(PDF) Contesting crop sciences: A Study on understanding the contexts of alternative knowledge claims and institutional responses

Project Report

Contesting crop sciences: A Study on understanding the contexts of

alternative knowledge claims and institutional responses

C. Raghava Reddy

Department of Sociology

and

Prajit K. Basu

Department of Philosophy

Submitted to

Chief Coordinator

Research Projects

UPE- Phase 2

2013

University of Hyderabad

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 2

Report

Contesting crop sciences: A Study on understanding the contexts of alternative

knowledge claims and institutional responses

Introduction

Agriculture, one of the oldest practices of human civilization, epitomizes man’s

relationship with nature. It encapsulates a set of technologies which manifest man’s

understanding of nature. Cultivation, as explained by Aristotle, ‘is a practice that helps nature

to produce more perfectly or abundantly things which she could produce herself’ (Mitcham,

1978: 243). It was believed that ‘in farming, although man performs all kinds of preparatory

tasks, such as clearing, plowing and sowing, nature itself has to do the rest. Once his

preparatory tasks are done, man can only sit down and wait. It is the inner growing power of

living nature which performs the work’ (ibid: 243). However, over the years human beings

evolved a set of practices which help them in manipulating the physiological features of crop

growth thus limiting the rope of nature. These practices have co-evolved on the basis of

cumulative knowledge and the knowledge thus accrued was shared between the members of

the community.

Until the advent of science of crop production, farming progressed by imitation.

Improvements in practices of crop cultivation were isolated random accidental improvisations

which spread through word of mouth and established as practices. The occurrence of these

accidental inventions and innovations in agriculture were sporadic and spatial and

communities worked hard in the adaptation and adoption. These improvisations added to the

cumulative knowledge in agriculture and were passed on from generations to generations.The

knowledge of cultivation practices has been transformed with the scientific understanding of

crop physiology, soil, and nature’s role in food production. Modern science through its

principles evolved certain standard practices which proved to be advantageous than the

practices hitherto used by farmers. Thus, over a period, community knowledge has been

replaced by scientific knowledge and science began to guide crop production. The examples

of hybrids of yester years and genetic engineering of today showcase the scientific

advancement in agriculture. At the same time, scientific knowledge in agriculture evolved

into a discipline of its own handling the tasks of production and problems of crop cultivation.

The science of agriculture fast became a tool of state in serving the purpose of meeting the

food needs of population and in contributing to nation’s economy. The role of science in

agriculture began to increase with the attention of nation-states to achieve food self

sufficiency and derive advantages in the evolving world market.

Crop science, since its formal accreditation as scientific knowledge by the modernists,

overwhelmed other approaches towards crop production across globe. Heralding on

modernist programme, public institutions in India, during the green revolution phase, pushed

western ideology and methodology in crop science research for a long time. In the process of

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 3

working for the goals of the nation, the state institutions not only delivered what was needed

but also grew in strength exemplifying the potential of state-science interface for society. The

critical appraisal of science of crop production began to arise in the post-liberalized regime in

India. The agrarian crisis witnessed in India in the post 1990s is largely attributed to the

withdrawal of state from research and extension, opening up of private partnerships in crop

science research, policy provisions for private investments in plant breeding with adequate

market safeguards for such investments. Also the public research in crop sciences was

severely affected by the apathetic attitude of the state towards agriculture which started to

believe that agriculture was a ‘private good’. Private investments in crop science research

came into those crops which offer remunerative returns and focused on those categories of

farmers who can afford to invest. The capitalist tendencies in agriculture research intensified

the maladies of agriculture inherent within and effects were more prominent on the

vulnerable sections of farmers than before.

This resulted in serious and critical appraisals of policy shifts and the aftermaths in

agriculture across globe, including India. Locating the arguments in the small and marginal

farmer context the critiques of research and development in crop sciences in the post

liberalization era began to offer alternative paradigms. Non-essentialist, sustainable and

economically viable alternatives to the mainstream explanations of crop production started to

emerge. Non-pesticidal management, biological and genetic diversity, sustainable practices,

biosafety are some of the key notions that gained ground in the discourse on alternatives in

crop science. More critical of biosafety of genetically modified seeds, external chemical

intensive agriculture, capital intensive crop production practices, the advocates of alternate

practices focused attention at building science of crop production that is farmer friendly

rather than market friendly. Serious questioning of the assumptions of mainstream crop

science like soil, plant and pathogens led to alternative paradigms. For example, ‘system of

rice intensification’ (SRI) as an approach of rice cultivation emerged in the precincts of civil

society organizations and offers alternative to the green revolution based seed-irrigation-

fertilizer intensive cultivation (Prasad, 2006).

Objectives

Modernity entails scientific rationality that offers empiricist explanations of worldly

phenomena, including crop production. Situated in rational approach, crop sciences focused

primarily on productivity and attempts made by the researchers in crop sciences in that

direction have been met with results that range from progressive to retrogressive. Moving

beyond the linear model of modern science paradigm, alternatives to standard crop

production have started to emerge outside the scientific realm. Examples of SRI, organic

farming, Low External Input Cultivation present the growing discontentment among the

stakeholders over the claims of progress scientists of crop production have been making.

Civil Society Organizations, farmer groups and environmentalists began to critically evaluate

the science of crop production. The present study aims at understanding the perceptions of

agricultural scientists in the light of a) emerging alternatives to the dominant agricultural

paradigm and b) the contemporary status of agriculture in the country. Through the case

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 4

study on SRI it also attempts analysing the trajectory of a civil society innovation into the

scientific space and contestations in crop sciences from the ‘sociology of science’

perspective.

Background

Science and agriculture

The entry of science into agriculture, particularly into crop production, began in

Europe in the first half of the nineteenth century. ‘The application of science in agriculture

began in 1834 when Boussingault laid the foundations of agricultural chemistry’ (Howard,

1940: 146). Boussingault, a French chemist, was the first researcher in agriculture to devise a

theory on plant nutrition which was labelled as humus theory. Humus theory, which

explained the role of humus as source of plant nutrients, was later on demolished by the

mineral theory of plant nutrition proposed by Liebig (McCosh, 1984: 131). The mineral

theory with its strong foundation in chemistry in fact carried agriculture science into the fold

of chemistry (Howard, 1940: 147). With the scientific establishment of the importance of

chemical fertilizers namely, nitrogen, phosphorous and potash, in short NPK, it may be

claimed that soil science, with heavy inputs from chemistry, was the first science that evolved

in agriculture. Social chemistry was a watershed in the history of agriculture not only for

exponential expansion in sciences in agriculture in the years to come but also for heralding

industrial incursion into agriculture. When the limitations of chemistry to address the

problems of soil deficiencies were realized, other branches of sciences began to emerge. For

example, Pasteur’s work on soil organisms and Charles Darwin’s account of complex life of

soil, and Winogradsky’s work on nitrification of organic matter, and other advances led to the

emergence of sciences like soil bacteriology, peadology (ibid).

The important shift in agricultural science occurred in the twentieth century when the

researchers began to pay more attention to plant itself rather than other agents of crop

production such as soil and other organisms. The science of plant breeding, benefitting

greatly from the advances in botany, suggested for working with plant phenotypes to increase

yields and to overcome diseases. If the early sciences in agriculture addressed the non-human

aspects of crop production, the first social sciences to gain entry into agriculture was

economics. Economics, though confined to the experimental statistics part of crop production

in the initial years, shifted the focus of researchers to efficient organization of production in

terms of cost and profit in the later stages. Resulting in the changed outlook, economists set

the agenda of productivity and efficiency for agricultural research. Alongside it also drew

strong criticism from others who argued that economics looked at ‘the output of the farm and

the factory from the same standpoint – dividends’ thus leading ‘agriculture to the ranks of

industry’ (Howard, 1940: 149).

The developments in agricultural sciences were also greatly influenced by the

political economy of the World Wars which effected a significant shift in the sciences of crop

production. During the War period the factories in the Europe were engaged in the fixation of

atmospheric nitrogen for the manufacture of large quantities of explosives. These factories

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 5

which lost major market by the end of war found a potential market for ammonia fertilizers,

as research in chemistry successfully demonstrated the potential of chemical fertilizers in

crop production. Thus began the mass production of NPK fertilizers for agricultural use, the

benefits of which were proved by science beyond doubt. The chemical fertilizers, which were

available at cheaper costs, have made phenomenal impact on the political economy of

agriculture in the world. Later, the fertilizer producing companies of Europe grew

economically to unprecedented levels and changed the course of science and research in

agriculture in the years to come. Although this was witnessed all over the world, the impact

was more prominent on developing countries’ economies.

Indian agriculture and scientific institutions

Knowledge of crop production in India precedes scientific inquiry and

experimentation that began during the British period. The knowledge and tools of agriculture

have a long history in India and are closely associated with India’s civilization. Although

historical evidence suggests at the state interventions in agriculture in terms of construction

of irrigation tanks during pre-British period, the first systematic effort at scientific

understanding of crop production in India began during the British rule. Faced with the

problem of recurring famines in India, the British administration during the late nineteenth

century looked at sciences for solutions. By this time significant advances in the agricultural

sciences have been witnessed in Europe. Embarking on the systematic application of science

in crop production the British administration appointed Voelcker, the consultant chemist with

the Royal Society of England, for suggestions on improvement of Indian agriculture.

Voelcker recommended for the development of scientific enquiry as he believed that it is the

domain of science that can explain the principles underlying good cultivation practice, and

can help to extend the applications of these principles to make fresh discoveries that benefit

agriculture. Also, the need for scientific enquiry in agriculture was highlighted by the Famine

Commissioners and the Government of India recognized that scientific enquiry into

agricultural practices was a prerequisite for agricultural improvement. It may be noted that

the initial experiments in agriculture in India were manurial experiments with fertilizers taken

up by the British in experiment stations set up as part of scientific inquiry into agriculture.

However, the first institutional attempt in agriculture in India began with the creation

of Departments of Agriculture based on the recommendations of the Famine Commission

Report of 1880. The departments, apart from carrying out famine relief works, were

mandated to conduct scientific enquiry into agriculture practices for improvement. However,

by 1890 the need for augmenting agricultural enquiry was realized with the recognition that

the Agricultural Departments were inadequate to carry out such a system of enquiry. Based

on the observations of J.A. Voelcker that ‘the Directors of Departments of Land Records and

Agriculture are primarily occupied with administrative duties, and have neither time nor the

technical acquaintance with agriculture which would enable them to devote themselves to the

subject of agricultural improvement’ (Voelcker, 1894: p310), a permanent agency for the

purpose of agriculture enquiry was set up in 1890. The recommendations of Voelcker,

consequently led to the appointment of the Imperial Agricultural Chemist in 1892, the

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 6

Imperial Mycologist in 1901, and the Imperial Entomologist in 1903. This was the beginning

of inducting scientific approach into Indian agriculture. Any historiographic account on

science in Indian agriculture recognizes the contributions of Voelcker whose

recommendations formed basis for the establishment of the Imperial Agricultural Research

Institute in 1905 at Pusa, in Bihar (now known as Indian Agricultural Research Institute,

located at New Delhi). Similar initiatives in livestock research also began with the

establishment of the Imperial Bacteriological Laboratory (now known as Indian Veterinary

Research Institute) in 1889 at Pune.

Rise of Scientific Institutions in agriculture in India

Institutional research in agriculture in India got impetus with the establishment of

Imperial Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) in 1929 based on the recommendations of

the Royal Commission on Agriculture. After independence it was renamed as the Indian

Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). Specific crop based research began to emerge with

the setting up of a number of Commodity Committees dealing with research in crops namely

cotton, lac, oil seeds, tobacco, areca nut, spices, cashew nut, and other crops. In 1965 as part

of the reorganization of the ICAR the Commodity Committees were abolished and were

merged with ICAR. All the federal funded research activities relating to crops, commodities,

animal sciences, and fisheries were brought under one umbrella. Keeping the peculiarities of

the vast and varied agro-climatic conditions of the country in mind, Regional Committees

were set up for eight agro-ecological zones. Along with the establishment of agricultural

universities, to provide education and research in agriculture, Agricultural Scientists

Recruitment Board was created to recruit agricultural scientists to work in various research

institutes and projects of the ICAR. Other major programmes such as All India Coordinated

Research Projects and National Agricultural Research Project (NARP) have been launched

subsequently to strengthen research capabilities in various agricultural research universities

across the country (Balaguru, undated).

The Present System

Over the years, Indian agricultural research system evolved into one of the largest

agricultural research systems in the world employing about 31,000 scientists engaged in

agriculture research and education (Mruthyunjaya and P Ranjitha 1998). The ICAR, the

public funded organization, directly monitors and administers research in the areas of crop,

animal and fishery sciences (refer Table 1). The agriculture research, education and training

is overwhelmingly under public sector carried out by various institutes at national, state and

zonal level spread all over the country. There are four multidisciplinary national institutes

engaged in research, teaching and training for manpower development in agriculture, animal

husbandry, fisheries and agricultural extension. They are Indian Agricultural Research

Institute (IARI), Indian Veterinary Research Institute (IVRI), National Dairy Research

Institute (NDRI), Central Institute of Fisheries Education (CFIE) and National Academy of

Agricultural Research Management (NAARM). There are forty-five central research

institutes located in various parts of the country carrying our basic and applied research in

agriculture and allied sectors. Apart from these, ICAR also promotes research schemes /

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 7

projects related to agriculture and allied areas in collaboration with research institutions in the

country through All India Coordinated Research Projects (AICRPs). The AICRPs are

problem oriented projects which provide common platform for scientists working on similar

problems from different institutions to exchange information and expertise on specific crop or

problem. The first AICRP was established in 1957 in maize crop and the success of this later

on led to the establishment of 61 such projects on various crops and problems. The AICRPs

are considered as vital components of agriculture research India (Alam, 2004). Similar to the

coordinated research projects there are twenty five Project Directorates in the country

entrusted with the responsibility of maintenance and supply of germplasm and monitoring

pests and diseases etc in specific crops such as rice, wheat, poultry and oil seeds. The

National Research Centers, which are seventeen in number, consist of scientists from

different disciplines working on problems related to particular crop or commodity or a

problem area of research with national relevance. The six National Bureaux established by

the ICAR collect and conserve genetic resources in plants, animals, fish and soil and

microorganisms with an aim at long term productivity.

Another key initiative of the ICAR is the establishment of Krishi Vigyan Kendras

(Farm Science Centres), popularly referred to as KVKs, with an aim to assess, refine and

demonstrate agricultural technologies at the field level. There are 569 KVKs covering all the

districts in the country. They are mandated to conduct on-farm trials on various agricultural

technologies, organize frontline demonstrations to establish potential of the new technology

or practice or variety, conduct training camps for farmers to update, transfer knowledge and

skills in modern agricultural technologies and train extension personnel to orient them in

frontier technology development. Based on the recommendations of the Committee on

Independent Evaluation and Impact Assessment of KVKs. The KVKs are assigned the task of

acting as resource and knowledge centres of agricultural technology for supporting public,

private and voluntary initiatives for improving the agricultural economy of the districts.

Table 1: ICAR research institutions involved in agricultural research and education in

India

ICAR Research Institutions Number

National Institutes 4

National Research Centres 17

All India Coordinated Research Projects 61

Directorates/Project Directorates 25

National Bureaux 6

Krishi Vigyan Kendras 569

State Agricultural Universities 44

Central Agricultural University 1

Deemed Universities 4

Agricultural education in India

Inculcating scientific temper among young students, training them in scientific

inquiry and equipping them with skills in agricultural research were soon recognized as

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 8

important prerequisites for furthering scientific research in agriculture. The University

Education Commission (1949) thus recommended for setting up of `Rural Universities'

(Balaguru, undated). Also, the first and second Joint Indo-American Team reports submitted

in 1955 and 1959 respectively as well as the Ford Foundation Study Team of 1959

recommended the formal teaching of agricultural sciences at university levels. On the

recommendations made by Agricultural Universities Committee constituted under the

Chairmanship of Dr Ralph W. Cummings in 1960, the ICAR developed a model act that

proposed for setting up of agricultural universities in India in collaboration with six US Land

Grant Institutions (Randhawa, 1968). The agricultural universities set up in collaboration

with the US Land Grant Colleges are Uttar Pradesh Agricultural University (collaborating

LGC (CLGC)- University of Illinois), Punjab Agricultural University (CLGC- Ohio State

University), Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University (CLGC- Kansas State University),

University of Udaipur (CLGC- Ohio State University), Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa

Vidvalaya (CLGC- University of Illinois), Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology

(CLGC- University of Missouri), Mysore University of Agricultural Sciences (CLGC-

University of Tennessee), and Maharashtra Agricultural University (CLGC- Pennsylvania

State University). The collaborating Land Grant Colleges trained teachers of the Indian

agricultural universities and provided equipment grant for research. Agriculture education in

India, as a specialized course, begins at the under graduation level.

Based on the recommendations of the Second Education Commission (1964-66) for

setting up at least one agricultural university in each state and as per the guidelines of the

ICAR’s Model Act in 1966, one agricultural university was set up in every state. However,

now many states have multiple universities to meet regional needs. There are at present 44

State Agricultural Universities, 4 Central Universities offering agricultural courses, and one

Central Agricultural University in the North Eastern Region (ICAR, 2011)

Since independence, agricultural science in India responded to the needs of the

country and agriculture research played a crucial role in achieving the insurmountable task of

food security to its burgeoning population. The scientific community responded to the task

with nationalist zeal and successfully demonstrated the social responsiveness of science.

Along with many divisions in ICAR crop science is the division that anchors research

programmes in food grain and non-food grain crops. The crop science division with its

network of 13 national institutes including a deemed-to-be-university, 3 bureaus, 9 project

directorates, 2 national research centres, 27 all-India coordinated research projects, and 5 all-

India network projects focuses on 6 commodity/subject-specific technical sections, namely,

(i) Food and Fodder Crops, (ii) Oilseeds and Pulses, (iii) Commercial Crops, (iv) Seeds, (v)

Plant Protection, and (vi) Intellectual Property Rights (ICAR, 2011). The crop science claims

to have developed nearly 3,300 high-yielding varieties/hybrids of field crops for different

agro-ecologies, which raised productivity in food grains by two to four folds since 1950-51.

Embarking on advanced technological development the crop sciences division of ICAR

forayed into biotechnology research as well (ICAR, 2011).

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 9

Agricultural research and social outcomes

Any discussion on science in agriculture in India would be incomplete without a

reminiscence of the contributions of crop sciences to green revolution. Scientists and the

scientific institutions worked as a collective towards realizing the national goal of achieving

food security. The strategies evolved and disseminated to augment crop production,

comprising a set of practices like use of high yielding variety seeds responsive to fertilizers

and water, and adoption of scientific cultivation procedures, together referred to as green

revolution technology. Apart from the state policy interventions in land reforms, irrigation

infrastructure, extension system and institutional credit, minimum support price etc. the

science of crop production played a commendable role in improving productivity in a number

of crops. Biplab Dasgupta (1977) attributes the success to ‘miracle seeds’ suggesting that it is

because of the dwarf variety seeds used in the green revolution technology more yields were

possible. Phenomenal growth in productivity in crops like rice, wheat was possible because

of new seeds developed in the science of plant breeding. Ladejinsky (1973) claims that green

revolution technology transformed the traditional Indian agriculture into ‘modern’ with a

package of new practices. According to D N Dhanagare (1987) green revolution is a package,

involving both ideology and practice, of ‘large scale application of modern science and

technology to agriculture’ and hence green revolution has to be understood as a broader

ideology of rural transformation. Green revolution was viewed as a solution for rural poverty

and hunger. However, others reject such notion because green revolution was very selective

and its spread undermined long term agricultural sustainability (Bardhan, 1985). In the same

vein, through a number of empirical works they also brought forth the unintended

consequences of green revolution on the Indian social, political and economic structure to the

centre stage of development discourse which in a way contributed to the shift in the

epistemology of crop sciences in the years to come.

India’s tryst with food production begins with green revolution. Green revolution in

India stands testimony to socially responsive public policy. It may be hailed as the

benchmark for the collaborative role of research, public policy and executive. It was the state

policy that catalyzed research, development and diffusion of agricultural innovations. The

role of state institutions in research and extension was pivotal in the success of green

revolution. Many high yielding varieties and hybrids in food and non-food crops were

introduced through research by agricultural scientists working for various state funded

research stations and universities. The zeal with which these technological innovations have

been diffused was remarkable. With the concerted efforts by the scientists new high yielding,

pest/disease resistant, stress tolerant and quality varieties have been developed.

It is equally important to note that green revolution can also be considered as the best

example for what public domain research can do to a developing country like India. The

results of the research were disseminated through a nation-wide network of extension system.

As a result, from the stage of chronic food shortage, India reached the stage of exporter of

food grains. The growth rates in area, production and yield for food crops depicted in Table 2

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 10

suggest that since 1955 India made significant strides in production and yield when compared

to area. Data reveal that, while the increase in the area under food crops has come to

stagnation since 1980s the production of food grains witnessed a steady increase. Data also

reveal the very important trend concerning the contribution of science to food crops. A

comparison of area, production and yield between 2009 and 1953 data suggest that while the

growth rate in the area under food crops is only 26.21, the growth rates in production and

yield are 361 and 265 respectively. It may be surmised that scientific research in crop

production contributed immensely to the food security of the country. In fact the agricultural

growth in India is noteworthy because since 1950s the productivity in food grains increased

by nearly 3.3 times, fruits by 1.6 times, vegetables by 2.1 times, aquaculture by 5.6 times,

milk by 1.8 times and 4.8 times in eggs (Rai, 2004).

Table 2: Area, production and yield of food crops from 1950 to 2009

Year Area Growth rate in

Area

Production Growth rate in

Production

Yield Growth rate in

Yield

1950-51 97.32 - 50.82 - 522 -

1955-56 110.56 13.60 66.85 31.54 605 15.90

1960-61 115.58 4.54 82.02 22.69 710 17.36

1965-66 115.1 -0.42 72.35 -11.79 629 -11.41

1970-71 124.32 8.01 108.42 49.85 872 38.63

1975-76 128.18 3.10 121.03 11.63 944 8.26

1980-81 126.67 -1.18 129.59 7.07 1023 8.37

1985-86 128.02 1.07 150.44 16.09 1175 14.86

1990-91 127.84 -0.14 176.39 17.25 1380 17.45

1995-96 121.01 -5.34 180.42 2.28 1491 8.04

2000-01 121.05 0.03 196.81 9.08 1626 9.05

2005-06 121.6 0.45 208.6 5.99 1715 5.47

2008-09 122.83 1.01 234.47 12.40 1909 11.31

Area - Million Hectares; Production - Million Tonnes; Yield - Kg/Hectare

Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation,

Agricultural Census Division, retrieved in September 2011.

The discourse on green revolution in social sciences deals with the role of the

scientific institutions, as a part of a larger discussion on the social impact of green revolution

technology. The extent of attention paid to assess the social impact of green revolution often

overlooks the contributions of science to society. The efforts of the scientific community

towards meeting the challenges of the time and the institutional mechanism that ensured

research have been either missed out or did not get due attention. It is not an exaggeration to

suggest that without the establishment of scientific institutions in agricultural research and

education and the nurturing of scientific rationality such a progress in agriculture wouldn’t

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 11

have been possible. Often while dealing with growth in agriculture social scientists give

credit to the institutional measures in credit, irrigation and price policies disregarding the role

of scientific institutions.

It is important to recognize the contributions of crop sciences not only for realizing

the ultimate goal of achieving self sufficiency in food grain production but also for the

manner the institutions tackled the problems which cropped up during the course of

addressing the national food challenges. For example, the knowledge of crop production

borrowed from the West was not always suitable and the scientists had to work out ways for

its adaptation. Similarly, when a HYV seed variety addressed the problem of productivity,

it’s susceptibility to certain pests and diseases posed new challenges. The context of

application of scientific outcomes was a challenging task which the scientific institutions

addressed by expanding or entering into new areas of research by establishing institutions

with specific mandate.

However, a critical appraisal suggests that the process of institutionalization of

agricultural research has its epistemological basis in the empiricist-positivist tradition and has

been linear. The institutional setup in agricultural research in the country was grounded on

the borrowed methodologies and ideologies. The most important critical observation from

social scientists on green revolution is about its unintended social consequences (Ladejinsky,

1973; Dhanagare, 1987; Joshi, 1999). Studies on the social consequences of green revolution

claim that the seed-fertilizer-irrigation intensive strategy of crop production paved way for

capitalist transformation of Indian agriculture through industrial products such as chemical

fertilizers, synthetic insecticides and herbicides. Large farmers, endowed with financial

resources and access to agricultural information benefited with green revolution while the

small and marginal farmers lost out to the wild market forces. The high-cost and high-yield

green revolution technology, particularly in cereal crop cultivation, forced unsustainable

capital investments, beyond the means of a majority of small and marginal farmers pushing a

large section of small, marginal and tenant farmers into debt trap. Dhanagare (1987) observes

that, owing to the capitalist penetration of the countryside, the process of de-peasantisation

has been accelerated and consequently a large number of small and marginal farmers or poor

peasants have been pushed to the ranks of landless labourers. Green revolution technology

changed the production and productivity in the irrigation areas but it neither benefited the

non-irrigated regions nor addressed the problems related to farming in the dry regions (Joshi,

1999). Agarwal (1981) points out that ‘the fruits of green revolution technology have been

pocketed mainly by big farmers and the disparity between the rich and the poor has further

increased’. The intensive cultivation practice of green revolution demands high labour use

which only the affluent farmers can afford (Ladejinsky, 1973). D K Gill and S K Saini (1991)

report that the benefits of capital intensive green revolution were differentially distributed

across the rich and poor farmers owing to the economic inequalities. The rich farmers could

reap benefits while the poor farmers benefited only marginally because of their incapacity to

afford to adopt new technology. In some cases the green revolution 'trinity’ of chemical

fertilisers, pesticides and hybrid seeds brought the majority of peasants both into indebtedness

and into dependence on multi-nationals and the state (Omvedt, 1991).

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 12

As a corollary, divergent views on the relevance of green revolution technology began

to emerge. It is argued that the HYV and fertilizer technology is neither feasible nor desirable

for Indian conditions (Bhatia, 1988). At another level, on the environment front, it is reported

that green revolution led to contamination and exploitation of natural resources.

Indiscriminate use of ground water for irrigation, non-judicious use of chemical fertilizers

and pesticides brought the questions of sustainable development to the agendas of researchers

in crop sciences. Moreover, issues such as susceptibility of crop varieties to new pests and

diseases, perceived inability of crop sciences to augment yield potential using conventional

crop science research tools raised concerns about the limitations of green revolution and

paved way for new scientific approaches such as molecular biology.

Asides, a number of factors related to agriculture contributed to the shift in crop

sciences from productivity-efficiency linked growth to sustainable development. Factors such

as advances in molecular biology, globalization induced trade agreements and intellectual

property rights, rise of transnational companies in agriculture, economic restructuring in the

developing countries have changed the research agendas and processes in crop sciences,

affecting the institutional context as well. Particularly, advances in molecular biology offered

opportunities for proprietary knowledge in agriculture. The formalization of world trade also

necessitated the scientific institutions in developing countries to effect compatible regimes

and innovation systems with the intellectual property regime. The shift in the nature and

priorities of research in crop sciences is critical in the evolution of science of crop production

as it marked the beginning of proprietary research, a greater amount of which is located in the

private domain. This shift is critical for social scientists too because it also effected changes

in the social relations of research/knowledge production denoting the drift from public funded

institutions to private research organizations. The shift may be found in other sciences too,

however, in crop sciences it attracts greater attention of the social researchers, particularly

those working in the area of science, technology and society studies because crop sciences

founded the basis not only for food security of the nation but also for equitable distribution

and access.

Crop science research in the contemporary context

Modern science paradigm overwhelmed other approaches towards crop production.

Working with the same paradigm, which often referred to as green revolution paradigm for

its emphasis on improved seeds, chemical fertilizers, irrigation, the agricultural research

institutions in the country in a way pushed western ideology and methodology. Referring to

the development of agricultural research in the country Rajeswari Raina (2009) contends that

when the US Land Grant Colleges model was applied in India the USAID (and the Ministry

of Agriculture, government of India) ‘decided to forget the philosophy and transfer the model

instead’. This emphasis on western methodology is often credited to have scuttled other

alternate approaches towards crop production. Such an approach has not posed great risks to

the community of farmers as long as the deliverables were located in the public domain and

farmers received them through state interventions. However, the post 1990s era marked by

liberalization of economy and revision of agriculture policies began to alter the relationship

between state and science by enabling private participation in agriculture.

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 13

The critical appraisal of science of crop production began to emerge in the post-

liberalized regime in India. The agrarian crisis witnessed in India in the post 1990s is largely

attributed to the withdrawal of state from research and extension, opening up of private

partnerships in crop science research, policy provisions for private investments in plant

breeding with adequate market safeguards for such investments. This phase also saw the

decline of public research in crop sciences as a result of change in the attitude of state

towards agriculture as it started to consider agriculture as ‘private good’. Private investments

in crop science research came into those crops which offer remunerative returns and focused

on those categories of farmers who can afford to invest. The capitalist tendencies in

agriculture research intensified the maladies of agriculture inherent within and effects were

more prominent on the vulnerable sections of farmers than before. AR Vasavi (2012), in her

book ‘Shadow Space’ provides an excellent account of retrogression which crept into rural

India and agriculture during the post liberalization period that is marked by a large number of

farmers’ suicides.

Locating the arguments in the small and marginal farmer context, the critiques of

research and development in crop sciences in post liberalization began to offer alternative

paradigms. Non-essentialist, sustainable and economically viable alternatives to the

mainstream explanations of crop production started to emerge. Non-pesticidal management,

biological and genetic diversity, sustainable practices, biosafety are some of the key notions

that gained ground in the discourse on alternatives in crop science. More critical of biosafety

of genetically modified seeds, chemical intensive agriculture and capital intensive crop

production practices the advocates of alternate practices focused attention at building science

of crop production that is farmer friendly rather than market friendly. Serious questioning of

the assumptions of mainstream crop science like soil, plant and pathogens led to an

alternative paradigm. For example, ‘system of rice intensification’ (SRI) as an approach of

rice cultivation which emerged in the precincts of civil society organizations, offers

alternative to the green revolution based seed-irrigation-fertilizer intensive cultivation.

Methodology

Data for the study were collected from the members of the scientific community

located in agricultural science institutions in the country. Data from the key informants

located in institutions and universities like Indian Rice Research Institute, Directorate of Rice

Research, IARI, and state Agricultural universities and research stations in Tamil Nadu,

Karnataka and Orissa were collected through personal in-depth interviews. An online survey

was conducted with the agricultural scientists located all over the country. The respondents

were identified by accessing the information about the agriculture research

institute/university and were approached through e-mail requesting them to complete the

online questionnaire. Members of the civil society organizations who have been actively

engaged in the popularization of certain alternate knowledge based crop cultivation practices

such as SRI were also approached. Members from the scientific community working within

formal research institutions involved in testing, evolving new methods of crop cultivation

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 14

have also been approached and data were collected from them through personal in depth

interviews.

Results

The findings of the study are presented in this section of the report. They are

discussed in two parts. The first part presents the data collected from agricultural scientists

located in various agricultural research stations/universities through an online survey about

their perceptions on agricultural research in the country. The second part presents the case

study of SRI chosen as an alternate knowledge claim.

Part A: Perceptions of agricultural scientists on agricultural research in the

contemporary context

Scientific understanding of the causal factors of productivity in crops and efficiency

of crop management enabled increasing crop yields significantly. The standardized practices

of crop production have been translated into package of practices and conveyed to farmers.

The entire exercise of developing the deliverable technologies has been taking place in the

institutions of crop science established by the ICAR and other state funded institutions in the

country. The details of the growth of agricultural research in the country and the present

status are given in the earlier part of this report. It may be mentioned here that agricultural

research in the country has been the monopoly of the state and any deliverable technologies

must be coming out from the state agricultural research stations or universities. Even if any

technology is developed outside these institutions it must be duly approved by the state

funded agricultural research institutions. A technology thus approved finds place in the state

extension agenda and has a scope for receiving funds for further research.

What is important to note is that the state institutions of crop science have greater

control over the knowledge produced and disseminated in the country. In other words, these

institutions have become the centres for certifying knowledge without whose appraisal and

approval any innovative technology would not find place in the state’s extension and research

agenda. In this context it is important to understand the attitudes of the scientific community

towards the current agriculture scenario in the country, apart from agricultural science and its

problems. Sociologically speaking, the attitudes, interests and meanings held by individuals

are reflections of their socialization and culture of research. The present study made an

attempt to critically examine the perceptions of scientists working in various agricultural

research institutes/universities in the country towards alternate knowledge claims in particular

and status of agriculture in the country in general.

For this purpose, the survey was conducted using a questionnaire consisting of

statements intended to measure attitudes of scientists was developed and pre-tested. Later

through a website (www.surveyface.com) which offers posting of survey online for free, the

questionnaire was sent to the scientists located in various agricultural research

stations/universities in the country. The contact details of the scientists like e-mail id, phone

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 15

number, affiliation were obtained through internet sources. The web link to the survey was

communicated to the respondents through their e-mail. In all, 1541 scientists were

approached and about 128 mails bounced back. Later the scientists were contacted through

phone calls to persuade them to complete the survey online. The web link to the survey was

also popularized through certain specific e-groups like jaisri, KICS, etc. to reach out to as

many scientists possible. Despite such intensive effort the number of viewers of the survey

website was 227 while only 50 preferred to complete the survey. Nevertheless the responses

for the survey have been informative for that they provided intriguing insights into the issues

raised in the questionnaire. Below is the analysis of such data which proceeds with a brief

academic and institutional profile of the respondents and moves into the issues concerning

attitudes of scientists.

The gender profile of the respondents indicates that 40 men and 10 women scientists

participated in the survey. Over the years the recruitment to ICAR/State agricultural

University research or faculty positions has been limited to those candidates who possess a

Masters degree in agricultural sciences. Earlier, in the first three to four decades of

establishment of agricultural research and teaching institutions in the country, candidates with

a Masters degree in basic subjects even without agricultural science degree were also eligible

to apply and compete. For example, Masters Degree holders in Botany, Economics,

Chemistry, Sociology, Mathematics and Statistics were allowed to compete with those

candidates holding a Masters degree in agricultural sciences. Later on the eligibility for

recruitment for the positions in all ICAR institutions and State agricultural universities has

been limited to Masters Degree holders in agricultural sciences from agricultural universities

in the country. Thus a Masters Degree holder in Botany or Chemistry or Economics or

Sociology became ineligible to enter into ICAR institutes or State agricultural universities.

This aspect requires a critical appreciation as it has larger implication for agriculture in the

country.

Data on educational qualifications reveal that more than 75 percent of the respondents

hold a Ph.D. degree in agricultural sciences (refer Table 3). More than 70 percent of the

respondents have above 10 years of experience in research as well as in the present

designation (refer Table 4 and 5). Significantly about 12 percent of the respondents have

more than 30 years of experience (this also includes those who retired from service).

Considering that the designation of respondents indicates their nature and intensity of

responsibilities, data were collected from the respondents about their designations. Data

reveal a spectrum of designations ranging from Scientist/Assistant Professor to Principal

Scientist/Professor to National Fellow. Some of the respondents have retired serving at key

high positions also (refer Table 6).

Table 3: Educational Qualification

Qualification No. of Respondents (%)

M.Sc. in Agricultural Science 7 (14.29)

M.Sc. in non-Agricultural Sciences 1 (2.04)

Ph.D. in Agricultural Sciences 37 (75.51)

Ph.D. in non-Agricultural Sciences 4 (8.16)

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 16

Post-Doctorate in Agricultural Sciences 6 (2.24)

Post-Doctorate in Non-Agricultural Sciences 1(2.04)

Not Answered 1(2.04)

Total Respondents 49

Table 4: Years of experience in Research

Number of Years No. of Respondents (%)

1-10 years 14 (28)

11-20 years 19 (38)

21-30 years 11 (22)

Above 30 years 6 (12)

Total 50

Table 5: Years of service in the present Designation

Number of Years No. of Respondents (%)

1-5 years 6 (12)

6-10 years 9 (18)

11-15 years 9(18)

16-20 years 10 (20)

21-25 years 9 (18)

26-30 years 1 (2)

Above 30 years 6 (12)

Total 50

Table 6: Designation

Designation No. of Respondents

Principal scientist 8

Scientist 12

Senior scientist 14

Professor 6

Associate Professor 4

Assistant Professor 2

Director/Dean 2

Research Scholar 1

National Fellow 1

Total 50

Respondents were also asked to reveal their area of specialization. After looking at the

wide range of specializations reported by the respondents it was decided to collapse them into

broad areas of specializations. Thus it may be found from data that about 24 percent belong

to plant breeding, 16 percent to agricultural economics followed by agricultural extension and

other specializations which include horticulture, innovations, etc. This suggests the fact that

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 17

data were collected from respondents belonging to varied specializations. The areas of

specialization in doctoral work is not found to be significantly different from what they are

pursuing now (refer Table 7). Some of the areas of specializations at doctoral level as

reported by the respondents include Plant breeding, Plant physiology, agricultural extension,

climate change, plant protection, soil science, Molecular biology, Agricultural Economics,

Horticulture, Post-harvest technology, etc.). As regards the details of the organization

majority of the respondents (58 percent) are located in ICAR institutes while 34 percent are

located in state agricultural universities (refer Table 8).

Table 7: Present Area of Specialization

Area of Specialization No. of respondents (%)

Agronomy 4 (8)

Agricultural Extension 5 (10)

Soil Science 2 (4)

Agricultural economics 8 (16)

Environment and climate change 4 (8)

Plant breeding and genetics 12 (24)

Plant protection 3 (6)

Water Management 4 (8)

Others* 9 (18)

Total 51

* include areas like farm machinery and power, innovations, nanocomposite

technology, horticulture, etc.

Table 8: Type of Organization

Type of organization No. of respondents (%)

State Agricultural Universities 17 (34)

ICAR institutes 29 (58)

Autonomous Research Institute 1 (2)

Other places 3 (6)

Total 50

Nature of research

Given the fact that the nature of projects in agricultural sciences are largely group

based and coordinated projects, apart from projects which are funded on individual basis,

data were collected about the nature and number of projects the respondents are currently

engaged in. Table 9 suggests that about 43 percent of the respondents are handling a project

as a principal investigator and about 59 percent of them are involved as a member of two to

four project teams. Only 9 percent have more than four independent projects and 16 percent

are involved in more than 4 projects as a group member. A majority of these projects are

related to plant breeding, followed by water conservation in various crops (more specifically

in rice using SRI methods), technology transfer (those engaged in agricultural extension

work), organic farming, SRI, issues of food security and other related topics (refer Table 10).

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 18

Table 9: Research Projects being carried out

No. of research projects No. of respondents

As a Principal Investigator (%) As s member of a project team (%)

1 project 18 (43.48) 5 (11.36)

2-4 projects 13 (28.26) 26 (59.09)

More than 4 projects 4 (8.7) 7 (15.91)

Not involved in any project 9 (19.57) 6 (13.64)

Total 46 44

These areas of research are related to the project they are currently involved in. It was

also probed about the areas of research the respondents are engaged outside the project areas.

This probing was necessary for the fact that scientists do pursue research in the area of their

interest even though it falls outside the purview of the research they are engaged as part of

the project. Often, during our personal interaction with scientists, it was highlighted that as

part of the institution’s mandate the scientists are supposed to carry out projects in the thrust

areas of institution which they call as ‘institution’s mandate’. Those who carry out funded

research as obligation to the institute do engage themselves in pursuing research in the areas

dearer to them. Some such areas are SRI, organic farming, study on causes for farmers’

suicides, agricultural extension, etc.

Table 10: Broad areas of the current research problems being handled – related to one’s

project

Area of research work No. of respondents

Technology transfer 6

Plant breeding 11

Climate change 3

Water conservation and water use

efficiency

9

Food security, pro-poor farmer

Resources and capacity building

3

Plant protection 2

Plant physiology 1

Organic farming and SRI 6

Conservation Agriculture 1

What is the basis for arriving at certain research problems? With an intention to

understand this the respondents were asked to mention their choice against a set of statements

related to the probable sources of inspiration. As discussed, institution’s thrust area of

research has been overwhelmingly influencing the scientists to seek funding to pursue

research. This is evident from Table 11 which suggests that about 70 percent of the

respondents carry out research in the institution’s thrust area. About 59 percent of the

respondents mentioned that they draw inspiration for research through their interaction with

farmers. About 44 percent mentioned that they draw inspiration for research problem from

the gaps identified in their area of specialization, thus they seek problems from their earlier

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 19

studies or from studies conducted by others (refer Table 11). However when it comes to the

identification of research areas or sub areas, an overwhelming (about 92) percentage of

respondents observed that farmers’ concerns play a significant role (refer Table 12). This is

followed by the factors like individual’s (scientist) conviction about a given problem,

institution’s mandate and the priorities of the funding agencies which influence the selection

or identification of research problem. It may be suggested here that the concerns of the

industry seem to be playing an insignificant role in the identification of research problems.

This is evident from the responses given in Table 12 for the statement ‘concerns of the

industry play a significant role in identifying the research problem’ for which only fifty

percent of the respondents agreed. However, this requires further probing as it may be

observed that not many scientists are willing to divulge information (only 26 have responded

to this statement whereas other statements received response from nearly forty respondents).

When this fact is cross examined with the responses for a question on the sources on which

scientists rely for arriving at research problems (Table 13) it is evident that industrial

concerns and applications do influence the selection of research problems. Table 13 reveals

that about 85 percent of the respondents stated that potential for commercial application of a

research outcome as the reason for the selection of a research problem. This, however, comes

next to the preference to the statement that questions from the field influence their choice of

selection of research problem (about 95 percent).

Table 11: Source of inspiration for the research problem currently handled

Sources No. of responses (%)

Drawn from earlier studies carried out by me 11 (26.83)

Drawn from earlier studies carried out by others 4 (9.76)

Drawn from both the above sources 18 (43.9)

Some fellow scientists of the country suggested the

problem

2 (4.88)

Some fellow scientists outside the country suggested the

problem

1 (2.44)

Some fellow scientists suggested the problem (both

National and International)

5 (12.2)

Drawn from regular interaction with farmers 24 (58.54)

Institution's thrust area 29 (70.73)

Drawn from regular interaction with industry 6 (14.63)

Total number of respondents 41

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 20

Table 12: Reasons for identification of research areas or sub-areas

Options Agree (%) Disagree (%) No. of

respondents

Concerns of the industry play a significant

role in identifying the research problem

13 (50.00) 13 (50.00) 26

Farmers concerns play a significant role in

identifying the research problem

36 (92.31) 3 (7.69) 39

Government priorities play a significant role

in identifying the research problem

26 (74.29) 9 (25.71) 35

I generally arrive at the problem based on

my conviction

33 (84.62) 6 (15.38) 39

Institution plays a significant role in

identifying the research problem

30 (83.33) 6 (16.67) 36

Priorities of the funding agencies 23 (76.67) 7 (23.33) 30

Table 13: Reliance on sources for arriving at research questions

Options Agree (%) Disagree (%) No. of

respondents

Inadequacy in the present literature 27 (71.05) 8 (21.05) 35

Potential for commercial

application

33 (84.62) 3 (7.69) 36

Questions encountered in the field 37 (94.87) 1 (2.56) 38

Modern science is goal oriented and methods adopted are means to achieve the stated

objectives of the research study. Intending to measure the attitude of scientists towards the

goals of their research, a set of statements were provided in the questionnaire along with a 6

point response scale which moved from most preferred to least preferred objectives (refer

Table 14). Respondents were asked to prioritize six statements according to their choice from

1 to 6 with 1 being the most preferred to 6 being the least preferred. This was aimed at

arriving at the most preferred research objectives and least preferred research objectives.

Then the six points were collapsed into two point measurement as the first three clubbed

under the ‘most preferred’ and the last three clubbed as the ‘least preferred’ categories.

Subsequently based on the responses received, the statements were arranged in the

descending order under each category (refer Table 15 and 16).

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 21

Table 14: Objectives kept in mind while formulating the research problem

Most

preferred (%)

Least

Preferred (%) No. of

respondents

Leading to further research 12 (33.33) 24 (66.67) 36

Problem solving 30 (85.71) 5 (14.29) 35

Productivity 26 (68.42) 12 (31.58) 38

Publication of papers 7 (17.94) 32 (82.06) 39

Technology generation 16 (41.02) 23 (58.98) 39

Yield efficiency 26 (74.29) 9 (25.71) 35

It may be ascertained from Table 15 that the most preferred objectives of research are

problem solving (86 percent), yield efficiency (74 percent) and productivity (68 percent). The

objectives concerning publication of papers (82 percent) and leading to further research (67

percent) figure on top of the list under the least preferred objectives (Table 16). As discussed

earlier in this part, institution’s mandate plays a significant role in identifying the research

problem, it was uncertain to what extent scientists in agricultural research institutions felt

independent in pursuing research problems. When this aspect was probed it was observed that

about 66 percent of the respondents felt that they enjoy autonomy in formulating research

problems to a great extent (refer Table 17). Only 27 percent observed that they enjoy limited

autonomy in the formulation of research problem.

Table 15: Most preferred objectives

Order Item No. of respondents

1 Problem solving 30 (85.71)

2 Yield efficiency 26 (74.29)

3 Productivity 26 (68.42)

4 Technology generation 16 (41.02)

5 Leading to further research 12 (33.33)

6 Publication of papers 7 (17.94)

Table 16: Least preferred objectives

Order Item No .of respondents

1 Publication of papers 32 (82.06)

2 Leading to further research 24(66.67)

3 Technology generation 23(58.98)

4 Productivity 12 (31.58)

5 Yield efficiency 9 (25.71)

6 Problem solving 5 (14.29)

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 22

Table 17: Autonomy in formulating research problem

Extent of autonomy No. of respondents (%)

To a great extent 27 (65.85)

To a limited extent 11 (26.83)

Can't Say 2 (4.88)

I have no control over this 1 (2.44)

Total 41

Relevance of social and structural differentiation in agricultural research

In the context of emerging agrarian scenario in the country which is marked by an

overwhelming presence of farmers belonging to lower strata of social hierarchy and lower

class category as well. The swelling numbers of small and marginal farmers point towards the

impending need to streamline and orient agricultural research to the needs of these sections of

farmers. The science of crop production is founded upon the positivist epistemological

framework which considers scientific findings as universal and applicable in any given

context with moderate scope for variations. However, in the emerging context the need for

modifying the paradigm and revisiting the assumptions of farm and farmer with which the

scientific community in agricultural research stations and universities work has become

imperative. In order to know the attitude of scientists towards this emerging reality it was

attempted to know whether they consider the social differentiation of farm holdings as an

essential part of the research process. Findings suggest that an overwhelming majority of

respondents believe that this (social differentiation along caste and gender lines) is not

relevant in agricultural research. About 81, 60 and 54 percent of the respondents consider

social differentiation is irrelevant in developing new varieties, in formulating the research

problem and in taking up collaborative research projects respectively (refer Table 18).

However about 59 percent believe that social differentiation becomes essential in conducting

field demonstrations and in developing new technologies (50 percent). Similarly, it was also

attempted to know to what extent the structural differentiation of farmers along land holding

influences formulation research problem. It was found that 91 percent of the respondents felt

that structural differentiation of farmers along land holding was relevant in developing new

technologies while 81 percent felt the same with relation to conducting field demonstrations

(Table 19). On the other hand, a moderate percent of respondents (68 and 62) felt that land

holding was irrelevant in taking up collaborative projects and in developing new varieties

respectively. This high level of awareness among the scientists with relation to class

categories rather than social categories of caste and gender may be ascribed to the very strong

bearing of agricultural economics in the agricultural sciences. Agricultural economists have

been working with the class category since a long time and hence land holding has become an

essential category in research. Will it become an acceptable category for research in

agricultural sciences if farmers are categorized on the basis of caste? This may be possible

with the active involvement of sociologists and anthropologists along with agricultural

extension specialists in the departments of agricultural science. The emphasis on such

orientation is not aimed at bringing political orientation to research but to highlight the fact

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 23

that social and cultural aspects of farmers do influence their access to knowledge, disposition

to new technologies and orientation to put the technologies to better use. It may be mentioned

here that a small or marginal farmer belonging to upper castes may become the natural choice

of agricultural researchers for their various kinds of interaction rather than a dalit farmer.

Table 18: Social differentiation and agricultural research

Relevant (%) Irrelevant (%) No. of respondents

In conducting field demonstrations 23 (59) 16 (41) 39

In developing new technologies 20 (50) 20 (50) 40

In developing new varieties 7 (19) 30 (81) 37

In formulating the research problem 16 (40) 24 (60) 40

In taking up collaborative projects 18 (46) 21 (54) 39

Table 19: Structural differentiation and agricultural research

Relevant (%) Irrelevant (%) No. of respondents

In conducting field

demonstrations

29 (81) 8 (19) 37

In developing new technologies 30 (91) 3 (9) 33

In developing new varieties 10 (28) 26 (62) 36

In formulating the research

problem

25 (74) 9 (26) 34

In taking up collaborative

projects

10 (32) 21 (68) 31

Issues concerning agricultural research

Academic science is largely state funded in India. Agricultural science is no exception

to this. Science seeking solutions to problems faced by farmers has been on the top priority of

the state in terms of funding. During the phase of green revolution state funding to research in

agricultural sciences was the only source. However, over a period, with the changes in the

macroeconomic structure in the country and changes in the trade and commerce worldwide,

the entry of private corporate institutions into Indian agriculture is being witnessed. Since

then, research funding in agriculture began to come from both national and international

private sources as well. With an intention to know the perceptions of scientists towards

research funding and other related issues a set of questions were incorporated in the survey.

The key factors that influence perceptions of scientists towards research funding

could be: funding for the topic of their choice and sufficient funding besides the source of

funding. Data reveal that about 65 percent of the respondents are of the opinion that they

have received funding for their choice of topic. Significantly 35 percent expressed that they

have not received funding for the topic of their choice. Intending to know further, the

respondents’ perception were collected along a set of statements (refer Table 20). It may be

found from Table 20 that funding agency’s (64 percent) priorities play a significant role in

funding a research project. Nature of research project in terms of its familiarity by the

funding bodies also plays a role in funding (52 percent). Most interestingly epistemological

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 24

issues concerning research project also influence funding as is evident from the responses

presented in Table 20 in which equal number of respondents (50 percent) agreed and

disagreed with the statement that a research topic whose outcomes are difficult to evaluate or

intangible. As regards the satisfaction levels among the respondents about the research

problem they are handling 97 percent observed that they were satisfied. However 56 percent

also reported that they could have handled a better research problem than the one they are

handling now.

Table 20: Reasons for insufficient/denial of funding

Reasons for insufficient/denial of funding Agree Disagree No. of

respondents

Body which looked into the proposal do not have

adequate knowledge about the area/topic

11 (52) 10 (48) 21

Doesn't fit into the funding agency's mandate 14 (64) 8 (36) 22

Doesn't fit into the institution's mandate 11 (41) 16 (59) 27

Proposed topic doesn't fit the standard research protocols 12 (44) 15 (56) 27

Proposed topic was considered but the board felt that it

falls outside the agricultural science paradigm

9 (38) 15 (63) 24

Proposed topic was viewed as difficult to evaluate against

its outcomes as the outcomes were somewhat intangible

12 (50) 12 (50) 24

In order to understand the problems associated with agricultural research a set of

statements elicited through interaction with scientists prior to the preparation of survey and

during the pre-testing stage were given against which the responses were recorded. It may be

observed from Table 21 that 91 percent respondents were of the opinion that lack of trained

laboratory staff has been a major problem in conducting research. Similarly issues like lack

of funding for research area of one’s interest, lack of motivated students and lack of skilled

workers to conduct experiments have been highlighted by the respondents (refer Table 19).

To another question whether they were denied funding for a research topic of their interest a

majority (about 45 percent) of the respondents agreed with the statement while 39 percent

disagreed and 16 percent were non committal. The reasons for denial of funding ranged from

lack of knowledge about the research problem among the persons who evaluated to the

proposal, incompatibility with the research paradigm to its irrelevance in terms of benefits to

the farming community.

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 25

Table 21: Problems associated with the conduct of research

Problems associated with the conduct of

research

Agree (%)

Disagree (%) No. of respondents

Lack of funding for area of my interest 20 (71) 8 (29) 28

Lack of motivated students 21 (72) 8 (28) 29

Lack of proper feedback from farmers 10 (38) 16 (62) 26

Lack of skilled workers in the field to conduct

experiment

20 (71) 8 (29) 28

Lack of space for experimental plots and other

facilities

16 (62) 10 (38) 26

Lack of trained laboratory staff 31 (91) 3 (9) 34

Probing further on why the research problem was viewed as something that doesn’t fit

into the institution’s mandate a set of statements were given in the survey. Majority (more

than 70 percent) of the respondents disagreed with the statements which range from

incompatibility of the proposed research topic with the established research standards, goals

of research to the insignificance of research problem in terms of country’s priority (refer

Table 22) and only 30 percent agreed with the statement that the research problem was not

significant in terms of country’s priority.

Table 22: Reasons for viewing research topic/problem as something that doesn't fit into the

institution's mandate

Agree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

No. of

respondents

Incompatibility of established research standards 6 (26) 17 (74) 23

Incompatibility of objectives/goals of research 6 (25) 18 (75) 24

No visible outcomes 6 (29) 15 (71) 21

Not Scientific 4 (18) 18 (82) 22

Not significant in terms of country's priorities 7 (30) 16 (70) 23

Origin of the problem is not rooted in agricultural sciences 5 (20) 20 (80) 25

Interaction with farmers

Agricultural research grew in strength in India because of its participatory nature.

However, over a period due to a number of reasons there appears to be a disconnect between

research and farming community. It is mentioned by a number of scientists in their personal

interaction with the researchers that during the pre-liberalization period or before the entry of

private players into agriculture they had a close interaction with farmers. Such interaction,

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 26

claimed to have provided them opportunity to take up issues of farmers’ concern for research

or fine tune their research priorities. In the evolving context the nature of interaction with

farmers has been changing. With an intention to know how the scientific community perceive

grasp such change, a series of questions were posed to the scientists. A majority of the

respondents (76 percent) stated that their research requires interaction with farmers and 50

percent of them suggested that they meet farmers at least once a month and 43 percent

suggested that they meet farmers once a season (refer Table 23). All the respondents

observed that they interact with farmers whenever farmers visit the research

institution/university on the occasions of kisan mela or exhibition, etc. 96 percent of the

respondents mentioned that they go to farmers whenever there is a requirement and 90

percent mentioned that farmers come to their office to discuss issues (refer Table 24).

Table 23: Intensity of interaction with farmers

Intensity of Interaction No. of respondents (%)

At least once a month 14 (50)

At least once a season 12 (43)

At least once a year 1 (3.5)

No interaction at all 1 (3.5)

Table 24: Place of interaction with farmers

Agree (%)

Disagree (%)

No. of

respondents

I make it a point to meet farmers whenever

they visit our institution on certain occasions

like kisan mela or exhibitions etc.

22 (100) 0 22

I go to farmers whenever I am in a need to

know from them

23 (96) 1 (4) 24

Farmers come to my office/lab/field 18 (90) 2 (10) 20

I interact with farmers whenever I go to

villages or 'happen' to meet farmers

22 (92) 2 (8) 24

Contact farmers over phone 15 (83) 3 (17) 18

When asked to express their opinion about the interaction outcome with farmers 97

percent noted it to be satisfactory. And probing further the respondents were asked to rate the

level of satisfaction on a set of predetermined statements (refer Table 25) on a scale of 1 to 5

with 1 being most satisfactory to 5 being least satisfactory. As majority of the respondents

(about 84 percent) observed that the interaction with farmers is satisfactory because farmers

narrate their problems during the interaction. 88 percent suggested that interaction with

farmers help them getting firsthand feedback. However, only 54 percent mentioned that

interaction derives moderate to high satisfaction as it provides them inputs for further

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 27

research. Intending to know the stage at which scientists prefer to interact with farmers

responses were collected against a set of predetermined statements on a three point scale. 71

percent of the respondents mentioned that most preferred stage of interaction with farmers is

the research problem formulation stage (refer Table 26). However, about 94 percent (most

preferred and preferred options together) observed that they prefer to interact with farmers

continuously during the experiment stage. As regards the preferred modes of interacting with

farmers about 81 percent of the respondents observed they prefer direct interaction with

farmers whereas the least preferred mode is reliance on state department personnel (39

percent).

Table 25: Outcome of interaction with farmers

Level of satisfaction – no. of respondents (%)

Most satisfactory to least satisfactory

Total no. of

respondents

1 2 3 4 5

Farmers narrate their

problems

12 (46) 10 (38) 3 (12) 1 (4) 0 (0) 26

I get first-hand

information

11 (46) 10 (42) 2 (8) 0 (0) 1 (4) 24

I get inputs for further

research

8 (33) 5 (21) 9 (38) 2 (8) 0 (0) 24

Table 26: Stage of interaction with farmers

Most

Preferable (%)

Preferable

(%)

Least

Preferable (%)

Response

Count

At the end stage to conduct field

trial/demonstration

6 (22) 9 (33) 12 (44) 27

At the research problem

formulation stage

22 (71) 9 (29) 0 (0) 31

Continuously during the

experiment

14 (47) 14 (47) 2 (7) 30

Table 27: Preferred modes of meeting farmers

Directly

approach

farmers (%)

Rely on local

leaders to

reach out to

farmers (%)

State department

personnel help

you to reach out

to farmers (%)

Farmers

come to meet

you (%)

Response

Count

Most preferred

mode

26 (81.25) 2 (6.25) 1 (3.13) 3 (9.38) 32

Preferred mode 6 (19.35) 11 (35.48) 6 (19.35) 8 (25.81) 31

Least preferred

mode

3 (9.68) 7 (22.58) 12 (38.71) 9 (29.0) 31

As mentioned, as scientists’ interaction with farmers is undergoing change and so is

the opinion of scientists about farmers. Table 28 presents data on scientists’ opinion on

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 28

farmers which was assessed against a set of predetermined statements. 93 percent view that

farmers are enthusiastic to learn and 88 percent believe that farmers receive knowledge from

scientists (refer Table 28). 56 percent disagree with the statement that farmers are not

interested in agriculture while 52 percent believe that farmers are interested only in material

given free of cost. To what extent farmers take scientists suggestions seriously? To know

scientists’ opinion on this, when the question was asked, only about 45 percent of the

respondents agreed to the statement that farmers take scientists’ suggestions seriously (refer

Table 29). Interestingly 36 percent had no idea about this. Interaction with farmers also

provides scientists an opportunity to get feedback about the research problems, suggestions

made, etc. In this regard, a question was asked about the sources on which scientists rely for

getting feedback from farmers. Data reveal that scientists prefer approaching farmers directly

(74 percent) rather than relying on state department personnel (51 percent) (refer Table 30).

Table 28: Scientists’ opinion on farmers

Agree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Response

Count

Farmers are enthusiastic to learn 24 (93) 2 (8) 26

Farmers are interested only in material

given free of cost

11 (52) 10 (48) 21

Farmers are not interested in agriculture 11 (44) 14 (56) 25

Farmers are not very enthused to seek

opinion from scientists

7 (29) 17 (71) 24

Farmers receive new knowledge from

scientists

21 (88) 3 (12) 24

Table 29: Scientists opinion on farmers’ reception of suggestions from scientists

No. of respondents (%)

Strongly Agree 4 (12.9)

Agree 14 (45.16)

Can't Say 11 (35.48)

Disagree 1 (3.23)

Strongly Disagree 1 (3.23)

Total 31

Table 30: Sources for getting feedback from farmers

No. of respondents (%) Total no. of

respondents

Directly

approach

farmers

Rely on local

leaders to

reach out to

farmers

State department

personnel help

you to reach out

to farmers

Farmers give

you feedback

directly

Most preferred

source

23 (74.19) 2 (6.45) 1 (3.23) 5 (16.13) 31

Preferred source 5 (16.67) 4 (13.33) 9 (30) 12 (40) 30

Least preferred

source

2 (7.41) 7 (25.93) 14 (51.85) 4 (14.81) 27

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 29

Reflections on contemporary agriculture in the country

In the context of rapidly changing agrarian situation in the country which is marked

by the large presence of small and marginal farmers belonging to lower strata of society,

declining state support in input delivery and extension, entry of private players into

agriculture inputs market, poor administrative monitoring mechanism and most importantly,

the resource poor (economical, social and cultural resources) farmers taking up agriculture in

a big way, it is suggested that the agricultural scientific community must respond and do the

needful. Keeping this status of agriculture in mind a series of questions were incorporated in

the survey to assess the social responsiveness of the scientists in the country.

Table 31: Relevant priorities for scientists in the current agricultural scenario

Priorities for research No. respondents (%) Total no. of

respondents

Most relevant Least relevant

Economically viable research

outcomes

10 (40) 15 (60) 25

Efficiency increasing research

outcomes

8 (32) 17 (68) 25

Environmentally friendly research

outcomes

14 (56) 11 (44) 25

Productivity increasing research

outcomes

16 (55) 13 (45) 29

Small and marginal farmer

friendly research outcomes

17 (65) 9 (35) 26

Sustainable research outcomes 19 (68) 9 (32) 28

As presented in Table 31 scientists’ perceptions towards relevant priorities in the

current agricultural scenario was assessed through a set of statements against which the

respondents were asked to respond on a six point scale. Later the scale was collapsed into two

categories as most relevant and least relevant. It may be found from Table 31 that the

responses are moderate on both the categories for the given statements. Issues pertaining to

efficiency and economically viable research outcomes have been considered as less relevant

as far as their priorities are concerned. At the same time the respondents have expressed

moderate approval with the statements which suggest for prioritizing sustainable, small and

marginal farmer friendly and environmentally friendly outcomes. Productivity appears to be

low on priority for the respondents in the evolving agrarian context.

State has been instrumental in bringing success during the green revolution phase.

However, owing to changes in the wider context, state’s role in agriculture appears to be

declining. As regards the perceptions of scientists about the state’s role in agriculture, a

majority of the respondents strongly agree (61 percent) with the statement that state has to

take the research findings to farmers. At the same time they also strongly disagree with the

statement that state should withdraw from agriculture and leave agriculture to market players.

Interestingly the statement that ‘scientists have no role in taking the research findings to the

farmers’ receives more balanced responses from respondents (refer Table 32). Similarly when

asked to respond to the statements pertaining to the role of state in agriculture in general,

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 30

majority of the respondents (97 percent) agree with the statement that state should play an

active role in agriculture. Majority of the respondents also disagree (77 percent) with the

statement that state should withdraw from agriculture and leave it to private players (refer

Table 33). It is a fact that as a result of liberalization and economic restructuring the role of

state in agriculture research has been declining. Echoing this, majority of the respondents (56

percent) agree with the statement that the state institutions are lagging behind private research

initiatives in agriculture today. At the same time about 34 percent disagree with the statement

while 10 percent are non committal.

Table 32: Perceptions on the role of state vis-a-vis agriculture research

No. of respondents (%) No. of

respondents

Most

agreeable

Agreeable Least

agreeable

It is the state which has to take the

research findings to farmers

17 (60.71) 8 (28.57) 3 (10.71) 28

Scientists have no role in taking the

research findings to the farmers

6 (21.43) 9 (32.14) 13 (46.43) 28

State should withdraw from agriculture

and leave it to private players

0 (0) 4 (14.81) 23 (85.19) 27

Table 33: Perceptions on the role of state in agriculture

Role of state in agriculture No. of respondents (%) No. of

respondents

Agree Disagree

State must play an active role 25 (96.15) 1 (3.85) 26

State must play an active role but it should

limit itself to guiding and regulating the

private efforts

11 (55) 9 (45) 20

State must leave agriculture to the market

forces

5 (22.73) 17 (77.27) 22

Agrarian crisis

Farmers’ suicides reflect the pathological status of agriculture in the country.

Although it is difficult to single out a particular social institution, but necessarily, different

institutions that work to provide equitable space for every individual to live with dignity have

failed to perform. In this sense agricultural research and teaching institutions of the country

cannot remain as bystanders. In the light of this situation, it was attempted through the survey

to understand how the scientific community is viewing the evolving agrarian crisis in the

country and where does agricultural science stand in this unfolding scenario. To start with, it

was attempted to know whether the scientific community is aware of farmers’ suicides, for

which all the respondents expressed in positive. Regarding the sources of information about

farmers’ suicides, more than 95 percent suggested media as the main source.

Intending to know how the scientific community positions agricultural sciences in this

agrarian crisis, a set of statements were drafted against which the respondents were asked to

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 31

mark their response in agreement or disagreement. Not surprisingly majority of the

respondents were in disagreement with statements which try to link farmers’ suicides with

agricultural science research, role of state, and the role of agricultural scientists. A large

majority observed that other factors like credit and market related issues and incapability of

farmers in using technologies as the probable reasons for suicides (98 percent and 92 percent

respectively) (refer Table 34).

Table 34: Reasons for farmers’ suicides in the country

Reasons for farmers’ suicides in

the country

No. of respondents (%) Response Count

Most agreeable Least agreeable

Agricultural science research does

not address their problems

5 (22) 18 (78) 23

Farmers are not trained to use the

agricultural technologies

23 (92) 7 (8) 25

Government failed to take the

technologies to the farmers

9 (35) 12 (65) 26

Other factors like credit and

market prices are the reasons for

suicides

26 (96) 1 (4) 27

Suicides are not related to

agricultural problems

10 (37) 17 (63) 27

We as agricultural scientists have

no clue about the reasons

5 (19) 21 (81) 26

Intending to understand how scientists feel about farmers’ perception on them,

(scientists) the respondents were asked to respond to a set of statements related to the position

of agricultural scientists among farmers through agreement or otherwise. A majority of the

respondents (85 percent) disagreed with the statement that farmers have stopped relying on

agricultural scientists for suggestions implying that farmers continue to rely on agricultural

scientists (Table 35). About 54 percent believe that farmers are in need of information from

scientists but scientists are not accessible. 60 percent believe that farmers' needs are met by

agricultural department personnel who carry the information provided by the agricultural

scientists.

Responding to a question on the relevance of agricultural scientists’ work in overcoming the

present agricultural situation which is not so favourable for the small and marginal farmers,

the response was mixed. Only about 40 percent stated it to be relevant while 36 percent

confirmed that it is relevant to a limited extent (Table 36).

Table 35: Position of agricultural scientists among farmers

Agree (%) Disagree (%) No. of respondents

Farmers are in need of information from

scientists but scientists are not accessible

14 (53.84) 8 (30.77) 22

Farmers have stopped relying on 2 (7.69) 22 (84.61) 24

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 32

agricultural scientists for suggestions

Farmers' needs are met by agricultural

department staff who carry the

information provided by the agricultural

scientists

15 (60) 9 (36) 24

Farmers' needs are met by private market

sources hence they don't depend on

agricultural scientists

9 (36) 12 (48) 21

Table 36: Relevance of agricultural scientists’ work in overcoming the present agrarian crisis

No. of respondents (%)

Relevant to a great extent 10 (40)

Relevant to a limited extent 9 (36)

Farmers’ needs are met by the agricultural

department staff

0 (0)

Agricultural scientists are not bothered about the

problems arising due to non-agricultural related

issues

4 (16)

Not relevant 1 (4)

To a question on the most important problems faced by farmers in the country, a

majority of the respondents observed that high input costs, non-remunerative prices, lower

yields, irrigation water scarcity, problems with soil, losing glory for agriculture in villages,

state apathy as the key problems. When asked to identify the key problems with agricultural

research the issues such as lack of coordination, lack of funds, preoccupation with current

(positivist) paradigm, lack of sensitivity to the marginalized (poor & marginal) farmers

especially in disadvantaged areas, preoccupation with publications, lack of freedom, poor

knowledge and skill levels, lack of visibility and poor image, incorrect feedback from

farmers, too much specialization, poor management of research institutions have been

reported by the respondents. Similarly, the respondents were asked to enlist some important

contributions from government agricultural institutions. As per the responses the important

contributions of government agricultural institutions are productivity enhancement, green

revolution in the sixties and seventies, promotion of farmer-led extension, SRI, market

oriented research and outreach, standardization of package of practices and development of

protocols for value addition and public private partnerships. Respondents were also asked to

mention some important contributions from private agricultural research in the last ten years.

It was observed that the important contributions of the private research are availability of

inputs, development of micro irrigation equipments, technology from other countries (for

example, Bt cotton), hybrid seed production, new molecule of pesticides, weedicides, market

orientated research, mechanization and growth promoters.

It is often reported in many academic and popular circles that there exists a gap in the

best management practices recommended by scientists and field practices of farmers.

Intending to know how scientists perceive this, a set of statements related to different crop

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 33

cultivation practices was given. A majority of the respondents (see Table 37) observed that

farmers do not follow the recommended practices appropriately. The magnitude of

disapproval of farmers’ practices is high on pesticide dosage, fertilizer dosage, use of

machinery and tools and seed rate. However a majority (58 percent) approve of the practices

followed in land preparation. It is evident from the responses that there is a gap between the

best management practices and adoption at field level. The extent of gap was suggested to be

between 30 to 60 percent as a majority of the respondents (56 percent) reported to a question

on the extent of gap (see Table 38).

Table 37: Scientists’ perception on adoption of recommendations by farmers

Follow appropriately Do not follow appropriately Response Count

Tillage 14 (58) 10 (42) 24

Seed rate 7 (30) 16 (70) 23

Inter cultivation practices 12 (55) 10 (45) 22

Weedicides dosage 7 (33) 14 (67) 21

Fertilizer dosage 3 (13) 20 (87) 23

Pesticides dosage 2 (9) 21 (91) 23

Harvesting practices 9 (39) 14 (61) 23

Use of machinery/tools 6 (27) 16 (73) 22

Table 38: Extent of gap between recommended practices and farmers’ practices

Extent of Gap No. of respondents (%)

Less than 10% 1 (4)

Between 10% and 30% 8 (32)

Between 30% and 60% 14 (56)

Between 60% and 90% 2 (8)

Total 25

Those who demand for critical examination of present agricultural research paradigm

that is dominated by positivist methods and approach also call for participatory research

involving farmers at every stage of research. The research agendas which are oriented to

address the problems of not just productivity and efficiency but also relevant at the small and

marginal farmers’ context are being demanded by the civil society organizations, social

scientists and environmentalists. In this context scientists’ perception on farmers’ knowledge,

and yield as a parameter to evaluate success or relevance for farmers was assessed using

questions presented in Table 39 and 40. A majority of the respondents observe that farmers’

traditional knowledge is highly relevant in overcoming the problems of agriculture and

environment. A significant number of respondents also observe that farmers’ traditional

knowledge is relevant to a great extent at small and marginal farmers’ level and at socially

backward farmers’ level. However, a majority of respondents believe that farmers’ traditional

knowledge is either not relevant or relevant to a limited extent in increasing yields. At the

same time respondents also observe overwhelmingly (81 percent) that yield alone should not

be considered as parameter for recommendation to farmers. In line with the preceding

discussion on positivist paradigm of green revolution, a set of statements were given to

record the opinion of scientists about their opinion on the benefits of green revolution (see

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 34

Table 40). A large majority (88 percent) observed that green revolution increased yields

while a 62 percent disagree with the statement that green revolution added to the problems of

environment implying a positive opinion about green revolution. However, it is interesting to

note the contradiction in opinions that green revolution helped in increasing yields (56

percent) while believing that green revolution did not benefit farmers (68 percent) although it

benefitted the nation (56 percent).

Table 39: Relevance of farmers’ traditional knowledge in the present context

Relevant to a

great extent (%)

Relevant to a

limited extent (%)

Not relevant

(%)

Respons

e Count

At small and marginal

farmers' level

12 (46.15) 9 (34.62) 1 (3.85) 22

At socially backward

farmers' level

9 (33.33) 8 (29.63) 3 (11.11) 20

In increasing the yields 7 (26.92) 8 (30.77) 8 (30.77) 23

Problems of agriculture

today

13 (52) 10 (40) 2 (8) 25

Problems of environment

today

14 (51.85) 11 (40.74) 1 (3.7) 26

Table 40: Scientists’ perceptions on green revolution

No. of respondents (%) Response Count

Most agreeable Least agreeable

Added to the problems of the

environment

9 (38) 15 (62) 24

Benefited farmers 8 (32) 17 (68) 25

Benefited nation 15 (56) 12 (44) 27

Increased yields 22 (88) 3 (12) 25

Contesting the prevailing positivist paradigm that drives agricultural research,

alternatives have begun to emerge. These alternatives claim to overcome the limitations of

green revolution based input intensive crop production by considering the environment,

sustainability at small and marginal context, and also the resource poor regions. Some of

these popular alternatives are the system of rice intensification (SRI), non-pesticidal

management (NPM) and organic farming. The common features of these alternatives are that

they basically emerge from outside the institutions of science, through active participation of

farmers and strongly advocated by civil society groups. In this context an attempt was made

to know the perception of scientists located in various agricultural research stations and

universities on these alternatives. The responses were assessed against a set of statements

related to SRI, organic farming and non-pesticidal management. Responding to the

statements on SRI an overwhelming majority observes that SRI methods are appropriate at

small and marginal farmers level and are environment friendly (92 and 84 percent

respectively). At the same time the respondents do not agree with the statements that SRI is

not scientific, and do not deliver the needs of the country (Table 41). Similar views were

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 35

echoed for organic farming and non-pesticidal management as well (see Table 42 and 43).

This implies that scientists believe in the scientificity of these claims coming from outside the

institutions of science and also that they deliver the needed at the small and marginal farmer

levels and they are environment friendly. Overwhelming majority of the respondents disagree

with the statement that claims of these alternatives cannot be trusted as there is no scientific

basis for these claims.

Table 41: Benefits of SRI as perceived by respondents

Benefits from SRI No. of respondents (%) Response Count

Most agreeable Least agreeable

They are environment friendly 21 (84) 4 (16) 25

These methods of cultivation are

appropriate for small and marginal

farmers

24 (92) 2 (8) 26

These methods have limited

applicability in the Indian context

10 (39) 16 (61) 26

They do not deliver the needs of the

country

7 (27) 19 (73) 26

They only work on paper but not in

reality

5 (19) 21 (81) 26

They cannot be trusted as there is

no scientific basis for these claims

3 (12) 22 (88) 25

Table 42: Benefits of organic farming as perceived by respondents

Benefits from Organic Farming No. of respondents (%) Response Count

Most agreeable Least agreeable

They are environment friendly 24 (89) 3 (11) 27

These methods of cultivation are

appropriate for small and

marginal farmers

18 (72) 7 (28) 25

These methods have limited

applicability in the Indian context

15 (60) 10 (40) 25

They do not deliver the needs of

the country

11 (44) 14 (56) 25

They only work on paper but not

in reality

10 (40) 15 (60) 25

They cannot be trusted as there is

no scientific basis for these

claims

4 (16) 21 (84) 25

Table 43: Benefits of Non-pesticidal management

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 36

Non-Pesticidal Management No. of respondents (%) Response Count

Most agreeable Least agreeable

They are environment friendly 23 (88) 3 (12) 26

These methods of cultivation are

appropriate for small and marginal

farmers

17 (65) 9 (35) 26

These methods have limited

applicability in the Indian context

14 (56) 11 (44) 25

They do not deliver the needs of the

country

11 (44) 14 (56) 25

They only work on paper but not in

reality

9 (36) 16 (64) 25

They cannot be trusted as there is

no scientific basis for these claims

4 (16) 21 (84) 25

Moving beyond mere capturing of opinion of scientists about the benefits of

alternative technologies a set of statements were given to know the views of scientists on the

specifics of each of these technologies (see Table 44-46). It may be observed from data that

these technologies have been viewed by the respondents as water use efficient (SRI and

Organic Farming), environment friendly (all three, with high level agreement on non-

pesticidal management), small and marginal farmer friendly (with moderate agreement on

organic farming and non-pesticidal management), and yield efficient. It may be observed that

SRI has been viewed as a technology that can guarantee optimum or maximum yields while

organic farming and non-pesticidal management are believed to be not suitable as they cannot

guarantee optimum or maximum yields.

Table 44: Perceptions of scientists on claims of SRI

No. of respondents (%) Response Count

Most agreeable Least agreeable

Water use efficiency 25 (96) 1 (4) 26

Environment friendly 18 (72) 7 (28) 25

Small and marginal farmers friendly 14 (61) 9 (39) 23

Not suitable as they cannot guarantee

maximum/optimum yields

2 (8) 23(92) 25

Yield efficiency 23 (92) 2 (8) 25

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 37

Table 45: Perceptions of scientists on claims of Organic Farming

No. of respondents (%) Response

Count

Most agreeable Least agreeable

Water use efficiency 9 (38) 15 (62) 24

Environment friendly 24 (96) 1 (4) 25

Small and marginal farmers friendly 12 (52) 11 (48) 23

Not suitable as they cannot guarantee

maximum/optimum yields

14 (56) 11 (44) 25

Yield efficiency 12 (50) 12 (50) 24

Table 46: Perceptions of scientists on claims of Non-Pesticidal Management

No. of respondents (%) Response

Count

Most agreeable Least agreeable

Water use efficiency 6 (25) 18 (75) 24

Environment friendly 25 (96) 1 (4) 26

Small and marginal farmers friendly 11 (50) 11 (50) 22

Not suitable as they cannot guarantee

maximum/optimum yields

15 (60) 10 (40) 25

Yield efficiency 13 (54) 11 (46) 24

Specifically aiming to understand the priority areas of agricultural research in the last

ten years, the respondents were asked to express their opinion on the research projects which

were given very high priority, high priority, low priority and very low priority. Data reveal

that biotechnology related projects, and projects aimed at increasing productivity and

economic sustainability have been given very high priority, pest and disease control projects

were given high priority, soil fertility and organic fertilizers were given low priority whereas

farmer participatory research, crop based research and crop management were given very low

priority.

It is a well known fact that agricultural sciences in the country grew in strength since

independence and diversified into different specializations offering solutions to problems

related to yields, efficiency, etc. When it comes to the application and adoption of

technologies or evaluation of technologies, social science component of agricultural science

is claimed to have provided relevant support. However, in the context of agrarian crisis, the

social science specializations located in agricultural universities came under sharp criticism

for their failure to provide necessary academic as well as research support to core agricultural

science specializations. In this context, a set of questions was posed to the respondents to

assess their perception on social sciences in agricultural science research and teaching. Data

presented in Table 46 reveal that although inputs from social scientists are essential (73

percent) a significant percent of the respondents (67 percent) report that they find it difficult

to get right information from social scientists. Only about 54 percent report that they are

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 38

satisfied with the information provided by the social scientists. Similarly, Table 48 reveals

that 66 percent of the respondents agree with the statement that social sciences are weakly

placed in agricultural universities and a majority (85 percent) also agree with the statement

that social sciences enrich agricultural research and education. On a question seeking

responses on the need for close collaboration between agricultural sciences and social

sciences majority of the respondents (72 percent) agree with the statement.

Table 47: Perceptions of scientists on the inputs from social sciences in agricultural sciences

Agree (%) Disagree (%) Response count

My area of research doesn't need

any inputs from social scientists

4 (17.39) 19 (82.61) 23

My area of research needs inputs

from social scientists and I am

highly satisfied about their inputs

13 (59.09) 9 (40.91) 22

My area of research needs inputs

from social scientists but I find it

difficult to get right information

16 (69.5) 7 (30.43) 23

Table 48: Perceptions of scientists on the position of social sciences in agricultural

universities

Agree (%) Disagree (%) Response count

Social sciences are weakly placed in

agricultural universities

8 (66.6) 4 (33.3) 12

Social sciences are well grounded in

agricultural universities

7 (50) 7 (50) 14

Social sciences do not offer a critical view

of agricultural research

7 (29.1) 17 (70.8) 24

Social sciences enrich agricultural research

and education

17 (85) 3 (15) 20

Part B: Case study – System of Rice Intensification (SRI)

Rice research in India

Rice is the major food crop grown throughout India, in two or three seasons in a year.

Although rice cultivation dates back to many centuries, systematic rice research in India

began in the early 20th Century. The Bengal and Madras provinces established research

stations with a special focus on rice in 1911. A research institute specifically for Rice

research, named, Central Rice Research Institute (CRRI) was established in 1946 at Cuttack.

With the establishment of the International Rice Commission (IRC) by the FAO (Food and

Agricultural Organization), research in rice got impetus and the first result was the

hybridization programme between the fertilizer responsive japonica types and tropically

adapted indica varieties. The CRRI implemented this programme for the benefit of South

East Asia on behalf of IRC and for the Indian states with support from the Indian Council of

Agricultural Research (ICAR). Although the output of the programme fell short of

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 39

expectations, the concept of a regional approach to solve the rice production problems viz.,

photoperiod sensitivity, late maturity, narrow adaptability, non-responsiveness to fertilizers

was ushered in.

The opportunity to elevate the yield potential of rice by utilizing the semi-dwarf

varieties was highlighted by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Philippines, by

the mid 1960s. Thus ‘plant type’ emerged as a breeding objective. Specific shortcomings

such as limited number of semi dwarf varieties then available (e.g. TN1, DGWG, IGT etc.),

however, did not deter the scientific community in pursuing this goal. India played a key role

in adopting this strategy and in rapidly reorienting its rice breeding programmes (then based

on japonica-indica hybridization) towards the development of locally adapted semi dwarf

varieties. Establishment of the All India Coordinated Rice Improvement Project (AICRIP) in

1965 with the responsibility for development and testing of semi dwarf varieties and related

production technologies was the next milestone in the history of rice research in India.

AICRIP capitalized upon the available research infrastructure in different states of India and

successfully introduced a national perspective in technology development and testing.

Over 85 semi-dwarf varieties with high yield potential and tolerance to various

stresses were developed and popularized during 1965-75. In 1975 AICRIP was renamed as

the Directorate of Rice Research (DRR). Research on problems with direct relevance to

production and protection received a new impetus. CRRI was identified as the appropriate

centre for the pursuit of more basic research on the rice plant and biotic and abiotic stresses in

the rainfed crop growing environment and on farm mechanization for rice cultivation. The

DRR was assigned with the responsibility of developing the technologies for irrigated

ecosystem and evaluating the technologies for all the ecosystems, through all-India

coordinated system.

The next phase of developments in technology were addressed to the most favourable

rice growing ecology- irrigated system of the country that had been benefited from the semi-

dwarf varieties. For a further enhancement in yield potential, the development and adoption

of hybrid rice technology became the focus. A national network of research centres devoted

to the development of hybrids was setup. Till now about 29 rice hybrids have been released

including six from the private sector.

Extent of rice cultivation and production

Over the decades rice cultivation and rice production has undergone major changes in

the country (see Table 49 and Table 50 on area under rice cultivation and rice production).

What has began with small incremental gains, rice production increased monumentally over

the last five decades. Although area under rice production increased by 28 percent during

1961 – 2007, the production of rice increased by 181 percent. Substantial gains in production

are possible due to scientific and technological breakthroughs achieved in rice research in the

country.

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 40

Table 49: Harvested area of rough rice (000 ha) in India, 1961-2007

Year All India

(000 hectares)

Change over

previous year (ha)

Year All India

(000 hectares)

Change over

previous year (ha)

1961 34255 - 1991 42649 -38

1962 34934 679 1992 41775 -874

1963 35623 689 1993 42539 764

1964 36074 451 1994 42814 275

1965 35273 -801 1995 42837 23

1966 35598 325 1996 43433 596

1967 36437 839 1997 43446 13

1968 36966 529 1998 44802 1356

1969 37680 714 1999 45162 360

1970 37592 -88 2000 44712 -450

1971 37758 166 2001 44904 192

1972 36688 -1070 2002 41176 -3728

1973 38285 1597 2003 42593 1416

1974 37888 -397 2004 41907 -686

1975 39475 1587 2005 43660 1753

1976 38511 -964 2006 43814 154

1977 40283 1772 2007 43771 -43

1978 40482 199

1979 39414 -1068

1980 40152 738

1981 40708 556

1982 38262 -2446

1983 41244 2982

1984 41159 -85

1985 40912 -247

1986 41167 255

1987 38806 -2361

1988 41736 2930

1989 42167 431

1990 42687 520

Sources: 1961-69: India Directorate of Economics and Statistics. All India estimate of Rice.

(various issues)

1970-99: Agriculture Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy. Agriculture. (various issues).

2000-07/08: Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India.

Source www.irri.org accessed on 26-05-2011

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 41

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 42

Table 50: Rice production (000 t) in India 1961-2007

(Estimated milled rice production figures)

Year India (000 tonnes) Change (000 tonnes) Year India (000 tonnes) Change (000 tonnes)

1961 51386 - 1991 112016 579

1962 47119 -4267 1992 109301 -2715

1963 55334 8215 1993 120447 11146

1964 58099 2765 1994 122721 2274

1965 45983 -12116 1995 115463 -7258

1966 45660 -323 1996 122605 7142

1967 56419 10759 1997 123802 1197

1968 59642 3223 1998 129115 5313

1969 60646 1004 1999 134524 5409

1970 63338 2692 2000 127465 -7059

1971 64603 1265 2001 140010 12545

1972 58868 -5735 2002 107730 -32280

1973 66077 7209 2003 132789 25059

1974 59369 -6708 2004 124698 -8091

1975 73110 13741 2005 137690 12993

1976 63052 -10058 2006 140033 2343

1977 79066 16014 2007 144647 4614

1978 80608 1542

1979 63476 -17132

1980 80312 16836

1981 79883 -429

1982 70681 -9202

1983 90155 19474

1984 87514 -2641

1985 96239 8725

1986 90836 -5403

1987 85293 -5543

1988 105734 20441

1989 110359 4625

1990 111437 1078

Sources: 1961-69: India Directorate of Economics and Statistics. All India estimate of Rice.

(various issues)

1970-99: Agriculture Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy. Agriculture. (various issues).

2000-2007/08: Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India.

Source: www.irri.org accessed on 26-05-2011.

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 43

Historical background to the evolution of SRI

Rice is considered as an aquatic plant requiring submerged water level in rice fields.

Rice cultivation has traditionally been taken up in water impounded paddies and hence rice

has come to be known as water loving crop. The ability of rice to survive and grow under

submerged conditions has further given credence to this view. Hence water usage for rice

cultivation has been the highest among all cereal crops. It is estimated that about 5000 litres

of water is required to produce just 1 kg of rice. This aspect of rice cultivation is undergoing

radical changes and technologies are being aggressively pursued for more water productive

cultivation practices. System of rice intensification (SRI), direct seeding under puddled soil,

alternate wetting and drying are some of these practices. Reducing crop duration without

affecting productivity is another approach (www.drricar.org – vision 2025 document).

Green revolution technology gave a boost to the age old traditional myth that high

yields in rice can be realized only when it is grown in submerged field conditions. By

emphasizing on the use of good irrigation and adequate amount of chemical fertilizers, green

revolution technology provided a framework that worked well until the negative

consequences of such paradigm have been exposed by the proponents of sustainable

agriculture. Social scientists have empirically demonstrated the ill-effects of green revolution

by analysing the inter-regional and intra-regional disparities caused by green revolution in the

country. It was reported that green revolution based rice cultivation technology has been

useful for the regions where irrigation water is abundant and in the farm conditions where

farmers can provide sufficient irrigation by investing money on tube wells, pipelines, etc. The

technological framework of green revolution based rice cultivation thus excluded farmers

who have no access to sufficient water to cultivate rice, and access to credit to buy inputs,

and regions which are poorly endowed (Bhalla, 1979; Ladejinsky, 1973). It is believed that

green revolution technology served the interests of capitalist farmers, farmers in well-

endowed regions, the state (in terms of its priority to obtain adequate food grains to meet the

food security needs of the country, and also subsidised rice offered as election promise in

various states in the country), industrial units dealing with chemical fertilizers and pesticides

(including fungicides and herbicides), state electricity board, traders, millers, etc. At the same

time it has excluded the small and marginal farmers, tenant cultivators, and farmers in the

rain fed regions. On the other hand, the green revolution based rice cultivation technology has

even forced many small landholders to adapt to unsustainable and economically unviable

practice of rice cultivation. For example in trying to imitate large farmers who were

benefitted with irrigation intensive rice cultivation small and marginal farmers also resorted

to digging tube wells even in the dry regions where rice cultivation has been absent or

minimal for many decades for lack of irrigation water. Apart from the state policies like

subsidies on inputs related to rice cultivation, minimum support price for rice and subsidised

electricity, the green revolution technology also played a key role with more attention being

paid by the scientific community of the country to address the problems of rice cultivation at

the cost of other crops like pulses and oil seed crops.

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 44

Green revolution technology in rice although increased productivity, was reported to

be undesirable because of its high water requirement. The use of nitrogenous fertilizers

though enhanced yields significantly (see Tables 49 and 50 on the All India trends in rice

productivity and area under rice cultivation) scientists observe that only 20-30 percent of

nitrogen is actually utilized in the plant growth and the balance is lost due to a variety of

means such as de-nitrification, ammonia utilization and leaching. Green revolution

technology also affected the soil properties resulting in salinisation, soil erosion, water

logging, ground water depletion and pollution. Eutrophication of soil and water bodies has

had a significant negative impact on the ecosystem and its inhabitants.

The system of Rice Intensification (SRI) which emerged as an alternative to green

revolution based rice cultivation claims to enable all sections of farmers, including the small,

marginal and tenant farmers, to cultivate rice, by using less irrigation water and other

chemical inputs. SRI questions the assumption that rice needs submerged water condition.

Rice in SRI cultivation requires only humid conditions than the submerged conditions. Thus,

it saves on the irrigation costs by reducing the irrigation water requirement. It also enables

farmers to increase the extent of rice cultivation on account of reduced irrigation water

consumption in SRI method. Reduction in water consumption under SRI method helps

farmers of all sections to grow rice crop. Pattern of use of ground water in the dry regions

indicates that the affluent farmers use electric motors to irrigate rice crop, resulting in

depletion of ground water, leading to environmental hazards. The advocates of SRI method

suggest that SRI method of cultivation is environment friendly as it requires less water when

compared to conventional method of rice cultivation. The above advantages of SRI place it as

an alternative to green revolution technology. Moreover, SRI is promoted by the civil society

organizations rather than the government organizations which supported the dissemination

and adoption of green revolution technology.

The SRI technology has emerged as an alternative technological paradigm to the

conventional green revolution based technology. It is considered as a civil society initiative.

The civil society groups, mostly in the form of non-governmental organizations, have been

spreading the success of SRI in various countries across the globe. The initiatives of the civil

society organizations are based on the ideology of equity and access to technology to all. This

argument assumes greater significance in the context of food security and food grain

production. The scientific community have been, time and again, highlighting the limits to

growth under conventional green revolution based technological paradigm. Moreover, with

the adverse implications of green revolution on inter-regional disparities and intra-regional

disparities an alternate technology based food grain production system that provides answers

to the conventional green revolution based system and at the same time equitable, and

accessible to all kinds of farmers and sustainable is solicited. Recognizing that SRI fits into

these criteria, it has been advocated and propagated by the civil society and some state led

organizations in a notable way. At this juncture, crop scientists have come out with an

alternative technological paradigm called SRI in addressing the negative consequences of

green revolution technology in Rice. SRI technology was first developed in Madagascar by

Fr. Henri de Laulani, a Jesuit priest, for the benefit of poor farmers in his country. Fr. Henri

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 45

experimented over a decade along with the farmers on the principles of rice cultivation and

developed the practices for rice cultivation completely different from the conventional

method. The potential of this method has been realized and later this was implemented in

many countries including South Asian countries like Sri Lanka, China and India. In India, it

is being promoted by different civil society and state organizations in states like Tamil Nadu,

Orissa, and Andhra Pradesh.

SRI based rice cultivation follows a set of practices which have been resolved through

trial and error over a period. They are:

•Transplanting of very young seedlings between 8 and 15 days old to preserve

potential for tillering and rooting (unlike transplanting seedlings between 21 to 40

days old in conventional method).

•Planting seedlings singly very carefully and gently rather than in clumps in the

conventional method.

•Spacing of seedlings widely, with hills 20-30 cm apart, set out in a square pattern

rather than in rows in conventional method.

•Using specially designed manual weeders to remove weeds and to aerate the top soil

at the same time, whereas in conventional method, herbicides are applied to control

the weeds.

•Keeping the soil moist rather than in the submerged conditions in conventional

method, up to the stage of flowering and grain production.

•Use of organic manure or compost to improve the soil quality, whereas in

conventional method, inorganic synthetic fertilizers are applied.

SRI technology suggests for careful plantation of 8-15 day old seedlings singly as

compared to the practice of 25-30 days in conventional method. It is claimed that

transplanting of young seedlings avoids desiccation and trauma to the roots and does not

interrupt the plant growth. Plants can absorb adequate amount of water and minerals. The

pattern of plantation facilitates the easy operation of mechanical weeder. Before planting the

seedlings, the square pattern of the field is made ready through another mechanical input

called marker, which makes the planting easier in specified pattern. It is claimed that because

of the square planting pattern, SRI gives nearly 40-50 and even more tillers per plant. As a

result, rice under SRI method grows better and healthier when compared to conventional

method. Because of its planting pattern which suggests for maintaining space between and

across the rows, plant gets proper air and minerals from the soil and hence plant yields more.

SRI method of rice cultivation also differs from conventional rice in the application of

chemical fertilizers and manual weeding. SRI suggests for the use of organic manure for

better yield than chemical fertilizers as suggested in conventional method (WWF – ICRISAT

Project, 2010).

Introduction of SRI technology in India:

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 46

SRI technology is not altogether new to India. In the early 1960’s RH Richharia of the

Central Rice Research Institute, Cuttack, proposed a scheme for clonal propagation of rice

that involves separation of 10-12 days old seedlings and multiplying pure seed. But this effort

was ignored for a long time by the researchers. SRI was introduced in India in 2000 when

researchers at the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU) initiated experiments

involving SRI principles in collaborative project on growing rice with less water. T. M.

Thiyagarajan of TNAU, Coimbatore, heard about SRI in 2000 and represented India at the

2002 International Conference on SRI. Following Thiyagarajan’s participation, Norman

Uphoff, from Cornell University, U.S. visited India in May 2002, to present the prospects of

SRI technology to agricultural officials in the southern states of A.P. and Tamil Nadu (WWF-

ICRISAT Project, 2010).

In the year 2003 a package of SRI practices was evolved and tested in 200 farmers’

fields through Tamil Nadu state government initiative to compare the performance of SRI

and conventional cultivation in Cauvery and Tamiraparani river basins. Andhra Pradesh has

witnessed spread of SRI technology after Alapati Satyanarayana, who was the then Director

of Extension, ANGRAU, visited Sri Lanka in the year 2003. SRI method has spread in India

only after organic farmers like Narayana Reddy and Ramaswamy experimented and

experienced super yields. Narayana Reddy considers SRI as ‘the innovation in his life time’

(Prasad, 2006).

SRI is considered as an innovation in rice production because it offers different

explanation of rice plant and water usage from that of conventional and green revolution

technology. At one level if conventional agriculture is considered as the innovation by the

community and green revolution technology as a scientific innovation, SRI may be

considered as civil society innovation. The civil society views SRI as a pro-poor innovation

(Prasad, 2006). In the words of Norman Uphoff (2008), SRI is a designer innovation, which

is more accessible to poor farmers than input-dependant technologies that require capital and

logistical support.

SRI practices are stated to be positively oriented with reference to climate change. It

is estimated that 24-30 percent of the world’s accessible fresh water resources (rivers, lakes

and aquifers) are used to irrigate rice. By 2025, 15-20 million of the world’s 79 million

hectares of irrigated rice low lands, which provide three-quarters of the world’s rice supply,

are expected to suffer from water scarcity. By adapting SRI method it is suggested that water

use for irrigated rice cultivation will be reduced by 25-50 percent. Due to the effects of global

warming and climate change, agriculture is being affected by extreme weather events and

adverse trends such as flooding, drought, cyclones, etc. Advocates of SRI point out that SRI

method of rice cultivation can help reducing methane gas emissions, one of the major green

house gases contributing to global warming. Thus SRI makes rice production more climate

secure (Uphoff, 2008).

An undated ‘Fact Sheet’ published by WWF-ICRISAT (World Wide Fund for

Nature- International Crops Research Institute for Semi Arid Tropics) based on the inputs

from partner organizations and individuals claims the following about SRI method of rice

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 47

cultivation in Andhra Pradesh. ‘Grain yields obtained in farmers’ fields (2003-04) showed

very few cases where SRI yields were lesser than conventional cultivation. SRI performed

well with all the existing high-yielding varieties (HYVs). Grain number/panicle increase

varied from 38-66 percent, with an overall average increase of 48 percent when compared

with conventional flooding. Grain yield advantage with SRI ranged from 21-30 percent, with

overall increase of 25 percent. SRI practice which involves little use of chemicals in the form

of fertilizers/pesticides was found to cost less for the farmer, ranging from 6-19 percent with

a pooled average of 11 percent. Gross incomes grew by an average of 28 percent, narrowly

ranging between 27-32 percent in respect of SRI. Net income was higher by 65 percent. Cost

benefit ratio increased from 41to 60 percent, with a pooled average of 49 percent increase

over the conventional system of rice cultivation. Pest and disease incidence was found

relatively lower in SRI plots as compared to those that used the conventional system,

especially with reference to stem-borer/leaf-folder/brown plant-hopper’ (http://www.sri-

india.net/html/aboutsri_andhrapradesh.html accessed on 25-05-2011). Few successful

initiatives of certain state agricultural departments and civil society organizations on SRI at

the field level have attracted the interest of the scientific community. Such research has

resulted in numerous publications in newsletters and international academic journals (Basu

and Leeuwis, 2012).

The epistemological conundrum

SRI posed considerable threat to the dominant green revolution paradigm in the recent

past. SRI as a civil society innovation differs from modern agriculture that relies on scientists

in the laboratories and on experiment stations. SRI eschews linear models of agricultural

research and development in favour of a more participatory, reciprocal style and considers

farmers not just as adopters but as key partners. Norman Uphoff (2008) calls SRI technology

as post modern agriculture, because a) it is evolved with a greater participation of farmers

and non-scientists in the process of innovation and evaluation and b) it didn’t emanate from

formal-science but evolved as a civil society innovation.

SRI raises both epistemological and ontological questions on rice plant. The

assumption that rice is an aquatic plant is seriously contested by the proponents of SRI and

they prove that rice could be grown even under semi wet conditions. This ontological

question has greater implications as it is believed that rice requires continuous water logging

conditions for effective yields which put greater stress on environment as well as on farmers

involved in cultivation of rice. The epistemological assumptions of green revolution on soil,

chemical fertilizers and irrigation water have been questioned through successful

demonstration of superiority of SRI over conventional green revolution based rice cultivation.

Given the promises of high yields, low water requirement is believed to have motivated the

scientific community to advocate SRI as a pro-poor innovation.

In this context, the study attempted to understand how SRI as a rice cultivation

practice has been viewed by different actors who have been contesting each others’ claims.

The study also made an attempt to decipher the bases of contestations and analyse them from

sociology of science and technology framework.

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 48

Scientific discourse on SRI

Literature on SRI, both in its support and rebuttal, is abundant. Since its spread to a

number of countries in the world and reportage of its advantages over conventional

agriculture espoused through BMPs (best management practices) in various academic and

non-academic journals by scientists and civil society activists, SRI has been attracting strong

opposition from the scientific community located in premier international and national

agricultural universities. For example ‘SRI is characterized as ‘voodoo science,’ said to be

based on unconfirmed field observations (UFOs), with the high yields reported being

described as a ‘consequence of measurement error’ (Thakur, 2010).

Suggesting the plausible reasons for such opposition towards SRI, Basu and Leeuwis

(2012) mention that the introduction of SRI ‘bypassed the normal procedures for the

introduction of new agricultural technologies. The general practice for agricultural extension

in India is that the release of new management packages or technologies (e.g. crop varieties)

to farmers involves quite a few formal procedures. Experimentation with a new variety or a

new methodology of crop cultivation has to be approved by the ICAR in New Delhi. Then it

will be sent for trial in different agro-climatic zones in India. Only when trials yield positive

results can the packages be released for commercial use and wider extension activities. This

whole process of research evaluation usually takes considerable time to reach the ultimate

beneficiaries. But in the case of SRI extension, we witness a radical deviation from this

regular practice’. The other reason given by Basu and Leeuwis (2012) is that ‘SRI had not

originated from the regular channels, as it had been developed by a priest in Madagascar,

reportedly with a lot of farmer input’.

Apart from these reasons a number of articles have come from scientists from premier

agricultural institutions questioning the veracity of the claims on SRI. They have attempted to

show the results from SRI as unscientific, sporadic and due to extraneous reasons. They even

went to the extent of suggesting that funding for SRI testing and evaluation is a waste of

resources. Here in the following part, a glimpse of academic contestation on SRI is provided.

It is recognized by the advocates of SRI that it introduces a paradigm shift for

agriculture, a shift from emphasizing plant breeding and external inputs to better utilization of

local resources and better skills. Quoting the experience on experiment with SRI in Mali,

Styger and others (2011) suggest that

...one of the most important outcomes from the three year SRI work is the impact on

farmers’ and technicians’ thinking about how things are done in agriculture. Many SRI

technical guidelines contradict those from research institutes and the agriculture

service, and often also clash with what farmers think works best. To cite some

examples: (1) farmers in Mali believe that using more water to flood their rice fields

will give higher yields; (2) similarly, it is currently recommended, and believed, that a

higher plant density will increase yields; (3) researchers, extension personnel and

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 49

farmers are convinced that larger applications of chemical fertilizer will give better

results; and (4) many farmers focus on the perceived desirability of new varieties and

complain that their seeds are old and less productive, despite the fact that they already

possess the best varieties available on the market. Experience shows that many of these

assumptions are not true. In Mali, the SRI results surprised nearly every technician and

every farmer, not only as regards yields but also in the challenges to conventional

wisdom about how farming is currently done. We observed that once exposed to SRI

ideas and results, farmers and technicians become more open to new ideas, more

venturesome and creative in their thinking.

A key proponent of SRI, Norman Uphoff (2008) recalls that

‘...since World War II, agricultural innovations have usually followed a linear

sequence in which advances in scientific knowledge are made and then transformed

into technological advances. These are then disseminated through extension

(government) or market (private sector) mechanisms to users, called adopters. SRI as

an innovation follows an earlier pattern where, conversely, technology preceded

science, similar to the sequence seen in the emergence of air travel and transport’.

Karki (2010) in his work on SRI reviews these contestations against and for SRI. He

mentions that scientists have raised questions about the claims on yield benefits. To quote

Karki,

Scientists such as Dobermann (2004), McDonald et al. (2006), Sheehy (2004), Moser

& Barrett (2003), Sinclair (2004) have raised the questions regarding the yield

benefits of SRI. Dobermann (2004) reports that intermittent irrigation in SRI practice

bear short and long term risks. He further reports that SRI favors rice growth on poor

soils but it is likely to have little potential for improving rice production in intensive

irrigated systems on more favorable soils. McDonald et al. (2006) found no empirical

evidence that SRI fundamentally changes the physiological yield potential of rice.

Sheehy (2004) has found no major role of SRI in improving rice yields in his

experiments carried out in China and reported that the extraordinary high yields may

be due to experimental error. But Stoop & Kassam (2005) reacted to Sheehy (2004)

as their research being scientifically and methodologically flawed, and therefore the

validity of their conclusions to be questioned. Moser & Barrett (2003) raised issue

regarding high labor requirement to practice SRI. But Uphoff (2004) clarifies it with

saying that SRI can be more labor-intensive initially but once the farmers have

mastered the methods, it becomes labor saving.

Karki, in an effort to evaluate the adoption and potential environmental benefits of

SRI, conducted a case study in Morang district of Eastern Nepal. He reports that with SRI

methods, the cost of chemical fertilizers was reduced by 48 percent, seed requirement was

reduced by 90 percent, and the cost of pesticide was reduced by 99 percent. In addition, the

farmers in the study area found to have achieved 118 percent increase in rice yield with SRI

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 50

methods compared to non-SRI methods (ibid). He also claims that the effect of SRI on

climate gases particularly CH4 and N2O was positive. He notes that

Significant effect of SRI on the fluxes of CH4 and N2O was observed. The emission of

CH4 from SRI soil exhibited 4 times less than that of non-SRI soil whereas N2O flux

from SRI soil was 5 times less than non-SRI soils. Similarly, the GWP (global

warming potential) of CH4 and N2O emissions were significantly reduced with SRI

treatments. It is well known that agriculture releases significant amount of CH4 and

N2O into the atmosphere and that the global warming induced by the concentration

of such GHGs is a matter for great environmental concern nowadays. SRI practices

not only help to minimize CH4 emissions but also reduce N2O emissions. SRI

practice was found to have double benefits: increase yield and have potential to

reduce climate gas emission to the atmosphere (Karki, 2010)

Zhao and others (2010) based on the field experiments conducted in 2006 ‘to

investigate the impacts of modified rice cultivation systems on: grain yield, N uptake,

ammonia volatilization from rice soil and N use efficiency (ANUE, agronomic N use

efficiency; and PFP, partial factor productivity of applied N)’ through a comparison of rice

production trials ‘using modified methods of irrigation, planting, weeding and nutrient

management (SRI) with traditional flooding (TF) report that

on average, grain yields under SRI were 24% higher than that with TF. Ammonia

volatilization was increased significantly under SRI compared with TF and the

average total amount of ammonia volatilization loss during the rice growth stage

under SRI was 22% higher than TF. With increases in application rate, N uptake by

rice increased, and the ratio of N in the seed to total N in the plant decreased.

Furthermore, results showed that higher ANUE was achieved at a relatively low N

fertilizer rate (80 kg ha-1 N) with SRI. Results of these studies suggest that SRI

increased rice yield and N uptake and improved ammonia volatilization loss from rice

soil com-pared with TF. Moreover, there were significant interactions between N

application rates and cultivation methods. We conclude that it was the most

important to adjust the amount of N application under SRI, such as reducing the

amount of N application. Research on effects of N fertilizer on rice yield and

environmental pollution under SRI may be worth further studying (Zhao, et al. 2010).

Mahajan, Gulshan and P.S. Sarao, (2009) observed in their experiment aimed at

evaluating the performance of SRI against conventional transplanting method that

significant phenotypic changes occurred in plant structure and function but no

significant yield differences were observed in SRI system in comparison to

conventional transplanting system. During 2006, no significant yield differences were

observed in SRI system in comparison to conventional transplanting system. The SRI

system gave 79.8 q/ha grain yield when the nursery date was kept same and 78.4 q/ha

grain yield when transplanting date was kept same against 78.9 q/ha in conventional

transplanting method. During 2007, varietal performance was studied in SRI system.

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 51

SRI transplanting (10 days old seedling) resulted 11.8 and 27.9 per cent increase in

yield over conventional transplanting method and SRI direct seeding method,

respectively. The cultivar 17A/R10 showed superiority in SRI transplanting system

(10 days old seedlings) as compared to cultivar PR-115 and HRI-152, respectively in

terms of grain yield (Mahajan, Gulshan and P.S. Sarao, 2009).

Thakur (2010) observes that ‘significantly large contributions to the literature have

documented enhanced rice productivity, water saving and higher returns with SRI

management’. He further adds that there have also been attempts at comparing SRI practices

with BMPs (Best Management Practices). However, raising the methodological issues, he

wonders whether ‘it is justified to compare two systems which are based on different

philosophies and agronomic management principles with different target groups of farmers

simply in terms of yield’.

Barah (2009) reports that SRI has proven ability to increase rice production by 26 per

cent or more depending on the extent of adherence to its basic principles. He claims that ‘SRI

saves up to 40 per cent water due to alternate drying and wetting system, which is considered

a unique advantage of SRI. The farmers are convinced of the benefits of SRI and hence its

adoption is spreading in larger spatial dimensions’.

Questioning the critics of SRI who claim that ‘little agronomic research had been

done on the new rice methodology to support some of the claims made for it when these were

first presented’, Uphoff (2012) observes that ‘there were indeed few published articles in the

peer-reviewed literature’. Uphoff (2012) points at the fact that

in the peer reviewed literature it was argued that SRI should not even be investigated,

that spending any resources on evaluating SRI would be a waste. Thus, researchers

were steered away from studying SRI, and donors were advised against funding such

studies. Further, there was a bias in some journals against publishing SRI papers...

This created a ‘Catch-22’ situation, where funding was needed to do proper

evaluations of the innovation, but funding for this was simultaneously discouraged

until evaluations had been done.

The statements from Uphoff and Thakur clearly indicate the prevalence of non-

scientific approach within the establishment of modern science about SRI and other

alternatives. It was observed in the interviews with scientists that they view the ‘claims of

SRI and other alternatives like organic farming as unverified claims having no scientific

bases. When it was probed whether they have arrived at these after scientific scrutiny, it was

stated that ‘our conviction tells us that higher yields are possible only through the BMPs

advocated by agronomists and any claims above these cannot be trusted’.

It was also observed that most of the scientists have an ‘opinion’ on alternative

technologies, including SRI, whose basis is no different from that of a lay person. What

prevents these scientists from disproving the claims of SRI scientifically? Many scientists

responded to this saying that the institution in which they are working has no such mandate

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 52

although they are interested to do so. Even if someone is interested to take up, they are

apprehensive about the prospects of funding. It was a general feeling that if any proposal for

such research comes from top it is easy to get funds for research. Otherwise not many are

interested in risking their career in going about a research study which is not to the likening

of the head of the institution or division. Some of the scientists who have developed curiosity

for such alternate claims as SRI or organic farming expressed their inability due to the

‘culture of science’ in the agricultural research institutions. A young scientist observes that

‘for our career growth it is important for us to focus on research projects which can get

funding without much difficulty’. There is also a feeling that from time to time there is a shift

in the ‘popularity’ of research areas. Unfortunately, sometimes the ‘popular research areas’

are mooted by international research and other agencies and if the scientists at the top level

are convinced about them then funding would be channelled to such areas of research.

Continuing the probing, when it was asked, whether SRI would have greater acceptance for

research funding had it been pushed by international agencies and the response was

overwhelmingly confirmative.

However, despite these issues some scientists from research institutions worked from

the beginning on SRI and it may be said that their enthusiasm led to considerable scientific

scrutiny on SRI in India. However, each of their experience is a learning to know how the

culture of science operates in scientific institutions. It was observed that ‘extra-scientific’

factors play a significant role in research in the institutions of science. One of them is

personality orientation. ‘Persons at the top’ and their specializations and interests of research,

their convictions do matter in the research project initiations, approvals and support for

funding.

A favourable person at the top, external funding (international), a tie up with

renowned funding or collaborative agency, had been reported as the factors which influenced

the initial work of some scientists’ work on SRI. They all claim that because of their personal

conviction, they were enthused to try out SRI. Others suggested that the person at the top

introduced them into the new research area. How was the reaction of their colleagues? The

scientists recalled the scepticism about such projects. It was revealed that SRI was hotly

contested in the lobbies of these institutions, research seminars, funding board meetings, etc.

However, over a period this opposition to SRI weakened as the discussion on SRI became

intense in journals. Publication of findings in reputed journals has been one of the key factors

in moulding the attitude of peer group towards SRI. Apart from this, invitation to present

findings in international level and national level seminars was another factor that influenced

the opinion of peer group members on SRI.

A retired scientist who pursued rigorous research on SRI contends that he went about

giving doctoral research topics to his students on SRI even when there was strong opposition

to SRI in the academic circles. This observation points at the pressures of research that

operate in a research institution. It is important to withstand such pressures. He asserts that

because he was convinced about the science of SRI he could strongly argue for research on

SRI. Later on with huge funding from external sources, the credibility of research on SRI

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 53

among the peer group members was established. In a way it suggests that the acceptance of a

research concept among peer group members is dependent upon the fellowships offered to

students, funding from external sources etc. which in turn help in establishing the topic in

agricultural research centres. Surely taking up research topics that raise critical questions at

the dominant paradigm and still finding place in the agricultural research institutions is

nothing but inviting hurdles. SRI is a case in point here. As may be noted from the Basu and

Leeuwis (2012) statement, it is difficult for some of the alternate knowledge claims to make

to the scientific discourse.

Conclusions

The aim of the study was to understand the extent to which agricultural science in the

state funded agricultural institutions is responsive to the fast paced developments occurring in

the larger social milieu. If it is responsive, to what extent do the technological developments

taking shape outside the precincts of scientific institutions find place in the research agendas

of the agricultural researchers of these institutions. Also, how the institution of science i.e.

crop science research in this context, offers space for multiple approaches which strive to

enable farm security at the small and marginal holdings level. Based on these objectives, the

study was undertaken and embarked on mapping the culture of science that facilitate or

hinder agricultural research in the country.

The findings from the study suggest that there appears to be a general agreement in

the scientific community cutting across disciplines vis-a-vis the concerns of farmers in the

country. This is evident when the views are shared during the in-depth interviews and also as

presented in the survey analysis. However, there also appears to be certain epistemological

issues along with structural factors which make it difficult for the scientists to pursue research

on the alternate technologies. This is amply evident in the case study on SRI. Given the

normative framework within which agricultural science research is carried out, any

expectation of critical admission and also the pursuit of research in that direction will be

unrealistic. It is therefore believed that there is a need for reflexivity in agricultural sciences.

Based on the observations in the study it may be said that the agricultural scientific

community is not always against pursuing research in the areas of interest to small and

marginal farmers. However, it is admitted that the norms that govern research funding and

priorities set by the institutions often act as hurdles. For example, some scientists admit that

certain research questions they have in mind, how relevant they may be, given the space and

time, may not fit into the research mandates of the institutions. This raises the concerns on

science becoming dogmatic. Openness, flexibility, freedom with accountability may be the

need of the hour.

Farmers today are totally different from that of the green revolution era. The

demographic profile of farming community is fast changing. Present day farmers’ socio-

economic conditions, age, gender and disposition towards agriculture is completely different

from that of the farmers of green revolution period. It is a reality that as upper castes,

educated, young men in villages have distanced from agriculture, or disinclined to be

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 54

engaged in agriculture (Jodhka, 2012) new sections of farmers are emerging. The notions of

ideal farm or ideal farmer held by the agricultural scientist need to be revisited so as to devise

new research questions and problems.

From the point of view of politics of knowledge, it may be suggested that

technological developments arising out of agricultural institutions are privileged as against

the conventional/traditional knowledge. Also, the technological developments taking shape

outside the agricultural research institutions, however significant they may be, are seldom

researched or subjected to scientific scrutiny by the scientific community. Of course there

have been attempts in this direction but they have largely been isolated and individual efforts

which were received with great scepticism by the institutions (the case of SRI is an example).

Scientists from agricultural institutions often observe that the technologies developed outside

the institutions of science have no scientific validity. These technologies often were

rubbished without subjecting them to scientific scrutiny. Without any attempt to prove or

disprove the claims of technological developments, how these can be labelled as un-scientific

is the question. Also subjecting the claims of non-linear methods of science to linear

positivistic methodological tests may be incorrect.

A very preliminary understanding of the research problem reveals that there is a lack

of institutional thrust to focus on the alternatives to mainstream models of knowledge

generation in crop sciences. Empiricist, positivist methodologies dictate the standards of

merit of a practice, thus nullifying any innovation outside it. It is being felt that the

institutional response to it should be democratic, liberal, constructivist and inclusive.

Critical examination of scientific practices in agricultural sciences and the

institutional priorities involved in agricultural research has been attempted by social

scientists. Such attempts, however, have been confined to the ‘technological deterministic’

perspective. Presenting a comprehensive view on the engagement of social scientists with the

dynamics of agrarian relations across time Surinder Singh Jodhka (2012) observes that ‘mode

of production debate’ took centre stage during 1970s and early 1980s. He observes that

economic restructuring witnessed during 1990s ‘marginalised agriculture in the development

discourse on India’ (Jodhka, 2012). Also, attempts at understanding the scientific practices,

methodologies from a ‘social constructivist’ (MacKenzie and Wajcman 1999) point of view

have been missing. Democratization of science (Visvanathan, 2007) is the need of the hour

when the global agriculture is going to be controlled by few transnational corporations who

are equipped with ideology, policy and proprietary rights. As Visvanathan emphasizes,

democratization of science should be extended to include alternate sciences as well (ibid).

The pilot data would be used to develop a larger collaborative project with scientists

working in agricultural institutions and civil society organizations. It is also proposed to

approach the research funding agencies of social sciences and sciences for a larger project. It

is hoped to come out with publishable paper with critical insights from the data. The project

outcomes are believed to stimulate further research of the investigators and also the students

to take up doctoral study in the area.

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 55

Limitations

The study was conducted within a timeframe which was insufficient is getting considerable

number of responses for the online survey. With great difficulty it was possible to convince a

small number of respondents completing the survey. It may be found from part A of the

results that the number responses declined from fifty to twenties as we move down the survey

questions. If we could get complete responses from a sizeable number of respondents data

might offer more plausible explanations.

Acknowledgements

This particular research project enabled us to explore issues of science which have been

either overlooked or escaped the attention for a long time. With the funding from UPE it was

possible to make a beginning on this topic. The funding enabled us to establish contacts and

develop a network of scientists working on similar themes, both in social sciences as well as

crop sciences.

References

Agarwal B. 1981. ‘Agricultural Mechanisation and Labour Use: A Disaggregated Approach’,

International labour Review, Vol. 12, No. 1.

Balaguru. (undated). http://www.naarm.ernet.in/Cimages/stories/documents/FOCARS-

ReadingMaterial.pdf (available online under the Foundation Course for Agricultural Research

Services-FOCARS)

Barah, B. C. 2009. ‘Economic and Ecological Benefits of System of Rice Intensification

(SRI) in Tamil Nadu’, Agricultural Economics Research Review, Vol. 22 July-December pp.

209-214

Bardhan P. 1985. ‘Poverty and trickle-down in rural India: a quantitative analysis’ in J.

Mellor and G. N. Desai (eds): Agricultural Change and Rural Poverty, Baltimore: John

Hopkins University Press.

Bhalla, S.S. 1979. ‘Farm Size, Productivity and Technical Change in Indian Agriculture’ in

R.Berry and W.Clive (eds.). Agrarian Structure and Productivity in Developing Countries.

Bellimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Bhatia B M. 1988. Indian agriculture: A policy perspective. New Delhi: Sage

Dasgupta Biplab. 1977. ‘India’s Green Revolution’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 12:

No; 6/8. pp. 241- 260.

Dhanagare D.N. 1987. ‘Green Revolution and Social Inequalities in Rural India’, Economic

and Political Weekly, Vol. 22: No: 19/21, pp. AN137-AN144.

Gill D K and S K Saini. 1991. ‘Social Implications of Green Revolution’, in Social,

Economic and Political Implications of Green Revolution in India. B.S. Hansra and A.N.

Shukla (eds). New Delhi: Classical, 60-67

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 56

Howard Albert. 1940. An Agricultural Testament, London: Oxford University Press

ICAR. 2011. www.icar.org.in

Joshi V Mahesh. 1999. Green Revolution and its Impacts, New Delhi: APH Publishing

Corporation

Karki Sudeep. 2010. System of rice intensification: an analysis of adoption and potential

environmental benefits, thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the

degree of Master of Science in International Environmental Studies, NORAGRIC,

Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway.

Ladejinsky Wolf. 1973. ‘How Green Is the Indian Green Revolution’, Economic and

Political Weekly, Vol. 8: No.52; pp. A133-A135, A137-139, A141-A144.

MacKenzie Donald and Judy Wajcman (eds). 1999. The Social Shaping of Technology,

Buckingham: Open University Press pp 28-40.

Mahajan, Gulshan and P.S. Sarao. 2009. ‘Evaluation of system of rice (oryza sativa l.)

intensification (SRI) in irrigated agro-ecosystem of Punjab’, J.Res. ANGRAU 37(1&2), pp.

1-6.

McCosh F.W.J. 1984. Boussingault, Dordecht (Netherlands): D. Riedel Publishing company

Mitcham, Carl. 1978. ‘Types of Technology” in Research in Philosophy and Technology,

Paul T. Durbin (ed.) Vol. 1 229-294, Greenwich, Connecticut: Jai Press Inc.

Omvedt Gail. 1991. ‘Towards Greening the Revolution’, Economic and Political Weekly

November 16, 2613-2614

Prasad, C. Shambu. 2006. System of Rice Intensification in India: Innovation History and

Institutional Challenges, WWF International – ICRISAT Dialogue Project, Hyderabad:

ICRISAT

Rai Mangala. 2004. ‘Meeting the Challenge’, The Hindu Survey of Indian Agriculture-2004,

pp 16-19

Rajeswari S. Raina. 2009. ‘Questioning Temperaments in Agricultural Science’, Seminar,

No. 597, pp. 50-54

Randhawa M. S. 1968. Agricultural universities in India: Progress and problems. November

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNABJ266.pdf

Soutrik Basu, Cees Leeuwis. 2012. ‘Understanding the rapid spread of System of Rice

Intensification (SRI) in Andhra Pradesh: Exploring the building of support networks and

media representation’, Agricultural Systems, 111 (2012) pp. 34–44

Styger, Erika, Goumar Aboubacrine, Malick Ag Attaher and Norman Uphoff. 2011. ‘The

system of rice intensification as a sustainable agricultural innovation: introducing, adapting

and scaling up a system of rice intensification practices in the Timbuktu region of Mali’,

International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 9(1), 2011, P 67–75

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 57

Surinder S Jodhka. 2012. ‘Agrarian Changes in the Times of (Neo-liberal) ‘Crises’:

Revisiting Attached Labour in Haryana, Economic & Political Weekly Supplement, June 30,

vol XLVII No.s 26 & 27, pp. 5-13.

Thakur K. Amod. 2010. ‘Critiquing SRI criticism: beyond scepticism with empiricism’,

Current Science, VOL. 98, NO. 10, pp. 1294-1299.

Uphoff Norman. 2008. ‘The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) as a System of Agricultural

Innovation’, Journal Tanah dan Lingkungan, Vol. 10 No.1, April, pp. 27-40

Uphoff Norman. 2012. ‘Comment to “The System of Rice Intensification: Time for an

empirical turn’, [NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 57 (2011) 217–224]” NJAS -

Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 59 pp.53– 60.

Vasavi, A.R. 2012. Shadow space: suicides and the predicament of rural India, Three

Essays: Gurgaon

Visvanathan Shiv. 2007. ‘Knowledge, Justice and Democracy’ in Melissa Leach, Ian Scoones

and Brian Wynne, (eds.), Science and Citizens, London: Zed Books.

Voelcker John Augustus. 1894. Report on the Improvement of Indian Agriculture, London:

Eyre and Spottiswoode

Zhao Limei, Lianghuan Wu, Cunjun Dong, Yongshan Li. 2010. ‘Rice yield, nitrogen

utilization and ammonia volatilization as influenced by modified rice cultivation at varying

nitrogen rates’, Agricultural Sciences, Vol.1, No.1, pp. 10-16.

UPE-II Research Projects- R-46, CRR & PKB-June 2013 58

Contesting crop sciences: A Study on understanding the contexts of alternative knowledge claims and institutional responses

Recommended publications

Bulletin No. 55 - Orchard Pests

Authentication of Various Measurements for Determining the Nitrogen Status of Nebraska Soils

Bulletin No. 53 - Utah Sugar Beets (1897)

Transnational research in crop sciences: a social constructivist account of knowledge production in...

Contesting crop sciences: A critical examination of alternative knowldge claims in rice production

Theory-ladenness of evidence: a case study from history of chemistry

Forestry case study on Ethnographic Account of Cultivation Practices among Gonds of Andhra Pradesh