Elterich, Joachim G.

AgEcon Search: Research in Agricultural and Applied Economics

  Give to AgEcon Search    The World’s Largest Open Access Agricultural & Applied Economics Digital Library    This document is discoverable and free to researchers across the globe due to the work of AgEcon Search.    Help ensure our sustainability.         AgEcon Search http://ageconsearch.umn.edu aesearch@umn.edu          Papers downloaded from AgEcon Search may be used for non-commercial purposes and personal study only. No other use, including posting to another Internet site, is permitted without permission from the copyright owner (not AgEcon Search), or as allowed under the provisions of Fair Use, U.S. Copyright Act, Title 17 U.S.C. Invited PresentationDiscussion: Systems Approach toAgricultural ProblemsJ. ElterichSince I have no quarrels with Dr. Koch’s excellentand vivid synoptic view, my comments will ad-dress the workshop that Bob and I attended at Col-orado State University from my vantage point andI will attempt to show parallelisms to Glenn John-son’s views on research methodology as presentedin his 1986 book on “Research Methodology forEconomists. ”Let me immediately state my biases in our ur-gently needed reorientation of teaching and re-search. The urgent redirection is partly dictated byour blissful ignorance of world affairs in general,the need a) to decompartmentalize our thoughts,b) to awaken students’ independent thinking, andc) perhaps to justify the occupation of a centralinterfacing role between scientists in multidisci-plinary efforts by agricultural economists.I, too, support the union between the researchand teaching/learning process advocated by theworkshop and Johnson. Learning is a very activeform of problem-solving, with new knowledge asthe outcome (Figure 1).Learning can be simply summarized as effi-ciently acquiring knowledge, critically validatingthe results, and using the knowledge beneficially.Specifically both the workshop and Johnson stressthat teaching should be designed to develop, mod-ify, and improve the student’s view about researchmethodology.On the one hand, anyone interested in innovativeand integrating, holistic teaching approaches—i. e.interaction between social, and physical sciences—has to welcome efforts that are designed to excitethe curiosity and imagination of our students andto modify the well trodden path of following stan-dard theoretical and analytical approaches of ourprofession.Ag economists have often tried to break the con-fines of “hard” systems and attempted to includenonquantifiable soft system elements, using sim-ulation to capture the real world. But we have putfirst the rigors of mastering economic theory, the~byFrofessor, Department of Foal and Resource Economics, University ofDelaware.perhaps, somewhat stifling the imagination of ourstudents. So I am definitely disposed towards theworkshop’s proposed thrust, since it promises tofurther independent thinking in combination withthe necessary exposure to the economic analysisbasis.On the other hand, detractors of the workshop’srecommendations may ask, so what is new? Wehave required students individually, or in groups,to hand in class projects solving real problems in-novatively, to brainstorm, and to go beyond whattheory prescribes. But I believe we have to go muchfurther, Kathy Wilson [in her’ ‘Blueprint for ActionProposed Changes in General Agriculture DegreePrograms, (University of Hawaii, 1986)] sum-marizes it very well, and I paraphrase:The content of education must not only ground the stu-dent broadly in biological, physical and social sciences butatso convey the interrelationships among the sciences asthey may contribute to the management of agriculturalproblem situations. (Emphasis added.)Furthermore, students should be able to apply theirknowledge competently to these holistic systemscenarios. What I believe is needed in today’s jobmarket is to educate critically and innovativelythinking students tolerant of other disciplines’ con-tributions. They must thus cooperate productivelyin teams and efficient networks. This needs to becoupled with good communicative and quantitativeskills; invaluable traits for the requirements of ourtimes.Agricultural economists traditionally were lookedupon as integrators between the physical sciences(plant, animal, soil sciences and engineering) andthe sociaI sciences, bringing our economic tools tobear on the former’s input-output relationships. Now,with a continuing and spreading international andinterdisciplinary integration, we need to understandand clarify relationships and come forth with policyalternatives for decision makers, interphasing val-ues that are held by participants impacted by thedecision process,llhemfo~, consideration should probably be givento revolutionize our course sequence by offeringElterichFigure 1. Comparison of Lewin/Kolb Modelof Experiential Learning with Johnson’s Prob-lem-Solving StepsSource: Johnson, p. 15.early an introduction to system thinking and prob-lem-solving and follow this with “traditional”courses, but integrating them into a holistic picture.Specifically, most courses should incorporate twocomplementary infusions—a multidisciplinarysystem and an international dimension.Self directed learning contracts, colloquia, andseminars should give the students some experiencesin the system based learning. In the senior year theexperimental learning and system based curriculumFigure 2. Interrelationships among kinds ofresearch done, philosophies used, and kinds ofknowledge generated by economic researchers.[1, p. vii](Source: Johnson, p. vii)Systems Approach to Agricultural Problems 5.O,,,g?o>VI viCONCEPTUALISATI N COMPRSNENSION APP\EHENSIONCONCRETEsxP6fllENcs\convafgantknowl,dgo I/SscommodathaTrm.lormed via knowloa~,EXTENSION1ACTIVEEXPERIMENTATIONSource: National Agricultural and NaturalResources Curriculum Project, p. 56, 2.should be put to the acid test of real problem-solving research via internship or senior thesis bythe students under the joint tutelage of practitionersin industry or government and faculty. As alreadystressed, creative and independent thinking shouldbe rewarded, requiring some of us to abandon highlyheld ideals with respect to theory first and last.In what follows I draw heavily on Johnson’schallenging ideas which I believe to be of utmostrelevance in this context. In Bolding’s foreword toJohnson’s book, he warns of the dangers of spe-cializationIt is... true that the discipline that is involved in thesubculture of those who study a narrow field can alsobecome oppressive and lead to the strangling of newknowledge through the imposition of powerful orthodox-ies. (Johnson, p. xv.)Obviously, this would be inappropriate for soft sys-tems studies of multidisciplinary scope.In order to understand Johnson’s framework letus look quickly at his three dimensional “cube”that distinguishes between kinds of research andkinds of knowledge generated. I will short changethe third dimension, philosophical orientation.The framework of the national workshop wasmainly concerned with the problem-solving layerand involved both positivistic as well as normativeknowledge, but tolerating arty Weltanschauung(defined as worldview; philosophical underpin-nings, subject matter knowledge and objectivefunction of scientist.) As an aside, the workshop6 April 1988activists welcomed opposing Weltanschauungen,since conflict and tensions may help in clarifyingthe issues and lead ultimately to a problem reso-lution.In Johnson’s spectrum of kinds of research arch-ing from the usually highly regarded disciplinaryresearch with long lasting impact over subject mat-ter research to complex problem-solving research,theworkshop addressed principally the latter, lessspectacular, short lived classification. But it—requires acquisition and utilization of value free pos-itivistic knowledge and knowledge about values to produceprescriptive knowledge based on complex decision rules.(Johnson, p. 20)Johnson advocates building selectively upon therespective strength of philosophical schools (pos-itive and normative) that require relaxation of someof their restrictive confines.What is stated easily but definitely needs to beaccomplished in painstaking work, is a synthesisof the methodological pluralism from physical, bi-ological, and social sciences, i.e., a successfulcrossing of disciplinary boundaries in integrativeenquiry. To be a facilitator in this undertaking shouldbe one of our principal efforts in years to come.Economists pride themselves not only in dealingin monetary but also non-monetary values, yieldingeither economic or efficient solutions.This makes economics an inherent part of many mul-tidisciplinary subject matter studies and an essential partof all problem-solving studies . . As the scope of econ-omists’ work includes potential contributions to all prob-lem-solving research their research methodology mustbe attuned to all kinds of research. (Johnson, p. 239)For brevity’s sake I ignore three important as-pects raised by Johnson: the difficulties(1) to fund,and (2) to administer such multidisciplinary en-deavors, and (3) the more easily overcome hand-icap of communication across disciplinary areas. Iam afraid both funding agencies as well as mostadministrators—especially those with hard sciencebackgrounds—will experience difficulties in ad-justing to research efforts of such a scope.Some holistic applied systems science researchhas become very pragmatic—despite the positiv-istic origins of systems science in cybernetics-bymodeling different subjects and problems that forcedinteractive interaction among decision-makers (ac-tors or owners of systems in the CATWOE lingo)and affected people (clients) (Johnson, p. 115).This resembles the up or downward spiraling ofBawden’s model discussed by Koch. We shouldevaluate different scenarios (states of nature) withNJAREbehavioral and criterion variables involving hu-mans and institutions. On the other hand,.,. non-pragmatic, disicplinary research makes it easyto subdivide one’s discipline into small, narrow axioma-tized simple components. Holistic, multidisciplinary, andpossibly optimizing domains of human activity are muchmore difficult to axiomatize, (Johnson, p. 237)and almost impossible to deal with, when prag-matic interdependence occurs. Dynamic systemsmay grow so complex that they yield unstable re-sults due to either over-simplification, too muchcomplexity for our minds or computers to handle,or lack of data.This brief discourse will remain incomplete.However, one point I wish to emphasize: advancesin disciplinary (or basic) research complement andbenefit problem-solving (applied) research and viceversa, hence a “good” mixture of both is neededto extend our frontiers of knowledge. Neither kindof research should receive priority over the other,since each is dependent upon the vitality of theother for impulses of more complex work to beaccomplished.In1,2.3.4.summary, my tenets can be stated: we needTo strengthen interdisciplinary aspects ofuniversity education by broadening ourteaching and research efforts embracing theinternational dimension including, of course,world agricultural markets, but also other ec-ological, economic, political, strategic, andsocial aspects involving our clientele as wellas trading partners and competitors.To position agricultural economists as pivotalunifying brokers between our colleagues fromthe hard and soft sciences assuming that largemultidisciplinary projects with prescriptiveoutcomes grow out of point 1.To conduct a good blend of disciplinary, sub-ject matter, and problem-solving research inorder to better manage our limited resourcesin a shrinking and more interdependent worldthat poses larger and more complex problemsfor mankind to tackle.To foster our student’s independent, inno-vative thinking in a systems ~ontext so theycan successfully occupy leading positions inpublic institutions and private enterprises.In the time permitted we could only scratch thesurface of these two interrelated set of impulses—from the workshop and Glenn Johnson’s thinking—but we should embrace both as coming to us at theright time for general holistic reorientation in theteaching and research process. Perhaps, if eventsElterichon the increasingly integrating world force govern-ments to critically review their policies and thisand the next generation of our colleagues of diversedisciplines recognize the challenges and prioritiesawaiting us, thejob should betacklednow for thebenefit of generations to come. So, let us not pro-crastinate, rather get on with the urgently neededreorientationin teaching and research methodologies.Systems Approach to Agricultural Problems 7ReferencesJohnson, Glenn L. Research Methodology for Economists.McMillan, 1986.National Agricultural and Natural Resources Curriculum Proj-ezt, Food and Agricultural Systems Task Group, SystemApproaches to Food and Agricultural Problems, 1986,various workshop papers.

DISCUSSION: SYSTEMS APPROACH TO AGRICULTURAL PROBLEMS

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

AgEcon Search: Research in Agricultural and Applied Economics

AgEcon Search - Research in Agricultural & Applied Economics