The development of agricultural science in the period 1850–1914 is described in the context of various methods of deciding whether or not it was successful. It is concluded that it was more successful after 1890 than before, and an explanation of this is offered, using a model first applied to agricultural research in Germany. In the light of these conclusions there are also comments on the role of the Development Commission in promoting agricultural research.

An examination of the role ofUniversity weed scientists in herbicide efficacyresearch and long-term weed management studies raisesseveral important questions: who should do what kindof research and what kind of research should be done,and, because the university is a research institutionfunded by the public, there is also the importantquestion of who should pay for the research. Indeveloping a response to these questions, severaldimensions of the relationships within which weedscience works must be considered. The author‘sexperience has demonstrated that (...) production, thedominant value in agriculture, provides a sufficientanswer to the questions for many in weed science.However, when weed scientists claim credit forexcellence in production they must also acceptsociety‘s right to hold them responsible for problemsthey now treat as externalities. (shrink)

Public sector national agricultural research organizations (NARO)s are confronting the need to demonstrate performance, accountability, and results to maintain support and funding from investors. Current evaluation practices in NAROs are not performance oriented, nor are they applied at the organization level. A performance assessment system for NAROs is presented that integrates productivity and outcome evaluation with the assessment of key management activities influencing research outputs and impact. The system allows managers to record output levels over time and (...) identify management weaknesses. (shrink)

Emerging bovine somatotropin (or “bovine growth hormone” [bGH]) technology has become highly controversial even though the technology is one to two years from commercial introduction. The bGH controversy is discussed and placed in the context of the evolution of the American public agricultural research system and farm structural change over the past 15 years. It is argued that while many observers tend to overestimate the degree to which bGH will be representative of other biotechnologies applied to agriculture, the (...) bGH case may well reflect a more general pattern of the changing clientele relations of the land-grant system and of the changing character of technology developed within the public agricultural research system. In particular, these new clientele and technical relations may portend a new era in which farmers begin to scrutinize the land-grant research portfolio, which might in turn lead to diminished political support by state-level farmers' groups for agricultural research appropriations. (shrink)

Scholars working in science and technology studies have recently argued that we could learn much about the nature of scientific knowledge by paying closer attention to scientific ignorance. Building on the work of Robert Proctor, this article shows how ignorance can stem from a wide range of selective research choices that incline researchers toward partial, limited understandings of complex phenomena. A recent report produced by the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology for Development serves as the (...) article’s central case study. After arguing that the forms of selective ignorance illustrated in cases like this one are both socially important and difficult to address, I suggest several strategies for responding to them in a socially responsible manner. (shrink)

There is a gap between the methods and techniques discussed in planning and management literature, and practitioners’ experiences of agricultural research and extension. This gap is attributable to the fact that outcomes of research and extension (R&E) initiatives are shaped by the interactions of contending coalitions that form around issues or approaches and promote or oppose them. This framework is used to elucidate the development of technologies and methodologies in the past. Implications are drawn for future planning (...) and management, based on seeing the use of methods and techniques in terms of the broader social and political contexts of research and development. (shrink)

This paper offers a preliminary assessment of the reactions of public agricultural researchers to three terms used currently in the debate surrounding reduced input farming systems: organic, alternative, and sustainable agriculture. It is argued that these terms have been appropriated by the land grant system and their critical content removed to make them palatable to more mainstream agricultural researchers. A national sample of agricultural production researchers is explored, and disciplinary differences in attitudes toward the three terms are (...) assessed. We conclude that sustainable and alternative agriculture do appear acceptable to the mainstream of production researchers, consistent with the hypothesis that they have been appropriated by the land grant system. Moreover, reasons why organic agriculture remains unacceptable are suggested. (shrink)

The Hatch Act of 1887 was passed in the effort to make agriculture more scientific and efficient. This promise has been seriously compromised by the fact that even research of the highest quality often has limited applicability in practical farming situations. This paper attempts to provide philosophical explanations why this is so by introducing and discussing theoretical models. Consideration is given to why Farming Systems Research does not provide a solution to the philosophical problems raised. The final section (...) presents a strategy for partially avoiding some of the limitations in practical applicability of agricultural research studies and discusses how this strategy relates to the activities of the cooperative extension services. A secondary concern of the paper is with how governmental research priorities compromise the practical applicability of research in farming situations. (shrink)

Utilitarian ethics provides a model for evaluating moral responsibility in agricultural research decisions according to the balance of costs and benefits accruing to the public at large. Given the traditions and special requirements of agricultural research planning, utilitarian theory is well adapted to serve as a starting point for evaluating these decisions, but utilitarianism has defects that are well documented in the philosophical literature. Criticisms of research decisions in agricultural mechanization and biotechnology correspond to (...) documented defects in utilitarian theory. Research administrators can expect that application of a utilitarian standard ignoring these deficiencies will become the occasion for predictable attacks by critics. Administrators who are sensitive to the strengths and weaknesses of utilitarian ethics are equipped to make a better allocation of research effort. (shrink)

This article argues that the goals of agricultural research in poor countries have changed substantially over the last four decades. In particular they have broadened from the early (and narrow) emphasis on food production to a much wider agenda that includes poverty alleviation, environmental degradation, and social inclusion. Conversely, agricultural research systems have proved remarkably resistant to the concomitant need for changes in research focus. As a result many, at both the national and international level, (...) are under great strain. In terms of public policy the article goes on to suggest that shortcomings of existing conceptual approaches to technology development could be supplemented by adopting analytical principles that view innovation in systemic terms. An approach where flows of knowledge between institutional nodes is a key to innovative performance (the “National Systems of Innovation” approach) is suggested as one such conceptual framework that might help supplement conventional policy analysis. (shrink)

The need for urgent, structural transformations to dominant food systems is increasingly recognized in research and policy. The direction these transformations take is in great part influenced by how the problem is framed and what future pathways become seen as plausible and desirable. Scientific knowledge and the organizations producing it hold considerable authority in suggesting what alternatives are or are not worth pursuing, ultimately shaping frames and in turn being shaped by them. This paper examines Brazil’s federal Agricultural (...) Research Corporation (Embrapa), a major contributor to technological advances that made Brazil into an agricultural powerhouse. We examine the ways in which Embrapa’s leadership has framed sustainable agriculture in its public communication and the wider implications for food systems transformation. Drawing from Embrapa news articles in the period 2015–2020, we identify four interrelated frames forming Embrapa’s prevalent position on sustainability. Our results show that while Embrapa promotes practices based on alternative approaches such as agroecology, its deeper framing often reflects the core assumptions driving dominant industrial food systems. This framing reinforces underlying logics of control, efficiency, and competition aligned with the productivist paradigm and excludes divergent perspectives that exist within the organization. (shrink)

By bringing together information in published and unpublished works of the eighteenth and early nineteenth century, notably Hutton's unpublished manuscript the ‘Elements of Agriculture’, it is possible to augment our meagre knowledge of Hutton's agricultural activities. His decision to farm is discussed, as are his time as a student of agriculture in East Anglia and on the Continent , his life as a farmer at Slighhouses in Berwickshire , his research after he returned to Edinburgh , and his (...) opinions on the role of government in agricultural affairs. The section on Slighhouses deals not only with Hutton's agricultural experiments and improvements, but also with his personal life, travel, and scientific studies. Investigation shows that his interest in agriculture gave impetus to his studies in other disciplines, and that his years as a farmer were ones of great intellectual activity which laid the foundation for many of his future achievements, particularly in geology. (shrink)

In recent decades, constituenciesserved by land-grant agricultural research haveexperienced significant demographic and politicalchanges, yet most research institutions have not fullyresponded to address the concerns of a changingclientele base. Thus, we have seen continuingcontroversies over technologies produced by land-grantagricultural research. While a number of scholars havecalled for a more participatory agricultural scienceestablishment, we understand little about the processof enhancing and institutionalizing participation inthe US agricultural research enterprise. We firstexamine some of the important issues surroundingcitizen (...) participation in science and technologypolicy. We then review and assess variousinstitutional mechanisms for participation that havebeen implemented in diverse settings by institutionsof science and technology. Based on evidence from theexperiences of these institutions, we argue that acloser approximation of the ‘public good’ can beachieved by encouraging the participation of thefullest range possible of constituents as an integralpart of the process of setting research priorities. (shrink)

In 1973, Jim Hightower and his associates at the Agribusiness Accountability Project dropped a bombshell – Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times – on the land-grant college and agricultural science establishments. From the early 1970s until roughly 1990, Hightower-style criticism of and activism toward the public agricultural research system focused on a set of closely interrelated themes: the tendencies for the publicly supported research enterprise to be an unwarranted taxpayer subsidy of agribusiness, for agricultural research and (...) extension to favor large farmers and be disadvantageous for family farmers, for public research to stress mechanization while ignoring the concerns and interests of farm workers, and for the research and extension establishment to ignore rural poverty and other rural social problems. By 1990, however, there had been a quite fundamental restructuring of the agricultural technology opposition movement – one that is not often well recognized. Two overarching changes had occurred. First, agricultural-technology activism had shifted from contesting land-grant/public research priorities and practices to contesting private agribusiness technological priorities and practices. Second, the relatively integrated, overarching Hightower-type opposition had undergone bifurcation into two quite distinct social movements: the agricultural sustainability/local food systems movement on one hand, and the anti-GM food/crop and anti-food-system-globalization movement on the other. In this paper I explore the causes and consequences of these restructurings of the agricultural research and technology opposition movement. Chief among the major factors involved was the fact that “Hightowerism'' involved an ineffectual representational politics. Hightowerist claims – especially the claim that land-grant research was detrimental to family farmers – generated little support among the groups it claimed to represent (particularly “small'' or “family'' farmers). The two successor movements, by contrast, have relatively clear and dependable constituents. Further, the progressive molecularization of agricultural research, which proved to be both an antecedent and consequence of corporate involvement in agricultural research in the US, has decisively changed the issues that are contested by technology activists. Since the age of Hightower, the agricultural technology activist movement has shifted its 1970s and early 1980s emphasis from contesting public sector/land-grant research priorities to contesting private sector activities, particularly genetic engineering, GM crops, and globalization of agricultural technologies and regulatory practices. Even the sustainability/localism wing of the new agricultural technology movement configuration has progressively backed away from contesting public research priorities. The efforts of the sustainable agricultural and localism movement have increasingly focused on quasi-private efforts such as community supported agriculture, green/“value-added'' labeling and marketing strategies, and community food security. Some implications of this increasingly bifurcated, agricultural technology, activist movement configuration in which there is decreased interest in land-grant/public research priorities are discussed. (shrink)

A common and driving assumption in agricultural research is that the introduction of research trials, new practices and innovative technologies will result in technology adoption, and will subsequently generate benefits for farmers and other stakeholders. In Lao PDR, the potential benefits of introduced technologies have not been fully realised by beneficiaries. We report on an analysis of a survey of 735 smallholder farmers in Southern Lao PDR who were questioned about factors that influenced their decisions to adopt (...) new technologies. In this study, we have constructed measures or states of adoption which identify key elements of an adoption decision-making nexus. Analysis was conducted to statistically group explanatory factors of adoption. The key explanatory factors represented attributes of the farmer, the factors considered when undertaking production decisions and elements of the agricultural value chain that present as opportunities or constraints. We describe the combination of farmer’s personal attributes, perceptions of the value chain, and the introduction of new technologies by external actors as an “agricultural research value chain”, where agricultural research activities intervene to derive greater benefits for local farmers. A generalised linear model, via Poisson regression analysis on the identified explanatory factors, was applied to explore how they influence adoption measures and we found several significant relationships. (shrink)

Agricultural research raises fundamental ethical and value questions going beyond those in other fields both because of its public funding and because its results have significant impacts on habitats and other species. Questions about the sustainability of modern agriculture, which are shared with other sectors, require us to examine alternative visions and structures. These can be seen to range from status quo preserving ideologies to change-oriented utopias. It is argued that at the national level current ideologies—which include positivistic (...) approaches and belief in the neutrality of technology—mask real structural and policy choices as well as their ethical and value implications. At the international level, the export of fossil-fuel based modes of agriculture to the developing countries raises additional structural, policy, value, and ethical issues. (shrink)

Recent discourse in the field of participatory agricultural research has focused on how to blend various forms and intensities of stakeholder participation with quality agricultural science, moving beyond the simple “farmer-first” ideology of the 1980s and early 1990s. Yet, most existing frameworks of participation in agricultural research still adhere to a linear typology of participatory research with an inherent claim of “the more participation, the better.” In this article, we propose a new framework that (...) looks at participatory research elements along different dimensions and attributes and thus takes into account the diversity and dynamics of agricultural research projects. The framework provides a basis for agricultural researchers engaged in participatory processes with local stakeholders to decide for which issues and in which phases certain participatory elements could be used in a specific research context. Rather than aiming at maximizing the adoption of participatory methods, it can thus become a tool for optimizing the use of participatory approaches in agricultural research. We conclude that this framework can be a starting point for a more thoughtful integration of participatory elements in agricultural research projects that does justice to the multidimensional and dynamic nature of stakeholder participation in varying contexts. (shrink)

The recent enthusiasm for “participation” in agricultural development has fueled the development of new approaches to research and extension. The rhetoric of “participation” extends the horizons of agricultural research and extension beyond technical problem-solving. Yet in practice few of the personal, political, and experiential aspects of this process are addressed. This paper aims to draw attention to these elements of practice and to locate research and extension within wider social processes. Through a critique of conventional (...) methodological strategies, this paper considers the possibilities offered by “participatory” alternatives. Considering the scope and objectives of agricultural development raises a series of methodological questions: What counts as knowledge? Who defines and represents this knowledge? Whose knowledge counts? Knowledge for what? Knowledge for whom?The paper goes on to assess a number of these “new” methodologies, within and beyond agricultural development. Through a consideration of their strengths and weaknesses, a series of further issues are highlighted for future methodological development. It is argued that for agricultural research and extension to acknowledge process, closer attention needs to be paid to context. The activities of research and extension need to be set in time. Strategies are needed to explore and address diversity and difference in communities. Situating the actors and agencies involved in development within relations of power involves addressing—and redressing—the nature of interactions between these actors. These changes require not an ever increasing array of methods, it is argued, but new approaches to learning. (shrink)

In 1916, French entomologist Paul Marchal published a seminal report on the contemporary state of agricultural research in the United States of America. His recommendations underlined the need for a close relationship between research and education, a factor vital to national survival in the aftermath of the Great War. This essay discusses the context of this report, and assesses its consequences for government policy towards agricultural research and education in France.

The origin, character, and reception of the Development Act of 1909 are described. Extant evaluations of its historical significance are presented and criticized. It is claimed that the significance of the Act for the promotion of scientific research in agriculture, horticulture, and forestry has been largely overlooked. The way in which the Commissioners of the Act interpreted their brief by establishing scholarships, new research institutes, and developing existing institutes is described.

Critics have challenged agricultural scientists to address concerns for environmental quality, farm size and structure, international justice, and the health and welfare of consumers and farm labor in research planning. The goal of this research was to determine what is and what could be done to consider value-laden knowledge relevant to these concerns in research planning. Descriptions of a state agricultural experiment station and of a hierarchy of inquiry that included applied systems analysis and reductionist (...) approaches to science revealed the goal-seeking and expert-centered nature of agricultural research. Value-laden and value-free knowledge of agricultural scientists and administrators were heavily represented in broad research goals such as increased productivity and efficiency. In addition, these goals were not evaluated at the levels of inquiry typically practiced by agricultural scientists. A soft systems methodology provided a more holistic level of inquiry that could facilitate consideration of value-laden and value-free knowledge of world views more diverse than those of agricultural scientists and administrators. Scientists could function as co-learners with other participants to identify issues and to conceptualize systems that are relevant to improving research planning. Moreover, researching the practice of soft systems offers opportunities for exploring systems ideas and holistic value theory in relation to agricultural research. (shrink)

The right to eat and to an adequate standard of living for everyone motivates agricultural research assistance to developing countries with the primary objective of assuring sufficient food supply. This article focuses on aspects of food production and related agricultural research with specific examples from animal production. It discusses ethics of agricultural research in light of the utilitarian theory and compares livestock production in developing and developed countries. Major reasons for low outputs of animal (...) production in developing countries are identified, and the potential for increasing the productivity of original, extensive production systems is evaluated. The article reviews the current status of biotechnology in developing countries and discusses several advanced animal technologies. The conclusions emphasize the need to involve local professionals in all phases of research and technology transfer in developing countries, avoidance of research that may worsen the situation of the recipients, sustainability of production systems, and the need for detailed assessment of potential impacts of technology on recipients. (shrink)

The right to eat and to an adequate standard of living for everyone motivates agricultural research assistance to developing countries with the primary objective of assuring sufficient food supply. This article focuses on aspects of food production and related agricultural research with specific examples from animal production. It discusses ethics of agricultural research in light of the utilitarian theory and compares livestock production in developing and developed countries. Major reasons for low outputs of animal (...) production in developing countries are identified, and the potential for increasing the productivity of original, extensive production systems is evaluated. The article reviews the current status of biotechnology in developing countries and discusses several advanced animal technologies. The conclusions emphasize the need to involve local professionals in all phases of research and technology transfer in developing countries, avoidance of research that may worsen the situation of the recipients, sustainability of production systems, and the need for detailed assessment of potential impacts of technology on recipients. (shrink)

Since its origins in North America in the 1960s, the field of program evaluation has grown considerably, and its concerns have broadened from accountability to program improvement, decision support, and institutional learning. Program evaluation is now commonly practiced in governmental organizations not only in North America but also in many countries of Western Europe and Oceania. Although program evaluation is a relatively new field with many controversies and lively debates, a unifying body of evaluation theory, methods, and standards is gradually (...) emerging. Evaluation has recently been described as a “transdiscipline,” as are statistics and measurement. This article is based largely on my personal experiences working in agricultural research organizations in developing regions. Here, a number of different types of evaluation are carried out, but program evaluation as defined by Patton (1997) and as practiced by social scientists to assess public programs is largely unknown. Distinct branches of agricultural research evaluation can be identified, with disciplinary roots in the natural sciences and in agricultural economics. The most rigorous agricultural research evaluations are economic studies. Systematic internal evaluation is notably lacking. Current pressures to improve performance, transparency, and accountability are creating demands for more systematic evaluation, and many program evaluation concepts and methods would seem to be of value in agricultural research organizations. However, in the current scenario of declining funding for agricultural research, managers are yet to be convinced to expand their evaluation activities and explore unfamiliar paradigms and methods. Moreover, they are not yet convinced that social-science-based program evaluation would produce useful results. Natural scientists and economists tend to view program evaluation as “soft-science” or no science at all. (shrink)

The U.S. agricultural research establishment has been severely criticized by biological and physical scientists, humanists, and various activist groups. The scientists have criticized concentration on short-run problems to the neglect of basic hard science research. The humanists have criticized agricultural researchers for failing to give adequate attention to such basic values as equity, the value of family farms, environmental values, etc.Closely related to the humanists' criticisms are those of activists who have railed against (1) an alleged (...) alliance between big agribusinesses, the agricultural research establishment, and large farmers, (2) multinational corporations, (3) alleged premature development of labor-saving technology in order to dispossess small farmers and eliminate jobs for farm laborers, and (4) the creation of technology unduly emphasizing fertilizers, pesticides, and fuels derived from exhaustible fossil energy. These activists' criticisms have been offset, in part, by activists who support the status quo.This paper demonstrates that logical positivism mitigates against the objective research of intrinsic (as opposed to exchange) values needed to satisfy such criticisms. Attention is given to the advantages of placing greater reliance on pragmatism and various forms of normativism. These philosophies have distinct advantages as guides for structuring and understanding the problem-solving and issue-oriented research that the land-grant colleges of agriculture are uniquely qualified to conduct. Such practical problems and issues will be numerous as we expand land use 50 to 100 million acres, double yields, and intensify land use in the next 50 years. (shrink)

This essay examines the growing concerns about disciplinary narrowing occurring in agricultural research and the prospects of ameliorating the detrimental effects of disciplinary compartmentalization while capitalizing on its positive effects. The general model for agricultural science is that disciplinary groupings set the logic and standards for research; the disciplinary sciences are set in a hierarchical arrangement which allows communication from the relevant basic sciences through applied research into technology development and use and problem-solving. But (...) class='Hi'>agricultural research throughout most of its history has been goal-oriented and, therefore, is subject to ethical judgements of its worth and consequences. Also, strategic aspects of agricultural research have been subject to the evaluations and criticisms of both scientists and critics with differing interests at stake. Goals can change and organizations can be set to enable multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research, but both goals and organizations come up against values associated with the disciplinary quality of the research, the social setting of academic science, the competition for resources, and the scientific reward system. However, there are changes underway in the agricultural scientific community which may recast the impacts of disciplinary structuring: (1) changes in the disciplinary components of subject areas and departments, (2) evolution and introductions of integrative and systems sciences into the system, (3) infusion of the same new powerful tools into most of the sciences, and (4) increased networking among scientists of different disciplines. Given that scientists' values and personalities intrude in agricultural science and research strategies, the future of agricultural research may rest on the scientists' intellectual vision and philosophical awareness that go beyond the expected disciplinary limits. (shrink)

Difficulties in getting participants in agricultural research policy disputes to work fairly with four different and sometimes conflicting normative viewpoints might be lessened by attending to the deeper cultural differences that lie behind differences of normative view. Mediation of policy disputes might work better if cultural differences were better understood and described impartially. By treating deep differences as ideological, in a non-pejorative sense, descriptions can forestall impulses to combat, improve communication, and open fresh prospects for compromise without attempting (...) to change people's basic thinking. (shrink)

Agricultural science played a prominent role in Nazi research policy. During the Second World War, German science commandeered research results and materials from occupied Europe. This process advanced individual careers. It also had a decided influence on research practice and problem choice, both during and after the war. This essay explores the significance of wartime developments for an understanding of Nazi policy and the history of agricultural research.

This open access book provides the first systematic overview of existing challenges and opportunities for responsible data linkage, and a cutting-edge assessment of which steps need to be taken to ensure that plant data are ethically shared and used for the benefit of ensuring global food security – one of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. The volume focuses on the contemporary contours of such challenges through sustained engagement with current and historical initiatives and discussion of best practices and prospective future (...) directions for ensuring responsible plant data linkage. The volume is divided into four sections that include case studies of plant data use and linkage in the context of particular research projects, breeding programs, and historical research. It address technical challenges of data linkage in developing key tools, standards and infrastructures, and examines governance challenges of data linkage in relation to socioeconomic and environmental research and data collection. Finally, the last section addresses issues raised by new data production and linkage methods for the inclusion of agriculture’s diverse stakeholders. This book brings together leading experts in data curation, data governance and data studies from a variety of fields, including data science, plant science, agricultural research, science policy, data ethics and the philosophy, history and social studies of plant science. (shrink)

Recent trends in agricultural science have emphasized the need to make local people active participants in the research and development process. Working under the populist banner “Farmer First”, the focus has been on bridging gaps between development professionals and local people, pointing to the inadequate understanding of insiders' knowledge, practices, and processes by outsiders.The purpose of this paper is to expose the paradox of the prevailing populist conception of power and knowledge, and to challenge the simple notion that (...) social processes follow straightforward and systemic patterns and can thus be manipulated with a transfer of power from outside to inside. The authors view “knowledge” as a social process and knowledge systems in terms of a multiplicity of actors and networks through which certain kinds of information are communicated and negotiated, and not as single, cohesive structures, stocks or stores. The guiding phrase is “the analysis of difference”, which suggests that knowledge is multilayered, fragmentary, and diffuse, not unitary and systematized. It emerges as a product of the interaction and dialogue between different actors and networks of actors with conflicting loyalties who negotiate over “truth” claims and battle over contrasting images and contesting interests. The paper challenges those promoting Farmer First approaches to reassess how people in different agroecological and sociocultural contexts make sense of and deal with constraining and enabling processes related to research and extension; how they attempt, through recourse to various discursive means, to enroll one another in their various endeavors; and how they use relations of power in their struggles to gain access to and control of social and political space. (shrink)

The recent drastic development of agriculture, together with the growing societal interest in agricultural practices and their consequences, pose a challenge to agricultural science. There is a need for rethinking the general methodology of agricultural research. This paper takes some steps towards developing a systemic research methodology that can meet this challenge – a general self-reflexive methodology that forms a basis for doing holistic or (with a better term) wholeness-oriented research and provides appropriate criteria (...) of scientific quality.From a philosophy of research perspective,science is seen as an interactive learning process with both a cognitive and a social communicative aspect. This means, first of all,that science plays a role in the world that it studies. A science that influences its own subject area, such as agricultural science, is named a systemic science. From this perspective, there is a need to reconsider the role of values in science. Science is not objective in the sense of being value-free.Values play, and ought to play, an important role in science – not only in form of constitutive values such as the norms of good science, but also in the form of contextual values that enter into the very process of science. This goes against the traditional criterion of objectivity. Therefore, reflexive objectivity is suggested as a new criterion for doing good science, along with the criterion of relevance. Reflexive objectivity implies that the communication of science must include the cognitive context, which comprises the societal,intentional, and observational context. Ina ccordance with this, the learning process of systemic research is shown as a self-reflexive cycle that incorporates both an involved actor stance and a detached observer stance. The observer stance forms the basis for scientific communication.To this point, a unitary view of science as a learning process is employed. A second important perspective for a systemic research methodology is the relation between the actual,different, and often quite separate kinds of science. Cross-disciplinary research is hampered by the idea that reductive science is more objective, and hence more scientific, than the less reductive sciences of complex subject areas – and by the opposite idea that reductive science is necessarily reductionistic. Taking reflexive objectivity as a demarcator of good science, an inclusive framework of science can be established. The framework does not take the established division between natural, social, and human science as a primary distinction of science.The major distinction is made between the empirical and normative aspects of science,corresponding to two key cognitive interests.Two general methodological dimensions, the degree of reduction of the research world and the degree of involvement in the research world, are shown to span this framework. The framework can form a basis for transdisciplinary work by way of showing the relation between more and less reductive kinds of science and between more detached and more involved kinds of science and exposing the abilities and limitations attendant on these methodological differences. (shrink)

Presents a collection of essays written over a period of 15 years by agricultural ethicist Paul B. Thompson. The essays address the practical application of ethics to agriculture in a world faced with issues of increased yield, threatened environment, and the disappearance of the family farm.