Cover Image

PAPERBACK
$33.00



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 209


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © 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 208
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 208
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 208
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 208
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 208
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 208
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 208
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 208
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 208
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 208
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 208
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 208
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 208
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