Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:53:55.577Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Meeting the ‘multi-’ requirements in organic agriculture research: Successes, challenges and recommendations for multifunctional, multidisciplinary, participatory projects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2011

Mary Barbercheck ,
Nancy Ellen Kiernan ,
Andrew G. Hulting ,
Sjoerd Duiker ,
Jeffrey Hyde ,
Heather Karsten  and
Elsa Sanchez
Mary Barbercheck*
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.
Nancy Ellen Kiernan
Affiliation:
Cooperative Extension Administration, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.
Andrew G. Hulting
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.
Sjoerd Duiker
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.
Jeffrey Hyde
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.
Heather Karsten
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.
Elsa Sanchez
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: meb34@psu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Organic farming is one of the fastest growing agricultural sectors worldwide, and funds to support research and extension activities that address the needs of organic producers are becoming more widely available in the USA. Solutions to problems in ecologically complex systems, such as organic farming systems often exceed the expertise of individual investigators or single disciplines. Further, the complex nature of ecological and social interactions within systems-based agricultural research requires not only more emphasis on information exchange but also synthesis between multidisciplinary teams of academic researchers and organic farmers. Accordingly, federal grant agencies that support organic agriculture research increasingly require that projects encompass multiple academic disciplines, multiple functions (research, outreach, education), and the participation of stakeholders for the ultimate purpose of the integration of knowledge. Many researchers, educators and administrators at land grant universities (LGUs) remain inexperienced in multidisciplinary, multifunctional and participatory research. Using post-completion project interviews of the project investigators on an organic transition project, we identified eight factors that affected the integration of knowledge from a farmer advisory board and the conduct of our multidisciplinary, participatory organic transition project. The first five factors include shared values, balance in technical competence, institutional capacity for research, team capacity for problem solving and institutional resistance. The research team also identified three other factors that evoked confusion and divergence during the project, and include the ambiguity of power and control of knowledge, the proposed experimental plan and terms of team engagement. We considered participatory elements of the project according to Biggs’ linear typology of participation, but found more appropriate Neef and Neubert's position that a linear scale of participatory approach is an inadequate framework for helping agricultural scientists to decide on whether and in which phases they want to, can and should incorporate participatory elements into their research projects. From these findings, we conclude with critical issues for academic research and extension teams to consider during the development and before conduct of these types of projects. We also offer recommendations for LGUs and other research institutions, and funding organizations, to facilitate multidisciplinary, multifunctional, participatory research.

Keywords

participatory researchorganic agriculturemultidisciplinary researchtransdisciplinary researchevaluation metrics
Type
Preliminary Report
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , June 2012 , pp. 93 - 106
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Dimitri, C. and Oberholtzer, L. 2009. Marketing U.S. Organic Foods: Recent Trends from Farms to Consumers. USDA ERS Economic Information Bulletin No. (EIB-58), September 2009. Available at Web site http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB58/ (accessed March 25, 2011).Google Scholar
Constance, D.H. 2010. Sustainable agriculture in the United States: a critical examination of a contested process. Sustainability 2:48–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuepper, G. 2010. A Brief Overview of the History and Philosophy of Organic Agriculture. Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Poteau, OK.Google Scholar
Buttle, F.H. 2005. Ever since Hightower: the politics of agricultural research activism in the molecular age. Agriculture and Human Values 22:275–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agunga, R. and Igodan, C.C. 2007. Organic farmers’ need for and attitude towards extension. Journal of Extension 45:6FEA6. Available at Web site http://www.joe.org/joe/2007december/a6.php (accessed March 25, 2011).Google Scholar
Heckman, J. 2006. A history of organic farming—transitions from Sir Albert Howard's war in the soil to the USDA National Organic Program. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 21:143–150.Google Scholar
Treadwell, D.D., McKinney, D.E., and Creamer, N.G. 2003. From philosophy to science: a brief history of organic horticulture in the United States. HortScience 38:1009–1013.Google Scholar
Papendick, R.I. (ed). 1980. United States Department of Agriculture Study Team on Organic Farming. Report and Recommendations on Organic Farming. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Madden, J.P. 1998. The early years of the LISA, SARE, and ACE programs: Reflections of the Founding Director. Logan UT: Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE), Western Region. Available at Web site http://wsare.usu.edu/about/index.cfm?sub=hist_concept (accessed March 25, 2011).Google Scholar
Congressional Record. 1990. Public Law 101–624. 28 Nov. 1990. Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990. Title XXI, Organic Certification. Congressional Record S10959, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Sooby, J., Landeck, J., and Lipson, M. 2007. National Organic Research Agenda: Soils, Pests, Livestock, Genetics. Organic Farming Research Foundation, Santa Cruz, CA.Google Scholar
Lipson, M. 1997. Searching for the ‘O-Word’: An Analysis of the USDA Current Research Information System (CRIS) for Pertinence to Organic Farming. Organic Farming Research Foundation, Santa Cruz, CA.Google Scholar
Congressional Record. 2003. Jan. 15, 2003, p. 588 – program authorized under Title XXV of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Harp, A. and Sachs, C. 1992. Public agricultural researchers: reactions to organic, low input and sustainable agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values 9:58–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beus, C.E. and Dunlap, R.E. 1992. The alternative-conventional agriculture debate: Where do agricultural faculty stand? Rural Sociology 57:363–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walz, E. 1999. Final Results of the Third Biennial National Organic Farmers’ Survey. Organic Farming Research Foundation, Santa Cruz, CA.Google Scholar
Wheeler, S.A. 2008. What influences agricultural professionals’ views towards organic agriculture? Ecological Economics 65:145–154.Google Scholar
Watson, C., Alrøe, H., and Kristensen, E.S. 2006. Research to support the development of organic farming. In Kristensen, P., Taji, A., and Reganold, J. (eds). Organic Agriculture: A Global Perspective. Comstock, Ithaca, NY. p. 361–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, J.C., Kaufman, C.S., and Schauer, A. 1995. Attitudes and practices of sustainable farmers, with applications to designing a sustainable agriculture extension program. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 6:135–156.Google Scholar
Hanson, J.C., Lichtenberg, E., and Peters, S.E. 1997. Organic versus conventional grain production in the mid-Atlantic: an economic and farming system overview. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 12:2–9.Google Scholar
Niggli, U. and Willer, H. 2001. Stimulating the potential for innovation in organic farming by research. In: Danish Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (ed.). Proceedings – Organic food and farming – Towards partnership and action in Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark, May 10–11, 2001. Danish Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Copenhagen, p. 194–203.Google Scholar
Shennan, C. 2008. Biotic interactions, ecological knowledge and agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 363:717–739.Google Scholar
Francis, C.A., Lieblein, G., Breland, T.A., Salomonsson, L., Geber, U., Sriskandarajah, N., and Langer, V. 2008. Transdisciplinary research for a sustainable agriculture and food sector. Agronomy Journal 100:771–776.Google Scholar
Hirsch Hadorn, G., Bradley, D., Pohl, C.H., Rist, S., and Wiesmann, U. 2006. Implications of transdisciplinarity for sustainability research. Ecological Economics 60:119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., and Trow, M. 2005. The New Production of Knowledge: the Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. SAGE Publications, London.Google Scholar
Aeberhard, A. and Rist, S. 2009. Transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge in the development of organic agriculture in Switzerland. Ecological Economics 68:1171–1181.Google Scholar
Max-Neef, M.A. 2005. Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecological Economics 53:5–16.Google Scholar
Roux, D.J., Rogers, K.H., Biggs, H.C., Ashton, P.J., and Sergeant, A. 2006. Bridging the science-management divide: moving from unidirectional knowledge transfer to knowledge interfacing and sharing. Ecology and Society 11:4. Available at Web site http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art4/ (accessed March 25, 2011).Google Scholar
Warner, K.D. 2006. Extending agroecology: Grower participation in partnerships is key to social learning. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 21:84–94.Google Scholar
Tollefsen, D.P. 2006. Group deliberation, social cohesion, and scientific teamwork: Is there room for dissent? Episteme 3:37–51.Google Scholar
Bellon, M.R. 2001. Participatory Research Methods for Technology Evaluation: A Manual for Scientists Working with Farmers. CIMMYT, Mexico, DF.Google Scholar
Martin, A. and Sherington, J. 1997. Participatory research methods – Implementation, effectiveness and institutional context. Agricultural Systems 55:195–216.Google Scholar
Carolan, M.S. 2008. Democratizing knowledge: sustainable and conventional agricultural field days as divergent democratic forms. Science, Technology and Human Values 33:508–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerf, M., Gibbon, D., Hubert, B., Ison, R., Jiggons, J., Paine, M., Proost, J., and Röling, N. (eds). 2000. Cow up a tree. Knowing and learning for change in agriculture and rural development. In Case Studies from Industrialised Countries. INRA Editions, Paris.Google Scholar
Karlen, D.L., Cambardella, C.A., Bull, C.T., Chase, C.A., Gibson, L.R., and Delate, K. 2007. Producer–researcher interactions in on-farm research: A case study on developing a certified organic research site. Agronomy Journal 99:779–790.Google Scholar
Krell, R. and Zanoli, R. (eds). 2000. Research Methodologies in Organic Farming: On-farm Participatory Research. REU Technical Series 63. FAO, Rome.Google Scholar
Toderi, M., Powell, N., Seddaiu, G., Roggero, P.P., and Gibbon, D. 2007. Combining social learning with agro-ecological research practice for more effective management of nitrate pollution. Environmental Science and Policy 10:551–563.Google Scholar
Finn, J.L. 1994. The promise of participatory research. Journal of Progressive Human Services 5:25–42.Google Scholar
Biggs, S. 1989. Resource-poor farmer participation in research: a synthesis of experiences from nine national agricultural research systems. OFCOR Comparative Study Paper 3. International Service for National Agricultural Research, The Hague.Google Scholar
Bruges, M. and Smith, W. 2008. Participatory approaches for sustainable agriculture: A contradiction in terms? Agriculture and Human Values 25:13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neef, A. and Neubert, D. 2010. Stakeholder participation in agricultural research projects: a conceptual framework for reflection and decision-making. Agriculture and Human Values published online, May 21, 2010. DOI: (accessed March 25, 2011).Google Scholar
Cornwall, A. and Jewkes, R. 1995. What is participatory research? Social Science and Medicine 41:1667–1676.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carolan, M.S. 2006. Social change and the adoption and adaptation of knowledge claims: Whose truth do you trust in regard to sustainable agriculture? Agriculture and Human Values 23:325–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jabbour, R. and Barbercheck, M.E. 2009. Soil management effects on entomopathogenic fungi during the transition to organic agriculture in a feed grain rotation. Biological Control 51:435–443.Google Scholar
Smith, R.G., Jabbour, R., Hulting, A.G., Barbercheck, M.E., and Mortensen, D.A. 2009. Effects of initial seed bank density on weed seedling emergence during the transition to an organic feed grain crop rotation. Weed Science 57:533–540.Google Scholar
Smith, R.G., Barbercheck, M.E., Mortensen, D.A., Hyde, J., and Hulting, A.G. 2011. Yield and net returns during the transition to organic feed grain production. Agronomy Journal 103:51–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gareau, T.L.P., Smith, R.G., Barbercheck, M.E., and Mortensen, D.A. 2010. Spider plots: a tool for participatory extension learning. Journal of Extension 48:5TOT8. Available at Web site http://www.joe.org/joe/2010october/tt8.php (accessed March 25, 2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tessmer, M. 1993. Planning and Conducting Formative Evaluations. Kogan Page, London, UK.Google Scholar
Rossi, P.H., Lipsey, M.W., and Freeman, H.E. 2004. Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. 7th ed. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
Morgan, D.L. and Morgan, R.K. 2009. Single-Case Research Methods. Sage Publications, Los Angeles, CA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, F.J. and Mangione, T.W. 1990. Standardized Survey Interviewing: Minimizing Interviewer-Related Error. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
Yin, R.K. 1984. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.Google Scholar
Stake, R.E. 1995. The Art of Case Study Research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
Patton, M.Q. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
Love, A.J. 1991. Internal Evaluation: Building Organizational from Within. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
Goober, E.G. 1978. Toward a Methodology of Naturalistic Inquiry in Educational Evaluation. University of California Press, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
Wuchty, S., Jones, B.F., and Uzzi, B. 2007. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316:1036–1039.Google Scholar
Russell, D.B. and Ison, R.L. 2000. Agricultural Extension and Rural Development: Breaking Out of Traditions. Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Lilja, N. and Dixon, J. 2008. Responding to the challenge of impact assessment of participatory research and gender analysis. Experimental Agriculture 44:3–19.Google Scholar
Janis, I. 1972. Victims of Groupthink. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Solomon, M. 2006. Groupthink vs. the wisdom of the crowds: The social epistemology of deliberation and dissent. Southern Journal of Philosophy Supplement 44:28–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummings, J. and Kiesler, S. 2005. Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science 35:703–722.Google Scholar
Brown, V.R. and Paulus, P.B. 2002. Making group brainstorming more effective: Recommendations from an associative memory perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science 11:208–212.Google Scholar
Bratman, M. 1999. Shared cooperative activity. In Bratman, M. (ed.). Faces of Intention: Selected Essays on Intention and Agency. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. p. 93–109.Google Scholar
Farrington, J.A., Bebbington, A., Wellard, K. and Lewis, D.J. 1993. Reluctant Partners: Non-Governmental Organizations, the State, and Sustainable Agricultural Development. Routledge, London, UK.Google Scholar
Sumberg, J. and Okali, C. 1988. Farmers, on-farm research and the development of new technology. Experimental Agriculture 24:333–342.Google Scholar