Gender and Agricultural Science: Evidence From Two Surveys of Land-Grant Scientists

Gender and Agricultural Science: Evidence From TwoSurveys of Land-Grant Scientists*

Frederick H. ButtelJessica R. GoldbergerDepartment of Rural SociologyUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison

Abstract We test two sets of hypotheses concerning the association betweengender and various structural and attitudinal variables, using data collected intwo surveys (1979 and 1995–1996) from random samples of land-grant agricul-tural scientists. The first set of hypotheses centers on the expectation that the re-sources and rewards of agricultural science are distributed unequally by gender.We find significant gender differences in scientists’ postdoctoral work experi-ence, academic rank, employment of graduate students, rate of book publication,and links with private industry. Our second set of hypotheses, drawing on the lit-eratures of feminist epistemology and situated knowledge, focuses on the rela-tionship between scientists’ gender and perceptions of the goals of agriculturalresearch. Our findings indicate that gender is unimportant in explaining differ-ences in scientists’ commitment to agricultural sustainability, environmental is-sues, and family farm preservation as important goals of land-grant research. Yetwe find significant gender differences in attitudes toward biotechnology and thegrowing links between land-grant universities and private industry.

Male dominance of the agricultural sciences has been observed fre-quently in the American public agricultural research system (e.g.,NRC 1995). For many years it has been widely recognized that theagricultural sciences contain one of the smallest proportions of fe-male scientists among all the major academic fields in the UnitedStates. The most recent (1995) national-level demographic data forAmerican scientists show that 86.9 percent of employed agriculturalscientists are male, compared with 73.3 percent in the biologicalsciences, 73.4 percent in the social sciences, 88.7 percent in thephysical sciences, and 78.3 percent of all scientists and engineers(NRC 1998a). Moreover, 26.4 percent of doctoral recipients in theagricultural sciences in 1996 were women, compared with 42.2 per-cent in the biological sciences, 51.6 percent in the social sciences,

Rural Sociology 67(1), 2002, pp. 24–45Copyright © 2002 by the Rural Sociological Society

* This paper was presented at the annual meetings of the Rural Sociological So-ciety, held in Portland, OR in August 1998. This study was supported by USDA-CSREES Regional Project NC–208 through the Research Division, College of Agri-cultural and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison. The authors would liketo thank Lawrence Busch for sharing the 1979 data set, and Carolyn Sachs and RuralSociology’s anonymous referees for their comments on earlier drafts. Direct corre-spondence to Frederick Buttel at [email protected].

20.7 percent in the physical sciences, and 40.0 percent in all fields(NRC 1998b).

While the representation of women in the agricultural sciencedisciplines generally tends to be low, it is especially small in the an-imal sciences, plant and soil sciences, and forestry/wildlife man-agement. The agricultural social sciences, the food-related sciences(especially nutrition), and the basic life sciences currently containthe largest percentages of female scientists (NRC 1995).

Male dominance of the agricultural sciences has been acknowl-edged explicitly in virtually every serious analysis of the historical de-velopment of the agricultural sciences (Rossiter 1979, 1982), andmale dominance in contemporary agricultural research is well rec-ognized. Yet virtually no systematic empirical studies explore thegender structure of modern public agricultural research. Here weaddress this deficiency in the literature by using 1979 and 1995–1996data from surveys of land-grant agricultural scientists to examinethe associations between gender and various structural and attitu-dinal variables. This “repeated cross-sectional research design”(Menard 1991) allows us to investigate net changes in these associ-ations over time.

The Literature on Gender and Science

As mentioned frequently in passing, agricultural scientists histori-cally have been recruited disproportionately from rural householdsand communities and from the ranks of land-grant university grad-uates. It is also suggested that the unequal gender composition ofthe agricultural sciences reflects rural patriarchy and the biasesagainst females in recruitment into undergraduate programs in land-grant colleges of agriculture (Sachs 1983). Yet as Busch and Lacy(1983) noted in their landmark study of the land-grant research sys-tem, there has been virtually no systematic research on agriculturalscientists’ demographic backgrounds and characteristics. Busch andLacy emphasized demographic variables such as age, educationalbackground, and family origins. They elected, however, not to pur-sue gender analysis of the data on choice of research problem fromtheir nationwide survey, stating that “the small overall percentageof women prevented any further analysis of sex differences”(1983:51). Indeed, the scant representation of women among agri-cultural scientists has precluded quantitative analysis of gender dif-ferences in survey research on agricultural scientists.

During the 15-plus years since the publication of Busch andLacy’s Science, Agriculture, and the Politics of Research (1983), the gen-

Gender and Agricultural Science — Buttel and Goldberger 25

der composition of the population of agricultural scientists and thescholarship on gender and science have undergone some signifi-cant changes. In 1996, only about 13 percent of employed agricul-tural scientists and 26 percent of PhD recipients in the agriculturalsciences were women (NRC 1998a, 1998b), but this figure repre-sents a fairly significant increase in the proportion of women in thepublic agricultural research system since the early 1970s. In com-parison with other major disciplines, representation of women inthe agricultural sciences has increased relatively rapidly (NRC1995). As recently as 1973, for example, women accounted for only1.3 percent of agricultural science doctorates (NRC 1995). Becauseof this increase, it is now easier to conduct gender analysis of datasets from random samples of agricultural scientists.

Since the publication of Busch and Lacy’s (1983) book, social sci-entists’ conceptions of women and science also have changed sig-nificantly. For well over a decade, the field of gender and sciencehas tended to be divided into two quite distinct literatures: “genderinequality of science” and the more recent “feminist epistemologyand critique of science.” Perhaps the clearest illustration of this bi-furcation is the representation of gender-related topics in the widelycited Handbook of Science and Technology Studies ( Jasanoff et al. 1995).

On one hand, a major chapter by Mary Frank Fox (1995) is titled“Women and Scientific Careers.” This chapter is an extensive sum-mary of the “gender inequality of science” literature, which can beregarded as an extension of the Mertonian literature on the sociol-ogy of scientific careers. Hess (1997:60–66) refers to the latter asthe “status attainment” school of the sociology of science. The lit-erature on gender inequality of science (e.g., Bayer and Astin 1975;Cole 1979; Fox 1991; Hargens and Felmlee 1984; Reskin 1976, 1978;Rossiter 1982; Zuckerman and Cole 1975; Zuckerman, Cole, andBruer 1991) is devoted largely to understanding the structural ob-stacles and barriers faced by women in access to scientific training,scientific resources and rewards, scientific networks and recogni-tion, and the like. In general, Fox (1995) argues that despite somenarrowing of gender disparities in science and research, there re-main significant inequalities in recruitment into science and in theresources and recognition obtained by female scientists.1

On the other hand, the Jasanoff et al. (1995) anthology features

26 Rural Sociology, Vol. 67, No. 1, March 2002

1 Sociologists working in the gender and status attainment perspective, however,often differ on the extent to which the structure of scientific institutions contributessystematically to gender inequality in science (compare Cole 1979 with Fox 1995).

interrelated clusters of scholarship on feminist epistemology, situ-ated knowledges, and the feminist critiques of science and tech-nology. This second literature is represented in articles by EvelynFox Keller (1995) on gender and science and by Judy Wajcman(1995) on gender and technology. These authors draw on the workof scholars such as Haraway (1991), Harding (1986), Longino(1990), and Merchant (1980). The core notions of this literatureare twofold. First, it argues that science and technology are essen-tially forms of culture through which male gender identity is con-stituted and patriarchal dominance is reproduced (see, e.g., Keller1978, 1985). Second, it suggests that because of women’s distinctive“situatedness” in knowledge production processes, women can beexpected to hold different views than men regarding research, sci-ence, and technology: generally more critical, more questioning,and more public-regarding. (See especially the classic essay on “sit-uated knowledges” in Haraway 1991.)

Yet although the unequal gender relations of agricultural scienceare widely recognized, Busch and Lacy’s (1983) observation remainslargely true today: there is virtually no significant empirical researchliterature on this subject. The scholarly tradition of feminist episte-mology and situated knowledges is much newer than the gender in-equality approach; yet this newer approach receives far more atten-tion in the literature on agriculture and agricultural science. Feministepistemology, for example, is the centerpiece of Kloppenburg’s(1991) widely cited paper on local knowledge and the deconstruc-tion/reconstruction of agricultural science. Feldman and Welsh(1995) employ the feminist critique of science and apply notions oflocal knowledge and partial perspective in their study of the on-farm gender division of labor and alternative visions of sustainableagriculture. Feminist epistemology and the feminist critique of sci-ence also are the key components of Sachs’s (1996) Gendered Fields.

Hypotheses

These two literatures on gender and science suggest two quite dif-ferent sets of hypotheses about the contemporary gender structureof agricultural science. One set can be deduced from the genderinequality/status attainment tradition; it centers on the expectationthat the resources and rewards of agricultural science tend persis-tently to be distributed unequally by gender. Gender inequalitymight manifest itself in significant differences between male and fe-male scientists’ professorial appointment levels, teaching loads, to-tal research funding, numbers of employees, publication success,


and access to resources from private industry. We explore thesegender inequality hypotheses by examining the relationships be-tween gender and selected academic appointment and research en-vironment variables.

The literature on feminist epistemology and situated knowledgespoints to a second set of hypotheses that focus on the relationshipbetween gender and scientists’ perceptions of the goals of agricul-tural science and technology. In particular, one might expect thatwomen would be more likely than men to reject the dominant pro-ductivist orientation toward agricultural research and technology,and would be more likely to endorse sustainable agriculture andenvironmentally oriented research. One also might expect femalescientists to be more critical of the privatization of agricultural re-search and biotechnology. In addition, women might be less likelythan men to agree with the prevailing reward system of agriculturalscience, which emphasizes publications and grants over service toconstituents and the public. We test these hypotheses by conduct-ing correlation/regression analyses of gender’s effect on attitudestoward the goals of agricultural research, criteria for choice of re-search problems, links between the university and industry, biotech-nology, and the reward system in agricultural science.

Gender is very likely to be strongly associated with several vari-ables that are also connected to scientists’ orientations toward re-search. Busch and Lacy (1983), for example, demonstrated that sci-entists’ most fundamental differences in attitudes toward researchpriorities and goals can be explained primarily by academic disci-pline. Our own data set supports the idea that discipline is an im-portant influence on scientists’ orientations toward research (But-tel and Goldberger 1998). Busch and Lacy’s (1983) study and our1995–1996 data also suggest that farm background is important inrecruitment into various agricultural science disciplines and in thedegree to which scientists emphasize farmers and other directclients, rather than other scientists and “scientific curiosity,” as im-portant factors in determining research priorities. In addition, sci-entists’ views are shaped increasingly by their commitments to ap-plied or basic/fundamental research. In light of the importance ofthese intervening variables, we not only examine the bivariate rela-tionships between gender and attitudes toward various aspects ofland-grant research, but also estimate the effects of gender on theseattitudes while controlling for academic discipline, farm background,and percentage of total research time devoted to basic research.


Data and Methods

We employ a “repeated cross-sectional research design” (Menard1991) using data collected at two points in time, 1979 and1995–1996, from independent probability samples of the populationof land-grant agricultural scientists. The repeated cross-sectional de-sign is useful for measuring aggregate period trends (Menard1991). Our time 1 data source is a 1979 survey (Busch and Lacy1983) of a random sample of agricultural scientists whose nameswere drawn from the USDA’s Current Research Information Ser-vice (CRIS) database. The time 2 data derive from a 1995–1996(hereafter 1996) survey of persons whose names were listed in theon-line version of the Directory of Professional Workers in State Agricul-tural Experiment Stations and Other Cooperating State Institutions(USDA/CRIS 1995). Because the 1979 and the 1996 samplingframes are not absolutely identical, we took several steps to ensurethe comparability of the two samples (see below).

The 1979 data were first reported by Busch and Lacy (1983), whosurveyed scientists engaged in federally funded agricultural re-search at land-grant universities and federal agencies.2 Question-naires and cover letters were sent to a random sample (N = 2,051)of individuals listed as principal investigators in the USDA’s CRISdatabase. Reminder postcards were sent to nonresponders; secondand third mailings of questionnaires were sent to persistent nonre-sponders. One hundred seventy-five questionnaires were excludedfrom the sample because of death, retirement, or exit from re-search. The corrected sample totaled 1,876 scientists; 1,431 ques-tionnaires were returned, for a response rate of 76.3 percent.

The sampling frame for the 1996 study frame was the 1994–95 Di-rectory of Professional Workers in State Agricultural Experiment Stationsand Other Cooperating State Institutions (USDA/CRIS 1995). We drewa random sample (N = 1,306) of professorial-rank employees at the“1862” land-grant universities from the on-line (gopher) version ofthe Directory. The sample was limited to professors in disciplines typ-ically found in colleges of agriculture. We excluded individuals inextension units and in certain non-agricultural departments (e.g.,home economics and computer science). Questionnaires, cover let-ters, and business reply envelopes were mailed to the sample in Oc-


2 Approximately 82 percent of Busch and Lacy’s sample of agricultural scientistswho receive federal agricultural funds were employed by land-grant institutions(1983:64). Only 1 percent of the total sample was employed by the “1890” land-grantinstitutions (1983:52).

tober 1995, followed by reminder postcards and two additionalmailings (November 1995 and January 1996). The questionnairewas designed as a replication and extension of the survey used byBusch and Lacy (1983). We excluded 163 individuals from the sam-ple because of exit from agricultural research, death, retirement, orunknown addresses. This produced a corrected overall sample of1,143 agricultural scientists. Six hundred and fifty-six scientists re-turned their questionnaires, for a 57.4 percent response rate.

Comparability of Cross-Sectional Surveys

Many validity issues are involved in longitudinal comparisons ofcross-sectional data. Although this study is not intended primarilyas longitudinal, it is useful to note possible validity issues in com-paring the 1979 Busch-Lacy data with the 1996 survey data. One po-tential concern is the consistency of wording from one survey tothe next (see Firebaugh 1997:14). Because we designed the 1996survey as a replication of Busch and Lacy’s earlier questionnaire,the wording for virtually all of the survey questions analyzed hereremained the same from 1979 to 1996.

Another major concern in analyzing repeated surveys is the com-parability of the sampling frames used at each point in time. In ourcase, the sampling frames (the CRIS database and the USDA/CSRSdirectory) are somewhat different. The 1979 CRIS database(USDA/CRIS) includes all individuals engaged in research projectsin agriculture, food and nutrition, and forestry at USDA agencies,the state agricultural experiment stations, the state land-grant col-leges and universities, state schools of forestry, and cooperatingschools of veterinary medicine. Participants in USDA researchgrant programs also are included in the CRIS database. In contrast,the USDA/CSRS (now USDA/CSREES) directory includes all pro-fessional workers in state agricultural experiment stations, the stateland-grant colleges and universities, and other cooperating state in-stitutions. This directory includes land-grant personnel who are notemployed in colleges of agriculture (e.g., veterinary scientists, hu-man ecologists) or are not researchers as such (e.g., many exten-sion workers, administrators, and experiment station managers andtechnicians).

Given the slight differences between sampling frames, we tookthe following steps in order to make the 1979 and the 1996 samplesas comparable as possible. We narrowed the samples to includeonly professorial-rank scientists employed by the “1862” land-grantuniversities. Individuals employed by USDA agencies (e.g., Agricul-


tural Research Service; Cooperative State Research, Education, andExtension Service) were excluded from both samples.3 In addition,we excluded all individuals in academic departments not typicallyfound in colleges of agriculture. Veterinary scientists and homeeconomists/human ecologists, for example, were omitted fromboth samples because they are not typically appointed in colleges ofagriculture. The adjusted sample for 1979 totaled 767 agriculturalscientists (including 38 females); the adjusted 1996 sample con-sisted of 415 scientists (including 34 females). The two samples thuscan be regarded as reasonably random samples of professorial-rankscientists who work in the disciplines most commonly found in con-temporary colleges of agriculture: the traditional crop and animalproduction sciences, the environmental and natural resource sci-ences, the agricultural social sciences, food science and nutrition,the basic biological sciences (biochemistry, genetics, microbiology,molecular biology, biotechnology, and related disciplines), andagricultural engineering.

Variables

The coding schemes for the variables in Tables 1–3 are as indicatedin these tables. The demographic, educational background, and ac-ademic appointment variables are categorical; the research environ-ment variables (conditions of appointment, research time, numberof employees, research expenditure, and number of publications)are continuous. The indicators of relationships between universityand industry (Table 4) are based on direct questions found only inthe 1996 survey. The coding for these variables is self-evident fromthe table.

The attitudinal variables (Table 5) are additive indexes composedof responses to five-point Likert-type survey items. The wording ofthese items was essentially identical in the 1979 and the 1996 ques-tionnaires. (For exceptions, see Appendix Table A1.) All of the in-dexes—except those for university-industry and biotechnology—were created from items coded to range from 1 (not important) to5 (very important). The response scales for the items included inthe university-industry and biotechnology indexes range from 1


3 Of course the exclusion of persons of non-professorial rank from the two samplesintroduces a selection bias into our analysis, because many women (and men) con-duct agricultural research through non-professorial employment. The USDA/CSRSdirectory, however, is not consistent in the extent to which it lists non-professorialappointees. Had we retained these persons, the sample would not have been verysystematic.

(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). (For exact wording of theitems included in the indexes, as well as the Cronbach’s alpha co-efficients, see Appendix Table A1.)

Results

Before testing our gender inequality and feminist epistemology hy-potheses, we present selected demographic characteristics of the1979 and 1996 samples of land-grant agricultural scientists. Table 1reports percentage distributions for age, community background,and farm origins by gender. We conducted Pearson chi-square testsfor gender differences within each study year. The data for age byscientists’ gender indicate the changing age structure of female sci-entists since the late 1970s. Although women clearly remain under–represented among agricultural scientists (5.0 percent in 1979 and8.2 percent in 1996), the age data suggest a significant influx of(disproportionately young) female agricultural scientists into theland-grant system during the 1980s and 1990s.

The age structures of men and women were nearly identical in1979, but we find significant differences in 1996. For example,nearly 56 percent of the female scientists were under age 45 in1996, compared with only 34 percent of the male scientists. More-over, approximately 30 percent of the male scientists were 55 orolder in 1996, while only 2.9 percent of the female scientists be-longed to this category in the mid-1990s. Because recruits into theland-grant faculty cadre tend to be young (with the title of assistantprofessor or other junior rank), it is not surprising that womentend to be increasingly younger (and less senior in rank) than maleagricultural scientists.

Above we mentioned that many agricultural scientists historicallyhave been recruited disproportionately from farms and rural com-munities. Table 1 reveals that gender tends to be correlated withboth community background and farm origins (i.e., a father en-gaged in agriculture). Male scientists were much more likely thantheir female counterparts to have grown up in the open countryand to have had a father engaged in agriculture, particularly in thelate 1970s. In the mid-1990s, over 26 percent of male agriculturalscientists reported farm origins, in contrast to only 12 percent of fe-male scientists.

Gender Inequality in the Agricultural Sciences

To begin our investigation, we present data for selected academicbackground and professional appointment characteristics of land-


grant agricultural scientists for the two years of the study (Table 2).There appear to be no statistically significant gender differences inreceipt of a doctorate from a prestigious land-grant university foreither study year. We find significant gender differences, however,in the incidence of postdoctoral fellowships and in employment asa professor at a prestigious land-grant institution: men were muchmore likely than women to move directly from receiving a PhD totaking a land-grant faculty position without serving first as a post-doctoral fellow. Table 2 shows that the gender disparity in postdoc-toral experiences was particularly significant in 1979: twice as manywomen (31.6 percent) as men (15.4 percent) served as postdoc-toral fellows. This gender gap narrowed slightly by 1996, when ap-proximately 41 percent of female scientists and 27 percent of malescientists reported service as postdoctoral fellows. In both years,women were slightly more likely than men to be employed at oneof the 10 most prestigious land-grant universities.

As noted earlier, gender inequality might manifest itself in signif-icant differences between female and male scientists’ levels of aca-demic appointments. Table 2 shows a substantial relationship be-tween gender and academic rank in both years. Male agricultural


Table 1. Percentage Distribution of Selected Demographic Variables by Gender: U.S. Land-Grant Scientists, 1979 and 1996

1979 1996

Variable Male Female Male Female

AgeUnder 45 45.2 44.7 34.1 55.945 to 54 28.9 26.4 36.2 41.255 or over 25.9 28.9 29.7 2.9Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0Chi-square .217 12.438**

Community backgrounda

Open country 37.3 8.1 33.2 21.9Town ≤50,000 people 44.3 51.4 39.7 37.5City >50,000 people 18.4 40.5 27.1 40.6Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0Chi-square 17.566*** 3.134

Farm originsb

Farm 39.9 11.1 26.6 12.1Nonfarm 60.1 88.9 73.4 87.9Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0Chi-square 11.977*** 3.374+

a When respondent was 16 years of age.b A respondent is considered to have farm origins if his or her father was a farm

worker, tenant, owner, or manager when the respondent was 16 years old.+ p ≤ .10; * p ≤ .05; ** p ≤ .01; *** p ≤ .001 (Pearson chi-square test).

scientists were twice as likely as their female counterparts to be fullprofessors, and much less likely to be appointed at the associateand assistant professor levels. The gender disparities at the lowestand highest levels were greater in 1996 than in 1979. Our data,however, do not make clear whether the greater gender disparity in


Table 2. Percentage Distribution of Academic Background and Ap-pointment Indicators by Gender: U.S. Land-Grant Scientists, 1979

and 1996

1979 1996


PhD-Granting InstitutionTop 10 land-grant

universitiesa 51.3 57.1 38.4 35.3Other schools 48.7 42.9 61.6 64.7Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0Chi-square .455 .129

Post-DoctorateYes 15.4 31.6 27.0 41.2No 84.6 68.4 73.0 58.8Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0Chi-square 7.007** 3.084+

RankFull professor 59.8 36.8 62.2 29.4Associate professor 26.8 42.1 25.5 32.4Assistant professor 13.4 21.1 12.3 38.2Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0Chi-square 7.856* 20.692***

DisciplineAgricultural economics and

social sciences 14.4 18.9 (6.3)b 11.7 18.2 (12.0)b

Agricultural engineering 5.0 2.7 (2.7) 6.4 3.0 (4.0)Animal sciences 14.9 2.7 (0.9) 11.4 6.0 (4.4)Crop production sciences 43.2 21.6 (2.5) 36.1 21.2 (4.9)Basic sciences 8.4 13.5 (7.6) 14.0 36.4 (18.5)Environmental sciences 9.0 2.7 (1.5) 16.4 6.1 (3.1)Food sciences 5.1 37.9 (27.5) 4.0 9.1 (16.7)Total 100.0 100.0 (4.9) 100.0 100.0 (8.0)Chi-square 67.224*** 17.745**

EmployerTop 10 land-grant universitiesa 31.8 44.7 28.6 35.3Other schools 68.2 55.3 71.4 64.7Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0Chi-square 2.747+ .675a Top 10 status was determined by ranking land-grant universities on three crite-

ria: (1) total State Agricultural Experiment Station research expenditures, (2) thenumber of doctorates granted in agricultural sciences, and (3) the number of doc-torates granted in biosciences (see NRC 1995). An overall index of prestige was cal-culated by weighting these three items equally for each land-grant university. The 10schools with the highest rankings from highest to lowest are: Texas A&M University,Cornell University, University of Wisconsin-Madison, University of Minnesota, Uni-versity of California-Davis, Michigan State University, North Carolina State University,University of Illinois, University of California-Berkeley, and Iowa State University.

b Percent female for each disciplinary category is given in parentheses.+ p ≤ .10; * p ≤ .05; ** p ≤ .01; *** p ≤ .001 (Pearson chi-square test).

rank in 1996 exists because of gender discrimination (the “glassceiling” effect) or because the younger cohorts of scientists includefar more women now than in the late 1970s.

The data in Table 2 also depict gender differences in seven disci-pline groups: the agricultural social sciences, agricultural engineer-ing, animal sciences, crop production sciences, basic sciences, envi-ronmental sciences, and food sciences (including nutrition). Thegender difference in the distribution of scientists across disciplineswas statistically significant in both 1979 and 1996. The agriculturalsocial sciences, basic sciences, and food/nutritional sciences still in-cluded higher percentages of female faculty members (althoughstill quite small) than did the other discipline groups in the land-grant colleges of agriculture. Yet although women were representedonly meagerly in the agricultural sciences, the overall representa-tion of female scientists in all fields of agricultural science (exceptthe food sciences) was greater in 1996 than in 1979 (see Table 2).

Table 3 reports the 1979 and 1996 means for male and female re-spondents for five key indicators of research environment. Thesedata offer only limited evidence for persistent gender inequality inland-grant agricultural research. First, although women were slightlymore likely than men to spend a greater percentage of their time inteaching and less of their time in research, these gender differencesin the conditions of appointment are not statistically significant. Sec-ond, according to the data on gender differences in the distributionof research time across basic, applied, and development research,female scientists (in both 1979 and 1996) devoted a significantlygreater percentage of their total research time to basic researchthan did male scientists. Returning to Table 2, however, we see thatwomen were far more likely than men to be employed in the basicsciences (e.g., biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics).

A third finding from Table 3 is that female scientists in 1996 hada significantly smaller number of graduate student employees thanmale scientists. Apparently, however, there were no major genderdifferences in the numbers of postdoctoral fellows and techniciansoverseen by agricultural scientists. Fourth, Table 3 shows that an-nual research expenditures in both years were slightly lower for fe-male than for male scientists. The gender difference in researchfunding, however, is not statistically significant. Finally, the gendergaps in publishing journal articles and abstracts are slightly less inthe data for 1996 data than for 1979, while the gaps in publishingbooks and book chapters are substantially greater in the data for1996. Table 3 also indicates that female agricultural scientists in


1996 still produced significantly fewer bulletins and reports thandid male scientists.

Relationships with private industry are another important area ofpotential gender inequality among agricultural scientists. Table 4provides 1996 data on gender differences for several types of uni-versity-industry relationships. (Data for 1979 were unavailable.) Foreach of the seven measures, female agricultural scientists were lesslikely than their male counterparts to have close relationships withprivate industry. Female scientists were less likely to communicateregularly with private industry, to engage in consulting agreementsfor private firms, to receive private industry support for ongoing re-search projects, and to serve as equity owners and scientific advi-sory board members for private businesses. The gender differences


Table 3. Means for Research Environment Indicators by Gender: U.S. Land-Grant Scientists, 1979 and 1996

1979 1996


Actual Conditions of Appointment(over 1-year period)Research (% of total time) 57.49 55.33 51.12 48.16Teaching (%) 30.59 34.28 31.73 37.43Administration (%) 4.96 7.42 6.05 4.67Extension (%) 5.92 2.28 9.74 7.26Other (%) 1.04 .69 1.36 2.48Total 100.00 100.00 100.0 100.0

Actual Research Time(over 5-year period)Basic research

(% of total research time) 30.67 42.79* 38.33 51.68*Applied research (%) 56.33 47.06+ 51.62 43.03Development (%) 13.00 10.15 10.05 5.29Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Number of Persons UnderRespondent’s DirectionGraduate students 2.71 2.56 2.84 1.97*Postdoctoral fellows .19 .11 .44 .47Technicians 1.36 .92 1.11 1.06

Annual Research Expenditurea 134,431 119,317 113,630 95,410Number of Publications

(over 5-year period)Journal articles 11.81 8.16+ 12.68 10.41Books .23 .19 .56 .15+

Book chapters 1.18 1.03 2.11 1.38Abstracts 7.57 5.45 11.72 10.62Bulletins and reports 9.01 3.16* 7.47 2.24*a Amounts for 1979 have been converted into constant 1995 dollars.+ p ≤ .10; * p ≤ .05 (two-tailed t-test).

in three of these measures are statistically significant: consulting forindustry (20.6 percent of women versus 43.0 percent of men), com-municating regularly with private firms (36.4 percent of women ver-sus 52.5 percent of men), and receiving industry support for on-going research projects (18.8 percent of women versus 35.7 percent of men).

Gender and Attitudes Toward Agricultural Research

In the second phase of this study we investigated a second set of hy-potheses that focus on the relationship between gender and scien-tists’ views on agricultural research. On the basis of the literatureon feminist epistemology and situated knowledges, we expect thatfemale scientists will hold alternative, more critical, and more public-regarding views about scientific research at land-grant universitiesthan the mainstream views typically held by male scientists.

We assessed the relationships between gender and attitudes to-ward science using bivariate and multivariate correlation and re-gression. First, we present zero-order correlations between genderand selected attitudinal indexes. Second, to rule out spuriousnessas an explanation for statistical associations between gender andthese indexes, we report partial correlations4 in which we include


Table 4. Indicators of University-Industry Relationships by Gender:U.S. Land-Grant Scientists, 1996

Male Female Chi-Variable (% yes) (% yes) Square

Communication with private industry (at least monthly) 52.5 36.4 3.174+

Consulting for private, for-profit business (at least once in 1994) 43.0 20.6 6.468*

Exclusive consulting agreement with private, for-profit business 10.4 3.0 1.873

Private industry support (at least 1% of total funding)a 35.7 18.8 3.754+

At least $25,000 of private industry supporta 13.2 6.3 1.293Equity owner in private, for-profit business 7.5 3.0 .928Scientific advisory board member for private, for-profit

business 7.1 .0 2.425a Respondent’s most important ongoing research project.+ p ≤ .10; * p ≤ .05 (Pearson chi-square test).

4 Partial correlation coefficients are directly comparable to standardized regres-sion coefficients (or beta weights) (see Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 2000:403).They are similar in size, always have the same sign, and possess identical p-values. Par-tial correlations are the appropriate statistic for measuring the effect of one inde-pendent variable on the dependent variable while controlling for one or more in-dependent variables.

as control factors academic discipline, farm background, and per-centage of research time spent in basic research. Gender is coded 1for male and 0 for female. Academic discipline is divided into sixdummy variables (with basic sciences as the excluded category).Farm background is a dummy variable coded 1 if a respondent’s fa-ther was a farm worker, tenant, owner, or manager when the re-spondent was 16 years old, and 0 if not. The basic research controlvariable is a self-reported measure of the percentage of total re-search time that a respondent spends in basic (as opposed to ap-plied or development) research.


Table 5. Zero-Order and Partial Correlations Between Gender and Se-lected Attitudinal Variables: U.S. Land-Grant Scientists, 1979 and 1996a

Gender (1 = male)

1979 1996

Zero- Zero-Attitudinal Variables Order Partial Order Partial

Criteria for Choice of ProblemScientific curiosity –.024 –.016 –.022 .014Peer approval .029 .021 –.123* –.093+

Client needs .105** .038 .083 –.024Agricultural Research Goals

Environmental issues (research emphasis) .060+ –.003 .033 –.013Family farm preservation/viability n.a. n.a. .028 –.025

(research emphasis)Agricultural sustainability (research

emphasis) .039 –.005 .010 –.076Productivity (research emphasis) .194*** .101** .081 –.007Productivity (personal importance) .158*** .062 .083 –.030Consumer health (research emphasis) –.142*** –.079* –.035 –.035Consumer health (personal importance) –.139*** –.112** –.095+ –.095+

Community development (research –.036 –.058 .017 –.011emphasis)

Community development (personal –.049 –.087* –.029 –.037importance)

Advancement of scientific knowledge –.019 –.034 –.004 .087+

(research emphasis)Advancement of Scientific Knowledge –.015 –.026 –.054 .007

(Personal Importance)Views About University-Industry Links

Need for increased links n.a. n.a. .128** .130**Views About Biotechnology

Too much regulation of biotechnology n.a. n.a. .041 .081Social and environmental concern n.a. n.a. –.114* –.143**Pro-biotechnology n.a. n.a. –.043 .037Too much industry control n.a. n.a. –.086+ –.091+

Views About Reward SystemImportance of publications and grants –.002 .012 –.050 .007

(ideal policy)a Partial correlations were computed with controls for academic discipline, farm

origins, and percentage of total research time spent conducting basic research.+ p ≤ .10; * p ≤ .05; ** p ≤ .01; *** p ≤ .001.

Table 5 reports zero-order and partial correlation coefficients be-tween gender and our 20 attitudinal indexes for 1979 and 1996.This table offers only limited support at the zero-order level for theproposition that gender is associated with scientists’ views on thecriteria for choosing research problems, the expected goals of agri-cultural research, university-industry links, biotechnology, and thereward system in the agricultural sciences. Although six of the 1979bivariate correlations and five of the 1996 correlations are statisti-cally significant, the coefficients are not very large. The largestzero-order correlation coefficient in the table is .194; this pertainsto the degree to which a respondent’s research emphasized pro-ductivity increase in 1979. Most of the significant bivariate relation-ships are in the direction predicted by the feminist epistemologyhypothesis. Female scientists, for example, placed more researchemphasis and personal importance on consumer health issues thandid male scientists. In addition, in the mid-1990s women expressedmore concerns about the social and environmental impacts ofbiotechnology and the growing links between land-grant universi-ties and private industry.

Among the partial correlation coefficients reported in Table 5,we find no major differences between female and male scientists inregard to their views on agricultural research while controlling foracademic discipline, farm background, and basic research.5 Gen-der, for example, appears to be unimportant in explaining differ-ences in scientists’ commitment to agricultural sustainability, envi-ronmental issues, and family farm preservation as important goalsof land-grant research. In addition, female and male scientists donot hold widely different views about the importance of publica-tions, grants, and contracts in decisions about reappointment, pro-motion, and tenure.

The partial correlation coefficients reported in Table 5, however,indicate statistically significant gender gaps in scientists’ views on afew key research and public policy issues. Female scientists in 1996appeared to be more personally committed to consumer health is-sues and more strongly concerned about the social and environ-mental consequences of biotechnology. Male scientists, in contrast,tended to believe that there should be an increase in the links be-tween public agricultural research institutions and private industry,


5 Multiple regression results (available from the authors) indicate that academicdiscipline and the percentage of research time spent in basic research are better pre-dictors of scientists’ attitudes toward agricultural research, science, and technologythan are gender and farm background.

as well as fewer regulations on biotechnology research and devel-opment. Interestingly, female scientists in the mid-1990s were morelikely than their male counterparts to consider their peers’ ap-proval as an important criterion for choosing research problems.

Discussion

In general, the 1979 and 1996 data on scientists’ educational back-ground, academic appointment characteristics, research environ-ments, and links with private industry suggest that significant as-pects of gender inequality remain in the agricultural sciences atland-grant institutions.

One finding in support of the gender inequality hypothesis isthat female scientists were much more likely than male scientists tohave been employed as postdoctoral fellows before obtaining aland-grant faculty position. The gender gap in postdoctoral experi-ence apparently did not narrow over the study period. Another im-portant indication of gender inequality is the increasing gap be-tween the percentages of male and female scientists appointed asfull professors. As mentioned earlier, this significant disparity eithercould represent the increasing presence of a “glass ceiling” or sim-ply could be due to the large influx of disproportionately young(and junior-rank) female scientists into the land-grant system.Other persistent (or emergent) aspects of gender inequality in-clude female scientists’ limited access to graduate student employ-ees, lower rates of publication of books and bulletins or reports,and fewer links with private industry.

Not all of our findings, however, support the argument thatwomen still face structural obstacles in the land-grant agriculturalsciences. Our data show no significant gender differences (for ei-ther study year) in research and teaching appointments, annual re-search expenditure, postdoctoral fellows and technicians under su-pervision, or receipt of a doctorate from a prestigious land-grantuniversity.

The second major conclusion of this study is that despite—orperhaps because of—the remaining inequities of land-grant scienceand research, female scientists are no more likely than male scien-tists to express oppositional or alternative views about agriculturalresearch, science, and technology. Women are no more likely thanmen, for example, to value research favoring the environment, tosupport research that helps to preserve family farms, to express aresearch commitment to agricultural sustainability, nor to object tothe reward system that emphasizes publications and grants above


teaching and service. Although female scientists are more likelythan males to be concerned about consumer health issues, the so-cial and environmental costs of biotechnology, and the growinglinks between land-grant universities and private industry, the asso-ciations between gender and these views are very small: statisticallysignificant partial correlations range between .079 and .130.6

For two reasons, the results of this study are not surprising. First,the empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis of gender differ-ences in science tends to be stronger for the gender inequality hy-pothesis than for the feminist epistemology hypothesis (Fuller1998). Second, as Fuller observed, gender inequality in science maylead many women to believe that they must be especially accom-plished and committed—and conventional—if they are to expecttheir fair share of grants, promotions, and recognition.

Finally, we think that one of the most significant new findings ofthis study relates to gender and university-industry relationships.Substantial gender inequality exists in many types of these relation-ships: not only in consulting and in support by private industry, butalso in the frequency of communication with industry. Therefore itis not surprising that most of the significant gender differences inattitudes toward research, science, and technology relate to the pri-vate sector’s role in agricultural research.

ReferencesBayer, A. and H. Astin. 1975. “Sex Differentials in the Academic Reward System.” Sci-

ence 188:796–802.Busch, L. and W.B. Lacy. 1983. Science, Agriculture, and the Politics of Research. Boul-

der: Westview.Buttel, F.H. and J.R. Goldberger. 1998. “Structural Change in the Land-Grant Sys-

tem, 1979–1996.” Presented at the annual meetings of the Agriculture, Food,and Human Values Society, June, San Francisco.

Cole, J. 1979. Fair Science: Women in the Scientific Community. New York: Free Press.Feldman, S. and R. Welsh. 1995. “Feminist Knowledge Claims, Local Knowledge,

and Gender Divisions of Agricultural Labor: Constructing a Successor Science.”Rural Sociology 60:23–43.


6 Yet because this study is confined to professors—particularly those who have sur-vived and prospered—at land-grant colleges of agriculture, our data omit groups offemale scientists whose views might depart from those of successful female facultymembers. Our study, for example, does not include female scientists who chose toleave the land-grant system because they did not receive tenure or because of dis-couragement by colleagues, administrators, or others. We also did not survey femalescientists who are not in tenure-track or tenured positions, but who nevertheless areinvolved, in some way, in land-grant agricultural research. Women in these twogroups may hold views that depart from those of successful male and female land-grant research scientists.

Firebaugh, G. 1997. Analyzing Repeated Surveys. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Fox, M.F. 1991. “Gender, Environmental Milieu, and Productivity in Science.” Pp.

188–204 in The Outer Circle: Women in the Scientific Community, edited by H. Zuck-erman, J.R. Cole, and J.T. Bruer. New York: Norton.

———. 1995. “Women and Scientific Careers.” Pp. 205–24 in Handbook of Science andTechnology Studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G.E. Markle, J.C. Petersen, and T. Pinch.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Frankfort-Nachmias, C. and D. Nachmias. 2000. Research Methods in the Social Sciences.6th ed. New York: Worth.

Fuller, S. 1998. “Review of J. Rouse, Engaging Science.” Science, Technology, and HumanValues 23:129–31.

Haraway, D. 1991. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York:Routledge.

Harding, S. 1986. The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Hargens, L. and D. Felmlee. 1984. “Structural Determinants of Stratification in Sci-

ence.” American Sociological Review 49:685–97.Hess, D. 1997. Science Studies. New York: New York University Press.Jasanoff, S., G.E. Markle, J.C. Petersen, and T. Pinch, eds. 1995. Handbook of Science

and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Keller, E.F. 1978. “Gender and Science.” Psychoanalysis and Contemporary Thought

1:409–33.———. 1985. Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.———. 1995. “The Origin, History, and Politics of the Subject Called ‘Gender and

Science’: A First Person Account.” Pp. 80–94 in Handbook of Science and Tech-nology Studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G.E. Markle, J.C. Petersen, and T. Pinch.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kloppenburg, J., Jr. 1991. “Social Theory and the De/Reconstruction of AgriculturalScience: Local Knowledge for an Alternative Agriculture.” Rural Sociology56:519–48.

Longino, H.E. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific In-quiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Menard, S. 1991. Longitudinal Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Merchant, C. 1980. The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution.

New York: Harper and Row.National Research Council (NRC). 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land-Grant Uni-

versities: A Profile. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.———. 1998a. Doctorate Recipients From United States Universities: Summary Report 1996.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press.———. 1998b. Doctoral Scientists and Engineers in the United States: 1995 Profile. Wash-

ington, DC: National Academy Press.Reskin, B. 1976. “Sex Differences in Status Attainment in Science: The Case of Post-

Doctoral Fellowships.” American Sociological Review 41:597–612.———. 1978. “Sex Differentiation and the Social Organization of Science.” Sociolog-

ical Inquiry 48:6–37.Rossiter, M. 1979. “The Organization of the Agricultural Sciences.” Pp. 211–48 in

The Organization of Knowledge in Modern America, edited by A. Oleson and J. Voss.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

———. 1982. Women Scientists in America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Sachs, C. 1983. The Invisible Farmers. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.———. 1996. Gendered Fields. Boulder: Westview.


USDA/Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS). 1979. Current Research Informa-tion Service (CRIS) Database. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.Retrieved manually.

———. 1995. Directory of Professional Workers in State Agricultural Experiment Stationsand Other Cooperating State Institutions. Washington, DC: Cooperative State Re-search, Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Wajcman, J. 1995. “Feminist Theories of Technology.” Pp. 189–204 in Handbook ofScience and Technology Studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G.E. Markle, J.C. Petersen,and T. Pinch. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Zuckerman, H. and J.R. Cole. 1975. “Women in American Science.” Minerva13:82–102.

Zuckerman, H., J.R. Cole, and J.T. Bruer, eds. 1991. The Outer Circle: Women in the Sci-entific Community. New York: Norton.



Ap

pen

dix

Tab

le A

1. I

tem

s In

clu

ded

an

d A

lph

a C

oef

fici

ents

fo

r In

dex

es

Alp

ha

Coe

ffici

ent

Nam

e o

f In

dex

Item

s In

clu

ded

1979

1996

Scie

nti

fic

Cu

rio

sity

(1)

“En

joy

do

ing

this

kin

d o

f re

sear

ch,”

(2)

“Sc

ien

tifi

c cu

rio

sity

.”.5

9.5

9P

eer

Ap

pro

val

(1)

“Eva

luat

ion

of

rese

arch

by

scie

nti

sts

in y

ou

r fi

eld

.” (

2) “

Co

llea

gues

’ ap

pro

val,”

.69

.69

(3)

“Cu

rren

tly

a h

ot t

opic

,” (

4) “

Pu

blic

atio

n p

roba

bilit

y in

pro

fess

ion

al j

ourn

als.

”C

lien

t N

eed

sa(1

)“C

lien

t n

eed

s as

ass

esse

d b

y yo

u,”

(2)

“Fe

edb

ack

fro

m e

xten

sio

n p

erso

nn

el,”

.83

.84

(3)

“Pu

bli

cati

on

pro

bab

ilit

y in

far

m o

r in

du

stry

jo

urn

als,

” (4

) “P

ote

nti

alm

arke

tab

ilit

y o

f th

e fi

nal

pro

du

ct,”

(5)

“R

equ

ests

mad

e b

y cl

ien

ts,”

(6)

“Pu

bli

cati

on

pro

bab

ilit

y o

f re

sear

ch r

epo

rts/

bu

llet

ins,

” (7

) “P

rio

riti

es o

fyo

ur

coll

ege

adm

inis

trat

ion

.”E

nvi

ron

men

tal

Issu

es (

RE

)b

(1)

“En

viro

nm

enta

l is

sues

(e.

g.,

soil

ru

no

ff,

effe

cts

of

pes

tici

des

on

eco

syst

ems)

.”—

—Fa

mil

y Fa

rm P

rese

rvat

ion

/V

iab

ilit

y (R

E)

(1)

“En

han

ce t

he

viab

ilit

y o

f fa

mil

y fa

rmin

g.”

(2)

“Pre

serv

ing

the

fam

ily

farm

.”n

.a.

.82

Agr

icu

ltu

ral

Sust

ain

abil

ity

(RE

)c(1

)“A

gric

ult

ura

l su

stai

nab

ilit

y (e

.g.,

org

anic

far

min

g o

r lo

w-in

pu

t su

stai

nab

le—

.81

agri

cult

ure

),”

(2)

“In

crea

se t

he

sust

ain

abil

ity

of

agri

cult

ure

,” (

3) “

Red

uce

th

eu

se o

f p

esti

cid

es a

nd

fer

tili

zers

in

agr

icu

ltu

ral

pro

du

ctio

n.”

Pro

du

ctiv

ity

(RE

)(1

)“I

ncr

ease

agr

icu

ltu

ral

pro

du

ctiv

ity,

” (2

) “D

ecre

ase

pro

du

ctio

n c

ost

s o

f.7

8.8

5ag

ricu

ltu

ral

pro

du

cts.

”P

rod

uct

ivit

y (P

I)(1

)“I

ncr

ease

agr

icu

ltu

ral

pro

du

ctiv

ity,

” (2

) “D

ecre

ase

pro

du

ctio

n c

ost

s o

f.8

0.8

2ag

ricu

ltu

ral

pro

du

cts.

”C

on

sum

er H

ealt

h (

RE

)(1

)“P

rote

ct c

on

sum

er h

ealt

h;

imp

rove

nu

trit

ion

.”—

—C

on

sum

er H

ealt

h (

PI)

(1)

“Pro

tect

co

nsu

mer

hea

lth

; im

pro

ve n

utr

itio

n.”

——

Co

mm

un

ity

Dev

elo

pm

ent

(RE

) d

(1)

“Pro

mo

te r

ura

l co

mm

un

ity

dev

elo

pm

ent,

” (2

) “I

mp

rove

th

e q

ual

ity

of

.76

.73

U.S

. ru

ral

life

.”C

om

mu

nit

y D

evel

op

men

t (P

I) d

(1)

“Pro

mo

te r

ura

l co

mm

un

ity

dev

elo

pm

ent,

” (2

) “I

mp

rove

th

e q

ual

ity

of

.82

.77

U.S

. ru

ral

life

.”A

dva

nce

men

t o

f Sc

ien

tifi

c K

no

wle

dge

e

(RE

)(1

)“A

dva

nce

bas

ic s

cien

tifi

c kn

ow

led

ge.”

——

Ad

van

cem

ent

of

Scie

nti

fic

Kn

ow

led

ge(P

I) e

(1)

“Ad

van

ce b

asic

sci

enti

fic

kno

wle

dge

.”—

—N

eed

fo

r In

crea

sed

Un

iver

sity

-In

du

stry

Lin

ks(1

)“L

inka

ges

bet

wee

n p

ub

lic

agri

cult

ura

l re

sear

ch i

nst

itu

tio

ns

and

pri

vate

n.a

..8

7co

mp

anie

s sh

ou

ld b

e st

ren

gth

ened

,” (

2) “

Incr

ease

d u

niv

ersi

ty-in

du

stry

lin

kage

sar

e es

sen

tial

in

dev

elo

pin

g n

ew t

ech

no

logi

es t

o m

eet

fore

ign

co

mp

etit

ion

,”(3

) “I

ncr

ease

d l

inka

ges

bet

wee

n p

ub

lic

agri

cult

ura

l re

sear

cher

s an

d p

riva

te fi

rms

wil

l en

able

mo

re r

apid

tra

nsf

er o

f n

ew t

ech

no

logy

to

far

mer

s,”

(4)

“Lin

kage

sb

etw

een

pu

bli

c ag

ricu

ltu

ral

rese

arch

ers

and

pri

vate

firm

s h

elp

mak

e ag

ricu

ltu

ral

rese

arch

mo

re r

elev

ant

to t

he

nee

ds

of

farm

ers,

” (5

) “I

ncr

ease

d c

orp

ora

te s

po

nso

r-sh

ip o

f la

nd

-gra

nt

agri

cult

ura

l re

sear

ch i

s n

eces

sary

bec

ause

pu

bli

c re

sear

ch f

un

ds

are

no

lo

nge

r ad

equ

ate,

” (6

) “R

esea

rch

co

llab

ora

tio

n w

ith

pri

vate

firm

s is

nec

es-

sary

to

en

sure

th

at n

ew a

gric

ult

ura

l te

chn

olo

gy i

s co

mm

erci

aliz

ed p

rom

ptl

y.”


Ap

pen

dix

Tab

le A

1 (c

on

tin

ued

)

Alp

ha

Coe

ffici

ent

Nam

e o

f In

dex

Item

s In

clu

ded

1979

1996

To

o M

uch

Reg

ula

tio

n o

f B

iote

chn

olo

gy(1

)“U

nju

stifi

ed f

ears

an

d r

egu

lati

on

s h

ave

seri

ou

sly

imp

eded

th

e d

evel

op

men

t o

fn

.a.

.80

bio

tech

no

logy

in

th

e U

.S,”

(2)

“C

urr

ent

fed

eral

reg

ula

tio

ns

on

bio

tech

no

logy

are

exce

ssiv

e an

d w

ill

stifl

e in

no

vati

on

,” (

3) “

Pu

bli

c co

nce

rns

ove

r th

e sa

fety

of

agri

cult

ura

l b

iote

chn

olo

gies

are

ou

t o

f p

rop

ort

ion

to

th

e ac

tual

ris

ks.”

Soci

al a

nd

En

viro

nm

enta

l C

on

cern

(1)

“Th

ere

sho

uld

be

tou

gher

reg

ula

tio

ns

on

en

viro

nm

enta

l re

leas

e o

f b

iote

ch-

n.a

..8

7(R

egar

din

g B

iote

chn

olo

gy)

no

logy

pro

du

cts,

” (2

) “T

her

e sh

ou

ld b

e m

ore

res

earc

h o

n t

he

envi

ron

men

tal

con

seq

uen

ces

of

bio

tech

no

logy

,” (

3) “

Th

ere

sho

uld

be

mo

re r

esea

rch

on

th

eso

cial

an

d e

con

om

ic c

on

seq

uen

ces

of

bio

tech

no

logy

,” (

4) “

Th

ere

sho

uld

be

mo

re c

auti

on

ab

ou

t b

iote

chn

olo

gy r

esea

rch

by

lan

d-g

ran

t ad

min

istr

ato

rs a

nd

scie

nti

sts

abo

ut

the

soci

al,

eco

no

mic

, an

d e

nvi

ron

men

tal

pro

ble

ms

that

th

ese

tech

no

logi

es m

igh

t ca

use

,” (

5) “

Th

ere

sho

uld

be

legi

slat

ion

to

co

ntr

ol

ther

eso

cial

an

d e

con

om

ic i

mp

acts

of

bio

tech

no

logy

,” (

6) “

Th

e so

cial

an

d e

con

om

icim

pac

ts o

f b

iote

chn

olo

gy h

ave

bee

n g

iven

to

o l

ittl

e st

ress

by

mo

st a

gric

ult

ura

lsc

ien

tist

s.”

Pro

-Bio

tech

no

logy

(1)

“Th

e la

nd

-gra

nt

coll

eges

hav

e go

ne

ove

rbo

ard

wit

h b

iote

chn

olo

gy a

nd

sh

ou

ldn

.a.

.83

rest

ore

so

me

of

thei

r m

ore

ap

pli

ed r

esea

rch

pro

gram

s” (

reve

rse

cod

ed),

(2)

“Th

ere

sho

uld

be

mo

re b

iote

chn

olo

gy r

esea

rch

by

lan

d-g

ran

t co

lleg

es o

fag

ricu

ltu

re,”

(3)

“T

he

bes

t fu

ture

fo

r A

mer

ican

agr

icu

ltu

re l

ies

in r

apid

dev

elo

pm

ent

of

bio

tech

no

logy

,” (

4) “

Lan

d-g

ran

t u

niv

ersi

ties

mu

st b

e ac

tive

lyin

volv

ed i

n b

iote

chn

olo

gy i

f th

ey a

re t

o b

e ab

le t

o s

erve

th

e A

mer

ican

far

mer

ove

r th

e n

ext

10 t

o 1

5 ye

ars.

”T

oo

Mu

ch I

nd

ust

ry C

on

tro

l(1

)“L

arge

bio

tech

no

logy

co

rpo

rati

on

s w

ill

gain

to

o m

uch

co

ntr

ol

ove

r fa

rmer

s’n

.a.

.70

inp

uts

th

rou

gh p

aten

tin

g,”

(2)

“Pat

enti

ng

is e

ssen

tial

if

bio

tech

no

logy

com

pan

ies

are

to b

rin

g n

ew t

ech

no

logi

es t

o t

he

Am

eric

an f

arm

er”

(rev

erse

cod

ed),

(3)

“P

riva

te i

nd

ust

ry h

as t

oo

mu

ch i

nfl

uen

ce o

n l

and

-gra

nt

bio

tech

-n

olo

gy r

esea

rch

.”Im

po

rtan

ce o

f P

ub

lica

tio

ns

and

Gra

nts

(Id

eal

Po

licy

) f

(1)

“Pu

bli

cati

on

of

man

y re

fere

ed j

ou

rnal

art

icle

s,”

(2)

“Pu

bli

cati

on

of

hig

h-

.40

.50

qu

alit

y re

fere

ed j

ou

rnal

art

icle

s,”

(3)

“Rec

eip

t o

f m

any

gran

ts a

nd

co

ntr

acts

.”

Not

e:R

E =

res

earc

h e

mp

has

is (

resp

on

den

ts w

ere

aske

d a

bo

ut

the

deg

ree

to w

hic

h t

hei

r re

sear

ch c

on

trib

ute

s to

par

ticu

lar

goal

s fo

rag

ricu

ltu

ral

rese

arch

); P

I =

per

son

al i

mp

ort

ance

(re

spo

nd

ents

wer

e as

ked

ab

ou

t th

e p

erso

nal

im

po

rtan

ce o

f p

arti

cula

r go

als

for

agri

cul-

tura

l re

sear

ch).

aT

he

fin

al t

hre

e it

ems

wer

e w

ord

ed d

iffe

ren

tly

in 1

979:

“d

eman

ds

rais

ed b

y cl

ien

tele

,” “

pu

bli

cati

on

pro

bab

ilit

y in

exp

erim

ent

stat

ion

or

rese

arch

ser

vice

bu

llet

ins

and

rep

ort

s,”

and

“p

rio

riti

es o

f th

e re

sear

ch o

rgan

izat

ion

.”b

Th

e 19

79 i

tem

was

wo

rded

“E

nvi

ron

men

tal

issu

es (

e.g.

, fa

rm r

un

off

, p

est

man

agem

ent)

.”cT

he

1979

in

dex

co

nta

ins

on

ly o

ne

item

: “A

lter

nat

ive

app

roac

hes

to

agr

icu

ltu

re (

e.g.

, o

rgan

ic f

arm

ing)

.”d

Th

e 19

79 i

tem

s w

ere

wo

rded

“P

rom

ote

co

mm

un

ity

dev

elo

pm

ent”

an

d “

Imp

rove

lev

el o

f li

vin

g o

f ru

ral

Am

eric

a.”

eT

he

1979

ite

m w

as w

ord

ed “

Dev

elo

p n

ew k

no

wle

dge

or

imp

rove

d m

eth

od

olo

gy.”

fT

he

1979

ite

ms

refe

rred

to

“Sc

ho

larl

y p

aper

s” r

ath

er t

han

“Jo

urn

al a

rtic

les.

”

Documents

Gender and Agricultural Science: Evidence From Two Surveys of Land-Grant Scientists