Interdependence Models

In 1991, Astroth cited Extension's need to bolster genuine collaboration with other agencies, concluding this requires not only effort and commitment, but also conceptual models to guide Extension toward building collaboration.1 New models are essential, as is the need to abandon existing conceptual models that keep Extension from achieving closer working relationships with other public sector agencies and private sector organizations. Collaboration between Extension and other entities requires common understandings and expectations regarding the processes by which Extension develops programs and the roles it performs in resolving public issues and clientele problems. Yet, Extension often sees its program development processes and roles differently than do other agencies and organizations that are potential collaborators. This article describes how "research- transfer" and "adult education" program models are barriers to closer working relationships among Extension and other agencies and organizations, and suggests the use of an interdependence model.

Potential collaborators outside Extension, such as research faculty, public policymakers, public/private sector coordinating councils, and industry, generally use research-transfer models to characterize Extension roles and relationships in the generation and adoption of technologies and practices. Research-transfer models first consider research agency/industry actions and outputs and then consider Extension actions and outputs. Examples of research-transfer models can be found in Feller,2 Holt,3 Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences,4 and Office of Technology Assessment.5

Faculty and administrators within Extension generally characterize Extension roles through the use of adult education models. These models first cite Extension actions, then note research agency/industry contributions to the subject-matter content of Extension programs, and follow with further consideration of Extension actions and outputs aimed at user adoption of technologies and practices as well as education of users. Adult education models are reflected in works by Boone,6 Committee on the Future of Extension, USDA-NASULGC,7 McKenna,8 and Warner and Christenson.9 Extension "issues programming," as advanced by Dalgaard,10 for example, also fits an adult education model. Although issues programming promotes interagency cooperation and collaboration, it identifies only Extension roles rather than also citing the related roles of other types of public agencies and private organizations.

Interdependence models have been used to describe farming systems research and Extension and are advocated as a means of improving relationships among Extension and related entities. Interdependence models consider: (1) the concurrent actions and outputs of Extension, research agencies, industry, and intermediate users as well as end users of practices and technologies and (2) these five elements' continuous mutual dependencies in the generation and adoption of technologies and practices, plus the education of users. Interdependence models have been used in publications by Beal,11 Bennett,12 Lipman- Blumen and Schram,13 Marshall and Summers,14 and Meyers.15

Table 1 summarizes the roles of Extension as characterized by the three categories of models. The categories are broad so not every model placed in a category shares all its general characteristics. By comparison, Table 1 shows that interdependence models, as a family of models, include a broader scope of program development processes and roles of Extension than research-transfer models or adult education models.

If Extension is to effectively collaborate with other agencies and organizations, then their respective leaders, policymakers, public/private sector coordinating councils, and legislators need to fully understand Extension program development processes and roles relative to those of other agencies, organizations, and the public. Research-transfer models and adult education models both limit understanding of the processes and roles of Extension in an interorganizational context. Interdependence models are more helpful because they include all of the following characteristics of Extension:

• Extension bases its programs on a variety of assessments of needs and resources. These include assessments by Extension advisory councils, strategic planning committees, and legislative mandates; research agency and industry information; and information that isn't necessarily research based. Such "nonresearch information" includes, for example, the implications of federal, state, and local regulations; statutory-based economic incentives; commodity marketing or farm credit opportunities; and public policy issues. According to research- transfer models, Extension bases its programs simply on the outputs of research agencies and industry.

• Extension conducts applied research as necessary and feasible. Whenever available practices or technologies aren't sufficiently user-oriented, Extension may conduct the applied research needed to adapt to site-specific conditions. Adult education models omit that Extension may conduct applied research on practices and technologies before transferring information about them to users.

• Extension disseminates information and recommendations about the adoption of specific practices and technologies by users.

• Extension influences research agencies and industry by conveying to them users' evaluations of their outputs and users' views of needs for further research and development of technologies and practices. In adult education models, Extension's influence on research and development staffs in research agencies and industrial firms is overlooked.

• Extension educates users of technologies and practices and other clientele. Extension goes beyond the role of transferring information and making recommendations about the adoption of specific technologies and practices. Extension nonformal education, like education in general, helps people make "enlightened decisions" by enabling them to employ effective processes and scientific or other accepted principles in decision making.16 Understanding basic principles and processes can help people assess the level of payoff and/or risk in adopting or not adopting specific practices and technologies. Research-transfer models omit Extension's role in educating users, thus ignoring its role in strengthening clientele decision-making processes.

Interdependence models combine the perspectives of Extension held by research-transfer and adult education models. In combining these, interdependence models provide a more comprehensive perspective of Extension processes and roles than provided by either research-transfer or adult education models. Thus, interdependence models help to resolve conflicting understandings and expectations about Extension processes and roles by articulating a new, overarching view of them. Use of interdependence models can build common understandings and expectations concerning Extension processes and roles. Extension is advised to invite other agencies and organizations, public policy-makers, and legislators to use interdependence models. This not only should improve cooperation and collaboration among Extension and other public agencies and the private sector, but also should help build broader support for Extension.

1. K. A. Astroth, "Getting Serious About Strategic Alliances," Journal of Extension, XXIX (Fall 1991), 8-10.

2. I. Feller and others, The Agricultural Technology Delivery System (State College: The Pennsylvania State University, Institute for Policy Research and Evaluation, 1984), pp. 223-24.

3. D. Holt, A Conceptual Model of Information Flow in Agricultural Research and Development (Champaign-Urbana: University of Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station, 1986).

4. Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences, Five-Year Plan for the Food and Agricultural Sciences: A Report to the Secretary of Agriculture (Washington, D.C.: USDA, 1986), p. 5.

5. Office of Technology Assessment, Technology, Public Policy, and the Changing Structure of American Agriculture (Washington, D.C.: Congress of the United States, 1986), pp. 69-74.,

6. E. J. Boone, Developing Programs in Adult Education (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1985), pp. 130-32, 216-17.

7. Committee on the Future of Extension, Extension in the '80s (Madison: University of Wisconsin-Extension, 1983).

8. C. McKenna, "Cooperative Extension System: A Case in Point," in Planning Adult Learning: Issues, Practices and Directions, W. M. Rivera, ed. (London, England: Croom Helm Ltd., 1987), pp. 85- 105.

9. P. W. Warner and J. A. Christenson, The Cooperative Extension Service: A National Assessment (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1984), pp. 32-40.

10. K. A. Dalgaard and others, Issues Programming in Extension (St. Paul: Minnesota Extension Service and ES-USDA, 1988).

11. G. M. Beal, Farming Systems Research and Development (Honolulu: University of Hawaii, East-West Center, 1982), pp. 17- 45.

12. C. F. Bennett, Cooperative Extension Roles and Relationships for a New Era (Washington, D.C.: National Technical Information Service, 1990), pp. xv, 6-10, 21-59, 75-83, 149-54.

13. J. Lipman-Blumen and S. Schram, The Paradox of Success: The Impact of Priority Setting in Agricultural Research and Extension (Washington, D.C.: Science and Education Administration, USDA, 1984), pp. iii-6, vi-10, 11, 17-22.

14. H. P. Marshall and J. C. Summers, Strengthening the Research Base for Extension (Morgantown, West Virginia: Extension Service, USDA, cooperating with West Virginia Cooperative Extension Service and Missouri Cooperative Extension Service, 1985), pp. 2- 4.

15. J. M. Meyers, "Technology Development, Technology Transfer: Rethinking the Agricultural Extension Model," in Technology Transfer Society International Symposium Proceedings, Wayne Seden and Scott Taper, eds. (Los Angeles, California: Technology Transfer Society, 1985), pp. 189-99.

16. P. G. Boyle, Planning Better Programs (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1981), pp. 28-29 and Office of Technology Assessment, Technology and the American Economic Transition: Choices for the Future-Summary (Washington, D.C.: Congress of the United States, 1988), p. 34.

This article is online at http://www.joe.org/joe/1993summer/a8.html.

Copyright © by Extension Journal, Inc. ISSN 1077-5315. Articles appearing in the Journal become the property of the Journal. Single copies of articles may be reproduced in electronic or print form for use in educational or training activities. Inclusion of articles in other publications, electronic sources, or systematic large-scale distribution may be done only with prior electronic or written permission of the Journal Editorial Office, joe-ed@joe.org.