|
Items in cart [1] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 208
CHAPTER
25
Emphasizing the Social Sciences
and Humanities
1
Paul B. Thompson
Wham P. Browne, Rapporteur
Many authors writing on the future of undergraduate education in
colleges that have historically had their roots in agriculture have
stressed the need for a broad view of society and culture. Virtually
no one has called for more specialized training in the applied sci-
ences. Given this background, much of the work that might have
been expected in a chapter emphasizing the social sciences and
humanities has already been done. What is more, the completion of
the Social Science Agricultural Agenda Project (Johnson et al., local)
has produced a wealth of material for those who wish to find a more
detailed discussion of the topic. Three key points need to be made
with respect to the role of the social sciences and humanities in the
education of agricultural and natural resources professionals.
1. Social science and humanities courses play a dual role in
undergraduate education. They are a part of core undergraduate
education, but certain social science and humanities topics have
special relevance for the careers that agricultural and natural re-
sources professionals will pursue in the twenty-first century.
2. The social sciences and humanities are the only disciplines
within the university that are equipped to help students understand
the way that an increasingly urban population will perceive food and
fiber as well as environmental issues. If agricultural and natural
resources professionals are to be effective in their careers, they
must be prepared to listen and reply to the concerns and desires
voiced by people with little life experience or formal education in the
production of food and fiber or in the management of natural re-
sources.
208
OCR for page 209
EMPHASIZING THE SOCML SCIENCES AND HUMANITI~
3. The capacity for targeted social science and humanities edu-
cation on topics and skills crucial to future professionals in agricul-
ture and natural resources is both low and poorly organized. This
area has been among the most neglected by faculty administrators
in both the agricultural and the environmental sciences and in the
liberal arts.
The balance of this chapter takes up each of these three points
in turn. The importance of a broad education is taken as a given;
there is no further discussion of it here.
The Difference Between Core and Targeted
Education in the Social Sciences and Humanities
Many of the contributors to this volume on professional educa-
tion for undergraduates have stressed the need for broadening the
curriculum of agricultural and natural resources professionals. They
have cited the need for courses in communications and foreign
languages and a core area of knowledge about culture and society.
There is nothing special here that relates to agriculture or natural
resources. Business, engineering, premedicine, and prelaw stu-
dents have this need. it is a real need that must be acknowledged,
but recognition of this need should not influence the curriculum
reform effort in agriculture and natural resources to focus on devel-
oping a core curriculum.
Agricultural and natural resources professionals face special problems
of communication, ethical decision making, and interpreting and
managing human activities, problems that are unique to the types
of careers they will follow and to the kind of science they will
apply. The social sciences and humanities can and must be incor-
porated into their training in such a way as to target educational
efforts on the acquisition of knowledge and skill that is specifically
relevant to these problems. Some of the specific topics that should
be targeted are discussed below.
The single most important point that must be recognized, how-
ever, is that emphasis upon core humanities and social science
courses does not substitute for the targeted education of special
social science and humanities topics of particular importance to
agriculture and natural resources. Programs of core education that
stress Great bookst' or a unified approach to understanding society
and civilization through the study of art, literature, or history are
quite likely to exclude these special topics in a systematic and
deliberate way. If these special topics are not introduced into the
education of agricultural and natural resources students at the up-
per division or graduate level, the core education movement to
emphasize the social sciences and humanities will, in fact, deprive
209
OCR for page 210
AGRICULTURE AND THE UNDERGRADUATE
future professionals of the social science and humanities knowl-
edge that is most crucial to their effectiveness. Note that this is not
meant to oppose the core movement, for all students need it. It is
crucial to see that there are two tracks for discussing the role of
social sciences and humanities in the education of agricultural and
natural resources professionals. One is the core needed by every-
one; the other is the targeted areas needed by agricultural and
natural resources professionals. Everyone needs the core. Agricul-
tural and natural resources students need something else, prefer-
ably in addition to the core. What they need is the topic that follows.
The Content of Targeted Areas in
Social Science and the Humanities
U.S. agriculture enjoyed a reputation for success during much of
its tenure, but the most recent decade has been one of criticism
and rethinking of agricultural priorities (Danbom' 1986; Johnson,
1984; Kirkendall, 1987). One important group of critics, associated
with the 1972 Pound" committee of the National Research Council
(1972, 1975), stressed the scientific quality and efficiency of agricul-
tural research, but the more noted critics have focused on the so-
cial goals that contemporary agricultural production techniques
(whether implicitly or intentionally) have tended to serve (Berry'
1977; Doyle, 1985; Fox, 1986; Hightower, 1975; Jackson, 1980;
Schell, 1984). There is an extraordinary range of concerns and
complaints expressed in the writings of this latter group of critics,
and many different client groups are alleged to have been ill-served.
A theme common to most criticisms, however, is that agricultural
leaders have, de facto or by design, pursued a goal of maximizing
the productive efficiency of the U.S. farm. Critics allege that it is
the persistent search for greater yields by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) land-grant system that is the wellspring of prob-
lems for U.S. agriculture.
The views of the critics were reinforced by a legal finding in
November 1987, when California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA)
won a judgment against the University of California (UC). CRLA
claimed that producers who have aggressively sought a competi-
tive edge have benefited disproportionately from publicly funded
agricultural science, at the expense of small farms and the farm
labor that had been displaced by the resulting technological changes.
The court found that UC had negligently failed to assess whether
research to develop a mechanical tomato harvester would have an
adverse impact upon UC's legislatively mandated small-farm clients
(Bishop, 1987). Although the judgment against UC was later re-
versed, the court action and the press coverage it engendered indi-
cate the seriousness of criticisms raised against agriculture.
210
OCR for page 211
EMPHASIZING THE SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITY
Other critics have cited what they perceive to be negative im-
pacts on environmental quality, the poor or oppressed peoples of
developing nations, consumer health, and even the welfare of farm
animals. The common theme is that the USDA land-grant system's
service to the (increasingly) large farm has lowered the price and
improved the availability of food and fiber at the expense of other
social goals. The ongoing public controversy over recombinant
bovine somatotropin (rBST) brings many of these elements together
in a single case. Although the scientific evidence indicates that
rBST, which is produced through a genetic engineering process, is
a safe and efficient technology for dairy production, use of the
technology has been stifled by a coalition of small dairy producers
and animal welfare and consumer advocates. This coalition has, to
date, succeeded in keeping milk produced by cows treated with
rBST from reaching consumers, largely by raising concerns about
the safety and quality of the product (Burkhardt' local).
The tomato harvester and rBST cases are but two of many that
complicate the current context of agricultural production, research,
distribution, and consumption. Others include the questions of field
testing engineered organisms, determining the acceptable risks as-
sociated with agricultural chemical residues in food, examining our
commitment to the development of agriculture in less developed
countries in light of domestic farm interests, preserving genetic di-
versity, and environmental and public health regulations as barriers
to trade in agricultural products. These are among the most diffi-
cult of a long list of topics that, more broadly, include world hun-
ger, environmental quality, animal welfare, and the traditional agrar-
ian philosophy of farming as a way of life.
Todays agricultural leaders, not to mention todays citizens, need
a more sophisticated understanding of the food and fiber system.
They need to appreciate the social, ethical, and cultural values that
seem to surface only in a crisis situation. Although it is not clear
that crises such as the banning of Alar or Californiats wig Green"
referendum (which would have banned a large number of agricul-
tural chemicals and addressed other environmental concerns) can
be anticipated with any degree of confidence, a deeper understand-
ing of the social and cultural forces that are operative during crisis
situations will help agricultural leaders make more effective and
responsible responses to public concerns, when they arise.
Traditional agricultural education in the humanities and social
sciences has stressed economic management of farms and
agribusinesses as well as rural community development. Although
there will be a continuing need for this education for a percentage
of students being educated in traditional agricultural programs, there
is an even greater need for education on how society beyond the
farm sector relates to and perceives agriculture. Future profession-
als will need to know how to do a better job of producing the
211
OCR for page 212
AGRICULTURE AND THE UNDERGRADUATE
products that urban consumers want. They will need to know how
to manage their professional responsibilities in a manner consistent
with the public interest. They will need to know why people who
do not have a farm or rural background might find certain practices
or ways of speaking arrogant, insensitive, or otherwise objection-
able. They will need to know how to listen to a new constituency.
Present-day farm, food industry, and environmental leaders are
keenly aware of the fact that the consumer-oriented and political
decisions that define the framework for agricultural and natural re-
sources management are made by people who have no life experi-
ence or formal education in agriculture or the environmental sci-
ences. The general public did not grow up on farms and has little
or no experience with the productive use of natural resources. Many
lack life experiences even in the recreational use of nature. The
dietary choices and opinions on regulatory issues of most Ameri-
cans are not informed by knowledge of principles for evaluating
and comparing risks, nor are they informed by information on the
contribution of existing farming and management practices to food
availability, economic growth, and the provision of other human
needs. Although we should work to promote better public under-
standing of agricultural and natural resources management, we must
plan the education of the next generation of leaders on the assump-
tion that this situation is not likely to improve. It would be tragically
foolish to think that the public at large will assume the personal
costs needed to understand the scientific and production-based
opinions of those who make their life in agriculture, the food indus-
try, and resource management. It is agricultural and natural re-
sources professionals who must bear the responsibility to commu-
nicate with the public. This means that leaders must understand
public opinion on its own terms. Put simply, the mountain will not
come to us; we must go to the mountain.
Specifically, this means that undergraduates need to study how
nature and natural resources are perceived in U.S. society. They
need to learn alternative philosophical approaches to the measure-
ment and acceptability of risk. They need to be taught how scien-
tific advances such as biotechnology are received by different sec-
tors of the public and whether public reactions are based on political
and financial interests or on moral and religious concerns. There is
a need for graduate and undergraduate training in communications
strategies that do not alienate nonscientific, nonfarm audiences.
There should be undergraduate courses that take up the politics of
the policy process and the histories and organizational structures of
groups (commodity organizations, environmental or animal welfare
activist organizations, consumer groups, etc.) that influence agricul-
tural and natural resources practices. Journalism departments should
offer courses on how the news media decides which stories to
cover and of the norms and institutions that structure the coverage
212
OCR for page 213
EMPHASIZING THE SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HU~NITI~
of science and technology. Future professionals who possess knowl-
edge and skills in each of these areas will be far more effective in
conducting and promoting research, product development, market-
ing, management, and policy change than those who do not. The
volumes of the Social Science Agricultural Agenda Project (Johnson
et al., 1991) document the subject matter for such targeted course
work in an exhaustive manner.
Yet, it is clear that the current social science capacities within
colleges that have their roots in agriculture have little capacity to
educate undergraduates (much less to do research and extension)
on these issues. This lack of capacity is partly organizational. Marketing
and resource economics courses in agricultural economics are tar-
geted to advanced majors. A similar situation holds for course
work on social psychology, development theory, and cultural analy-
sis that might be offered by sociologists and anthropologists with
appointments in colleges of agriculture and natural resources. Such
organization does little to serve the broad educational needs of
undergraduates. A more serious problem exists with respect to the
educational needs that derive from political science, communica-
tions, journalism, literature, and philosophy. With the exception of
agricultural communications or journalism programs aimed prima-
rily at training tomorrows agricultural press, capacities for educat-
ing undergraduates on these topics within colleges of agriculture
and natural resources are practically nonexistent. What, then, are
the barriers to reform?
Barriers to Emphasizing the
Social Sciences and Humanities
During the 1980s, a number of journals and professional societ-
ies emerged to support research on the broad social and ethical
issues that have spawned conflict, controversy, and the need for
better communications between agricultural and natural resources
professionals and the public at large. Agriculture and Human Val-
ues, Issues in Science and Technology, and The Journal of Agricul-
tural Ethics have joined traditional outlets such as Science, Environ-
ment, plus other environmental journals and many monographs and
anthologies devoted to agricultural and natural resources issues.
The Agriculture, Food and Human Values Society (university of
Florida, Gainesville) has, at the time of this writing, over 700 mem-
bers. The basic knowledge for meeting teaching needs exists to a
far greater extent than it did in 1980. Although there will be a
continuing need for research and publication in the areas of agricul-
ture, environment, and societal values, the lack of models and ma-
terials can no longer be accepted as an excuse for not offering
educational opportunities to undergraduates.
213
OCR for page 214
AGRICULTURE AND THE UNDERGRADUATE
Curriculum reform is a faculty-based process: decisions about
what is to be taught are ultimately made by faculty. Since faculty
are not likely to place themselves in a position in which they are
expected to teach subjects and methods in which they perceive
themselves to have little expertise, the existing capacity of agricul-
tural faculty places a severe constraint upon the direction and ex-
tent of change in the agricultural curriculum. Curriculum reform has
largely meant that standard courses in the plant and animal sci-
ences substitute the study of gene transfer and computer technol-
ogy for the study of mechanical and chemical technology (and it is
a partial substitution at that). In some instances, courses that ap-
proach production problems in terms of cropping systems or farm
management are being replaced by course work that takes an even
narrower approach, generally assuming that an ability to identify
the genetic basis of economically valuable traits need be the only
item in agricultural scientists' tool kit for the coming generation.
Even in the social sciences, the response has often favored repli-
cating the management and computer systems curricula currently
offered in colleges of business.
To the extent that agricultural curriculum efforts have tended to
increase the capacity for exploiting discoveries in molecular biol-
ogy and computer technology, one can argue that they have en-
tirely failed to respond to the needs outlined in this chapter and
may, in fact, constitute an abandonment of the special historical
mission of agricultural education. The emphasis on technology
responds to declining enrollments by introducing a curriculum that
undergraduates perceive to offer training in marketable skills. Bio-
technology and computers are not peculiarly suited to agricultural
and natural resources management, however, and the new corps
of undergraduates correctly perceive that their ability to exploit their
technical training in no way depends upon a sophisticated or reflec-
tive understanding of the food and fiber and the natural resources
system. The state of agricultural educationts ability to investigate
and disseminate a comprehensive and unified vision of food sys-
tems in modern society has, if anything, been damaged rather than
improved by curriculum reform efforts that stress the hot new tech-
nologies.
Faculty may also have thought that such a stress would be con-
sistent with the existing research and educational capacities of agri-
cultural and natural resources faculty. In fact, however, the move
has been accomplished by importing new faculty whose training
and experience gave them no particular basis for loyalty to agricul-
tural or natural resources management. In effect, the move has
allowed the administrative structure and faculty lines of former col-
leges of agriculture to be captured by both students and young
faculty who have no particular interest in or understanding of agri
214
OCR for page 215
EMPHASIZING THE SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES
culture, natural resources, or the social systems that support them.
This capture is, of course, partial; a majority of faculty and adminis-
trators still have traditional roots in agriculture and natural resources.
However, the fact of this capture points us toward both problems
and opportunities for colleges of agriculture to respond to the need
for change in their curricula. New faculty (and students) will not
only lack the capacity to deal with a broader notion of agriculture,
they will also lack any reason to regard their educational mission
as encompassing such broader concepts. It may soon be clear
that enhancements in the direction of biotechnology and computers
respond to declining undergraduate enrollments at the expense of
the traditional land-grant mission, and that they leave food produc-
ers, natural resources managers, and rural communities without
any educational organizations that are committed to the creation
and dissemination of knowledge in support of their interests and
ways of life.
On the other side of the equation, there is reason to doubt that
the liberal arts disciplines can supply teaching expertise in the re-
quired areas on many land-grant university campuses. Although
there are many individuals who have such expertise, they are not
equally distributed throughout all universities. Liberal arts depart-
ments that have concentrated on achieving disciplinary expertise or
quantitative skills in areas such as sociology, political science, his-
tory, philosophy, and literature are quite unlikely to have hired and
promoted faculty members who specialize in science policy, envi-
ronmental studies, risk issues, or science communication during
the past decade. Simply inviting these departments to offer course
work for agricultural and natural resources students would produce
a disaster at some universities.
There are, of course, more familiar and mundane barriers to the
advancement of the agricultural education system with a broad and
sophisticated vision of the social, cultural, and ethical dimensions
of the production and distribution processes, consumption patterns,
and management possibilities for renewable resources. Tenure
and promotion, opportunities for publication, and funding sources
all readily come to mind. To a large extent, however, these more
commonly cited barriers are all functions of the existing research
and educational capacity within agricultural universities, since each
is the result of expectations and values that are held by individ-
uals who currently occupy faculty and administrative posts. Al-
though it would be naive to ignore such barriers in promoting
curriculum change, it would be equally naive to think that an effec-
tive effort to enhance an agricultural faculty's ability to integrate
values issues into more technical subjects will not simultaneously
improve the prospects for overcoming institutional barriers of this
sort.
215
OCR for page 216
AGRICULTURE AND THE UNDERGRADUATE
Opportunities for Change
There are also a number of institutions where innovation in the
social sciences and humanities has been successfully targeted to
the subject matter areas needed for agricultural and natural resources
professionals. In each of the efforts where enhancement has suc-
ceeded, a four-stage process has been followed. First, there has
been a careful effort of planning and coordinating a "core group"
with members drawn from a variety of disciplines. The members of
this group must agree to work together over a long period of time
and must be willing to respect the integrity of other members. This
is especially the case when the group must agree to disagree on
some point, but must get on with the business of planning and
coordinating larger activities. Second, there has been explicit
attention to what might be called "market development" for the ac-
tivity that is to be carried out. In the case of a group that produced
a book on research policy at Texas A&M University (Thompson
and Stout, 1991), this consisted of identifying faculty and adminis-
trators who would take time to participate in some of the work-
shops offered by the group. The third stage is the dissemination
of information through workshops or conferences or workshops
that, by outward appearance, resemble conventional academic ac-
tivity. This is the most efficient way to disseminate ideas among
a faculty that is used to the idea of attending conferences. Finally,
there has been a follow-up phase in which faculty from the various
disciplines maintain contact, sometimes in a systematic way by
initiating more structured collaborative projects, but often by way of
informal networking. These four stages are not necessarily a tem-
poral succession; they represent levels of activity that can be pur-
sued simultaneously. The possibility of enhancing capacity on eth-
ics, social values, and food and fiber systems depends upon
understanding how each stage presents tasks that must be accom-
plished if the goal is to be achieved.
Planning
All activities require planning, of course. What is special here is
that the planning group includes people who must talk to one an-
other across disciplines and who will be sensitive to the barriers
that are imposed by jargon and the reigning values of people in
different academic departments. This group must develop a rap-
port and must be willing to make a multiyear commitment, although
the total number of hours required from each participant may be
quite small.
216
OCR for page 217
EMPHASIZING THE SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HU~NITI~
Marketing
The effort required to find and prepare an audience for the pri-
mary product will depend upon many decisions that are made in
the planning process. At a minimum, the success of the project
requires preliminary networking and identification of agricultural and
natural resources faculty members who will be supportive. The
process also requires gestures from the administration that demon-
strate its seriousness. The creation of positions and the expendi-
ture of money may be painful, but there is no better way to commu-
nicate seriousness.
Transfer
Transfer is something that academic professionals know how to
do; but organizing, advertising, administering, and presenting work-
shops consume both time and money. In this area, workshops
should stress experiential learning techniques, case studies, and
role-playing simulations for students. These approaches are essen-
tial if faculty who do not have disciplinary expertise in values stud-
ies are to teach values issues in the classroom. They are also the
most effective educational techniques for students who are pointed
toward careers in agriculture and business. Although learning mod-
ules that use these techniques must be constantly developed, up-
dated, and refined, this is one area where the work of the past
decade has put us in good stead to accomplish some dissemina-
tion of modules in the 1990S.
Follow-Up
Follow-up includes more networking to ensure that those who
participate in workshops continue to receive information and sup-
port. There should be nationally coordinated efforts, so that faculty
who are not trained in social science and humanities disciplines
have continuing access to those who are. Like marketing, follow-
up activities depend a great deal on the circumstances of particular
individuals; so much of what must be done cannot be described in
advance. There has been too little organized follow-up from previ-
ous agricultural and liberal arts projects or from curriculum develop-
ment activities sponsored by the office of Higher Education Pro-
grams of USDA.
A commitment by the dozen best agricultural and natural re-
sources universities to demonstrate progress in emphasizing the
social sciences and humanities over the next decade would pro
217
OCR for page 218
AGRICULTURE AND THE UNDERGRADUATE
duce the change. If each institution committed two full-time-equiva-
lent faculty members who were split primarily among faculty mem-
bers with disciplinary training in political science, anthropology,
history, philosophy, and communications, the cadre of profession-
als that would be created would be the spark for change. If funds
were available to ensure that these professionals would have an
opportunity to network with one another and with agricultural and
natural resources professionals, change would be assured at those
dozen institutions. A coordination of this effort through USDAts
office of Higher Education Programs would ensure that other institu-
tions could follow along at considerably lower cost. Although fi-
nancial resources will be scarce during the coming decade, the
commitment that is needed to ensure change is but a tiny fraction
of the investment that has recently been made in moving toward
biotechnology and computers. Emphasis on the broader social
context of agriculture and natural resources should be regarded as
an insurance premium paid to protect that investment from the kind
of public reaction that overtook the nuclear power industry in the
1970S. From that perspective, a nationwide group of 24 full-time-
equivalent faculty members with some supporting funds for net-
working and research seems like a small price to pay.
References
Berry, W. 1977. The Unsettling of America. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Bishop, K. 1987. California U. told to change research to aid small farms.
The New York Times, November 19, 1987, p. 13A.
Burkhardt, J. 1991. Ethics and Technical Change: The Case of BST.
Discussion Paper 91.02. College Station, Tex.: Center for Biotechnol-
ogy Policy and Ethics.
Danbom, D. B. 1986. Publicly sponsored agricultural research in the
United States from an historical perspective. Pp. 142-162 in New Direc-
tions for Agriculture and Agricultural Research: Neglected Dimensions
and Emerging Alternatives, K. A. Dahlberg, ed.
and Allanheld.
Totowa, N.J.: Rowman
Doyle, J. 1985. Altered Harvest. New York: Viking Penguin.
Fox, M. W. 1986. Agricide: The Hidden Crisis That Affects Us All. New
York: Schocken.
Hightower, J. 1975. The case for the family farm. Food for People, Not for
Profit, C. Lerza, and M. Jacobson, eds. New York: Ballantine.
Jackson, W. 1980. New Roots for Agriculture. San Francisco: Friends of
the Earth.
Johnson, G. L. 1984. Academia Needs a New Covenant for Serving
Agriculture. Mississippi State Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Sta-
tion Special Publication. Mississippi State: Mississippi State Agricultural
and Forestry Experiment Station.
Johnson, G. L., J. T. Bonen, and D. L. Fienup. 1991. Social Science
Agricultural Agenda and Strategies. East Lansing: Michigan State Uni-
versity Press.
218
OCR for page 219
EMPHASIZING THE SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES
Kirkendall, R. S. 1987. Up to now: A history of American agriculture from
Jefferson to revolution to crisis. Agriculture and Human Values 4(1):0
26.
National Research Council. 1972. Report of the Committee on Research
Advisory to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: Na-
tional Academy of Sciences.
National Research Council. 1975. Agricultural Production Research Effi
ciency. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.
Schell, O. 1984. Modern Meat. New York: Random House.
Thompson, P. B., and B. A. Stout, eds. 1991. Beyond the Large Farm:
Ethics and Research Goals for Agriculture. Boulder, Colo.: Westview
Press.
RAPPORTEUR'S SUMMARY
U.S. and world agriculture are beset by contemporary issues of
environmental protection, energy applications, and nutritional stan-
dards. There is, no doubt, an element of the new in the way that
these issues are addressed: New social values, new public policy
claimants, and new solutions abound. Of course, little is ever truly
new in the world of food and fiber production. Production agricul-
ture, especially as embodied in the traditions of the land-grant sys-
tem, has long debated stewardship practices, energy use as a pro-
duction cost, and the quality of what is produced. So there exists a
richness in what colleges of agriculture can offer to what many
mistakenly see as new debates.
The varied remarks of the nearly 40 participants in this discus-
sion group emphasized two points about this interface of old and
new perspectives as these center on university curricula. First,
colleges of agriculture, which are already financially strapped and
which occupy a minority status in education, must charge their
faculty and staffs with the task of being socially relevant to new
land-grant constituents while not losing touch with the old ones.
That is, production agriculture and food and fiber industries must
be served while the contributions of other social forces are brought
to bear on teaching, research, and extension. In essence, tradi-
tional colleges of agriculture need a regenerating boost or they will
lose even more stature.
Second, and as a response to the first point, this boost may well
come most effectively from work undertaken jointly by those in
agriculture in partnership with those educated in the humanities
and social sciences. Common agreement existed in the group on
the need to incorporate philosophy, political science, history, and
sociology into the core of some agricultural studies. In addition,
students need to be able to write more persuasively, reason more
soundly, appreciate more varying views, and see their work in a
broader social and ethical context when they leave traditional agri
219
OCR for page 220
AGRICULTURE AND THE UNDERGRADUATE
cultural programs. The technical skills of science and methodology
are by themselves insufficient.
The emphasis on these two points in the discussion brought to
the group a clear understanding of the primary mission facing those
who do curriculum revision. Before moving on to courses and
content, they must decide what the undergraduate should be able
to do and comprehend at the completion of a program of study.
Only after deciding this can other disciplines be integrated and the
level and mix of specially needed skills be determined. Moreover,
the administrative and instructional arrangements for faculty and
staff cooperation, which are to be used most efficiently in difficult
financial times, await decisions on what we want students to be
after they have moved beyond the undergraduate experiences we
provide them.
Determining what we want students to be need not be done in
the absence of cooperative ventures between agriculturalists and
those in the humanities and social sciences, however. Joint plan-
ning is necessary. In addition, there are already a number of spe-
cialized appointments, multidisciplinary courses, and integrating
experiences throughout the land-grant system. The results of these
experiences should be evaluated and then reviewed carefully to
determine whether students who shared them benefited appropri-
ately. Did they better comprehend the position of agriculture in a
changing world? Did they develop skills that they thought were
useful in grappling with the increased expectations faced by those
previously turned out into that world? Did they get jobs? Did they
keep them?
AS guidance to this evaluative review of past cooperative prac-
tices, four areas of questioning were suggested as being essential
to curriculum redesign in each institution.
1. what degree of substantive literacy in agriculture must be linked
to each undergraduate degree program or major? Must substance
be understood, in a developmental sense, as this component of
agricultural knowledge has developed over time?
2. To what extent are the technical and methodological skills of
the instructional discipline that monitors each program or major
necessary to the students course of study? 1S too much being
attempted and is the student product too narrow?
3. Which broader skills, such as writing, are necessary to em-
ploy effectively the student's knowledge of agriculture and tech-
niques of the monitoring disciplined Where in the university, in an
instructional sense, are these skills housed? Can they be trans-
ferred from there7
4. Which types of broadening experiences, such as awareness
of the public policy process, can contribute to the students ability
to apply successfully the things learned about agriculture from the
220
OCR for page 221
EMPHASIZING THE SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES
monitoring discipline? Who in the university, in an instructional
sense, knows enough about the content of agriculture to bring these
additionally useful experiences to students? Can cooperation across
department or college lines be ensured?
When these four sets of questions about student needs and the
university's ability to provide for them are answered, curriculum
designers can move on to compare and contrast the benefits of
numerous administrative approaches to organizing instruction:
multidisciplinary programs or majors, interdisciplinary courses, joint
faculty appointments, or even the creation of departments that
have no disciplinary center.
Because resource allocations vary, as do the unique histories of
each university, various land-grant colleges will probably select dif-
ferent administrative alternatives in producing their students of
choice and, as a result, the instructional strategies needed to mold
them. Given the variety of options and conditions, what is right for
one state and its university could seldom be expected to be right
for another. Thus, with an institutional review focused on the stu-
dent product, the land-grant system should be expected to continue
its diversification.
221
Representative terms from entire chapter:
liberal arts
