The impact of science on the modern world is overwhelming as one thinks about advances in health care, transport technology, and food production, to name a few. An underlying assumption is that the advances generally attributed to science are the result of its method. The scientist is believed to hold a superior means of solving problems than non-scientists. The controlled experiment coupled with statistical analysis is thought to assure high probability of conclusions and therefore validity of knowledge.

However, during the last few decades this view of science has come under scrutiny by writers such as Feyerabend and Kuhn. This criticism, while it should be welcomed, goes largely unnoticed by most practicing scientists. If noticed, it is often rejected. Of course, the existence of a scientific method, above criticism, is in itself unscientific. The essence of science is criticism, and scientists cannot afford to put their basic premise above evaluation.

Those scientists who have read the history of science recognize it as a constantly evolving field of study. The inductive science of Francis Bacon was criticized by Thomas Hume and evolved further by Karl Popper. Critical rationalism which holds that hypotheses must be falsified is the basis of current methodologies. Yet advances in science rarely fall along neat methodological pathways. Guesses, assumptions, intuition, stubborn defence of a favorite theory, and plain luck all are part of science. Kuhn recognized that today's scientific truth may be overthrown by new understanding. Scientific knowledge is validated as true, based on the current social construct called a paradigm. Empirical data is one source of evidence upon which scientific deductions may be made. Another source of evidence is the authority of the one presenting the data. Another source of validity may be good interpersonal relations, or the extent to which an audience will benefit or suffer from the new information.

            1.    Research is a process that occurs within a community of knowers. This community can be made of relatively homogeneous knowers within an academic discipline, or more heterogeneous knowers living and working together in a farming community.

            2.    Conventional scientific research is a particularly useful tool for discovering and validating new knowledge within the academic community. Participatory research on the other hand may be quite useful in the farming community.

            3.    Participatory research encourages integration of ideas, sharing of knowledge.

John M. Gerber, 1991