Introduction
Currently, organic agriculture is one of the fastest growing agricultural sectors worldwide. Organic farms are diverse in scale and in commodities produced in the USAReference Dimitri and Oberholtzer1. Sustainable agriculture, which includes organic agriculture as one of its forms, emerged as part of a growing critique of the negative environmental consequences of modern farming methodsReference Constance2. For most of its history in the USA, sustainable and organic agriculture has been treated as an antiquated and unscientific means of production by academic and research institutionsReference Kuepper3. Because these movements were criticized and diverged from mainstream agriculture, and until relatively recently lacked government support that explicitly funded research, sustainable and organic practices received little attention from agricultural scientists in academic institutionsReference Constance2, Reference Kuepper3. Although research and education focused on sustainable and organic agriculture have increased, these movements have not been generally embraced by research institutions in the USAReference Constance2, Reference Buttle4, Reference Agunga and Igodan5.
Organic agriculture in the USA started developing in the 1930s, but the concepts and concerns only became recognized and accommodated by research institutions in the 1980sReference Heckman6, Reference Treadwell, McKinney and Creamer7. During those times, termed ‘the era of polarization’ of agriculture into organic and non-organic sectors by HeckmanReference Heckman6, there was little effective communication between the organic-farming community and conventional agriculture community. Academic attitudes toward sustainable agriculture slowly began to change in the late 1970s with the publication of the Report and Recommendations on Organic Farming Reference Papendick8. The report was produced for the express purpose of increasing communication between organic farmers and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA)Reference Papendick8. The report compiled and interpreted scientific evidence on the yield, net returns and other performance indicators of organic farming in the USA and provided recommendations for research, education and public policy. Around the same time some advocates supported using the term ‘sustainable agriculture’ with the hope that it would invite respect for organic farmingReference Madden9. In 1985, the US Congress passed the Food Security Act, which included Subtitle C (The Agriculture Productivity Act), which provided for sustainable agriculture research. The Act established a competitive grants program in USDA, the Low-Input Sustainable Agriculture (LISA) in 1998 that focused on improving the scientific, educational and practical foundation of farming systems in harmony with nature.
LISA was the forerunner of today's Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) programReference Madden9. The LISA Program advocated the ecologically responsible use of all farm inputs. The primary goal of the LISA program (and the latter SARE program) was to develop and promote the adoption of farming and ranching systems that would meet the food and fiber needs of the present, while enhancing the ability of future generations to meet their needs and promoting quality of life for rural people and the rest of society. It did not advocate the elimination of synthetic chemical pesticides and fertilizers. LISA, and now, SARE, fund projects intended to increase the productivity and profit from farming systems that are less dependent on synthetic chemical inputs, and placed a high priority on projects that addressed real-world problems and included multiple disciplines and multiple institutions, including private organizations and farmersReference Madden9.
A divergence of sustainable agriculture and organic agriculture became more apparent with the exclusion of most synthetic pesticides and fertilizers as organic standards developed in the 1970s and 1980sReference Heckman6, Reference Treadwell, McKinney and Creamer7. The Federal Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, established national standards governing the marketing of organically produced products, assured consumers that organically produced products meet a consistent standard, and facilitated inter-state commerce in both fresh and processed organic foods10. The Act conferred some level of authority on the organic movement, and thus began the era of accommodation for organic farming in the USA, followed by certification and labeling of products as USDA Certified Organic in 2002Reference Kuepper3, Reference Heckman6, 10.
Since the implementation of the US National Organic Standards in 2002, academic interest in organic agriculture as a focus of research and education has increasedReference Sooby, Landeck and Lipson11, partly because of the growing availability of private and governmental funds to support these activities. A survey of the US Department of Agriculture's research database found that only 34 projects explicitly focused on organic systems or working methods, and described an experimental setting consistent with conditions found on organic farmsReference Lipson12. These projects represented less than one-tenth of 1% of USDA's research portfolio, both numerically and fiscally. LipsonReference Lipson12 concluded that the US national agricultural research system failed to recognize the potential of organic agriculture, explore it seriously, or help to improve the performance of organic farming systems. Through efforts such as those by LipsonReference Lipson12 and organic advocacy groups, the USDA Organic Transition Initiative was authorized in 1998, and funded in 2001, with US$500,000 to support research on transition to organic13. In 2002, the US Congress passed legislation providing funding specifically for organic agriculture research. The USDA Organic Agriculture Research and Education Initiative mandated an appropriation of US$3 million per year for 5 years for competitive research grants. In 2010, the program had a total funding budget of US$19 million. Even though competitive federal funds to support organic research and extension in the USA are currently available, barriers to research and extension supporting organic agriculture still exist, largely due to agricultural professionals’ lack of knowledge about, and experience with, organic agricultureReference Constance2, Reference Agunga and Igodan5, Reference Harp and Sachs14–Reference Wheeler17.
Historically, research in non-organic production systems often focused on single-disciplinary, technology-based, short-term interventions as solutions to specific crop production problems prevalent across broad geographical areas. In philosophy and practice, organic production is considered best approached in a holistic mannerReference Watson, Alrøe, Kristensen, Kristensen, Taji and Reganold18. Indeed, the US legislation that supports organic certification demands this approach through the federal definition of organic agriculture and the requirement for an organic system production plan. Because of the prohibition of synthetic fertilizers and lack of prescriptive pest management guidelines and materials to address crop production problems in organic systems, research that focuses on a systems approach with a high amount of crop diversity is emerging.
The historical lack of support by the land grant universities (LGUs) and the Cooperative Extension Service for organic agriculture resulted in organic growers and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) developing their own production systems and methods for overcoming production constraints within the framework of organic requirements, by necessity and often at great costReference Hanson, Kaufman and Schauer19–Reference Shennan22. Therefore, a significant level of expertise in addressing production problems in organic systems resides with innovative organic farmers and in NGOs, rather than predominantly with personnel in colleges of agriculture and governmental research organizations.
Solutions to problems in ecologically complex systems, such as organic agriculture production systems, are often not contained within traditional academic domains and, therefore, approaches to achieve robust solutions often exceed the expertise of individual investigators or single disciplinesReference Shennan22, Reference Francis, Lieblein, Breland, Salomonsson, Geber, Sriskandarajah and Langer23. Management of systems for sustainability relies on a diverse and multifaceted knowledge system in which disciplinary boundaries are transgressed and techniques are continuously updated to reflect current understanding and needsReference Hirsch Hadorn, Bradley, Pohl, Rist and Wiesmann24. This requires innovative approaches to problem solving that go beyond ‘mode 1’ knowledge production, which is traditionally the more common type of research in academic institutions—investigator-initiated and discipline-based, to ‘mode 2’ scientific knowledge production that is context-driven, real-world problem-focused and multidisciplinaryReference Gibbons, Limoges, Nowotny, Schwartzman, Scott and Trow25.
More recently, several authors have considered transdisciplinarity as the appropriate approach to research in sustainable and organic agriculture. Transdisciplinarity is a research and knowledge production strategy that goes beyond traditional conceptions of scientific disciplines to integrate and synthesize many different disciplinary perspectivesReference Hirsch Hadorn, Bradley, Pohl, Rist and Wiesmann24. It implies that problem-solving strategies must be based on a close interaction between scientists and other actors to overcome one-dimensional and linear interconnection between science and society that are barriers to solving real-world problemsReference Aeberhard and Rist26, Reference Max-Neef27. Using the framework provided by Fleck, Aeberhard and RistReference Aeberhard and Rist26 examined the history of transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge in Swiss organic agriculture to illustrate that a process of collective cooperation is needed to generate solutions to problems in organic agricultural production and overcome social and historical contexts often neglected by science. Transdisciplinary research frameworks allow characterization of scientific as well as non-scientific actor categories, taking account of the interrelationship between the social context of interaction, the specific styles of perception and different forms of knowledge. For example, farmers emphasize experiential knowledge, while scientists focus on the scientific method and on conditions leading to successReference Aeberhard and Rist26.
To achieve sustainable management requires co-production of knowledge through a process of collaborative learning between ‘experts’ and ‘users.’ This requires a shift from the view of knowledge as a ‘thing’ that can be unidirectionally transferred from expert to user to the view of knowledge as a ‘process of relating’ that involves negotiation of meaning among partnersReference Roux, Rogers, Biggs, Ashton and Sergeant28. WarnerReference Warner29 suggests that the formation of innovative multidisciplinary partnerships and a shift from a research–extension–diffusion model based on the knowledge of an expert to a social learning process that incorporates knowledge from both farmer and researcher are needed to address the relative lack of science-based production recommendations and the relative inexperience of the LGUs in organic agriculture. Further, the complex nature of ecological and social interactions within systems-based agricultural research requires more emphasis on information exchange and synthesis between multidisciplinary teams of academic researchers and farmers in organic agriculture, where in many instances farmers have developed their own informationReference Shennan22.
Funding organizations that support sustainable and organic agriculture research have recognized the historic lack of expertise in LGUs and the shortcomings of reductionist, single-disciplinary approaches for organic agriculture research, and accordingly, have increasingly required projects that encompass multiple academic disciplines in research and extension and, to varying degrees, the participation of stakeholders for the ultimate purpose of the integration of knowledgeReference Tollefsen30. Participatory agricultural research and extension have a long history in developing countriesReference Bellon31, where there is growing acceptance and recognition of benefits for a participatory approach.Reference Francis, Lieblein, Breland, Salomonsson, Geber, Sriskandarajah and Langer23, Reference Warner29, Reference Martin and Sherington32–Reference Toderi, Powell, Seddaiu, Roggero and Gibbon37. The USDA SARE Program (http://www.sare.org/coreinfo/researchgrants.htm) provides ‘competitive grants for sustainable agriculture research and education … that usually involve scientists, producers and others in an interdisciplinary approach.’ At the time of this writing, the USDA Organic Agriculture Research and Education Initiative (http://www.csrees.usda.gov/fo/fundview.cfm?fonum=1141) funded projects that integrate research, education and extension activities that address problems in organic agriculture, and require that, ‘… applicants will consult with organic producers and/or processors before developing project applications. Producers and/or processors should play an important role in developing project goals and objectives; in implementing the experimental or extension plan; and in evaluating and disseminating project results and outcomes … There is an expectation that a local and/or regional advisory panel will inform the program throughout its life, including the identification and prioritization of research, education and/or extension objectives.’
Even before these particular funding programs existed, concerns arose over the trend for ‘participatory’ to describe any approach which involves contact with farmers at any stage of research. True participatory research centers on people, power and praxisReference Finn38. It is informed by and meets the needs of people who are empowered to create knowledge through an iterative process of critical reflection and action. Ideally, participatory research creates knowledge for action, contributes to the formation of organization and leads to changeReference Finn38.
BiggsReference Biggs39 provided a theoretical framework for levels of participation by creating a continuum distinguishing four modes of participation, with a concomitant range of not only power or control over project activities but the degree to which stakeholders contribute expertise or knowledge. In the contractual mode, stakeholders participate mainly as informants in a study or experiment that is designed, led and managed by scientists. This contractual mode maintains conventional power relationships in that researchers maintain control of the project. In the consultative mode, stakeholders are asked for their opinions and consulted by researchers before interventions are made with respect to the project. Stakeholders may have a ‘voice’ during the project, but overall institutional processes are not changed and control of the project remains with the researchers. In the collaborative mode, researchers and stakeholders work together on projects designed, initiated and managed by researchers. In contrast to the consultative mode, however, researchers and stakeholders work together as colleagues with different skills to offer, in a process of mutual learning. In the collaborative mode, there is greater focus on process than on results, and researchers serve as facilitators or catalysts for the production of knowledge by the stakeholders. This research mode is often characterized as being reflexive, flexible and iterative, in contrast to rigidly linear. The collegiate mode is similar to the collaborative mode, but ownership and responsibility for the project activities are equally distributed among the partners and decisions are made by agreement or consensus. In the collegiate mode, stakeholders are in control of the process.
Biggs'Reference Biggs39 framework of participation in agricultural research describes a linear typology of participatory research with an assumption of ‘the more participation, the better’. The increasing demand for participatory approaches has seen a growth in methodologies that reflect different philosophical foundations to participatory research and consider the diversity and dynamics of agricultural research projects. However, a common element in these approaches is the major role of participants in shaping the research agendaReference Aeberhard and Rist26, Reference Max-Neef27, Reference Bruges and Smith40, Reference Neef and Neubert41.
When faced with the requirement for a multidisciplinary, multifunctional, participatory approach, agricultural researchers unfamiliar with or unskilled in applying these approaches may seek to fill the requirements in a variety of ways, especially if the expected level of participation by stakeholders or funders is not explicit. Stakeholders could even be involved at certain stages of a project without the project necessarily being participatory. For example, researchers could seek out stakeholders to fulfill pragmatic needs (i.e., the proposal will not be considered by the funding organization unless stakeholder involvement is demonstrated) or, stakeholders could be requested to provide supporting documentation (a letter agreeing that the research is needed) but not be invited to contribute on any other level. Stakeholders could also be invited so that the researcher could address political needs (e.g., conducting research that is traditionally in some other group's ‘territory,’ or demonstrating knowledge of particular underserved groups of stakeholders). In these examples, participation of stakeholders could result in a positive outcome, but ‘participation’ is merely a requirement in project design, rather than integrated as an approach and attitude, as a result creating a gap between rhetoric and realityReference Martin and Sherington32, Reference Cornwall and Jewkes42.
A project can be considered fully participatory when stakeholders identify a problem, help design the research to address the problem, participate in the conduct of the project, evaluate the results or help disseminate knowledge created in the project, according to their own priorities. This process is in marked contrast to the way in which most agricultural research is conventionally practiced. As Biggs’Reference Biggs39 model suggests, power resides more with those who define the research problems, generate analyses, represent, own and act on the information that is sought. Full participation by stakeholders shifts the ownership of power, but at the same time, it can also raise personal, professional and political challenges that extend beyond the production of technical knowledgeReference Martin and Sherington32, Reference Cornwall and Jewkes42.
Many agricultural researchers and educators in LGUs are inexperienced in multidisciplinary, participatory research and unfamiliar with the historical and political concerns that led to requirements for this approach, not to mention the philosophical foundations of these approaches. While requirements to work across disciplines and with stakeholders are seemingly straightforward, few agricultural scientists in the USA are formally trained to work in or manage these types of projects. With some exceptions, for exampleReference Karlen, Cambardella, Bull, Chase, Gibson and Delate35, little published evidence exists about the factors that US agricultural researchers perceive as affecting the development and conduct of multidisciplinary, participatory research in organic agriculture systems. Therefore, our goal was to determine those factors that enhanced and detracted from the conduct of multidisciplinary, farmer-participatory research involving the transition to organic production and organic certification of land at a university research station. We conclude with considerations for academic research and extension teams, LGUs and other research institutions, and funding organizations, to facilitate the development of these types of projects.
Case Study: Organic Weed Management: Balancing Pest Management and Soil Quality in a Transitional System
The investigators on this project, members of disciplinary-based departments within a large LGU in the northeastern US, came together to develop an integrated research and extension project organized around the central theme of transition of a conventional crop production system to an organic production system (http://agsci.psu.edu/organic/research-and-extension/transition-to-organic).
The research team derived initial stakeholder input from two sources: from published needs assessmentsReference Walz16 and from organic producers at educational events held by NGOs that represent organic and sustainable agriculture. The university-based multidisciplinary team initiated the project through the successful development of a research proposal in 2003 to a USDA competitive grants program targeting integrated research, outreach and teaching in organic agriculture. A core of three faculty members from the Departments of Crop and Soil Sciences (with expertise in weed ecology and agronomy) and Entomology, with experience in working with organic farmers on production-related issues, had a strong interest in expanding research and education in the area of organic agriculture. These faculty members, as a result of initial discussions, selected a main research question and developed hypotheses with experimental systems consisting of four ‘model’ transition approaches.
The core faculty group recruited technical expertise from academic disciplines to achieve a whole system approach to address the research problem, inviting faculty from the Departments of Agricultural Economics, Crop and Soil Sciences, Horticulture, and Cooperative Extension to further develop the project, including the experimental design, analysis, outreach and evaluation components. Of the seven-member, university-based team, four members were junior and untenured, two were mid-career tenured faculty and one was a post-doctoral researcher. The six faculty members had been employed in the university for less than 5 years. All the investigators were either new to organic crop production research or, if experienced, had conducted it at other universities. They had not previously collaborated. Through an iterative discussion, a project emerged that contained multiple objectives, which were ambitious given the perceived need to address pent-up stakeholder demands for scientific, institutional and strategic needs related to organic agriculture in the northeastern US.
Representatives of sustainable and organic agriculture organizations participated on several levels. They provided input on the objectives and on the relevance of the work to their farmer members. They also served as core members of a stakeholder advisory board, the motivation being to build a better, more collaborative relationship with the stakeholder groups represented by these organizations, and by so doing, gain what theorists pinpoint as important, credibility with their farmer membersReference Carolan43.
The core team of advisors identified expert organic farmers to form a farmer advisory board for the project, resulting in a seven-member board consisting of the four core members (three representatives of non-governmental agencies and an agricultural educator, all organic farmers), three organic farmers considered leaders and innovators by the broader organic agriculture community, and a county-based extension educator. The advisory board agreed to contribute to the project by sharing their knowledge and experience at periodic project meetings, through individual consultations and at field days.
Personnel at the university's research station, two farm managers and a field technician, whose interest in the transition to organic production at the research station was very strong, acted as an extension of the advisory team. They participated in project activities and advisory board meetings over the duration of the project, providing insights on how best to accomplish recommendations as well as a check on the viability and practicality of recommendations. In general, they implemented the project on the ground, according to decisions made by the research team in consultation with the advisory board.
The objectives of our 4-year project were multiple, and encompassed research, education and outreach, and strategic goals. The campus-based faculty (‘research team’) defined the research objectives, which focused on comparing the efficacy of weed management approaches in the four model transition systems that varied in the frequency and intensity of inversion tillage, and the effects of these management approaches on soil quality indicators, populations of pest and beneficial organisms, crop productivity and economic indicatorsReference Jabbour and Barbercheck44–Reference Gareau, Smith, Barbercheck and Mortensen47. The education and outreach objectives were to gather and synthesize information on ecological principles critical to transition to organic production systems for incorporation into educational materials to support resident education and extension activities. The strategic objectives centered on building a conducive environment for research and education in organic agriculture in the future and included: (1) to build strong relationships within and between the academic faculty, the organic farming community, producers considering transition and regionally based organizations that represent organic and sustainable agriculture; (2) to establish certified organic land at the university's agricultural research center to serve as an ongoing resource for research, education and outreach activities in organic agriculture; and (3) to increase the awareness of university faculty, extension educators and students, and the general public that organic production is a valued and viable area for research and education in the university.
Overall, to achieve the ultimate goals of discovery and integration of knowledge, the project was ‘integrated’ on multiple levels. The faculty team worked to integrate the suggestions of the advisory board into research and extension activities. As defined by the USDA, it was integrated in that the objectives included research, outreach and educational activities. In a research systems sense, it was integrated because the field experiment was an intermediately controlled and replicated hybrid of component and adaptive systems research. A whole-system research approach was taken, but the researchers were limited to testing a subset of management strategies based on the researchers’ mechanistic and farmers’ experiential knowledgeReference Shennan22.
Methodology of the Post-project Study
In light of the directive from the granting agency for a multidisciplinary team of investigators to incorporate the participation of a farmer advisory board, and the researchers’ relative lack of experience and expertise in conducting participatory research, the research team decided near the end of the project to investigate self-reflexively, the array of factors that affected the carrying out of the directiveReference Biggs39. We undertook a formative evaluation, one that focuses on the developmental or formative stages of a new activity or a project for the purpose of improving it when it is recreatedReference Tessmer48. This formative evaluation was undertaken toward the end of the funded project for the purpose of improving the participatory research process in upcoming studiesReference Rossi, Lipsey and Freeman49. Both the research team and the advisory board participated, the farmers at a later time. The results from the research team are presented here.
We chose a case study design because of its appropriateness for the study of procedures over time in applied settingsReference Morgan and Morgan50, and for the context it creates for the team members to be considered collaborators in a process of information gatheringReference Fowler and Mangione51, and for the study of a phenomenon within a context when the boundaries between the phenomenon and context is not clearReference Yin52. The case study is not without its limitations, however. While it can lead to the identification and documentation of important details that could be used in future research, the lack of a control group and of the manipulation of variables preclude a precise measurement of the detailsReference Stake53. Further, generalizations made from the findings in a case study are subject to further refinement and modification as research continues and thus in this study, we conclude with considerations for other teams, institutions and funding agencies.
We chose interviews as the data collection method because they provided: less respondent burden than a written survey, an important aspect given demanding schedules; more confidentiality than focus groups, an important consideration given the knowledge faculty had of one another; and more systematic information, as the same questions would be answered by everyone, unlike in a focus group setting. We chose to ask open-ended questions rather than quantitative questions, given our objective to identify the range of factors that affected the conduct of the project. Open-ended questions capture various meanings to common events, significant in this study due to the different role of each faculty member in the projectReference Patton54. Conversely, quantitative questions are asked only when researchers are confident in the range of possible answers. In the interviews, we asked what factors supported the accomplishments of the project's goals and what factors hindered or challenged this achievement. We integrated probes that asked for clarification of ideas and asked for examples to add validity and support for mere generalizationsReference Patton54. All of the faculty researchers and the post-doctoral scientist on the project team agreed to an interview. The participants, four men and three women, received the interview questions prior to the scheduled interview to enhance reflection and the duration of the interviews ranged from 1 to 2.5 h.
The interviewer, a faculty member with extensive international experience in training interviewers, brought the benefits of being an internal evaluator for the university, which as research suggests includes knowledge of the organization and a greater likelihood of the use of the findingsReference Love55. Not being in the same discipline as other members of the research team nor part of the team that decided upon the design and implementation of the field research, the interviewer brought the benefit of being an external evaluator with more objectivity than an agricultural science team member could have brought. An interviewer can introduce bias however, and may in this study inhibit faculty from discussing, for instance, interpersonal relations and, as the research suggests, may have been more at ease writing such thoughts in a surveyReference Rossi, Lipsey and Freeman49.
Data synthesis
Coding the interview data combined both emic (insider) and etic (outsider) viewsReference Strauss and Corbin56. Initially the interviewer generated potential codes for anticipated responses and then coded the script for the first interview, adding codes for unanticipated ideas. The other interview scripts were coded in the same manner. Moving inductively to a more abstract level, the evaluator observed patterns among the codes, collapsing them into subcategories and again into larger categories (factors), using the criteria of internal homogeneity within categories and heterogeneity across categories. The interviewer then wrote a summary of each category or factorReference Goober57.
Results and Discussion
Eight factors emerged that affected the conduct of the multidisciplinary, multifunctional, farmer-advised project. Each of these eight factors is described in detail below. The first five factors are straightforward, reflecting the homogeneity in which the team perceived them. They include shared values, balance in technical competence, institutional capacity for research, capacity for problem solving and institutional resistance. The research team also identified three other factors that evoked confusion and divergence in how the team thought about them, a reflection of the nature of these factors; they are multidimensional and more complex. They include the ambiguity of power and control of knowledge, the proposed experimental plan and terms of team engagement.
These eight factors illustrate the dynamic nature of participatory research, as according to Biggs’Reference Biggs39 taxonomy of participatory research, the level of farmer participation and control in our project fell at different times within the consultative mode, with some activities in the collaborative mode and the collegiate mode. The research team frequently consulted the advisors for their opinions before implementing management practices in the research plots (consultative mode). Our advisory board meetings often included activities designed to facilitate co-production of knowledge through discussions (collaborative mode). For example, together we examined existing practical guides for organic grain production, and discussed the merits and drawbacks of each, as well as the advisors’ desired format and content for an organic grain production guide, which the researchers, advisors and others are currently producing. On at least one occasion, the design of the experiment was altered according to the wishes of the advisory board, described in the case study (collegiate mode). Accordingly, our experiences support Neef and Neubert'sReference Neef and Neubert41 contention that typologies of participatory approaches that suggest different degrees of participation along a single scale are inadequate for agricultural scientists to decide on whether and in which phases they want to, can and should incorporate participatory elements into their research projects. The eight factors follow.
Shared values
Cooperative activities in research teams require that individuals in a team coordinate their joint intentions, deliberation and actions based on shared valuesReference Tollefsen30. During the proposal writing stage the research team demonstrated several shared values that supported the project over time. The first was that the team had a strong commitment to learning about organic agriculture, even though the general level of acceptance by the research team of organic production as an ‘appropriate’ or sound production system ranged from skepticism to enthusiastic advocacy. The team had the perception that institutional commitment to the area of organic agriculture was lacking. The second shared value among the researchers was that farmers in the state needed research-based information about transition to organic farming and that the farmers had not received this information from traditional sources, e.g., LGUs and Cooperative Extension. The third was the general belief that the university would benefit from development and access to certified organic land at the university's research farm by providing a place to conduct organic research over time, a venue to bring the farmers for their observation and feedback, to hold educational events and as a resource for experiential learning by resident students.
Balance in technical competence
The research team believed that it represented a diverse array of technical expertise with capacity to address the complex scientific hypotheses and multiple objectives outlined in the project proposal. They also believed that the advisory board reflected a diversity of experience with, and knowledge about, organic cropping systems that were appropriate and economically feasible for transition. Most importantly, the research team believed that the expertise of the farmer advisory board balanced that of their own, for they had less experience with organic systems and more experience with research on questions related to sustainable and conventional practices and within their own respective disciplines. Overall, the advisory board had significant influence on the specific agricultural practices employed within the framework of the experimental design, which was controlled by the researchers.
The research team also agreed that the project was facilitated by the technical competence of the research station farm personnel and their inclusion as advisors. Members of the farm personnel also operate their own conventional farms, and even though they were not experienced with organic production, were extraordinarily open to the concept of organic agriculture and dedicated to the success of the project. For example, they modified and cleaned farm machinery to comply with organic regulations, altered production practices, and assisted in the considerable amount of record-keeping required to accommodate organic certification standards. They also actively engaged in discussion with the organic farmers on the advisory board about their common farming practices, and cared deeply about implementing the recommendations from the advisory board and research team.
Institutional capacity for research
As employees of a large LGU, the team identified another factor that contributed to the project: they had access to field research facilities, equipment, communication systems and support personnel (some of whom periodically interacted with the farmer advisory board). Likewise, on-campus laboratory and computing facilities, infrastructure and general research administration at the university facilitated the project.
Problem-solving capacity
In general, the project team considered that their problem-solving capacity was enhanced by the ability of the faculty and farmer advisory board to respond to emerging issues related to the project over time. They also pointed to the farmer advisory board's readiness to actively engage in discussion, offering valuable advice especially on specific agricultural practices to the researchers, the research station farm personnel and, interestingly, to each other.
One influence on their problem-solving capacity that the researchers identified centered on the location of farmer advisory board meetings at the experimental plots. Because the farmers reside over a wide geographic area, and were engaged in their own farming operations, electronic and telephonic communication served as effective ways to maintain collaboration and obtain quick responses to questions as they arose between advisory board meetings. Despite the general belief that problem solving benefited by the location of the meetings at the university, other faculty, at least in hindsight, wanted to meet them on their farms where it would ‘show more respect’ (i.e., demonstrate to the farmers that they were important to the project and that the researchers were willing to meet on the farmers’ ‘turf’).
Institutional resistance
Despite the shared value among the research team and the advisory board about the need for organic research at the university's research farm, implementing the strategic objective of increasing awareness of this need presented challenges, testing how resolute the team would be. For example, some non-project faculty and extension educators consider organic production as a niche segment of agricultural production pursued by relatively few farmers on a limited acreage. The demand of some project staff and faculty to justify the research to these extension educators not involved in the project was unexpectedly stressful because immediate answers to questions posed about the research were not yet available. Additionally, the need to explain and justify the organic focus took time away from other project activities. However, one aspect of the project, having a farmer advisory board, seemed to legitimize the research with some extension educators, putting a crack in the wall of resistance early in the project. On the positive side, the difficulty of justifying the research to some non-project faculty and extension educators comprises a baseline with which to qualitatively measure resistance to organic research over time.
Of the previous five factors, shared values, balance in technical competence, institutional capacity for research, capacity for problem solving and institutional resistance, the first four led to the integration of knowledge. The fifth factor, institutional resistance, presented some challenges before integration of knowledge could take place.
Power and control of knowledge
The training of most scientists falls within the first-order tradition, which is the generation of knowledge, meaning and action controlled by an expert's perception of problems for the purpose of producing objective causal data. During their training, scientists are taught to consider themselves as objective and rational ‘experts,’ and as such are often hesitant to relinquish power and control to embrace knowledge from ‘non-experts’Reference Wuchty, Jones and Uzzi58. The experience of a multidisciplinary, participatory team falls within second-order learning process in which the generation of knowledge, meaning and action is produced iteratively by the research team and advisory board through inter-subjective processes, and responsibility for engagement replaces objectivity in a whole-systems ethicReference Toderi, Powell, Seddaiu, Roggero and Gibbon37, Reference Russell and Ison59. Scientific training often does not include developing the skills required, or becoming familiar with the underlying theories that help guide and inform multidisciplinary, participatory processes.
Not surprisingly, therefore, ambiguity of power and control of knowledge among the faculty team and between faculty and the advisory board surfaced in the project. The ability to integrate farmer and scientific knowledge within the participatory process is difficult, even more so when knowledge is changing or disputedReference Martin and Sherington32. Confusion arose among the researchers about what questions were open for discussion with the advisory board, and if advisory board input was sought, how to evaluate the significance of the advisory board's information. At times some faculty questioned taking the advice of the farmer advisory board on every aspect of the project, suggesting that perhaps advice be limited to certain subjects. At other times some researchers were uncomfortable when the advisory board said ‘We wouldn't do that’ or ‘That won't work,’ not fully understanding whether they could avoid implementing the suggestions of the advisory board. Nor did some researchers understand how specific advice from other researchers would fit into the larger framework of the project ‘so everyone could contribute’ instead of feeling disenfranchised or ‘left out.’ No loss of ambiguity emerged a rare time or two when some researchers who disagreed with the advisory board members, sought to better educate them, an action perceived as inappropriate, if not demeaning, by other researchers, and contrary to the reason for the participation of the farmers.
Despite the ambiguity over the control of knowledge at times, some researchers accepted the views and ideas of the farmer advisory board with great respect for their experience in an area in which these researchers felt they had limited experience. Indeed, there was a perception by some researchers at times that the views of the farmers were sought out and more respected and valued by some researchers than the views of the other research team members on the project.
Upon reflection at the end of the project, some researchers felt there had been a need for a thorough discussion among the research team ahead of time about what questions were open for discussion with the advisory board, and if advisory board input was sought, how to evaluate the significance of the farmers’ contributed information. Multidisciplinary, participatory projects also require scientists to shift from their role as an expert creating knowledge or change, to that of a facilitator, fostering conditions for team-organized knowledgeReference Toderi, Powell, Seddaiu, Roggero and Gibbon37 and these ideas should be part of the initial discussion of the project. CarolanReference Carolan43 suggests that agricultural knowledge created by farmers does not necessarily deny the expertise of agricultural researchers, but that ‘boundary work’ goes into maintaining the fluid boundaries of systems imbued with unequal power relations (e.g., farmers versus researchers, research versus extension, applied versus basic research)Reference Carolan33, Reference Carolan43. How to maintain these fluid boundaries should also have been part of the early project discussions. Other researchers felt satisfied with the level of the review of the questions brought to the advisory group for input.
The proposed experimental plan: to adapt or not?
Disciplinary conventions influence appropriate methodology and its implicationsReference Martin and Sherington32, Reference Wuchty, Jones and Uzzi58, and participatory research has its own methodology and its implicationsReference Lilja and Dixon60. Martin and SheringtonReference Martin and Sherington32 point to the potential for conflict between farmer participants and researchers on a core issue when there is a perceived need of researchers for a more controlled comparative analysis of the performance of ‘models’ with wider applicability for the results. Indeed, the extent to which research team members believed that the original experimental plan should be adhered to, or adapted according to emerging conditions, influenced their openness to accept some farmer advice at times. Questions stemmed from an uncertainty about the relative importance of maintaining experimental comparisons which could be analyzed by standard statistical methods as opposed to responding to and making periodic changes to the experiment according to what the farmers would do based on conditions in the field. Continuous manipulation of experimental design based on input from farmers or advisory boards can make rigorous collection and analysis of data difficult and, as a result, researchers in other studies have often demanded that trial design and management must be agreed upon in advanceReference Martin and Sherington32.
In this project, there were no a priori guidelines developed as to how to decide on which methodological recommendations to accept and, therefore, not disappoint advisors or researchers, especially those with a stake in a recommendation. The lack of an explicit mechanism by which to balance the scientific goals of the experiment with the need to be responsive to farmer advisors had critical implications. For example, early in the field experiment, the farmer advisory board suggested a cropping sequence that differed from the original proposal, and the research team accepted their advice. This decision led to the greatly diminished participation by one researcher whose discipline was no longer represented in the experiment.
Among those who agreed with the more adaptive approach of adopting farmer advice about the experimental design, some reported that the decisions arrived at in interactions with the advisory board should be anchored in ‘farming reality,’ and not the analytical needs of research. Others thought decisions grounded in the applied had insufficient discussion of theoretical implications related to the need to adhere to standard scientific methods, maintain treatment differences to accomplish hypothesis testing, and the inability to analyze data resulting from a continuously changing experiment.
Terms of team engagement
Although the requirement by funding agencies and institutions for multidisciplinary, multifunctional, participatory approaches increases, there is a lack of specific guidance on how it should be accomplished over the life of the project. Similar to organic farmers, who were left ‘on their own’ to develop information and networks to share itReference Hanson, Kaufman and Schauer19–Reference Niggli and Willer21, researchers, students and extension educators are often left ‘on their own’ to develop effective ways to interact across disciplines and with non-academic stakeholdersReference Martin and Sherington32.
Most of the challenges around teamwork focused on unvoiced expectations or uncertainties about researcher roles and engagement. Some researchers had a strong desire to have project team operational goals develop; however, some team members could not sustain their engagement in the project; had no such expectation due to a seeming lack of interest in engagement or lack of understanding about the expectations of multidisciplinary research teams; had confusion over how to contribute to the project as they perceived their role as ‘limited’ or ‘sporadic’; or, had greater interest in competing priorities, for example, focusing on research and scholarship from which they could obtain publishable results related to their own discipline. Others, for whom the development of operational goals for the team was important, reported confusion about the level of commitment and responsibility that each faculty member should demonstrate for the development of the social cohesiveness, shared engagement and intellectual advancement of the team.
Failure to voice uncertainties or expectations was ascribed by researchers to a fear of looking stupid; appearing not to have read the materials in the proposal; being intimidated by study data presented from other disciplines; and feeling that the research team member did not need to know. Another plausible reason could be that scientists from different disciplines, or of different levels of seniority, who have not received the same scientific training, may not have the confidence or lack empowerment to question disciplinary subject ‘experts’Reference Wuchty, Jones and Uzzi58. Additionally, dissent can produce a deterioration of the team's ability to function as a unit, although dissent can be a virtue if it helps the team to avoid groupthink, or provide a team with an opportunity to rethink its shared intentions, plans and valuesReference Tollefsen30, Reference Janis61, Reference Solomon62.
In hindsight, members of the research team, although accomplished scientists in their own disciplines, were unprepared for and unskilled at the ‘social work’ necessary to address researcher engagement, a premise of multidisciplinary, participatory researchReference Martin and Sherington32. No explicit mechanisms were created to allow faculty discussion of uncertainties or expectations around researcher roles and engagement. During the preparation of the proposal, the research team focused on technical issues and it was only over time that the team began to raise these ‘social process’ concerns.
The final three factors, power and control of knowledge, the experimental plan: to adapt or not, and terms of team engagement, evoked a divergence in how the team thought about the processes in a multidisciplinary, participatory research project. The increasing awareness over time of these differences among the research team resulted in discussions about the need to know ahead of time the expectations of this type of research and the need to establish guidelines ahead of time about the expectations of researcher engagement and for the integration of knowledge with a farmer advisory board. These results suggest that prior to initiating such a project consideration also needs to be given to the need for resources, time and a methodology for monitoring participation by all project membersReference Martin and Sherington32.
Considerations
Based on our experiences, we consider the following issues important for researchers embarking upon or improving current multidisciplinary, participatory projects, as well as for organizations and institutions who seek to foster these types of projects.
For academic research and extension teams
Multidisciplinary, participatory research is quite different from the more individualistic work for which most scientists are hired in research institutions. Issues, as described earlier, can become increasingly complex as the number and kinds of people and interactions increase, and management beyond organization of the technical aspects of the project needs to be accomplished. In multidisciplinary, participatory research, interactions tend to be peer-to-peer in contrast to hierarchical. This can be a new way of operation for researchers, and issues evolve out of this difference in operation that create both opportunities and challenges. We consider the following issues important for researchers to consider and discuss in the earliest stages of project development. Clearly, universities, teams or managers must commit resources, e.g., management time and funds, to support both technical and team operational activities.
Communication
Deliberate coordination and communication practices, meetings and retreats promote conflict resolution, the development of trust and synchronization of scientific workReference Cummings and Kiesler63. Establish open, clear and timely communication within the faculty team and between the faculty team and farmer participants or advisory boards early in the project. For example, at the initiation of a project, be specific in determining the desired frequency of communication, what information needs to be communicated and to whom information needs to be communicated. Develop formats, e.g., electronic, telephonic, face-to-face meetings, and routines, e.g., advance agendas with topics to be discussed and decisions to be made, to facilitate communication and group decision-making, to develop trust and to coordinate the synchronization of scientific workReference Cummings and Kiesler63. In our current multi-institution project, our geographically dispersed team has found that regular video-conferencing is more conducive than teleconferencing for clear communication when face-to-face meetings are not possible. The meeting facilitator requests agenda items from the whole group in advance of the meeting. The advisory board meetings are now designed to begin with an activity to elicit advisor discussion, rather than with researcher reports to the advisory board, giving the farmer-advisors the first voice. Topics of these discussions are gathered from the advisors ahead of the meeting. Routine research updates are handled through a periodic project newsletter and an annual report to help limit the amount of time that researchers are talking ‘at’ the advisors during face-to-face meetings.
Multidisciplinary, participatory research is dependent on respecting and understanding other team members and the external participants with whom researchers will work. The research team should determine to what degree the researchers realize that other team members and non-academic participants are knowledgeable and can create knowledge. There is a need to build an understanding of different ‘research worlds’ of each project participant. This requires a reflexive discussion on the focus and meaning conveyed by different research perspectives and the strengths and weaknesses of different research methodsReference Watson, Alrøe, Kristensen, Kristensen, Taji and Reganold18. Team members trained in single disciplines must learn to appreciate differing perspectives and methods, may have different ideas about ‘rigor’ and may think of themselves (and their discipline) as ‘more scientific’ than others.
Roles and resources
Reach consensus on specific roles, responsibilities and levels of engagement of each team member and the project resources that will be committed to assist each team member. This includes the level of engagement of each team member in the development and conduct of project activities and products, and project management processes. For example, an explicit discussion about each team member's expectations for their own role and level of participation has helped team members avoid misunderstandings due to false expectations about each team member's level of participation. Establishing a supportive environment for open discussion of how the team will operate may seem superfluous to the technical research activities, but emphasizing the importance of the diverse knowledge held by the members of the whole team can foster greater participation and help the team function more efficientlyReference Brown and Paulus64.
Decision making
Develop a standard decision-making process and criteria that values and allows all team members to be consulted and participate. Those who feel less empowered in the process may need encouragement to provide their opinions, especially if there is disagreement within the group. The success of research may be improved by critical evaluation and change motivated by dissent rather than consensusReference Tollefsen30, Reference Janis61, Reference Solomon62, Reference Bratman and Bratman65. Developing ways to accept dissent, for example, by aggregation of individual decisions that allow for the input of every participant, in addition to whole-team deliberations, may produce better decisions than deliberation to reach a consensus. For example, to provide an ‘objective’ mechanism to consistently and systematically approach suggested changes to the experiment, especially those that are highly contested, our researcher and adviser team created a philosophy/guiding principles document for each experimental treatment. We have found that using this approach facilitates the ability of team members to come to consensus about adjustments to the experiment by allowing decision making to focus on the guiding principles rather than on individual team members. We have successfully used this process in subsequent multidisciplinary, participatory projects.
Determine and discuss how, by and for whom research is conceptualized and conductedReference Cornwall and Jewkes42. Perceptions of degrees of participation may vary between the different team members—the research team needs to decide on the desired level of participation of non-academic external advisors based on the research question under investigation, and relative extent of farmer and research team knowledge and control over the research. Determine how researchers, advisory boards and farmers should manage their interaction. What is an acceptable level of interaction within the research team and with the advisory board? When interacting with the external advisory board, should an agenda be agreed upon by only researchers ahead of time? Should research items considered by the researchers as not open for discussion or change, be included on the agenda? What topics and at what level of detail should advice be sought?
Determine the extent to which control of decision making resides with farmers relative to the researchers. Under what conditions will scientific needs trump the advice of the advisory board? If substantive adjustments are made to the experiment, how will data be analyzed? When farmers make management decisions during the project, there is a risk that data collection plans may have to deal with continuous farmer manipulation of experimental plots, making rigorous collection and analysis of data difficult.
Considerations for LGUs and other research institutions
The recent surge in requirements for participatory methods by funding agencies may have exceeded the understanding of how participation can be institutionalizedReference Farrington, Bebbington, Wellard and Lewis66. Integration of participatory methods into institutional contexts requires management innovations, skill development and new working procedures. Critical areas that need innovations include: building institutional linkages, maintaining communication, coordination and monitoring, and developing expertise in methodology for analysis and for evaluating project impacts. If institutions want their faculty to engage in and be competitive for funding that requires multidisciplinary, participatory approaches, some consideration needs to be given to providing training on team building, communication across disciplines, working with diverse groups and project planning. Other considerations include:
• Train undergraduate and graduate students and post-doctoral scientists to work in multidisciplinary teams. Go beyond simple assignment of team projects to students, to include theoretical materials and discussion about skills required to facilitate team work. Place these individuals in leadership roles for some aspects of projects. During the course of team projects, analyze and discuss what is and is not working and why.
• Provide incentives and rewards for scientists working across disciplines and for scientists working with farmers and other stakeholders, the core mission of LGUs. Budgetary practices at most LGUs often direct resources through discipline-based departments and functions (e.g., teaching, research and extension). In multidisciplinary projects, it can be difficult to account for a given researcher or instructor's salary and time. Multidisciplinary projects may face impediments because of a need of the faculty to serve the primary, department-based discipline. Multidisciplinary programs may meet resistance if they are perceived as competing for diminishing resources, e.g., funds and time. Untenured faculty know that when they seek promotion and tenure it is likely that some of the evaluators will lack a commitment to multidisciplinarity, and may fear that a commitment to multidisciplinary research will increase the risk of being denied tenure. Criteria should be developed to fairly evaluate multidisciplinary research in promotion and tenure decisions.
• Develop mechanisms for incorporating diverse stakeholder representation in institutional research planning and budgetary decisions, so that their needs and interests are appropriately represented and understood.
Considerations for funding organizations
There is a risk that the requirement for participatory approaches into formal agricultural research could result in the incorporation of the rhetoric of participatory research, without moving much beyond the contractual/consultative approaches. Agriculture-science-based research proposals are usually evaluated on evidence that the research is based on hypothesis testing, on technical details about experimental design and techniques, and the qualifications of researchers to successfully complete the proposed work. In programs that require integration of research and education/outreach, a plan for information dissemination and evaluation must be included.
• Programs that require multidisciplinary, participatory projects should require some information on how the team will function and interact with external advisors. Participatory research encompasses a broad range of levels of interaction with stakeholders that requires planning around ‘social work’ and team management issues. Calls for proposals should be explicit in expectations about the level of participation desired. It is relatively easy to use a rhetoric that promotes participation without indicating how different methodologies or participation ‘modes’ can be combined into the research, extension and evaluation.
• Innovations in funding programs to accommodate a more flexible, iterative and reflexive process (rather than linear and determined) need to be developed for programs requiring a participatory approach. Proposals often require specific timelines and budgets for project activities. Participatory research in the collaborative and collegial modes can be an unpredictable iterative process, not easily reconciled with time-limited research structure and funding. In general, there is little flexibility to substantially alter the experimental, outreach and evaluation plan in response to participant advice once funding has been awarded.
• Methods for analysis and evaluation of the effectiveness of participatory methods may differ from non-participatory projects. Methodologies need to be developed to analyze and assess results from iterative and flexible research and extension. Non-quantitative criteria for analysis and evaluation may be more appropriate for projects operating in a collegial participatory mode.
• Participatory research can be extended to include participatory outreachReference Carolan33. Often there is no requirement for describing participatory extension strategies or how they will be employed or evaluatedReference Sumberg and Okali67.
Conclusion
Even though there are some limitations to our post-project reflective interview approach to understanding the experiences of a LGU-based research team with multidisciplinary, participatory research, we feel that much insight has been gained from which others may benefit. Through the post-project interview process, eight factors emerged and became validated when multiple members of the research team identified these factors. Some members of the team refrained from discussing certain issues that other members discussed, suggesting that there are issues in participatory research that are difficult to quantify or capture, supporting the urgent need for further investigations and development of methodology to best conduct multidisciplinary, participatory research. The level of participation was dynamic over the life of the project, and the project as a whole could not be easily categorized as belonging to any particular ‘mode’Reference Biggs39, Reference Neef and Neubert41.
Shared values and the capacity for problem solving helped to maintain team and project stability in the face of conflict in our studyReference Bratman and Bratman65. Overall, the research team found great professional and personal value in working with each other and with the farmer advisory team. We learned that a divergence of viewpoints among the research team can provide valuable opportunities to critically consider how to work most effectively with farmers and within our own teams in the future.
Acknowledgements
We thank D.A. Mortensen and C. Mullen, Penn State University; R. Smith, University of New Hampshire; and T.L.P. Gareau, Boston College, for comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript. This paper was supported from October 2003 through September 2008 by USDA IREE Competitive Grants Program IPM-ORG-112.E to the authors and D.A. Mortensen. We are indebted to our project advisory team: C. Altemose, L. Garling, S. Harkcom, J. Moyer, S. Smiles, B. Snyder, K. Yoder, P. Yoder, A. Ziegler and L. Zuck for their continuing support and advice.
