Volume 31 Number 1
|
Spring 1993 Volume 31 Number 1 |
|
|
It's Not Easy Being GreenKermit the frog, of Muppet fame, didn't have the environment in mind when the he sang of the difficulties of being green. But the phrase certainly seems appropriate. Extension has a history of encouraging careful stewardship of the land and its resources. We like to think we were environmentalists before being "green" became popular. At the same time, many people see agriculture (and hence Extension) as part of the problem rather than the solution. To address public environmental concerns, we wind up in the middle of controversial issues having no easy answers. This issue's special section is devoted to Extension environmental and natural resource education. The problem of how Extension faculty can educate when public attitudes are polarized is addressed in two articles. One is a case study of landfill siting that describes an educational strategy resting on techniques borrowed from group therapeutic processes. The other offers strategies for dealing with the divergent perceptions about pesticides among agricultural and nonagricultural audiences. Enhancing agents' ability and willingness to be active partners in local waste management solutions is the subject of the third article. The section closes with a feature on involving private fisheries owners in long-term research and learning to improve resource management. In Ideas at Work, readers will also find an article on working with consumers to have an impact on environmental marketing. Taken together, these articles indicate not only the range of interest about the environment in Extension, but also how Extension faculty are changing roles and approaches to be more effective environmental educators. Changing Faculty Roles Changing roles for Extension faculty seems to be the case in almost every state and program area. One sign of change is that Extension professionals are now as likely to carry the title of faculty, adviser, or Extension educator, as that of county agent. Regardless of the name, however, we're united by many common interests as professionals. So in a departure from the regular To the Point format, we asked the presidents of the three agents' associations and Epsilon Sigma Phi to tell us what they see as the role of Extension professionals today and in the future. Journal Transitions Nine members of the Journal Editorial Committee completed their terms December 1992. They are: Patricia Day, Wisconsin; Marilyn Grantham, Minnesota; Mable Grimes, Missouri; Beth Walter Honadle, Minnesota; Howard Ladewig, Texas; Susan Laughlin, California; Barbara Sawer, Oregon; Jane Schuchardt, Washington, D.C.; and Valya Telep, Virginia. The careful reading and evaluation of submitted manuscripts is the backbone of the peer review process. Our thanks to these dedicated people who so ably performed that task. EMR
Editorial Committees and BoardExtension Journal, Inc., is a quasi-official body of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges and the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP). It is a nonprofit corporation organized for the purpose of publishing a journal for professional Extension staff, adult educators, and community developers.
James Summers, president, Missouri, North Central Directors
Emmalou Norland, Columbus, Ohio, chairperson Volatile Environmental Programming
Joe E. Heimlich
Ed Winkle Given the nature of the program areas in which Extension works, we often find ourselves dealing with potentially volatile issues, ranging from adolescent pregnancy to waste management. Opportunities abound for educational intervention in the community decision-making process about such issues, but education is often forgotten in the expediency of government. Extension faculty are often drawn into the process after tensions have already mounted and lines have been drawn. How do we make a teachable moment out of a seemingly polarized issue? Educational theorists tell us that learning can't occur when people's minds are closed and there's no motivation to learn.1 So the problem is how to alter the learner's mindset to create a resolve to learn.2 This article focuses on the educational opportunity inherent in the often controversial situation of choosing a new community landfill site. It describes an intervention process strategy for informing, educating, and facilitating public discussion on landfill siting. Testing of the strategy shows that it may be applicable to a variety of Extension educational programs. Public Forum An Extension-sponsored public forum on landfills was held in Warren County, Ohio, in February 1992. This community had been divided over siting proceedings for a landfill. The forum was the first attempt at sharing and understanding the issues surrounding landfills so siting hearings would be feasible. As with any public forum, people approached it with strong attitudes. A pre- test was distributed to people as they arrived asking them to complete it before the program. After the intervention strategy, a post-test was given using the traditional pre-test/post-test form.3 The post-test was an identical questionnaire to the pre-test, but printed on different colored paper. Of the 54 participants, 50 usable pre-tests and post-tests were returned. The survey form was a 14-item questionnaire. The summated measure was designed to reveal a construct called "attitude toward landfills." The instrument was constructed using a four-point Likert-type scale. Both positive and inverse questions were used.4 The value of positive and inverse statements reflected a four as strongly negative attitude toward landfills, with a one being a strongly positive attitude toward landfills. A four-point scale was used to create a forced- choice situation.5 Several subconstructs were included in the questionnaire so item analysis and subclustering were possible. Intervention Process Strategy As opposed to traditional Extension information presentations, an approach was borrowed from group process and Gestalt therapeutic processes for adult groups.6 The intervention process used a technique in which reflection was allowed for the forum participants followed by sharing without comment on concepts. Individuals were asked to record on index cards two or three words that come to mind when they first think of landfills. After a few moments, they were asked to add two or three things they know about landfills to their lists. After allowing time to reflect and write, people were asked to share first the words they'd written and then the things they believed. All words shared and all statements provided were put on a flipchart with no comment. The only remark was made part way through the initial sharing of words when the facilitator commented, "You are all being very nice!" This prompt was provided as a means of removing threat from what participants may have perceived as negative participation.7 Once all comments were captured, the pages were placed on a side wall-to then use a technique called "directing to the wall." The concept of directing to the wall is to allow the facilitator to focus any anger, bitterness, or frustration of participants directly to their own comments rather than being required to "accept" the attack. The intervention process was initiated by pulling words from the charts and referring to how much we all know about landfills. Using the words people shared, information about the history of landfill construction requirements in Ohio was introduced. Over the years, requirements had been added to address specific landfill concerns. Validation was given to the people's concerns by noting that we all share a common memory of the open dump, and may transfer that concept to a landfill. The chronological history was used to show the transference from the dump to the sanitary landfill as mandated by current state law. All information about landfill construction presented was related to points made by participants in the room. This way, people were able to see their valid concerns were being addressed by current requirements. Negative comments directed toward the facilitator were immediately transferred to the wall as he pointed out how the concern already had been stated, or the concern paralleled an issue introduced earlier. Many of the participants' questions directed to the facilitator were redirected back to them. For example, a question on guaranteeing water quality was rephrased as, "How would you guarantee water quality in a landfill?" One of the greatest fears any citizen has about an issue that strikes close to home is that his or her concerns won't be addressed. Thus, even when expert presenters provide data to support or negate a position, people may fail to hear the information given because their fear intervenes. Through the intervention process, fears were validated and realized. Practical information related to the means by which citizens' fears and concerns were addressed, offered in the words and belief statements of the people participating, created an environment in which trust was built between them and the facilitator. Through this process, participants were also able to begin identifying the validity of technology. During the forum, participants as a group went from largely negative positions to taking on the position of supporting a landfill. Based on knowledge, people could respond proactively- rather than defensively-to questions about a landfill in their community. Did It Work? The facilitators of the program approached the forum knowing that strongly negative attitudes about landfills were likely to exist. It was also known that these attitudes resulted from many years of absorbing information that landfills are inherently bad. Nonetheless, we hoped for a significant shift in attitudes as a result of the forum. The attitude rating before the intervention was 3.42; the post-test attitude rating was 2.21. This 1.21 shift is significant at p<.05. Of the 14 items, eight indicated a significant attitude shift. These included statements related to the effects of landfills on an area and the alternatives to a landfill. The largest shift was in the statement, "Landfills near schools pose a safety threat;" the least shift occurred related to the statement, "An incinerator would greatly reduce the amount of trash that would be buried in a landfill." What Does This Mean? In many of our Extension programs, we claim our long-term objective is to change attitudes. When a topic is potentially volatile, we know attitudes must be changed before free flow of information takes place. Borrowing group process techniques from fields that rely on disclosure as part of the process, it's possible to construct learning opportunities even in the face of a potentially explosive situation. The process used, and validated by data from the pre- and post-tests, relied on four significant factors:
As change agents, we may often find ourselves in tense situations. Strategies for intervention to address the concerns of the participants while still meeting the educational objectives of Extension programs are possible and would be applied in many areas. Care in the design of an intervention strategy may be the greatest predictor of our own success in dealing with significant public issues. Footnotes 1. W. F. Hill, Principles of Learning: A Handbook of Applications (Sherman Oaks, California; Alfred Publishing Company, Inc., 1981). 2. R. M. Gagne, The Conditions of Learning, 2nd ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1970). 3. D. R. Campbell and J. C. Stanley, Experimental and Quasi- Experimental Designs for Research (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1963). 4. D. A. Dillman, Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978). 5. S. Sudman and N. M. Bradburn, Asking Questions (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1982). 6. R. L. Applebaum and others, The Process of Group Communication (Chicago: Science Research Associates, Inc., 1974). 7. M. B. Carlsen, Meaning-Making: Therapeutic Processes in Adult Development (New York: W. W. Norton's Company, 1988).
Pesticide Facts and Perceptions
Fred Whitford American farmers have long believed pesticides are beneficial to agricultural production. It's to this audience that Extension traditionally has targeted its pesticide information programs. However, today's Extension specialist and agent are being asked to address the nonagricultural public, a sector that more often than not looks past the benefits of pesticides to focus more on health and environmental risk issues. No longer passive, members of the nonagricultural public are demanding the farming community, as well as state and federal regulatory agencies, provide greater accountability in identifying and preventing risks associated with pesticide use.1 Thus, the dilemma for Extension policymakers, faculty, and staff is how to communicate effectively both benefit and risk information to agricultural and nonagricultural audiences. Dealing with Facts and Perceptions Because the scope of Extension has expanded to include a more diversified audience, the approach to pesticide education must also shift from a disciplinary program to one encompassing broader contemporary pesticide issues such as pesticide laws, public health, habitat degradation, and public right to know, among others.2 Since program participants from diversified audiences differ widely in their comprehension of pesticide issues, Extension educators have a tremendous opportunity and challenge in this highly controversial area. Scientific inquiries about the chronic effects on human health, transport mechanisms in the environment, impact on wildlife, and other pesticide issues require technical expertise. Quite often, interpretation of the same data by scientists produces divergent viewpoints about the significance and implication of the information. Since there are no scientific absolutes, people are left to draw their own conclusions about risks and benefits, based on their perceptions and knowledge of the facts. A 1990 poll indicated that 75% of the American public now share the perception that pesticides pose a serious hazard to man and the environment.3 More specifically, the public's ranking of risks from food consumption is diametrically opposed to the ranking by food scientists (see Table 1).4
Social scientists indicate that positive and negative perceptions are formed easily based on one's own experiences (see Table 2).5 Farmers are inclined to form a positive attitude about pesticides because they're familiar with risk and because the benefits of preventing crop destruction from pests can be observed easily and immediately. However, the nonagricultural population is more inclined to focus negatively on the potential risks of pesticides because they have no control over others' pesticide applications, don't understand or are doubtful of the value of pesticides in the agricultural system, and are concerned about unknown or delayed health problems. Thus, supplementing information with perceptions helps one form opinions on any of the pesticide issues.6 A specialist or agent who realizes the role of perception and the importance of fact will be more successful in pesticide educational activities.
Educational Strategies Educating the public about complex pesticide issues means Extension faculty must communicate a clear, concise, and unbiased message. By using the following strategies gleaned from private industry, state regulatory government, Extension, and research, Extension agents and specialists can challenge audiences to critically confront issues involving pesticides:
Figure 1. Success of pesticide education efforts. Educational strategies such as these may not completely diffuse the pesticide controversy, but can help Extension educators improve their communication with both farmers and the nonagricultural public. Footnotes 1. F. Whitford and others, "State Departments of Agriculture: Pesticide and Environmental Specialists of the 1990s," American Entomologist, XXXVII (No. 1, 1991), 27-34. 2. H. M. Bahn, "Institutional Conflict Between Issues-Based and Disciplinary Programming," Journal of Extension, XXIX (Winter 1991), 23-24. 3. Trends: Consumer Attitudes and the Supermarket-1992 (Washington, D.C.: Food Marketing Institute, 1992). 4. M. W. Pariza, "Evaluating the Relative Safety of Biotechnologically Produced Foods," in Agricultural Biotechnology: Food Safety and Nutritional Quality for the Consumer, June MacDonald, ed. (Binghamton, New York: Union Press, 1990), p. 222 and George Criner, ed., "Look Through the '90s: The U.S. Fruit and Vegetable Industry," a workshop sponsored by the S -222 Regional Research Committee and Farm Foundation (Overland Park, Kansas: Vance Publishing Corporation, 1991). 5. Information contained in this table was obtained from many published papers by Peter M. Sandman, Environmental Communication Research Program, New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Rutgers University, and from information published by Steven C. Witt, Biotechnology, Microbes and the Environment (San Francisco: Center for Science Foundation, 1990). 6. S. Rikoon, Development and Testing of Surveys on Pesticide and Groundwater Issues (Columbia: University of Missouri- Columbia, College of Agriculture, Department of Rural Sociology, preliminary survey, 1991). 7. T. F. Patterson, "Tomorrow's Extension Educator-Learning, Communicator, Systemicist," Journal of Extension, XXIX (Spring 1991), 31-32.
Waste Management Education
John G. Richardson
David Mustian Waste management issues have become pervasive and emotionally charged in recent years. Statements such as "not in my back yard" and "not in my elective term" are commonly heard from the public and politicians. Rules, regulations, financing, and ecosystem costs as well as societal and emotional concerns are constant reminders that a complex problem exists. Extension has identified waste management as one of its National Initiatives, recognizing the need for an array of educational programs focusing on the many different aspects of waste management. As a first step in meeting the pressing educational needs inherent in this multifaceted problem, the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service has chosen to ensure that its county agents have the necessary knowledge and tools to be active partners in local waste management solutions. Waste Management Training Extension's initial response was to structure intensive training for agents from half of North Carolina's counties through a Waste Management Institute. Planning for the institute started in the Fall of 1989, and training began in January 1990. One agent selected from each of 48 county units participated in this intensive educational process and technical training program. The institute included five sessions with an average of three days training per session. The sessions spanned a five- month period. The training included discussion of basic hydrology; interactions between soils, water, and pesticides-fertilizers; and agricultural, residential, industrial, business, and municipal water and waste management systems. Attention was given to economics, regulations, and public policy issues of waste management. Educational programing principles such as community decision-making processes, development of networks between public and private entities, and the formation of objectives and teaching strategies were integral parts of the total training experience. Technical and social scientists and other experts from North Carolina State University and other public and private organizations provided the content through lectures, demonstrations, printed materials, and field study. As a result of this training, each participant was expected to develop a database for his/her county and to integrate new knowledge into a realistic plan of action for a comprehensive waste management educational program. Participant Evaluations In an evaluation of the institute immediately following its completion, 42 participants completed a questionnaire to measure the value of the training. The questionnaire was designed to assess change in technical competencies and perceptions of the value of the integrative program planning experience. Participants also rated the training in terms of the time it took versus the value of the information gained as well as their willingness to recommend the training to another agent with similar responsibilities. A t-test statistical analysis was used to determine differences in individual evaluations of the training by level of formal education, years of service, and job classification. No significant differences in assessment were found among participants with B.A. degrees, versus those with master's or Ph.D.'s. Agents with less than 10 years' service were significantly more positive in ratings (p<.05) of the value of time spent than those with more than 10 years' experience. Agents serving as county Extension directors gave significantly higher ratings (p<.05) to the array of topics presented than other agent participants. Agents tended to give a more positive assessment of the integrative program planning process and the overall value of the training than the county Extension directors (p<.10). When asked if they'd recommend the institute to another agent with similar responsibilities and experience, agents with more than 10 years' experience viewed the overall institute experience more favorably than those with less than 10 years. Follow-Up Survey In the Spring of 1991, 44 participants responded to a follow -up survey to determine their opinions of the institute after one year. The results of this survey indicated only a slight change in their assessment of the value of knowledge gained for the performance of their job. The survey scale was 1 to 5, 1 indicating a very low value and 5 indicating very high value. The mean rating following completion of the institute was 4.05. The follow-up assessment, using the same scale, indicated only a slight drop (mean 3.87) from the previous year. In a t-test analysis of the follow-up data, no significant differences in the perceived value of the information gained were found between any classifications of participants. An analysis of the participants' educational plans developed during the institute indicated their intention to work in one of nine major subject areas:
Although agricultural agents gave somewhat higher ratings to the integrative program planning process required for the institute, this didn't result in more action on their part. Indeed, agents from nonagricultural program areas indicated significantly higher (p<.05) actual use of their plans than the agricultural agents. No differences were indicated between county directors and agent participants in implementation of their plans. The follow-up survey also sought to determine whether the participants and/or their staffs expanded their waste management program emphasis during the year after the training. The results showed a highly positive impact on educational programming among both individual participants and other staff members. While the participants developed educational plans focused only on one subject area during the institute, they reported placing emphasis on more than four subject areas (mean 4.84) a year later. They also indicated receiving educational programming help from other staff in most areas (mean 4.70) as a result of the institute involvement. Participants further reported that a mean of 2.84 program areas had received at least some programming emphasis by their staff before the institute. Following the institute, they reported expanded emphasis either by themselves or others in the unit in a mean of 4.66 areas. Implications and Conclusions The results of the follow-up survey show the value of the Waste Management Institute in preparing agents for educational programming in waste management. The results also indicate that training a selected group expands educational programming both among the participants and their fellow staff members. The study demonstrates that intensive training initiatives can have an impact on issues-based programs such as waste management. The findings suggest that experienced Extension staff are more comfortable in addressing new issues and problems and in their ability to develop educational programs for those issues. Less experienced agents valued the opportunity to gain knowledge and also receive guidance in integrating the new information into educational programs. Thus, newer staff may need more individualized help and guidance in the integration of technology and educational processes to develop programs than more experienced staff. A second implication of this study is that those who express generally positive attitudes toward educational plan development may not necessarily complete actual implementation of their plans. Conversely, those who have less positive attitudes toward plan development may, in fact, still act on them. This finding suggests the need for follow-up to training programs that include planning activities since a plan is of little value if it's not implemented, regardless of the good intentions of the planner. Analysis of the success of the initial training resulted in a second Waste Management and Water Quality Institute during the Summer and Fall of 1991. At the conclusion of this second institute, 29 participating agents gave the training a positive rating of 4.53, indicating the training program continues to be on target in meeting agent needs.
Participatory Learning in Natural Resource Education
David M. Green
Edward L. Mills
Daniel J. Decker An important tenet of Extension program development is that people learn best through a hands-on approach or participatory learning. In Extension programs for owners and users of natural resources, we've found participatory learning helps people find ways to adapt practices to better suit their particular needs and situations or to modify their original objectives to better reflect the management potential of their resources. This potential seems especially high when participants and resource management experts are engaged in a long-term dialogue, rather than a one-time teaching/learning encounter. Participatory Learning This article describes an ongoing natural resource management Extension program focusing on improving the management of fisheries through participatory learning and long-term engagement of learner and expert. New York State has about 40,000 farm ponds. Most of these ponds and many of the 6,400 small- to medium-sized lakes are privately owned or controlled by individuals or groups. Most of these ponds are either unmanaged or mismanaged, yet they have the potential to support significant fishing efforts that can provide both food and recreation. Like woodlots and pastures, successful management of small lakes and ponds requires the owners to invest time and energy in learning some basic principles for management, making decisions about their management objectives, and then carrying out and evaluating management practices that allow them to meet their objectives. The pilot private fishery management program assumed it was important to get the owners of the fisheries resources directly and personally involved in the management activities. Although the general principles of fishery management should apply, enough differences existed among owners, bodies of waters, and fish communities that close interaction between experts and owners would be essential. The object was to establish a partnership where the owners would be encouraged to contact "experts" (program leaders) when they felt advice was needed. In addition, it was important not only to help people see what to do, but also to understand why. Thus, the program stressed the ecological principles involved in fishery management, rather than simply prescribing practices. We wanted the owners and users to develop a rudimentary understanding of the system they were manipulating and why the practices they'd follow have the impacts on the fishery they'd observe. Management Concept To achieve goals set forth by the owners, we applied three features of limnological and fishery research developed over the last two decades to the management of each water. First, the program used anglers to collect data about the status of fish populations. Angler diaries, used extensively in public fishery management programs, are ideally suited for participatory learning when coupled with appropriate educational materials. We believed they'd be especially well-received in this private fishery program because the participants would be motivated to cooperate since they'd be the beneficiaries of their effort. Second, we assessed the predator-prey balance through an analysis of the zooplankton (microscopic free-floating animal life) community. Indices of aquatic ecosystem status are useful in making fishery management recommendations and determining whether objectives are being achieved. Body size of the zooplankton community has been a useful index of fish community structure in warmwater lakes, particularly those dominated by bass and sunfish. Researchers have found fish predation can influence the size structure of zooplankton communities in lakes and that the length-frequency curve for fish mirrors the curve for zooplankton. Samples of zooplankton are also easy for program participants to collect and preserve. Third, size-selective harvest is a well-developed strategy for managing fish populations. Harvest recommendations for different sizes of fish are made based on the size of both fish and zooplankton, fish management objectives of the owners, and the biological limitations of both the fish population and the body of water. Recommendations may include harvesting only very large bass or no harvest (catch and release), fish under a selected size, or bass over and under a certain size with the release of intermediate size fish. Zooplankton samples, along with fish length and catch records from cooperating anglers, would provide the information necessary to make size-selective harvest recommendations that would enhance the quality of fishing. Partnership with Owners and Anglers Participants in the pilot program were selected from applicants responding to a screening questionnaire that evaluated the water body, existing fishery, and objectives and commitment of the owner. After screening, 19 ponds and small lakes ranging from 0.4 to 155 hectares were selected, representing a variety of types of owners: individuals (7), lake associations (3), fishing clubs (2), private communities (2), a public pond (1), and the United States Military Academy (4). All or most of the fishing was controlled by participants in the program. The dominant fish community in most waters was large- mouth bass and bluegill. Program cooperators were issued a diary, a fish measuring rule, and written instructions for collecting information. An educational videotape was also sent to reinforce the written materials and demonstrate sampling and data collection methods. Cooperators recorded in their diaries trip information including date, duration, number of anglers, type of fishing, and data for the fish caught (species, number, length of each fish, and whether the fish were kept or released). Anglers/owners used a sampling kit and instructions provided by the program to collect data on water quality and zooplankton. The pilot program created a partnership between biologists and lake owners/anglers through which research findings were applied to the management of bass and panfish populations in private waters. The fishery experts used remote communications and package services, employing the mail, private delivery services, and telephone to interact frequently with program participants. They evaluated the angling records and limnological and zooplankton samples collected by the participants. These data were used to determine the status of the fishery and, together with angler/owner objectives, used to make management recommendations. The management objectives of the anglers were based on results of a questionnaire asking about fish species preferences, the size of fish preferred, the level of satisfaction the water body currently provided, and any problems. For all water bodies, size-selective fish harvest was recommended to achieve management objectives. Often pond/lake owners were given a range of size-selective harvest options from which to choose, depending on their interests and objectives, thus making the owners/users a direct part of the decision-making process. The consequences of the different options were explained and owners decided which practice to follow. Evaluation Angler interest was high. In all waters owned by individuals, all participants returned diaries, while for most groups the diaries were returned by 60-90% of cooperators. Throughout the pilot program, two-way communication was routine between the participants and the biologists leading the program. Through frequent informal communications, the participants received information and had their questions about fishery management answered. Seventy-four percent of the waters remain in the program. A questionnaire was sent to participants with one to three years in the program (n=15 representing 19 waters) to evaluate whether they improved their understanding of their fishery resource. Most (92%) indicated they'd gained a better understanding of how fishery resources could be managed through size-selective harvest. Many respondents indicated they'd learned a good deal about indicators of fishing quality (79%), the concept of carrying capacity (67%), and predator-prey balance (64%). Participants also reported a strong interest in receiving more information about fishery and lake management, including topics outside those planned as part of the pilot fishery management program. This gave us ideas of ways to expand the scope of the program in the future. Over two-thirds (71%) of the participants believed they'd improved their understanding of fishery management through their involvement in the pilot program. The partnership aspect of the program was valuable-93% believed the partnership between fishery expert and lake/pond owners was an excellent way to achieve their goals of fishery and lake management. Anglers learned the basics of fishery management from biologists, who provided materials and equipment, analyzed samples and data, and made management recommendations based on anglers' objectives. Anglers collected data and samples, decided on the type of fishery they wanted, and implemented management recommendations. The experts' recommendations had been implemented by 84% of the respondents and another five percent were planning to do so the next season. Conclusion The fish population manipulations currently under way will require further evaluation and adjustments as necessary. Annually, anglers will record their catch in diaries, and collect zooplankton samples so that changes in the fish community can be monitored. Thus, anglers and owners of these fishery resources will continue to participate and learn about fishery management. The 19 waters in the pilot program represented the majority of the types of waters found in the warmwater farm ponds and small lakes in New York, making the management approach applicable throughout the state. It can be applied through county or regional Extension offices, state fishery management agencies, or by fishery management firms. The Extension program was also shown to be economical, requiring 1 to 1.5 technician and 1 to 3 professional person days per water, depending on the amount of individual attention provided and the availability of prepared materials. From a resource management perspective, similar Extension programs may provide a relatively inexpensive way to apply state- of-the-art fishery management techniques to private waters in many states. Perhaps the strongest aspect of the program is the direct participation of the anglers in decision making as well as carrying out the management decisions. Participants developed firsthand understanding of "their resource" and in so doing gained more realistic expectations of its management potential. In this participatory learning process, anglers became involved early in the decisions about the fishery and participated continually in management. The participatory learning model coupled with the partnership between angler and fishery experts is an approach with promise for application in many Extension natural resource management educational programs.
Youth Participation
Emmalou Norland
Melissa Beaver Bennett Unlike formal education, 4-H youth activities are voluntary educational experiences. Members choose to participate and some, unfortunately, choose to drop out. The 4-H dropout phenomenon has been studied by many.1 Still, findings conflict and youth workers are far from understanding the reasons for continued participation or dropout from the 4-H program. Dissatisfaction with participation has been found to be highly associated with quitting.2 Theories of participation in adult education include satisfaction as an important precursor to dropout or continuance.3 To understand participation and persistence and dropout, it also makes sense to include studies of factors related to satisfaction with participation. Purpose and Objectives This study was designed to investigate satisfaction with participation in 4-H among older youth. The major purpose was to determine factors related to their satisfaction with 4-H activities. The first objective of the study was to determine the relationship between satisfaction with 4-H and a number of factors (independent variables) that may influence satisfaction. Categories of independent variables included: demographics (urban or rural location, gender, tenure in 4-H); perception factors (responsibility, commitment, peer pressure, older member activities, parental involvement, working with younger members, competition); and project, club, and family characteristics (number and type of projects, quality of 4-H Club meetings, adviser involvement, family involvement, local, state, and national activities). The second objective was to determine which factors best predict satisfaction. A series of research hypotheses based on a review of literature was developed to help investigate the first objective. All relationships specified between independent variables and satisfaction were hypothesized to be positive except for gender and urban or rural location that sported no difference hypotheses. Procedures A mail questionnaire was used to gather data. A random cluster sample (clustered by counties) of 400 was drawn from 6,963 Ohio 4-Hers aged 13-19 years old. The instrument, designed by the researchers, contained summated Likert-type scales to measure most variables; others were measured by "fill-in-the- blank" or "yes/no" type items. Summated scales were assessed for reliability using Cronbach's Alphas, which ranged from .53-.90. The instrument was assessed for content and face validity by a panel of experts in 4-H youth work and research methodology. Data were gathered, following procedures by Dillman4 during Fall 1989. Because the data sample was 257 out of a possible 400 (64%), a random sample follow-up with nonrespond-ents was used to assess the generalizability of the data. Data were collected by telephone from the sample of nonrespondents and then compared to respondents. The comparison showed no significant differences on the major variables of the study; thus, the results have been generalized to the population of 6,963.5 Analysis included descriptive, correlational, and stepwise regression techniques. Findings Terminology specified by Davis6 is used to describe the size of the correlations among variables (see Figure 1). Substantial positive relationships were found between satisfaction with 4-H participation and commitment (.62), responsibility (.59), working with younger members (.59), quality 4-H Club meetings (.68), and positive parental support (.51). 
Figure 1. Correlations among variables. Moderate positive relationships were found between satisfaction and opportunity to participate in "older member" activities (.44), positive experiences with competition (.42), and participation in club, county, state, and national activities (.35). Low positive relationships were found between satisfaction and adviser participation (.28), number and type of projects taken (.22), peer pressure (.11), and tenure as a 4-H member (.23). No relationship was found between the level of family involvement and satisfaction, and no difference was found between urban and rural respondents on the level of satisfaction. The set of best predictors of satisfaction included (in order of stepwise entry): high quality 4-H Club meetings, high levels of responsibility, high commitment, positive parental involvement and support, positive experiences with competition, opportunities to work with younger members, gender (girls were more satisfied than boys), and high participation in 4-H activities. Total variance accounted for by these factors was 69%. Conclusions and Implications Results showed that some similar affective feelings contributed the most to member satisfaction: commitment, responsibility, and the feelings gained when working with younger members. The findings suggest that the 4-H program should be structured to maximize opportunities for older members to become committed, gain responsibility, and serve others-especially younger members. High quality club meetings were related to member satisfaction. Other experiential factors such as older member activities, positive competitive experiences, and club, state, and national activities were also related to satisfaction, but not as strongly as these affective feelings gained through those experiences. Thus, regardless of the type of 4-H activity, importance should be placed on the design of the activity to produce opportunities for responsibility and contribution to others. Positive parental involvement was highly related to satisfaction, yet past and current family involvement with 4-H other than with the member's experiences had no relationship with satisfaction. This conclusion suggests that the member's perceptions of support by his or her parent, not actual parental involvement, leads to satisfaction. A parent who has never been involved with 4-H, yet supports a child in his or her participation, can provide as positive an experience as those parents who are past members or even current advisers. 4-H professionals can encourage parents to be positive supporters without necessarily having to make a large personal commitment to the 4-H program. Very low relationships were found between satisfaction and some previously studied factors of number and type of projects taken, adviser participation, peer pressure, and tenure as a 4-H member. Many resources are devoted to project book development. Much emphasis has been placed on volunteer adviser development. Peer pressure has been lamented as a great deterrent to participation and policy has been built on the belief that the longer the 4-H member stays involved, the more likely he or she will continue. This study failed to give additional support to these four variables as important to an older 4-Her's satisfaction. These findings imply that policies could be revised to reduce funding for project book development, downsize volunteer development efforts, and concentrate programs as much on the long-tenure 4-H members as the new recruits. Urban and rural youth exhibited no differences in their satisfaction, even though traditionally those programs have been vastly different in their approach and activities. Perhaps the design of the 4-H program in general, not the specific 4-H activities, is related to satisfaction. What the 4-Her receives from the experience (feelings of responsibility) may be more important than that experience itself (club and state activities). More study is needed to investigate the differences among urban and rural 4-H programs and the ultimate effects, if any, these differences spawn. Footnotes 1. Jamie Cano and Joanne Bankston, "Factors That Influence Participation and Non-Participation of Enthnic Minority Youth in Ohio 4-H Programs" (Columbus: The Ohio State University, The Ohio State University Seed Grant, Staff Study, 1992) and Annette M. Ellis, "Characteristics Associated with the Level of 4-H Club Enrollment in the Alabama Cooperative System" (Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus,1990). 2. J. G. March and H. A. Simon, Organizations (New York: Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1958). 3. E. Van Tilburg, Participation and Persistence in Continuing Lifelong Learning Experiences of the Ohio Cooperative Extension Service: An Investigation Using Expectancy Valence (Paper presented at Fifteenth Annual National Agricultural Education Research Meeting, St. Louis, Missouri, 1988). 4. D. A. Dillman, Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1978). 5. R. V. Krejcie and D. W. Morgan, "Determining Sample Size for Research Activities," Educational and Psychological Measurement, XXX (No. 3,1970), 607-10. 6. J. A. Davis, Elementary Survey Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1971).
Extension in Religious Communities
Home Economics Agent Cooperative Extension Service, Ohio State University, Geauga County, Burton, Ohio
Randall E. James Extension usually teaches clientele to use the latest technology in solving problems. Yet, throughout the country, agents work with groups whose religious doctrines don't allow them to use Extension's information as presented to a general audience. Understanding sociocultural systems helps adult educators be effective.1 This is especially true in communities where much of the lifestyle is governed by religious doctrine and rules. In such communities, the agent may have easier access to sociocultural understanding than is ordinarily available. The educator can sometimes read the doctrine or ask specific questions about the church's rules and the resulting lifestyle. Once the educator has some understanding of the religious influences, the next challenge is to structure the educational information to be compatible with the doctrine and community.2 Programs tailored to recognize established religious doctrines allow these groups to apply information within the context of their lives. Geauga County, Ohio, has several religious communities. This article provides case studies of how Extension information was adapted to the religious doctrine and culture of two very different groups of clientele: an order of Catholic nuns and Amish farmers. A Change of Habit The Sisters of Notre Dame is a large international Catholic religious community whose provincial education center, or Mother House, is located in Geauga County, Ohio. The sisters frequently participate in Extension educational programs. Their large gardens and orchard bring them in contact with Extension horticultural and food preservation programs. They also have participated enthusiastically in classes on nutrition and personal communication. It wasn't a surprise when they asked Extension to help them in making an important transition. The sisters were soon to have the option of wearing secular clothing in their ministry and their personal lives. Regulations about change of dress, along with other doctrinal changes of the order are made by the General Council of the Sisters of Notre Dame in Rome. While awaiting the final decision from this council on dress code changes, the sisters asked Extension to teach them about clothing selection and care. The Catholic Church has traditionally used vestments to promote organizational and spiritual goals. Symbolism related to holiness, cleanliness, simplicity, and purity are reflected in the traditional habit of nuns.3 Though lay clothing was going to be permitted by the order, it still needed to reflect the values of the religious community. No prints would be allowed and colors were restricted to black, white, and gray. Though the sisters could wear fashion accessories and a variety of styles in their casual wear, in their ministry they would wear simple, modest suits, dresses, and skirts and blouses and a cross on a silver chain. Extension's challenge was to structure the teaching to respect and adhere to the doctrine of the order, while presenting material based on research about color and style selection for adult women. Many of the sisters were in their mid-fifties and had never shopped for clothing as adults. The community laundry had always cared for their habits. Now, they'd be individually shopping and caring for their secular wardrobes. Four, two-hour educational meetings were conducted. Because of the dress restrictions, some slide sets and videos normally used weren't appropriate. Instead, live models were used to demonstrate clothing selection principles. Eighteen sisters, ranging in age from early twenties to mid-eighties, modeled garments from the wardrobes of others, thrift stores, and those borrowed from a local department store. Clothing care, fit, proportions, consumer skills, and the social-psychological aspects of clothing were discussed while the garments were being modeled. A nun's habit represents her religious dedication and influences how laypeople respond to her.4 In making the transition from habit to secular clothing, religious identity became an issue. A two-hour segment of the training was dedicated to discussing image and dressing, which helped each sister work through her feelings about the choice to change, deciding if she wished to adopt secular clothing, and helping her make decisions about clothes she was comfortable wearing. Content was also adapted to the audience in teaching clothing color and style. It became very detailed: Which "shade" of white was most flattering around the face? Which jacket length was most flattering to individual figures? Which style was flattering to younger sisters, yet fit within their acceptable dress rules? After educational meetings and seminars were completed, Extension wanted to determine if, despite the restrictions on the information presented, the sisters' attitudes toward dress changed and if any learning had taken place. A pre- and post- evaluation were conducted. There was a positive change in attitude among the sisters in comfort with the change in dress and confidence in shopping. Ninety-five percent of those attending all four classes said they'd use the information, learned new information, were motivated to work on their wardrobes, would improve their wardrobes using skills learned, and would share information with others. All of those who attended all four classes improved their knowledge on the post- test. The pre-test mean was 66%, the post-test mean was 94%. The Amish Way Geauga County also has a large, old-order Amish community. The Amish faith traces its origins back to the 1690s when a group of Swiss Anabaptists followed the teachings of a religious leader named Jacob Ammann.5 The Amish avoid many modern conveniences and have a strong desire to keep their community separate and distinct from the outside world. Farming is encouraged and considered the most desirable occupation. Amish don't own cars, but drive a horse and buggy. They don't use electricity in the home or farm, and rarely have telephones. Modesty of appearance is expected. Men wear black or blue outer coats and pants, solid colored or white shirts, and broad brimmed felt or straw hats. Women wear simple shirtwaist style dresses, which are pinned rather than buttoned, and pleated white organdy caps. Geauga County works closely with the Amish community. To provide effective Extension programming, agents must be aware and respectful of the religious rules of the community. Most old- order Amish observe about 15 major doctrinal points, with some variation between areas and church districts.6 This county has about 40 Amish church districts of about 30 to 50 families each. Each church district operates not only under church doctrine, but also under its own "ordnung." The ordnung is a group of rules that covers everyday customs, such as whether a farm is allowed to use a hay baling machine, a milking machine for the dairy, or a battery-powered fence charger. An effective Extension program for Amish farmers must be sensitive to both the written doctrine common to the entire community and also to the more subtle ordnung. In 1991, many Amish dairy farmers were interested in improving pasture management. Current technology for improved pasture management uses movable electric or barbed wire fences. The non-electric barbed wire method is somewhat less effective. None of the farms that were to receive information would have electricity available from the street. The ordnung of some church districts allows battery-powered electric fence chargers, while the ordnung of other districts prohibits them. The solution was to plan a field day on a farm operating under the more restrictive ordnung, one that doesn't allow electric fences. Pasture management was demonstrated using barbed wire. Without making specific reference to the differences in the ordnung, examples were shown on how a pasture might also be divided with electric fence. By using this educational method, all of the participants could apply management techniques with or without electric fence chargers. In another example, about 80 people (mainly Amish) participated in an Extension home pork processing school. Extension wasn't promoting home pork slaughtering and processing, but was recognizing that home butchering was part of the Amish lifestyle. Therefore, Extension provided instruction on how to safely process pork using demonstrations on humane killing, meat cutting, sausage and scrapple making, and meat canning. The demonstrations took place using simple non-electric kitchen and barn equipment. Results of the school were documented by surveying participants six months after the event. In addition to favorable comments on the educational value, more than 75 hogs had been slaughtered and processed using techniques learned at the school. Summary In working with any religious community, Extension educators can be more successful if they understand the doctrines of those they wish to teach. The more we know about the doctrine and its effects on lifestyle, the more effectively we can interact with clientele. In an effort to provide access to education to all citizens, Extension educators must be able to adapt to diverse audiences, including those from religious communities. Footnotes 1. E. J. Boone, Developing Programs in Adult Education (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1985). 2. E. M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations (New York: The Free Press, 1983). 3. S. B. Kaiser, The Social Psychology of Clothing (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1990). 4. T. J. Long, "Influences of Uniform and Religious Status of the Interviewees," Journal of Counseling Psychology, XXV (September 1978), 405-409. 5. J. A. Hostetler, Amish Society (Baltimore, Maryland: The John Hopkins University Press, 1980). 6. T. L. Newcomb, "Perspectives on Amish and Conservative Mennonite Culture and Education" (Master's thesis, Lesley College Graduate School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1983).
Reaching Native Americans
Joyce L. Alves Extension agents often feel frustrated when Native American clientele don't respond as other clientele to their programming efforts. Some believe programming must be approached differently, while others claim regular types of programming can be done. My experiences on the Navajo reservation suggest it's difficult to generalize because Native Americans are unique as individuals and in their tribal cultural heritage. So, educational programming should differ from tribe to tribe and from community to community. However, to have the opportunity to teach Native Americans, Extension must first reach them. This article describes several strategies that Extension faculty can use to achieve success in teaching and programming for Native American clientele. Some of these strategies may also apply to Extension programming with other diverse groups. Building Trust Adamcin said of her work with low-income, culturally diverse people in South Tucson that, "Prevention programs and those that target low income must rely on acceptance by the community we wish to serve. Trust must exist between agencies and clientele."1 The same attitude applies to working with Native Americans and probably many other culturally diverse groups. Recognizing contributions of clientele, being willing to become part of their lives, and working with them are ways to develop trust. Agents may initially have to be "unproductive" in terms of traditional programming to nurture a trusting relationship. The time required to develop trust and the accompanying lack of success can be frustrating. I've traveled 100 miles to appointments only to have clientele not show up. Some of my workshops organized and marketed in the traditional Extension way were poorly attended. Saturday 4-H community meetings had different children attending each time. Many of the children lived 30-40 miles away and their families didn't have transportation to bring them to each meeting. Building trust often involves a willingness to do unusual activities. Last summer, we held a 4-H clothing workshop in the Lukachukai Mountains. To get there, I drove a two-wheel drive pickup on a four-wheel drive road. There were pickups along the side of the road that didn't make it. Once there, we used a generator to run the sewing machines. Mahan says that, "Indian people tend to cooperate more with those Anglo teachers who supplement their professional role with community involvement, friendship building and two-way sharing of thoughts and perceptions."2 Recently, I created a button-badge to promote "5 A Day" fruits and vegetables, and included some with Navajo words. Even though many Navajo people only speak and are unable to read or write their language, presenting materials in their language indicates to the recipients someone recognizes their language.3 It's also a visible sign that an agent is trying to engage in a two-way, cultural-sharing process. Attending community events is another way to create visibility and develop trust. I was invited to an elementary school fashion review fund-raiser in Chinle, 135 miles from the Extension office. Attending would help me become familiar with the traditional Navajo clothing being modeled. But it was equally important for me to go because the person who had invited me would be honored if I came. Family Networking Networking, which is useful to agents in any community, takes on added significance when working with Native Americans. At the Chinle fashion review, for example, I was acknowledged as a guest from the University of Arizona Cooperative Extension. After the program, a retired woman introduced herself and said she'd been a 4-H leader and active in Extension homemakers many years ago. She said she'd like to get the people in Chinle involved in home economics programs and 4-H. This woman arranged for several home economics workshops for adults I conducted. I sent her fliers about the programs, which she posted around town and delivered to her relatives and friends. With her help, the workshops were well-attended. The woman's daughter is now a community 4-H leader and all of her grandchildren are enrolled in 4-H. A primary strategy for reaching Native Americans with Extension programming is to first involve key people who then invite their extended family members. Family members often make up most of the clientele at each workshop. Native American educators have noted that, "The extended family is a major factor in Indian communities, which may include three or four generations in the same household."4 A successful Extension educator will find networking in the Native American community means networking with families. Using Extenders Another useful strategy for education in the Native American community is to use extenders of Extension information. In discussing programming in California, Laughlin maintained that, Volunteers have been known to increase outreach beyond all reasonable expectation, contacting people who might never have been served by Extension, bringing greater diversity to our clientele, and targeting specialized groups.5 Similarly, networking with other organizations within the Navajo tribal system has increased outreach and brought people to Extension programs that may never have been reached. Save the Children, WIC, Headstart, Navajo Food Distribution, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, schools, chapter houses, and Navajo Youth Development are all potential extenders of Extension information. Last year, Extension sponsored a workshop about youth at risk at a location 100 miles from the Extension office and arranged for by a nutritionist from Navajo Headstart. Each of the agencies were provided with fliers and brochures about the event which they distributed to their clientele. I received calls from people I'd never heard of or known about and 57 Navajo people attended, including teachers, parents, school assistants, youth workers, bus drivers, and Headstart personnel. Compared to previous meetings and workshops, that event was a success because working with extenders helped market the program on a topic of concern in the community. Workshops for organizations serving the Native American community have also been successful. Attendance was high and the participants extended the information. A nutrition educator with Navajo food distribution, for example, taught people how to make whole wheat bread in a bag at tailgate workshops after attending an Extension training program. Navajo food distribution workers drive trucks out into the remote areas of the reservation to distribute food and present food preparation lessons literally on the truck tailgate. Continual Communication Continual communication is also important. Everyone attending Extension workshops is put on a newsletter mailing list. Keeping in regular personal contact with key people in the various agencies and communities such as Navajo Food Distribution, Save the Children, 4-H leaders, and Headstart is a necessity. To maintain visibility and contact, I don't miss the opportunity to strike up a conversation with a stranger while waiting in line, giving him or her a ride, or speaking at a community event. Attitude and Sensitivity An Extension agent's attitude and sensitivity to other people are key factors in working with Native Americans. Extension agents need to carefully consider how their words and actions are perceived. For instance, one visitor from Extension told some Navajo people he'd taken cultural classes in college and could do research about them. Another wouldn't mingle with the Navajo people at a field day until it came time for pictures. Another not only refused to eat Navajo food served at a field day, but made disparaging remarks about it. As Pepper and Coburn said, "It is important to have a sincere belief in and an appreciation of people that are different."6 Failure to demonstrate appreciation of difference destroys trust between the Extension worker and the Native American audience. My involvement in working with Native Americans has been an experience in positive personal growth. I agree with Kincheloe and Staley that, "No one leaves the culture without changed attitudes and beliefs."7 Working with Native American audiences or any culturally diverse group means Extension educators must adapt their traditional methods for reaching traditional audiences. While the strategies for taking a different approach may not be difficult, implementing them is a challenge requiring a high degree of commitment to cultural understanding. Footnotes 1. Julie C. Adamcin, "An Inner-City Harvest-A Coalition Approach to Youth-at-Risk Programming," Journal of Extension, XXVIII (Summer 1990), 13. 2. James M. Mahan, "Major Concerns of Anglo Student Teachers Serving in Native American Communities," Journal of American Indian Education, XXIII (May 1984), 19. 3. Daniel C. Pfannstiel and Stanley M. Hunter, Extending Cooperative Extension Education to Mexican-American Families Program, Methods and Evaluation (College Station: Texas Agricultural Extension Service, 1967), p. 71. 4. Floy C. Pepper and Joseph Coburn, Effective Practices in Indian Education (Portland, Oregon: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 1985), p. 13. 5. Susan Laughlin, "The Challenge of Working with Extenders," Journal of Extension, XXVIII (Fall 1990), 29. 6. Pepper and Coburn, Effective Practices in Indian Education. 7. Joe Kincheloe and George Staley, "Teaching on a Rural Reservation: An Authentic Learning Experience," Momentum, II (February 1983), 18.
Computer Awareness Among Limited-Resource Farmers
Henry J. Findlay
Robert Zabawa
Carlton E. Morris
Mercy Oben For over a decade, there has been an increasing emphasis on personal computers in farming operations. Many software packages have been developed to suit farm needs, and several studies have revealed farmers are using personal computers more to make management, production, and marketing decisions.1 Computers have provided answers to several generic agricultural concerns-cost of current crop production, impact of current interest rates, and cost increases on farm operations. Computers are now seen as cost-effective management tools likely to help farmers increase efficiency and profitability of production. Historically, computers have been used by producers with larger farms. Limited-resource farmers (less than $25,000 household income and 50 acres) bypassed the technology because of its cost and their lack of knowledge about computer use in farming.2 The advent of reasonably priced personal computers brought hopes that they'd become an indispensable farm tool for all types of farmers. Still, limited-resource farmers have been reluctant to use computers in their farm operations. Several studies have identified why farmers generally have been slow to adopt and benefit from technological innovations like personal computers. These reasons include the cost of the computer, time required to learn to use it, lack of knowledge about its capabilities, level of education of farmers, and size and type of farming operation.3 Previous survey efforts of computer use have focused on full - and part-time farmers rather than limited-resource farmers. Therefore, we saw value in investigating two broad questions: How aware are the limited-resource farmers about the capability of the computer? Who provides the best sources of information to these farmers about the utility of the personal computer? Purpose and Methods A study was done to assess the awareness, interest, and use of the personal computer by limited-resource farmers and to identify constraints associated with adoption. Specific objectives of the study were to:
The population for the study was 563 limited-resource farmers in five of 12 south central Alabama counties extending from Georgia to Mississippi, whose names and addresses were on file with the Cooperative Extension Program at Tuskegee University. The area is characteristically rural with only two cities with populations exceeding 10,000. Using topographical maps of the counties, a random sample of 226 farmers was selected to participate in the study. A 20-item questionnaire was developed to use during face-to- face interviews. Items contained in the instrument were gleaned from a related literature review. The instrument was reviewed for content validity and pilot-tested for question consistency, ease of reading, and completion time. Data were collected by interviewing 152 of the 226 farmers and analyzed using descriptive statistics. We were unable, even after repeated attempts, to reach the other 74 farmers. Findings The findings revealed that 49% of the farmers had a high school education or less. Although 61% were aware personal computers can be used on the farm in making important management decisions, 96% had never used a computer in making any farm decisions. Only four percent of the farmers had exposure to a personal computer, and they indicated they used it more for nonagricultural activities, such as writing personal letters. When the farmers were asked to give reasons why they hadn't adopted personal computers on their farms, 40% cited the cost and 21% indicated lack of technical knowledge were the main factors. Table 1 summarizes the data about farmers' awareness and use of sources of information on computers. One-fifth of the respondents indicated they'd never heard of personal computer usage on farms. However, 47% expressed a willingness to seek additional information. When the farmers were asked to name the source where they'd first heard about farm computer use, 46% said from the media (TV, radio, newspapers), but only one percent had checked these sources for additional information. Eight percent of the farmers had heard about farm computers from their county Extension office or an Extension specialist.
Other findings revealed that only seven percent of the limited-resource farmers in the five counties were aware of the functions that personal computers could perform on the farm. Thirteen percent noted that they would give the use of personal computers on the farm some thought and eight percent would use them on a trial basis. Slightly more than a fourth (27%) of farmers were unenthusiastic about using personal computers in carrying out agricultural functions. However, 58% indicated they'd like to learn more about the use of personal computers through institutes, seminars, and workshops. Implications and Recommendations The present phenomenon of limited-resource farmers not using personal computers can be altered if these farmers are exposed to and educated in the use of this important technology. The small number of respondents who identified Extension as a source of information on computers suggests Extension needs to prioritize computer applications training for limited-resource farmers. With this training, limited-resource farmers would make greater use of this cost-minimizing technology, and, at the same time, improve their profit-maximizing ability and quality of life. According to Prawl and others, "Education can be compared to a catalyst that modifies, relates, and activates other elements essential to producing change in individuals, groups or organizations."4 The findings of this study revealed that limited -resource farmers are willing to learn more about computers. Because Extension's long-range and ultimate task is to influence its clientele through education to use the results of scientific technology to improve their quality of life, Extension should organize seminars, institutes, and workshops to train limited- resource farmers in computer applications for agriculture. Footnotes 1. W. F. Lazarus and T. R. Smith, "Adoption of Computers and Consultant Services by New York Dairy Farmers," Journal of Dairy Science, LXXI (No. 6, 1988), 1667-75 and David Quinlin and R. A. Martin, "An Evaluation of On-Farm Microcomputer Use," Journal of Agricultural Education, XXXI (No. 1, 1990), 7-11. 2. Quinlin and Martin, "Evaluation of On-Farm Microcomputer Use." 3. Blannie E. Bowen and Kathleen M. Escolme, "Computer Education of Farmers," Journal of Agricultural Education, XXXI (No. 1, 1990), 39-45 and Mark T. Taylor, Dana L. Hoag, and Mitchell B. Owen, "Computer Literacy and Use," Journal of Extension, XXIX (Winter 1991), 11-13. 4. Warren Prawl, Roger Medlin, and John Gross, Adult and Continuing Education Through the Extension Service (Columbia: University of Missouri-Columbia, Extension Division, 1984).
Environment for Innovation and Professionalism
Patricia J. Buchanan Change has always been an integral part of being an Extension professional. However, it seems that today changes are occurring faster and from so many different directions that we often find it difficult to determine which change to react to first. Of course, some of our co-workers will always find it great to talk about change as long as it doesn't affect them. One of the greatest changes having an impact on Extension professionals in recent years has been that Extension is no longer providing us with a "career for life." We've all seen many of our co-workers being given the opportunity for an early retirement, a change in position title, a move to a new location, a return to school to obtain a different degree, or in some cases termination. We've had more turnover than ever in Extension history. At the same time, as new clientele needs have emerged, many staff have had to review their programs and prioritize their time more effectively. For some, this has meant a "letting go" of old activities and traditional clientele. Not only has this created anxiety on the part of the staff, but some clientele feel Extension's no longer serving them. Extension faculty of the future will continue to face many changes that will affect their personal and professional lives. They will be required to implement programs that will be more income producing, as our traditional funding sources decrease. Securing external sources of funding will be a skill required of all Extension professionals. With this funding will come an even greater need for accountability. Grant-funding organizations will require more reporting and data than we've previously known in Extension. The decades ahead will make it necessary for us to find ways to coordinate and collaborate with many other organizations and agencies. Further exploration of partnerships with the private sector, government, and other educational institutions will be necessary to enhance our program delivery, as well as our program content. Our programs in the future will need to focus in arenas where we have a competitive advantage. We're the only adult education organization that can provide clientele access to the research base of the total university. We must continue to maintain our integrity as an educational organization that responds to the needs of the clientele. However, we may need to find new ways to look at Extension and how we plan and deliver programs. Extension professionals must have easy access to and knowledge of the use of new emerging technologies to deliver programs more efficiently and effectively. Computer skills and access to a computer will be paramount. We'll continue to see even more diversity in our organization and more temporary, short-term employees. This will require us to see diversity as an asset-not a detriment. We must do whatever we can to make the workforce of the future feel they are an integral part of Extension. Even though they may only be working with Extension programs for a short time, we can find effective ways of using their talent and expertise. All of the changes that have occurred and are occurring have led staff to believe they have little control over their future; therefore, one of the greatest challenges facing us as Extension professionals is learning how to change that belief. We often see ourselves in an organization where our responsibilities are limited by our Extension title or position and we assume little responsibility for the results produced by the organization or by our co-workers. It's time for us to become proactive in dealing with our future as an Extension System. Not only do we need to cope with the many changes confronting us, we also need to explore ways we have created problems for ourselves. All too often, we become too concerned about invading someone else's territory and making sure our identity isn't lost. We're often our own worst enemy. We will need to be supportive of change and champions of the holistic view of Extension. Our understanding and appreciation for change will be essential and we must be ready to see why these changes just might be positive. We must continually ask ourselves how we can make change work for us. For some of us, it may mean a new career and for others maybe just a change of direction. Our survival as a viable adult education organization will depend on developing a greater sense of community among all Extension professionals. Epsilon Sigma Phi (ESP) can play an important role in the development of this community by serving as a facilitator for the interaction needed in building this community. Above all, we're going to have to take some time to create a shared vision among all of us, as well as among our clientele and decision makers. What's more essential to our future success and existence than all of us working toward a common goal? However, for this vision to be created, we'll need to develop a greater appreciation for common goals and values. With this shared vision and an acceptance of the reality of constant change will come an even broader base of support for Extension. Our professional organizations can and must take a leadership role in providing the Extension staff member of today and tomorrow with quality professional development activities. They can contribute to the esprit de corps by being supportive during these many changes. At the same time, we need to champion excellence in our programs and professional development. Keeping current and qualified will be even greater in the coming months and years. We must be "out front" in creating an environment for innovation and professionalism. Rosabeth Moss Kanter in her book When Giants Learn To Dance summarizes well what the future holds for Extension. She says, "The years ahead will be best of all, however, for those who learn to balance dreams and discipline. The future will belong to those who embrace the potential of wider opportunities but recognize the realities of constrained resources-and find new solutions that permit doing more with less. Individual excellence is not enough; responsibility for the performance of the whole team is required." Editor's Note: Downsized programs...agent specialization...county clustering...issues programming...diversity. These are just a few of the many changes having an impact on county and state faculty-the people who make up the Cooperative Extension System. For this issue's To the Point section, we asked: How is this era of extraordinary change affecting faculty, and what do you see as their role in the future? The presidents of four Extension professional associations respond with their observations and insights.
Linking Agriculture with the People
William C. Kelly How will the agriculture Extension agent justify his or her position in the future? The role of the Extension agent has been to extend the land grant university to the people. Because this task has been mastered over the years, Extension is acclaimed as one of the most effective informal educational systems in the world, sought after and copied by many. Today's question is how can we ask the taxpayer to provide support for a system that serves only 1.7% of the people, the food-producing sector of our nation? A simple answer is that county or regional Extension agents represent more than the food- producing disciplines of the agriculture colleges of our universities. Extension agents must demonstrate to the people that their role is to make the information resources of the land grant colleges available to all people and seek answers for problems that may well entail working with other colleges within the university system. Public policy issues will be in the forefront, particularly as they relate to the effect food production has on the environment. The role agriculture plays in world politics and the impact agriculture has on the economy is certainly exhibited in today's current events. Producers must know more about world marketing. Consumers should be more concerned about the cost of food as environmental constraints, such as limiting land use or pesticide applications, are applied. Advances in communication technologies mean Extension now has competitors in the private sector who can transmit information to every nook and cranny of the land. But those same competitors must have a source of credible, research-based information, which Extension can provide. Downsizing Extension may be a fact of life. It will, however, be the task of administration to ensure that available Extension personnel are strategically located. The land grant system was built on communication with the people; communication that was brought from the university by Extension agents and relayed back to resident and research staff by the university- based specialists. We'll need to maintain the links in that chain more than ever in the future. If we're meeting the people's information needs, they'll respond to the legislators for the financial support to maintain the system. How this is accomplished will vary. Extension administrators will be experimenting to find the best way in their respective states. Situations are different, people are different, times change. Extension survival depends on leaders that will change to meet the challenges. At issue is how change will be implemented. Extension has learned and teaches that change is brought about through teamwork and communication. Field staff, university faculty, and administration will need to visit, respect each other's role, and assess the needs of the clientele and what resources are available to meet those needs. As it should be, it will always be a matter of fine-tuning the programs to maintain Extension's credibility. One thing is certain-without a link to the people, universities can't serve them. Extension and the field agents, whether they be in multicounty units, clusters with specialized staff, or county units, must develop programs that meet the needs of the people with relevant supporting research.
Impact Through Cooperation and Technology
Ruth A. Pirch This is an exciting time to be involved in Extension! With the current public interest in families, health and wellness, resource management, and youth development, we have the challenge and opportunity to be recognized for what we do. However, Extension won't be recognized if it's not identified as capable of having an impact on families. Home economics isn't the only program that should be identified with educating families. Extension must combine all of its human resources to truly make an impact. Unfortunately, we don't have to look far to see many fewer human resources in county offices than we had in the past. In my own state, there are now about 200 fewer Extension staff than when I began my career. To achieve the plans we have for counties or regions, Extension professionals will need to cooperate in new ways. We'll rely on co-workers for expertise and energy. The co- worker may no longer be in our office. He or she may be someone from a cluster, region, district, some other part of the state, multistate region, or even the nation. We may not know this person, but can still share Extension program resources. If we develop an outstanding program, we should be proud to see it replicated in other locations. Extension is just starting to develop its technological capabilities. Perhaps the universities haven't invested the resources in training us to use the technology or even in convincing some staff members that it's possible to provide quality programs using new technology. As Extension professionals, we must strive to stay with the times! While there may be fewer dollars for staff support, more dollars must be spent to support the existing staff. I'm convinced that with the right equipment, proper training on technology transfer, and a good marketing plan, we can provide quality educational programs. It'll require continued networking and coalition building at all levels. We can't continue talking to ourselves. Our local efforts must be combined with those of existing agencies and organizations. We must not be so concerned about who receives the credit for our efforts, but work on a meaningful and productive process of providing education. As Extension professionals, we must be willing to risk some uncertainty. Do you have office co-workers who aren't using computers, who don't know how to downlink satellite programs, or who haven't participated in joint program efforts lately? Maybe "they" are uncertain about their capabilities or maybe "they" are really us. Assistance, support, and encouragement among professionals can go a long way in bringing us all closer together in our Extension efforts. Victims or Architects of Change?
Chuck Leifeld Downsizing, specialization, clustering, re-invention-every day a new word or phrase seems to be added to the Extension vocabulary. And every day change seems to become more of a constant. I recently heard someone say that when you live in the midst of inevitable change, the choice is to be its victim or its architect. Our greatest challenge, as 4-H agents, is to become that architect. We need to see change as a positive force in our organization and seek the opportunities that change will provide. At our annual Extension conference, Bernard Jones, chair of ECOP, said that Extension must move from its service orientation to an educational focus. For 4-H, I believe that means we must change the image of our program from a product to a process orientation. This change must occur internally as well as externally. 4-H is too often viewed as a product-a club, an event, an exhibit, a project-rather than a process helping youth practice life skills that will help them build relationships and develop their communities. The perception that 4-H agents manage some product is a real barrier as we try to build coalitions to address the issues of youth at risk. This same perception creates problems with "traditional audiences" who view the change in program emphasis as abandonment of our heritage and their right. We need to "re-invent" the concept that our Extension mission isn't one dimensional, but rather to identify and address societal issues. Downsizing presents both the challenge and the opportunity to begin this change process. With reduced resources, it's imperative that we work differently and that we do different work. Greater use of volunteers and youth in leadership roles in the traditional program and in new arenas will allow us to reach out to a larger and more diverse audience. The opportunity to build community coalitions is tremendous-downsizing isn't unique to Extension. The involvement of other players to develop and implement programs assures that all levels of the issue will be addressed. And, has there ever been a better time to "sunset" programs-to involve clientele and critically evaluate what we do and what needs to be done? Agent specialization and clustering support these changes by providing frameworks in which the 4-H agent can become a specialist and have an arena in which to practice that specialization. Changes must promote the educational focus of 4-H and alter the image of the 4-H agent from a program manager to an Extension educator-an individual with a specific knowledge base and the critical skills to address and have an impact on the issues of today's youth. We stand at a critical time; the need for our expertise, our resources, is great. We're part of a national network, an educational organization with a demonstrated ability to respond. Our challenge is clear, our opportunity is now. We can't allow ourselves to become the victim of change, we must be the architect.
Privatization Lessons for U.S. Extension from New Zealand and Tasmania
Peter Bloome When public agencies come under budget stress, user fees are often suggested as a means of cost recovery. The question of whether any of the agency's activities could be made self- supporting or spun off to the private sector is often asked. In considering such funding alternatives, U.S. Extension can look to other countries where experiments in privatization have been taking place for several years. During the last six months of 1991, I did a study of the privatization of advisory services in New Zealand and Tasmania. The study, which involved interviews with Extension professionals, administrators, and clients, provided insights into what might occur if U.S. Extension adopts similar approaches. In Australia and New Zealand, Extension is largely an advisory service, primarily involves agriculture, and is attached to Ministries of Agriculture, which also have responsibility for research and regulation. Defining Extension as advisory services emphasizes the private benefits of Extension activities and, when government budgets are stressed, can easily lead to the conclusion that Extension's private sector clients should pay for its services. With this focus on the role of technology transfer, educational, human development, and community benefits are easily overlooked. In these countries, Extension's almost exclusive association with agriculture reinforces the notion that its allegiance lies with private interests within agriculture rather than with the public. These factors have led to attempts to divide advisory services into public and private benefit categories with the implication that private benefit activities should recover costs through user fees. Attempts also have been made to divide the Extension function itself between public and private providers. Private Extension, in this concept, involves any professional in the private sector who delivers advisory services to agriculture, and is seen as an alternative to public Extension. The Australian state of Tasmania has the longest experience with fee-for-service Extension activity in the world, having introduced fee-based advisory services in 1982. The Labour government in New Zealand went several steps further in 1985 when it required the advisory services of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (MAF) to become completely commercial by 1990 as the first step to privatization. The final step was planned for July 1, 1992, when MAF Management Consultancy Services was to become a State Owned Enterprise (SOE) with the government as the initial sole shareholder. Fee-Based Extension Interviews with departmental staff and farm organization leaders revealed that fee-based Extension has been an unhappy experience in Tasmania. Implementation of the cost recovery policy fell on top of a major restructuring that required field staff to assume roles of greater technical specialization. Field staff reported they were still trying to gain confidence in their new roles when they were required to charge farmers for their contacts. Thompson found that the new policy hadn't caused the department staff to be monopolized by one size class of farmer, as some had feared it would. Nor had it attracted new clientele. However, 90% of client farmers had reduced the frequency of contact with the advisory services. They also had changed the manner of contact from predominantly face-to-face to telephone.1 One of the important functions of Extension is to facilitate the transfer of information between farmers. Departmental field staff reported their perception that less personal contact between themselves and farmers had greatly reduced the effectiveness of the service. In their view, assigning charges to their personal interactions with farmers had restricted staff access to an essential source of information and impeded the free flow of information within the agricultural knowledge system. Departmental staff believed they were losing touch with farmer thought and innovation. Interviews with farm organization leaders revealed a concern that linked fee-based Extension with increased regulation of agriculture and forestry in Tasmania. When Extension is both publicly and privately funded, its ability to serve the public interest on issues such as sustain-ability is questioned. As the department concentrated on developing a more commercial relationship with its agricultural clientele, farm leaders believe it became less an agent of the public and was less able to challenge the rural community on important public issues. They believe the fee-based policy has weakened Extension as a force for positive change in rural Tasmania. With a weakened public sector pursuing its interests through voluntary approaches, the Tasmanian electorate has resorted to greater regulation of its agricultural industries. The fee-based service policy in Tasmania also failed to generate significant cost recovery. After 10 years of the policy, fees don't total five percent of annual departmental revenues. Commercialization The introduction of commercialized advisory services in New Zealand left few recognizable parts of the earlier service. Interviews with the regional consultancy managers revealed that since 1985, when the transition began, professional staff and clientele numbers had fallen by more than 50%, with reductions reaching 80% in one region. Commercialization required a shift in organizational culture that proved difficult, particularly for older staff. While the managers report contact with fewer farmers, that contact has greater depth than before. In addition to individual farm and business clients, the service is marketing its capabilities as a national system to commodity groups and agricultural input and processing industries. Technology transfer contracts are being pursued with the three newly formed Crown Research Institutes (CRIs) having responsibility for agricultural research. Government is also being cultivated as an important client. The organization is pursuing government contracts to provide strategic information about agriculture to government and supply public benefit information to agriculture. The organization's reduced client base and commercial nature would appear to limit its credibility for these roles. Ritchie reported that the plan for MAF Management Consultancy Services to become a State Owned Enterprise on July 1, 1992 has been postponed due to the inability of the SOE Board to attract sufficient staff with the required qualifications and regional representation. Present plans call for the privatization of local practices (district offices) with franchises back to MAF. In return for the franchise fee, MAF would supply national generic marketing, marketing to large corporations, quality assurance, and administrative systems.2 The New Zealand experience is an excellent case study as it involved movement from public funding to commercialization in a five-year period. The capacity to conduct public benefit Extension programs no longer exists except as the government may contract with private entities. Again the question of whether a commercial organization can serve the public interest arises. Koller cites public benefits to Extension that can't be commercialized.3 This suggests private Extension (private sector delivery of advisory services) can't completely replace public Extension. Lessons for U.S. Extension It's worth remembering that the privatization of advisory services in Tasmania and New Zealand wasn't voluntary; it was directed by external political forces. Such decisions hinge not only on fiscal considerations, but also on majority public (and public official) perceptions of the relative public versus private value of the service. When the majority view is that the service is primarily of private value, or that it can best be provided by private markets, then that will largely determine the outcome. The Tasmanian and New Zealand experiences are most applicable to that part of U.S. Extension relating to agriculture. The U.S. definition of Extension as public education within the land grant university system reduces somewhat the application of this experience. Nonetheless, the privatization efforts in Tasmania and New Zealand suggest several lessons. Publicly funded Extension must reaffirm that it's about the public business. While this seems obvious, the point has become confused. Public Extension disseminates objective, scientific information and encourages its application by individual families, farms, businesses, and communities. The purpose isn't private profit maximization. Rather, the public supports this work to capture the larger benefits it brings to society. That innovative farmers, and others, may reap a windfall is part of the process, but not its justification. Efforts to divide the benefits of Extension programs into private and public categories, then, aren't helpful in pursuing the interests of either the public or agriculture. Public Extension doesn't compete with the private sector. The public won't continue paying Extension to do work that can be done by the private sector. Extension must be competitive in acquiring the resources necessary to fulfill its unique mission and in hiring and rewarding staff. But in its educational role, Extension can only cooperate. Wolek argues that when Extension finds itself competing with the private sector in programming, it's probably doing the wrong thing.4 In fact, one of Extension's important public roles is to support the development of a dynamic, innovative, and competitive private sector; for the public benefits that a well-functioning private sector yields. At the same time, the public educator's role is necessary precisely because private goals and actions aren't adequate to serve all the public's needs. Charges for interacting with Extension agents are incompatible with the public educator role. These charges restrict the free flow of information within the agricultural knowledge system and have the same effect as restricting access to research results. At the same time, Wolek defends Extension's use of nonprofit user fees,5 including charges to recover the costs of delivering information to individuals through publications, plant and animal diagnostic services, computer programs, conferences, workshops, and other means. Private Extension isn't an alternative to public Extension in matters related to the public interest. To paraphrase Breimyer, No private entity is charged with the responsibility to pursue the public interest, and none should be rebuked for failing to pursue it. Only public institutions have that responsibility.6 Conclusion Extension is a public investment in the ability of agriculture to voluntarily incorporate public goals. This isn't to suggest that Extension can completely replace regulation and control. However, public education offers an alternate way for society to pursue its interests with agriculture-be they greater productivity and competitiveness, reduced environmental impacts, increased rural employment, sustainability issues, or others. When Extension functions properly, agents of the public-who possess agricultural expertise-challenge and work with the industry to bring about change responsive to public interests, yet sensitive to the needs of agriculture. Lacking a credible public education capability to address its goals, the public can only resort to greater regulation and control. As the experiences of New Zealand and Tasmania demonstrate, surely public Extension, by being less intrusive and restricting, is more efficient in addressing public/private interest issues. Footnotes 1. R. P. Thompson, "Fees for Farmer Advisory Services," Journal of Australian Institute of Agricultural Science, LII (No. 2, 1986), 73-78. 2. Personal communication, I. J. Ritchie, acting national business manager, MAF Management Consultancy Services, July 13, 1992. 3. Personal communication, B. Koller, national business manager, MAF Management Consultancy Services, July 16, 1992. 4. F. W. Wolek, Cooperative Innovation: Key to a New Agriculture (Villanova, Pennsylvania: Villanova University, Center for Agricultural Commerce, 1989), pp. 15-17. 5. Ibid., pp. 54-55. 6. H. F. Breimyer, Economic and Marketing Information for Missouri Agriculture (Columbia, Missouri: Department of Agricultural Economics, September 1987).
Gaining International Experience Through Job Exchanges
Bill Rogers International experience is an excellent way to gain a new perspective about work, life, and your own country. However, it's not easy for county Extension agents to leave on a sabbatical. One way for agents to gain this overseas work experience while providing valuable service to home clients is to participate in a job exchange with an Extension worker from another country. The same Extension skills that lead to success in this country-curiosity, careful observation, and concern for other people-are skills needed to work in other countries. In some cases, agents may be able to offer a fresh perspective on troublesome problems or to identify problems local people have overlooked. Between October 1991 and January 1992, I exchanged jobs with an Extension officer in Victoria, Australia. On arriving, I visited with Park and Crown land managers, fish and wildlife agents, and planning officers, as well as Extension staff. By the end of the first month, I'd become quite familiar with many of the land management problems facing farmers. This allowed me to visit farmers on my own during the remainder of the time. My observations were summarized in a report shared with my Australian colleagues. I was also able to share information about the United States with individuals and groups of private landowners and public land managers. Before going on a job exchange, it's important to let home clients know what's going to happen. Other key preparations I made included scheduling volunteer Master Gardeners to help answer the common gardening questions that regularly come into our office, and contacting agents from surrounding counties to introduce the Australian Extension agent to local land management issues and help him answer technical questions if necessary. I also developed a notebook for him with the names of key local people to visit and a calendar of events to attend. While the exchange officer was here, he gave more than 20 presentations about Australia to service clubs and farm groups, as well as making many farm visits. The exchange became an event in which the whole community participated. I was the first agriculture or forestry Extension agent to participate in this job exchange program sponsored by the Oregon State University Extension Association, a professional organization of Extension educators. A formal agreement had been signed between Oregon State University and the Department of Conservation and Environment (DCE) in Victoria. This agreement was developed through the efforts of two Extension professionals who exchanged jobs through personal contact. I was paid my full salary by the university while in Australia and the Australian was paid by his government. It was interesting to work in an Extension organization not attached to a university. The DCE had a few specialists based at the main office in Melbourne. But most of the time, the Extension officers were on their own. They did their own research, wrote their own grants, and conducted field tours. Sometimes, there was a problem of credibility when inexperienced officers were given major assignments. Also, being attached to a large government bureaucracy created some public relations problems that the Extension Service in America has largely avoided. Both of us benefited from the international job exchange. We learned a great deal about life in each other's countries and each of us has taken new technical ideas back to our own clients. For example, I've shared information about how Australians protect forest homes from wildfires and how shelterbelts are used in forage systems. I've also provided information about dryland cropping research with campus specialists. In addition, I observed the Australians having fun at work. l plan to integrate this concept into my daily routine and share the concept of having fun with my colleagues.
Be Your Own Boss
James A. Buford, Jr. If Extension is to be an information-age organization, it must foster a climate of personal growth, entrepreneurship, and challenge to motivate agents and specialists-the real "bosses" in Extension. Although the traditional Extension management style falls short of creating this climate,1 we who are in fact the bosses in Extension can still create our own success. Common Complaints Let's first examine our common complaints. We attend too many meetings, make too many reports, and are diverted from our important work in conducting Extension programs. To make matters worse, our supervisors never go along with our creative ideas and support only activities that are part of the approved Extension routine. Their motto is, "Never do anything for the first time." And finally, there's never enough money. But if we're honest, we'll admit that we protest too much. Total all the time spent in meetings, doing paperwork, and other administrative trivia and the hours just don't add up. It's the converse of "time flies when you're having fun." We really spent a few hours on meeting and reports-it just seems longer. And what about our innovative ideas? The truth is that we tend to carry out programs in the old familiar way, covering our backsides and avoiding taking initiatives that have a significant risk of failure. Our view of administrators as people who can't (or won't) make a decision to do something a little differently contains a certain amount of truth and a lot of stereotyping. The fact is, most of them are like us. You can put a county agent in a carpeted office with a row of buttons on the telephone, but you still have a county agent. Changing Ourselves As Extension professionals, we're highly skilled in identifying and solving problems in our external environment (with clientele). This is very important; it's not enough. To continue to be a force for change, we must also reflect critically on our own behavior, identify the ways we contribute to our organization's problems, and change how we act. This we do poorly, if at all. Management expert Chris Argyris calls the problem "single-loop learning."2 He suggests highly skilled professionals are good at single-loop learning because they have spent their lives in acquiring degrees, mastering subject matter, and applying it in the real world. Because they're so successful, they rarely experience failure. Thus, they don't learn from failure. Whenever their single-loop learning strategy fails, they become defensive, screen out criticism, and blame everyone but themselves. Their ability to learn shuts down at the very moment it's needed, diverting their attention and creative energy from vital targets. They begin to respond to the needs of "internal customers," such as administrators, co-workers, or, in some cases, their own personal agendas rather than organizational goals. But the success of any organization has been, and will be, judged by the external customers; in Extension, it's our clientele.3 Be Your Own Boss Management writers are often asked: "Did you come here with the solution or are you part of the problem?" To that question, my answer is "yes." What follows is a list of precepts gleaned from research, co-workers, and other organizations. Some may be hard to swallow, but if you really want t | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
