This article examines the crucial role of scientific expertise and authority, in evaluation as well as in research decision-making. The case of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) is used to demonstrate how the bureaucratic imperatives in a public research system can thwart the cause of scientific authority and accountability. Research decision-making is a function delegated to different points, or ‘nodes’, vested with scientific expertise and the power to make decisions. Scientific expertise is the basic asset used by the nodes, which may be individual scientists and/or groups, boards or organizations. Patronage or decision-making in the ICAR is, for the most part, vested in bureaucratic nodes, marking the dichotomy in the organization between scientific and administrative or financial decision-making. The concluding section of this article highlights the social reproduction of bureaucratic nodes, which perpetuates the marginalization of evaluation. The nodes in the ICAR rely on bureaucratic decision-making not validated by evaluations or assessments using scientific expertise. It is argued that stringent evaluation can replace bureaucratic authority with scientific expertise and authority, thereby bringing more accountability to the system of patronage of science.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Acharya, R. M. (1986) The Role of Evaluation of National Agricultural Research Systems: A Report on the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. New Delhi: ICAR.
2.
Barooah, Satya Ranjan (1993) Agricultural Research and Development – Role of Scientists and Technocrats. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company.
3.
Biggs, Stephen D. (1989) The Role of Management Information in Agricultural Research Policy, Planning and Management in the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. Report submitted to the ODA and ICAR. Norwich: Overseas Development Group, University of East Anglia.
4.
Busch, Lawrence (1988) Universities for Development: Report of the Joint Indo-US Impact Evaluation of the Indian Agricultural Universities. AID Project Impact Evaluation Report, No.68, USAID. Washington, DC: USAID.
5.
Chowdhury, Kamala , V. R. Gaikwad and S. K. Bhatacharya (1972) An Organization Study of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. Ahmadabad: Indian Institute of Management.
6.
Elliott, Howard (1987) ‘The Use of Events Analysis in Evaluating National Research Systems’, in Vernon W. Ruttan and Carl E. Pray (eds) Policy for Agricultural Research, pp. 377–387. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
7.
Elz, Dieter (ed.) (1984) The Planning and Management of Agricultural Research. A World Bank and ISNAR Symposium. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
8.
Elzinga, Aant (1996) ‘Meta-evaluation of a Series of Reports on Monitoring and Evaluation Systems of Selected Developing Countries’, Report No.191, Department of Theory of Science, Göteborg University: Sweden.
9.
Gupta, Anil K., V. R. Gaikwad, P. N. Khandwalla, I. M. Pandey and U. K. Srivastava (1991) Reorganization for Revitalization: Issues and Perspectives. Report on Reorganization of Indian Council of Agricultural Research Headquarters. Ahmadabad: Centre for Management in Agriculture, Indian Institute of Management.
10.
Guston, David H. (1996) ‘Principal–Agent Theory and the Structure of Science Policy’, Science and Public Policy23(4): 229–240.
11.
Hodgson, Geoffrey M. (1993) Economics and Evolution – Bringing Life Back into Economics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
12.
Horton, Douglas (1990) ‘Assessing the Impact of International Research: Concepts and Challenges’, in R. Echeveria (ed.) Methods for Diagnosing Research System Constraints and Assessing the Impact of Agricultural Research, 2, pp. 43–67. The Hague: ISNAR.
13.
Horton, Douglas , P. Ballantyne, W. Peterson, B. Uribe, D. Gapasin and K. Sheridan (1993) Monitoring and Evaluating Agricultural Research. A Source Book. The Hague: CAB International and ISNAR.
14.
ICAR (1960) Report of the Second Joint Indo-American Team on Agricultural Education Research and Extension. New Delhi: ICAR.
15.
ICAR (1973) Report of the ICAR Enquiry Committee. New Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture.
16.
ICAR (1988) Report of the ICAR Review Committee. New Delhi: ICAR.
17.
ICAR (1994) Mandates of the ICAR and its Research Institutes. New Delhi: Publications and Information Division, ICAR.
18.
Just, Richard E. and Wallace E. Huffman (1992) ‘Economic Principles and Incentives: Structure, Management, and Funding of Agricultural Research in the United States’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics74(4): 1101–1108.
19.
Lele, Uma and Oliver Goldsmith (1989) ‘The Development of National Agricultural Research Capacity: India's Experience with the Rockefeller Foundation and Its Significance for Africa’, Economic Development and Cultural Change37(2): 305–343.
20.
Lipman-Blumen, Jean (1987) ‘Priority Setting in Agricultural Research’ in Vernon W. Ruttan and Carl E. Pray (eds) Policy for Agricultural Research, pp. 139–173. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
21.
Ministry of Agriculture (1964) Report of the Agricultural Research Review Team (Chairman – M.W. Parker). New Delhi: Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Government of India.
22.
Nogueira, Roberto Martinez (1984) ‘Comments by Participants – Session 8: The Evaluation of Research Programs’, in D. Elz (ed.) The Planning and Management of Agricultural Research, pp. 118–119. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
23.
Prahladachar, M. (1983) ‘Income Distribution Effects of the Green Revolution in India: A Review of Empirical Evidence’, World Development 11 (11): 927–944.
24.
Raina, Rajeswari S. (1995) ‘Professionalization and Evaluation: The Case of Indian Agricultural Research’, paper presented in the session on Evaluation Of Agricultural Research: Regional Perspectives, at the International Evaluation Conference, November 1–5, 1995, Vancouver, Canada.
25.
Raina, Rajeswari S. (1997) ‘Professionalization and Evaluation: The Case of Indian Agricultural Research’, ISNAR Discussion Paper No. 97/9. The Hague: ISNAR.
26.
Rajeswari, S. (1992) The Organization of Agricultural Research in India: An Economic Analysis of Technology Generation, 1860–1990, unpublished PhD thesis submitted to the University of Kerala, Trivandrum: Centre for Development Studies.
27.
Rajeswari, S. (1995) ‘Agricultural Research Effort: Conceptual Clarity and Measurement’, World Development23(4): 617–635.
28.
Raman, K. V., M. M. Anwer and R. B. Gaddagimath (eds) (1988) Agricultural Research Systems and Management in the 21st Century. Proceedings of the International Seminar, Dec. 8–10, 1987, NAARM. Rajendranagar, Hyderabad: National Academy of Agricultural Research Management.
29.
Randhawa, M. S. (1986) A History of Agriculture in India, Vol. IV. New Delhi: ICAR.
30.
Randhawa, N. S. (1987) Organization of Agricultural Research: An Overview of its Organization, Management and Operations. Rome: FAO.
31.
Rockefeller Foundation (1982) Science for Agriculture: Report of a Workshop on Critical Issues in American Agricultural Research (The Winrock Report), jointly sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation and Office of Science and Technology Policy, USA. June 14–15 1982, Winrock International Conference Centre, Arkansas. New York: Rockefeller Foundation.
32.
Ruttan, Vernon W. (1982) Agricultural Research Policy. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
33.
Ruttan, Vernon W. and Carl E. Pray (eds) (1987) Policy for Agricultural Research. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
34.
Sivaraman, B. (1991) Bitter Sweet: Governance of India in Transition (Memoirs of B. Sivaraman). New Delhi: Ashish Publishing House.
35.
Swaminathan, M. S. (1969) ‘Scientific Implications of HYV Programme’, Economic and Political Weekly4(1): 67–75.
36.
Tabor, Steven R. (ed.) (1995) Agricultural Research in an Era of Adjustment – Policies, Institutions and Progress, EDI Seminar Series. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
37.
Trigo, Eduardo (1984) ‘Evaluating Research Programmes and Institutions: A Management Perspective’, in D. Elz (ed.) The Planning and Management of Agricultural Research, pp. 112–116. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
38.
Trigo, Eduardo (1987) ‘Agricultural Research Organization in the Developing World: Diversity and Evolution’, in Vernon W. Ruttan and Carl E. Pray (eds) Policy for Agricultural Research, pp. 251–282. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
39.
Turner, Stephen P. (1990) ‘Forms of Patronage’, in Cozzens and Gieryn (eds) Theories of Science in Society, pp. 185–211. Indianapolis: Indiana State University Press.
40.
UNRISD (1974) The Social and Economic Implications of Large-Scale Introduction of New Varieties of Food Grain: Summary of Conclusions of a Global Research Project. Geneva: UNRISD.
41.
Venkateswarlu, K. , K. V. Subba Rao and V. Raghavendra Rao (1988) ‘The Management of All India Co-ordinated Research Projects and their Role in the National Agricultural Research System’, in K. V. Raman, M. M. Anwer and R. B. Gaddagimath (eds) (1988) Agricultural Research Systems and Management in the 21st Century. Proceedings of the International Seminar, Dec. 8–10, 1987, NAARM, pp. 135–146. Rajendranagar, Hyderabad: National Academy of Agricultural Research Management.
42.
Wolch, J. and M. Dear (1989) The Power of Geography: How Territory Shapes Social Life. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman.
43.
World Bank (1990) Agricultural Research in India: Prologue, Performance and Prospects. Agricultural Operations Division, Asia Region. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
