INTSORMIL

The Sudan Agricultural Research Corporation:

Organization, Practices, and Policy Recommendations

William B. Lacy
Associate Professor

Lawrence Busch
Associate Professor

Paul Marcotte
Research Assistant

?3~
Department of Sociology . Department of Anthropology
Agricultural Experiment Station . College of Agriculture
Univorsity of Kentucky . Lexington, Kentucky
 Intsormil
Project Title: Sociocultural Constraints in the Production and Consumption of
Grain Sorghum and Pearl Millet in Less Developed Countries

Leader: C. Milton.Coughenour

Institution: University of Kentucky''

" International
Sorghum/Millet

" Collaborative Research

Support Program
(CRSP)

A Research Development Pro.

gram of the Agency for Interna.
tional Development, Participating
Land-Grant Universities, Host
County Research Agencies and
Private Donors.

Inslilule of Agricullure and Natural Resources

Universily of Nebraska-Lincoln
 THE SUDAN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CORPORATION:

,ORGANIZAT ION, PRACTICES AND iIPOLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

by

Wil iam B. Lacy

Associ ate Professor

Lawrence Busch
Associate Professor

Paul Marcotte
Research Assistant.

INTSORMI.L
.Contract No'. AID/DSAN-G0149

Otober,- 1983
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report addresses the i nter nal dynamics of the Agricu ltural
Research Corporation (ARC) as well as the socialaeconomic,,and political

context in which it is'embedded. An understanding of this larger context 'is

particularly important. For example, despite institutionalized agricultural

researchin the Sudan which dates back to the turn of the century,. as. a

result of rapid population growth and ot',er factors agricultural and food

production per capita have declined precipitously in recent decades.

As the rate of development of. science,. technology, and social

institutions is determined in large part by human resources (e.g.,

scienti-sts and staff) an examination of the backgrounds,, professional

training and capability of ARC scientists was conducted. Sudan's.
agricultural scientific community, while increasing from 52 scientist years

in 1967 to 212 scientist years in 1980 and from $2.8 million expenditures in

1966 to $9.6 million expenditures in 1980, is about.,average interms of

growth among developing countries. The'.scientists themselves are

predominantly male (97%),' and average 39 years of-age. Only 33% come fro,
farm backgrounds. The ARC scientific community is well trained,,with 65%

having received .Ph, O.,.'s, a figure which far exceeds- the World Bank target of

20%. This relat ive. y large well-trained sc ientific community is

insufficient in and of itself to conduct research. Other issues that. need.

to be addressed.are distribution, of scienti sts within the country,

management.capability, diffusion oftc-infolmadon ocient,groups ,operating

budgets, and congruence of,training,,and national heeds.:

 The research conducted by ARC scientists is generally of an applied

nature. While ARC scientists considered financial- support and operating

supplies and materials, as the most important resources for their .wor.k, these

same resources werealso generally regarded ei ther as the. least adequate or

often as inadequate. It is to the credit of:the individuals within the

system that they have been able to adapt to these poor'.conditions and to,

continue their research. However, many ientists indicated that if

salaries and support levels within the ARC did not improve, 'they would seek

professional opportunities elsewhere.

As production of scientific knowledge is,'intimate.ly bound to the

ability to communicate and exchange information, an, assessment of scientific

communication was made. Withrespect to formal communications, the major

vehicle by which the ARC scientists keep .abreast of current literature is

regular scanning of journals. 'Travel and scanning of publications other'.

than journals were considered to be of little importance. Unfortunately,

relatively few scientific journals are available to the ARC scient'ists due

to budgetary constraints and restrictions on access to foreign currency.

Likewise, travel, which is considered by other groups of agricultural

scientists:,to'bea major source of information, is not a major vehicle for

ARC scientists due toinsufficient funds for travel both within and oWotside

the Sudan. To compensat e for this relatively weak formal communication­

networkARC scientists have developed a strong informal communication

network. Forty-five percent of ARC scientists report that they converse

daily with scientists in their respective departments. This compares qui'te

favorably to scientists in other countries.

ii
 ARC' scientists were'asked to rank goals for agricultural research. The

primary goal of the ARC scientists is to increase agricultural productivity,

with development of new knowledge a close second priority. The major

beneficiaries 'of the ARC research are identified by scientists as farmers

(approximately 50%), industry (approximately 25%),-:and extensior/government

(16.1%). This differs considerably fro,, those beneficiaries reported by

scientists in other countries. Paradoxically, while farmers are defined to

be the primary audience, the principal methods of diffusion are
inappropriate or marginally adequate. They include: publication, diffusion
through extension (where activity has been..severely curtailed due to
economic conditions), and meetings an'd walk-,ins, in areas where there.are

great distances to be traversed by the farmers'.

Recommendations include: (I) the need for a coheren tnational

agricultural research policy,, (2) reorgani zation to incorporate,.Farming

Systems Research (FSR).approaches to research, (3) better integration of

Western Sudan Agricultural Research Project (WSARP) and other sections into

the ARC, (4) movement of ARC headquarters to Khartoum, (5) development of

improved communications with outlying stations, (6) additional on-farm

experimentation, (7) greater congruence .between organizational goa-ls and.,

reward"systems, and, (8) qreater sha'rini of scientific eauiDment.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

No study the workof

evisever single author; the Work,reported here is..

no exception. In particular, Dr. Mohammed Bakheit, Director-General of the

Agricultural'Research Corporation (ARC) was frank and.open with us in

discussing the problems the ARC faces and in providing us with access to the,

organization. Equally important was the assistance we received from Dr.

Dafalla Dafalla,- Assistant Director-General of ,,the ARC. and Project Director'

,
of the Western Sudan Agricultural Research ,Project and fr om Dr. Babiker

Beshear, Director.-of the.Food Research Center,. and his staff. Additional ly,

Dr. El Ahmadi was Iparticularly helpful in, securing appointments with

scientists and key government officials and transportation to distant

stations. Dr...James-Riley,, senior advisor to the ARC,-was extremely helpful

in providing background. information and reports, as wejl, as in.arrangi.ng

logistical support and meetings with scientists and!research administrator's.

Messrs. Eric Witt, :Ke'ith Sherpa, and Fred Winch of the USAID mission in

Khartoum were cooperative and supportive of our,. work. Dr. Edward'Reeves and

Tim and Janet Frankenbergershared their ideas, information, and home with

us in El.Obeid. Finally, thanks.must go:to the station directors,­

scientists, -and'students who, gave freely.of their time to answer our many.

questions. We hope that the information and recommendations contained in

this report compensate for the support and cooperation offered to us.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
Executive Summary -' -"

Acknowledgements " - .. ... . iv

Chapter 1 -- Introduction . . -.... . . . . . . .... . .. . 1

A Conceptual Overview . . . .. 0-"
..... .. 1
Brief History:9'." - o 'o " :- . " .. ... ...

The Agricultural Situation .. . . . . . . . .. . 8

Chapter 2, Scientists: The- Human Resource . ....

Agricultural Scientists Worldwide ...... . .. ... . . 12

Sudan's Agricultural Scientists and Support Staff -.
... .. 13,
Demographic Characteristics . . . ..... 0... . , . . .. 18

,Sex... . . o ..* a.e*

. .0
. 0.*a .
..
*v*," a ,- * 19

Age 9 * .' Age ~~~~~.-..,..

.....
*
*0 ,.-. ......
* ..........
*.0 * * * ,, * * * * 0 0 20

Family Background:,. : . . ... . 20,

Education .±.... o .. ~.;..

. 0. . .. 22

Conclusion . .,.-
9-,:,>.,. o,' 1'* ' c * . l 25

Chapter 3 ,- The Current Si"tu-ati on'":'

o' 29

Research Orientation ." . . . ,29

Research Sites , . . -" 'o .. l,,. . 29

Resources: Adequacy .and-'Importance, o r

* n' .... * -.. < .30.

Perceptions of Sudanese, Students in

theUnited States olib.*.'......

. 01. ","... ,.. 33
Extramural, Support -and, CollIabor at-on o 49*, . . . 35.
 Page

Career Advancement . 36

Scientists' Future Career Plans. 39

Conclusion m. . a
. . ** * . . ,.
* 4
401

Chapter, 4-- Scientific, Communication . . . . . . . . . . . 41

1

Informal Communication ... ,. . . • • . .... 4

Formal Communication . . . . 4
45..

Conclusion ' . . , . . . ..... .. " . .. 1 7.. 47

Chapter 5-7 Goals and Beneficiaries of Agricultural Research,.:* 48.

Research Goals . .. . ... . . . .. * * *" . . *,., 48

Differences within ARC . . . .... ... . . . . . . . . . 48

Sudanese Scientists Compared to Sudanese Students ... .. . 50,

Sudanese Scientists and ,Students Compared to U.S.,

Scientists and International Sorghum Scientists...... 51

Goals by Father's.Occupation . . . . . . . 53

Beneficiaries . . .. . . ..... . . . . . , . 541

Information Diffulsion". .-.. . , 56

Conclusion 59
Chapter. 6 -- Recommendations . , .. ,. . • ... . . . 61
National Organization and Coordination . ..... 61

ManpowerTraining.... ...... .. .. 67

Research ,Funding and Organization . . . JO

0..

Comm.,unications .. . . . !. .. , .. ,. . "
. 71-.

Administlatioh-Scientist ..- S.
* . . . . .. . . . , 71

Among Scientists.... .:. ... . * * 72

With Farmers . . . 1.3

vi
 Page

Promotions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. 74

Equipment . . * *5 75

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . 77
Methodological Appendix. . . . . . . . . . . 82
,

Data Collection . . . .. . . 822.

Data Analysis . . . .. . . . . 83

vii
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

This report consists largely of data gleaned, during a five-week visit

to the Sudan during February and March 1982 by William B. Lacy and Lawrence

Busch of the Department of Sociology, College of Agriculture, University of

Kentucky as well as a review of relevant reports, and official docuinents."

The visit of.Dr.,.Lacy and Dr. Busch was supported by the International Grain

Sorghum/Pearl Millet Collaborative Research Support Program (INTSORMIL

CRSP). As a joint team had made a detailed report on Sudan Agricultural

Research Capabilities just a few years earlier (Joint Team, 1977), this

study focused largely upon the organization and structure of the

Agricultural Research Corporation (ARC). Those wishing information on the

general agricultural situation and other research agencies are referred to

the Joint Team report.

A second source of data was a mail questionnaire sent to Sudanese

students enrolled in graduate agricultural programs in the United States in

1982-1983. The details of the procedures used to analyze the data are

reported in the Methodological Appendix.

A Conceptual Overview

Traditionally, agricultural research organizations have been examined

from one of two perspectives. ,.The first and older of these perspectives

examined only the products produced by research organizations and how those

products were or were not.adopted by farmers. This led to the voluminous

literature on the diffusion of agricultural innovations (see. for example,

Rogers with Shoemaker, 1971),. Social scientists employing this model

focused not upon the research organization but'upon the transfer of the,
 2

products to the farmer through the extension system. Feedback, to the

extent that it existed, consisted of the farmer, either directly or througn

the extension service, informing researchers as to what practices-were or

were not adopted. In short, although the communication 'as in both

directions, it assumed the relevance and appropriateness of the practices

and products developed by the .research community. Nonadoption was

considered to be the result of the farmers' stubbornness or ignorance (cf.,

Busch, 1978).

More recently, attention has focused upon the internal dynamics of

research organizations as evidenced by a wide variety of reviews of both

national programs and the international centers (e.g., Joint Reviev Team,

1977; Ruttan, 1982). Most of these studies however, have limited themselves

to the manpower requirements of research systems, and the monetary support

necessary to effectively operate. They have tended to ignore the larger

social, economic, and political context within which research systems are

embedded as well as theinternal dynamics of the research system itself. As

a result, althoughthe information provided by such studies is accurate,it

is incomplete in very significant ways. This incompleteness becomes

apparent, if.one examines the difference between scientific and everyday

rationality.
Scientific or means-ends rationality is generally employed by

scientists in the process of doing science. For example, among agricultural

researchers, the scientist views higher productivity as the end and uses a

variety of possible means (e.g., breed more productive plants, control

pests, increase soil nutrients, modify cultural practices) depending onhis

or her discipli;narybackground in order to affect that end., The end itself

 3

is tacitly assumed to be a given while the means are approaches that may be

manipulated in order to further progress towards that end. .For example, a

scientist may focus upon improving cotton production on the Gezira Scheme

and wil look. towards various means for.increasing that productivity . The
end of improving the productivity of the Scheme itself wi.ll not.be.called­
into question during the research process.
This kind of rationality isfundamentally instrumental (Idhe, 1979)..
First, itinvolves the utilization of instruments (e.g., microsc pes,
scales) inorder to achieve :the desired-experimental results. Second, it is
instrumental inthe sense that itisconcerned largely with the choice of
means rather than the choice of ends. Scientists may employ analogical,
symbolic, or even literary reasoning intheir daily endeavors (Knorr-Cetina,
1981), but this takes place within an instrumentally constructed context.
Everyday rationality, however, isquite different. Here theends as
well as .,the means may be varied and complex. For example, a Sudanese small
land-holder may perceive a variety of ends for the farm. These include
making a profit, demonstrating success to one's neighbors, mi.nimizing heavy
labor, spreading work evenly over the year, minimizing soil erosion, and,
most importantly, guaranteeing the minimum harvest necessary for subsistence
every year. Importantly, these ends are not necessari-ly. compatible.' For
example, profits may be foregone inorder to reduce risk. Moreover, a
Sudanese farmer will employ a variety of means inorder to achieve these
ends. A farmer might grow high productivity crops, maximize production,
minimize the cost of purchased inputs, increase farm size, and/or grow
varieties that are highly drought tolerant. The degree to'which a farmer
employs these means will be directly related 'to the. relative weight gi ve' to
 4

the various ends and his resource base. For example, a wealthier farmper may

be more willing than a poorer farmer to adopt high input varieties that

promise a high payoff. This is so simply because the wealthier farmer can

afford to take the higher risk associated with the higher Use' of inputs.
We should.also note that by virtue of the complexity of the
will.
interrelations between the ends :and- the pressure of time, thei farmer

not be able to rationally calculate an rotimal solution to a particular

appears appropriate.
problem but will be forced to employ the solutionthat

In short, whiie scientific rationality, tends to ficus on one-or a smail

.
group of ends that can be -addressed through research,, everyday rationality

involves a variety of ends, many of which cannot be addressed by a single,

researcher or even an entire research system. This model of everyday

rati0dlity has implications for the ,way in which the flow of information

and political support must occur in research and extension systems.

An alternative perspective on research and extension expands the number

of participants in-the model to include farmers, agribusiness people, urban

consumers, legislatures, government officials, disciplines, production

scheme officials, and bilateral and multilateral aid agencies. These

various clients for agricultural research impinge upon the overall

organization of the research system as well as the specific choice of

problems that a given researcher addresses (Busch and Lacy, 1983). They may

do this through funding mechanisms, by lobbying the funding organizations,

by direct pressure on the research organization, or by administrative

decree. The problems finally selected for research ar,-e out of

negotiations with these clients (Busch, 1980). This in turn limits the

range",of research products that are provided to extension agents or directly

 5

to clients. If the researcher has done his or her homework, then the

products produced are those that were demanded by clients in the first place

and the diffusion process largely involves making known those products and

how to use them to the clients that requested them.

Of course, all clients are not alike. Farmers may be wealthy or poor,

may grow different crops, may or may not hire labor, and may have very

different interests. In the case of Sudan, farmers can be clearly divided

into three gross categories: those on irrigated production schemes, those

on mechanized farming schemes, and those involved in rain-fed agriculture.

Even within these three large groups, farmers may not have the same needs or
interests. Similarly, legislators or government officials may be as

interested in maintaining low food costs for urban consumers as they are in

increasing farmers' incomes. Scheme managers are likely to be interested in

the overall production of the scheme rather than in the income that accrues

to a particular farmer. This is particularly apparent in Faki's (1982)

study of the Gezira Scheme. He found that while scheme managers wish to
promote cotton production, from the standpoint of the tenant, cotton

compares unfavorably with other crops. Scientific disciplines also may

develop their own agendas which may not be fully congruent with the needs of

other clients. And, scientists' training in the United States and the

United Kingdom may inadverently orient them towards problems considered

important in those countries rather than problems considered important in

Sudan.

Moreover, these various clients will have differential access to the

researchers depending on wealth, power, status, class, education, and even

their degree of articulation in making their research demands known. In

 6

short, this altet'native perspective and the report that follows add three

dimensions previously neglected. First, the researcher is.seen producing

research in response to the demands of (some group of) clients. Second, it

is recognized that some clients- are likely to have more access to the

research system than others.- And, third, extension is seen largely as

giving certain clients what they initially requested.,

Brief History,.
..
Unlike the situation in many other states .of sub-saharan Afr i ca,

agricultural research in Sudan dates back to the tiOrn.of the century.

Research was begun in 1902 to meet the demands of the Lancashire cotton

industry. As a spokesman for the cotton interests put it in 1913:

Experiments have abundantly proved that the Sudan is

not only the finest cotton growing country in the whole

of the British Empire, but, what is'more important,

that it can grow that sort of cotton that Lancashire

requires (quoted in Barnett, 1977:5).

At the beginning the focus of research was almost excl u'si vely 6n cott on' ..Iand

particularly upon the proposed irrigated area between the two Niles, that

would eventually become known as the Gezira scheme. Arthur GaiVskell

"- dthe early research work:

In.1918 a Gezira Research Farm haad been started near

Wad Medani, the capital of the BlueNile Province , to

study soil and water management, crop varieties,,

rotations, cultivationpractices, fertilizer response

and, of course, diseases and pests. With the setting

up-of this scientif' station' In the heart of the

 7

Gezira there began a close association between the

back-room boys of the Research Farm and the field staff

of the [Cotton Growing] Syndicate, not at all times

easy but always stimulating and destined to play :a';

vital part' in'the survival of the Scheme (1959:138).

Indeed, there is ,little question''thatwithout the research .back-up provided,

the Gezira would never have recovered from the seriouscotton disease.

problems encountered in the 1930s.

The emphasis on a single cash crop 'forLexport 'was typical of most

research organizations during the c lonial period (Busch and Sachs, 1981).

In most British colonies, single commodity research organizations' were

established to encourage highly capitalized export agriculture. As a

result, the economy of the Sudan became increasingly dependent upon the'

annual cotton harvest.

After World War II, concern for nutritional deficiences forced

attention toward food crops. Experimental work on mechanized'grain

production in Sudan began in 1945 (Holt and Daly, 1979). Reserc on

Crops started in 1952 (Riley, 1981). U lnike, most :previous research, th is
research focused on rain-fed'agriculture.,

In 1967 the status of agricultural research. within, the Ministry of

Agriculture-was upgraded by the creation of a semi-autonomous Agricultural

Research Corporation,(ARC). In.1977:already existing research functions in

the areas of food processing, forestry, fisheries, range management, and

wildlife were incorporated into the ARC. More recently, with the
 8

establishment of the Western:Sudan Agricultural Research Project', a major

stride has-been taken toward the eventual improvement of, rain-fed

agriculture and livestock production in--the west and the integrationof,

social and economic sceintists into the organization. the ARC

Toda1,

conducts research.in all areas of agriculture broadly defined, with the

exception-of livestock research., That .function is served by the Animal

Production Research Administration and is beyond the :scope of -this report.

The Agricultural Situation

Sub-saharan Africa is one area,of the world in which food production

has not kept pace with population growth over the last decade. Sudan is'no

exception to this rule. Total agricultural production has remained constant

over the last decade while total food production has increased slightly.

However, due to population increases, per capita agricultural and food

production have both declined considerably over the decade (Table 1.1).

This is of particular concern when one examines the very significant

increase in irrigated land during that period. Moreover, cotton production,

the mainstay of Sudanese agriculture, has declined significantly in recent

years due in part to increased insect resistence to insecticides.

Concomitantly",'the Sudanese economy has fallen into serious

difficulties largely. as.. a result, of increased oi,.l prices. Given .the

enormous size, of Sud"an nd, the great distances between., ports of ,entry, and

1 WSARP is a large recently est'ablished project. It is financed by USAID

and the World Bank. It will result in the creation of a number of
experiment stations in the previously underserved western Sudan. It is
administered separately,by an assistant director who is directly responsible
to the Director-General of the ARC.
TABLE 1.1
Selected Indexes of Agricultural -Production, Sudan and Africa, 1971-1980

YEAR
Index -1971 1972'' '1973 1974 1975 -1976 -1977, 1978 1979- 1980
Index of Total Sudan - 105 100 99 _98 104 89 .11. 113 91 96
agricul tural
production Africaa 102 104. 101, 106 107 108 106 109 109 111
(1969-71=100)
Index of Total Sudan 106 100 98, 99 108 104 L15 124 105. 110
food production a
(1969-71=100) Africa 103 103 101 106 109" L0 T 110
-107:
11 2
Index of per
capita agr. Sudan 102 94 91 *87 90 74 82 .89 70 71
production
(1969-71=100)

Index of per
capita food Sudan 103 94- 7-90 -88 93 -87 93 97 81 82
production
(1969-71=100)

Source: U.S. Department.: otAgriculture, 1981,,

;

Notes: -aexcludes Egypt -and Sduth Africa-­

 10

producing areas, transport costs have risen enormously over thelast'decade.

In addition, balance of payments problems have- led to :deferred maintenance,

of the railroads and endemic oil fuel
shortages.

The Agricultural.Research Corporation has itself suffered, significantly

as a result of the general economic situaton. 'Fuel for ARC 'Vehicles is

often unavailable, making travel to outlying fields difficult if not.".

impossible. Foreign exchange for journal"subscriptions, scientific

equipment, and spare parts for existing equipment is often.unavailable'

Even money budgeted for capital expenditures is often withdrawn due to

serious fiscal problems. At the same time significant numbers of, newly

trained scientists have been returning from overseas putting more pressure

on an already,over-extended research system Finally, salaries. have not

kept pace with inflation.' These circumstances have weakened the­

effectiveness of-the ARC and led many researchers to consider..professi al.

opportunities outside the Sudan.

 CHAPTER 2

SCIENTISTS: THE HUMAN RESOURCE

It has been posited that "human resources are. the basic determihants' of

the rate of development of science, technology and social institutions"

(Harmon, 1965:iii). These. human resources, inthe fo"rm of scientists,

technicians, and research-associates, provide. the expertise and knowledge

for scientific development. An understanding of the research enterprise in

the Sudan Agricultural Research Corporation (ARC), its-operations,

capacities and needs and its ability to respond effectively to new

challenges requires an examination of the scientists themselves. This

section presents a review of the growth of the Sudan agricultural research

community as well as a demographic overview of the 'contemporary population

of agricultural scientists in the ARC.

Agricultural Scientists Worldwide

The agricultural scientific enterprise has growndramlatically during

the twentieth century. This rapid growth has galleledicthe.'grealinreas.e

in scientists around the world. Indeed, 'ithas been estimated that'90% of

all scientists who ever lived are alive today. The 1981 Statistical

Yearbook edited by UNESCO (1981) reported r about

, 3.7 million scienti.ss in 85

countries in research and experimental

~deveiopment.

The growth in agricultural scientists has been particularly. dramati c", in

the developed countries. In the U.S. for example there were only.136

doctorates awarded in:the agricultural sciences between 1920-1929. In the,

1950's the number of doctorates being awarded yearly was over 300 and during

11
 12

the 1970's, over 1,000 doctorates in the agricultural sciences were awarded
yearly." By,1974 a total of over 16,000"doctorates had been awarded in the
agricultural sciences (Harmon, 1978). Recent figures on U.S. agricultural

research indicated there were 11,551 scientist-years devoted to public

sector research in 1981 (USDA, Science and Education Administration, 1982).
This growth in the training, of agricultural scientists in the developed
impact, on agricultural science in Third World
countries has had an ..
countries. An increasing number of third world agricultural scientists are
among those scientists receiving doctorates in the U.S. and Western Europe.
For example, in,the U.S. 18% of the total doctorates awarded between 1965
and 1968 were to foreign citizens. In the agricultural sciences, however,

foreign scientists received 37% (632) of the doctorates (National Academy of

Sciences, 1971)." Furthermore, most of the foreign students in the
agricultural sciences were from Third World countries. Recent figures
. . .1 .. has
sugge t-that this trend in training of foreign agricultural.scientsts
es

continued to the present and may have increased.

Concomitant with the increase in the number of trained agricultural
scientists has been the growth in the'agricultural research systems-of Third
World countries. During the 1970's substantial real growth occurredin many
national agricultural research systems with a number of countries
maintaining annual growth rates exceeding,10 percent in number of scientists
and/or research expenditures.. In 1980 the number of agricultural 'scientists
in 76 third world countries was 36,000, a rise of 38% in five years. Total

research expenditures for these countries was U.S.'.$890 million, a rise of

71% during the same period. However, the growth has been uneven. Forty-six.

percent of the scientists and 62%,of the, research expenditures among the 51
 13

developing market. economy countries for which data-were avai able (including

Sudan) were concentrated in only-five~ countries:):Brazil, Argentina, India,

Nigeria, and Mexico. Eighty-six percent'of theiscientisfs and 88% of the

expendituIres were in 15 countries which 1include the African nations of

Nigeria and Kenya (Oram and Bindlish,1981).- According to a recentreport

by'Gram and Bindlish (1981), Africa,,especially.the semi-arid sub-Saharan

tropics,'and the:Central,.American-Caribbean region are the least

well-equipped in numbers of scientists both.in. re lation to population as

well, asin'absolute terms. However, there are: a.considerable number of

countries outside the top15 with a scientific community-in excess of. 100

including Senegal, Sudan, Ghana, Tanzania, and Zambia.

Sudan's Agricultural Scientists and Support Staff

The growth in the Sudan's agricultural research.system has .been:

substantial since its" modest, beginning *.in 1902., Early research: stations. and

laboratories such as the Welcome Laboratories (1903),.Shambat Unit (1904),

and the Gezira Research Station (1918) Were staffed initially byBritish

scientists and were devoted almost exclusively,to export'crops. !After World

War II there were widespread development efforts by theBritish which

included the building of research, and extension.programs in former colonies

and other parts. of- the developing world., By. 1950 Sudan's agricultural

research }system -included,fifty-fivescientist-years (Evenson and Kislev,­

1971). The number of scientists showed little or no change for the next'

decade.and a half. By 1967 there were still only 52 scientist-years

committed to agricultural research' in Sudan (Cooper, 1970). However,'. wi thin

the next three years the number- of scientist years had more than, doubled to

121-, distributed as follows (UNESCO, 1970),:

 14

Agricultural Research Corporation 80

Ministry of Animal Resources,

Veterinary Research Division 17

University of Khartoum 24

This number continued to increase during the 1970's, reaching 175 by 1975

and 212 by 1980 (Oram and Bindlish, 1981).

The Agricultural Research Corporation accounts for approximately two

thirds of Sudan's agricultural research scientist-years. This is likelyto

increase if the ARC retains most of the scientists currently working in the

system and incorporates most of the ARC assistant -s'ientists and scientists

currently being trained abroad. The ARC's List of Research Scientists and

Senior Administrators (1980) revealed that in October 1979, 123 scientists

and 38 assistant scientists were working at ARC research facilities in the

Sudan. In addition, there were 33 scientists and 82 assistant scientists

pursuing graduate training abroad.- Finally there were thirteen ARC

scientists on secondment to. other organizations such as the Foodland

Agricultural.Organizationi of the United Nations (FAO), .International Center

for AgriculturalResearch in Dry Areas (ICARDA), the Universityof Gezira,

and*.International Development Research Centre (IDRC).

A recent report of the ARC entitled The Rehabilitation of the

Agricultural Research Corporation of the Democratic Republic of Sudan (ARC,

1981) estimated that the scientific staff consisted of 164 scientists and

139 assistant scientists (including the 85 abroad for training). In

addition there were 625 technical assistants, 400 clerical and support staff

and nearly 4,000 laborers.

 15

The annual growth rate of Sudan's agricultural scientific staff for the

period 1970 to 1980 was 5.5% while the average for 41 third wOrld countries.

with available data was 6.1%. Sudan ranked 22hd. among'these 41 nations.

Comparisons with other. African and Middle Eastern nIations are reported in'

Table 2.10",

TABLE 2.1'
Annual Growth Rate of Agricultural Scientific Staff in African and Middle.
Eastern Nations, 1:.'70-1980

Annual Growth
Country. Rate

Togo ?0.

Nigeria 17.3%
Tanzania L1.3%

Syria, 9.7%,
,Senegal2

Kenya 6.5%

Sudan 5.5%

Jordan 4.9%

Zaire 4.9%

Burundi 4.5%
Zainbia 3.4%

Madagascar -.6%

Source: Oram and Bindlish,.1981

 16

With respect to scientific support staff, the situation, in Sudan appears to

be better than that of most developing countries.-. Although while less than

half (47%) of the 64 developing countries with available data have at least

one research technician per scientist, Sudan has. a technician to scientist

ratio of more than 2:1 (Oram and Bindlish, 1981, 2.6:1). This ranked. Sudan

5th among these 64 countries, with only Nigeria (7.4:1), Ghana (2.7:1),

Swaziland (2.7:1) and Malaysia (3.6:1) having higher ratios. However,-.when,

contrasted with developed countries' like the U.S. where the ratio is'

5.1:12, .It is cle.ar that nearly al.1, developing:countries :need to increase.

scientific support staff.

In our 1982 sample of Sudan researchers, scientistsreported an average

of 2.3 technicians, 7.8 laborers, and, 1.1 other persons working under their

direction. While these figures appear quite satisfactory, many scientists

pointed out that both technicians and field staff were often shared by large

groups of scientists. Iniaddition, declining budgets and demands of

production schemes have made it extraordinarily difficult for the ARC to

compete for farin labor during the peak planting and harvesting times. As a

result, many scientists reported that experimental plots were not harvested

on time or at all. This is clearly a waste of. both money and trained

scientific. personnel.

GrowtI in Sudan'si.eXpenditures for agricuItural research has also been

substantial over this period. By 1961, expenditures in U.S. dollars for the

ARV were $1.2 mil-lion (S E 384,000). Boyce and Evenson (1975) estimate that

the ARC accounted for about 70% of Sudan's agricultural research

expenditures. Fi e,,years 'later the ARC annual expenditures had more than

2 5.1 includes 2.6 graduate students, 0.2 postdoctorates, 1.5 technicians,

and 0.8 other staff (Busch and Lacy, 1983).
 17

doubled to U.S. $2,8 million (S.C.897,000). By 1971, expenditures had

increased another 60%,,toU.S*.$4*5 miilion,(S.. 1,422,000). More recent

research expenditures figures for ,Sudan as a whole,.illustrate similar

trends. From $4.5 -milIlion in .1970:

(calculated in constant 1975 U.S.

dollars),.expenditures rose gradually to approximately $6.3 million by 1975

and increased another 50%-to $9.6 million in 1980 (Oram and Bindlish,

1981:79). ,Orain and Bindlish note that in recent years expenditures seem to
have increased, more slowly n sub-Saharan Africa than in76,,
other Third­
World countries which experienced a-,94% rise .in expenditures between 1975.

and 1980. Sudan's growth rate of expenditures between 1970-1980 was 8.0%

per annum. Among 41 developing countries for which data was available,

Sudan was 18th in growth of expenditures. If one, examines the 12 low income.
developing.countr.ies grouped by per capita" GNP ,level,.Sudan was still 5th in

growth of expenditures behind. Bangladesh, .,37.0%; Burundi, 18,9%, Kenya,

27.4%; and Togo, 8.8%. Finally, Sudan's research expenditures as a percent­

of agricultural gross domestic product over this period was .57, 16th among

the 41 developing countries, while its growth rate of agricultural gross

domestic product was 2.7%, 19th among these countries. From these :figures
it is clear that the Sudan agricultural research system is about average in

terms of, growth, among the .developing countries.

Despite, the growth in agricultural research staff ,and expenditures in

Sudan and other developing countries, Oram and Bindlish (1981:9) note "even

to approach parity with the scientifically advanced countries would require i

1980 expenditures to be. increased 2 1/2. times overal.1, and scientists

numbers more than threefold." They.observe-that in many countries there J-1.is

little understanding of the .level,of' resources that may:be required for
 18

effective agricultural research programs. They point out that even the

better equipped research systems have serious gaps in staff, support

services, and management. Results cannot be expected instantaneously and

successful research requi -s both time and stability. Oram and Bindlish

conclude that increases are needed in support of agricultural research and

the training-of Scientists and that cutbacks would be self-defeating.

TheJoint'Team report (1977) reiterated these needs for future

scientific manpower in the Sudan. Their recommendations suggested priority

attention for substantial increases in the number of scientists to about 700

within the next 12 to 15 years (about 1990). They also recommended the

number of technicans be increased to about 1500. Finally, a recent ARC

report'(1981) emphasized that the initial investment in human resources and

equipment will be wasted unless there is continued investment in scientific

training and a complete rehabilitation of the agricultural research system.

The rehiabilitation costs are estimated at S £ 28.5 million entailing about a

60% increase in the total annual budget. This report concludes that there

are no shortcuts to building a viable and efficient research system and to

raising agricultural productivity.

Demographic Characteristics
Given the growth in the number of agricultural scientists, as well as

the recommendations for continued growth, it is surprising that so little

attention has been directed to exploring who these scientists are, what they

do and what they think. The remainder of this chapter will be devoted to

examining the demographic characteristics, family background, education, and

nature of the work, of agricultural researchers in Sudan's Agricultural

Research Corporation. The data reported here are based primarily on

 19

interviews with 71 Sudanese scientists conducted in Sudan during February

and March 1982 and a mail survey of Sudanese students studying agricultural

science in the United States during K, 1982 and spring 1983 (see

Methodological Appendix).

Sex. An examination of the demographic characteristics of Sudanese

agricultural scientists reveals tiat generally women remain underrepresented

in these jobs. In the ARC's list of research scientists on October 1979

(1980) there were four women scientists among 123 (3.3%) and two women
assistant scientists among 38 (5.2%). Five of these six women scientists
were in research stations recently transferred to the ARC (Food Research

Center, Forestry, and Wildlife). Women were a slightly larger percentage of

the scientists and assistant scientists on study courses. Here 11 of the 82
(13.4%) assistant scientists and 1 of the 33 (3.3%) scientists were women.
Again there was a strong tendency for the women scientists to be in areas

such as Food Research where six women were involved in courses.

Additionally, women were more likely to be engaged in study courses at the

University of Khartoum (approximately 50%), while less than 5% of the males

were receiving training in Sudan. In our survey, five of the interviewed

scientists were women, a slightly higher percentage than the earlier figures

(7.4%). Once again the women were in the Food Research Center, the

Fisheries Center, and the Forestry Research Center. In addition, there were

no women in the sample of Sudanese agricultural scientists studying in the

Uni ted States.

The sex distribution among Sudanese scientists is similar to patterns

we reported among U.S. agricultural scientists. In our sample of U.S.

public sector' agricultural scientists in 1979, a little more than 4% were
 20

female. Similarly, the women were concentrated in nutrition (41%), social

sciences (19%) and food science (10%) (Busch and Lacy, 1983).

Age. The average age of scientists in our Sudan sample was 39 years

with an age range of 29 to 52. Since we oversampled scientists in Wad

Medani and Khartoum where older scientists tend to be stationed, the actual

mean age may be less than 39. Not surprisingly, the average age of our

sample of Sudanese scientists studying in the U.S. was about 5 years younger

than the scientists on site (34.4). Consequently, the average will likely.

decrease slightly with the influx of these new scientists.

An unanswered question concerns possible consequences of age for the

scientific enterprise. Do younger scientists accept new scientific ideas

with greater alacrity than older scientists, as some research has suggested

(Hull etal., 1978)?. If,so, how can Sudan fully utilize its relatively

youthful and recently educated scientific community? Can the younger

scientists be challenged and exposed to new ideas and scientific

developments if travel money, communication, and access to literature are

limited, particularly for scientists at remote stations? These and other

possible consequences of denographic characteristics of scientists on the

products and processes of science need to be addressed.

Family Background

Another important question to address is,the6 fanily origins of

agricultural scientists. The occupation of.fathers of scientists was

utilized as an indicator of fa:ily origin. The family background of our

sample reflects very diverse family experiences (Table 2.2). While

approximately a quarter of the scientists- came from a farmer-owner family

background, afifth of the scientists hadfathers who were businessmen or

 21

merchants and another sixth of the scientists had fathers who were

government employees. In addition, about a fifth of the scientists came

from a labor background. Given the large percentage of the population of

Sudan that remains on the farm and the nature of the research in the ARC, it

is perhaps surprising that such a small percentage of scientists come from a

farm background.

TABLE 22
Father's.Occupatlon when Scientist was 16 years old:

Scientists' Responses
Father's Occupation Frequency Percent

Farmer-owner 19 26.7
Business-merchant'. 14 19.7
Government 12 16.9
Skilled Labor 9 12.7
Laborer 5 7.0
Farmer-Tenant 5 7.0
Education 3 4.2
Other 3 4.2
Religious Leaaer 1.4
71 100

The faily,backgriound pattern of Sudan scientists is in-contrast to

U.S.; scientists particularly those in-agronomy, animal science, agricultural

engineering and agricultural economics. In these disciplines over half of

the scientists came from a faribackground despite a U.S. farm population o

less than4% of total population., This farm family background was

significantly associated with scientists: greater, concern. with the utility.

 22

of their research, with client needs and demands, and with feedback from

exten~sion staff. Those scientists with other family backgrounds were more

likely to be committed to scientific ideals and the potential contribution

of their research'to scientific theory (Busch and Lacy, 1983).

These associations between family background and research orientation

raise some unanswered questions for Sudanese agricultural science. Do

scientists from a farm background consciously integrate their research with

their earlier farm experience? Are these scientists more aware of the needs

and experiences of the farm sector and, therefore, more likely to consider

these factors important in-their research?

Education

The extent of education of agricultural scientists ,.has increased

worldwide with each generation. :In.the U.S. the percent of all agricultural

scientists in 1976 in.both the public and private sectors wi.th bachelor' s,

master's and doctoral degrees as the highest degree; earned we're 54, 20 and

25.8%, respectively. .Ina more selective sample of currentlyactive public

sector agricultural researchers, more than 92% had received the doctoral

degree. Among the thirteen agricultural disciplines, only two, forestry

(81%) and agricultural engineering (63%), had fewer than 90% with doctorates

(Busch and Lacy,, 1983).

Information on levels of agricultural scientific education among third

world couritries was; available for only 32 countries (including five African

nations) . These countries encompassed a scientific staff of around 20,000.

Among those countries just under9% of the .scientists had a Ph.D. as th eir

highest degree earned with 27%at the masters of science a about.64% at

 23

the bachelor of science or equivalent level (Oram and Bindlish, 1981). .The

36% at a post graduate level represents an improvement from the pasti but, the

Ph.D. component "s well below the target of 20% suggested in the World Bank

sector policy paper. Despite upward trends in the extent of scientific

education among scientists, in several Third World countries, about 40% of

the countries for which data was available had 5% or fewer of their

scientists with Ph.D. degrees. Many countries still rely heavily.on

bachelor level staff as the heart and foundation of their agricultural

research system.

The four African countries for which data were available on levels of

scientific training (Kenya, Nigeria, Madagascar, and Sudan) have on average

a much higher proportion of post-graduate staff than Asian or Latin American

countries. These four nations reported 27% of their scientists with a Ph.D.

as their highest degree and 37% at the masters of science level. As noted

earlier, Kenya, Nigeria, and, Sudan also have relatively large scientific

staffs, whereas in most.otker African countries-, there is a severe shortage

of trained local persons. According to Oram and Bindlish (1981) Sudan's

1980 distribution of scientists engaged in agricultural :research by.

qualifications,(includes .ARC, Agricultural Economicsiand Livestock) is as

folows: 65 Ph.D., (23.8%), 123 M.Sc. (44.7%) and 84,B.Sc. or equivalent

(31.5%). The percentage of Ph.D. staff in SudanAs only slic'htlyv lower than
Kenya's,(30.8%),and Nigeria's: (30.7%).

Within the ARC, an examination of-the formal training of scietists and

assist-ant scientists currently working in the system a- of October 1979

(ARC,.1980) reveals a much higher ,proportion of Ph..s on the staff. Of the

total 161 scientific staff, 81 had received a Ph.D. This percentage is even
 24

higher (65%) if one excludes the assistant scientists. In addition, twelve

of the thirteen ARC scientists on secondment at that time also had received
their Ph.D. degrees.

Not surprisingly, a majority of the education at the masters level and

nearly al.l at the Ph.D. level was received at universities in Great Britian

and the United States. Indeed, 96% of the Ph.D. degrees awarded to Sudanese

scientists were received at institutions in those two countries. The

training is equally divided between the two nations with 39 scientists

receiving their Ph.D. degrees in the U.S. and 38 in Great Britain., This

important role of'Great Britain and the U.S. in Ph.D. training .isalso

reflected in our,1982'survey of.71 ARC scientists, forty-six (65%) of whom

had received their Ph.D. degrees. Within this latter group fifty percent

had obtained-their doctorate from Great Britain and forty percent had been
trained in the U.S.

Advanced training in some disciplines, however, is more likely to take

place ina specific country. For example, Ph.D. degrees in entomology and

in food science generally have been obtained in Great Britain. The

courses,.
placement of assistant scientists in these disciplines in study

primarily inGreat, Britain, indicates this will continue in the near future.

In contrast, Ph.D. trainingi in horticultureis primnarily'limited to the,

U.S. institumtions.
In addition, there appe ars to be a slight shifft. i n terms 'of the,,
location of Ph.D. trainingrrfrom Great Britain to.the United States. The,
figures on scientists and assistant scientists on study courses in October

1979 indicated that 52 were in ,the' U.S. whilethere were 34 in Great Britain
 25

and 29 in other institutions, primarily the University of Khartoum This

shift is also suggested in the distribution of scientists on site. Eighteen
of the forty scientists at Wad Medani (ARC Headquarters and Gezira Research

Station) had ;received Ph.D. degrees from Great Britain, while ten scientists
located there had Ph.D. degrees from the U.S. The reverse pattern was the
case for the other research stations. Since the senior scientists are more
likely to have received their degrees earlier in time and to be located at

Wad Medani, this pattern of British Ph.D.s at Wad Medani probably reflects

the earlier heavier reliance on Great Britain for Ph.D. training.

Conclusion
This discussion .of the human resources in agricultural research

worldwide and in the Sudan suggestsrthat one of the strongest dimensions of

the ARC is its community of well-trained scientists. In addition, there

appears to be a positive ratio of technicians to scientists relative to

other Third World countries. However, a number of additional issues should

be addressed regarding human resources for agricultural -researchi in..
the
Sudan.

An important issue is the distribution of scientists within the

country. In'seeral developing countries atioal research is ghly
fragmented among many ministries and organizations. This fragmentation, as
opposed to planned dispersion, makes effective planning and resource
allocation, as'well as' ,the"avoidance of unnecessary duplication, difficult
if not impossible. Sudan has taken the first steps to address this -by

bringing together'within the Agricultural Research Corporation, the Food

Research Center, Fisheries Research Center, Forestry Research Center, and

Wildlife Research ,Section. These efforts need to be continued.

 26

An equally important issue regarding the distribution of scientists

involves the dispersion of resources in an attempt to meet local

socio-economic situations, special environments, or particular commodity

needs. The organization of the Sudan ARC, with its 1) ten regional stations

serving defined ecological zones; 2) commodity stations such as the Guneid

Sugar Cane Research Station and Gum Arabic Research Station; 3) various

sections and specialized centers such as the Food Research Center, Forestry

Research Center, and Fisheries Research Center; and 4) a number of testing

sites, suggests, that a number of stations may lack funding and a critical
mass of staff necessary for the effective conduct of research. Oram and
Bindlish (1981:49) note that "the problem of trying to be all things to all

people is probably most severe in countries with a wide environmental range,

including some such as India, Thailand, China, Ghana, Nigeria, Turkey,

Sudan, Mexico and Brazil, which cut across ecological zones due to

size...." These problems arising from dispersion of scientists are not easy

to overcome. However, Sudan needs to review their establishment regularly

to determine whether and where to consolidate human resources riost

effectively.
As noted, the size of Sudan's agricultural scientific manpower,

although not optimal, has certainly reached a critical mass in numbers of

staff. As levels of training of staff improve, management will become a

main determinant of their effectiveness. The agricultural research

community must compete for funds in the overall budget. Therefore, some
scientific personnel should receive training in research management. These
managers must be able to demonstrate to policy makers, where appropriate,

that agricultural research funds Will be effective in achieving national

objectives and priorities. Agricultural research managers have to convince

 27

planners of the worth of their research programs, as well as communicate

regularly with those in government who give direction to the national
economy, direct related activities, and manage the budgets. In addition,
they must maintain effective contact with their own scientists and staff.
The relationship between scientists and other staff components inthe
broader agricultural system must also be examined. When scientsts are not
properly complemented in their activities by support staff, either internal
to the research system such as necessary labor for field research, or
external to the research system such as adequate personnel in national seed
distribution or extension services, they may not be as effective.
Furthermore, their efforts and activities may be diverted from researchto
other tangential duties. Finally, their results are not likely to reach
their intended audiences.
The issue of recurrent funding needs and its relationship to'sciet'ific
staff is another important theme throughout this report. Most recurrent

expenditures appear to be for salaries for current staff. With inflation

and increasing numbers of scientists returning from traIining, a continual
erosion of operating budgets appears likely. Consequently, although Sudan
has reached a critical mass of scientists, little remains for operations.
This not only leads to a high degree of inefficiency in the use of this
valued resource of trained scientists; it also contributes to high levels of
frustration among the scientists themselves. Jo some extent, foreign
donors contribute to this plight since a number are hesitant to finance
recurrent expenditures or evenimpose an absolute sanction on sk'ch support.
Ironically, gains from capital investiment depend on the effecti ve
 28

utilization and retention-of.trained human resources. As Pineiro and Trigo

(1981) observe in their study of Latin American agricultural research,

"professional staff.in general are not being used effectively and one

important reason is the lack of budgetary support for operational costs.

There isa limit to the number of investigations that can be properly

supported, and new ones should not be added unless there is.a firm

commitment to provide the budget needed to support them." In short,

training and staff development should be matched to theprovision of

recurrent funds and capital investment.

Finally, the training.of scientists'and technicians'should be congruent

with the overall needs and priorities of Sudan.. The relative balance and

share of human resources devot.J to export and/or cash crops as opposed to

food crops for national consumption is one example of an area, requiring

:further analysis. The nature and balance among various disciplines is

another area that, needsreassessment regularly to determine particular

weaknesses. The Western Sudan Agricultural Research Project, for example,

appears to be filling gaps in the relatively weak areas of pasture

management, animal husbandry, social sciences, and economics. However, no.

one project is sufficient. The process of training scientists and.other
human resources requires a constant review of the strengths and weaknesses

of the research system and the relevance of this system to national

priorities.
 CHAPTER 3

THE CURRENT SITUATION

.The description of the current situation in the Agricultural Research

Corporation (ARC) is based primarily on the responses and perceptions of our

1982 sample of scientists in the system. Where appropriate these responses

are contrasted with those of Sudanese students currently enrolled in
graduate agricultural programs in the U.S. in 1982-1983 and with those of

U.S. agricultural scientists.

Research Orientation
Scientists in the ARC are stronglyoriented towards applied research.
When asked how they would categorize their research over the last five years

in terms of basic science, applied science, and development, their strong

applied orientation became apparent. ARC scientists classify 83% of their

research as being applied while U.S. scientists classify only 55% in that
category. Conversely, while ARC scientists see 12.'7%of their research as
basic, U.S. scientists see 30% asibasic research. Development plays a minor
role in ARC research, due in part to the relatively small number of

engineers employed there. Given the kinds of resources available to ARC

scientists and the research needs of Sudan, this appears to be an

appropriate division of effort,

Research Sites
Researchers were also asked where their research took place. On
average, scientists reported that 55.9% of their research took place in

experiment station fields, while 32.9% of their research took olacein the

29
 30

laboratory. Only 3.2% of research was conducted in farmers' fields. This

strong emphasis upon field work reflects the applied orientation of the ARC

scientists. However, the low percentage of research taking place in

farmers' fields should not been seen as an indication of an unwillingness on
the part of scientists to conduct research there; rather, many scientists

expressed frustration over the, lack of adequate transportation and the

relatively weak institutional, ties that would permit on-farm experiments.

In addition, scientists whose research required greenhouse work strongly

voiced their frustration over the lack of such facilities.

Resources: Adequacy and Importance

Various resources are necessary to the research process. These range
from transportation to opportunities for advancement. Using a series of
items adopted from Hargrove (1978), scientists rated the adequacy of

resources available6to them at the ARC on a scale from 1 (veryadequate) to

5 (very in'adequate). Then, they rat6edeach item regarding its importance

for the success of their work (Table 3.1).

The availability of experimental land was seen as the most_ adequate

resource followed by personal freedom to determine research problems. On
the other'hand, equipmentand tools to use in research, and financial

support were seen as the most inadequate research resources.

Transportation, availability and quality of trained technical help, and

opportunities for advanced education were also seen as inadequate.

 .31

TABLE 3.1
Sudanese Agri cu ltural Scientists'! Rati'nqs :of." Adequac-vy and.: ImDortancp of
Resource Facili ties

Difference
Between
Importance
Adequacy,.f. Importance and
Resource Resources -of Resources . Adequacy

Operating Supplies and

Materi als j. 1.2 -2.4
Availability of
Experimental Land 1.7 1.5 -.2
Equipment and Tools
to Use in Research 4.0 1.3 -2.7
Transportation 3.8 - 1.3 -2.5
Availability and
Quality of Labor 3.3 1.4 -1.9
Financial Support 4.1 L11 -3.0
Scientific Literature .3.0 1.3 -1.7
Availability and Quality ­
of Trained Technical Help 3.7 -2.3
Personal Freedom to .4
Incorporate New Materials
and Techniques into your
Res ea rc 21,. 1.6
1. -.5
Personal Freedom to Determine
Research Problems 1.9, 1.6 ..3
Contact with Other Scientists 2.7, 1. .3
Opportunities for Your
Advanced Education 3.7 -2:2
2.5,.
Opportunities to Gain
Scientific Recognition 3.2 1.4 -1.8
Opportunities for
Professional Advancement 3.2 1.5 -1.7
Opportunities for Training
for People who work
Under You 3. 1.5 -2.2
Average Mean Score "3.3 1.4 -1.9

a Mean score of 71 scientists--i very adequate; 5 very inadequate:

b Mean score of 71 scientists--i very important; 5 very-unimportant

 32

While the perceived adequacy of resources differed significantly,

scientists viewed most of those resources as very important to their work.

Scientists saw finincial support and operating supplies and materials as the

two most important resources in their work but ranked all resources as

important. Furthermore, the discrepancy between adequacy and importance is

quite large for many of the resources.

Mean scores concealed considerable age differences on several items.

The median age of our sample was 42 years. Scientists over 42 years of age

found transportation less adequate and scientific literature and trained

technical help more adequate than did their younger colleagues (Table 3.2).

TABLE 3.2
Adequacy and Importance of Selected Items by Age Groupa

Mean Scores by Age Group

Greater than
Less than or equal to
42 42

Adequacy

Transportation 3.4 4.2*

Scientific Literature 3.4 2.6*
Availability and quality
of trained technical help 4.0 3.3*

Importance

Scientific Literature 1.1 1.6*

Opportunities for your
advanced education 1.3 1.7*

a 1 very adequate; very important -- 5 very inadequate; very unimportant.

* Differences significant p < .05.
 33

This suggests that 1) transport problems are felt more acutely by older
scientists, 2) the locally available literature base is probably geared

toward those subject and disciplinary areas that are well-established, and

3) older scientists have somewhat greater access to trained technical help.

With regard to the importance of various resources, age differences

were observed on only two items: "scientific literature" and "opportunities

for your advanced education." In both cases, younger scientists saw these
items as more important than their older colleagues.

Perceptions of Sudanese Students in the United States

Sudanese students presently enrolled in Ph.D. programs in the United

States also rated the various resources available to them at their host
institutions in terms of adequacy and importance for their work (Table 3.3).

Scientific literature, personal freedom to incorporate new taterials and

techniques, personal freedom to determine research problems, and

transportation were the most adequate resources. While these four

resources received the highest adequacy ratings, there was virtually no

difference between this group of variables and the remaining resources. The
range was from 1.4 to 2.2 and thus all were considered to be adequate to

very adequate. The only exception to the high adequacy ratings was
availability and quality of labor resources.

With regard to the importance of various resources, scientific

literature, equipment and tools, opportunities for advanced education, and

personal freedom to incorporate materials and techniques into research were

considered to be the most important resources. While these resources were

rated slightly higher than the remaining resources, all resources were

considered to be very important.

 34

TABLE 3.3
Ratings of Adequacy and Importance of,".Resource Facilities"by.Sudanese Students
in the United States

Difference
Between
Importance
Adequacy 2f Importanceb and
Resource Resources of Resoures Adequacy

Operating Supplies and

Materials 2.1 1.9 -.2
Availability of
Experimental Land 2.2 2.6,
Equipment and Tools
to Use in Research 1.8 1.7 .1
Transportation 1.6 2.4 +.8
Availability and
Quality of Labor 3.1 2.3 -.,
Financial Support .2.2 1.8. -.4
Scientific Literature 1.4 1.6 +.2
Availability and Quality
of Trained Technical Help ,.2.2 1.9 -.3
Personal Freedom to
Incorporate New Materials
and Techniques into your
Research 1.7
Personal Freedom to Determine
Research Problems 1.6 1.9 + 3
Contact with Other Scientists 2.0 1.8 -.2
Opportunities for Your
Advanced Education 1.9 1.7 -.2
Opporturoities to Gain
Scientific Recognition 21.1 1.8 -.3
Opportunities for
Professional Advancement 1.8 1.9 +.l.
Opportunities for Training
for People who Work
Under Your Direction 2.2 2.3 +01

Average Mean Score 2.0 1.9

a Mean score of 25 students--i1very adequate; 5 very inadequate_

Mean score of, 25 students--i very important; 5 very Unimportant

 35

In comparing the mean scores of students' ratings on adequacy and

importance of the various resources, there is relatively no difference.

None of. the resource ratings-differed by more than 1 point. All the
resources were-considered both-adequate and importantwiththe: exception of

avai labi l1ity- and .quality of trained help.

Not!surpris'ingly, the Sudanese students, al ;:of whom are enrolledin

majo land-grant and agricultural- schools in the United States, considered

their institutional resources ' to be significantly more adequate than did the

ARC scientists, on site- in the Sudan.' The students rated every resource,

with the exception of availability of experimental land, more' adequate than

did the Sudanese .scientists,

'These findings are .generally consistent with those found among Asian

rice breeders (Hargrove, 1978), U.S. scientists (Busch and Lacy; 1983), and

sorghum scientists (Marcotte, Buschi and-Lacy; 1983). Sudanese scientists

and scientists from otherless developed countries agree with scientists,

from the U.S. and from other developed countriesr as to what is important
with respect to-resources, but are laboring under'considerab ;less adequate

condi tions in the conduct of research,

Extramural Support and Collaboration
It is to the credit of scientists at the ARC that theyhiave not,
utilized the current fiscal problems as an .excuse for abandoning a
meaningful research program. Our study reveals that 50% of researchers have
received financial support from organizations. other than their employer
durirng the' last five,'years. Organizations supplying that financial support
included the Food and Agriculture Organization'of the United Nations'.
various national foreign,,aid agencies, and the Sudan Nationalr CounciI for
 36

Research. Support has ranged from the provision of small pieces of

equipment or subscriptions to scientific journals to the provision of entire

laboratories and research stations. Despite the large numbers of highly

trained scientists employed by the, ARC, however, many aid agencies continue

to see financial support largely in.terms of providing training for

additional scientists,or ,supplying expatriate scientists. Sudanese'

scientists and administrators rightly resent this and feel that aid could.be

better spent to provide adequate equipment and resources for 1the existing

system. If the support does not-improve,-about a third of the Sudanese

scientists expressed their intent:.,to seek work in other countries where

more adequate resources, support and salaries are provided.

Most research efforts within the ARC are conducted by groups of

scientists rather than by singleindividuals. In fact, 73.8% of ARC

scientists report working with other.professionals in their. research.. While

many of these individuals.-are other scientists, .withinthe system, ARC

scientists report working 'wlihuniversityfaculty as well as scientists in

other branches of the government" In many developing countries such

interministerial relationships are virtually impossible to maintain.

ARC should be commended for encouraging scientists to cross boundaries to

programs.
enhance effective research

Career AdVancement

A central feature ofall organizations is .areward system that 1).

provides a career ladder (or internal -labor market)-for einployees, 2)

provides monetary and/or non-monetary incentives to enployees,.and 3)

enco"uragesemployees to. support the goals ofthe organization. In most

manufacturing organizations'such reward systems areI-geared toward the

 ,37

increased produc tion.of: a standardedi, homogeneous, concreteproduct.r As

such, incenti.ye.systems are rel at i vely. si inp Ie and, are focused upon
producti,vity-increasing behavior.I In .addition, career ladders tend to be

quite short, withfew positions that demand complex skills. Only a small

number, of persons are- likelyt6',beinvolvedin management of the

organization.

Research institutions also .are,engaged.n a production process.

However, the products of research may be either abstract (e.g., farm

management: practices) or concrete (e.g., improved seeds). In addition,

unlike manufactured goods, research products may take years to produce.

Most importantly, the products of research are both heterogeneous and

somewhat unpredictable. Occasionally research .projects may fai I to come to

fruition through no fault of the s'cientist.,

This poses difficult problems for the research administrator. A reward

system must take into account the enormous divers ity of research products as

well as the differing frequencyof production across disciplines. In

addition,it must -take into account the relevance of research products, to,

the various clients of the research system. Finally, 'itmust include some

way.of avoiding measures of scientific productivity and/or effectiveness

that can be manipulated by the 'scientist., This hasegraduallyb o ne

problematic in U.S. agricultural.research where scientists have been

rewarded for publishing.articles in scientific journals. A's a res ult, over

the last two decades U.S.' agricultural scientists have tripled their output'

of journal articles. Clearly,,acorresponding increase in agricultural

productivity di d not occur.

 38

Scientists in the ARC were asked what, criteria they felt were important
for advancement within their organization (Table 3.4). Publications were
seen as the-single most important criterion for advancement. Scientists'
further qualified this to mean largely the writing of annual reports. Years
of service was seen as the second most important .criterion while actual.
evaluation of research projects ranked third. Only one out of six
scientists identified problem solving or meaningful research as a criterion
for promotion.

TABLE 3.4,
Criteria For :Advancement

Scientists' Responses
Cri ter.i a Number Percenta
Publications 42 59. 2
Years of Service 19 26.7
.Evaluation of Research/Projects 16 22.5
Problem Solving 12 16.9
Meaningful Reserach 11 15.5
Education 7 9.9
Administrative Work 6 8.5
Fieldwork 3 .2
Projects 3.; 4.2
Reputation 2 2.8
Willingness to go to
Distant Stations 1 1.4
Personal ties 1 1.4

a Does
ot equal 100%*because the scientist's w'ere requ'ested to gi~ve up,
nos
to three criteria.

These perceptions,'indicate serlous discontinu Ity between the goals of

the ARC and the system used tol reward scientists. As with U.,S. scientists,
 there is little guarantee that publications will have an effect on client

groups. Clearly, years of service with ARC is likely.to be unrelated to any

client needs. On the other-hand, few scientists saw field work, or problem
solving as important in career advancement. Thus, it appears that while the

ARC does .use,'objective criteria for' advancement -of. cientists, -these

criteria do not have the effect of encouraging scientists to produce results

that are useful to potential client groups. With relatively.little effor.4

and no additional expenditure, it might be possible to change the'reward

system in order to better direct research toward the needs of farmers and

other clients.

Scientists' Future Career Plans

As noted above, the Sudan's proximity to the various oil producing

countries of the Middle East as well as the common language it shares with

those countries puts the Sudan in a particularly.difficult situation with

regard to maintaining an adequate supply of trained scientists. -Salaries

fordoctoral scientists 'inSaudi Arabia and other Arab countries'often

surpass those of ARC scientists by a factor of 5 tolO0. Clearly,,n o 'salary

adjustments are likely to be possible in the foreseeable future that would­
eliminate this differential. This makes. some assessment
of the, futur'

career planslof scientific staff essential-for predicting the staffing''

problems which the ARC may encounterover the next decade.

When asked what type of work they wouldliketo be' doing in 10 years,
82% of ARC scientists saw research as their.first choice. An additional 11%
saw teaching as their choice, while 5%wish ed to enter administrative
posi tions in~agriculture and 2%,:wished to enter anextension role. These
 40

data reflect the strong commitment to, esearch that we encountered in the

interview process.

Scientists were also asked' in. What type of organization they would

prefer to be working in 10 years. ., Here, we found.,that 35% desired to work

for a government research organization such as the ARC while 40% preferred

to work for a non-profit international research organization. In addition,

6% preferred to work at an agricultural college, 5% for a private

corporation, and 2% for the extension service. At first glance these data

suggest that the ARC might be in danger of losing more than half its

scientific staff. Howev er, this is rather unlikely. Specifically,, it

should be noted that job openings in non-profit, international organizations

would be unlikely to accommodate more than a few scientists. Few scientists

expressed:a strong interest in moving to other types of organizations.

Conclusion

In conclusion the current situation in the. ARC combines potential and

opportunity with frustration and inadequacies. The current.scientific staff

is well trained and generally highly committed to do applied research in

agriculture. They will soon be augmented by additional colleagues being

trained. overseas. However;, the facilities, suppl'ies and other-research

resources are sorely inadequate even for the resent staff. Without,

infusion of adequate financial support these,.human resources will be,

.large scale
underutilized and potentially lost 'from the system ent irel y by .a,

exodus.
 CHAPTER-4

SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATION

Unlike other production processes, the production of scienti fic

knowledge is intimately bound-up with the continuous exchange of scientific

information. In fact, ,without communication there would.be-, no s "ence" .

(Abelson, 1980). The centrality of communications tb'6

.science becomes
apparent when one considers the many ways in which the scientific -enterprise

can go astray. Scientists who are isolated from other members of'the
scientific community maywork on problems that have already been solved or

may employ approaches already shown to be inadequate. Scientistsjisolated

from clients may .produce results that are scientifically valid yet. useless

to clients. 'Scientists isolated from their disciplinary, communities may

employ out-dated methods and reach erroneous conclusions. In short, without

frequent, prolonged social interaction, the scientific enterprise rapidly

begins to crumble.
This raises particularly difficult problems for agricultural scientists
in developing countries.. Indeed, one aspect of underdevelopment is,the lack

of'a communications infrastructure. In addition, an enormous diversity of

agrocimatic zones often necessitates that scientists be located in remote

areas ,lacking modern communications. This can result in the establishment'

oflone-person experimentstations scattered around the country.

Fortunately, one-person stations are not the case in Sudan. However,

several:stations may lack a critical mass of scientists and staff.

Consequently some'.scientist ,at-remote stations may.ack adequate

41
 42

communication facilities to contact col leagues at other stations and

adequate to formal, channels of scientific communication such as

journals due to mi nimal library facilities and journal subscriptions.

Additionally, the size of. the Sudancoupled with transportation limitationIs

have placed real and sometimes severe limitations upon scientists' abilities

to meet and communicate with each other.

Scientific communication may be formal or in formal. For ma T

communication includes various written sources, such as journal articles,

books and book chapters, technical reports and bulletins, abstracts, and

preprints. It may also include the reading and exchange of papers at

professional meetings. Informal channels are usually oral and include face

to face conversations, telephone exchanges, visits to. colleagues'

laboratories, and personal correspondence. These types of communications

differ in some important ways. Formal communication is public, with large

potential audiences, permanently stored and retrievable, primarily user

selected, moderately redundant, relatively dated even when first published,

and likely to provide little direct feedback to the author or originator.

In contrast, informal communication is usually private, with a restricted

audience, typically neither permanentlystored nor retrievable, relatively,

timely, current, and likely to afford considerable feedback to the:

originator (Lacy and Busch, 1983). These two forms of communication should

be considered as interdependent and complementary sources of information.

How, then, do scientists in the ARC receive scientific information and

keep abreast of current scientific developments? Not surprisingly, regular

scanning of journals in their field and-personal contact with colleagues

were seen as the two most importantways of keepi'ng current in their field.
 43

In contrast, travel and scanning of publications other than journalswere

of
littleiimnportance to ARC scientists* (TabIe' 4.1)..

,.,Although ARC scientists did not utilize travel as a major means of'
keeping abreast of scientific information, some Third World scientists
do
make frequent trips for scientific purposes'. For example, Hargrove (1978)

TABLE 4.1
Scientists' Means of Remaining Informed of Current Scientific Developments

Means Percent
of Scientists

Regular scanning of journals 56

within discipline 46
outside discipline 20
foreign journals 50
Regular scanning of other publications 5
Attendence at scientific meetings 36
Personal contact with colleagues 45
in the department 35
in other institutes 37
in other countries 29
Regular scanning of indexes or abstracts 19
Sudan science abstracts 8
other 14
Requesting reprints 29
Preprints 14
Travel 11

in his study of'Asian rice breeders noted: that seventy-five-percent of the

bre.eders involved in the study averaged.2.8 trips in the 5 years immediately

prior to the study. These.trips were utilized mainly to attend non-degree

training courses. These,isclientists averaged 1.courses attended (Hargrove,

1978).
 44

Informal Communication

Informal communication plays a particularly important role in the'life

of ARC scientists. Forty-five percent of ARC scientists report conversing.

with their colleagues daily over scientific issues. This compares favorably

with U.S., agricultural scientists who report communicating about their

weekly,
research with scientists in their own departments somewhat less than

However, this.high level of informal communication may be an' attempt to:

compensate for the relatively..limited opportunities to meet with colleagues

at other stations or in other nations as wel I.!as the:_weak formal

communication ties.

TABLE 4.2
Scientists' Frequency of Communication with
Colleagues Regarding Scientific Issues

Communication Scientific Responses

Frequency Number Percent

Daily 24 45.3
Weekly 11 20.8
Monthly 11 20.8
Less than once',
a month. 3 5.7
Other 4 7.5

TOTAL 53 1o0.O

Dnly -19 of the scientists, interviewed reported that they Usuayl ly

attended scientific meetings., Tight budgets have forced the ARC to rest,rict'
domestic scientific travel while the lack of foreign exchange has made

overseas. travel nearly impossible. This lack of travel1 oppo'rtuni ties may be
 45

particularly problematic in science. Studies have demonstrated that about

1/3 of the useful information gained from someone other than ones immediate

circle of colleagues was volunteered in conversationeven before'the

scientist was aware of the need for, it. Without,-travelthis typeof

exchange is unlikely to occur.

Formal Communication

Scientists were also asked whether-they, subscribed .to.-.any.,scienti if.c

journals. On the average, Sudan scientists subscribed to appoximatevO 7
journals' ,Moreover, there were verY few dupicatons n the, list of
.vryf du,ct~, ~e in

journals. Subscriptions tended to be specific to,.disciplne and personal

interests. One reason for, ,the low level of subscriptions, to scient ifjc

journals was, hedifficulties d ibedby in obtain ing ,,the

necessary.foreign exchange to subscribe to such.journals. ,Many;:felt the,

required bureaucratic approvals did not warrantthe effort.

Despite the limited number of journal subscriptions, over.,50scientists

did report that they read other journals regularly. Among the journalsmost
commonly read were the Agronomy Journal, Experimental Ariculture, Crop

Science and Food Science and Technology. Fifty-six scientists said they
read at least one journal regularly while 14 said they read as manyias,5

journals on a regular basis. On average, each scientist read approximately

2 1/2 journals regularly.

The other side of the scientific communicat-ion process is

publication activities of individual scientists. The most common type of
publication of scientific results among ARC scientists is the report. This
supports the importance attached to annual reports in promojtion decisions

(Chapter 3). In addition, ARC scientists published an 'average of just

 46

slightly above 1/2 a journal article over the last 3 years. Other types of
scientific publications were relatively rare among ARC scientists (Table

4.3)0
While publication activity is considered to be the primary criterion

for advancement, and thus an important activity for the ARC scientists, the

actual productivity is relatively low compared to U.S. scientists

TABLE 4.3
Types and Rates of Publications for Sudan and U.S. Scientists

Average Per Scientista

Publications Sudan U.S.

Domestic scientific
journal articles .54 6.70
Books .01 .12
Book chapters .04 .63
Abstracts .10 3.76
Bulletins .03 1.17
Reports 1.31 3.98

:
a Average per scientist' for last:3 years.

publication patterns"(Busch and Lacy, 1983) (Table 4.3). Even the

publication averages for" reports were considerably higher among the U.S.

scientists. The ARC scientists' publication rates also were lower than the
38 Asian rice breeders, 'who-averaged 4.8 articles per year (Hargrove, 1979).

Additionally, while 76% of the ARC scientists did not publish journal

articles, only,24% of the Asian ricebreeders failed to publish journal

articles.
 47

When asked in what journals they had published, Experimental

Agriculture and the Sudan Journal of Food Science and Technology were the

two most frequently mentioned journals. However, when asked in what

journals they would prefer to publish if assured of publication, all the

respondents gave the names of American or British journals. Consequently

the disciplinary orientation of the temperate zone appears to be the

standard towards which scientists in the ARC aspire.

Conclusion

In sum, scientific communication in the ARC is restricted in several

important ways. Scientists' access to journals is limited by their minimal

financial resources and difficulty in obtaining foreign currency to purchase

subscriptions. They are also often limited in access to journals due to

small library holdings or lack of transportation to reach libraries.

Despite this, ARC scientists read approximately 2 1/2 journals regularly.

Access to fellow colleagues at other stations, institutions, or nations is

also limited due to restricted travel opportunities and minimal telephone

services. Effective agricultural research policy must address the

importance of the scientific communication system, its integral relationship

with the goals and products of agriculture and agricultural research, and

the potential conflicts in the present system.

 CHAPTER 5

GOALS AND BENEFICIARIES OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

Research Goals

Agricultural research is, by definition, a goal oriented activity.

This is implicit in its strong mission orientation. However, the particular

goals utilized in a research program may differ markedly from program to

program, discipline to discipline, and scientist: to scientist. In addition,

scientists' perceptions of research goals may differ significantly from

those of administrators. In order to assess the relative importance of

various research goals for scientists in the ARC, a list of 10 common

research goals was utilized. These range from' increasing agricultural

productivity to improving the level of rural living. Scientists were asked

to rank each of these 10 goals on a scale from 1 (of no importance) to 5 (of.

highest importance) in terms of their 'own research. Mean scores range from

a high of 4.5 for increasing agricultural productivity to a low of 2.6 for

improving of marketing efficiency. Importantly only one goal ranked below

the mid-point of 3 on the 5 point scale (Table 5.1). This suggests that,

unlike their counterparts in the United States, ARC scientists take a broad

view of research goals in their own work. In fact, these scores may

understate the differences, given the narrower range of disciplines present.

in the ARC.,

Differences within ARC

In order to determine whether there were any differences in the ranking

of research goals by groups of scientists within the ARC, the scientists

48
 TABLE 5.1
Goals of Agricultural Research: Sudanese Agricultural Scientists and Students

Sudanese
Scientistsa Sudanese
Total 1 2 3. Students
Goals (n=71) (n=30) (n =16), (n25) (n=25)

Increase Agricultural Productivity 4.5 4.6 15.0 3.9 4.7

Develop New Knowledge or Improved
Methodology 4.3 4.2 4.1 :4.'6 4.6
Decrease Production Costs of Farm
Products 3.9 4.0: '4.1 '3.7 3.8
Improve Level of Rural Living 3.6 3.3 3.11 4.2 4.6
Protection from Insects, Disease
and other Hazards 3.6 3.4 3.7 3.8 4.3
Protect Consumer Health and
Improve Nutrition 3.6 3.2
Promote Community Improvement 2.9 4.7 4.2
3.4 3.21 2.5 4.2 4.2
Expand Demand by Developing New
Products or Enhancing Product
Quality 3.4 3.0. 2.9 4.3 3.9
Expand Export Markets 3.2 3.1 2.9 3.6 3.5
Improve Marketing Efficiency 2.6 2.4 2.2 3.2 3.5
a Group1 agricultural scientists at Gezira and Shambat,
Group 2 scientists at
remote regional stations (Hudeiba, Kadugli, Kenaana,
New
and Yambio), Group 3 scientists at the commodity stations Halfa, Rahad, Sennar
(Food Research Center, Forestry Research Center, Gum and specialized centers
Arabic Research Station,
Fisheries Research Center and Wildlife Research Section).
b Scale I to 5; 1 of no importance through 5 of highest
importance.
 50

were divided into 3 groups. The first group was composed of scientists at

the Gezira and Shambat stations; the second grouprepresented the other

regional stations while the third group represented the commodity stations

and specialized centers.

There is a considerable substantive'difference in the ranking of

research goals for these 3.groups.t The production-oriented regional

stations .(groups 1 :and,2) identified increasing agricultural production as

their primary goal. All sixteen scientists working at the outlying regional

stations (group 2) lisited this goal as 5.0 on the importance scale. The

scientists from group 3, the commodity stations and specialized centers, on

the other hand, viewed consumer"health and, improved nutrition, development

of new knowledge, new products, community improvement, and improvement of

rural living, respectively, as being more important thanvincreasing

agricultural production. This is a direct reflection of the commodity and

specialization orientation of the.group 3 stations .(Table 5.1).

Sudanese Scientists Compared to Sudanese Students

The Sudanese students presently'enrolled in United States colleges and

universities ranked these goals on the same scale as the scientists. The.

Sudanese scientists and Sudanese students are basically in agreement in

terms of prior.ity. To increase agricultural. productivity is the primary

goal of both groups with development of new knowledgeia close.second.

Expanding demand, exports, and marketing efficiency are the goals of least

importance. Generally, while in agreement, the student responses averaged

higher mean scores than' scientists on all goals- with the exception of

decreasing production-costs of farm products. The' goal of decreasing.costs

 51

was not considered by the students as being as important as most of the

other goals (Table 5.1).

The Sudanese students, however, do rank improving the level of rural

living at the top of their:list of goals and substantiallyhigher than all

three groups of Sudanese scientists (Table 5.1). Several of these students

are sponsored.byWSARP and these students may be reflecting this project's

emphasis on subsistence agriculture in rainfed areas. This also suggests

that this new thrust of the ARC in the western Sudan will bring a greater

diversity in the perceived primary goals for-agricultural research.

S Scientists and
Sudanese Scientists and Students Compared to .U.S._
International Sorghum Scientists

Both the Sudanese scientists and students have generally the same goal

prioritization as U.S. scientists (Table 5.2). This is consistent with our

previous findings which compared an interaidtional group of sorghum

scientists to U.S. scientists (Marcotte, Busch, and Lacy, 1982) (Table 5.2).
These results confirm that there is relative agreement-between developed

countryand less developed Country scientists on many of the" goals of

agricultural research. Both groups of scientists viewed-increased

agriculturai productivity and the development of new knowledge as the

primary goals of research. While this commonality of interest in the

establishment of research goals is a function of a number of factors, a

likely predominant factor is that:the majority of the Sudanese scientists

received their graduate training in Western institutions. Given this

similarity of educational backgrounds and ,,this similarity of research.

systems within which they work and publish, it ,isnot surprising that

scientists in.diverse" settings would have similar goals for their, research.
TABLE 5.2 -
Goal s Of Agicultural Researcha

Sorghum Scientistsb
Developed Developing US. Sudanese Sudanese
Total Countries Countries Scientists Scientists Students
Goals- . (n=103) (n=39) (n=64) (n=1431) (n=71) (n=25)

Increase Agricultural,
Productivity 4.6,- 4.5 4.7 3.9 4.5 4.7
Improve Level of Rural-Living 4.2 4.2 4.2 3.2 3.6 4.6
Protection from Insects,-
Disease, and Other Hazards 4.1t 4.1 4.2 3.5 3.6 4.3
Develop New Knowledge or
Improved Methodology 4.1 4.1 -4.1 4.4 4.3 4.6
Decrease Production Costs of
Farm Products 3.6 '3.2 3.8 3,6 3.9 3.8
Protect Consumer Health and.
Improve Nutrition 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.2 .3.6 4.2
Promote Community Improvement 3.4-: .2.8: 3.8 2.5 34. 4.2
Improve Marketing Efficiency 3.3. 3.0 3.5 '2.4
2.6 3.5
Expand Demand by Developing
New Products or Enhancing
Product Quality :2.9 4.
30 2.9 3.1 3.47. 3.9
Expand Export Markets 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.3 3.2 3.5

a Scale 1 to 5, 1= no importance through 5= highest importance.

b Marcotte, Busch, and Lacy, 1983. International Sorghum Scientists,inatte6danc ,at.-,the Sorghum in- the 80s -
Conference, Hyderabad, India.
c Busch and Lacy, 1983.
 53

Despite this general agreement on goals, however, there areanumber of

interesting differences among these groups of scientists. First, Sudanese
scientists, and sorghum scientists and particularly Sudanese students rate
most. goals higher than the U.S. scientists and view a broader range of goals
as important in their research. For example, the sorghum scientists in both
the developed and developingcountriesas well as the Sudanese students
perceive improved level of rural living as one of the most important goals
for research. This.ils in ;sharp contrast to the considerably lower rating
given this goal by U.S. scientists. and Sudane 'se scientists. In addition,
expanding demand and export markets were considered more important by the
Sudanese scientists than the other groups. This is primarily due to high­
ratings of these goals by group 3,scientists. Finally, the broad goal of
promoting community improvement was considered a substantially more
important goal among developing country scientists than among the deve~loped
country scientists. This was true for the sorghum scientists as well as for
comparisons between the U.S. and Sudan.
Goals by Father's Occupation
The goals of agri culItural scient'ists may be influenced by family
origins. This was examined by comparing the ratings of,those scientists who
at 16 years of age lived in households where the father's occupation was.a
farmer to those from other, backgrounds. Only 34% of the scientists had
fathers who were farm owners, farm tenants, or farm laborers, despite a
population which is predominantly agricultural. The remaining scientists'
fathers. were ,ineducation, business, government, religion, skilled labor,
and unskilled labor. Interestingly there was not a major. variation in.
percei ved.-goal s for agricultural1 research between those with a farm
 54

background and those without this background. The most important goals for

both groups were to increase agricultural productivity and to-develop new­

knowledge or improved methodology (Table 5.3). The least important goal for

both groups was to improve marketing efficiency. However, those scientists

with farm backgrounds did see the goal of improving the level of rural

living as considerably more important than their nonfarm colleagues. Those

scientists of farm background also consistently rated all goals higher than

those scientists from other backgrounds. The occupational pattern of

fathers of the Sudanese students in the United States is generally similar

to that of the ARC scientists. However, there is a greater percentage with

farm background (44%). The slight influx of scientists with this family

background may tend to broaden the range of goals seen as important for
agricultural research.

Benefici aries
As previously stated, agricultural research is a goal oriented

activity, the principal goal of which, as defined by the ARC scientists, is

to increase agricultural productivity. It seems apparent,that in order to

pursue.this mission, it is incumbent upon the scientists to understand

cl'ents, circumstances. Moreover, one of the most important and'difficult

roles for the scientist, acting as change agent, is that of diagnosing

clients' needs (Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971).

Given this requisite for understanding and diagnosing, cliet needstby

the scientists, researchers were asked who they perceived as the main

audience for ther research. The largest group of perceived beneficiaries

of agricultural research was farmers. Nearly,50% of the scientists listed

farmers as ,the audience for their research followed by industry (24.2%), and
extension/government (16.1%) (Table 5.4). This identification of farmers as
the principal audience appears consistent with the scientists' goal.of
 55

TABLE 5.3-. a
a
Goals forAgricul tural Research by Father's Occupation

Father's Occupation "

Farm b
Background OtherC Total
Goals (n=24) (n=47) (n=71)

Increase Agricultural
Productivity 4.8 4.4 4-5
Develop New Knowledge or
Improved Methodology 4.5 4.2 4.3
Decrease Production Cost of
Farm Products 4.0 3.9 3.9
Improve Level of Rural Living 4.2 3.3 3.6
Protect Consumer Health and
Improve Nutrition 3.9 3.5 3.6
Protection from Insects,
Diseases and Other Hazards 3.6 3.6 3.6
Promote Community Improvement 3.6 3.2 3.4
Expand Demand by Developing New
Products or Enhancing Product
Quality 3.6 3.3 3.4
Expand Export Markets 3.7 3.0 3.2
Improve Marketing Efficiency 3.0: 2.5 2.6

a Father's occupation when scientist was 16 years old.

b Farm background included farm owner, farm tenants, farm laborers.
c Other includes the following occupations: education; business/merchant;
government; religious, skilled labor; unskilled labor; other
d Mean scores, 1 of no importance to 5 of highest importance.
 56'

increasing agricultural productivity. However, it does deviate somewhat

from previous studies on agricultural scientists. For example, the most

important perceived actual beneficiaries for United States agricultural

scientists were large farmers and the general' public, followed by other

scientific disciplines, small farmers and agribusiness. Additionally, in

that study there was minimal differentiation among beneficiaries (Busch and

Lacy, 19831:167-68),:

TABLE 5.4
Agricultural Scientists', Perceived Beneficiaries of
Agricultural Research

Scientists Responses
Beneficiaries, Number Percent

Farmers 29 46.8
Industry 15 24.2
Extensi on/Government 10 16.1
General Public 465
Students/Universities 3 4.8
Pro-iects .1 _._6

62., '100.0

Information Diffusion

To determine the method by which the scientific information was,

diffused to the audience' we asked the scientists how their audience

received the information. There were five major methods of diffusion (Table

5.5). The most popular method by which information was disseminated Was
-that of reports andpublications., Ironically, the World Bank reports that

adult literacy in the Sudan in 1975 was only 20% (World Bank, 1980).

Consequently in most instances these reports could not be utilized by

farmers even if that was the intended use of these publications. The

second most popular-cho.ice was diffusion"through extension. Given the

serious difficulties.that have befallen the Sudanese economy and the

resultant. scarcity of :staff- and fuel or extension vehicles, this method of

information diffusion must be highly problematic. With regard to meetings,.

distribution of information at schemes, and walk-in farmers, it is difficult

to assess the efficiency or magnitude of information that may be distributed

by these methods. However, given the diverse ecological conditions *,and the

great distances that many farmers would have to travel to research stations,

it is highly unlikely that a large amount of information is diffused in.

these ways.

TABLE 5.5
.Method by Which Beneficiaries Received Information

Information Scientists Responses

Method Number Percent

Reports/Publications 12 19.0
Extension 11 17.5
Meetings 111 17.5
Schemes 8 12.7
Walk-in 8. 12.7
Semi nars 2 3.2'.
Admi ni strative
Sections 2 1.2
Other 9 14.3.
.63 0,ja

Does notequal .100.0 due to roundirng

 58

The problem of adequately and effectively reaching theperceived client

groups is recognized by many scientists in the ARC. This awareness is

reflected i "their responses to the question: How can the diffusion of

information be improved? The. scientists' recommendations focus on improved

linkage betw.en the ARC and extension as well as improved extension services

and increased,personal contact (Table 5.)'.- The primary suggestion for

improvement,was to formalize the linkage of ARC and extension. Given the

mission of extension which is to disseminate research information, this

recommendation is consistent with the.goals of the, scientists. From this

TABLE'. 5.6
Scientist's Suggestions :to Improve Effectiveness of, ARC
Information Diffusion :to"Farmers

Scientists Responses
Method of Improvement Number Percent

Formalize Linkage of ARC

and Extension 20 36.4
Improve Extension 8" 14.5
Meetings/Personal Contact 8 14.5
Demonstration Farms 7 12.7
Demonstrate on Farmers
Fields .7 12.7
Training for Farmers. 5 9.1
15500.

a Does not e'uali . IM due :to"roundi nq.

 59

analysis of theperceived goals, beneficiaries and methods of information

diffusion, we concur, in the scientists'assessment of the need for

improvement. There- is a need for a formalization of linkages between ARC '

and extension,' an improvement of extension services and an increase in

personal co"ntact with farmers. either through meetings or demonstration

farms. The Farming Systems Research approach appears to be one of the

potential means for enhancing this communication. These improvements would

likely be beneficial to both the client groups and the s"ntific community.

Conclusion

The data'reported on perceived research goals and benefi.ciaries suggest

some potenti al and fundamental anomalies, in the role of agricultural

research in the Sudan. The first potential problem concerns the perceived

beneficiaries. Scientists see farmers as the-audience for their researhi,

yet have limited or.nonexistent communication links with these potential

clients of their research.

The second issue centers on researchgoals. .Scienti sts vieWcertain

goals as significantly more important than others in the conduct!'of their

research. Although in general, Sudanese scientists view a wider, rangeof.

goals as important, various subgroups differ-:in their, perceptions of the

most important goals. This would be relatively unproblematic if there were

no link between maximization of particular research goals and the flow of

benefits of research to certain groups. However, this simply is not true.

For example, successful research efforts focused on increasing agricultural

productivity are likely to benefit (l) literate farmers near experiment

stations:, (2) processing.. and marketing firms that :,are able to purchase
 60

agricultural commodities at lower prices, and (3) perhaps consumers.

However, in the event that food quality and nutritional goals are generally

neglected, little or no benefit may accrue to consumers. Similarly,

emphasis on research to expand export markets may benefit certain export

crop farmers at the same time as it may raise prices for food crops among

local consumers. The promotion of community improvement may also cost some

groups and benefit others. For example, crop and livestock protection may

be effectively accomplished through the use of chemical sprays but such

chemicals may also increase health hazards to farm workers, rural residents,

and ultimately the general public'.

In conclusion, the pursuit of ev'erygoal involves costs and benefits.

It may appear that the solution is to develop a system that maximizes the

benefits and minimizes the costs. However, this approach only addresses the

issue of*,the outcomes and ignores the issue of beneficiaries and those

likely to incur costs. No simple economic cost/benefit analysis can resolve

this fundamental problem. These complex issues highlight the need for a

more informed, comprehensive agricultural research policy.

 CHAPTER 6

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recomendations emerged from the study. Some are based
upon specific observations and comments received from scientists and/or

administrators. Otht,-s emerged as we conducted our interviews and analyzed

the data. '4hile we stand behind our recommeniations, the reader should be

aware that they were developed following relatively short visit to Sudan and

should be tempered by thE knowledge and opinions of those with greater

experience within the Agricultural Research Corporation.

For the sake of clarity we have arranged our recommendations in several

sections.

A. National Organization and Coordination

1. Many scientists identified the need for a coherent national

agricultural research policy. They often felt unsure about the appropriate
directions for applied research. The appointment of national coordinators,
and the creation of a policy committee composed of national coordinators and
station directors, chaired by the deputy director for programs, begins to

address this issue. We sugqest that this committee could be assisted by an

advisory council representing various parties interested in agricultural

research (e.g., the regional ministries of agriculture, production schemes,

farmer organizations, other relevant ministries, etc.). Such an advisory

council should be broad in scope, covering all of the affected

61
 62

constituencies and ensuring that divergent views on research policy are

heard at the national level.

It is also important that a national agricultural research policy

contain general guidance for various research projects, some notion as to

the priority geographical areas, food crops, export crops, livestock, and

farming systems, and some general guidelines for funds disbursement within
these various areas. Such a policy should also be cognizant of the

demographic structure of the scientist population as it relates to these

priorities and the training needs of future scientists.

In contrast, a national policy should not attempt to dictate the terms

of specific .research projects to particular scientists, nor should it ignore

the limitations imposed upon any-changes in direction by the very training

received by current scientific staff. Finally, a national agricultural

research policy should be implemented gradually and changed gradually so as

to ensure that ongoing projects are brought to successful completion before

new ones are attempted. Only in this manner can the cumulative character of

scientific programs be ensured.

2. The recent development of regional ministries of agriculture

provides a decentralized administration focusing on regional issues in

agriculture.. Currently, several of the regioInal administrators have had

broad research experience and appreciate the value and needs of the researcn

community. Opportunities for collaborative activities and research support

between ARC stations located in these regions and the respective mini.etriet

should be actively pursued. In addition,' in some regions it may be possible

to create regional advisory councils.to ensure the relevance of research to

regional .needs. Regi6nal repr esentati..ves- should .stion. national po,.icy
commi ttees.
3. There are three-fundamental ways :in ,which agricultural research
systems may be organized: by.disciplie, by commodity, and by farming
system. Historically,. the f-irst two of these orientations have been
developed during the last century. In some countries experiment stations
were organized around commodities, (chiefly export crops such as cotton,
rubber, coffee, etc.), while, in other countries research was irganized
along disciplinary, lines (e~g., plant pathology, horticulture, agronomy,
rural sociology). More recently, attention has been directed toward the
farming systems approach in whic researrh is organized around farming

systemsfqund in particular ecological zones.. This orientation permits the

incorporation of the everyday rationality.offarmers (Chapter 1) into the
researc.h process.' In order to maxiinize. the effectiveness of an agricultural
research program all three of these approaches must be considered. For.

example, neglect of the disciplinary dimension may lead to weakened

relations with organizations such as the Soil Survey, and may, inhibit
scientists' abi:ities to Jeep up with the (largely discipli nary) scientific
literature. In contrast, neglect of-the commodity dimension may lead -.
to
disciplinary-fragmentation such that, for example, pest control
recommendations produced by entomologists are incompatible with cultivation
practices recommended by agronomists. Finally, neglect of the farming
systems.dimension may .lead to an, inappropri'ate mix of commodities, planting
times, and, labor requirements such that the 1.abor. needs are magnified,
opportunities for multiplecroppi ng ,are passed over, etc. In short, an
 64

effective agricultural research program must include some aspects of all

three orientations.
4. The Western Sudan Agricultural Research Project (WSARP) needs to be
better integrated into the ARC. As is well known, this project was
specifically designed to provide a farming systems approach that would be
particularly effective in reaching low income farmers utilizing traditional
practices in unirrigated agriculture. Although scientists joining the WSARP
team have themselves been educated in a particular discipline, still a
difference in approach is reflected in the scientists' perceived research
goals. WSARP scientists and those -at other outlying stations view a wider
range of goals as important to their research than do the scientists at

Shambat and Wad Medani.. By virtue of the distance of the WSARP experiment
station sites fromi'those in the-East, as well as the newness of the venture,
relatively little attention has been paid to the important problem of
integrating research in Western Sudan research into the larger.mission of
the ARC.
As the Western Sudan experiment stations become fully active, the':need
for' integration will be magnified, If handled properly, this may be' an,
opportunity for major improvement of the 'entire Research'Corporation. WSARP
should be able to effectively draw upon.the strong, wel-l-established­
disciplinary and commodity programs already in existence. In turn,
scientists-at the more established'stations should be ableto utilize the
farming systems. expertise devel'ping in WSARP in order to improve their
effectiveness:. It should be recognized that the 'various irt 'g'ated and
mechanized'schemes are themsel ves farming systems though of a type quite
different from those. found in the Western Sudan.. Limiting the farming
 65

systems approach to the Western Sudan and the commodity and disciplinary

approaches to the Eastern Sudan is likely to lead to sharp divisions in the

ARC and to hamper progress towards the creation of a fully integrated

organization. We believe that it is important that this issue be tackled

now rather than several years later. The inherent difficulties involved in
joining the two parts of the system need to be resolved while organizational

forms are relatively new and unentrenched. Leaving the issue for future

resolution is likely to make the problem far more intractable.

5. While the'need for research on experiment stations should not be

ignored, the ARC should give serious consideration to the use of the Farming

Systems Research (FSR) approach at all stations. This might actually help
to alleviate the current strains on station budgets by moving some portion

of the research off the station (where hired labor is necessary) to farmers'

fields. This 'would also permit scientists to gain a greater appreciation

for the problems farmers face and ensure that research conducted on the

station is consonant with farmers' needs. Finally,' it would provide the

interface between research and extension that is currently lacking.

If such a move were contemplated, it wo ld involve some retraining of:

existin g scientific staff in the FSR approach. This might'be accomplished

by having such a training program carried out at one*ofthe WSARP sites.

This would have the additional advantage of helping to integrate WSARP with

the rest of the ARC. This kind of project would be particularly suited to

funding through foreign assistance.

6.1 Currently the 'sections recently added. to the-ARC (i.e., fisheries,

food research, forestry,'wildlife)"do not haVe natidnal coordinators. Many
scientists in these sections alread feel isolated 'from scientists'- in the
 66

in their
older sections. In addition, these stations are somewhat different
goals for research than the
organizational structure, mission, and pe,-ceived
given to the appointment of
other parts of the ARC. Consideration should be
order to more effectively
national coordinators in each of these areas in
would not only speak for
integrate them into the ARC. Such coordinators
but would also help to
their respective sections at naticnal meetings,
of other stations"
utilize the services of these sections in support
bebetter
projects. For example, agronomic research on millet might
national
coordinated with food research on the same crop through
coordinators in both areas.
coordinators need to be
7. The roles and responsibilities of national
to station and section
more carefully delineatec., especially with regard
organizational problems.
heads. The current situation invites potential
depend upon station
First,lcoordinators lack a separate budget and must
while coordinators make
directors or section heads for support. Second,
uponi section heads for
recommendations for national budgets, they depend
the roles and
their own research programs. By more clearly delineating
potent-ial conflicts over
responsibilities of these national coordinators,

budgets and research priorities may be avoided.

to
8. The ARC -headquarters should be relocated from Wad Medani
the "nternational
Khartoum as already suggested in the report of
1977). This would
Agricultural Development Service (Joint Team Report,
of Agriculture, Food,
facilitate access to other divisions of the Ministry
ministries and offices,
and Natural Resources, as well as other government
the capital would enable
such as-the National Research Council. Location in
agencies which
greater contact withprilvate organizations and international
 67

would lead to more collaborative efforts and increased awareness of

potential sources of funds. Other advantages would include increased

overall visibility of the ARC and greater ease in reaching the headquarters

for most members of the ARC and other visitors. Finally, such a move would

eliminate the perceived bias towards the Gezira station and reduce confusion

over the lines of authority. Resistance to the move has been voiced and the

reasons need to be carefully explored. For example, one concern among some
scientists and research administrators at Wad Medani is acriss to comparable

and affordable housing in Khartoum.

9. :In the 1977-Joint Team Report it was recommended that "an

agricultural research scientist with demonstrated capability and experience

in ,the organization and management of agricultural research of broad

geographical scope and interdisciplinary complexity should be recruited as a

consultant to assist the Director General with the overall organization and

management of the ARC,." The ARC was fortunate to recruit Dr. James Riley

for that position. Utilization of his expertise in agricultural research

administration could be expanded even further than is currently ..

the case.
For exanple, his knowledge and experience would be an effective addition to

agricultural policy meetings.

B. Manpower Training

10. One of the strongest 'dimensions of the ARC is its community of

well-trained scientists. However, since Sudan is a large country with
multiple ecological zones, agricultural scientists in the ARC have been

.widely dispersed to meet local socio-economic situations, special

environments, or particular commodity needs. The ARC itself has been

orgarized into regional stations, commodity stations, specialiZed centers
 68

and testing sites. As a consequence a number of stations lack a critical

mass of staff, as well as funding necessary for the effective conduct of

research. The ARC needs to review the overall organization regularl'y to

determine whether and where to consolidate human resources most effectively.

11. A second manpower issue is the congruence between the training and

experience of the scientists and the overall needs and priorities of Sudan.

For example, shifts in national emphasis from export and/or cash crops to

food crops for national consumption and vice versa require continuous

reexamination of available human resources and their allocations,

capabilities, and limitations. The nature and balance among various

disciplines also entails regular reassessment. Clearly, the process of

training scientists and. other research staff requires a constant review of

the strengths arid weaknesses of the research capabilities and the relevance

of these capabilities to national priorities.

12. While the size of Sudan's agricultural scientific manpower is not

optimal, it has reached a,critical mass in numbers of scientists. As this

research program grows management will become a main determinant of its

effectiveness. Therefore, some scientific personnel should receive training

in research management. As suggestedlearlier, these managers"should be able

to demonstrate to policy makers, where appropriate, that agricultural

research funds will be effective in achieving.;national objectives and

priorities. Furthermore, they.need to communicate regularly with those in

government who give direct'ion to the national economy, manage the research

budgets,,and maintai neffecti've contact with their own scientists-and staff.

13. Although the ARC has a relatively large and varied scientific

staff, it has a serious shortage of well trained technicians., ,This .shortage.

 69

has at least two components:, Tirst, it.is'difficult to attract: technicians

graduating from technical schools or to retaini:them due to limited career

opportunities within the ARC. Second, since technicians-graduate from

three year post-secondary programs,-they feel nearly as well qualified as

assistant scientists who have bachelor's degrees. These factorscoupled with

relatively low salaries encourage a high turnover among technicians. The

recommendation of one scientist to establish a technical secondary school to

train agricultural technicians for the ARC appears to be a promising

complement to the current on-the-job training. In addition, a career ladder

and opportunities for:furthertraining for technicians siould be.

established '
14. As:noted earlier in-the report, most.ARC scientists have received­
graduate education in"either the United States or:the United Kingdom. 'Given
the significant differences in the-ecology and agricultural needs of these

countries as compared:to0,Sudan, careful attention should be paidto the

relevance: of this education. For ARC- scientists graduate education at the

masters or doctoral level, should be relevant to the interdisciplinary

applied research conducte'dby' the ARC. The ARC already encourages this,.
through its current practice 'of requiring assistant scientists to spend tdo

years.within the ARC. before, going abroad for.advanced 'studies. This could
be further encouraged by selecting universities,.involved, in applied-research

in similar climatic zones and by.encouraging students topursue Ph.D.

training,.inconjunction with the international centers :(eg., International

Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, International Center for
Agricu.lt.ural Research in Dry. Areas) In,particular. the'ARC should strongly
 70

encourage scientists to write master's theses and doctoral dissertations.*on

subjects of direct concern to the ARC and Sudan.

C. Research Fundinq and Organization

15. Foreign governments and private organizations occasionally make

funds available for agricultural research on both a programmatic and

individual project basis. The ARC should consider the best means to

identify such sources on a regular basis, to inform appropriate

administrators and scientists, and to assist in the procurement of these

funds.

16. Consideration should be given to the formation of a small research

fund within the ARC that would be allocated competitively. These monies
complement the station formulafunding and those funds available from the

National Council for Research and"could be used to either support important

immediate national ,objectives or promising but underfunded long term needs.

17. Generally, research funds are administerd by a section leader or

department chairman based on the current needs of the section. Therefore,

funds may be available at the beginning of a funding period but unavailable

to scientists whose needs occur later in the fiscal year. -Several

scientists have suggested the need for section leaders to, allocate a portion

of the yearly budget to each scientist. They believe this' would enable'them
to better, plan the year 'experiments within the parameters of their ,.

available budget and to make critical choices, ih advance.'

18. The ARC should be permitted to sell the produce derived from

experimental plots and to use the proceeds to supplement the general

operating budget. At the same time, the ARC is urged not-to convert'
 71

experimental plots into production units for this would undermine the

central mission of the ARC.

19. The large irrigated production schemes rely on the ARC for a

continuous infusion of new research results and often place heavy demands on

the researchers. These schemes should be encouraged to lobby on behalf of

-the ARC among the government agencies responsible for research funding.

Further, we concur with scientists who believe that all the schemes should

provide a direct though unrestricted contribution to the research program.

20. Currently each scientist conducts separate discipline-oriented

field experiments. This often results in several experimental plots planted

in the same crop. at the same research station. The possibility and
viability of doing interdisciplinary field research on these experimental

plots should be explored. This could be a means for a)reducing' overall

costs of the fielld research, b) lessening problems of labor shortages at key

periods in the research (e.g., during weedingand harvesti.ng time), c)

promoting Interdisciplinary research, and d) contributing to research

results- which are. applicable across interdisciplinary lines.

D. Communications

.Administration-Scientist
21. Due to inadequate infrastructure, communication between the

stations is extremely poor. Scientists and research administrators must

spend hours, days, and sometimes weeks traveling.'to Wad Medani and other

stations-to ensure that their. messages reach the apprpeople. A

radio communication system linking the research stations would be a

rel atively inexpensive, yet effective way to dramatically improve

communication.
 72

22. Communication between scientists and administrators needs to be

improved. Currently, many scientists are unaware of the efforts of

administrators to secure funds and improve the position of the ARC. As a

consequence, they are highly critical of that effort. In addition, many

scientists believe that their problems and their research efforts•are not

fully appreciated. In part, this appears to stem from one or more of three

sources: physical distance from ARC headquarters, being in asubject field

newly added to the ARC, and being a young or new member of the staff and

therefore lacking informal contacts. These problems may be ameliorated by

more frequent visits to remote stations by senior administrators, and by a

"state of the-ARC" address and question and answer session for scientists at

the annual meeting.

Among Scientists

23. Communications among the scientists in different research fields

is currently limited. A newsletter or similar type communication could

provide scientists with sammary information of recent scientific

developments In the'ARC, new products, methods, meeting announcements, etc.

24. The annual research meeting at Wad Medani is more a demonstration

for other agencies than a scientific meeting. 'Previously this meeting was

also used as an opportuniti' for scientists to discuss their research

problems. Serious co'n'sideration should be given to reinstituting an annual

agricultural scientific' meeting.

25. Researchlresults, are- often-buried in annual reports. These

reports are less detailed than joui-nal articles or bulletins and only a few

copies areproduced. Hence,,what research is completed is often unavailable

 73

even to colleagues, let alone farmers. The revival of theSudan Journal of

Agricultural Research should be a'high priority.

26. Delays in the publication of annual reports make'it difficult for

scientists to follow the work of co-workers, particularly outside their

discipline. To expedite publication of annual reports it.is recommended

that a literature graduate from .the Universi ty of Khartoum be,'hired to

replace the current ,expatriate editor.

27. Scientists identified, journals as one of the two mos imiportant

ways of keeping abreast of scientific.developments. The variouslibraries

of the ARC appear minimally to meet these needs. A relatively inexpensive
way to expand the information available to scientists is to provide access

to agricultural data bases, such as the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau !and

the Current Agricultural Information Network. This activ-ty might be

supported by foreign aid.

28. Scientists report few contacts with other Africlzn i'researchers

based in similar ecological zones in.part due to language differences.

Foreign aid agencies could help facilitate such interaction by translating

key publications, from francophone Africa into English or Arabic and,

promoting cross-national contact within Africa..

With Farmers
29. The effect iveness of the ARC', n reachi ng -farmers needs to be

improved, a) A first step might be to' strengthen the link between the 'ARC'
and the extension service, perhaps through' assignment of an extension staff

member' to every ARC station (or section). This person's responsibility

woul d be to facilitate communications between ARC '.staff and 'extension agents

throughw plann'ing and executing FSR and on-'farm adaptive research.

 74

b) Alternatively, the ARC might create position's for "agricultural

development specialists" or "Farming Systemns Research specialists." The

role of these specialists would be to ascertain the needs of farmers and

translate them into researchable topics. c) Another strategy would be to

conduct more research on farmers' fields. Many researchers expressed a

willingness to-do this but transport constraints limit the feasibilty of

this approach.:

E. Promotions,

30. Some scientists are currently being penalized for pursuing a Ph.D.
immediately following a masters degree. Promotion policy requires a masters

degree and four years of in-country service after being promoted to

"scientist" as conditions oi promotion to "senior scientist." Those

scientists who choose to obtain the Ph.D. immediately following the masters
degree must wait four additional years after their return to be promoted to

senior scientist. Considera'ion should be given to reducing the 4-year rule

for those scientists who obtain the Ph.D. directly after the masters degree.
31. In many instances an . apparent discrepancy exists between a) the

organizational goal's of the.ARC which stress applied research and

problem-solving and the develooment of useful methods and products, and b)

the criteria for scientist's promotion which stress written annual reports

and academical Iyoriented journal articles. Greater attention needs to be

given to the.evaluation of new products and technologies and their

contribution to organizational and national agricultural goals. Annual

awards to scientists whose on-farm research directly contributes to farm

production might be instituted, with these awards taken into consideration

for promotion., Additionally, scientists might be encouraged, in both new

 75

projects and annual reports, to demonstrate the re'levance of their work to

organizational and national goals.

F. Equipment

32. The equipment and tools needed for research were seen by

scientists as the most inadequate research resources in the ARC. Obviously,

more funding is needed for equipment. In addition, in some instances better

utilization of the existing equipment could improve the situation. Some

stations are run as aggregates of projects with little equipment sharing.

Station programs need to be better integrated with equipment seen as station

property rather than the property of a single researcher.

33. In addition to specialized research equipment, there is a need for

three types of general use equipment: a small computer to handle statistical

needs, copying machines for the libraries at Wad Medani and the Food

Research Centre, and a radio communication system..

G. Conclusion
34. The current situation in the ARC combines opportunity with the

frustration of inadequate resources. The staff, soon to be augmented by

additional colleagues, is generally well trained and highly committed to

applied research in agriculture. However, the facilities, supplies, and

other research resources are inadequate, even for the present staff.

Without adequate funding, the potential offered by the available human

resources will be underutilized and!potentially lost to the system. If all

efforts fail to improve the fiscal situation-of the ARC, serious

consideration should be givento reducing the scientific staff through

attritilon and closing of selected facil ities. This, last resort would ,'make

it,: possible for the ARC to provide minimum levels bf support to the
 76

remaining scientists and would enable those scientists to conduct a limited

small scale program.

The above recommendation isneither an optimal nor even,an acceptable

stategy under most circumstances. Therefore, our final recommendation is to

the Sudanese government-and to other potential funding agencies. It is not

enough to provide funds for training of new scientists and technicians.

Budgetary support for operational costs other than salaries is essential but

often neglected. Training and staff development should be matched to the.

provision of recurrent funds and capital investment. Consequently, infusion

of adequate funding and resources-for current operations, as well as for

institutional development in the ARC, should be a high priority of the

Sudanese government and other agencies interested in agricultural

development in the Sudan.

 BI BLIOGRAPHY

Abelson, Philip H.

1980 .Scientific communication." Science 209:60-62.,

Agricultural Research Corporation (Sudan)

1981 The Rehabilitation of the Agricultural Research Corporation of

the Democratic Republic of Sudan. Khartoum, Sudan:

AgricultUral Research Corporation.

1980 List of Research Scientists and Senior Administrators.

Khartoum, Sudan: Aaricultural Research Corporation.

Barnett, Tony

1977 The Gezira Srheme. London: Frank Cass.

Boyce,,James K. and Robert E. Evenson

1975 Agricultural Research and Extension Programs. New York:

Agricultural Development Coltnci-l, Inc.

Busch, Lawrence

1978 "On.understanding understanding:, two views .of communication,"

,,Rural Sociology 43:450-74

1980: .
"Structure and negotiation in the agricultural sciences., Rural .

Soctiology 45:26-48.

Busch, Lawrence and William B. Lacy

1983 Science, Agriculture, and the Politics of Research. Boulder,::

Westview Press.

77
 78

Busch, Lawrence and Carolyn Sachs

1981 "T~le agricultural sciences and the modern world system." Pp.

131-156 in Lawrence Busch (ed.), Science and Agricultural

Development. Totawa, New Jersey: Alianheld, Osmun and Co.

Cooper, St. George

1970 Agricultural Research in Tropical Africa. East African
Literature Bureau, Dar-Es-Salaam.'!
Evenson, Robert and Yoav Kislev
1971 "Investment in agricultural research and extension: a survey of

international data.' New Haven: Economic Growth Center, Yale

University,. Center Discussion Paper No. 124. Mimeographed.

Faki, Hamid
1982 "Disparities in the mangement of resources6 between farm and-'

national levels in irrigation projects, example ofthe Sudan

Ge'zira Scheme.", Agricultural Administration .9:47-59.
Gaitskell, A.
1959 Gezira:A Story of Development in the Sudan'. London: Faber and

Faber.
Hargrove, Thomas, R.
1978 Rice Asia: A 10-CountrySurvey. Manila,
nBreedersin
'Philippines: The International Rice.Research Institute.

-1979 "Cmmunication among Asian rice breeders." Journal of Research

Communication Studies 2:119-132.

 .79

Harmon, Lindsey R.

1965 Profiles of Ph.D.'s in the .Sciences. Washington, D.C.:

National Academy of Sciences.

1978 A Century of Doctorates: Data Analyses of Growth and Change.

Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.

Holt, Peter M. and M.W. Daly

i079 :The'History of the Sudan: From the Coming of Islam to the

Present Day,. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.,.,

Hull, David F., Peter D. Tessner,,andAM. Diamond;

1978 - principle: do youngerscientists accept new

,sientific ideas withgreater a arcity than older scientists?."

Science 202:717-23.
I hde, 1Do'i

1979 Techni cs and Prax ils., Dordrecht, Holland: D.-,Reide Pub lishing

Co.
Joint Team Report
.1977 Sudan Agricul tural Research Capabiiti es.:New York:

International Aqricultur al ;DeVelIopment Serv ice.

Knorr-Cetina, Karin

1981 -The Manufacture of, Knowledge., Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Lacy, William B. and Lawrence Busch

1983 ,"Informal. scientific communication in the agricultural

scienres." Information Processing. and Management .19

(4):193-202.
 80

Marcotte, Paul, Lawrence Busch, and William B. Lacy

1982 An Analysis of an International Agricultural Science Community:

Case Study - Sorghum. Unpublished paper.

National Academy of Sciences

\971 "Report of the Joint U.S.A./Ghana Committee on agr.icultural.

extension and research." Washington: Nati ,nal:Academy of

Sciences, Council for Scientific Research and Industrial

Research, Universities of Ghana, (October).

Oram, Peter A. and Vishva Bindlish

1981 Resource Allocations to National Agricultural Research:'i Trends

in the 1970s. The Hague, Netherlands: International Service for

National Agricultural Research.

Pifleiro, M. and E. Trigo

1981 "Dynamics of agriUltural research organization in Latin

America." 'FTood Policy 6 (February):2-10.

Riley, James J..

1981 The Possible Dream.7' iKhartoum, Sudan: ,,The Agricultural Research

Corporaltion.
Rogers$, Everett Me (with F. Floyd 'Shoemaker)

1971 Communication of Innovations. New York: The Free Press'.

Ruttan,. Vernon We,:,

1982 Agrirultural Research Policy, Minneapolis: 'University oF

Minnesota Press..
!,UNESCO (ed.)
1970 Statistica ,Yearbook. Paris: 'United'Nations EducaLional

Scientific: and Cultural Organizat ion.

 1981 Statistical Yearbook. Paris: United Nations Educational

Scienti fi c,,and,:Culturali Organization,

United States Department of Agriculture

19811 In
wor d,Indices of Agricutural and
'F,ood,
1 P.rpduction,., Washington,

D.C.: Economic Research Servjce. Stati sti cal Bulletin #669..

. .......
­ -l.a;

19,82 JInventoryof Agricultural Research, FY 1981, Volume 1-.,

Science
and Education, Administration. Washington, DCUSDA.-,
World Bank, .The
1980 Poverty and Human Deveopinent.-, 'kOxford:.. xOkford University,Press.
 METHODOLOGICAL APPENDIX

Data Collection
The research conducted forthis Report on the Sudan Agricultural

Research Corporation involved a variety of sources of information. The

sources included reviews of historical materials, reports and government

documents, a series of on site interviews of about two hours each with 62

ARC scientists, 9 questionnaires returned from ARC scientists whose

worksites Nere not,,visited,' and approximately 20 interviews with research

administrators and government iofficials.

The statistical results reported about Sudanese scientists were based

on responses to those interviews and questionnaires. The number of

respondents (n.= 71) represents approximately 55% of the ARC scientific

staff on site in the'Sudan.

Additionally, questionnaires were sent to approximately bO Sudanese

students enrolled in universities in the United States between September

1982 and May 1983. Of those 50 students, 25 were being supported by the

ARC, with the remainder being supported by other government or private

organizations. The response rate was approximately 50% (n = 25).

For a number of sections of the report, this information was compared

to information previously,collected on 1431 agricultural scientists in

United States public agricultural research institutions (see Busch and Lacy,
1983), and 103 agricultural scientists from developed and developing

countries in attendance at the "Sorghum in the 80's" conference held in

Hyderabad, India in 1981.
 83

Data Analysis
Conventional statistical procedures were utilized to analyze
quantitative data. In addition, a rich body of qu.alitative information was
gleaned from the lengthy interviews. While some-might argue that the
non-random nature of our sample makes statistical inferences problematic, we
would counter that its large size--55%lof the'total staff--and its'
geographical rep,,esentativeness make it highly likely that it does
accurately portray the entire population of scienti'sts. Assuch we have
treated the sample as if it were randomly chosen.
Details on the design and implementation of the interviews ard
questionnaires and other..aspects of the study are available from ,the
authors.