Cornelia Butler Flora
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa
In the evolution of the land grant system of agricultural education, then research, then extension, there was little concern for farmer priorities. The professors and researchers themselves had farm backgrounds and assumed, often quite accurately, that they knew what farmers needed. While the decentralized form of experiment stations was to ensure responsiveness to local needs, the research agenda at the experiment stations was to transform the craft of farming into a science. That science would then be used to transform the agricultural enterprise to make it more nearly fit an industrial model, to move agriculture from technical backwardness. Agriculture's technical backwardness, according to the Country Life Commission and others writing in the early 20th century, was detrimental to urban America because it resulted in higher food prices and to rural America because of low standards of living resulting from low incomes, associated with low productivity.
The Extension Service, established in 1914, was to show farmers what science offered agriculture. The key mechanism for inserting science into agriculture was through technology transfer, best done through demonstrations and the practice of early adopters, who would in turn show their laggard neighbors how farming was scientifically done. The focus was on a limited number of commodities, which had the science behind them to increase productivity. The focus on commodities was reinforced by the New Deal farm programs, in place from 1933 until 1996, and even with the FAIR Act, still a partial determinant of agricultural production decisions (particularly for sugar, rice, and tobacco producers) into the next century.
A chain of intermediaries bought and sold these commodities. Emphasis on commodities encouraged specialization and capital-intensive production strategies. Independence and competition was valued, with farmers relating more to their commodity organizations than to their community organizations. The comparative advantage was in knowing the technology first, as the early adopter made the most profit from any innovation.
The Old Economy
A few key phrases describe the situation of the old economy: (a) emphasis on commodities, (b) many intermediaries between the producer and the end user, (c) increasing specialization, (d) a premium on independence, (e) competition among producers in an inelastic commodity market, and (f) the need to know particular technologies gave rise to the research goals which predominated the land grant system through the 20th century.
Traditional Research Priorities
A key research goal under the traditional system was to solve production problems. Given farm programs that guaranteed a basic price through deficiency payments, income was increased by growing more--doing what was already done (i.e., grow corn), only more of it. Thus technologies were developed which increased production of specific crops, focusing on nitrogen responsiveness and response to irrigation, and thus monoculture. Pests were dealt with through the twin tools of pest-resistant breeding and the use of pesticides. Other alternatives, such as rotations, would have negative consequences on base acres, which insured qualifying for farm programs. Thus the use of rotations, although they might reduce risk from nature, would increase risk of market failure. The use of purchased inputs and constant breeding programs could address the risks of production due to nature. With nature and the market at least partially under control, the emphasis could be on increasing profitability.
The role of science was to provide "the answer" to the production question in order to deal with the eccentricities of nature. Extension policy education was in place to give farmers "the answer" of how to farm the farm programs. Since both of these were constantly changing, as new pests selected themselves to resist the previous solutions and the set aside acres and other regulations surrounding the commodity programs were constantly tinkered with to impose an indirect control on supply and thus decrease the net cost to the U.S. treasury of farm programs, the expert with the answer was in high demand. With relatively limited parameters, it was not necessary to go to the farmer to discern "the problem." A quick visit to the field would reveal the deficiency that the expert could overcome. Farmers would learn what to do, because technology came from the researchers through the extension agent.
The hierarchy was clear: (1) The researcher/scientist, who determined the problem and the solution, (2) the extension agent, who linked the problem and the solution and passed the technology on to the farmer, and (3) the farmer, who had the problem and needed to make the necessary changes to increase productivity. The objectives of the traditional research goals were to: (1) Solve production problems, (2) increase profitability, (3) do what you always have, only better, and (4) provide "the answer." These objectives gave rise to the traditional researcher.
The Traditional Researcher
As a result of the goals of applied research, the traditional researcher was an identifiable type. Because science was the constant, the researcher did not change. Change was up to the farmer, who had to learn to be more efficient. The applied researcher at the land grant institution was the teacher who provided the solution. The researcher was the beginning of the technology transfer process. A disciplinary approach assured tenure, which reduced the personal risk involved. The traditional researcher can be characterized as: (1) unchanging, (2) the expert, giving answers, (3) solving production problems, (4) taking no personal risk, (5) viewing self as the beginning of the technology transfer process, (6) using a teaching model, and (7) assuming the farmer is the one who changes. This view was extremely efficient under the old economic conditions. Productivity increased dramatically. Capital moved into agriculture as it became more capital intensive. The number of farmers declined, but those that remained were much more prosperous than ever before in history. Even with the farm crisis of the 1980s, the incomes and economic situation of farm households were better off than those of non-farm households, a major change from the decades of the 1920s through the 1960s. Further, this model allowed for the intersection of policy and productivity. Concern for soil erosion and water quality led to the development of Best Management Practices, designed by experts for farmers to implement on their lands to improve environmental quality. The role of expert knowledge was clear, but the holders of that expert knowledge were legitimized only through science.
Challenge to the Traditional Research Paradigm
There are major changes taking place that challenge the traditional research model and the traditional researcher. The current context of economic restructuring, restructuring of government programs and service, devolution of more responsibility to the local level, and fiscal austerity, with less money available for localities to fulfill their responsibilities, provides a very different set of conditions.
A new economic model is in place that focuses on products, not commodities. Low value, high bulk commodities give the farmer a smaller and smaller proportion of the food dollar. Instead, products make money, from identity-preserved grains and soybeans to specially raised animals and specialty vegetables. Products, in turn, require integrated supply chains. Multiple intermediaries, from grain elevators with pooled commodities to sales barns to general produce markets are giving way to direct contracts with clear product quality guidelines that accompany an agreed upon price and a specified market.
The more direct links to end-users of the product, in turn, means the need to increase flexibility on the part of the producer. Products constantly change, which means constant adjustment on the part of the producers. Moving from a commodity to a product does not mean just changing from one comfortable set of nuts in terms of what you produce and how you produce it into another. It means constant adjustment and constant change.
While independence was rewarded in the old system, so one did not give away one's comparative advantage, networks become crucial in the new economy. Flexible networks facilitate both product identification and establish marketing channels. Whereas in the old model, competition was valued, in the new economy teamwork and cooperation increase competitive advantage. Finally, success depends on continuously learning and assessing alternatives, not just in knowing the answers.
New Research Priorities
New research priorities emerge in the context of the new economy (1) products, not commodities, (2) integrated supply chains, not many intermediaries, (3) flexibility, rather than specialization, (4) networks, rather than independent producers, (5) teamwork, rather than direct competition, and (6) a learning model, rather than a knowing model. The traditional model of research is simply not agile enough or responsive enough to respond to farmer-identified priorities, particularly the priorities of small and limited resource farmers who cannot compete in the traditional commodity model of the old economy, where the only way to make money was to get bigger and bigger and more and more specialized.
In working with farmers involved in moving sustainably into the 21st century, the research goals are very different. First, these farmers want research that transforms agriculture. Unhappy with an industrial model of agriculture that is economically and environmentally incompatible with the quality of life they have defined as minimal for themselves and their families, women and men have come together to constantly design alternatives. They seek alternatives that are economically profitable, environ-mentally sound and contribute to commu-nity, both community of place and of interest. They want alternatives that give identity and meaning to the agriculture enterprise for those households who remain petty commodity producers; those households which provide land, capital, labor and management for the agricultural enterprise. These farmers are innovators and one of their goals is to understand why their systems, different from conventional industrial agriculture works. They honor expert knowledge in understanding pieces of the whole, but see the pieces as less important than the whole. They seek to improve their system to better meet their vision. For example, in the midwest, a farm household may move from row crops to much more integrated crop and animal systems, which gives them more family time and will reduce market risk as the commodity programs end. These farmers see research as a continuous process, through which they will constantly improve. They also see themselves as partners in the research process, not just the sites for demonstrations of "the answer" to a very specific production problem. For them, the goal of research is to constantly design alternatives and monitoring the multiple impacts of these alternatives is critical.
The New Researcher
Given the new research priorities generated by the goals of small family farmers, the new researcher must have different characteristics, such as (1) transform agriculture, (2) understand why their system works, (3) improve the system to better meet their vision, (4) always improve, and (5) constantly design and monitor alternatives.
Since our traditional researchers were prepared by a system that met the needs of the old economic and political conditions, the new researcher, according to the farmers, is created through (Participation in farmer-researcher teams). Indeed, several of my farmer-researcher colleagues are convinced that the best way to begin to create the new researcher is to take them to their farms and go with them on a field walk, where all their senses can be engaged in considering alternatives and their implications.
The new researcher has expertise, but participates in applied research as a co-learner. The new researcher takes risks. The research will not be disciplinary, but holistic in approach. The researcher is transformed by the process of research. The risk is not just professional, but the risk of a changing self through linkages to new communities.
The new researcher takes a systems approach, which rejects reductionist research and attempts to fit particular issues, such as an infestation of potato bugs into the system which produces them so that the countermeasures designed can be adequately assessed and implemented. Finally, the new researcher does not have "the answer". The new researcher asks questions. The new researcher uses a variety of sources of knowledge to respond to questions, from basic science to the special knowledge a farmer has of a particular field or stream.
Communities: The Key to Implementing New Priorities
The new researcher: (1) is a co-learner, (2) is a risk taker, (3) undergoes personal transformation, (4) uses a systems approach, (5) asks questions.
Community is even more important in this context. The small agriculturist in the new economy needs to be connected to new communities of interest that link to new markets, new ways of production, new sources of capital, and new partners in production and marketing. Such communities are both locality and interest based. And the new researcher needs a new community of scholars that can evaluate the new research in light of the new research priorities. Research suggests that organizations of small farmers that include researchers (but are dominated by the small farmers) result in implementation of the new research priorities. And researchers who respond to the new research priorities need to both link themselves to those organizations and form networks with other researchers with the same agenda.
Return to Table of Contents
Return to Title Page