Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T04:11:41.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The life cycle of alternative agricultural research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Molly D. Anderson
Molly D. Anderson
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor and Director of the Degree Program in Agriculture, Food and Environment, School of Nutrition, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155.
Get access

Abstract

The acceptance and utility of alternative agricultural research can be enhanced by better incorporating social sciences and issues and by broadening its scope to the entire food system rather than focusing only on food production. Researchers have made strong contributions in developing and evaluating alternative agricultural technologies, but research attention also is needed to articulate strategies for synthesizing those technologies into coherent strategies, to examine the social effects of different scenarios, and to create better decisionmaking processes for ensuring broad-based knowledgeable participation in the choices among alternative strategies. Research that addresses human needs beyond food and fiber will help build truly alternative and desirable agricultural systems.

Keywords

alternative agriculturesustainable agriculturefood systeminterdisciplinary researchcitizen participation
Type
Forum on Alternative Agriculture Research Policy
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , March 1995 , pp. 3 - 9
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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. (ed). 1993. Food for the Future. Conditions and Contradictions of Sustainability. John Wiley & Sons, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
2.Anderson, M.D., and Lockeretz, W.. 1992. Sustainable agriculture research in the ideal and in the field. J. Soil and Water Conservation 47:100–104.Google Scholar
3.Beus, C.E., and Dunlap, R.E.. 1990. Conventional versus alternative agriculture: The paradigmatic roots of the debate. Rural Sociology 55:590–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Bird, E., and Hassebrook, C.. 1992. Report card on USDA research policy. Center for Rural Affairs, Walthill, Nebraska.Google Scholar
5.Brown, L.R. 1994. Facing food insecurity. In Brown, L.R. and the Staff of WorldWatch Institute (eds). State of the World 1994. W.W. Norton and Company, New York, N.Y. pp. 177–197.Google Scholar
6.Browne, W.P. 1988. Private Interests, Public Policy, and American Agriculture. Univ. Press of Kansas, Lawrence.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.H., and Curry, J.. 1992. The structuring of sustainable agriculture in public research institutions: Results from a national survey of land-grant agricultural scientists. Impact Assessment Bull. 10:7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Buttel, F.H., and Gillespie, G.. 1988. Agricultural research and development and the appropriation of progressive symbols: Some observations on the politics of ecological agriculture. Bull. 151. Dept. of Rural Sociology, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
10.Demissie, E. 1990. Small-scale Agriculture in America: Race, Economics, and the Future. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
11.Edelman, M. 1964. The Symbolic Uses of Politics. Univ. of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois.Google Scholar
12.Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute. 1994. FAPRI 1994 international agricultural outlook. Staff Report 2–94. Iowa State Univ., Ames, and Univ. of Missouri, Columbia.Google Scholar
13.Fernandez, M.D. 1994. Pesticide use reduction assessment. Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
14.General Accounting Office. 1992. Sustainable agriculture. Program management, accomplishments, and opportunities. GAO/RCED-92-233. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
15.General Accounting Office. 1994. Agricultural research. Refocusing priorities to meet current concerns. Testimony by Robert A. Robinson before the Subcommittee on Agricultural Research, Conservation, Forestry, and General Legislation, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. Senate. GAO/T-RCED-94-45. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
16.Hadwiger, D.F. 1982. The Politics of Agricultural Research. Univ. of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.Google Scholar
17.Homer-Dixon, T.F. 1991. On the threshold: Environmental changes as causes of acute conflict. International Security 16(2):76–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Kane, H. 1993. Growing fish in fields. World Watch 6(5):20–27.Google Scholar
19.Ludwig, D., Hilborn, R., and Walters, C.. 1993. Uncertainty, resource exploitation, and conservation: Lessons from history. Science 260:17, 36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Madden, P. 1994. Goals and realities of attaining amore sustainable agriculture. Speech posted on the Sustainable Agrie. Network, 11 May 1994, by the World Sustainable Agric. Assoe. ([email protected]).Google Scholar
21.Marx, L. 1992. Environmental degradation and the ambiguous social role of science and technology. J. History of Biology 25:449–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.National Gardening Assoc. 1989. National Gardening Fact Sheet. Burlington, Vermont.Google Scholar
23.Soil and Water Conservation Society. 1993. Understanding the human element in agricultural resource conservation. Ankeny, Iowa.Google Scholar
24.Stern, P.C. 1993. A second environmental science: Human-environment interactions. Science 260:1897–1899.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.United Nations. 1993. Earth Summit: Press summary of Agenda 21. New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
26.U.S. Senate. 1994. Setting agricultural research priorities and proposed means of implementation. Senate Hearing 103–415.Google Scholar
27.White, P.E. 1992. Women and minorities in science and engineering: An update. NSF 92-303. National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
28.Youngberg, G., Schaller, N., and Merrigan, K.. 1993. The sustainable agriculture policy agenda in the United States: Politics and prospects. In Allen, P. (ed). Food for the Future. Conditions and Contradictions of Sustainability. John Wiley & Sons, New York, N.Y. pp. 295–318.Google Scholar