Challenges and opportunities for embedding social science in pesticide resistance research and outreach

Abstract

Pesticide resistance constitutes a growing management challenge across agricultural systems worldwide, as complex interplays between social, biophysical, and technological factors create wicked problems that resist simple solutions. Transdisciplinary approaches that bring together researchers and practitioners with diverse disciplinary repertoires have been proposed to tackle pesticide resistance but, despite increasing interest, remain sporadic and often ineffective. In many cases this is due to an insufficient involvement of social scientists, misconceptions that better management merely requires more information, and limited appreciation for the diversity of social scientific perspectives. This article addresses this dearth by synthesizing relevant scholarship to show how the social sciences can help to better understand and more effectively manage pesticide resistance. Following an overview of the main theoretical and methodological approaches employed by social scientists, we demonstrate their nuanced practical contributions in herbicide and insecticide resistance management. These cases demonstrate that the crux of pesticide resistance management is context, with no one‐size‐fits‐all solutions. Social scientists can offer a diverse range of distinct perspectives and tools to jointly develop context‐specific solutions with biophysical and applied scientists. However, effective transdisciplinarity requires early collaborative problem framing involving all disciplinary partners and meaningful ongoing engagements. The article, therefore, concludes with practical suggestions for how pest management researchers and practitioners can start to connect with social scientists to more holistically address the various aspects that make pesticide resistance management a complex wicked problem. © 2025 The Author(s). Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.

Pest resistance management constitutes a ‘wicked problem’ that requires meaningful transdisciplinary collaboration involving social sciences. This article outlines their theoretical and methodological diversity, demonstrated through herbicide and insecticide resistance scholarship.

1. INTRODUCTION

Transdisciplinary approaches are necessary to effectively address environmental management problems that are ill‐defined, complex, and ambiguous. ¹ Pesticide resistance is highly characteristic of this type of issue, also known as a wicked problem. ² , ³ , ⁴ Wicked problems are amalgamations of social, economic, and bio‐ecological factors that are often unsolvable, or at the very least unsolvable by simple, single‐discipline approaches. ⁵ It has been suggested that transdisciplinary collaboration – that is, work that engages diverse societal stakeholders and draws on a wide range of knowledge sources in an ongoing and collective process of problem identification and action planning ⁶ – is key to effectively manage pesticide resistance going forward. ⁶ , ⁷ Indeed, approaches to pesticide resistance that involve transdisciplinary collaboration have resulted in novel solutions to intractable problems (e.g., Barber et al. ⁸ ).

Calls for transdisciplinary approaches to pesticide resistance management are consistent with a wider trend towards incorporating social sciences into what have traditionally been considered bioecological research priorities. For instance, in the United States, the National Science Foundation is investing in transdisciplinary research that can translate to broader impacts and effectively address global challenges. ⁹ Likewise, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) now calls for transdisciplinary collaboration in many of their programs, as does the US Environmental Protection Agency. ⁹

These calls increasingly require that proposals for funding go beyond including social scientists on biophysical science projects as an afterthought. For instance, the National Science Foundation Dynamics of Integrated Socio‐Environmental Systems program calls for proposals that evaluate and ‘explore a connected and integrated socio‐environmental system that includes explicit analysis of the processes and dynamics between the environmental and human components of the system.’ ⁹ Yet, truly effective transdisciplinary research is often highly complicated, plagued by misunderstandings across disciplines and stakeholder groups, preconceived differences in power, and diverging worldviews. ¹⁰ One key component of building successful transdisciplinary collaborations is increased cross‐disciplinary understanding of common research approaches and methodologies, theoretical frameworks, problem definitions, data types, philosophies, and worldviews. ¹ , ¹⁰ , ¹¹ , ¹² Growing this understanding promotes respect, openness, trust, and the shared vision needed for parties from multiple disciplines and institutions to collaborate effectively.

As three social scientists who have spent a good portion of their careers researching the human dimensions of pest and pesticide resistance management and working in transdisciplinary teams, it is our purpose in this article to outline the diverse contributions social scientific approaches can make to studies on pesticide resistance. To this end, we synthesize a broad range of studies on pesticide resistance that incorporate social science aspects to varying degrees. We provide a summary of common themes and approaches to understanding the problem of pesticide resistance, as well as how this problem might be more effectively managed. This synthesis provides an entry point to increase cross‐disciplinary understanding of the approaches, methodologies, and theoretical frameworks that are commonly used by social scientists studying pesticide resistance, promoting more meaningful and effective transdisciplinary collaborations in the future.

We first review how the social sciences broaden understandings of pesticide resistance through approaches that range from (relatively) simple to more complex system perspectives involving sociocultural, structural, biophysical, and technical factors. We then orient the reader with key social science disciplines by outlining their main theoretical insights and common methodological approaches. Two examples – herbicide resistance (HR) and insecticide resistance (IR) – are reviewed as demonstrations of what integration of social sciences brings to these domains of understanding. A discussion of the gaps, future needs, and potential for a deeper integration of social science into pesticide resistance research and outreach is provided, along with concluding thoughts and action points for how researchers and practitioners involved in pesticide resistance management may realize the substantial analytical and prescriptive value social scientific approaches offer.

2. FROM SIMPLE TO COMPLEX SOCIAL UNDERSTANDINGS OF PESTICIDE RESISTANCE

One common assumption that plagues the field of pest management is that pesticide resistance is the result of a knowledge deficit. Implicit in much pesticide resistance management research and extension programs is that farmers develop resistance problems because they do not know about integrated pest management or best management practices, are ignorant of the nature of resistance issues, or are not aware they have a pesticide resistance problem on their property. ⁴ , ¹³ The solution to this deficit is seen to lie in capacity building, that is, increasing farmers' knowledge or skills, that can be achieved through top down approaches, such as the development of new brochures, websites, decision‐support tools, or field days that aid farmers in learning about how to best manage resistance on their properties. ¹⁴ , ¹⁵ While such tools are undoubtedly useful, on their own they are insufficient to address the multiple social layers that shape the evolution of pesticide resistance. There is also evidence that many farmers already have high levels of awareness as well as the knowledge needed to, theoretically, manage pesticide resistance. ¹⁵ , ¹⁶ The focus on individual knowledge deficits means attention is narrowed down to what people know rather than the broader set of sociocultural, structural, biophysical, and technical factors that shape behaviors and practices, with insufficient attention given to the role of broader social groups. At a minimum, the growing body of social research reveals a need to consider the values that drive farmers' knowledge and understanding, the role of social relationships and collectively held norms, as well as societal trends that shape attitudes towards pesticides.

To understand the potential contributions social sciences can make to transdisciplinary studies on pesticide resistance, the next sections explain different social science disciplines, their unique ways of understanding the layers of the social world, key concepts they provide insights into, and the implications this has for how they understand the challenge of pesticide resistance. We outline the diverse methods social sciences use for understanding corresponding human behaviors and then provide examples of how these studies provide novel insights into HR and IR management.

2.1. Key theoretical insights from the social sciences

The most common way we understand people in the context of pesticide resistance management is from an individual perspective. While it is often assumed that what people know readily translates into how they act with respect to pests, psychology has developed a range of theories that unpack this far from simple relationship. Theories, such as the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Technology Acceptance Model, identify diverse factors, for example attitudes, risk perceptions, and norms, that mediate how information is interpreted and the extent to which it translates into intentions and behaviors. Psychology helps us to identify the ways in which farmers, advisors and government staff's values, thoughts, feelings and skills affect how they act with respect to pests and pest resistance management (e.g., Bagheri et al., Govindharaj et al., Rezaei et al., and Xiang and Guo ¹⁷ , ¹⁸ , ¹⁹ , ²⁰ ). Economics also tends to take an individual approach, focusing on the economic costs and benefits that motivate individuals to act. Although economics has long been influenced by Rational Choice Theory, more recent theories, such as Bounded Rationality, acknowledge that there are limitations to how rational – that is, logical or objective – people are. Like psychology, the Bounded Rationality approach recognizes that people are influenced by heuristics, norms and past experiences – not merely rational economic calculations. ²¹ What psychology and economics confirm is that there is often a gap between what people say they value, what motivates them, and the way they act. This is known as the value‐action gap, or the intention‐behavior gap. ²²

Research from related social science disciplines can help to understand this gap between knowledge and behavior. For example, social psychology can explain how and why people think, feel and behave in social situations. ²³ In the case of pest management, whether an individual believes pests are a problem and whether particular management options are deemed acceptable and achievable, depends in large part on their relationships with others, that is, their social networks. ¹⁴ Social psychology demonstrates that people are more likely to accept information and advice from people that they believe hold similar values, are at a similar life stage, are close in physical proximity, and that they consider trustworthy and competent to provide advice (as shown in pest management by Giroux ²⁴ ). Social psychology also reveals how social norms affect behavior. People are more likely to apply certain pest management strategies if they think others expect that of them. ²⁵ Approaches like Community‐Based Social Marketing have been developed by social psychologists as a way of levering norms to change individual behavior, and these have begun to be applied to pest management (e.g., Gill et al. and Martin et al. ²⁶ , ²⁷ ).

A sociological approach takes a further step out from the individual and networked approaches to the behaviors of large groups of people. ²³ Social Movement Theory, for instance, seeks to understand how large numbers of people build momentum around an issue – to enact it, stop it or reverse it – through certain framings, building identity, galvanizing resources, and providing opportunities for activism. ²⁸ An example of this in pest management relates to the growing social movement against the use of pesticides, such as glyphosate. In this case, health and environmental concerns are central to the social movement that is against the use of some pesticides and its aerial application, ²⁹ leading to a rise in organic agriculture and bans of some pesticides. ³⁰ More broadly, sociology helps to understand how societal trends towards or away from particular approaches shape the various layers of social interactions and processes. Sociological insights highlight that one cannot only look at individual‐level drivers to understand how people manage pests; it is crucial to look at what is happening at a societal scale to understand people's values, attitudes, and emotions in context with their relationships to other people. ²⁸ For instance, Dentzman et al. ³¹ highlight how dominant societal‐level worldviews, such as techno‐optimism, can constrain farmers' capacity to imagine weed management that extends beyond synthetic herbicides.

Together, these and other social science disciplines show that transdisciplinary approaches to managing pesticide resistance can not only benefit from engagement with social sciences, but that these collaborations might be a requirement for truly effective management. Doing so provides more holistic explanations of how and why individuals, groups and societies choose to manage pests and how pesticide resistance results from such choices and interactions. As the subsequent sections show, past engagements with social sciences in pesticide management have drawn more on individual‐focused disciplines. While such engagements provided benefits, they have yielded mixed results, with instances of agrichemical resistance, such as for herbicides, continuing to increase in many regions worldwide. There is thus considerable scope for engaging more meaningfully with diverse social sciences to better address pesticide resistance.

2.2. Key methodological approaches

Social researchers have employed a range of methodological approaches to study the individual, networked, and societal layers that influence pesticide resistance management. These span a broad spectrum of quantitative and qualitative methods to analyze diverse sets of interconnected social and cultural factors, but sometimes also involve experimental designs to test potential solutions. In some instances, multiple methods are triangulated in so‐called mixed method approaches. Table 1 provides an overview of the main descriptive methods used to date.

Table 1.

Empirical methods used to study the social layers of pesticide resistance management

Domain	Method	Examples
Qualitative	Focus groups	4 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39
	Interviews	4 , 13 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42
	Participatory methods (workshops, community groups, etc.)	35 , 39
	Reflections, anecdotal insights, and practical experiences	15 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46
	Listening sessions	47 , 48
Quantitative	Surveys	3 , 35 , 41 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58
	Economic modeling	59 , 60
Mixed method	Quantitative and qualitative	35 (focus groups, survey, and participatory method); 61 (focus groups and survey)
	Qualitative	4 (interviews and focus groups); 39 (focus groups, interviews, participatory methods)

Quantitative methods are frequently used to generate quantifiable data across different groups and contexts. These approaches generally follow more deductive reasoning, often informed by prior qualitative findings or practical insights, and are focused on explaining behavioral drivers. The most prominent quantitative methods employed in pesticide resistance‐related social research are different types of structured surveys circulated across a larger number of potential participants. Their aim is to produce statistically robust findings and more generalizable insights about farm‐level practices that are applicable across different agricultural settings (e.g., Schrader et al. ⁵⁸ ). Occasionally, surveys have been used to explore the role of social networks in pesticide resistance management (e.g., Lowder et al. ¹⁴ ). In other instances, economists have used quantitative economic models to better understand on‐farm economics and associated sociocultural factors related to pesticide resistance management, such as the different costs and benefits of short‐ and long‐term‐oriented pest management decisions. Approaches such as Willingness to Pay, which measures the monetary value placed on alternatives, have also been included in surveys run by economists to understand farmer decision‐making and risk perceptions with respect to managing HR (e.g., Llewellyn et al. ⁵⁴ ).

Qualitative approaches are used to gain in‐depth insights into individuals' behaviors, thinking and feelings related to pesticide resistance. Qualitative approaches are useful for understanding why individuals undertake practices, and they can help interpret trends found through quantitative methods. Qualitative findings support inductive reasoning of underlying sociocultural characteristics, such as forming an understanding of collectively held views about ‘good’ weed management practices. These approaches often feature focus groups and (semi‐) structured interviews with a diverse range of stakeholders involved in decision‐making processes around pesticide use and resistance management. Researchers also employ observational methods, which involve actively taking part in pesticide resistance workshops or community groups, or more specific interview and focus group techniques, such as listening sessions.

Mixed methods are employed by some social researchers to synthesize the multifaceted insights derived from different methods. This may include approaches that combine qualitative and quantitative methods, for instance focus groups and online surveys. In other cases, multiple qualitative methods, such as interviews and focus groups, are used to substantiate or expand initial qualitative insights. Triangulating findings from different methods is generally aimed at building richer and more robust understandings of the sociocultural factors underlying pesticide resistance management. Employing different methods sequentially with the same or similar set of research participants can offer opportunities to sense‐check insights and foster ongoing meaningful engagements not only with the researchers but also among participants, for example when interviewed farmers are invited to join a subsequent focus group or field day to discuss key findings.

Experimental methods are sometimes employed after, or in tandem with, descriptive studies to test different behavioral or communication interventions to identify what factors most affect behaviors, with the aim to design more effective approaches to address pest management challenges. In the field of agricultural economics, for instance, studies have examined the impact of social marketing interventions ⁶² and the potential effectiveness of extension devices to predict the likelihood of farmer cooperation. ⁶³ The use of such behavioral experimental methods remains comparatively rare though, which presents an opportunity for further academic and applied research.

Overall, the methods social scientists select depend on the social layer(s) they aim to understand. The particular methods chosen are dependent on the discipline, research question, budget and time available.

3. EXAMPLES OF SOCIAL SCIENCE CONTRIBUTIONS IN PESTICIDE RESISTANCE MANAGEMENT

This section outlines concrete examples of how different theoretical and methodological approaches have been used in transdisciplinary and social scientific studies of pesticide resistance management that include the social sciences. By looking at HR and IR management, we show the nature of social research applied to each type of problem and the opportunities to advance this research in the future.

3.1. Example 1: Herbicide resistance (HR) and the social sciences

3.1.1. Understanding herbicide resistance (HR) through social scientific perspectives

Social researchers generally recognize the management of HR as a complex challenge with interlinked social, technical, and environmental dimensions. Consequently, many studies focus on the diverse drivers that influence farmers' weed management. This includes individual psychological and cognitive factors, such as levels of awareness, attitudes and beliefs, motivations for altering practices, and knowledge of alternative management options. Techno‐optimism, for instance, can lead to a belief that impending developments of new herbicides make changing weed management practices unnecessary, ³¹ , ³⁴ , ³⁶ , ⁵¹ , ⁵⁶ while other research emphasizes that enhancing agricultural stakeholders' knowledge of weed management options is crucial. ⁴ , ⁴⁰ , ⁶⁴

Interpersonal and societal factors also influence farmers' weed management. Social research reveals how farmers often consult with a multitude of advisors and consultants. Among those are representatives in agricultural input supply networks, public‐sector weed scientists, fee‐for‐service advisors, government agencies, farm organizations, commodity groups and professional societies. ⁴ , ¹⁶ , ³³ , ³⁸ , ³⁹ , ⁴⁹ , ⁶¹ , ⁶⁵ , ⁶⁶ , ⁶⁷ , ⁶⁸ , ⁶⁹ , ⁷⁰ Beyond these direct personal relationships, social norms and societal sentiments influence weed management practices. For example, rural norms may stigmatize HR as being the result of ‘bad farming,’ so some farmers proactively manage weeds accordingly to protect their reputation as a good farmer or do not seek help from peers when resistance becomes an issue. ³⁹ , ⁴⁰ In other cases, societal calls to reduce agrichemical use affect farmers' decision‐making. ³ , ⁴ , ¹³ , ³⁸ , ³⁹ , ⁵⁸ , ⁷¹

Taking a landscape scale, rather than a farm‐level perspective, reveals that HR can be understood as a collective action problem. ⁵ , ⁶⁷ , ⁷² , ⁷³ , ⁷⁴ , ⁷⁵ The mobility of weed seeds and pollen means that the decisions of one farmer about how to manage HR can affect neighboring farmers. To maintain herbicide susceptibility at a landscape scale means everyone needs to play their part to reduce the evolution of HR. ⁷² Not only does it matter who farmers turn to for advice and how they manage HR on their own properties, what is also important is the extent to which farmers are willing to work together to address this common challenge. Social research has shown that achieving landscape‐wide cooperation in cropping regions is challenging. While farmers recognize that HR is a shared challenge they rarely engage in collaborative management activities. ⁴⁰ , ⁵⁸ Those farmers who work collaboratively are more likely to be concerned about HR spreading from their farms to others. ⁵⁸ Those who do not work collaboratively often cite a sense of futility because neighbors have different priorities or ineffective management practices. ⁴⁰ Inevitably, there are regional differences in farming practices and appetites for collective action.

In addition to psycho‐social aspects, farm system drivers, such as time or labor constraints, can lock in dependencies on a limited range of herbicides. ³ , ¹³ , ¹⁶ , ³⁷ , ³⁸ , ⁵¹ , ⁷⁶ , ⁷⁷ For other farmers lacking on‐farm infrastructure to diversify weed control or conflicting management priorities can be restricting factors. ¹⁶ , ³⁴ , ³⁵ , ³⁸ , ⁷⁸ , ⁷⁹ Behavioral drivers also emerge from the wider socio‐economic systems in which farmers operate. Maintaining on‐farm profitability within changing operating contexts is crucial, with higher input costs or decreasing profit margins potentially limiting alternative weed control practices. ⁵ , ¹⁶ , ³⁸ , ⁵⁹ , ⁶⁰ , ⁷⁵ , ⁷⁶ Regulatory restrictions and wider market factors are also important. ³⁴ , ³⁸ , ³⁹ , ⁴⁸ , ⁷⁹ , ⁸⁰

Taken together, these insights show that the often‐tacit suggestion that it is merely a knowledge deficit among farmers that makes managing HR difficult is misleading in many cases. ⁴ , ⁶¹ , ⁶⁴ , ⁷⁶ , ⁸¹ Instead, social research repeatedly demonstrates that, despite growing farmers' awareness and knowledge, efforts towards more effective management can be hampered by diverse (perceived) constraints and interdependent behavioral drivers. ³ , ¹⁶ , ³⁸ , ⁴⁰ , ⁷⁷ , ⁸⁰ Compounding these complexities is the fact that the challenges associated with HR can differ across geographies and climates, farm systems, and sociocultural contexts. Some researchers, therefore, note that context‐specific insights are needed to understand the diversity inherent in HR challenges, ³ , ⁴ , ¹³ , ³² , ³⁹ , ⁴⁷ , ⁷² , ⁸² while others argue that those complexities make it the epitome of a wicked problem. ⁷⁷ As a wicked problem, HR is characterized by social, economic, and biological uncertainties and complexities interacting in ways that prevent single or final solutions. ³ , ⁴ , ⁵ , ⁷ , ³⁹ , ⁷⁴ What is needed then is a process for tackling the problem holistically and adaptively learning over time.

3.1.2. Addressing herbicide resistance (HR) through transdisciplinary research involving social sciences

Different ways to address the interlinked dimensions of managing HR have been proposed, with most stressing the need for more integrated and holistic approaches that include multi‐pronged strategies to tackle diverse behavioral drivers, including group‐level structural and systemic factors. ⁷ , ³⁸ , ³⁹ , ⁷⁰ A significant portion of the social HR scholarship has considered how to influence the psychological and sociocultural aspects of its management. This includes efforts aimed at changing mindsets (attitudes, beliefs, norms, etc.) around decision‐making beyond a (sole) focus on technological solutions or economic returns. ⁶⁷ , ⁷⁷ , ⁷⁸ Such efforts require not only diverse outreach and communication avenues to influence decision‐makers' willingness to change, but they must also account for their ability to change practices. ⁶⁴ Espig and Henwood ⁴ suggest that enhancing farmers' willingness and capacity to change, for instance by building knowledge and competencies, is only a first step that needs to be complemented by efforts to simultaneously enhance the ability to enact changes within their farm and wider agricultural systems.

Other studies highlight the need to improve awareness of HR as a complex communal socio‐technical‐environmental challenge. Such approaches recognize that managing HR requires cross‐boundary collective action among diverse stakeholders ⁷² and may benefit from being community‐based. ⁸³ In its simplest form, such collaboration requires coherent messaging by relevant organizations and sector agencies. ⁴ , ¹³ , ³⁹ , ⁷⁷ , ⁸⁴ Associated recommendations involve measures to improve information sharing and education opportunities, such as farmer‐to‐farmer learning events, and to improve multi‐way communication between all involved actor groups. ¹³ , ³⁹ , ⁴⁷ , ⁷⁶ , ⁸⁵ , ⁸⁶ Beyond information sharing, collaboration across property boundaries could include coordinated the type and timing of herbicide applications, collaborative management of communal land such as roadsides and irrigation channels, or application of integrated weed management practices at landscape scales. ⁴⁰ Such collaborative practices provide reassurances to farmers that their individual efforts are not futile ³⁹ and may benefit from stakeholders agreeing to a shared goal, determining the extent of the area to which that goal applies, and who is responsible for contributing to its implementation. ⁷² To facilitate such collaboration often requires someone to drive the program. Recently, agronomists and weed scientists have been identified as potential coordinators of such activities because of their extensive professional networks and potential capacity to build new relationships among growers. ⁴⁰ , ⁶⁵

To better address the suite of potentially conflicting structural factors at farm system and wider agricultural system levels, social researchers have proposed to encourage whole‐of‐farm thinking and long term‐oriented planning when deciding on weed control options, which requires assessing the suitability of a broad range of potential management techniques. ⁴ , ³⁹ , ⁷⁶ , ⁷⁸ While many recommended on‐farm techniques to avoid or manage HR are well‐established in the international weed and pest management literature, how these fit into the overall systems farmers operate in is often less clear. Economic analyses have, therefore, been presented to demonstrate the long‐term economic advantages of integrated weed management against initial implementations costs. ⁵⁹ , ⁶⁰ , ⁷⁷ To further encourage uptake of more diverse weed control practices for better HR management, social researchers argue for a carefully considered mix of novel regulatory measures, potential removal of existing regulatory barriers, and incentive programs. ⁷ , ⁷⁵ , ⁷⁷ , ⁷⁹ Other social systems based approaches aimed at resolving systemic and wicked challenges for more effective HR management include strengthening relevant research, development, and extension initiatives through sufficiently funded interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary programs, as well as exploring the feasibility of establishing specific accreditation systems for rural advisers. ³⁹ , ⁷⁷ , ⁸³ These selected accounts demonstrate the breadth of factors and complexities that emerge when HR management is addressed as a social, technical, and environmental challenge.

3.2. Example 2: Insecticide resistance (IR) and the social sciences

3.2.1. Using social sciences to understand the challenges of insecticide resistance (IR)

In contrast to studies on HR, social science analyses of the challenges of IR have almost exclusively come from the field of economics, with some notable exceptions. ⁸⁷ , ⁸⁸ Most studies focus on the regulatory and market factors that constitute structural and socio‐economic barriers to IR management. This is likely due to the unique regulatory context in which IR operates. Unlike other crops, Bt corn and cotton (genetically engineered to contain the insecticidal bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis) come with mandatory IR regulations. Compliance with these regulations – and the related farm‐level economic impacts – constitute the larger part of social science IR studies.

Typically, regulations related to IR prevention in Bt corn and cotton take the form of mandatory refuges – that is, areas planted to non‐Bt crops that provide food sources for non‐Bt‐resistant insects to survive and genetically diversify their populations away from Bt resistance. Various studies have looked at rates of farmer compliance and reasons for non‐compliance, ⁴¹ , ⁵⁰ , ⁸⁹ , ⁹⁰ governmental ineffectiveness, ⁹⁰ , ⁹¹ and lack of readily accessible cost/benefit analysis tools. ⁹² Regulation also appears to be a key motivator of refuge adoption. Alexander ⁸⁹ found that 70% of surveyed growers in the United States said they would either not plant a refuge or were unsure if they would plant a refuge if the requirement were removed.

The economic cost of existing and alternative refuge requirements have also been studied in some depth. Topical areas have included economic gains related to compliance, ⁹² , ⁹³ , ⁹⁴ cost effectiveness of alternative refuge schemes such as collective management and strip planting, ⁹⁵ , ⁹⁶ , ⁹⁷ , ⁹⁸ and the impact of user fees for Bt seed. ⁹⁹ Economic incentives may also vary by farm size, ⁵⁰ , ⁵⁷ existence of major export markets, ¹⁰⁰ farmers' risk valuation, ¹⁰¹ and regional differences including seed adaptation to local conditions. ¹⁰²

Finally, IR is often framed as a collective management challenge. For instance, Hurley et al. ¹⁰³ describe IR as a common pool resource issue better suited to institutional than individual management. The need to include a broad range of stakeholders (i.e., farmers, industry, regulators) in managing IR is echoed in a number of studies including Pezzini et al., ⁴¹ Frisvold and Reeves, ⁴³ Head and Savinelli, ¹⁰⁴ and Sims et al. ⁴⁵ Generally, these studies agree that knowledge deficits are not the driving cause of IR (e.g., Frisvold and Reeves ⁴³ ), and that a broader understanding of regulatory, farm, and stakeholder network factors is needed. This call is echoed by two studies from outside the realm of economics; Carriere et al. ⁸⁷ and Jørgensen et al. ⁸⁸ both apply Socioecological Systems Theory to emphasize the importance of context and how we might learn from similarities and differences in IR management outcomes given different contextual features.

3.2.2. Using social science insights to manage insecticide resistance (IR)

In line with the literature on the challenges of IR, social science studies on approaches to managing it are predominantly within economics. One major theme is that studies suggest improved information sharing specifically to address identified psycho‐social barriers to effective IR management (e.g., Pezzini et al. and Reisig ⁴¹ , ⁵⁷ ). In particular, studies suggest greater education and information sharing related to demonstrating the long‐term economic advantages of refuges versus their short‐term costs. ⁹² , ⁹⁴ , ⁹⁵ , ⁹⁶

Beyond economic information sharing many studies also advocate for a holistic approach with actions needed by multiple actors at multiple levels (e.g., Carriere et al. ⁸⁷ ). Globally harmonized regulatory data requirements with the involvement of international organizations and the public sector is one example. ⁹¹ Other studies have called for the involvement of a broad set of stakeholders including farmers, ⁴¹ , ⁸⁹ , ⁹⁰ , ¹⁰⁴ , ¹⁰⁵ government regulators, ⁴⁵ , ⁸⁷ , ⁹⁰ , ⁹⁵ as well as industry personnel, agrichemical companies, university researchers, and government researchers. ⁴⁵ , ⁹⁵

4. DISCUSSION

The crux of pesticide resistance management is context; there is no one‐size‐fits‐all solution. This has been broadly recognized agronomically, but it is true socially as well. The notion that context also matters socially encapsulates the varied social and cultural factors that drive place‐specific patterns of pest management, which can be subtle and seemingly unrelated to on‐the‐ground practices. These drivers characterize each resistance management challenge and potential solutions in unique ways. As illustrated through the examples of HR and IR management, factors can range from the micro level of individual psychological aspects, such as a farmer lacking specific management knowledge, to meso‐ and macro‐level aspects, for example established group norms or national policies limiting alternative management practices. The social sciences help to systematically analyze the nuances of these factors and their often complex interplays within a given location to better understand each instance of resistance management as a distinctive challenge. Following these analytical insights, the social sciences then offer diverse methodological toolboxes that can be used prescriptively to co‐design tailored multi‐pronged approaches for each context, which give higher chances of effective on‐the‐ground uptake and successful outcomes. As such, not every case of pesticide resistance can be effectively managed with the same socially‐informed scheme, and different disciplinary approaches will be more appropriate, necessary, and effective in different circumstances. It is therefore beneficial to consider – deeply, early, and often – the social dimensions of a given pesticide resistance issue and how these interact with agronomic and environmental factors.

As an example, the extent of a particular pest's mobility can determine whether a collaborative community approach is useful. Highly mobile resistant pests will require coordination across fields and landscapes, in which case sociology may have important contributions; slow‐spreading or well‐contained infestations may be more efficiently treated on an individual level, with a focus on psychology to influence decision‐makers' behaviors and practices. Typically, studies on HR have engaged sociological approaches, highlighting the social and contextual barriers to management as well as its status as a collective action issue despite weeds' relative immobility compared to insects. In contrast, research on IR has largely focused on economic implications of regulatory schemes. These trends are defined in part by the different natures of the pests; however, we can readily see opportunities for additional perspectives and for more diverse methods to be applied. HR research might benefit from stronger psychological perspectives and social field experiments that highlight individual farmer decision‐making, while IR, being highly mobile, suggests the need for increased attention from sociologists and observation methods that shed light on the role of social norms.

As becomes evident from the earlier‐mentioned scenarios, in many cases, multiple social science disciplines may be most effective, or even multiple social scientists within a discipline. It is commonplace to have as many as ten entomologists or weed scientists on a project, with the understanding that each brings their own necessary expertise to the team. Why, then, do we most often see large research teams with a singular social researcher? Many teams and projects may benefit from increased openness to involving multiple social scientists across and within various disciplines. This is because even the same, seemingly basic, problem can have a wide variety of approaches to problem definition and management, as is clear from our review. Consequently, it is crucial to appreciate the distinct areas of expertise, analytical strengths, and methodological repertoires of different social scientific disciplines. For instance, bringing on an econometrics specialist in a case where a communications specialist is needed will be ineffective and likely frustrating for everyone involved. A broad suite of social sciences disciplines, approaches, and tools are needed to fully understand diverse social layers of a pesticide resistance problem and align solutions accordingly.

This necessary complexity is both a strength and a hazard of incorporating social sciences into pesticide resistance research; the same could be said of all transdisciplinary collaborations. All too often, we observe a cohesive team of physical scientists write 98% of a research proposal, only to call in a single social scientist at the last minute. This approach belies the complexity of building an effective collaboration in which the appropriate disciplines are incorporated and contribute appropriately to problem definitions and study design. To determine the best application of social sciences to a particular pesticide resistance situation, it is necessary to involve all disciplinary partners early in project formation, ideally at such a time that social scientists and physical scientists can participate in collaborative problem framing and collectively determine relevant research questions, needed skill sets, and research approaches. ¹ , ⁶

This is not to say that initiating (or continuing to foster) such collaborations is simple; in fact, it is quite the opposite. We have often heard that biophysical scientists are interested in involving social scientists in their projects, but do not necessarily know where to start and vice versa. We therefore conclude our discussion with some suggestions on how to get started with transdisciplinary research, including a brief review of best practices, suggestions for how to find collaborators, and some resources for further exploration.

Across studies on how to do transdisciplinary research, two key elements include high levels of interpersonal interaction and multiple opportunities for mutual learning. Team leaders can facilitate such conditions by setting standards and expectations for openness, mutual learning, and the significance of each disciplinary perspective, ¹⁰ as well as selecting team members who are comfortable with ambiguity and receptive to diverse ideas. ¹¹

It is important that all disciplinary partners are involved in developing a shared understanding of the problem context, vision for the project, and the meaning and value of the work to be done; this should be regularly revisited and re‐evaluated. ¹ , ¹⁰ , ¹² , ¹⁰⁶ Establishing a clear structure for managing conflict and articulating expectations early can reduce disagreements later. ¹ Ongoing formal and informal interactions between team members can build trust and necessary skills in transdisciplinary linguistic and philosophical perspectives, which is why Armstrong and Jackson‐Smith ¹¹ suggest weekly research workshops and methodological retreats. While all these suggestions may feel somewhat daunting, they can help ensure a team that is cohesive, effective, and remains well‐connected. Bennett and Gadlin ¹ also remind us to find the joy in transdisciplinary collaborations, which emphasizes that, despite a need for more commitment and effort, such collaborations can be fun and eminently satisfying, especially within the spirit of curiosity.

For readers looking to get started with transdisciplinary collaborations, the studies we cited in the preceding paragraph ¹ , ¹⁰ , ¹¹ , ¹⁰⁶ are all good starting points. The USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture also hosts an insightful collection of free guides on leading transdisciplinary research teams. ¹⁰⁷ Finding and connecting with social scientists to build a transdisciplinary project could involve searching out relevant articles, asking key figures in your field about their networks, seeking social‐science‐related presentations and sessions at your annual professional conferences, attending transdisciplinary conferences, and discovering who at your institution is already involved in this kind of work. Another opportunity might be to pursue dedicated conference grants for organizing a transdisciplinary session in your area of interest, such as the USDA Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) Conference Grant. In other instances, your institution may, like for one of the authors, organize a research roundtable and invite anyone at your institution who is interested in a particular topic to attend. There are endless possibilities and we have simply suggested but a few ideas to get started. It is ultimately on you to engage in this space – to be open, curious, willing to learn, and actively engage with the social scientists and practitioners you wish to collaborate with.

5. CONCLUSION

The social sciences in their broad diversity can add substantial analytical value for understanding issues associated with pesticide resistance management, and prescriptive value for developing potential solutions. Existing applications, such as those outlined earlier, can help to better understand and address complex pesticide resistance management issues, for instance the necessity of a communal approach to HR or the economic benefits of different IR regulatory management schemes. As such, it should have become clear that there is no one‐size‐fits‐all social science approach. At the same time, the studies presented throughout this article highlight that the meaningful analysis and resolution of pesticide resistance issues cannot happen without biophysical and applied sciences. It is therefore necessary to consult and include social scientists early in the research process, ideally during problem framing, while also continually acknowledging the importance, legitimacy, and need for a wide range of social, biophysical, and applied perspectives and tools. We have provided some examples of social science disciplinary perspectives, existing collaborations in pesticide resistance management, and the sorts of tools and approaches that can offer value for those wishing to pursue such transdisciplinary work. This should be considered a starting point and by no means a comprehensive resource. We encourage researchers and practitioners involved in managing pesticide resistance to take these suggestions as an impetus to pursue further information, strategies, and collaborations that can more holistically address the aspects that make pesticide resistance management a complex wicked problem. In recent years, we have witnessed a welcome rise in the number of pest management scientists seeking social science expertise and look forward to the fruitful partnerships that will develop as a result.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.