Agents who continually produced successful programs described
success as more than just numbers. Initially all agents described
success by the number of people who attended a program or meeting. But
that's only one indicator of success for the exemplary program planners.
These agents also described success as having a positive influence or
impact on people, such as increasing the number of alternatives and the
consequences of those alternatives considered by people in decision
making. As one agent indicated, this isn't easy to do:
It's hard to tell what's successful. The meeting we had yesterday I
thought was successful. It was timely, it was well done, people were
well prepared for it. But I also thought it was successful because we
had a good crowd. There have been other meetings where we've had almost
as many people and I haven't thought the meeting was successful at
all....We have had those meetings before: dairy buy-out, the PIK
program, and every year the feed grain program. Those are the types of
programs where we pack the houses wherever we go. Some of those haven't
been very successful because they haven't been educationally geared.
Summary
Agents who continually produced successful programs got ideas for
programs from extended networks not limited to their county or
Extension. They tried to optimize their time by using it effectively and
prioritizing activities. They tried to keep their
perspective-anticipating what may be on the horizon and reflecting on
the past. They ultimately defined success as having a positive impact on
people.
Footnotes
1. J. Dohr and C. Finley, "County Extension: Program Development, A
Descriptive Study" (Madison: University of Wisconsin-Extension, 1979).
2. J. Brown, "The Process of Program Development for Adult Learners:
Information Used by Cooperative Extension Service Home Economists"
(Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1982).
3. P. Copa, "Exploring Essential Elements of Successful Practice"
(Madison: University of Wisconsin, Department of Continuing and
Vocational Education, 1986).
4. B. Glaser and A. Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory:
Strategies for Qualitative Research (Hawthorne, New York: Adline de
Gruyter, 1967).
Who Participates...and Why?
Dale R. Miller
Extension Agriculturist/Director
Marion County
Iowa State University-Knoxville
M. F. Smith
Associate Professor and Coordinator
Program Planning and Evaluation
Staff Development
University of Maryland-College Park
Issues have been defined as matters of wide public concern arising out
of complex human problems.1 Once an issue is selected as an Extension
priority, how can the decision to do an issues- based program be
predicted? What events or actions must occur to influence an Extension
agent's decision to participate in an interdisciplinary issues-based
program?
A study of the Maryland Cooperative Extension Service (CES) Water
Quality/Quantity pilot program provided insight into the factors
influencing this decision-making process. This article briefly describes
the study and reports on those factors and events that had the strongest
influence on the decision-making process.
The Study
Water quality/quantity was selected as a high priority issue by the
Maryland CES in 1986. Shortly thereafter, the Water Impact Team (WIT)-a
team of state and county faculty representing five disciplines-began
developing an interdisciplinary water program. The result was a model of
events and actions considered essential for influencing a county
faculty's choice to implement the water pilot program (see Figure 1).
The model included pre-county events or actions necessary for the
occurrence and influence of subsequent county events. Each event in the
model was defined by specific actions. For example, one activity in
Event 2 was a personal letter from the Extension director to each member
of the team documenting the importance of the issue for Extension and
the commitment of resources; Event 5 included six activities in
preparation for the presentation to county faculty.
Figure 1. County faculty model.
The purpose of the study was to verify the model of events, improve the
water program, and more accurately predict and affect decision making in
future issues-based programs. Verification was accomplished by: (1)
documenting the occurrence of each event and (2) analyzing the influence
of each event on individual faculty members' decisions to implement (or
not implement) the program. For example, during the one-on-one
interviews, faculty were asked: "Did the WIT define expectations for
county faculty participation in the pilot study (Event 5)? If YES, did
that influence your decision to participate (or not)? If YES, what about
that influenced you-positively or negatively?"
Faculty from three counties were interviewed. One county was actively
involved in implementation of the program, one had just collected needs
assessment data, and one had chosen not to participate.
Influences on County Staff Decisions
The interview data revealed that each event in the model did occur and
each influenced individual faculty members' decision about
participation. Within the events, seven specific actions were more
influential than others-four had high influence (identified by more than
70% of respondents) and three had medium influence (50%-70% of
respondents). These influencers, in order of decreasing degree of
influence, were:
- Clarity of program presentation by Water Impact Team (Event 7): The
more the agents felt they understood the program, the more likely they
were to "buy-in."
- Availability of specific organizational resources (Events 6 and 8):
Agents were positively influenced when resources were made available for
this program; lack of support from any level of administration was a
strong negative influence.
- Choice in the decision to participate (Event 7): Agents who
believed they had a choice, felt a positive influence; without this
belief, there was a strong negative influence.
- Program fits job description/work plan (Event 7): Agents were more
likely to participate if they could see a clear fit of the water program
with their job description/work plan.
- Purpose/goal of the water program (Event 7): The social
significance of the program goals exerted a positive influence on
decisions to participate.
- Team approach to programming (Events 5, 7, and 10): Some agents
were positively influenced by the opportunity to work as an
interdisciplinary team member and as part of a county/state program team
with a common goal.
- Time requirement (Events 7 and 10): Lack of time was primarily a
negative influence for many (for example, the initial time required for
a sound assessment of local needs plus the time for cooperative
planning).
Conclusions and Recommendations
The results show that changing the actions of some events could elicit
even greater influence. These events and recommendations for improved
effectiveness are:
- Administration Communicates Expectations and Support (Event 6).
This event occurred before the WIT presented details of the program
(Event 7), which was an important sequence. However, not all members of
administration fully supported the pilot program. It was clear for some
agents that support was definite from the highest level of
administration and this was a positive influence. Second-level
administrative support wasn't evident, which clearly had a negative
influence. Recommendation: A total commitment from all levels of
administration should increase positive feedback and eliminate the
confusion of "mixed signals" from administration.
- Team Presents Program Expectations and "Sells" to County Faculty
(Event 7). These actions were critical to decision making by faculty as
evidenced by the previous list of specific influencers. Recommendation:
The team should place more emphasis on telling the whole story in joint
county and state meetings and deliver a complete, informative
presentation. Presenters shouldn't assume prior reading of preliminary
documents and correspondence by county faculty before the initial
presentation.
- Administration Provides Rewards and Feedback on Performance (Event
8). This event was a strong influencer for agents seeking evaluation of
their work. However, evidence shows they didn't know how their
participation in the program would affect their performance appraisal.
This uncertainty points to the lack of clearly defined criteria for the
appraisal of individual and group/team performance. Recommendation:
Develop contingency-based performance criteria for individuals and teams
(for example, appraisals would depend on accomplishment of work/program
goals) as part of the interdisciplinary issues-based program. These
criteria would be described during the program presentation and include
the means for clearly recognizing and quickly rewarding county faculty.
- County Faculty Assess Situation and Identify Specific Needs (Event
10). Successful completion of this event required a comprehensive
program needs assessment. The WIT provided detailed instructions for
this effort. Local input from community and organizational leaders
provided critical learning for county faculty and reinforcement for
their decisions. When the needs assessment wasn't completed, county
faculty were more likely to decide not to participate. Recommendation:
Completion of the local needs assessment should be a requirement, rather
than an option, for program participation.
- Team Provides Training and Technical Assistance (Event 9). This
event was an influencer on county faculty decision making. Even though
it was offered, those who chose not to ask for training felt they
weren't adequately prepared for completing some tasks (for example, the
needs assessment). Recommendation: Training and help should be provided
for county faculty as an integral part of program development-with the
understanding it's an expectation rather than an option for
participation.
One overlooked factor in the successful influence of events is allowing
enough time for the actions to affect decision making. Each event's
influence must fully develop before proceeding to the next event in the
model.
Planning ahead to influence the decision of others isn't new in
Extension. We do it all the time with clients. This study has shown that
if Extension wants to influence the development of specific programs at
the local level, planning to affect faculty decisions may be more
critical than providing detailed plans for how to implement programs.
Footnote
1. U.S., Department of Agriculture, Extension Service, Issues
Programing in Extension (Washington, D.C.: Extension Committee on
Organization and Policy (ECOP) and Minnesota Extension Service, 1988).
Climate for Change in Extension
Rose Marie Tondl
Extension Clothing Specialist
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
The 1990s are ushering in major changes for Cooperative Extension as
National Initiatives become the foundation for program planning,
replacing some of the traditional discipline- based programs. As new
ideas for program operations are introduced, a natural consequence is
human resistance to change.
Throughout the system, we're being forced to cope with fundamental
changes in the way we do business. The possibility of upsetting the
balance of power exists. Individuals will take action based on their
perception of how changes will affect their relative power position in
the organization.1 New knowledge, varying economic conditions, pressures
of competition, evolution of new cultural values and perspectives, and a
paradigm shift from disciplinary programming to issues programming have
had a great impact on Extension. Internal changes-structural
reorganization and/or personnel relations-have created pressures on
Extension staff. Understanding how agents, administrators, and county
board members respond in a time of change is vital to the organization
and its continued functioning in the future.
Climate for Change Study
Over the past few years, the Nebraska Cooperative Extension has coped
with two major changes. First was a move from single county programming
to multicounty program units. This meant Extension educators (and in
some cases, county board members) were expected to work across county
lines rather than confine themselves to one county. Secondly, the
nationwide move from disciplinary to issues-based educational
programming necessitated a change in the basic program planning process
with an increase in the need for teamwork or interdisciplinary
programming by both agents and county board members.
As this shift in the organization occurred, a "Climate for Change"
survey tested the perceptions of 163 agents, 12 administrators, and 300
randomly selected county board members on four change dimensions: need
for, openness to, potential for, and participation in change. County
board members, elected members from their local community, are
responsible for directing the educational programs in agriculture and
home economics in the county. Of the 475 selected individuals, 84%
recorded their agreement/disagreement on 63 statements. A five-point
Likert scale recorded both positive and negative reactions to test the
four dimensions of change (Table 1).
Table 1. Sample questions from the "Climate for Change"
instrument.
| Dimension change | Sample questions |
|---|
| Need | 1. Changes in Extension must be made if it is going
to be an effective organization.
2. Changes in Extension's organization will make
little difference in improving program effectiveness. |
| Openness | 1. I am comfortable in defending the need
for issues-based programming.
2. I find it difficult to support issues-based
programming in Extension. |
| Potential | 1. The changes taking place in Extension
will provide better opportunities for me to learn and grow.
2. It is difficult to commit oneself to the
organizational changes occurring in Extension. |
| Participation | 1. My involvement in teamwork is necessary
to move toward issues-based programming.
2. I am actively participating in the changes
occurring in Extension. |
Findings
Administrators were more positive on all four dimensions of change
(need, openness, potential, and participation) than were the agents or
the board members. Agents were more positive than were the board members
(Table 2). Non-chair agents were more positive about the need for
change, openness to change, and potential for change than were the agent
chairs (Table 2). Male agents perceived the need for change and openness
to change negatively, while female agents perceived these dimensions
positively. Although both were positive about participating in change,
the female agents were more positive than were the male agents (Table
2).
Table 2. Differences among groups on the four change dimensions.
| Groups | Change dimensions |
|---|
| Need | Openness | Potential | Participation |
|---|
| Staff position:
|
| Administrators | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++
|
| Agents | + | + | + | +
|
| Board members | - | - | - | -
|
| Agent's role:
|
| Chair | + | - | +
|
| Non-chair | ++ | + | ++
|
| Sex:
|
| Female | + | + | | ++
|
| Male | - | - | | +
|
p.<.05
+ = positive
- = negative
|
No differences were found on the following variables: (1) full-time vs
part-time agents, (2) number of years agents had been on staff, (3)
years volunteers had been on the Extension board, (4) size of the
community in which board members lived, and (5) locale (farm, rural
nonfarm, city/town) in which board members lived.
Findings Applied to Extension
A positive attitude toward the four dimensions of change among Extension
employees correlated with less resistance to organizational change. A
positive response toward the four dimensions allows change to occur more
easily. Watson emphasized that resistance will be less if individuals
feel the change is their own, their autonomy and security aren't
threatened, current workloads aren't increased, and there's active
participation in the change process.2
Administrators were the most positive about changes occurring in
Extension as it moves into issues-based programs and multicounty program
units (Table 2). Yet, administrators may be less affected by these
changes since they represent the leadership initiating change. Although
agents accepted and felt positive about change, they didn't perceive
these changes as positively as the administrators.
The board members were more negative toward the changes being made in
the organization. The fear of losing county control and moving to
multicounty program units may have lessened their sense of power and
authority. As agents work in more than one county, board members may
view this change as being directed top down from administrators.
Therefore, it's imperative agents communicate openly with county board
members to help them understand and accept the changes. At this
"letting-go" period in the change process, administrators need to: (1)
provide support to ensure the security of agents' positions, (2) help
agents and county board members adjust to the new reality, and (3)
assume responsibility for the future.
Female agents were more positive toward the need for change, more open
to change, and more committed to participating in change than male
agents. The fact that female agents were more receptive to change may be
attributed to the fact that home economics agents have worked across
county lines since the early '60s. Thus, the change to multicounty
program units may not represent the threat it does for male agents who
have worked in only one county. Administrators need to reward female
agents who have a positive attitude toward the change process by
encouraging their leadership during the change process in the
organization.
Non-chair agents were more open to change and more willing to deal with
change than were the agent chairs. Agent chairs may have perceived a
loss of autonomy, changes in the security of their position, and a
threat to their power in the county. However, this finding might also be
gender related because agent chairs were predominately male.
Summary
Whenever an organization undergoes change, administrators must be aware
of how change might affect the staff's job satisfaction.
It's important that county board members be involved with this change
process. Since they were the most resistant to change, administrators
and agents must communicate more openly with them about the change
process.
Extension sends a message when it resists or accepts change, either
actively or passively. The organization reveals itself: its internal
norms, values, its attitude toward change, the workload of its
personnel, and limitations such as financial resources. As Extension
moves into the 21st century, all groups involved need a sense of
stability so they're able to cope and move in a positive, productive
direction.
Footnotes
1. David A. Nadler, "Managing Organizational Change: An Integrative
Perspective," The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, XVII
(April/May/June 1981), 191-211.
2. Goodwin Watson, "Resistance to Change," American Behavioral
Scientist, XIV (May/June 1971), 745-65.
Where Field Staff Get Information
Win-Yuan Shih
Coordinator of the Agricultural Communications Documentation Center
University of Illinois-Champaign/Urbana
James F. Evans
Head of the Office of Agricultural Communications and Education
University of Illinois-Champaign/Urbana
The generation, analysis, and dissemination of agricultural information
has much in common with other kinds of information. Nevertheless, some
special problems make the information- gathering work of agricultural
Extension field staff unusually challenging and complicated: the greater
diversity of subject coverage, the wide scatter and ephemeral nature of
the literature, and the broad range of treatment and presentation.1
Current agricultural information services fall short of meeting the
needs of the Extension field staff. Bernardo points out that most
agricultural libraries were created, supported, and located at
agricultural colleges and research centers to serve educators and
researchers at those sites.2 Although field staff workers are academic
members of their universities, traditional library services seldom
fulfill their needs. Extension staff members in the field must be
self-styled information gatherers and managers.
Our study examined the process by which agricultural Extension field
staff members process and use information to help them achieve their
educational goals during a period of rapidly changing information
technologies.
Sources Used by Field Staff
Results of previous studies about the information-seeking behavior of
local Extension professionals suggest the following points:3
- Varied communications channels. Field staff members use various
communications channels to acquire information. Written information
isn't enough; oral communications and personal contact provide
opportunities for discussion, clarification, and interaction.
- Major use of Extension sources. Extension specialists and
researchers are the most important oral sources for field staff, while
publications from the members' own Extension organizations are the
most-used written sources. Field staff members prefer brief, summarized,
easy-to-read, and easy-to-file forms, so they can find and use the
material quickly. Research summaries, fact sheets, and pamphlets help
field staff update their knowledge through the "Extension information
delivery system."4 They consider scholarly journals or research reports
less practical for their needs.
- Little use of external information sources. Among field staff,
external information sources, such as libraries, are secondary and less
preferred than internal sources. For example, field staff generally
consider the library an unimportant information source, inaccessible,
and lacking in information to meet their needs.
The Study
Do these generalizations apply today when Extension personnel have
access to electronic information services, networked databases, CD-ROMs,
microforms, and other resources not available in earlier years? Do they
apply when field staff now have higher education levels and greater
experience in both conducting and interpreting agricultural research
studies? This study examined the current agricultural
information-seeking behavior of field staff in Illinois (called
Extension advisers) and their attitudes toward various information
sources.
A self-administered mail questionnaire was given all Illinois
agriculture and horticulture Extension advisers. The 28- item
questionnaire included critical incident, attitude scaling, direct
response, and open-ended questions. The critical incident method asked
respondents to recall the most recent incident that motivated them to
search beyond their memory for information.
The questionnaire was pilot-tested, then sent to all 118 Illinois
agriculture and horticulture advisers-most operating from county
offices. Results were based on valid responses from 109 advisers (92%).
Hypotheses
Hypotheses for the study were:
H1 Illinois Extension publications are the most frequently used
written information sources for advisers.
H2 Extension specialists are the most frequently used oral information
sources for local advisers.
H3 Libraries aren't used frequently by advisers when compared with
other information sources.
H4 A significant positive relationship exists between advisers'
ability to use electronic information sources and the frequency of use
of such sources.
H5 A significant relationship exists between the types of information
sources used and advisers' experience, age, meeting attendance, and
organizational participation.
Findings
Most Recent Search
When advisers were asked to recall the most recent incident that
motivated them to search beyond their memory for information, most
(64.2%) recalled cases that had occurred that day.
Reasons for Searches
Eighty-six percent of the searches arose from client inquiries. Other
major reasons included report preparation (4.6%), preparation of a
teaching program (1.8%), and search for information about prices of farm
products (1.8%).
Topics Involved
Client inquiries led advisers to seek information about 32 topics,
headed by pest control (13.2%), horticulture (7.5%), livestock feeding
(6.6%), farm management (5.7%), and leasing arrangements (5.7%).
Number of Sources Used
In total, advisers reported they consulted an average of 2.06 sources
for each inquiry.
Types of Sources Used
The 235 reported information sources were categorized into three types:
oral, written, and electronic. Written-only sources accounted for the
largest single share (45.9%), followed closely by written and oral
combination (43%). Less than three percent used electronic information
sources.
Written Sources Used
Table 1 summarizes the types of written sources used. Results supported
Hypothesis 1, as Extension publications accounted for more than 40% of
all written materials used. Non- Extension books and personal notes
ranked second and third. Most of these written materials were located in
the adviser's personal file (47.1%) or office file (44.1%). This finding
confirms the least-effort principle described by Zipf5 and Kremer.6
Libraries other than personal and office libraries weren't mentioned by
respondents as sources used for these searches. These results support
Hypothesis 3.
Table 1. Types of written sources used.
| Written sources | Frequency | Percentage
| Cumulative percentage |
|---|
| Extension publication | 71 | 43.3% | 43.3% |
| Non-Extension publications | 32 | 19.5 | 62.8 |
| Personal notes | 19 | 11.6 | 74.4 |
| Journal article | 10 | 6.1 | 80.5 |
| USDA publication | 9 | 5.5 | 86.0 |
| Trade literature | 7 | 4.3 | 90.3 |
| Office records | 6 | 3.7 | 94.0 |
| Letter from specialists | 3 | 1.8 | 95.8 |
| Conf. proceeding/paper | 2 | 1.2 | 97.0 |
| News release | 2 | 1.2 | 98.2 |
| Survey data | 1 | .6 | 98.8 |
| Sample document | 1 | .6 | 99.4 |
| Phone book | 1 | .6 | 100.0 |
| Total | 164 | 100.0% |
Oral Sources Used
Table 2 summarizes the types of oral information sources advisers used.
Extension specialists were clearly the most-used sources, accounting for
70.1% of total uses. These findings supported Hypothesis 2.
Table 2. Types of oral information sources used.
| Oral sources | Frequency | Percentage | Cumulative percentage
|
|---|
| Extension specialist | 40 | 70.1% | 70.1% |
| Colleague-my office | 6 | 10.5 | 80.6 |
| Colleague-another office | 2 | 3.5 | 91.1 |
| Commercial representative | 2 | 3.5 | 94.6 |
| UI professor | 1 | 1.8 | 96.4 |
| Adviser-local college | 1 | 1.8 | 98.2 |
| Agricultural consultant | 1 | 1.8 | 100.0 |
| Total | 57 | 100.0% |
*Government agencies including: specialist in U.S. Department of
Agriculture and personnel in Illinois Department of Agriculture,
Department of Public Health. |
Use of Electronic Media
Only three advisers reported using electronic media when searching for
information. Two advisers consulted IDEA (Illinois Dial-Up Extension
Access), a computer network of the Illinois Cooperative Extension
Service. One checked computer files in his office.
Experience, Age, and Organizational Participation
Hypothesis 5 was partially supported. Results showed no significant
relationship at the .05 level between advisers' use of written
information sources and their work experience, age, conference
attendance, or organizational participation.
However, advisers' use of oral information sources was significantly and
positively related to their work experience, age, and organizational
participation. Use of oral information sources wasn't significantly
related to the advisers' attendance at professional conferences.
Adviser's Ability to Use Electronic Media
Hypothesis 4 stated a significant positive relationship exists between
the frequency of use of electronic information sources and advisers'
ability to use these sources. The Kendall's Tau score indicated a
positive relationship significant at the .00005 level. Hypothesis 4 was
supported.
Comments on Acquiring Information
Responses to an open-ended question about advisers' experience in
acquiring information reflected two major concerns.
One concern involved problems that advisers face in organizing their
information files. Several advisers recommended a uniform code for
Extension publications. Other suggestions included a computerized
information retrieval system, a subject- matter classification system,
and an indicated discard date on publications.
Another concern was access to computers in advisers' offices.
Summary and Conclusions
Results of this study underscore the continuing importance of a strong
internal support system for field staff, including close linkages with
subject-matter specialists. This internal system seemed vital, even as
field staff gained access to agricultural information from a growing
number of sources. The impact of electronic technologies wasn't yet
apparent. Local agricultural Extension advisers in this study reported
they drew heavily on information provided by their own Extension
organization, through written and oral sources. The top three
information sources were Extension publications, Extension specialists,
and personal files. As advisers gained experience and contacts, they
tended to use oral information sources increasingly often and continued
to use written sources extensively.
Advisers also continued to use more information from internal than from
external sources. When searching for information, they resorted to
external sources mainly when their internal sources didn't provide it.
Electronic information sources, such as satellite programming and
on-line bibliographic databases, were used infrequently, and by
relatively few advisers. Problems of accessibility and user friendliness
were major hindrances. Another problem was that literature included in
major databases often wasn't easily translated into localized,
field-level applications. These problems suggest directions for future
efforts by the Extension Service.
Footnotes
1. Abdus Sattar and F. W. Lancaster, The Role of the Information
Specialist in the Dissemination of Agricultural Information (Urbana:
University of Illinois, Office of International Agriculture, 1984).
2. F. A. Bernardo, "Catering to the Information Needs of Extension
Workers" (Paper presented at the Sixth World Congress of International
Association of Agricultural Librarians and Documentalists, Manila,
Philippines, March 3-7, 1980).
3. Everett M. Rogers and M. Dwayne Yost, Communication Behavior of
County Extension Agents (Wooster: Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station,
1960); James F. Evans, "Potential Computer-Based Information Services
for New South Wales Extension Officers: A Field Study with
Recommendations" (Unpublished paper, 1980); Janet Agar, Information Used
by Advisers (Edinburgh, UK: The East of Scotland College of Agriculture,
Economics and Management Department, 1984); J. Keating, A Study of
Agricultural Advisors' Perceived Need for Information and Their Use and
Evaluation of Information Channels (Dublin, Ireland: National University
of Ireland, 1979); and Abdus Sattar, "Information Seeking Behavior of
Agricultural Extension Specialists: Its Impact on the Management of
Information Services" (Unpublished paper, 1983).
4. Ovid Bay, The Cooperative Extension Service Information Delivery
System and How SEA's Agriculture Research Results Reach Farmers
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, SEA- Extension,
1980).
5. George Kingsley Zipf, Human Behavior and the Principle of Least
Effort: An Introduction to Human Ecology (New York: Hafner Publishing
Co., 1949).
6. Jeannette Marguerite Kremer, Information Flow Among Engineers in a
Design Company (Urbana: University of Illinois, 1980).
Rural Small Business Development
Thomas G. Johnson
Associate Professor and Extension Specialist-CRD
Department of Agricultural Economics
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University-Blacksburg
Dennis U. Fisher
Economist
Development and Policy
Texas Agricultural Extension Service
Agricultural Economics Department
Texas A&M University- College Station
Editor's Note: While this article focuses on Extension
opportunities with rural entrepreneurs, the framework provided
and issues raised apply to thinking about and planning for any
new or expanded programming or client group.
Extension can and should take better advantage of the "untapped
audience" represented by small rural business. Rural entrepreneurs have
particular education and information needs that aren't being met. A
number of organizations have programs for small businesses, but most
don't reach effectively into rural areas. Extension is an experienced
provider of management programs for some rural businesses and has an
existing delivery system. Providing this help to rural businesses would
support "the stability of the local economy, the quality of life in the
area, and the availability of off-farm employment for farmers and
ranchers."
The economy-wide interest in small business and entrepreneurial support
may be at an all-time high, and we can be optimistic that the level of
financial support for these programs from federal and, in some many
cases, state sources is rising. Furthermore, Extension is undergoing
pressure to become more relevant, to address broader societal issues,
and to become more cost effective. Certainly, Extension needs something
like a small business program, as much as small business needs something
like Extension.
From the rural community's perspective, the role of small rural business
(SRBs) will be determined by the availability and quality of certain
fundamental ingredients including innovation, entrepreneurship, the pool
of business skills, leadership, infrastructure, and financing. Extension
can play a key role in each of these areas.
Recent research points out the special needs of small rural businesses:
- Few small rural entrepreneurs have a good objective picture of the
financial condition of their businesses.
- The managerial sophistication of small rural businesspeople varies
considerably among firms.
- "There is...a critical need to develop a financial management
information system that is relevant to small businesses and useful for
training."2
The pool of business skills (including management, finance, and
marketing) among small rural businesses is clearly expandable through
educational programs. Furthermore, the incidence and success of
entrepreneurial activities could also be influenced through appropriate
programs.
What Role Could Extension Play?
To evaluate the potential for an expanded role for Extension in small
business and entrepreneurship education, we must address the following
questions:
- What's the potential demand for entrepreneurship education, and how
do we get the attention of small businesses?
- How much educational material exists, how much must be adapted, and
how much must be developed?
- Is the material in the right form (length, appearance, format,
media, cost) to be effective for this audience?
- Who are potential collaborators and competitors in this process?
- What obstacles must be overcome to be effective- institutional
rigidity within the university and/or at the local level, resistance
from agricultural organizations, turf battles with other institutions?
- What kind of support will be needed from the teaching and research
components of our departments and universities?
- What resources (human and financial) will be needed and where do we
get them-from new sources or from reallocations from existing programs?
- When reallocating human resources, how do we make any necessary
career shifts attractive?
- What kinds of programs (inservice training, study leaves) are
needed to expedite the transition?
Demand
The number of small businesses is large and growing rapidly, and while
larger firms have professional managers, small firms are usually managed
by the owner who's rarely trained in all aspects of management. Thus, a
need for this education exists. Whether this is an effective demand for
the services of Extension depends on our ability to get the attention of
rural entrepreneurs and business managers. Like farmers, businesspeople
are diverse. Some seek management education, but others shun it. Many
look only to themselves to solve problems.
Research with a sample of rural Texas businesses suggests an additional
barrier to an effective demand for education and information. Hoy found
a high percentage of rural business owners/managers believe their
problems are caused by conditions they have little or no control over.
Thus, effective demand can be generated only after businesspeople become
convinced their challenges can indeed be managed.3
Furthermore, this demand can be captured by Extension only if
businesspeople identify Extension as a source of help with their
problems. First, our image is likely to discourage some potential
clients since it's often assumed we only work with farms. Second, some
potential clients will be discouraged if we don't have relevant programs
and materials for them.
Educational Material
In considering Extension's opportunity to respond to the perceived gap
in rural business education, we would argue that the subject matter is
not new, just the audience. The availability of material isn't a major
problem. The management concepts developed for farms and ranches,
nurseries, marine businesses, agribusiness firms, and food distribution
businesses can be effectively taught to SRBs. Additionally, an ample
supply of management materials has been developed by other organizations
for small businesses in urban areas.
We must, however, make our materials and concepts palatable to this new
clientele. The programs must be perceived as addressing a need of the
businessperson. Also, we must develop our programs to recognize the
diversity of businesses, whether they're existing businesses or
potential entrepreneurs, and whether they're looking for a primary
source of employment or for a supplementary source of income. The
programs must be the appropriate length, look professional, and
capitalize on "hot" topics.
Collaborators and Competitors
Any venture into new areas increases the chances of "turf battles," even
when clear gaps exist. This is particularly ironic because the job is so
big, there's more than enough for everyone to do. These potential
competitors will be excellent collaborators. One clear competitor in
this arena is the private sector educators who, in the last few years,
have developed a large selection of workshops, training programs, and
how-to books on small business and entrepreneurship in response to the
growing interest in small business development. The entire franchise
area is based on selling good ideas and the training needed to ensure
success. Another source of competition could come from across campus in
the business school.
Banks and their state and national associations, the Small Business
Administration, state and local departments of economic development, and
others will appreciate the help Extension gives them if they're given
their due recognition. Collaboration with others offers several
advantages:
- It minimizes the stress for change that would be placed on
Extension staff.
- It reduces the need for Extension budget realloca- tion.
- It develops a group of nontraditional allies.
- It minimizes turf battle concerns.
Working with a cadre of allies will be complementary to any other
strategies used to develop Extension programming in this area.
Obstacles
Support from within the university and Extension itself will be
essential. It's important we increase awareness of the need for such
programs. Another approach is to gain the support of groups most
influential within the administration-agricultural organizations, local
Extension boards, state and local governments, and field staff.
Agricultural organizations may see new thrusts in business and
entrepreneurship education as an erosion of resources devoted to their
clientele. They must be convinced it will strengthen rural economies.
Another general strategy is to create new sources of support. Small
businesses represent an ideal type of support for an Extension
program-they're numerous, ubiquitous, conspicuous, and influential with
state and local governments.
Resources
The addition of new claims on existing resources forces some tough
choices. These choices assure that essentially everyone becomes involved
in this decision. It's human nature to feel that the areas you have
invested human capital in are important and already undersupported. It's
natural to have strong opposition to change.
In this case, what's required is a reorientation of many positions, if
not individuals. It's unrealistic to expect individuals to simply add
this area to their lists of responsibilities. It will almost always
require a change in priorities and a change in subject matter,
clientele, support, and delivery approach. Some agents and specialists
will make the transition more easily than others. Home economics and
4-H/youth and community development agents and specialists accustomed to
working with a diversity of clients may find it easier to work with
small businesses. However, it's the agricultural agents and
specialists-particularly those in management, marketing, and finance-who
are most familiar with the subject-matter areas needed for this
audience.
Conclusions
Extension must maintain or increase its relevance to society if it's to
expect continued support. Growing evi-dence shows members of society are
weighing Exten-sion's relevance with more scrutiny. Small business and
entrepreneurship programming represents an opportunity to substantially
increase our relevance and support. In the end, this may enhance our
ability to provide better programming. We must decide how to overcome
the obstacles and take full advantage of the opportunities in this area.
Footnotes
1. Dennis U. Fisher, "The Business Audience-Extension's Untapped
Opportunity," in Proceedings: CRD Leaders Workshop- Community Issues and
Opportunities (Logan: Utah State University, September 24-27, 1985).
2. C. H. Gladwin and others, "Rural Entrepreneurship: One Key to Rural
Revitalization," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, LXXI
(December 1989), 1305-1314.
3. Francis S. Hoy, "Managers' Problem-Solving Styles and
Organizational Effectiveness of Small Business" (Ph.D. dissertation,
Texas A&M University, College Station, 1979).
Concept Mapping as a
Program Planning Tool
Michael W. Duttweiler
Program Specialist
Program Development and Evaluation
Cornell Cooperative Extension
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
Extension staff nationwide are sharpening their skills in collecting
diverse information to help determine program direction. A significant
challenge is interpreting information once gathered. Agents often ask:
"What do I do with this information now?" or comment that resulting
summaries "seem only to reinforce present priorities and program
direction." A process is needed to draw on individual and group thought
and present information to prompt further analysis. This article
describes one technique, computer-based concept mapping, that can help
in the interpretive process.
What Is Concept Mapping?
Concepts are patterns or regularities we see in events or objects.1 The
knowledge that we have about any subject consists of concepts relative
to the subject and the relationships among those concepts. Concept
mapping is a way to pictorially represent concepts and relationships
held by an individual or a group.
Concept mapping isn't a new idea. Educators have used various forms of
it extensively.2 A student-drawn food chain showing relationships
between producers, consumers, and decomposers is an example of a simple
concept map. Applications of concept mapping to Extension program
planning are more recent and have emphasized individual learner needs.3
The typical application in program planning is in summarizing knowledge
and perceptions about educational needs. Until recently, no simple,
mechanized approach existed for using concept mapping in a group
setting.
What Does Concept Mapping Entail?
The Concept System computer software4 provides an efficient and
effective means for concept mapping in a group setting. The mapping
process consists of three phases: (1) group brainstorming to list
community needs or concerns, (2) individual rating of the resulting list
of needs, and (3) individual grouping of the needs into themes. Rating
and grouping information is entered into the computer. Average ratings
for each need, statistical summaries of the groupings, and maps
pictorially showing relationships between and among individual items and
groups are produced.
Statistical processes used in summarizing the group data are
sophisticated, including multidimensional scaling and hierarchical
cluster analysis.5 The products, however, are understandable summaries
that prompt further analysis. Various options exist for plotting and
examining cluster and rating information.
How Does Concept Mapping Work?
The best way to show the process is to "walk through" a fictitious
example. Demo County decided to begin their plan of work process by
conducting a community forum to gain diverse, external viewpoints of
county needs. About 25 leaders were selected to provide diverse views of
the community through a four -hour forum. A facilitator led the group
through a brainstorming session around the question: "What are the needs
of Demo County over the next four to five years that might be addressed
through educational means?" The brainstormed items were entered into the
mapping software and projected simultaneously onto a screen. When the
hour brainstorming session ended, everyone relaxed at dinner to reflect
on the topics they'd identified.
While the group was eating, the software was used to print out sorting
cards and rating sheets. On returning, each participant received a set
of sorting cards and instructions to group the items as follows:
"Group the items in any way that makes sense to YOU by placing the cards
in piles. Group by similarity, NOT by priority, that is, group things
that you see as related to each other. You might have many groups or
only a few depending on how you see the collection of items."
After the sorting process, participants recorded the items included in
each of the groups they had formed.
The next step was to have participants rate the importance of each item
using the following instructions:
"You are rating the importance of each item relative to all others on
the list. You are rating each item independently, not as part of a
group."
A five-point rating scale was used (the software can accommodate up to a
nine-point scale). Participants then handed in their rating and sorting
information, and were promised a complete summary of the informaton
generated. Following the forum, the individual rating and sorting
information was summarized and processed to prepare the findings for
Extension personnel.
What Products Are Generated?
Three initial products resulted from the forum. The most basic one was a
list of the items resulting from the brainstorming exercise in the order
in which they occurred. Also provided was a summary of the groupings or
clusters developed by participants. This summary can be thought of as
the "most probable" groupings among participants.
Table 1 is a partial list of cluster data for the Demo County example.
Each group or cluster was named (economic development and environmental
issues) to reflect the nature of the topics it contained, a significant
step in interpretation. The cluster listing included the average rating
of each item listed and an overall cluster rating. Comparing ratings
provided the relative importance assigned by the participants to each
item and cluster. In the example, environmental issues (cluster rating
of 3.6) were seen as relatively more important than economic development
issues (cluster rating of 2.96).
Table 1. Partial list of clustered items and
average importance ratings.
| Cluster 2-Economic Development Issues |
|---|
| Fishing industry, tourism impact | (3.06) |
| Development of waterways | (2.89) |
| Tourism-skiing and other activities | (2.83) |
| Rapid changes in technology | (2.78) |
| Business involvement in education | (3.44) |
| Government regulations | (3.17) |
| Government role in leisure opportunities | (2.00) |
| Small scale economic development | (3.17) |
| Future of the port | (2.39) |
| Industrial development | (3.22)
|
| Industry/government/educational collaboration | (3.61) |
| Cluster rating= | 2.96 |
| Cluster 3-Environmental Issues |
|---|
| Acid rain problems | (3.72) |
| Solid waste management | (4.00) |
| Ground water protection/management | (4.11) |
| Recycling organic wastes | (3.50) |
| General recycling education | (3.67) |
| Land and water use | (3.89) |
| Nuclear power plants | (3.11) |
| Toxic waste site clean up | (3.44) |
| Effects of local economy on landscape | (3.00) |
| Cluster rating= | 3.60 |
(1 = lowest importance, 5 = highest importance). Items appear in
the order in which they were clustered statistically, not by
priority. |
A third product (Figure 1) was a plot or map of the eight clusters. The
map, drawn by the software, first plotted individual items relative to
all other items based on a statistical summary of the grouping data.
Cluster borders were drawn around all items within each cluster.
Clusters mapped near each other (agriculture and environment, for
example) can be interpreted as being closely related. The height of the
walls around each cluster represents the relative priority of each
cluster (based on the average ratings of all items within each cluster).
Figure 1. Concept map of clustered items.
Clusters seen as closely related are plotted near each other.
Height of "walls" indicates relative importance of each cluster.
Cluster shape is based on location of plots of individual items
within each cluster.
What Are the Benefits?
Opportunities for rich analysis abound. Continuing with Figure 1, you
could ask: Are the clusters labeled appropriately (community
resources/services)? Why are some clusters clearly strong themes (family
issues), while others appear as loose aggregations (educational issues)?
Should some clusters be split into subtopics (individual/family
well-being)? Should some clusters be merged (community
resources/services and economic development)? What relationships among
themes underlie how they were perceived by participants (between
economic development and environment)? Did participants miss important
relationships (between family issues and economic development)?
Since participants (rather than Extension staff) organize the
information into themes, this reduces the tendency to view findings in
terms of existing priorities, audiences, and subject areas. This also
encourages a fresh look at program potential. The graphical depiction of
concerns invites exploration of underlying issues.
This approach has limitations. Basic computer literacy and equipment are
needed. The software, although user friendly with an effective tutorial,
does require several hours of self- instruction and experimentation
before most people would be comfortable using it. Data entry and
computation require time when using with groups of more than a few
people. Some participants react negatively to the mechanical nature of
the sorting and rating procedures. The software isn't practical to use
with groups of less than about six people. And, as any other group
data-gathering or decision-making process, the outcome depends on group
composition, dynamics, and facilitation.
A similar process would be possible without using the software-at least
for small groups. The software increases the potential for input from
large numbers of participants and assures that summarizing the grouped
data reflects the independent thinking of participants rather than
predetermined areas of need. Most importantly, information is presented
in forms that invite further analysis and exploration. This analysis is
key in translating diverse information on educational needs into
realistic educational responses.
Extension staff and volunteers in 18 New York counties have been
experimenting with concept mapping as an aid to setting program
direction. In almost every case, participants have found the approach
useful to program development and evaluation techniques. We'd be glad to
share our experiences should you wish to explore use of concept mapping.
Footnotes
1. J. D. Novak and D. B. Gowin, Learning How to Learn (London:
Cambridge University Press, 1986).
2. M. A. Moreira, "Concept Maps as Tools for Teaching," Journal of
College Science Teaching, VIII (No. 5, 1979), 283-86.
3. J. D. Novak, "Introduction to Concept Mapping: A Handbook for
Educators" (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University, Department of
Education, 1986).
4. The software was developed by William Trochim of the Cornell
University Human Service Studies Department. The software, including
program documentation and tutorial, is available through Concept
Systems, P. O. Box 4721, Ithaca, New York 14852.
5. W. M. K. Trochim, "An Introduction to Concept Mapping for Program
Planning and Evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, XII (No. 1,
1989), 1-16.
Controversial Issues as Opportunities
Emmett P. Fiske
Organizational Effectiveness Specialist
Cooperative Extension
Department of Rural Sociology
Washington State University-Pullman
As the "decade of the environment" begins reshaping existing
agricultural and natural resource policies and practices, Extension's
challenge is to choose a role to play at local, regional, and state
levels. Will controversy cause us to shrink to the sidelines, or will we
seize this as an opportunity to demonstrate our effectiveness in working
with the public to resolve pressing problems?
The pressure of drastically reduced budgets has led us to redirect our
efforts toward "issues-based programming," "target initiatives," and
"interdisciplinary teams." During this changing time, does it make sense
to initiate educational programs with nontraditional audiences whose
perspectives often clash with those of existing clientele? Can we work
with groups on different sides of an issue without alienating ourselves
from traditional clientele? Yes-if we choose to follow a group
effectiveness model for consensus-based decision making.
The Model
The essence of Extension education is its reliance on solid information
and purposeful processes to produce clear and meaningful outcomes for
those we serve. Our products-whether they be increased understanding of
issues, enhanced communication, improved practices, or helping people
implement change-try to better the human condition.
Hackman's group effectiveness model2 is useful for educational programs
where there's conflict, because it focuses equal attention on three
distinct elements:
- Personal needs. The degree to which the group experience
contributes to the growth and personal well-being of its members.
- Interpersonal relationships. The degree to which the process of
carrying out the work enhances member capacity to work together
interdependently in the future.
- Acceptable products. The degree to which the group's productive
output meets the standards of quantity, quality, and timeliness of the
people who receive, review, and/or use that output.
In other words:
Group effectiveness = personal needs + interpersonal relationships + acceptable products
[people] [process] [products]
The model requires the facilitator not treat any element of the equation
in isolation, nor that any one element receive more attention than the
others. This is done by starting at the level of the individual3 and
proceeding sequentially. The model weaves individual concerns and ideas
into a cohesive group fabric specifying the criteria through which
effectiveness can be measured. The following case study describes how,
during March 15 -November 15, 1989, Extension successfully tested the
model in Washington State.
The Russian Wheat Aphid Pilot Project
The Situation
Since its initial sighting in Texas in 1986, the Russian wheat aphid
(RWA) has spread rapidly throughout the western wheat producing states.
The toxins released by RWAs into the cereals they feed on cause stunting
and death. By 1988, annual grain losses and associated costs had climbed
to nearly $100 million, with Washington experiencing significant crop
losses.4
Since biological control was three to six years away and integrated pest
management was just getting started, the majority of Washington growers
opted to use aerially applied organophosphate insecticides to counter
this threat to their livelihoods. The insecticide of choice, disulfoton,
killed the RWA by interfering with normal nervous system functioning.
While aerial application had grower support, it raised serious questions
within the nonagricultural community concerned about chemical drift onto
residences, waterways, and wetlands, and the impact of exposure on
people and wildlife. Such concern had been magnified by a recent
chemical trespass incident in south central Washington that quickly
polarized people into "pro" and "con" camps and resulted in lawsuits and
emergency regulations to address the conflict.
Hoping to avoid a similar situation during the 1989 growing season, the
agricultural industry lent its support to a Washington State
Conservation Commission-sponsored proposal calling for consensus-based
dispute resolution for agricultural and natural resource issues.
Commission members selected the RWA control program in eastern
Washington as its pilot effort. Washington State University (WSU)
Cooperative Extension was asked to facilitate this process. As the
facilitator, I was able to test Hackman's model under real-life
conditions.
Applying the Model
The first challenge in Hackman's model is responding to personal needs.
Once the commission had identified and contacted the 21 stakeholder
groups5 and been given the name of each designated representative, the
facilitator conducted confidential telephone interviews with each
stakeholder. Each was asked: What is the issue? What should be done to
resolve it? How do you see yourself and your group involved in
implementing improvements? Responses from each stakeholder were randomly
entered into a computer to assure confidentiality. The complete list was
then disseminated to each stakeholder before the initial meeting.
The second challenge in Hackman's model is strengthening interpersonal
relationships. The pre-meeting distribution of stakeholder data served
several important purposes. First, it enabled the facilitator to begin
building a relationship with each stakeholder based on trust and
credibility.6 By receiving the full range of opinions concerning the
issue and its potential resolution before the first meeting together,
each stakeholder had the chance to move beyond individual concerns and
use the data to generate potentially acceptable solutions. Stakeholder
data also led to the development of explicity stated core norms to
regulate group behavior. The norms, which became our written ground
rules, helped to create and sustain a forum for constructive dialogue,
interaction, and issue resolution.7
The data also shaped the design of our initial and subsequent meetings.
The first meeting emphasized greater understanding of participant needs
and concerns by promoting an open discussion of chemical impact on
humans, wildlife, and habitat. Once each stakeholder's needs had been
discussed, the facilitator encouraged the voluntary creation of work
teams. These teams developed criteria by which proposed solutions could
be evaluated.
The final challenge in the model is determining acceptable products. The
criteria developed at the second meeting defined what each potential
solution would need to provide to gain the support of all stakeholder
groups: voluntary compliance; public education; protection of people,
wildlife, wetlands, and waterways; and ongoing monitoring and assessment
of RWA potential for crop damage. The adopted plan met the criteria
through a series of voluntary actions agreed on by everyone.
The Results
The stakeholders followed through on what each had voluntarily agreed to
do. More than 80,000 fact sheets were printed and distributed describing
countermeasures against the RWA and the impact of chemical application
on human health and wildlife. The wheat and barley representatives
successfully "sold" their constituents on the voluntary posting of land;
notification of neighbors before chemical application; creation of
buffer zones around residences, wetlands, and waterways; extension of
worker re-entry into fields following chemical application from 24 to 48
hours; and WSU regular monitoring and reporting of RWA activity.
Stakeholder representatives held their final meeting on November 15,
1989 to evaluate voluntary compliance. The results were impressive: 75%
of the wheat and barley growers who sprayed followed the group's
recommendations, fewer pesticides were used, those used were more
effective because of WSU's intensive management effort, and there were
no reported health hazards associated with the application of pesticides
to control the RWA during the 1989 campaign. On a scale of one to 10,
the stakeholders gave the forum an eight in satisfactorily resolving the
issue.8 Our traditional clientele who participated in the process saw
Extension helping them in new ways, while our new clientele began
viewing Extension as a credible resource.
As a result of WSU Cooperative Extension's pilot demonstration in
successfully bringing people together to resolve an environmental
dispute, the organization gained visibility and credibility in the eyes
of state, tribal, and local government. In 1990, Extension was asked to
facilitate additional environmental dispute resolution processes.
Experience gained through these efforts is shaping Extension's current
development of a multi-interest coalition to promote creative solutions
to natural resource-related conflicts. The coalition should be in place
by the end of 1991.
Implications for Extension
The CES can make a major contribution to the resolution of environmental
disputes in this country if we choose to do so. Quite a few faculty
already have the education, skills, and vision to be effective in this
arena. Many others, with additional training, would probably be more
willing to take calculated risks and devote sustained effort in this
direction. The initial cost incurred by committing two or three staff to
such an activity will be quickly repaid in greater credibility with the
public, additional support from the legislature, and increased
opportunity for faculty growth and development. We have the potential.
Are we ready to take the risk and make the commitment?
Footnotes
- Consensus is a nonvoting method for making group decisions that all
members can support. Since there's no voting, decisions can only be
arrived at through a process that encourages each participant to listen
carefully, ask questions for clarification, and share understandings
with others around the table. When there's disagreement, participants
have a responsibility to explore alternative avenues for reaching
agreement. The active search for alternatives unleashes the creativity
of the participants, with the shared alternatives building on one
another to trigger synergistic, "win-win" solutions. Implementation
therefore becomes more likely, since the proposed outcome is something
each person can support.
- Initially developed as a result of his long-term research on work
team performance, and advanced through his article: "The Design of Work
Teams," in Handbook of Organizational Behavior, Jay W. Lorsch, ed.
(Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1987), pp. 315-42.
Later tested in J. Richard Hackman, ed., Groups That Work (and Those
That Don't): Creating Conditions for Effective Teamwork (San Francisco,
California: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1990).
- Putting the model in the "bottom-up" category for those who view
Extension activities as generated either by the client (bottom-up) or by
administrators (top-down).
- Countermeasures Against Russian Wheat Aphid in Washington, EM 4835
(Pullman, Washington: WSU Cooperative Extension, May 1989).
- Comprised of the following interests: growers (3), wildlife (2),
recreation (1), environmental (3), local government (1), agricultural
chemicals (2), universities (2) and state (5) and federal (2) agencies.
- The data demonstrated the facilitator's ability to maintain
confidentiality as well as listen to, and record, stakeholder responses
accurately and nonjudgmentally. Participant meeting evaluations provided
an accurate measurement of the facilitator's ability to enhance his
credibility with stakeholder representatives and their groups.
- The ground rules covered everything from: agreeing to use
consensus, treating each other with respect, specifying individual
responsibility to the group and to her/his constituents, and suggesting
how the group would interact with the media...to determining what would
constitute acceptable outcomes.
- Kenn Brooks, Conservation Commission chairperson, summarized
stakeholder success at the last meeting as "historic," noting that it
"marked the first time a mediated pesticide issue had ever been achieved
in this state. It has shown all parties that we can address contentious
issues."
Perspectives on How We Think and Act
This issue of the Journal is highly introspective. The To the Point
section, the eight feature articles, the Futures article, and the Forum
contribution all address aspects of how Extension functions as a
change-oriented organization. These articles aren't so much about how we
work with clientele as how we work with each other. The integrating
themes that cut across these otherwise diverse articles provide insights
into how we conceptualize what we do, how we think and act as
individuals and as an organization, and how what we think and do affects
our clientele and programs.
Fundamental Questions from Skeptics
Donald Nelson opens this issue by asking in To the Point: "Is Extension
Changing Too Rapidly?" He questions the supposedly innovative strategies
of today's "enlightened" Extension leaders. He risks being considered a
naysayer by raising fundamental questions about such sacred topics as
issues programming. Two state directors, Ann Thompson of Alabama and Irv
Skelton of Alaska, respond.
In Forum, Conone questions whether Extension programming and resource
allocation are really based on paying attention to what people want and
need; her experience with strategic planning in Ohio has made her
dubious.
Perspectives from the Field
Four feature articles present findings from studies of Extension staff.
Casey and Krueger interviewed outstanding field staff in Minnesota in
search of factors related to producing successful programs-they found
five. Miller and Smith interviewed field staff in Maryland to find out
how they decided whether to participate in a state issues-based program
on water quality-they conclude with recommendations for improving the
state-to-county communications process. Tondl investigated the climate
for change in Nebraska-she found some significant gender differences.
Shih and Evans studied where field staff get information in Illinois-
hint: it's not from electronic sources.
New Directions for Extension
Four features explore new directions for Extension: getting serious
about strategic alliances (Astroth), new programming for rural
entrepreneurs (Johnson and Fisher), concept mapping as a planning tool
(Duttweiler), and controversial issues as opportunities (Fiske). In
Futures, Sandmann and Kroshus describe Project Future-a vision-based
approach to community development that requires a new Extension
relationship with communities.
New Journal Editor
On July 1, Ellen Ritter became the new editor. She brings to the
editorship four years as an Editorial Committee member reviewing
manuscripts as well as extensive experience as an Extension
communications specialist in Texas. Her appointment runs through June
1994.
There's no reason to believe that the next three years will be any less
tumultuous for Extension than my three years as editor have been. In
other words, we shouldn't have a shortage of important issues for you to
write about and publish in the Journal. The best way to support a new
editor is by deeds and words-words on paper in the form of articles that
expand Extension's knowledge base.
MQP
Is Extension Changing Too Rapidly?
Donald E. Nelson
National Program Leader
Woods Products Marketing
ES-USDA
Washington, D.C.
I question whether Extension is really moving "toward the cutting edge."
It's just possible that Extension's attempts to embrace modern
management concepts, particularly those from private industry, are
leading us away from the cutting edge.
Extension has gone from planning to strategic planning, then to
anticipatory planning and futuring, and now to issues-based programming.
Advocates boast that issues-based programming is unique because it
transcends programmatic boundaries, so an associated buzz word becomes
"interdisciplinary." Who can be opposed to "interdisciplinary"? (Or does
that sometimes force Extension faculty to try to cover subject areas in
which they aren't qualified?) It's as if all a manager needs to do is
provide some bare-bones training opportunities to staff, and presto,
that staff is now capable of true interdisciplinary thinking and
programming, whether they fully understand these disciplines or not. As
with some previous management concepts, such as "management by
objectives," "zero-based budgeting," "zero defects," or "market
orientation," saying that you're doing it is much easier than actually
achieving a high-quality end result.
Inconsistent National Initiatives
Shortly after Extension selected issues-based programming as its
planning mode, it also selected eight (then nine, then five, then six,
then seven) National Initiatives. The original eight initiatives
contained 40 pre-selected issues. Were these the real issues that states
should be addressing at that point in time? Or were the real issues
those that surfaced through an issues-based state programming process?
Or through a county process? Were sufficient time and resources made
available to address the issue before the next even higher priority
issue was identified?
For example, the Conservation and Management of Natural Resources (CMNR)
Initiative has made a difference, initially. Many states organized CMNR
teams, implemented issues-based programming, broadened their planning
perspectives and their participation, found new sources of funding,
began to develop interdisciplinary programs, formed new partnerships,
and reallocated resources. In short, some states implemented the CMNR
Initiative just like those who planned the initiative process hoped they
would. During the short time that CMNR was an initiative, states were
moving toward stronger CMNR programs, but will that and should that
continue now that CMNR is no longer a National Initiative?
It seems inconsistent to ask the system to adopt the given National
Initiatives (and related national issues) and, at the same time,
encourage states to begin their own issues-based programming, to
identify new issues. These two processes end up working against each
other. The National Initiatives and national issues say to the system:
"Here are the issues the system has determined to be important."
Issues-based programming, on the other hand says: "Here is the process
you should be using to determine what the real issues are." But a state
can't accept the National Initiatives (and the issues they encompass)
and also accept that it needs to do its own issues programming to arrive
at the issues to be addressed.
What about issues programming in the counties? Are counties to address
the issues contained in the National Initiatives, or the issues
identified by state issues-based programming, or should they ignore both
and do their own issues-based programming?
It seems to me that the National Initiatives are weakened if states
identify different issues. Yet, it also seems to me that if states
accept the issues identified in the National Initiatives rather than
developing their own, they run the danger of being out-of-touch with
what's needed locally.
Interdisciplinary Divisiveness
Certainly a strength of issues-based programming is its
interdisciplinary nature, but labels placed on National Initiatives and
the special initiative assignments given to staff can be more divisive
than the "fences" that have been built around individual disciplines. Is
a fence around an initiative any lower than a fence around a discipline?
Can Extension professionals whose present disciplines are now perceived
as being of lower priority convert to the needed disciplines or develop
the needed interdisciplinary skills rapidly enough to contribute before
the next change in direction?
Perhaps the Extension System shouldn't expect states to immediately
accept either the initiatives or issues-based programming, or both. The
system needs to accept that much of what's already in place in Extension
is good, productive, and responsive, based on a proven Extension program
planning process.
Following Fads
I realize full well that any person who dares to question the
"innovative" strategies of today's enlightened leadership will be
labeled a cynic, and therefore considered part of the problem rather
than part of the solution. But, I have a strong suspicion that leaders
and managers everywhere have been, and will continue to be, sold a bill
of goods that, for the most part, is neither new nor better. Leaders
everywhere, encouraged by highly paid management consultants, buy into
the new concepts because others who are also "progressive" are buying
in. They go through the motions, even talking as if the new management
concept is in place and functioning perfectly. Sometimes they are so
caught up with the new buzz words that they give each other awards for
having implemented such programs, when, in fact, no substantive changes
have been made.
Meanwhile, the on-the-ground operations of the organization may be
struggling to survive, as resources are drawn away from ongoing
operations for planning and implementing the "new" management concept.
However, this "new" never becomes fully implemented because the next new
management concept soon comes down the pike, and the same enthusiastic
managers abandon the earlier concept about as rapidly as they'd accepted
it.
That's why I question whether Extension is really on the cutting edge-or
just following the latest planning fad and thereby undercutting the
strong disciplinary programs that have worked so well throughout our
history.
Change Is Real
Ann Thompson
Director and Vice-President
for Extension
Auburn University
Auburn, Alabama
While we don't agree with everything Nelson has to say, we do applaud
his willingness to question and challenge the status quo in Extension.
Only by confronting the organization's current situation-and objectively
assessing its internal strengths and weaknesses vis-a-vis external
opportunities and challenges-can a true strategic planning and
organizational change process begin.
Creating a strategic plan-or establishing a list of national
priorities-simply because everyone else is doing it, is a wasteful
exercise. However, if those within the organization take a hard look and
conclude that things must change if Extension is to be a driving force
in modern society, then the groundwork is laid for remarkable reforms.
Rather than just "doing what we've always done," we can begin the
exciting process of leading Extension to be responsive to the changing
needs of the populace- the original driving force behind the creation of
the Cooperative Extension System.
In 1986, in anticipation of establishing a new four-year plan-of-work
cycle, the Alabama Cooperative Extension System (Auburn, Alabama A&M,
and Tuskegee Universities cooperating),2 examined itself and its
relationship to the needs of the people of Alabama. This initiative led
into a strategic planning process that ultimately involved a broad
cross-cut of the organization and incorporated the viewpoints of people
throughout Alabama. Steps in the process included scanning the
environment to project an image of the future, developing a revitalized
sense of mission for the organization, analyzing external opportunities
and challenges as well as internal strengths and weaknesses,
establishing a set of priorities for action, and creating a mechanism
for implementing local programs-adapted to meet local needs-guided by
these priorities.
Notice that the process involved "bottom-up" as well as "top -down"
planning. Needs for specific programming "bubbled up" from the
grassroots, and these needs, when synergized, formed program priorities.
The five resulting program priorities (regaining agricultural and
forestry profitability; developing, conserving, and managing natural
resources; enhancing family and individual well-being; developing human
resources; and revitalizing rural Alabama) became themes for local
county programming and advisory groups.
As in any truly responsive organization, specialists and county agents
in Alabama were given the freedom to adapt these priority themes into
local programming. The value of having statewide themes-and national
priorities, for that matter-is that previously overlooked needs can be
identified, resources can be marshalled, and programs that have run
their course can be dropped. To be sure, as Nelson predicts, our process
found that most of Alabama's existing Extension programming was sound,
but several candidates for restructuring, modification, or elimination
were identified. More importantly, we discovered major needs for
multidisciplinary efforts. For example, dealing with high infant
mortality rates in rural Alabama, a major problem, requires social,
nutritional, educational, community, and even medical attention. By
expanding our focus and involving new university partners, such as the
College of Education, School of Nursing, and School of Pharmacy in our
Extension programming, we in Alabama are becoming more responsive to
real needs identified by the people of Alabama.
We don't engage in strategic planning, initiative setting, and
multidisciplinary work just because it's the faddish thing to do-they
actually work in Alabama. However, Cooperative Extension Service
professionals exist because they're willing to challenge the status quo
to be more responsive to the real needs of the populace.
Change is real and I'm proud that Extension leadership at every level
enhances the idea that tools and techniques to keep itself into
continual self and organizational renewal be incorporated into guiding
the changing of its educational programs with people.
Philosopher Alfred North Whitehead said that the art of progress is to
preserve order amid change and to perceive change amid order.
That is Extension's challenge today! Change is real. Let's learn to live
with and use it.
Footnotes
1. Developed with input from William I. Sauser, associate vice-
president for Extension and Jack Smith, Extension assistant to the
director, Marketing Relations.
2. Priorities for People-A Strategic Plan for the Alabama Cooperative
Extension System, Ex-14 (Auburn, Alabama: Auburn University, Cooperative
Extension Service, July 1987).
Issues-Based Programming
Shouldn't Be All-or-Nothing
Irvin Skelton
Acting Director
Alaska Cooperative
Extension Service
Fairbanks, Alaska
Nelson's article is insightful, thought-provoking, and raises a number
of interesting and challenging questions, but leaves the reader with the
impression that issues-based programing is an all-or-nothing
proposition. I join a number of other Extension professionals who
believe it's not totally new. Many states have been basing programming
on issues! The adoption of issues-based programming can be thought of as
a "new label, new bottle, but old wine." True, the terminology and the
process for selecting "issues" that translate into priority programs and
initiatives may be different, but the results are the same. Extension
will have identified problems, or in this case "issues," and developed
programs it believes will be responsive in answering these problems and
should elicit constituency support.
Nelson raises the question about whether issues-based programming is
being initiated because it's new and modern rather than because it's a
better process for program planning. I'd hope it's the latter. Over the
years, Extension has broadened in program scope and content and adjusted
delivery methods. Therefore, it's reasonable Extension should consider
new planning processes to reflect this expanded scope of programs and
new constituencies. Extension programming and the environment in which
it operates is dynamic, so Extension's approach should be dynamic. I'd
agree that Extension shouldn't change just to embrace a modern
management concept unless the change is better.
Nelson suggests issues-based programming and discipline- based
programming are mutually exclusive and incompatible. I don't believe
that. I feel too much energy has been spent on suggesting
incompatibility between the two, rather than looking at the
complementary relationships. Issues-based programming and
discipline-based programming are compatible. Issues-based programming
depends on the disciplines for its foundation, and disciplines depend on
issues for their survival.
Inconsistent National Initiatives
Nelson indicates a possible inconsistency and conflict between the
adoption of National Initiatives by the system and the concurrent
encouragement of states to begin their own issues- based programming
processes. It may appear inconsistent and problematic to have the states
and the national level doing separate processes. But remember, present
national issues and initiatives were developed from a process that
included state input into the identification of issues. Also remember,
both issues and initiatives, by definition, are dynamic and will change
or dissipate over time. If the issues-based programming process is to
have new life nationally, the states will need to initiate issues-based
programming processes to provide input as replacement issues and
initiatives are considered. With this grassroots input from the states
and territories, new issues and initiatives should truly be reflective
of the Extension System.
Interdisciplinary Divisiveness
A valid concern is the potential interdisciplinary divisiveness. The
potential for this divisiveness is greater if the concept and processes
of issues-based programming aren't well -understood and are perceived as
discipline competitive rather than collaborative. Many believe that
competitiveness and lack of cooperation were major weaknesses in our
previous planning systems. It provides a definite challenge to the state
Extension Services and the national Extension staff to reinforce and
promote the value and worth of the disciplines as the foundation of base
programs as well as the issues and initiatives. Without a
discipline-supported base, you have no foundation to return to when the
issues and initiatives dissipate. It's also critical the reward system
reflects this understanding.
Following Fad
There's some truth in Nelson's suggestion that individuals who have
questioned issues-based programming and some of the processes involved
have been labeled as cynics and "againers." While in some cases it may
be cynicism, I believe in most cases it's an honest and professional
concern about the appropriateness and utility of issues-based
programming. The role of the "questioners" can be valuable when change
is being considered or implemented, if these concerns are addressed
honestly. Raising these concerns can contribute to change as it forces
clarification of philosophies, concepts, and processes that should
ultimately enhance both the change and the process.
Conclusion
Issues-based programming can be a useful concept to Extension and has
the potential to enhance the relevancy of the Extension System to our
constituency. However, a sensitivity must continue on suggested changes
that will have an impact on the partnership at the various levels, and
to consciously maintain sufficient flexibility to allow for these
differences. Issues- based programming shouldn't be an all-or-nothing
proposition.
Project Future: Vision-Based
Community Development
Lorilee R. Sandmann
Director, West Central Regional Exchange
Michigan State University-Grand Rapids
Jay Kroshus
Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs
University of Minnesota-Minneapolis
Ask a group of people about the 21st century and the response will
typically be a pause accompanied by blank stares. Most people live in a
nitty-gritty world of immediate decisions and actions with little time
or ability to look far ahead. When concerned citizens bring this
perspective to improving their community, they want to see immediate
problems solved. But, a focus on the nitty-gritty mold isn't enough to
address many long- term community issues.
Project Future
In 1988, the University of Minnesota Extension Service designed a
comprehensive, long-term community self-renewal program named Project
Future, which called for the development of a 20-year community vision
as a blueprint for community action. This sounds like a prescription for
nonparticipation, but exactly the opposite is true. What began as
informal get-togethers in the basements of town halls and churches is
now touching the lives of thousands throughout Minnesota. Project Future
communities have recaptured a sense of pride, empowerment, and
opportunity in towns and cities where five years ago businesses and
people were leaving.
Citizens in dozens of Minnesota communities are using the flexible
framework of Project Future to successfully design and build their
communities of the 21st century. The ownership of this project has led
the citizens to rediscover the positive attitudes and sense of
togetherness that built these communities a century ago. Extension
faculty and the entire University of Minnesota community provide these
citizens with resources and help, but only when the citizens ask.
Project Future is more than economic development and creation of jobs.
It's a holistic approach to creating an environment conducive to
continual community vitality. The four stages of Project Future are
designed to close gaps in existing community development programs by
using well-established principles from research on effective community
development processes.
Four-Step Process to the Future
Project Future is designed as a four-step model to develop a continual,
forward-moving approach for citizens to take action and create their
desired community. The first of the four steps involves citizens
examining their present community and choosing to renew it at a "Sense
of Community" meeting. If enough community volunteers choose to join a
steering committee at an initial meeting with county and area agents,
then that community begins the Project Future Community Self-Renewal
Program. If enough citizens choose not to volunteer, the program doesn't
happen.
The second step is a community process where citizens define the
community they want in the year 2010. To achieve diversity and develop
new community leaders, Project Future sets a goal of 50% participation
of the community's citizens in this process. Though this may seen to be
an ambitious goal, citizens have continually met and surpassed the 50%
target. More than 500 citizens of Stephen, a town of 848, attended a
Project Future meeting in 1988. Stephen citizens have taken ownership of
this project. People of all ages, including school-age children and the
elderly, actively participated. In several communities, young people
have played a critical role in engaging the elderly by interviewing them
and developing intergenerational perspectives. These discussions are
open and diverse, covering any topic that concerns any citizen
pertaining to the community's strengths and weaknesses. The citizens
define the important characteristics for their community of the future.
The result of this process is a two- to three-page vision statement
that's presented at public meetings. This statement is brief and easy to
understand, so all citizens can refer to it as their own blueprint of
the future. Often the community's vision statement is printed or
broadcast by local media to help spur discussion within the community.
The citizens vote on its approval. If rejected, the statement is revised
until approved. Once adopted, the vision becomes the map for the
citizens to undertake many short- and long-term community improvement
projects.
Project Future's third step creates and implements citizen action to
bring about the community vision. Citizen action can take many forms.
Citizen-action teams directly undertake projects that wouldn't be
addressed by other existing groups within the community. However,
existing organizations contribute by reviewing the statement and doing
some of the projects adopted in the vision. Project Future steering
committees recommend and suggest to local governments (school, city,
township, and county) actions and projects that will contribute to
bringing about a community's vision. Citizens organize community
foundations or funds to fund projects that will contribute to the
community's vision goals. The Project Future steering committee develops
a strategy using these and other approaches.
In this third stage of Project Future, university faculty have a
particularly important role. The Extension agent within Project Future
could be best described as that of a holistic steward: the agent
connects the community with the Extension Service and the entire
university. The university gives technical help and consulting only when
the citizens themselves feel they're ready for the support and request
it. Rather than furnishing existing information to the communities, the
Extension agent helps develop new research at the direction of the
citizens. For example, university faculty used university computers in
developing databases on the educational and employment skill levels of
several communities. Campus-based faculty have also helped design
community-directed surveys.
Establishing a permanent, umbrella organization for ongoing
citizen-directed community improvement is the final stage in the Project
Future process. The steering committee is most likely to evolve this
type of community nonprofit organization that continues to appoint
citizen action teams, work with local government, and, when needed,
re-engage the community to update the vision. One Project Future
community has already established a community nonprofit organization to
manage funds specifically to attain its Project Future vision.
Project Future Results
After learning of the early success of five pilots and the help of
Extension faculty, 16 more Minnesota communities volunteered to become
Project Future communities in 1989 and 30 more became involved in 1990.
One of the keys to the project's success is the flexibility it allows
citizens. Communities are discovering that Project Future can function
in cooperation with other similar community programs or address needs
that other organizations can't. Specific economic development programs,
civic pride, and community beautification groups can all function
alongside or under the Project Future umbrella.
Project Future communities show results. A center conceived by, staffed
by, and operated for teens was part of the Stephen community vision and
is now a reality. A local newspaper was reborn in another community only
four weeks after it had printed its "last issue." Economic development
programs have been organized in several communities. Community theater
has begun in one place and a fresh look at local festivals was
undertaken by citizens in another. Community heritage societies have
been producing community history calendars and books. Community history
is also being incorporated into the local school curriculum. A Project
Future county created a wildlife education center as one step in a lake
restoration project.
Because Project Future is an interdisciplinary program, Extension
faculty have tapped into the vast resources of a land- grant
institution. While not yet accessing all departments, inroads have been
made with faculty from community design and planning, educational
policy, economics, engineering, landscape architecture, housing, and
public affairs embracing the project's comprehensive strategy. Some
faculty and students have become involved in Project Future communities
through classes or internships.
Lessons Learned
The first lesson learned is about the process. Project Future's early
success lies within the engagement process. Even though many of Project
Future communities have fewer than 2,000 citizens, many experienced
first-ever public meetings where school board members sat with local
government officials and business leaders to discuss how to improve
their communities. These were forums for existing leaders to meet and
for new leaders to emerge. Youth were integral to the process. Indeed,
in many cases, the youth can be leaders in the community-wide planning
process.
We've also learned lessons about citizen-led futuring. Citizens are
capable, with guidance, of developing community visions. They can move
beyond the nitty-gritty way of thinking only about immediate, concrete
problems. Alternative future scenarios as a community futuring technique
was replaced by the vision-creating exercise to allow for broader-based
participation. When a vision is produced, it can only provide direction,
as well as energize the group toward its accomplishment. We also found
that citizens soon learn how long- term thinking can link with
short-term goals to achieve both.
Some communities have suffered from the re-emergence of short-term,
nitty-gritty thinking following the adoption of a community vision
statement. Special efforts must be made for community leaders and
Extension agents to keep a community focused on long-term as well as
short-term community development goals.
Implications for Extension
In addition to doing community development, Project Future has been
involved with staff and organizational development within the
university. University, Extension, and Project Future faculty have
joined citizens as adult learners:
- Project Future leaders and Extension agents have realized they can
act as catalysts for change and facilitators under a citizen-directed
agenda. Extension professionals must listen to the community and respond
to its requests within the Project Future framework, rather than tell a
community what it should do. The project has been an intense
capacity-building experience for most staff involved.
- Vision statements and citizen action plans provide specific
requests from which non-Extension faculty can be recruited.
- Community vision statements and citizen action plans spur many
requests for specific help and research that demand a rapid response.
Faculty have learned to join in creating that response with citizens-to
initiate community interactive research.
- Some types of help are better provided through government agencies
and other educational institutions. Extension doesn't have to provide
all help.
- Educators must learn to "work with" the future. To do so requires
considerable interaction with people, trends, ideas, and lots of
"what-if" thinking. Few Extension professionals are presently prepared
to model future-focused thinking that provides a demonstration of the
utility and life impact of future skills and outlook.
The rekindled spirit that Project Future has developed in many Minnesota
communities is best described by one of the citizens. When asked if
Ellendale, Minnesota was going to die, a 78-year-old resident said, "I
don't know, but I do know that if we die, we're going to die trying."
People Listening to People...
Or Are We Really?
Ruth M. Conone
Assistant Director
Extension Home Economics
Ohio State University-Columbus
Editor's Note: The purpose of the Forum is to provide a platform
for expression of opinions about Extension. Authors writing for
Forum are expressing their own opinions. They don't speak for
their state or the Extension System. This is an excellent Forum
because the author expresses a clear and strong viewpoint based
on her own direct experience and observations. The author served
as co-chair of Ohio's long-range planning task force.
"People Listening to People..." is an admirable slogan of the
Cooperative Extension System. Yet, as this organization moves through an
era of self-examination, reorganization, and revitalization, the
products of strategic plans and administrative reviews cast doubt on
whether Extension is really listening to people. I think our listening
can be improved. The need for more attentive listening is shown b
