Summary: This paper uses “scientometrics” to understand the structure of science on Holistic Management (HM) to better understand the controversy underlying it. The authors used papers in Web of Science since 1980 citing the work of Allan Savory, as a way of delineating a field that is otherwise “chaotic with terminology.” Their results show that those who take a positive position on Holistic Management are those doing farm-scale (rather than experimental) work in dry climates. Those working within the various disciplines conducting grazing research are more aligned with what is reported in the bibliographic citations and their expressed opinion on Holistic Management practices. There is a need, say the authors, to resolve competing understandings in specific contexts with diverse participants to inform grazing decisions.
Sherren, Kate, and C. Kent. 2017. Who’s afraid of Allan Savory? Scientometric polarization on Holistic Management as competing understandings. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 1-16. doi:10.1017/S1742170517000308.