Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T07:12:00.327Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Addressing the challenges of sustainable agriculture research and extension at land-grant universities: Radially organized teams at Wisconsin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

G. W. Stevenson ,
Joshua Posner ,
John Hall ,
Lee Cunningham  and
Jan Harrison
G. W. Stevenson
Affiliation:
Rural sociologist and Assistant Director, Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
Joshua Posner
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
John Hall
Affiliation:
Graduate student, Department of Agronomy and Institute for Environmental Studies, all at University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
Lee Cunningham
Affiliation:
Agronomist with the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, East Troy, WI 53120
Jan Harrison
Affiliation:
Agribusiness agent, University of Wisconsin-Extension, Walworth County, Elkhorn, WI 53121.
Get access

Abstract

Researchers at land-grant universities are under pressure to widen their research objectives, which requires them to expand their inquiry from a disciplinary base to a systems level, to include farmers and nonuniversity organizations as research collaborators, and to communicate with broader sectors of the public, such as consumers and policy makers. However, there are few rewards for scientists who undertake long-term, systems based research. An approach that brings together multidisciplinary, multiprofession teams using a radial model of organization has successfully addressed these challenges in Wisconsin. A small “hub” manages the team, with the remaining participants linked to component taskforces or “satellite” projects. This enables research to be done on both multidisciplinary and related single-discipline questions. Radially organized teams can attract diverse people with different time commitments and reward incentives. The research meets the criteria of public and academic audiences alike. For innovative research and extension efforts like radial teams to reach their full potential, larger institutional changes are needed within the land-grant system and professional agricultural societies.

Keywords

multidisciplinary team researchalternative agricultureintegrated cropping systems
Type
Other Feature Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 9 , Issue 1-2 , June 1994 , pp. 76 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

1.Allen, P., Van Dusen, D., Lundy, J., and Gliessman, S.. 1991. Integrating social, environmental, and economic issues in sustainable agriculture. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 6(1):34–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Anbar, M. 1973. The “bridge scientist” and his role. Research Development July:33–37.Google Scholar
3.Baldock, J., and Posner, J.. 1992. Crop rotation options program: Computer aid to evaluate alternative cropping systems. Agronomy Abstracts. Amer. Soc. Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin. p. 78.Google Scholar
4.Beattie, B. 1991. Some almost-ideal remedies for healing land grant universities. Presidential address presented at the annual meeting of the Amer. Agric. Economics Assoc., Manhattan, Kansas, 08.Google Scholar
5.Birnbaum, P. 1982. Academic interdisciplinary research: Characteristics of successful projects. J. Soc. Research Administrators 13:5–16.Google Scholar
6.Bonnen, J.T. 1986. A century of science in agriculture: Lessons for science policy. Amer. J. Agric. Economics 68:1065–1080.Google Scholar
7.Busch, L., and Lacy, W.B.. 1983. Science, Agriculture, and the Politics of Research. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
8.Buttel, F., and Busch, L.. 1988. The public agricultural research system at the crossroads. Agric. History 62:303–324.Google Scholar
9.Chambers, R., Pacey, A., and Thrupp, L. (eds). 1989. Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. Intermediate Technology Publications, London, England.Google Scholar
10.Clancy, K. 1993. Sustainable agriculture and domestic hunger: Rethinking a link between production and consumption. In Allen, P. (ed). Food For The Future: Conditions and Contradictions of Sustainability. John Wiley and Sons, New York, N.Y. pp. 251–294.Google Scholar
11.Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. 1990. Alternative Agriculture: Scientists' Review. Spec. Pub. No. 16. Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
12.Cunningham, L. 1992. Soils, crops, agriculture and me: An agricultural awareness module for fifth graders. Unpublished document available from the University of Wisconsin-Extension, Elkhorn.Google Scholar
13.Danbom, D.B. 1986. Publicly sponsored agricultural research in the United States from an historical perspective. In Dahlberg, K.A. (ed). New Directions For Agriculture and Agricultural Research. Rowan and Allanheld. Totowa, New Jersey, pp. 107–131.Google Scholar
14.Debertin, D. 1992. Commentary: There is a future for the land grants, if… Choices 3:47.Google Scholar
15.Deming, W. 1982. Out of the Crisis. Center for Advanced Engineering Study, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
16.Doll, J., Doersch, R., Proost, R., and Kivlin, P.. 1992. Reduced Herbicide Rates: Aspects to Consider. Bulletin A3563. Univ. of Wisconsin-Extension, Madison.Google Scholar
17.Duvick, D. 1990. The new biology, a union of ecology and molecular biology. Choices 4:4–7.Google Scholar
18.Francis, C.A., Flora, C.B., and King, L.D. (eds). 1990. Sustainable Agriculture in Temperate Zones. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
19.Friedhoff, A.J. 1988. Letter to the editor. Science 242:1623Google Scholar
20.Gumz, R., Saupe, W., Klemme, R., and Posner, J.. 1993. A preliminary economic comparison of three cash grain rotations. Managing the Farm 26(1):1–9. Dept. of Agric. Economics, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar
21.Gussow, J. 1991. Chicken Little, Tomato Sauce and Agriculture. The Bootstrap Press, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
22.Harrison, J. 1993. Land stewardship and nutrient cycling on the Krusenbaum farm: The transition to organic dairying. Unpublished M.Sc. thesis. Dept. of Agronomy, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar
23.Heberlein, T.A. 1988. Improving interdisciplinary research: Integrating the social and natural sciences. Society and Natural Resources 1:5–16.Google Scholar
24.Kanter, R. 1983. The Change Masters. Simon and Schuster, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
25.Lacy, W. 1993. Can agricultural colleges meet the needs of sustainable agriculture? Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 8:40–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.MacRae, R., Welsh, J., Kneen, B., and Friedman, H.. 1992. Municipal food policy councils: Diversifying institutional form and process to support the transition to just, healthy, and sustainable food and agricultural systems. Paper presented at the joint meeting of the Assoc. for the Study of Food and Society, and the Agriculture, Food, and Human Values Soc., E. Lansing, Michigan, June. Available from the Toronto Food Council, Toronto, Ontario.Google Scholar
27.Miller, L., Rossing, B., and Steele, S.. 1990. Partnerships: Shared Leadership Among Stakeholders. Univ. of Wisconsin Press, Madison.Google Scholar
28.National Research Council. 1989. Alternative Agriculture. Board on Agriculture. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
29.Perrow, C. 1979. Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay. Scott, Foresman, Glenview, Illinois.Google Scholar
30.Peters, T.J., and Waterman, A.H.. 1982. In Search of Excellence. Warner Books, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
31.Potash and Phosphate Institute. 1990. A Review of the National Research Council Report on Alternative Agriculture. Atlanta, Georgia.Google Scholar
32.Posner, J., and Casler, M.. 1993. The Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial: Combining Agro-ecology with Production Agronomy. Amer. Soc. Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin, p. 15.Google Scholar
33.Posner, J., and Hall, J.. 1993. The Krusenbaum Project: Progress Report III. Unpublished project report available from the Agronomy Dept., Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar
34.Rossini, F., and Porter, A.. 1979. Framework for integrating interdisciplinary research. Research Policy 8:70–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35.Schaller, N. 1991. An agenda for research on the impacts of sustainable agriculture: Assessment and recommendation of a panel of social scientists. Occasional Paper No. 2. Institute for Alternative Agriculture, Greenbelt, Maryland.Google Scholar
36.Schneider, S. 1977. Climate change and the world predicament: A case study for interdisciplinary research. Climate Change 1:21–43.Google Scholar
37.Schuh, G. 1986. Revitalizing land grant universities: It's time to regain relevance. Choices 1:6–10.Google Scholar
38.Stevenson, G.W. 1993. Transitioning from a conventional to an organic dairy: Decisions on the Krusenbaum farm. In The Krusenbaum Project: Progress Report III. Unpublished project report available from the Agronomy Department, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar
39.Stevenson, G.W., and Klemme, R.M.. 1992. Advisory/oversight councils: An alternative approach to farmer/citizen participation in agenda setting at landgrant universities. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 7(3):111–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40.Stute, J., and Posner, J.. 1993. Legume cover crop options for grain rotations in Wisconsin. Agronomy J. 85:1128–1132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41.Suppe, F. 1987. The limited applicability of agricultural research. Agriculture and Human Values 4:4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42.Vasquez, O., Smith, T., and Posner, J.. 1991. A microcomputer model for evaluating rotational grazing in dairy herds. J. Dairy Sci. 74, Supplement 1. Abstract P409:278.Google Scholar
43.Weisbord, M. 1976. Diagnosing Your Organization. Organization Research and Development, Wynnewood, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
44.Weiss, A., and Robb, J.. 1989. Challenge for the fixture: Incorporating systems into the agricultural infrastructure. J. Production Agric. 2:287–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45.Wright, S., and Morely, D. (eds). 1989. Learning Works: Searching for Organizational Futures. Faculty of Environmental Studies, York Univ., Toronto, Ontario.Google Scholar