The Many Meanings and Potential of Agroecology Research and Teaching

A Workshop held 29-30 May, 2002, Madison, WI

Introduction

We began deliberations in August, 2001 on the wisdom of creating new curricular offerings in "agroecology." The workshop repored herein was organized to assist these discussions. We anticipated that the workshop would expose the curriculum committee to diverse perspectives about what our new academic offerings might include, identify areas that we had overlooked, provide feedback about the wisdom of our plans, and likely help us resolve lingering questions. The workshop was held about two-thirds of the way through our deliberations. As it turned out, the meeting made more vivid our unresolved problems related to new teaching programs in agroecology. These issues included:

1. what sort of ideas and work wereat the core of the perceived agroecological opportunity?
2. what should constitute "rigor" suitable for university training in a field such as agroecology? and
3. how necessary or desirable is it to radically rethink what we were doing in our college?

One way of organizing answers to these questions, and most of the papers presented here, is to envision two axes of thought: one about the meaning of agroecology, and the other about the desired outcome of our new program in terms of scholarship versus action. These two axes yield four domains, as in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Four quadrants created by two axes of discussion about a new agroecology teaching program.

Alternative meanings of agroecology discussed in our committee and at the workshop were, on the one hand, about how biological ecological concepts might be applied to the plant, microbe, and insect communities of agricultural settings, and, on the other, the study of agriculture as a human endeavor embedded in society and the biophysical environment. We also came to understand that it is necessary to appreciate that individuals have important differences in how they perceive the goals of and appropriate metrics for university scholarship, embodied crudely in what might be considered the tradition of the academy versus action in the community.

The papers that follow each touch on at least one, and usually more, of the quadrants above, and, as will become obvious, there is some imbalance in coverage of the issues as posited by Figure 1. The workshop began with two sessions that were devoted to a general introduction to why we should pause to reflect on alternatives in higher education and public research in agriculture. The first session focused on "visions of agriculture" in relation to agroecology. Buttel's paper is based on the notion that agroecologists need to understand the contexts of the work in the changes that are occurring in the land-grant university system and in the structure of agriculture. He explores two quite different future scenarios for agriculture-the "Blank hypothesis" of the extinction of American agriculture, and a multifunctionality policy scenario-to illustrate how the role of agroecology would vary tremendously based on the course that agricultural change might take. Röling makes some parallel observations on change in his home institution, Wageningen University. His remarks in this opening session, folded into his paper on "Is There Life After Agricultural Science?," emphasized the growing need for agroecologists and agricultural scientists as a whole to shift their efforts from what we here define as quadrant 1 and quadrant 3 work to an emphasis on quadrants 2 and 4. The second opening session consisted of a single paper, that by the philosopher Paul Thompson. In this paper, Thompson explores the possible roles of applied philosophy in assisting this reflection, in helping to think about the challenge of sustainability, and in addressing concerns over the implications of decades of positivism in our scholarly pursuit of agriculture. Thompson's concerns touch on all four of the quadrants in our typology.

The next session addressed quadrant 1 of Figure 1-that is, the potential for greater applications of biological ecology to agricultural systems. David Andow's paper captures the essence of the session, in which he makes a forceful argument for a reframing of agricultural production challenges into ecological problems, on the premise that ecological perspectives on agriculture have considerable potential to enable more environmentally benign farming systems to emerge. There is a great deal of work to be done, he admits, but Andow demonstrates that the possibilities of substituting ecological work for present inputs should be tremendously exciting for faculty and students. Quadrant 2 is the extension of such ecological technology to farmers. While this topic was the focus of considerable discussion at the workshop, it was not emphasized in any of the papers published in this collection. Presumably, however, most of our current extension skills will remain applicable to this task.

Next was a session oriented toward concepts of system complexity and the implications for future training and research in agriculture. In this paper, Tim Allen offers his vision of a new agroecology that takes complexity as a point of departure-and this powerfully shapes all that should be done. As both a complex system theorist and an ecologist, Allen addresses both quadrants 1 and 3. Mario Giampietro makes many of the same arguments concerning the "why" and the "how" of the role of science and scientists in public debates over pressing environmental quandaries. This emphasis on process speaks to our perception that agricultural higher education needs to produce additional forms of expertise in their students, to address the work of quadrant 4. Similarly, David Waltner-Toews' paper proposes a fundamental rethinking of the meaning of agriculture. Waltner-Toews makes a strong argument that agriculture must be redefined as a means of producing human health. Ideas of complexity figure strongly in his discussion of what this entails. The overarching thrust of WaltnerÕ-Toews' paper is one of caution about an excessive focus on quadrant 1.

The final set of papers addressed the teaching of agroecology, as variously defined, and the institutional transformations that are accompany changes in higher education curriculum. Bill Bland's paper outlines a strongly quadrant-4-directed vision of a new graduate education program, closely aligned with the ideas of the complex systems thinkers. Matt Leibman and Ricardo Salvador describe the relatively new program in Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University, directed at all quadrants, but especially at Quadrant 1. Niels Röling, recently retired from Wageningen University in The Netherlands, described the tremendous pressures and transformations underway at that institution as a result of changing public perceptions of agriculture and associated entities like agricultural universities. While there are undeniable differences in American and Dutch society and environment, we believe that the Wageningen story offers valuable ideas to U.S. colleges of agriculture. Finally, Richard Bawden told the story of a journey of transformation in agricultural higher education in Australia, again with an eye to all quadrants. As Bawden and colleagues set out to reshape their small agricultural college, they explored and discovered the power of experiential learning and of systems thinking. He described a three-stage evolution in the work of the faculty, as experience with new modes of thinking and teaching challenged ever-deeply held notions of the role of the institution and professional practice in agricultural and rural development.

The workshop was an exhilarating experience for us, and, we believe, most of the participants. The collection of skills and perspectives challenged every attendee, and enriched the subsequent discussions of our original committee. These collected papers will remain a resource for many of us in the coming years as we bring our new agroecology curriculum to life.

The papers are posted below as we complete final editing and formatting.