Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Open Agriculture

Covered by: Elsevier - SCOPUS
Clarivate Analytics - Emerging Sources Citation Index

Open Access
See all formats and pricing
More options …

The European networks of research, education and training stakeholders in agroecology

Rose Nicot
  • Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée, Champssur- Marne, France
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Stéphane Bellon / Allison Loconto
  • Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée, Champssur- Marne, France
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Guillaume Ollivier
Published Online: 2018-12-05 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opag-2018-0058


In Europe, agroecology has become the center of many debates that animate political and professional arenas, particularly regarding the definition and scope of the concept itself. This paper attempts to understand the ways that the term agroecology is conceptualized by different participantsparticipants and how these concepts circulate so as to explore the interests at stake in the institutionalization of agroecology within the research and education institutions of Europe. We address the core research question of: what dynamics emerge in the networks of European stakeholders of agroecology? By combining different approaches of institutionalization based on network and discourse analysis, we study the dynamics of research, education and training organizations. We identify 10 different concepts of agroecology, distributed among 103 organizations. The significant difference that has been observed between the agroecological concepts in research and those in education/training emphasizes the gap between these two disciplines. The latter support a more political, transdisciplinary and holistic view of agroecology when compared to the former. Moreover, collaboration among European agroecology stakeholders is limited in both research and education/training. We also found that in most cases, collaboration between scholars does not guarantee a shared notion of agroecology, and conversely, sharing the same notion of agroecology does not assure collaboration. This led us to question the feasibility of institutionalizing agroecology and the missing link between a shared vision and the collective mobilization of stakeholders around a strong agroecology programme.

Keywords: Agroecology; networks; institutionalization; circulation


  • Altieri M.A., Nicholls C.I., Henao A., Lana M.A., Agroecology and the design of climate change-resilient farming systems, Agron. Sustainable Dev., 2015, 35, 869-890Google Scholar

  • Amekawa Y., Sseguya H., Onzere S., Carranza I., Delineating the Multifunctional Role of Agroecological Practices: Toward Sustainable Livelihoods for Smallholder Farmers in Developing Countries, J. Sust. Agric., 2010, 34, 202-228Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Benford R.D., Snow D.A., Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment, Annu. Rev. Sociol., 2000, 611-639CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bensin B.M., Agroecological characteristics description and classification of the local corn varieties chorotypes, Prague, 1925Google Scholar

  • Bensin B.M., Agroecology as a basic science of soil conservation, Soil Conserv., 1938, 152, 138-141Google Scholar

  • Brem-Wilson J., From ‘here’ to ‘there’: Social movements, the academy and solidarity research, Soc. Stud., 2014, 10, 111-132Google Scholar

  • Brym Z.T., Reeve J.R., Agroecological Principles from a Bibliographic Analysis of the Term Agroecology, In: Sustainable Agriculture Reviews: Volume 19, Lichtfouse E. (Ed.), Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2016, pp. 203-231CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Callon M., Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay, In: Power, action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge? Law J. (Ed.), Routledge, London, UK, 1986Google Scholar

  • Callon M., Courtial J.P., Turner W.A., Bauin S., From Translation to Problematic Networks: an Introduction to Co-word Analysis Social Science Information, 1983, 22, 191-235CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Candel J.J.L., Breeman G.E., Stiller S.J., Termeer C.J.A.M., Disentangling the consensus frame of food security: The case of the EU Common Agricultural Policy reform debate, Food Policy, 2014, 44, 47-58Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Chavalarias D., Cointet J.-P., Phylomemetic Patterns in Science Evolution-The Rise and Fall of Scientific Fields, PLOS One, 2013, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0054847Google Scholar

  • Della Porta D., Massimillano A., Mosca L., Reiter H., Globalization from below: Transnational activists and protest networks, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 2006Google Scholar

  • Dumont B., Groot J.C.J., Tichit M., Review: Make ruminants green again - how can sustainable intensification and agroecology converge for a better future? Animal., 2018,1-10Google Scholar

  • EUROSTAT, Statistiques sur l’enseignement supérieur, 2017, (in French)Google Scholar

  • Francis C., Lieblein G., Gliessman S., Breland T.A., Creamer N., Harwood R., et al., Agroecology: The Ecology of Food Systems, J. Sust. Agric., 2003, 22, 99-118Google Scholar

  • Ghabbour E.A., Davies G., Misiewicz T., Alami R.A., Askounis E.M., Cuozzo N.P., et al., Chapter One - National Comparison of the Total and Sequestered Organic Matter Contents of Conventional and Organic Farm Soils, In: Advances in Agronomy, Sparks D.L. (Ed.), Elsevier Academic Press Inc., 2017, 146, 1-35Google Scholar

  • Giddens, A. The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration, University of California Press, Berkeley, USA, 1984Google Scholar

  • Gliessman S., Defining Agroecology, Agroecol. Sust. Food., 2018, 42, 599-600Google Scholar

  • Gliessman S.R., Agroecology: the ecology of sustainable food systems, CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, 2015Google Scholar

  • Hargrave T.J., Van De Ven A.H., A Collective Action Model of Institutional Innovation, Acad. Manag. Rev., 2006, 31, 864-888CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • MAA, Le projet agro-écologique pour la France, Ministère de l‘Agriculture et de l‘Alimentation: Paris, France, 2018, (in French)Google Scholar

  • McAdam D., Tarrow S., Tilly C., Dynamics of contention, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2003Google Scholar

  • Mongeon P., Paul-Hus A., The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis, Scientometrics, 2016, 106, 213-228Google Scholar

  • Mooney P.H., Hunt S.A., Food security: the elaboration of contested claims to a consensus frame, Rural Sociol., 2009, 74, 469-497Google Scholar

  • Musson A., Rousselière D., De quoi l’agriculture écologiquement intensive est-elle le nom? Une analyse du changement institutionnel à travers l’approche discursive, Econ. Rurale, 2016, 356, 9-29, (in French)Google Scholar

  • North D.C., Institutions, institutional change and economic performance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1990Google Scholar

  • Nyeleni Movement, Declaration of the International Forum for Agroecology, 2015 13th February 2015; Available from: http://www.foodsovereignty.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Download-declaration-Agroecology-Nyeleni-2015.pdf.Google Scholar

  • Phillips N., Lawrence T.B., Hardy C., Discourse and institutions, Acad. Manag. Rev., 2004, 29, 635-652CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ponisio L.C., M‘Gonigle L.K., Mace K.C., Palomino J., de Valpine P., Kremen C., Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap, Proc. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci., 2015, 282, http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1799/20141396Google Scholar

  • Salvatore B., Nicoletti D., Klimek M., Dietrich P., Otthoffer L., Bluhm J., et al., The various approaches of agro-ecology in the different countries. Synthesis of the national reports. Austria-France-Italy-Lithuania-Slovenia, In: Report of the project „Teaching agro-ecology in the transitory period and its consequences for the Agricultural Knowledge Systems“, Euro-EducATES, 2017Google Scholar

  • Schmidt V.A., Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse, Annual Review of Political Science, 2008, 11, 303-326CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Schmidt V.A., Taking ideas and discourse seriously: explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth ‘new institutionalism’, Eur. Political Sci. Rev., 2010, 2, 1-25CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Teoharov M., One Hundred and Five Years of Soil Science in Bulgaria, Bulg. J. Soil Sci., 2016, 1, 5-19Google Scholar

  • Thivet D., La Vía Campesina et l‘appropriation de l‘agroécologie. In: Dynamiques des agricultures biologiques. Effets de contexte et appropriations, Cardona A., Chrétien F., Leroux B., Ripoll F., Thivet D. (Eds.), QUAE, Educagri, 2014, (in French)Google Scholar

  • Vavilov N.I., Agroecological survey of the main field crops, Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Moscow, 1957Google Scholar

  • Wenger E., Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity, Cambridge University Press, 1998Google Scholar

  • Wezel A., Bellon S., Doré T., Francis C., Vallod D., David C., Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A review, Agron. Sustain. Dev., 2009, 29, 503-515Google Scholar

  • Wezel A., Soldat V., A quantitative and qualitative historical analysis of the scientific discipline of agroecology, International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 2009, 7, 3-18.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2018-06-24

Accepted: 2018-10-13

Published Online: 2018-12-05

Published in Print: 2018-11-01

Citation Information: Open Agriculture, Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages 537–552, ISSN (Online) 2391-9531, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opag-2018-0058.

Export Citation

© by Rose Nicot, et al., published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. BY-NC-ND 4.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in