Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:58:04.896Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Advisory/oversight councils: An alternative approach to farmer/citizen participation in agenda setting at land-grant universities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

G. W. Stevenson  and
Richard M. Klemme
G. W. Stevenson
Affiliation:
Assistant Director, Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706.
Richard M. Klemme
Affiliation:
Director, Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706.
Get access

Abstract

Reviews of historical and organizational literature provide the backdrop for a general discussion of citizen input into land-grant universities and for a specific case study: the Citizens Advisory/Oversight Council of the Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems (CIAS) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. This strong citizens' council, established in 1989, took its form in response to institutionally structured fears among university personnel, on one hand, and farmers and citizen groups on the other. Each group's recognition that the other's concerns were legitimate led to an acceptable resolution. We describe the principal characteristics of the resulting successful CIAS Council that is composed of farmers and representatives of the state's environmental community. Such councils facilitate new approaches to integrating the craft and science of farming, and for linking the production side of agricultural systems with policy issues.

Keywords

academic freedomresearch prioritiesland-grant systemthe Progressive Erathe “Wisconsin Idea”
Type
Selected Papers from Conference on “Innovative Policies for Agricultural Research,” Boston, MA, November 21–22, 1991
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , September 1992 , pp. 111 - 117
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Berry, W. 1977. The Unsettling of America: Culture and Agriculture. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
2.Busch, L., and Lacy, W. B.. 1983. Science, Agriculture, and the Politics of Research. West-view Press, Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
3.Buttel, F.H., and Busch, L.. 1988. The public agricultural research system at the crossroads. Agric. History 62:303–324.Google Scholar
4.Buttel, F.H., Kenney, M., Kloppenburg, J. Jr., and Smith, D.. 1986. Industry-university relationships and the land-grant system. Agric. Administration 23:147–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Campbell, C.M. 1962. The Farm Bureau and the New Deal: A Study of the Making of National Farm Policy, 1933–1940. Univ. of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
6.Carson, R. 1962. Silent Spring. Houghton, Mifflin Co., Boston, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
7.Carstensen, V. 1956. The origin of the Wisconsin idea. Wisconsin Magazine of History 40:181–187.Google Scholar
8.Chambers, R., Pacey, A., and Thrupp, L.A. (eds). 1989. Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. Intermediate Technology Publications, London, England.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Cochrane, W.W. 1979. The Development of American Agriculture. Univ. of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
10.Cooper, C. 1986. American agriculture and the world community. In Dahlberg, K.A. (ed). New Directions for Agriculture and Agricultural Research. Rowman and Allanheld, Totowa, New Jersey, pp. 65–82Google Scholar
11.Danbom, D.B. 1986. Publicly sponsored agricultural research in the United States from an historical perspective. In Dahlberg, K. A. (ed). New Directions for Agriculture and Agricultural Research. Rowman and Allanheld, Totowa, New Jersey, pp. 107–131.Google Scholar
12.de Janvry, A., and LeVeen, E.P.. 1986. Historical forces that have shaped world agriculture: A structural perspective. In Dahlberg, K.A. (ed). New Directions for Agriculture and Agricultural Research. Rowman and Allanheld, Totowa, New Jersey, pp. 83–104.Google Scholar
13.Deming, W.E. 1982. Out of the Crisis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
14.Glover, W. 1952. Farm and College: The College of Agriculture of the University of Wisconsin, A History. Univ. of Wisconsin Press, Madison.Google Scholar
15.Hadwiger, D.L. 1982. The Politics of Agricultural Research. Univ. of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.Google Scholar
16.Haveman, R., and Shroder, M.. 1989. Roots of the Wisconsin idea: The university and public policy since the progressive era. L & S Magazine. Spring. Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar
17.Hightower, J. 1973. Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times. Schenkman Publishing Co., Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
18.Jaschik, S. 1991. Political activists work to change land-grant colleges. Chronicle of Higher Education 37 (March 20): A1, A24.Google Scholar
19.Kanter, R. 1983. The Change Masters. Simon and Schuster, New York, New York.Google Scholar
20.Kirkendall, R.S. 1986. The agricultural colleges: Between tradition and modernization. Agric. History 60:3–21.Google Scholar
21.Kloppenburg, J.R. Jr., 1988. First The Seed: The Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology, 1492–2000. Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
22.Marcus, A.I. 1985. Agricultural Science and the Quest for Legitimacy. Farmers, Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations, 1870–1890. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames.Google Scholar
23.Marcus, A.I. 1986. The ivory silo: Farmer-agricultural college tensions in the 1870s and 1880s. Agric. History 60:22–36.Google Scholar
24.Marcus, A.I. 1988. The wisdom of the body politic: The changing nature of publicly sponsored American agricultural research since the 1830s. Agric. History 62:4–26.Google Scholar
25.Marion, B.W., Geithman, F.E., and Quail, G.. 1987. Monopsony Power in an Industry in Disequilibrium: Beef Packing, 1971–1989. Food System Research Group, Dept. of Agric. Economics, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar
26.McConnell, G. 1953. The Decline of Agrarian Democracy. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Miller, L., Rossing, B., and Steele, S.. 1990. Partnerships: Shared Leadership Among Stake-holders. Univ. of Wisconsin Press, Madison.Google Scholar
28.National Research Council. 1972. Report of the Committee on Research Advisory to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
29.National Research Council. 1975. Agricultural Production Efficiency. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
30.National Research Council. 1989. Alternative Agriculture. Board on Agriculture. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
31.Office of Technology Assessment. 1981. An Assessment of the United States Food and Agricultural Research System. U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
32.Peters, T.J., and Waterman, A.H.. 1982. In Search of Excellence. Warner Books, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
33.Rosenberg, C. 1977. Rationalization and reality in the shaping of American agricultural research. Social Studies of Science 7:400–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34.Schultz, T.W. 1977. Uneven prospects for gains from agricultural research related to economic policy. In Arndt, T.M., Dalrymple, N.G., and Ruttan, V.W. (eds). Resource Allocation and Productivity in National and International Agricultural Research. Univ. of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
35.Urban, T.N. 1991. Agricultural industrialization: It's inevitable. Choices 6(4):4–6.Google Scholar
36.Woerdehoff, F.J. 1956. Dr. Charles McCarthy's role in revitalizing the university extension division. Wisconsin Magazine of History 40:13–18.Google Scholar