Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T01:42:30.849Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Public scholarship—linking weed science with public work

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Nicholas Jordan ,
Jeffrey Gunsolus ,
Roger Becker  and
Susan White
Jeffrey Gunsolus
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, 411 Borlaug Hall, 1991 Buford Circle, St. Paul, MN 55108-6026
Roger Becker
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, 411 Borlaug Hall, 1991 Buford Circle, St. Paul, MN 55108-6026
Susan White
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, 411 Borlaug Hall, 1991 Buford Circle, St. Paul, MN 55108-6026
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weed scientists face complex and difficult challenges. Within our discipline, we must increase the sustainability of current weed management approaches and help respond to invasive plants as a component of global change. There also are major challenges that we share with other agricultural disciplines, such as mounting comprehensive efforts to address the problems of current agriculture. We believe that any effective response to these challenges will require public work, i.e., projects in which a diverse group of people work together—across lines of difference (professional, cultural, etc.)—to produce broad-based, systemic innovations that meet complex challenges. We propose that weed scientists should join relevant public-work projects by practicing “public scholarship.” We define public scholarship as original, creative, peer-evaluated intellectual work that is fully integrated in a public-work project. By full integration we mean that the scholar's work serves to fuel the social (i.e., collective) learning of the public-work group. This condition requires that the scholar be a full participant in the group rather than just being in a consultative or advisory role. We present several case studies of weed scientists practicing public scholarship. These scientists found this mode of scholarship to be a highly effective means by which to address their professional priorities. Barriers to the practice of public scholarship include the lack of relevant guidelines and norms within academic culture, e.g., with regard to quality-assurance standards. But public scholarship offers weed scientists a new way of responding to increasingly urgent demands to show that our work effectively produces public value in return for public investment. We believe that graduate programs in weed science should begin to offer students opportunities to learn skills that are relevant to public scholarship.

Keywords

Integrated weed managementsocial learningcivic sciencepublic sciencesustainability science
Type
50th Anniversary–Invited Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 50 , Issue 5 , October 2002 , pp. 547 - 554
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

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

Literature Cited

Boyer, E. L. 1990. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 147 p.Google Scholar
Boyte, H. and Hollander, E. 2000. Wingspread Declaration on Renewing the Civic Mission of the American Research University: Web page: http://www.compact.org/civic/Wingspread/Wingspread.html. Accessed July 30, 2002.Google Scholar
Boyte, H. C. and Kari, N. N. 1996. Building America: The Democratic Promise of Public Work. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 255 p.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, G. A. and Bekoff, M. 2001. Ecology and social responsibility: the re-embodiment of science. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16:460–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, A. 1998. Fomenting synergy: experiences with facilitating landcare in Australia. Pages 232–249 In Röling, N. and Wagemakers, M., eds. Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chamala, S. 1995. Overview of participative action approaches in Australian land and water management. Pages 1–42 In Chamala, S. and Keith, K., eds. Participative Approaches for Landcare. Brisbane, Australia: Australian Academic Press.Google Scholar
Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. 1999. Soft Systems Methodology in Action. New York: J. Wiley. 329 p.Google Scholar
Collay, M., Dunlap, D., Enloe, W., and Gagnon, G. W. Jr. 1998. Learning Circles—Creating Conditions for Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Conway, G. R. and Barbier, E. B. 1990. After the Green Revolution: Sustainable Agriculture for Development. London: Earthscan Publications. pp. 162–193.Google Scholar
Daily, G. C. 1997. Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press. 392 p.Google Scholar
Daniels, S. E. and Walker, G. B. 2001. Working Through Environmental Conflict: The Collaborative Learning Approach. Westport, CT. Praeger Press. 299 p.Google Scholar
Diment, S. S. 1995. Can a Place of Higher Learning Become a Learning Community? An Exploration of Faculty Perceptions Regarding Their College and its Future. . University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN. 69 p.Google Scholar
Engel, P.G.H. 1997. The Social Organization of Innovation. Amsterdam: KIT Press. 239 p.Google Scholar
Funtowicz, S. O. and Ravetz, J. R. 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25:739–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ison, R. L., High, C., Blackmore, C. P., and Cerf, M. 2000. Theoretical frameworks for learning-based approaches to change in industrialized-country agricultures. Pages 32–53 In Cerf, M., Gibbon, D., Hubert, B., Ison, R., Jiggins, J., Paine, M., Proost, J., and Röling, N., eds. Cow up a Tree: Knowing and Learning for Change in Agriculture. Paris: INRA.Google Scholar
Ison, R. and Russell, D. 2000. Agricultural Extension and Rural Development: Breaking Out of Traditions. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. 239 p.Google Scholar
Jiggins, J. and Röling, N. 2000. Towards capacity building for complex systems management: imagining three dimensions. Pages 429–440 In Cerf, M., Gibbon, D., Hubert, B., Ison, R., Jiggins, J., Paine, M., Proost, J., and Röling, N., eds. Cow up a Tree: Knowing and Learning for Change in Agriculture. Paris: INRA.Google Scholar
Jordan, N., White, S., Gunsolus, J., Becker, R., and Damme, S. 2000. Learning groups developing collaborative learning methods for diversified, site-specific weed management: a case study from Minnesota, USA. Pages 85–95 In Cerf, M., Gibbon, D., Hubert, B., Ison, R., Jiggins, J., Paine, M., Proost, J., and Röling, N., eds. Cow up a Tree: Knowing and Learning for Change in Agriculture. Paris: INRA.Google Scholar
Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Institutions. 1999. Returning to Our Roots: The Engaged Institution. Washington, DC: National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. 41 p.Google Scholar
Lappe, F. M. and Du Bois, P. M. 1994. The Quickening of America: Rebuilding Our Nation, Remaking Our Lives. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 338 p.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. 2001. Weed management: a need for ecological approaches. Pages 1–39 In Liebman, M., Mohler, C. L., and Staver, C. S., eds. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lubchenco, J. 1998. Entering the century of the environment: a new social contract for science. Science 279:491–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mack, R. N., Simberloff, D., Lonsdale, W. M., Evans, H., Clout, M., and Bazzaz, F. A. 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol. Appl. 10:689–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matson, P. A., Parton, W. J., Power, A. G., and Swift, M. J. 1997. Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties. Science 277:504–509.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matthews, D. 1997. Inventing public scholarship. Pages 181–186 In Veninga, J. F. and McAfee, N., eds. Standing with the Public—The Humanities and Democratic Practice. Dayton, OH: Kettering Foundation Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. H. 1995. Transforming the Land Grant College of Agriculture for the Twenty-First Century. National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
Michels, P. and Massengale, A. 2002. Civic Organizing Framework: Web page: http://www.activecitizen.org/CivOrg.html. Accessed: May 24, 2002.Google Scholar
Peters, S. J. 1996. Cooperative extension and the democratic promise of the land-grant idea. Pages 1–97 In Educational Development System, Minnesota Extension Service and Center for Democracy and Citizenship. Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Peters, S., Jordan, N., and Lemme, G. 1999. Toward a Public Science: Building a New Social Contract Between Science and Society. Higher Education Exchange. Dayton, OH: Kettering Foundation. pp. 34–47.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S., Holt, J., and Ghersa, C. 1997. Weed Ecology—Implications for Management. New York: J. Wiley. 589 p.Google Scholar
Röling, N. G. and Jiggins, J. 1998. The ecological knowledge system. Pages 283–311 In Röling, N. G. and Wagemakers, M.A.E., eds. Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schön, D. A. 1995. Knowing-in-action. The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change. 25:27–34.Google Scholar
Scott, J. C. 1998. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press. 445 p.Google Scholar
Shaver, C. P. 2001. Knowledge, science and practice in ecological weed management: farmer-extensionist-scientist interactions. Pages 99–138 In Liebman, M., Mohler, C. L., and Staver, C. S., eds. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Svejcar, T. J., and Maxwell, B. D. 1996. A theoretical framework for developing successional weed management strategies on rangeland. Weed Technol. 10:766–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steins, N. and Edwards, V. 1999. Synthesis: platforms for collective action in multiple use common-pool resources. Agric. Hum. Values 16:309–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svejcar, T. J. 1996. What are working groups and why should scientists be involved? Weed Technol. 10:451–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
University of Minnesota College of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences. 2002. The Vision and Priorities: Web page: http://www.coafes.umn.edu. Accessed: May 24, 2002.Google Scholar
Vandenabeele, J. and Wildemeersch, D. 2000. Learning for sustainable development: examining life-world transformation among farmers. Pages 117–133 In Wildemeersch, D., Finger, M., and Jansen, T., eds. Adult Education and Social Responsibility. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Wilson, K. and Morren, G.E.B. Jr. 1990. System Approaches for Improvement in Agriculture and Resource Management. New York: Macmillan. 361 p.Google Scholar
Woodhill, J. and Röling, N. 1998. The second wing of the eagle: the human dimension in learning our way to more sustainable futures. Pages 283–311 In Röling, N. and Wagemakers, M., eds. Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar