Discussion: Methodological Problems in Agricultural Policy Research

In casting about for a handle by which to grasp the topic of methodology as it applies to agricultural policy research, Dr. Brandow, like Neptune, has come up from the sea bearing a three-pronged spear, or trident with which to attack methodological problems in agricultural policy research. He suggests that research problems in policy be arrayed in three orders. First order problems deal with the choice of the best of several alternative solutions to a policy question. Second order problems deal with the consequences of alternative courses of action with respect to agricultural policy, while third order problems deal primarily with questions of facts and relationships ancillary to policy questions. I have some difficulty in viewing this particular trident as a weapon with which to pursue methodological problems in agricultural policy research. Why? There are two basic reasons. First of all, I would argue that the element upon which Brandow's division of policy problems into orders must stand is one of scope rather than method. As Dr. Brandow points out, this hierarchy of policy questions moves from "the single complete question at the top, [through] a few broad questions about the consequences of alternative courses of action . .. [to] a base of numerous specific questions about facts and relationships in several fields of study." These are primarily separations according to scope of problem. Even if we waive the objection that this division of policy problems into three categories is based upon scope, it is difficult to see the basis for separation of questions of the choice of the best among several alternative courses of action from an appraisal of the consequences of the alternative courses of action. If a decision as to what is "best" is to be made with respect to policy alternatives, this choice can be made only after the consequences of different alternative courses of action have been appraised. In turn, the choice of alternatives and their consequences calls for facts and relationships. Without such facts and relationships no evaluation of the consequences of courses of action could be made. These observations lead to the opinion of the relative inseparability of policy problems on this basis for purposes of appraisal of method. My second point is that scientific method in research applied to any problem involves a specific sequence of elements regardless of the problem's position in any hierarchy of problems. Since Dr. Brandow has recognized the interrelation of these three orders of problems, one can conclude that the separation stands on difference in method applied to problems at the three levels. Scientific method usually requires, in addition to a sensing of the existence of a problem situation, the formulation of hypotheses about the problem and its solution, the collection of data for the testing of these hypotheses and the application of logic and statistical analysis to the data and hypotheses to arrive at conclusions that will support or cast doubt upon the hypotheses. It is evident that in any one of the three orders of problems the methodology is substantially identical as far as the basic elements of method are concerned. Even in the third order