Agricultural Economics : a Fork in the Road or a Crooked Trail ?

INTRODUCTION ~INTRODUCTION ~times, it comes close to one of the forks, proIn the past year, our most recent contribuviding the temptation to jump over. To avoid tion to agricultural economics communication, the temptation, we as individuals and as a proCHOICES, has generated an extensive but fession must continually examine ourselves in timely dialogue concerning the land-grant syswhat we do and expect. tem and agricultural economics as a profesIn the first Presidential address to the sion. Beginning with Professor Schuh's article SAEA annual meeting, Havlicek provided a in CHOICES and letters in succeeding issues, historical view of the association and the debate for peer review versus applied represented some thoughts for the future. He search is quite succinctly presented. Peer rechallenged us to strive to maintain and imview in this connotation refers to purely prove communications among ourselves as disciplinary research and the test of whether agricultural economists. Further, he warned results are "new." Most "applied" research is us of the need to communicate to those outside reviewed by peers. our disciplinary confines. The current version of the debate may have In something of a follow-up, Conner ascome in a critical period for agricultural ecosumed the two-fold task: (1) defining who and nomics, a time that may determine how or what we are and (2) viewing the forces that whether we continue to exist as a viable proshape our profession and what we do. He raised fession. I am not predicting the hammer of the question of self-evaluation and asked, doom to fall next fiscal year if we do not make "What are we making ourselves into?" In a the "right choice," but the winds of change sense, the current dialogue reaches for an are out there somewhere. answer to that question, when, likely, there is The reasons are numerous and complex (asno one answer that will suffice for the professuming you can accept the hypothesis of a critsion, given the diversity of the individual ical time). Two major hurdles that are of an members. immediate nature are the farm crisis and the Ikerd chose to emphasize Conner's second funding for research and education (including point, the forces that shape our profession, extension). How we deal with these (or surfocusing on the current problems in agrivive) may determine whether we take a fork culture. He went so far as to say that the exin the road to an inconsequential destiny or istence of our profession may depend upon follow the crooked trail of adapting to and bewhether farm policy emphasizes world maring part of change. In my view, the fork in the kets or the domestic economy, no doubt road is not the clear choice. One fork is the because of his view that ours is a missionpeer review system followed entirely for fundoriented profession. ing and professional recognition of the inWhether we view ourselves as primarily dividual scientist. The other is the path of mission oriented or as purely disciplinary is at formula funding and "applied" research. If we the heart of the dialogue in CHOICES. As one look more closely, in the middle of the fork is a of the letters indicated, there is room for some faintly defined trail, more rugged and of both, but how we are viewed by others will crooked, that has some elements of both forks. depend on which is emphasized. It is my conFollowing the path is more difficult, and at tention that the gate to survival as a profes-