Agricultural decision making is characterized by two challenges common to multiple arenas: linking science to decision making and linking science and decision making across multiple levels. The U.S. agricultural research, education, and extension system was designed to address these challenges. By investigating this system, this study deepens the understanding of science and decision making, specifically exploring the notion of boundary organizations in two significant ways. First, it provides a preliminary test of the hypothesis that boundary organizations mediate between the shifting domains of science and policy, finding that they are instrumental in creating and maintaining an integrated system of assessment and decision making for addressing depletion of the High Plains Aquifer. Second, it extends the concept of boundary organization beyond the science-policy dimension to incorporate the dimension of levels of organization—not only bridging science and policy but linking science and policy across different levels (e.g., the local, state, and national levels).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Buchanan, R., and R. W. Buddemeir. 1993. Kansas ground water: An introduction to the state’s water quantity, quality, and management issues. Educational Series 10. Lawrence: Kansas Geologic Survey.
2.
Cash, D. W., and S. Moser. 2000. Linking global and local scales: Designing dynamic assessment and management processes. Global Environmental Change10 (2): 109-120.
3.
Easterling, W. E.1997. Why regional studies are needed in the development of full-scale integrated assessment modeling of global change processes. Global Environmental Change7 (4): 337-356.
4.
Gieryn, T. F.1995. Boundaries of science. In Handbook of science and technology studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Peterson, and T. Pinch. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
Green, D. E.1992. A history of irrigation technology used to exploit the Ogallala Aquifer. In Groundwater exploitation in the High Plains, edited by D. E. Kromm and S. E. White. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
6.
Guston, D. H.1996. Principal-agent theory and the structure of science policy. Science and Public Policy24 (4): 229-240.
7.
Guston, D. H.1999a. Boundary organizations: A background paper. Workshop background paper. New Brunswick: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
8.
Guston, D. H.1999b. Stabilizing the boundary between politics and science: The role of the Office of Technology Transfer as a boundary organization. Social Studies of Science29 (1): 87-112.
9.
Harvey, L.D. D.2000. Upscaling in global change research. Climatic Change44 (3): 225-263.
10.
High Plains Associates. 1982. Six-state High Plains-Ogallala regional resources study. Austin, TX: High Plains Associates for the U.S. Department of Commerce.
11.
Holling, C. S., ed. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. New York: John Wiley.
12.
Jasanoff, S.1990. The fifth branch: Science advisors as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13.
Jasanoff, S.1995. Science at the bar: Law, science, and technology in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
Kromm, D. E., and S. E. White, eds. 1992. Groundwater exploitation in the High Plains. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
15.
Lee, K. N.1993. Compass and gyroscope: Integrating science and politics for the environment. Washington, DC: Island Press.
16.
Lins, H. F., D. M. Wolock, and G. J. McCabe. 1997. Scale and modeling issues in water resources planning. Climatic Change37 (1): 63-88.
17.
McGuire, V. L., and J. B. Sharpe. 1997. Water-level changes in the High Plains Aquifer—Predevelopment to 1995. WRIR 97-4081. Denver, CO: U.S. Geological Survey.
18.
Moser, S. C.1998. Talk globally, walk locally: The cross-scale influence of global change information on coastal zone management in Maine and Hawai’i. Environment and Natural Resources Program discussion paper E-98-17, Cambridge, MA.
19.
Moser, S. C., and D. W. Cash. 1998. Information and decision making systems for the effective management of cross-scale environmental problems: A research protocol. Paper presented at Local Response to Global Change: Strategies of Information Transfer and Decision Making for Cross-Scale Environmental Risks, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 21 January 1998.
20.
National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of agriculture at the land grant universities: A profile. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
21.
National Research Council. 1996. Colleges of agriculture at the land grant universities: Public service and public policy. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
22.
Rasmussen, W. D.1989. Taking the university to the people: Seventy-five years of cooperative extension. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
23.
Star, S. L., and J. R. Griesemer. 1989. Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science19 (3): 387-420.
24.
U.S. Congress. 1862. Morrill Act, Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges Act. 37 Cong. Ch. 130, 12 Stat. 503.
25.
U.S. Congress. 1887. Hatch Act, Agricultural Experiment Station Act. 49 Cong. Ch. 314, 24 Stat. 440.
26.
U.S. Congress. 1914. Smith-Lever Act, Agricultural Extension Work Act. 63 P.L. 95, 63 Cong. Ch. 79, 38 Stat. 372.
27.
U.S. Congress. 1994. Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994. 103 P.L. 354, 108 Stat. 3178.
28.
Weeks, J. B., E. D. Gutentag, F. J. Heimes, and R. R. Luckey. 1988. Summary of the High Plains regional aquifer-system analysis in parts of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming. USGS professional paper 1400-A. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey.
29.
Wilbanks, T. J., and R. W. Kates. 1999. Global change in local places: How scale matters. Climatic Change43 (3): 601-628.
