Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
technologies and production systems that are investigated and developed, and how the systemic
connections of food systems are handled in research. The exposure of the different meanings of
such concepts, and the values and ethics embedded in these different meanings, has already
been the subject of some attention.
Values have a more direct role in the choice of problem to investigate. There is always a
choice of subject matter or research issue in science, though this choice is not always explicitly
discussed. This choice depends on the perspective that is used and on what is taken as prob-
lematic from this point of view. The choice determines the potential relevance of the research
to different groups or to society in general, and it is connected to underlying goals, interests
and values. Moreover, 'technical' choices on research objects (as determined in the setup of
experiments and surveys), research methods and model assumptions are not independent of
values either. Take the example of setting up of farm systems experiments. When such experi-
ments are established, choices include which systems, the specific structure of them, where to
make them either similar or different. In a study of dairy systems, are those systems to be
'organic', 'integrated' or 'conventional' and (since none of these are clear cut) what kind of
organic, integrated or conventional? Are the stable systems to be based on solid manure or
slurry? Are the breeds to be Jersey, Holstein or something else? Are the bull calves to be sold or
fattened, as steers or bullocks? These choices on system structure are in many ways related to
the intentions and goals behind the research. Once an experiment has been established, these
intentions and goals no longer inf luence the conduct of the experiment. However, when the
results are ready, if an organic system with deep bedding and solid manure is compared with a
conventional system with slurry, then the choice of systems structure inf luences the results
(e.g. with regard to welfare, nutrient losses, crop yields) (see Lantinga 2001).
Values are important in agricultural science, be it conventional or organic. From this, it
follows that the handling of different perspectives and the values and understandings that they
harbour is important in relation to the communication and cooperation between researchers
engaged in organic and conventional systems, and in cross-disciplinary communication in
general. It also follows that objectivity in the sense of value freedom is not an appropriate crite-
rion of scientific quality. There is a need to revise the ideal of objectivity so that it can span the
range of criteria that are developed in individual research disciplines across the sciences, and
support cross-disciplinary cooperation and communication. The criterion of ref lexive objec-
tivity has, therefore, been suggested as a second general quality criterion of agricultural
research that complements the criterion of relevance (Alrøe and Kristensen 2002, Schjønning
et
al
. 2004) (Box 15.2).
The criterion of ref lexive objectivity suggests that research should investigate and describe
its own societal, intentional and observational context and work explicitly with the goals and
values involved, to facilitate peer criticism and the use and critique by different users and
stakeholders. Ref lexive objectivity and relevance seem to be important criteria for all agricul-
tural research but not least in organic agriculture because of the important role of values in
this form of agriculture. Making the role of values explicit is a way to avoid the two pitfalls of
organic research:
1 it lacks real relevance for organic agriculture; and
2 the organic values directly influence the research results.
If one conceives of agricultural science as systemic, recognises the interaction of agricul-
tural research, agriculture and society, and accepts that agricultural research therefore cannot
and should not be value free, then such general changes in the perception of agricultural
science cannot be implemented by single researchers or research groups alone. The successful
implementation of such changes in perceptions will involve all the different institutional struc-
