Abstract
Holistic management (HM) is a decision-making framework, first developed in grazing systems, which combines intensive, rapid rotation of grazing livestock with adaptive and holistic decision making. Holistic management's use of systems thinking concepts may help farmers cope with increasing complexity on their farms. We used Q-methodology, a mixed method approach for identifying discourses, to understand the levels and types of systems thinking employed by farmers and HM trainers along a gradient of HM engagement. With responses from 18 Canadian and American participants, we identified 3 main viewpoints: the Fluent Systems Thinker, with adherence to core systems ideas such as tackling root causes and mimicking nature; the Aspirational Systems Balancer, who appreciates systems thinking ideas but struggles with application; and the Independent Creative Farmer, who adheres to more conventional farming traditions but values creativity and learning. These groups differed in their levels of empowerment, creativity, goal setting, and willingness to learn, all of which can affect capacity to manage complex decisions. All but one participating HM trainer were Fluent Systems Thinkers, suggesting the alignment of HM with systems thinking. All three of our participating females fell under the Aspirational Systems Balancer, suggesting lower levels of empowerment. We concluded that stronger engagement with HM correlates with higher adherence to systems thinking ideas and different types of systems thinking, although more research is needed to explore the direction of causation, the role of gender, and the ultimate effects on farm outcomes.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Article number | 19 |
Journal | Ecology and Society |
Volume | 24 |
Issue number | 3 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 2019 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:This work was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada via an Insight Grant (#435-2015-0702, 2015-2019) to Dr Kate Sherren (PI). The study methods were reviewed and approved by the Social Sciences & Humanities Research Ethics Board at Dalhousie University (REB # 2018-4403). The authors acknowledge Kristine Dahl for her feedback on the statement concourse and assistance recruiting ranchers. Finally, we are grateful to the 18 practitioners who participated in this research, and the 2 anonymous reviewers for helpful feedback.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 by the author(s).
ASJC Scopus Subject Areas
- Ecology