Agricultural Economics and Multidisciplinary Research

Abstract

Encouragement for agricultural economists to work with professionals from other disciplines has been a recurring theme. John Black championed this cause during the early days of the profession, and Glenn Johnson (1957, 1971, 1987) argued the merits of for over three decades. More recently, King and Sonka; Lacewell and McGrann; Arthur; Padberg (1990); and Dobbs have all encouraged agricultural economists to work cooperatively with other scientists on important problems. Swanson noted that the degree of cooperation among scientists from different disciplines working on a common problem can vary widely. He defined as situations where scientists work side-by-side within their own disciplines, each discipline contributes to a common final report, but scientists engage in little crossdisciplinary coordination. In research, scientists from different disciplines actively coordinate in designing, conducting, and reporting the research. Unfortunately, the terms and are often used loosely or even interchangeably. In part, this is due to the inevitably vague boundaries between these concepts. In virtually all research, some modest coordination among disciplines must occur. Similarly, there is an extremely wide variation in the magnitude and quality of coordination that occurs under the rubric of interdisciplinary research. Practical considerations in this study made it necessary to base participation in research upon simple coauthorship of a journal article by agricultural economist(s) and other scientist(s). Consequently, the umbrella term multidisciplinary research in this study refers to both and research. While the intensity of cooperation between agricultural economists and other scientists continues to vary for different problems and researchers, the recent struggle by agricultural economics departments to develop viable new identities could open up new opportunities for work. Many agricultural economics departments have changed their names to include terms like resources, environmental, agribusiness, and applied economics. Others have added new options or degree programs in agribusiness, international trade, and environmental economics. These adjustments have been driven, in part, by reduced state and federal funding for colleges of agriculture, by shrinking student enrollments in traditional agricultural disciplines, and by the rise of newly fashionable subfields. What role does continuing the strong record of working with other disciplines have in preparing agricultural economists for an uncertain future? Is part of the solution for the future or is it part of the problem? More appropriately, when and how should agricultural economists work with other disciplines? The general objective of this study is to assess the benefits and challenges of as perceived by agricultural economists. While others (Swanson, Dobbs) have provided insightful personal examinations of the role of work in agricultural economics, this study draws upon primary data. The results of a survey sample of agricultural economists who coauthored articles in selected journals from 1983 to 1992 are presented and interpreted. From this Douglas L. Young is a Professor of Agricultural Economics at Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-6210.