Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-l4ctd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-11T11:19:00.129Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Systems Inquiry, Scientific Creativity, and Disciplinary Fringes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Ray D. William
Ray D. William*
Affiliation:
Dep. of Hortic., Oreg. State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Basic, applied, operational, and human activity research systems represent an array of inquiry methodologies. Techniques or methods within each methodology exhibit similar functions, although purposes and results of each inquiry process differ. Appreciation and possible use of the entire inquiry process focuses attention on scale questions within a hierarchy, and encourages use of all methodologies to enhance resolution of diverse situations. Systems inquiry recognizes the need for weed scientists and agriculturists to participate in activities ranging between reductionist science and human action research.

Type
Symposium
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 1992 , pp. 483 - 485
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 by the Weed Science Society of America 

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

LITERATURE CITED

1. Bawden, R. J., Macadam, R. D., Packham, R. J., and Valentine, I. 1984. Systems thinking and practices in the education of agriculturists. Agric. Syst. 13:205–225.Google Scholar
2. Checkland, P. 1981. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. John Wiley & Sons. Chichester. 330 p.Google Scholar
3. Doll, J. D., and Francis, C. A. 1992. Participatory research and extension strategies for sustainable agricultural systems. Weed Technol. 6:473–482.Google Scholar
4. Kolb, D. 1984. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 256 p.Google Scholar
5. Kropff, M. J., and Lotz, L.A.P. 1992. Optimization of weed management systems: The role of ecological models for interplant competition. Weed Technol. 6:462–470.Google Scholar
6. Major, C. S. 1992. Addressing public fears over pesticides. Weed Technol. 6:471–472.Google Scholar
7. Peters, T. J., and Waterman, R. H. Jr. 1982. In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best-run Companies. Harper and Row, New York. 360 p.Google Scholar
8. Vandermeer, J. 1989. The Ecology of Intercropping. Cambridge Univ. Press. 237 p.Google Scholar
9. Vietor, D. M., Cralle, H. T., and Chandler, M. 1992. Science, technology, and systems: A hierarchy of inquiry. Weed Technol. 6:452–461.Google Scholar
10. Wilson, K., and Morren, G.E.B. Jr. 1989. Systems Approaches for Improvement in Agriculture and Resource Management Macmillan Pub. Co., New York. 361 p.Google Scholar