The alternative-conventional agriculture debate: Where do agricultural faculty stand?

In recent years, publicly funded agricultural science at land grant universities (LGUs) has come under increasing criticism by those who argue that LGUs have contributed to an industrial mode of agriculture that is neither ecologically nor socioeconomically sustainable. The views of critics and defenders of modern industrial agriculture reflect two competing perspectives on agriculture--an alternative and a conventional paradigm. Utilizing a 24-item alternative-conventional agriculture paradigm (ACAP) scale, this study analyzes the paradigmatic positions of faculty in the College of Agriculture and Home Economics at Washington State University. Results reveal that the faculty are slightly more conventional than are farmers statewide, slightly less conventional than proponents of conventional agriculture, and far more conventional than known alternative agriculturalists. When looking at particular elements of the agricultural debate, however, the faculty tend to be more conventional than farmers on the socioeconomic elements of the competing paradigms but considerably less conventional on elements dealing with ecological and conservation issues. Women, younger faculty, non-land grant educated faculty, and faculty not raised on farms are somewhat more likely to endorse the alternative agriculture paradigm than are their counterparts. These differences are minor, however, compared to the differences across academic disciplines. Faculty of departments oriented to the social sciences (with the exception of agricultural economics) tend to most strongly endorse the alternative paradigm, while faculty from the more production-oriented departments and agricultural economics are the most conventional. Possible implications of the findings are discussed for the future of publicly-funded agricultural science.