New research from Adelaide University is questioning the widespread use of the term ‘resilience’ in Australian agriculture, arguing its overuse can place unfair pressure on individual farmers and obscure the need for systemic support.
Published in Journal of Rural Studies, the study explores the perspectives of women involved in farming businesses across Australia, examining how resilience is understood, experienced and talked about within the sector.
“The major finding was that our participants believed they were inherently resilient, often having to find ways to overcome the everyday challenges faced in farming enterprises,” Dr Emily Buddle from Adelaide University’s School of Agriculture, Food and Wine said.
“However, participants also emphasised that being resilient was not necessarily easy and were uncomfortable with other people describing farmers as resilient.”
Some participants suggested labelling farmers as resilient could function as an “excuse” for governments to withdraw support, shifting responsibility for managing adverse events such as drought on to individuals rather than a shared responsibility.
The term resilience has become a common feature across policy areas including defence, economics, ecology and agriculture.
In farming contexts, it is often promoted as something that must be strengthened at the individual level, particularly in relation to mental health and drought management.
“Our research shows women involved in farming businesses are concerned that this language minimises the scale of systemic pressures facing agriculture,” Dr Buddle said.
“There was a strong view that overuse of the term by policymakers and government representatives downplays the need for coordinated, systemic support for farming families and rural communities.”
As both a researcher and a farm business owner, Dr Buddle said her interest in the topic emerged from conversations within her own farming networks.
“I observed growing frustration with the word ‘resilient’, particularly because people were exhausted by constantly having to ‘bounce back’ from numerous factors that affect farming,” she said.
“Drought is the most visible example, but farmers are also dealing with volatile commodity prices, rising input costs linked to global conflict, and having to travel further for essential services as rural populations decline.”
Dr Buddle said while she saw increasing levels of frustration in her own farming circles, she did not expect to see such widespread commentary nationally.
The research argues for a move away from relying on resilience as a catch-all concept, and toward approaches that better recognise ongoing structural challenges.
“Our findings highlight the importance of moving beyond the ‘buzzword’ of resilience and towards more meaningful responses that acknowledge systemic pressures and support farming families in navigating profound and ongoing change,” Dr Buddle said.
“I always believe there is a need to be more aware about the narratives we deploy when we talk about farming, both when we are talking within the agricultural industry as is the case for this paper, but also in more public facing domains.”
