All day today and tomorrow I will be enjoying final-term MREM student project presentations, including by HM project RA Carlisle Kent. After a summer spent on bibliometric analysis of holistic management, which we’re currently preparing for publication, she tackled a discourse analysis over the fall term. Specifically, we have been interested in the differences between the adaptive nature of the principles of holistic management (HM) and permaculture, and the sometimes proselytizing, ‘chapter and verse’ nature of proponent language. We wondered if this was in part responsible for the divide between practitioner and scientist perspectives of the practices. She looked at the rhetoric evident in  websites and Twitter, and mapped those two social movements online.  It was clear that rhetorical tools such as emotion, and building common ground through antipathy with non-members, were more evident than evidence. Additionally the adaptive and problem-solving nature of the movements were not at all evident in the discourse. Credibility suffers as a result. Great work and excellent presentation, Carlisle!