agroecology's originality also stems from synthesis as well as from thinking outside the commonly accepted thesis of the existing knowledge base. Marching under the twin banners of synthesis and interdisciplinarity, agroecology, in line with discip1ines like anthropology, psychology and sociology, is at odds with what is commonly termed 'basic', natural research with its clear defined boundaries for research, theoretical framework and sense of coherence. However, science is perhaps moving towards the agroecological model, where the constructed and the objective aspects of science are both recognized. For example, disciplines such as climatology and some aspects of geosciences appear to becoming more integrative and less reductionist. This trend is evident, for example, when the activities of humans are seen as within the system of study rather than external to it. An example would be the role that human activities play in land use change or as drivers of biogeochemical processes such as the global carbon and nitrogen cycles. Nowadays, these originally natural cycles cannot be studied and understood without understanding and integrating the human role. In this 'post-academic science (Ziman, 2000) the cultural and social context of science as a process of knowledge creation is explicit.Doubt is the restraint on originality in science and its application, via scepticism, is the fifth Mertonian norm. This enters in at least two stages in the scientific process. New ideas and theories are evaluated against a sceptical starting point - the null hypothesis. Having successfully cleared this obstacle, a new piece of scientific knowledge is then subjected to further doubt by anonymons referees who act on behalf of the scientific community. In agroecology, the first of these steps sometimes differs from the above scientific norm. Some agroecological studies do not start with a classical null hypothesis but include semi-quantitative surveys, rapid rura1 assessments and studies closely linked to agricultural development. These can be and are subjected to the second level of doubt. However, no method of collecting data should preclude the need for an explicit underlying hypothesis, question or assumption that is being tested.In summary, agroecology meets many of the Mer­tonian norms of science and where it differs it does so in a way that perhaps anticipates the manner and the direction in which the social position of science is changing. Having concluded this, the next two sections consider two of the main issues that face agroecologists; scale and interdisciplinarity (Marceau, 1999).4. ScaleThe issue of scale means that there is a gap be­tween the scale at which most agroecological information is currently generated and the scale at which most decisions concerning agricultural systems are made (Dalgaard, 2001). The results of agroecological stud­ies, generated on the plot, field or farm level, cannot always readi1y be generalised to the regional, national or global level relevant for decision-makers. Because of this gap, the results are often misinterpreted or not used in the decision-making process (Lerland et al., 2000). Scaling issues have been addressed for many years in sciences such as physics (Crutchfield, 1994) or economics (Cropper and Oates, 1992). Until recently, there has been relatively little focus on methods to convey