RA 00048.pdf - OAR@ICRISAT

find that their linkage w i t h t h e rest of t h e s y s t e m
is probably t h e w e a k e s t of all. Despite certain
outstanding exceptions, m a n y s o r g h u m farmers
are virtually u n a w a r e of t h e e x i s t e n c e of research
a n d extension services, let alone actively receiving
those services. This is particularly u n f o r t u n a t e
in that s o r g h u m farmers have d e v e l o p e d , over t h e
centuries, a substantial backlog of folk k n o w l e d g e
relating to t h e crop. W h i l e u n d o u b t e d l y s o m e of
that folk k n o w l e d g e is erroneous, t h e record
s h o w s that practices w h i c h e v o l v e d in folk syst
e m s are m o r e o f t e n than not w e l l suited t o their
respective e n v i r o n m e n t s . As a g r o n o m i s t Pierre
Spitz has n o t e d :
Thus, it is necessary that scientists not be
convinced of t h e superiority that their k n o w ­
ledge of t h e agricultural sciences c o n f e r s u p o n
t h e m , but c o n v i n c e d of t h e richness of peasant
k n o w - h o w . Science begins in this d o m a i n as in
m o s t others w i t h m o d e s t y a n d t h e capacity t o
admit o n e ' s ignorance, not w i t h arrogance a n d
c o n t e m p t (1979, p. 278, our translation).
Processes of R e s e a r c h
D e c i s i o n - m a k i n g
A n understanding o f t h e structure o f t h e s o r g h u m
research s y s t e m m u s t also include an examination
of the p r o c e s s e s by w h i c h that research
s y s t e m functions. W h i l e it is necessary to v i e w
t h e s o r g h u m research s y s t e m as a broad social
s y s t e m e m b e d d e d in, influenced by, a n d influencing
political, social a n d e c o n o m i c institutions, t h e
research s y s t e m is also a social n e t w o r k consisting
of individuals a n d groups of individuals w h o
have needs, desires, goals, personality traits, and
various experiences a n d w h o a t t e m p t t o influence
o n e another in a variety of w a y s . W h i l e scientists
are o f t e n s e e m i n g l y free t o s t u d y w h a t t h e y w i s h ,
their interests m a y be strongly influenced by
social psychological factors as w e l l as structural
factors s u c h as political and e c o n o m i c f o r c e s .
W h a t scientists study, t h e m e t h o d s a n d theories
t h e y use i n their studies, a n d h o w t h e y c h o o s e t o
present their results are all decisions w h i c h m a y
be influenced by nonscientific variables.
The d e m o g r a p h i c b a c k g r o u n d of researchers
a n d research administrators m a y influence, or be
related t o , t h e n a t u r e of agricultural research on
s o r g h u m . For e x a m p l e , Z u c k e r m a n (1977) in her
s t u d y of N o b e l Prize w i n n i n g scientists f o u n d that
t h e y t e n d e d to have a n u m b e r of d e m o g r a p h i c
similarities such as having s t u d i e d at o n e of only a
handful of universities and being c o m p a r a b l e in
age. W h o are t h e s o r g h u m scientists, research
administrators and policy makers? W h a t is t h e
nature of their background and education? H o w
h o m o g e n e o u s or h e t e r o g e n e o u s are their backg
r o u n d s and experiences? Is t h e r e a potential
insularity in their educational and research experie
n c e s ?
T h e s e e d u c a t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e s a n d backg
r o u n d s are important c o m p o n e n t s of t h e larger
process that is k n o w n as career socialization. The
career of an agricultural scientist entails n u m e r o u s
experiences a n d decisions w h i c h are continuously
b e i n g r e e x a m i n e d and r e f o r m u l a t e d . I m p o r t a n t
choices entail t h e field, discipline, or crop specialization
itself, t h e specific research p r o b l e m s or
questions, t h e choice of research m e t h o d s and
approaches, t h e identification of key c o n c e p t s a n d
t h e theoretical orientation. The processes by
w h i c h t h e s e essential decisions are m a d e are
i m p o r t a n t for understanding t h e current products
as w e l l as t h e f u t u r e possibilities of t h e research
s y s t e m . A n u m b e r of people in a scientist's career
m a y i m p i n g e o n t h o s e decisions. T h e s e potential
socializing agents m a y include o n e ' s i m m e d i a t e
supervisor, a colleague in t h e scientist's departm
e n t or research institute, a colleague in another
agricultural science d e p a r t m e n t or another research
institute, a research assistant or technician,
a graduate or postdoctoral student, a f o r m e r
professor, a director of o n e ' s research facility, a
client or potential user, or a research r e v i e w
c o m m i t t e e . H o w d o t h e s e various sources o f
influence affect t h e various d i m e n s i o n s of research
for s o r g h u m scientists? At w h a t point in
their careers are particular sources influential a n d
w h o are t h e m o s t important persons i n shaping
t h e s e research decisions?
Equally i m p o r t a n t is an understanding of t h e
nature of each scientist's research on s o r g h u m .
To w h a t e x t e n t can it be characterized as basic,
applied or d e v e l o p m e n t ? Do scientists divide their
t i m e b e t w e e n research, administration, e x t e n ­
sion, and teaching? H o w d o e s this affect t h e
quantity and quality of their w o r k ?
A n o t h e r important d i m e n s i o n in t h e process of
research on s o r g h u m is t h e role of b o t h f o r m a l
a n d informal c o m m u n i c a t i o n . Carol Ganz (1976, p.
387} recently e x a m i n e d t h e role of scientific
c o m m u n i c a t i o n in t h e process of technological
innovation and c o n c l u d e d that " t h r o u g h i m p r o v e d
understanding o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n f l o w and m a n -
6 9 4