Perceived Criteria for Research Problem Choice in the Agricultural Sciences--A Research Note

Abstract

Since the seventeenth century, science and technology have been presumed to be chief architects of human progress. Of particular importance to this view was the fundamental acceptance of science as an autonomous institution, creating knowledge that is an accurate representation of a unified natural world and, hence, not subject to external manipulation. Recently, however, the assumptions, as well as the products of science have come under attack. The scientific claims to objective knowledge have been challenged. The increase in scale, the development of a corporate, Baconian science, the increasing centrality of the relations between science and the state, and challenges to the belief in the unity of science (Kuhn) have meant that science as an institution has become less autonomous. Indeed some have argued that the products of science are frequently shaped by various client groups, class interests, and the state (Habermas; Rose and Rose). As long as the assumptions and products of science were seen as relatively unproblematic, there was little reason to examine the reasons for selecting particular research agendas. However, the intellectual challenges to the claimed autonomy of science, the questioning of the place of science in society, and the financial limitations imposed by the current economy make the issue of problem choice a particularly important theme in the sociology and philosophy of science (cf., Busch and Lacy; Gieryn; Weinstein; Zuckerman). Thus, in this paper we ask: What criteria do scientists perceive as important in choosing research problems? Do these criteria differ across disciplines? To what degree are criteria relevant to the pursuit of knowledge consonant with those relevant to the problems of everyday life?