program, stu-
dents will practice the methods and internalize the ideas before
launching into their individual research projects. One result will
be a shin of the overall research agenda in the region toward a
more coordinated enort on issues with highest priority.
We anticipate an improvement in food security based on
development of sustainable food systems, which depend on
a higher proportion of local foods that are produced using
renewable, contemporary, and internal resources. Greater
biodiversity in systems, integration of crops and animals, and
sustainable practices for soil fertility and pest management will
lead to conservation of natural resources and better environ-
Agronomy [ ournal vol ume 100, | ssue 3 2008 773
mental quality. Less reliance on national or EU sup-
port programs will reduce the economic fragility
of systems, and could lead to greater recognition of
the importance of local self reliance and produc-
tion of quality food. Study of the distribution of
benents of the food system could lead to informa-
tion available to policymakers who are concerned
about food equity and access to this vital resource
by everyone in society. Tese are listed as some of
the components of a sustainable food system in
the bottom of Fig. 1. Te goals are consistent with
current EU project selection criteria that focus on
multifunctional rural landscapes and sustainable
development. We also recognize the need for short-
term support from external sources to help in early
program development, to achieve a long-term goal
of greater self sum ciency.
One long-term research goal is to organize trans-
disciplinary educational programs that concentrate
on these same priority issues, integrate them into
the agroecology learning activities, make them
exciting and relevant to students, and then nnd
support for thesis projects that will support the
regional research agenda. Te breadth of these chal-
lenges, identined for the Nordic Region, is surpris-
ingly close to that specined for a future research
agenda in the United States (National Research
Council, 2003).
)*&2(50(+0/302&*6.&25.
,7/,*0,2)0&3.3,&*2024
Te agroecology program links learning to
current challenges in farming and food systems
by moving students to the neld for their introduction to the
courses. International student teams work with farmers and
food system clients in Norwegian counties to gain nrst-hand
experience in the local context. Tis links their study to plan-
ning for action together with clients and prepares them for
thesis research. Courses have been conceptualized and planned
by a multinational team including specialists who have formal
educational background in plant breeding, agronomy, soil
microbiology, soil fertility, and IT/adult pedagogy (Norway);
cereal chemistry, horticulture, veterinary medicine, and
learning systems design (Sweden); agronomy and physiology
(Denmark); and entomology and weed management (Finland).
Over the past decade, we have developed facilitation skills and
a working knowledge of social science methods. What has
drawn the group together is systems science theory and meth-
odology for improving situations in farming and food systems.
Resource materials that focused on whole systems were forma-
tive for the instructors and are used selectively as key references
for courses. Tese include key references on systems such as
An Introduction to Agricultural Systems (Spedding, 1979), on
blending theory and practice such as Systems inking, Systems
Practice (Checkland, 1981), on systems strategies for education
in Hawkesbury, Australia (Bawden et al., 1984), and on inte-
gration of biological and social science methods such as Systems
Approaches for Improement in Agriculture and Resource
Management (Wilson and Morren, 1990)
Each instructor was an established research scientist in a
conventional discipline, and each had teaching experience in
those disciplines, mostly in the traditional lecture mode. We
came together because of a shared appreciation of system com-
plexity and our dim culty in dealing with the large issues facing
farming and food systems, as shown in Fig. 1 and described
above. Te challenges seemed insurmountable from the point
of view of any one specinc area of study. Our pooled experience
as an international team was also informed by long-term tours
as graduate students, researchers, teachers, and development
specialists in several countries outside of the Nordic Region
Australia, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Philippines, Colombia,
United Statesand short-term consulting in many other coun-
tries in Latin America, Africa, Asia, and Europe. It was this
wealth of experience in dinerent research and educational sys-
tems and contexts that helped us plan a program useful to stu-
dents from the North as well as those from developing countries.
Experiential education has been central to the course plan-
ning strategy, and action research is a component of this
emphasis in the neld. Education in the agroecology program
has a foundation in the am rming of students prior knowledge
and experiences, aner Dewey (1942) and other early advocates
of experiential learning. Life experience is by nature transdis-
ciplinary, and learning knows few boundaries as we learn for
ourselves, absorbing knowledge and practicing skills, then we
learn from research to benent the public. Following Kolbs
!89:.;:.+<=#=>?@#8A?8>A."B.B""C.ADA?@%AE.F#8"#8?D.#@A@=#><.%@?<"CAE.@GF@>?@C.
#@A$H?A.=IC."$?>"%@A.B#"%.=>?8"I.#@A@=#><.>"%F=#8I9.=.9H"J=H.B""C.><=8I.?".
=.%8G@C.ADA?@%.K8?<.%"#@.H">=H.B""CE.=A.C@?@#%8I@C.=?.=.K"#LA<"F.8I.(?=I9@E.
2"#K=DE.&$9$A?.MNNO:
774 Agronomy [ ournal vol ume 100, | ssue 3 2008
(1984) cycle of learning, we recognize that research follows a
similar pattern of experience, renection, conceptualization,
and active experimentation that feeds into and enhances the
experience base for another iteration of the cycle. We agree
with Kuhn (1962) in e Structure of Scientic Revolutions
that we see what we know. One of our goals in the agroecol-
ogy program is to break out of patterns that trap students in a
current comfort zone to integrate new knowledge and experi-
ences into what they know so that transformative learning
can take place (Mezirow, 2000). We have demonstrated this
in our program in a paper on Becoming an Agroecologist
(Lieblein et al., 2005), with descriptions of what students will
acquire during the MSc program and what we hope they have
capacity to achieve. Te Norway course is similar to the multi-
state, summer travel course in the Midwest on agroecosystems
analysis (Wiedenhoen et al., 2003) and to the action educa-
tion methods used in agroecology at University of Minnesota
(Jordan et al., 2005), but has the unique learning opportunities
of working directly with clients on the farm and in the food
system over a period of time.
&4*1,+13146.P&(),*.1!.
(+0,2+,./*14*&P.02.21*Q&6
Te autumn semester courses in Norway provide one model
of how to begin a 2-yr MSc program designed to prepare stu-
dents to face uncertainty, complexity, and change in the future.
From site-specinc, concrete experiences; learning ecological
principles in the farm and community context; and practic-
ing systems theory the students learn agroecological principles
applicable to agricultural systems in many ecoregions. Te two
8-wk courses are Agroecology and Farming Systems, focused on
goals of farm families and resources on individual farms, and
Agroecology and Food Systems, focused on county-level issues
and goals for an environmentally friendly, resource-em cient,
secure and safe food system. Each course carries 15 ECTS
(European Credit Transfer System) credits, the equivalent of
eight semester credits in the United States.
We go beyond learning new knowledge and skills, convinced
that onen there is a larger gap between knowledge and action
than between ignorance and knowledge (Lieblein et al.,
2004). For this reason, we add the important dimensions of
exploring attitudes and building a capacity for future vision-
ing into education that will build special potentials for doing
systems research.
Te nrst course begins on the farm, with interviews of
farmers to learn about philosophy and goals, and tours to
assess the current systems and resources available. Field work
is supplemented by lectures and discussion in key areas, and
student consultation with experts and review of local literature
to broaden the information resource base. Based on farmer
goals, students design future scenarios and action plans to help
farmers reach those goals, and assess a priori the potentials for
farmers to succeed. An example could be the farmers desire
to convert from conventional to certined organic methods
over the next few years. Beyond the production and economic
dimensions of systems, students consider environmental
impacts as well as social integration of the farm into the local
community. Such a multi-dimensional and multi-perspective
analysis is similar to what they will face in the future on the job
when confronted with the multiple and onen connicting goals
of farmers making a living, meeting environmental standards,
and creating a good quality of life in their rural landscapes. Te
students complete a team client document for the farmers and
an individual learner document that describes their personal
learning journey in the team and on the farm.
Te second course begins on the farm and in the community,
with interviews that include farmers, processors, marketers,
consumers, and government om cials responsible for agriculture
and marketing in the county. Field interviews and observa-
tions are enriched by lectures and discussions with instructors,
consultation and review of statistics to get a better picture of
the food system in that place. Based on community goals, the
student team designs potential future food system alterna-
tives and action plans to achieve them. Examples of goals are
to achieve greater food self reliance and farm incomes, or to
increase the proportion of locally-grown organic food in the
marketplace. Students consider a wide range of resource issues
as well as regional and national forces that innuence the local
food system. Tey present their results to the community in a
client document, similar to what would be done by a consulting
team, and prepare an individual document to summarize their
personal learning experience.
Te approach to learning in the neld and community, work-
ing with clients on real-time issues and problems, and immers-
ing in the farming and food systems gives students a motivation
that is sometimes lost in a classroom where ideas, theories, and
facts are provided in a relatively context-free situation. Students
tell us they are excited about the potential of immediate appli-
cation of their ideas and analyses, and that they have gained
a conndence in dealing with farmers and others in the food
system that will be important in the future. Each student pre-
pares an individual renection, called a learner document, at the
end of each course, and one Canadian student summarized her
experience by saying that
Most signincantly, this was a lining of the learning veil
it captured the richness of my farming experiences
working closely with a group of people, trying to solve
real problems in all their complexity, being embedded
in a new ecosystem, using all my senses. Te project work
gave me the language and tools to better understand
learning. Tis was the nrst time theories behind this edu-
cational approach were made explicit. Tinking about
individual learning preferences, group dynamics, Kolbs
learning cycle, and son systems thinking gave me a new
paradigm from which I was able to begin exploring learn-
ing as more than just a means to acquire knowledge, but
rather as a valuable and powerful lesson in and of itself.
Alexandra English,
unpublished learner document, 2004
Completion of the MSc program requires two additional
semesters of courses in Norway or elsewhere, and onen focuses
on areas of specinc interest to individual students and that
will contribute to their thesis research. Programs may include
courses in soil fertility and management, integrated pest man-
agement, water quality and environmental impacts of systems,
statistical methods and designs, development studies, or others.
Agronomy [ ournal vol ume 100, | ssue 3 2008 775
Te types of thesis projects completed by stu-
dents provide a snapshot of the important systems
applications that we have designed this program
to achieve. Tey are both transdisciplinary and
international in several respects. Some examples
include: integrating school gardens into the cur-
riculum in Iceland; production and marketing of
organic foods in Boyac (Colombia); wastewater
used for vegetable production in Havana; survey
of farmers markets in Norway; emergy analysis
of cow/calf grazing systems in Argentine Pampas;
comparison of organic cashews for export with
organic vegetables for home consumption in
Tanzania; family incomes and wellbeing from
smallholder vegetable production in Sri Lanka;
potentials for eco- and agrotourism in north-
ern Norway, and another similar project in
Nebraska; and regional evaluation of produc-
tion systems experiments across the Nordic
Region. Results have been published in Journal of
Sustainable Agriculture; Agriculture, Ecosystems
and Enironment; and International Journal of
Agricultural Sustainability.
58A>$AA8"I.=IC.+"I>H$A8"IA."I.*@A@=#><
We have described the philosophy behind the regional and
transdisciplinary strategy for research, and how the teach-
ing program prepares students to deal with complex and
broad issues. Te thesis topics listed above illustrate a range
of research issues from the narrow focus on school gardens to
broad evaluation of systems experiments and regional grazing
systems. What is common across the thesis research projects
is a multi-perspective systems approach and an appreciation
by students of making explicit the context of their studies in
the spatial hierarchy of scale. Tey have chosen to use appro-
priate methods from both biological and social sciences, and
onen blended the two. In writing their conclusions, students
have onen discussed the broad implications of their results to
the farming and/or food system, describing local, regional or
national implications of the work and the potential impacts
of applying the results. We attribute this to their grounding
in agroecology that includes systems perspectives and multi-
dimensional views of a given problem situation. Aner 8 yr of
working with students in the program and reading their learner
documents, we are convinced that they are internalizing the
concepts of whole systems as well as using these to design their
own research.
Te priorities in research that are summarized in Fig. 1
include a series of broad issues that are dim cult or impossible to
study from the point of view and with the methods of any sin-
gle discipline, and we see in our students the capacity to work
in this complex arena with a transdisciplinary approach. We
also observe that their excitement in research is stimulated by
the class projects on the farm and in the community that put
them in touch with clients and their challenges. If the capaci-
ties needed for this approach were shown on a learning ladder
that climbs from lesser to greater complexity, we could illus-
trate this as shown in Fig. 2 (Lieblein et al., 2007). Rather than
start with learning routine skills or even facts and principles,
we push students into the deep water by putting them on farms
and in communities to explore real-world challenges as the
starting point for learning. Tey step down the ladder to gain
additional skills or nnd needed knowledge, and based on
this learning the students move up the ladder to envision an
improved future situation and design action plans for how cli-
ents can get there. Te nnal goal is competent graduates who
can apply what they learn to raise questions, solve challenges,
communicate and work well with others, and make meaning-
ful contributions to improving farming and food systems as
well as society.
We consider this approach to innovation through discovery
learning to be an important preparation for future research-
ers to contribute to responsible and meaningful development.
Graduate students learn how to diagnose problems in the neld
and then consider a broad range of methods to solve them. Te
combination of biological and social science research perspec-
tives and methods contributes to their well-rounded capacities
to deal with challenges that cannot be approached from any
single discipline. Te planning of an education program by a
multi-national group of researchers adds the additional wisdom
gained by a history of work in many dinerent agroecozones and
cultures, and continued involvement of this faculty in teaching
reinforces the interests of students in doing research in new places.
Planning a regional research agenda depends on both trans-
disciplinary perspective and people in several countries to
implement the program. Te model has potential to identify
and enectively deal with key contemporary issues in farming
and food systems. In our experience with the regional agroecol-
ogy network of researchers and educators, this model is most
applicable in universities with both research and teaching
responsibilities, and has potential for other ecoregions. Progress
to date in the integration of research and teaching to benent
both would not have been possible by working in a single disci-
pline in one university in one country.
!89:.M:.(?@FA.8I.=I.!"#!$%&'('!&$%)%*('&++!$.K8?<.AF@>8B8>.>"I?@I?.8I.H@=#I8I9.R;S.
#"$?8I@.AL8HHAE.RMS.?<@"#D.=IC.B=>?AE.RTS.H8IL8I9.F#=>?8>@.K8?<.?<@"#DE.RUS.V8A8"IW
8I9.B$?$#@.A>@I=#8"AE.=IC.ROS.C8#@>?@C.=>?8"I.=A.8I?@9#=H.?".?<@.@C$>=?8"I=H.
F#">@AA.XB#"%.!89:.;.8I.38@JH@8I.@?.=H:E.MNNYZ:
776 Agronomy [ ournal vol ume 100, | ssue 3 2008
Bawden, R.J., R.D. Macadam, R.G. Packham, and I. Valentine. 1984.
Systems thinking and systems practice in the education of agricultur-
ists. Agric. Syst. 13:205225.
Brown, L.R. 2006. Plan B 2.0: Rescuing a planet under stress and a civiliza-
tion in trouble. Earth Policy Inst., Washington, DC.
Brown, M.T., and S. Ugliati. 1999. Emergy evaluation of the biosphere and
natural capital. Ambio 28(6):483493.
Caporali, F., G. Lieblein, P. Von Fragstein, and C. Francis. ed. 2007.
Integration of research and education in agroecology and organic
farming. In Proc. ENOAT Workshop, Pieve Tesino, Italy. 3031 Aug.
2007. Dep. Plant Production, Univ. of Tuscia, Viterbo, Italy.
Checkland, P. 1981. Systems thinking, systems practice. John Wiley & Sons,
New York.
Daily, G.R. 1996. Natures services: Societal dependence on natural ecosys-
tems. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Dewey, J. 1942. Democracy and education. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Francis, C., T.A. Breland, G. Lieblein, U. Geber, L. Salomonsson, N.
Sriskandarajah, J. Porter, and J. Helenius. 2006. Creating a Nordic
regional research network in agroecology: Links to MSc education.
p. 320324. In H. Langeveld and N. Rling (ed.) Proc. Int. Farming
Systems Association (IFSA) Symp., Agricultural Knowledge and
Innovation Systems in Transition, Wageningen, the Netherlands. 711
May. Wageningen Univ., Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Francis, C., G. Lieblein, S. Gliessman, T.A. Breland, N. Creamer, R.
Harwood, L. Salomonsson, J. Helenius, D. Rickerl, R. Salvador,
M. Wiedenhoeft, S. Simmons, P. Allen, M. Altieri, C. Flora, and
R. Poincelot. 2003. Agroecology: e ecology of food systems. J.
Sustainable Agric. 22(3):99118.
Gliessman, S.R. 2007. Agroecology: e ecology of sustainable food sys-
tems. 2nd ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Ikerd, J. 2005. Sustainable capitalism: A matter of common sense. Kumarian
Press, Bloomeld, CT.
Jordan, N., D. Andow, and K. Mercer. 2005. Ecology of agricultural sys-
tems: A service-leaning course in agroecology. J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci.
Educ. 34:8389.
Kolb, D. 1984. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning
and development. Prentice Hall Publ, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Kuhn, T. 1962. e structure of scientic rvolutions. 3rd ed. Univ. of
Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Lieblein, G., T.A. Breland, E. stergaard, L. Salomonsson, and C. Francis.
2007. Educational perspectives in agroecology: Steps on a dual learn-
ing ladder toward responsible action. NACTA J. 51(1):3744.
Lieblein, G., E. stergaard, and C. Francis. 2005. Becoming an agro-
ecologist through action education. Int. J. Agric. Sustainability
2(3):147153.
Mezirow, J., ed. 2000. Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on
a theory in progress. Jossey-Bass Publ., San Francisco, CA.
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment Board. 2006. Living beyond our means:
Natural assets and human well-being. Statement of the Millenium
Ecosystem Assessment Board. Available at http:www.maweb.org/en/
index.aspz (accessed 22 February 2007; veried 15 Feb. 2008).
National Research Council. 2003. Frontiers in agricultural research: Food,
health, environment, and communities. National Academies Press,
Washington, DC.
Smil, V. 2000. Feeding the world: A challenge for the twenty-rst century.
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Spedding, C. 1979. An introduction to agricultural systems. Applied Sci.
Publ., London.
Tilman, D., K.G. Cassman, P.A. Matson, R. Rosamond Naylor, and S.
Polasky. 2002. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production
practices. Nature (London) 418:671677.
Wiedenhoeft, M., S. Simmons, R. Salvador, G. McAndrews, C. Francis,
J. King, and D. Hole. 2003. Agroecosystems analysis from the grass
roots: A multidimensional experiential learning course. J. Nat. Res.
Life Sci. Educ. 32:7379.
Wilson, K., and G. Morren. 1990. Systems approaches for improvement in
agriculture and resource management. Macmillan Publ., New York.
*,!,*,2+,(