Volume 35, Number 5
|
October 1997 Volume 35, Number 5 |
|
|
Editor's PageDear Reader, A variety of topics in this issue to tempt your curiosity. Some deal with the new technology that fascinates us while we wonder how to use it. Cornell authors offer some insight. Others ask the question if Extension should move in slightly different directions. At the same time, other authors are reminding us of some basic Extension principles that most of us know, but sometimes forget (and others may not know), such as diffusion theory and using Delphi to help look into the future. We are also reminded that nothing replaces the human touch in a report about an intergenerational program in Missouri. As we near the end of 1997, it's time for the Journal to issue its annual call for volunteers to serve as reviewers of your peer reviewed Journal. We will have several openings at the end of the year. If you are interested, contact Tom Archer, Ohio, chair of the editorial committee, archer.3@osu.edu, or the editor, and let your interest be known. Enjoy the issue and Happy Thanksgiving to you all. Len Calvert, editor
Extension Journal, Inc.Extension 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. Board of Directors:
Sorrel Brown, President, Iowa, North Central Directors
Ex-officio:
Leonard Calvert, Oregon, Editor
Editorial Committee:
Joyce Alves, Arizona
Opportunities for Cooperative Extension and Local Communities in the Information AgeDaniel J. Tennessen
Steven PonTell
Van Romine
Suzanne W. Motheral
The information age and its supporting technologies, such as the Internet and other digital tools, has enabled work and learning to occur during time periods and in locations based upon individual needs. With millions of Internet subscribers using email and the World Wide Web (WWW), the Internet is now considered a mass media. Individuals may soon consider such electronic connectivity as essential in daily living. Communities recognizing and adapting to these changing needs will be competitive in the information age. Utilization of Internet technology may attract or retain individuals who work or learn remotely (locations distant from institutions or office buildings). It may also increase the global market potential of local goods and services. Finally, it may facilitate delivery of educational programs to youth and adults at workplaces, homes, and schools in remote locations. For these reasons, a major benefit of the multi-billion dollar Internet system may go to small communities that have organizational infrastructure and leadership to capitalize on the technology. Potentially, small communities may prosper by adapting to, and utilizing, digital technologies to break down some of the spatial and temporal barriers that have limited their access to information and resources in the past. The paradox here is that many of these communities potentially benefiting from this new technology may currently lack sufficient economic and technological resources and a holistic vision of how to access and use the Internet for their local educational and commercial needs. This paper details the opportunities for Cooperative Extension (CE) and their local communities in the information age.
The Internet community is seldom thought of as a local community because people can come and go from many locations and at any time. But people who work or learn on the Internet presumably live in a local community, need its services, and contribute to its tax base. People require Internet resources in their local community so that they can access and benefit from work or learning opportunities on the Internet. For work, some employers are enabling their employees to work at home via the Internet. The corporation saves money because it no longer owns, maintains, or staffs a regional office and avoids metropolitan taxes. The employee works from home or other convenient locations and avoids the problems of commuting or living with metropolitan congestion. Companies like International Business Machines and Digital Equipment Corporation have ventured into the "mobile workplace" which allows employees to live in towns they choose, versus towns where the company is located (Becker & Tennessen, 1995; Becker, Quinn, & Callentine, 1994). Accessibility to higher education, training, and life-long learning will be desired by workers and consumers in this technological age. Knowledge is considered "the primary resource" (Drucker, 1995) for us and our economy. Therefore, it is important for communities to gain access to knowledge and information based on local needs. Like work in a virtual corporation, learning can become less associated with an actual facility and more with ideas, information, and the application of knowledge. The Internet can play a pivotal role in distance education and preparation of the US workforce. For example, the WWW allows novice computer users to easily access text, audio, and graphics. The information is based on what the worker or learner needs, providing the user is familiar with the technology. Because information is linked together, the WWW acts like a comprehensive concept map containing bits of information and knowledge linked together by key words and phrases into an open-ended learning resource. In this way, learning subject matter could be specifically linked and tailored to community, industry, or individual needs for education and workforce preparation. As an educational medium, the Internet is an unprecedented form of educational delivery because it is interactive and responsive to individual needs and provides multimedia information on-demand (unlike remote television or local classroom education). With the ability to access and use the Internet, any community member has the opportunity to conveniently tap resources available through the WWW as a form of 'just-in-time' education where employees seek information as needed. Timely access to information will improve individual and community competitiveness in a technological world. Local communities can enable their citizens to work and learn on the Internet. Pontell and Murphy (1996) called for communities to form network alliances that work together to benefit from distant educational and commercial resources. They defined such a local community, termed SMARTCommunityTM, as any group of individuals, organizations and institutions located in the same area that have made a conscious effort to employ information technology to transform a major portion of their region. These different community groups benefit from the Internet resources by working together to financially afford, access, and apply knowledge of the Internet to their lives. In summary, local communities need to 'bring people together to put knowledge to work' -- a saying long used by the Cooperative Extension system.
There are tremendous opportunities for Cooperative Extension (CE) on the Internet. These opportunities are for improved functionality of the CE system, and new opportunities for communities that sustain the CE system. With information age changes in work and learning tools, methods, and needs, CE must recognize the evolving needs of local stakeholders in their communities. Many local CE offices may find a new role in facilitating community Internet development as part of its greater role in community outreach and life-long education. For county and state CE leaders to effectively facilitate community use of Internet and digital technologies, CE itself must better utilize these tools. Local and state CE leaders should evaluate the new and emerging tools of the Internet to improve their own functionality. By doing so, county CE offices could benefit dramatically from more extensive use of the Internet. For example, CE educators and their audiences need convenient access to a wide range of scientific publications. Such publications are costly to print and take up valuable storage space (Jones, 1990). Additionally, electronic publications reduce the dissemination of out-of-date information (Shaffer & Hussey, 1992). Dynamic information (such as pesticide information) needs to be updated often and delivered quickly to county offices from research centers. This information could be supplied via Internet PDF (printable document format) that enable printing of timely, high quality bulletins, newsletters, and research articles, as needed by the user. The Internet enables electronic publication of documents which are not in print due to low forecasted demand. Copies of newsletters can be reviewed, bookmarked for later reference, or printed by those who need the information. Some CE offices already benefit from use of the Internet to move drafts and documents between communities, industry, and academia by way of file transfer protocol (FTP) or as attachments to email messages. This transfer of documents is nearly instantaneous, and requires no postage or paper. The Internet should also improve communication between groups. Because higher status individuals and males tend to dominate face-to-face discussions while electronic communication tends to minimize these influences (Becker, Tennessen, & Young, 1995 and references within), email may enable some individuals to more easily let others know their feelings on sensitive topics (Herr & Parsons, 1995; Becker, Tennessen, & Young, 1995). Although email might promote input from a broader cross-section of our Extension community, CE should find ways to enable individuals who do not use email to remain informed. Like the CE system, local communities could enhance their productivity by utilizing information and resources available on the Internet. Local communities can work with CE to achieve local Internet awareness and access. CE education programs are generally based on individual and local needs and therefore could be enhanced with the Internet. Through the Internet, information exchange forums can be accomplished via bulletin boards, listservs, and through "chat" rooms such as an electronic coffee shop, such used by Agriculture Online (Meredith Corp., 1997), where farmers exchange information. The Internet is already being used to enhance learning in some K-12 and college classrooms (Singletary & Jordan, 1996). Why not use it for local youth clubs who want to study world agriculture or world politics. Clubs can enrich any local library's holdings on a wide variety of topics by use of the Internet. The learner can easily move beyond the initial subject into related subjects such as international affairs or trade. This method of learning can go beyond a specific course or seminar that is limited by time and by scope of the teacher or presenter and is well matched to needs of non-formal learners who have a specific question to ask or a specific need or application of knowledge. The information exchange can go both ways because surveys, tests, and evaluation tools can be administered via the Internet. Unlike remote universities or colleges, the Internet can provide a form of just-in-time knowledge to deal with on-going local government, industry, or community problems. The Internet could be better utilized by local communities if community members knew where to find Internet access and how to use and evaluate Internet information. Local CE offices and local communities will need to find human and financial resources, infrastructure, and a critical mass of people interested in the Internet to fully develop an Internet community. A strategy such as an Internet consortium, as described in Pooling resources in the information age (Tennessen et al., this issue) may help to stimulate interest and achieve Internet access in remote locations. Access to this rich and varied electronic information may be critical for local communities to keep pace in the global economy. On the other hand, these work and learning resources may potentially widen the technology and information gap between communities instead of diminishing it. Local CE offices that are not functional with the Internet, and its supporting digital technologies, may be less competitive and less capable of leading local communities in the information age.
Location is becoming less important as people live, play, work, learn, and govern remotely, using the Internet. One company has successfully established 20,000 of its employees in electronic offices at remote hometown locations (Becker, Quinn, & Callentine, 1994). For corporations, the employee's functionality will become more important than their physical proximity (Becker, Quinn, & Callentine, 1994). While many businesses may soon consider location of their electronically connected employees as secondary, those employees will be looking for a place to live that enables Internet access and functionality. Location may, in fact, become an asset of small communities because decisions on residency in the information age may be based on quality environments in which to live, rather than based primarily on transportation and employment opportunities. Individuals may be more likely attracted to relocate to those communities with better Internet access. And individuals who presently commute may be forced to telecommute in the advent of an energy crisis. These employees can be a valuable asset to small communities. The information age and the Internet may broaden the criteria for where people live, work, and play. In this way, the Internet may become part of the economic engine of small towns and communities. These communities will need to assess and pool their resources and learn how to use the Internet for local needs -- initiatives well suited for the CE system. By facilitating synergistic Internet alliances in small communities that enable local access and better utilization the Internet for work and learning, the CE system will partly fulfill its mission of "enabling people to improve their lives and communities through learning partnerships that put knowledge to work" (Anderson, et al., 1995). Town participation on the Internet electronic highway has been described as being as economically important as getting on the railroad was in the early part of this century (Pontell & Murphy, 1996). In this respect, perhaps computer hardware and Internet access may become more important and cost effective than the CE's county car.
Anderson, C.L., Bloome, P., Bottum, J., Lee, I., Moore, L., Obrien, S., Shimel, B., & Stone, T. (1995). Framing the future - Strategic framework for a system of partnerships. Washington: Extension Committee on Organization and Policy and Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. Becker, F., Quinn, L.K., & Callentine, L.U. (1994). The ecology of the mobile worker. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, International Workplace Studies Program. Becker, F. & Tennessen, C.M. (1995). Social connectivity and the mobile workplace. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, International Workplace Studies Program. Becker, F., Tennessen, C.M., & Young, D. (1995). Information technology for workplace communication. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, International Workplace Studies Program, Cornell University. Drucker, P.F. (1995). Managing in a time of great change. New York City: Truman Talley Books/Dutton. Herr, L.M., & Parsons, J.M. (1995). Case study using the Internet to teach communication skills to the novice. NACTA Journal, 39,9-12. Jones, P. (1990). Producing a CD-ROM: preparation of Extension publications. CD-ROM EndUser, 2,14-16. Meredith Corporation (1997). Coffee Shop. Agriculture Online, http://www.agriculture.com/ PonTell, S., & Murphy, P.S., (1996). Guidebook for SMARTCommunitiesTM. Ontario, CA: Center for the new west. Shaffer, D.L., & Hussey, G.A. (1992). PENpages: Sharing agriculture and Extension information internationally through the Internet. Quarterly Bulletin International Association Agricultural Information Specialists, 37:97-101. Singletary, T.J., & Jordan, J.R., (1996). Exploring the globe: Collecting and sharing data to make a difference. Science Teacher, 63,36-39. Tennessen, D.J., PonTell, S., Romine, V., Motheral, S. W., (1997) Pooling resources in the information age, Journal of Extension, 35,5.
Manufacturing Extension: A Role for CES?Theodore J. Maher
Michael P. Spencer
Extension as an educational mode was hotly debated in many quarters during the late 1800s. In the early part of this century Seaman Knapp, president of Iowa State University and a coalition of other agricultural colleges were instrumental in creating a unique and enduring partnership of cooperative effort among Federal, state, and local governments that came to be known as the Cooperative Extension System (CES). Over the years, CES has developed a large and faithful following. Representative Vernon J. Ehlers (R-MI), vice chairman of the house committee dealing with Science (and the Department of Commerce) has said (Ehlers, 1996): "One of the best mechanisms that we have experienced in this nation for transfer of knowledge from basic science to the workplace is one that has worked well for over a century, the Cooperative Extension Service at agricultural land-grant universities. Michigan State University, in my state, when they discover something new in the agricultural laboratories, the farmers are using it in the field within a year." This original orientation to educate agricultural producers has been subject to a number of pressures, most significantly the decline in the number of farms and ranches, and the changing profile of individuals and families whose principal source of income is in production agriculture. Other factors influencing the direction and focus of CES include the changing demographics of "rural" areas, and increasing demand in urban areas for educational services similar to those provided in rural areas. In 1987 CES reformulated its statement of purpose to stress its role in helping "people improve their lives through an educational process that uses scientific information to address issues and needs" (USDA, 1993). This statement, unbounded as it is by discipline, audience, or geography, leaves open the question of who, primarily, CES should serve. In today's context, some have asked whether state and local Extension services should continue to draw primarily from the research and programs of the colleges of agriculture or, instead, become a conduit for the research and programs of the entire university (NRC, 1995a). Traditionally, the academic side of CES is usually associated with the college of agriculture at the land-grant university, but more recently there has been movement toward positioning the Director of Extension as a "university wide" resource not tied to any particular academic department (NRC 1996). Iowa State University (Iowa, 1991), for example, has integrated CES into a single university-wide extension organization. USDA supports CES through base funding (e.g. Smith-Lever funds) and specified programs. 1996 Federal appropriations for Extension activities totaled $428 million. 1997 appropriations are $426 million and estimated 1998 appropriations are $417 (CSREES, 1997).
Contemporaneously with the origins of CES many public and private universities experimented with programs devoted to systematic and sustained educational services for adult part-time learners Today, university extension is often viewed by its proponents as a "third" function of a university following research and the instruction of on-campus students. There are, of course, many forms of university extension including off-campus courses, evening classes, correspondence courses, demonstration projects, conferences, institutes, and individual consultations. In 1988 (OMNI, 1998), Congress directed the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to begin helping the nation's smaller manufacturers to adopt and apply performance- improving technologies as demanded by intensifying domestic and global competition in manufacturing. NIST, with cooperating state and local organizations, established a handful of regional Manufacturing Technology Centers (MTCs) that provided a range of hands-on technical assistance to companies. NIST also initiated the State Technology Extension Program (STEP) that provides grants to help states to build their own infrastructure for industrial outreach services. The MTCs and STEP were combined into the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) in 1993. The MEP goal is to establish 100 manufacturing centers nationwide by 1997 to assist small and medium sized manufacturers in modernizing their production capability (EPA). Manufacturing Technology Centers are non-profit organizations that serve as the focal point for delivering services to smaller manufacturers. These centers are partnerships that typically involve state and federal governments; industry; educational institutions; and other sources of expertise, information and funding support. The center may or may not be formally associated with a specific academic institution. The centers also may assist companies with workforce training, workplace organization, business systems, marketing, or financing issues by working with other federal, state, or local organizations (EPA). The State Technology Extension Program works with states to develop coordinated manufacturing extension and modernization programs to serve the competitive needs of small and medium-sized businesses. MEP's Links is a coordinated service, technology, and information infrastructure designed to provide tools and resources that can serve its manufacturing extension efforts nationwide. In addition, Links will bring manufacturing-related information, databases, and sources of technology to extension centers and manufacturing companies. Federal funding for the Manufacturing Extension partnership was $113 million in 1996 and is estimated to be at $98 million in 1997 and $123 million in 1998 (Budget).
CES Base Programs, special funds, and the National Initiatives represent CES's commitment to respond to important societal issues of broad national concern. Extension staff are allocated to program areas generally in accordance with local needs. However, the specific assignments are also constrained by the requirements of base programs or special congressionally mandated purposes (NRC, 1995b). MEP extension centers are designed to help link sources of improved manufacturing technology and the small and mid-sized companies that need it. Broadly, this includes helping manufacturers assess their current technology and business needs, defining avenues for change, and implementing improvements. Working with other federal, state, or local organizations, many centers also assist companies with quality management (ISO 9000), workforce training, workplace organization, business systems, marketing, or financial issues.
While farming was and remains important as a source of jobs and income in many rural areas and is the largest single user of rural land, it is no longer the dominant rural industry it once was, nor will it likely be again. In 1990, 58 percent of U.S. farm operator households received wages and salary (averaging nearly $30,000 per reporting household) from off-farm employment. For example, one or more household members might work at a manufacturing plant, telemarketing office, or in retail trade (ERS, 1995a). Manufacturing is a major provider of both rural jobs and income, providing jobs for nearly 17 percent of the rural workforce and employing more people than farming, agricultural services, forestry, fishing, and mining combined. Manufacturing also provides roughly a quarter of all rural earnings (ERS, 1995b). A barrier to the competitiveness of rural areas for developing higher skill, higher wage, and higher productivity manufacturing appears to be the effects of rurality: isolation, an absence of economies of scale, and few agglomeration economies. One approach to reducing the costs of rurality would be to connect rural firms and entrepreneurs to nodes of information, innovation, and finance, and to increase their access to growing global markets. An industrial extension program, similar to the one that has helped the agriculture industry, is one model for delivering such support (ERS, 1993).
Given all the players in the university system and other organizations, are there niches for CES to undertake complementary and collaborative outreach programs? There are several "ifs:"
CES is on record in support of educational programs that promote economic diversification, rural revitalization, and community development including business (non-agricultural) retention and expansion, and entrepreneurial start-ups (Note 1). Non-farm income is an important issue in many states. CES represents a fully developed outreach mechanism with first-hand knowledge of the private sector, particularly in rural areas. It encompasses knowledge of system behavior, institutional factors both favorable and adverse, and the opportunities for linking research with the technical needs of business.
Suspended between its past education role in rural and urban America, particularly in agriculture, and its' currently ambiguous status in the industrial extension discussion, CES occupies a position that requires a good deal of self-examination and role definition. CES has demonstrated at least five possible approaches to rural manufacturing assistance. Brokering County, area agents, and state specialists can respond to technical problems of small firms and relay those needs to public and private resources, including universities, federal laboratories, and private consulting firms. This mode is currently being used by the Auburn University CES in cooperation with MEP. Problem Identification A generalist or specialist can assist in helping to assess needs and define problems. A current example is Oklahoma State University where specialists from CES, in collaboration with the School of Engineering, are providing technical assistance on a regional basis to the food processing industry. Information Exchange In the same way that county agents have provided agriculture - related information to agricultural producers, they could provide technical information to small manufacturing establishments (SME's) generally. Based on needs identified and assembled by county agents or state specialists, Extension could tap into the proliferation of information systems that exists on state and national levels. Opportunities for collaboration abound. Problem Solving In this mode, the Extension System could help companies, either individually or in networks, to solve technical problems related to products, production processes, system integration, or management. One possibility is to convert a portion of effort by CES agricultural engineers in support of non-agriculture related SME's. Support Services Some institutions provide SME's with direct support services such as training, export assistance, financial management, and strategic planning. A potential support service role for CES is invention evaluation. Collaborative relationships are possible between CES and NIST in support local inventors with technical evaluation, business commercialization plans, and intellectual property management. Note 1: Urban manufacturers may also be relevant to CES. They are certainly relevant to the general scientific/research community at all large universities. In any event, Food Scientists and Foresters (of the Schools of Agriculture and/or Forestry) are frequently called upon for technical support by urban food and fiber processors.
Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1997-98, p 287. Available online: http://www.gpo.ucop.edu/search/budget97.html Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Servicen (1997), Budget and Current Funding Authorizations, Available online: http://www.reeusda.gov/new/budget/webfund.htm (Note: As of May 3, 2001 this web page is no longer available) Ehlers, V.J. (1996). A Scientist in Congress Looks at Science Policy. In A.H. Teich, S.D.Nelson, C. McEnaney, (Eds.), Science and Technology Policy Yearbook (p. 74), Washington, DC American Association for the Advancement of Science. EPA, Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP). US Environmental Protection Agency. Available online: http://es.inel.gov/program/p2dept/commerce/mep.html (Note : As of May 3,2001 this web page is no longer available) ERS, (1993) "Rural Manufacturing Links to Rural Development". Economic Research Service, Agriculture Information Bulletin Number 664-52, July 1993, Washington, D.C. ERS, (1995a). "Understanding Rural America", Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, p. 4 Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 710, Washington, D.C. Available online: http://ceres.esusda.gov/ruralcon/backgrnd/02ram/2r-amer.htm (Note : As of May 3,2001 this web page is no longer available) ERS, (1995b). "Understanding Rural America", Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, p. 5 Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 710, Washington, DC. Available online: http://ceres.esusda.gov/ruralcon/backgrnd/02ram/2r-amer.htm (Note : As of May 3,2001 this web page is no longer available) Iowa, (1991). Iowa State University, "Cooperative Extension Work in Iowa and Provisions of the County Extension Law", Iowa State University Extension Publication I(RMA)1 / revised September 1991. Excerpts available online: Extension Service: A Historical Perspective, http://www.exnet.iastate.edu/General/history.html NRC, (1995a). National Research Council, Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. NRC, (1995b). National Research Council, Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile, page 73, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. NRC, (1996). National Research Council, Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: Public Service and Public Policy, National Acadamy Press, Washington, D.C. OMNI, (1988). The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 USDA (1993), Strategic Directions of the Cooperative Extension System, U.S. Department of Agriculture Publication, November 1993, Washington, DC. Available: http://ceres.esusda.gov/mission/str-dirs/str-1.htm (Note : As of May 3,2001 this web page is no longer available)
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Adopting a GIS in the Extension Service: Evidence from the Cooperative Extension Service at Mississippi State UniversityJoselito K. Estrada
James R. Steil
In this age of the information superhighway, not a day goes by without hearing of new information technologies that can make our decision making or issues-programming tasks easier and more efficient. Reactions to these technologies are varied. At times, incorporation of emerging technologies is precluded by our ever- shrinking budgets. When funds are available, we have to justify whether the returns on this investment outweigh the cost of purchasing, learning, and applying the new technology. The purpose of this paper is to provide an evaluation of the effectiveness of incorporating geographic information system (GIS) technology into the issues-programming responsibilities of Extension specialists and agents. The means of evaluating effective incorporation is by measuring the use of GIS by specialists and agents in the major areas of programming (MAPs) in the Cooperative Extension Service at Mississippi State University. A GIS is composed of computer hardware, software and spatially referenced data (Environmental Systems Research Institute, 1990). It has the capability to store, manage, retrieve, and perform analysis on data. The unique feature of GIS is its ability to link spatially referenced geometric data (e.g. points, lines, polygons, and topology) with tabular attribute data. Tabular attribute data may include any information related to spatial geometric data, for example, well depth or chloride concentrations (points), road names or maintenance records (lines), and bushels per acre or census tract information (polygons). GIS displays this information in the map form.
In 1993, the GIS unit was brought under the aegis of the Enterprise and Community Resource Development program area (ECRD) of Mississippi State University's Cooperative Extension Service. It has been ECRD's mission to provide Mississippians with technical assistance and educational programs that develop and strengthen rural communities, agribusiness, governmental effectiveness, and environmental awareness (McGilberry, 1996). The Extension Service administration envisioned GIS's potential support role not only to ECRD but also to other program areas within the Extension Service: Agriculture and Natural Resources (ANR), Family and Consumer Education (FCE), and 4-H/Youth Development (4-H). To maximize the use of GIS within the Extension Service, time and effort were put into learning how specialists and agents could use GIS. Extension GIS specialists held meetings and information exchange sessions with state program leaders, specialists, and agents working in the four MAPs. Sample GIS map products were produced to illustrate some possible applications in each program area. Resources were used to reach out to other university and governmental organizations. Extension GIS specialists provided technical assistance and educational programs to federal, state, and county agencies such as the USDA, the Mississippi Department of Economic and Community Development (MDECD), and county Extension offices. One of these educational programs was the development of Mississippi's Rural Empowerment Zone (EZ) and Rural Enterprise Community (EC) maps for the USDA. These maps have aided federal officials in implementing and monitoring the EZ/EC program in Mississippi. Extension GIS specialists assisted MDECD planners and analysts in developing site selection plans for industrial clients interested in expanding or locating new operations in the state. Extension GIS worked with Extension home economists in urban Mississippi counties to assess the feasibility of establishing local child day care facilities.
There are numerous examples of how GIS has assisted Extension personnel in programming efforts. Rather than listing and evaluating impacts on an individual basis, a summary of map production and hours worked by organization for calendar years 1995 and 1996 is presented in the following table.
The summary table shows that roughly 48 percent of the Extension GIS Unit's map production was in support of ECRD's programming efforts. GIS assistance ranged from the identification of potential dry-hydrant locations for rural fire protection to the mapping of transportation, energy, and hydrography networks for emergency management needs (McGilberry, 1996). Over 90 percent of Extension GIS's time was devoted to developing maps and applications for state and local government agencies, university academic departments, and Extension offices. University academic departments requested maps for research and teaching. County Extension agents, in particular Extension home economists, used GIS services in their programming efforts. These maps dealt with issues facing Mississippi families such as health care, poverty, and child day care. Extension Service administrators have used GIS as a budget and staffing tool. GIS maps have been used to show elected officials and state legislators where in their respective districts Extension Service programs have been implemented, demonstrating the accomplishments and importance of the Extension Service in these locations. Determination of county staffing needs has been streamlined by using GIS technology. State leaders defined and weighted the criteria important to program implementation and used GIS to objectively prioritize the results for decision makers.
Has the incorporation of GIS into the issues-programming efforts of the Cooperative Extension Service been effective? In terms of the statistical information presented above, it is clear that specialists and agents in the major areas of programming have found many valuable uses for the technology. Through educational and information sharing sessions GIS specialists and other Extension personnel have developed Extension programs utilizing GIS as a program needs assessment and program monitoring tool. The real test of GIS's effectiveness in the Extension Service is whether its use has benefitted clients. To measure the benefit to clients, the Extension GIS Unit developed a questionnaire. Each client who receives a map product is asked to assess the impact of GIS technology to the project. An analysis of clients' responses is currently under study.
Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (1990). Understanding GIS: The Arc/Info Method. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute. McGilberry, J. H. (1996), Enterprise and community resource development: 1995 Program highlights. (Publication 2066). Mississippi State: Mississippi State University Cooperative Extension Service.
If It Sells Soap It Can Help Sell Innovations: A Useful Lesson from MarketingThomas J. Bierma
Frank L. Waterstraat
Grear Kimmel
Paul Nowak, Jr.
Getting small businesses to adopt new ideas is largely a task in marketing. The "customer" will "buy" the new idea if it meets a need at the right "price." The greater the perceived need and the lower the perceived price, the more rapidly the customer will adopt the new idea. This is the challenge in promoting new ideas to small businesses. In this paper we present a practical tool to sort out your customers and target your marketing approach. We use several concepts from Diffusion of Innovation theory, as well as a number of other practices from commercial marketing. Waste minimization technology is used as an example "product" that a Cooperative Extension Service program may be marketing to small businesses.
The profession of commercial marketing has developed a number of highly successful tools and ideas for understanding the customer's needs and developing a product to meet those needs. One of the greatest developments in marketing was the recognition that not all customers are the same. Potential customers can be grouped in several ways which improve our understanding of them, and our ability to market to them. "Market segmentation" is the ability to segment your market into various groups, each of which can be provided with a unique product or communication to directly address their needs. Take automobiles, for example. Manufacturers recognize that one segment of the market is looking for safety, one for fuel economy and dependability, and one for performance. They may address this need through producing different products or through communications which emphasize these different aspects of one product. There are many potentially useful ways to segment a market. "Innovativeness" and "Stage in the buying process" are two segmentation strategies which can provide some valuable insights into marketing to small businesses.
Not all individuals adopt a new product at the same time; some will adopt very quickly; others will adopt much later. This personal characteristic is "innovativeness," that is the degree to which an individual adopts a new product (innovation) early relative to other potential customers. Innovativeness is a key concept in understanding the diffusion of innovations through a population (Rogers, 1995). Marketing typically recognizes five categories, from "Innovators" who adopt new innovations rapidly even though they are risky, to "Laggards" who resist adoption until there is no choice. Table 1 briefly explains each of the five categories in the order in which they adopt. Adoption begins slowly with "innovators" and then "early adopters" leading the market. Adoption then accelerates, but finally slows as "laggards" gradually move to adopt the innovation. Each group typically looks to the preceding group for signals that the innovation is successful and worth the cost. Each group looks at the world quite differently and responds to different marketing messages.
"Stage in the buying process" reflects the typical sequence of steps most customers follow in buying a new product or idea. Table 2 explains a common sequence of stages. The marketing profession recognizes that potential customers need different information at each stage in the process. Providing the right information at a given stage allows the customer to move rapidly from stage-to-stage and ultimately to adoption. Providing the wrong information at a given stage can stall or abort the adoption process. Our work suggests that small businesses adopt waste minimization innovations in similar stages and that the type of information needed at each stage is similar to that for other innovations (Bierma and Waterstraat 1995a, Spring; Bierma and Waterstraat, 1995b).
These two market segmentation tools, "Innovativeness" and "Stages in the buying process" can be combined in a matrix and used to assess the best approach to a particular market. Table 3 is an example of an innovation with relatively extensive diffusion through the market. Innovators and Early Adopters are already using it. The Early Majority recognize the need for the innovation and have begun to search for information about alternatives. In this case, widespread dissemination of technical information about the technology is warranted, as a large segment of the market needs such information to move on to the adoption stage.
However, Table 4 is a far more typical situation for many innovations being promoted by Cooperative Extension Service programs. Innovators have adopted the technology with little or no marketing effort. However, early adopters do not yet recognize their own need for the innovation. In this case, technical information about the innovation is of little value. What is needed is a marketing effort stressing the need for the innovation, particularly directed at Early Adopters.
Completing an Innovativeness-Stages Matrix might appear to be an overwhelming task, and, in fact, a thorough Matrix would require extensive market research. But a rough, and usually quite adequate, Matrix can be completed without a large research effort. The secret is finding good Key Informants. To construct a matrix, begin by selecting an industrial sector and a specific innovation (or class of innovations - such as aqueous cleaning technologies), since different innovations may diffuse differently. Then find a few Key Informants. Key Informants know the market and can help estimate the extent to which an innovation has diffused through a population. Begin with managers of the businesses you are interested in. Extension programs often already have contacts in a few of these businesses. These managers usually have an extensive network of contacts with other businesses in the industry. They can be full of useful information about how new technologies are diffusing. However, some of the best Key Informants are high profile trusted suppliers to the industrial sector you have targeted. These suppliers make their living by understanding their market and can be excellent informants. In our work on small, metal product fabricators we found the best Key Informant to be a regional sales representative with a major Midwest metal supplier. Many small business managers we interviewed had named this supplier as the most trusted, high quality supplier in the business. The sales representative knew many of the shop owners. He knew what technologies they were using and their interest in new innovations. Most industrial sectors have similar suppliers. Initial interviews with the business managers will usually reveal these potential sources of Key Informants. For example, we found that most auto repair shops named a single tool supplier as their most trusted source of information on tools and new repair technologies. Among metal fabricators, nearly all mentioned the same waste management/recycling company that they trusted with their waste problems. All such companies can make good Key Informants Key Informants may not understand the language of the Innovativeness-Stages Matrix. It is best to translate the Matrix into common industry language. For example, assume that High Volume/Low Pressure (HVLP) paint guns were being promoted to autobody repair shops to improve efficiency and reduce waste. A good tool supplier, even if they don't sell paint guns, can often provide a good estimate of the percentage of shops that have adopted the technology, and how many other shops are talking about it. Through this kind of questioning, Key Informants can usually give you the information you need to understand the diffusion of an innovation through a population, and construct a rough Innovativeness-Stages Matrix. Using the matrix you can now begin to construct more effective marketing messages targeting specific segments of your market.
Once the Innovativeness-Stages Matrix is completed, you can use it to help build a more effective marketing approach. First, determine the "marketing fronts" - segments of the market where your marketing resources are going to be most effective. Returning to Table 3, where an innovation has been relatively well diffused though a population, there are two primary "fronts": moving "Early Majority" businesses to Adoption, and moving "Late Majority" businesses to become "Aware of Their Own Need." Next, you can use your understanding of the typical needs of individuals at different "Stages" and of different "Innovativeness" to craft a marketing message which addresses those needs. Tables 1 and 2 summarize some of these needs, but we recommend Rogers' seminal text on diffusion of innovations (Rogers, 1995) as well as any number of good marketing texts for more detail. As an example, consider the case of the poorly diffused innovation in Table 4. Marketing along two "fronts" is probably warranted. The first "front" must move "Early Adopters" to recognize their own need for the innovation. Ideally, marketing communications should help "Early Adopters" see their businesses as similar to "others" who need the innovation, or provide simple tools to help "Early Adopters" document their own needs. "Early Adopters" are motivated by opportunity for competitive advantage, so communications to this group should stress the need to stay ahead. "Early adopters" can often be reached through trade shows or other events presenting the latest in industry innovation. The second "front" in Table 4 broadly covers basic awareness for the "Early Majority", "Late Majority", and "Laggards". Most businesses in these groups are unaware of the innovation or the need for the innovation. One-to-many communication channels, such as trade media and professional meetings, can be useful. Communications should use real cases and industry "hot buttons", such as cost, efficiency, or quality. The purpose is to create general awareness and an openness to considering one's own need for the innovation. Technical details of an innovation would likely be of little value on this "front".
Promoting innovations is an act of marketing. Carefully conceived marketing plans can greatly enhance success. The understanding that different market segments have different product and information needs is a basic concept in commercial marketing. "Innovativeness" and "Stage in the adoption process" are two useful ways of segmenting a market. The Innovativeness- Stages Matrix, combined with an understanding of the different needs of the market segments, provides a powerful tool for focusing our marketing efforts without extensive marketing research or resources.
Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press. Bierma, T.J. and Waterstraat, F.L. (1995a) Marketing pollution prevention. Pollution Prevention Review, 5(2), 63-72. Bierma, T.J. and Waterstraat, F.L. (1995b). Promoting P2 among small metal products fabricators. Pollution Prevention Review, 5(4), 27-40. Kotler, P. and Armstrong, G. (1991). Principles of Marketing, 5th Edition, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Weinstein, N. (1988). The Precaution Adoption Process. Health Psychology, 7(4), 355-386.
4-H Shooting Sports Hits the Mark with Youth-At-RiskKenneth E. Sabo
Wendy V. Hamilton
The New Mexico 4-H shooting sports program provides a dynamic way to involve new members. The program is versatile enough to take place in a variety of settings and can be adapted easily to children of all economic levels. It's a program that can target a broad range of ages, maximize the potential to access hard-to-reach youth, and offer fast action fun, holding their interest for an extended period of time. To find out if 4-H shooting sports projects could serve as a viable conduit to reach under-served, hard-to-reach youth, we initiated a 4-H shooting sports project in a low-income housing project in southern New Mexico in summer 1996. Four-H was part of a larger, public housing program coordinated by the Truth or Consequences (T or C) Public Housing Authority. The program targeted low-income youth residents of the 75-home facility. Twenty-five youth participated in the program. The goal of the Housing Authority was to provide a multifaceted recreational/educational program to teach sports and recreation skills in a non-threatening environment. Emphasis was on developing mentorships, skill education and self-development in an environment where youth could experience positive learning while having fun. The Housing Authority program (and the 4-H shooting sports program) was carried out over an eight-week period. The program was a collaborative effort among 14 community sports, recreational, and educational organizations. The 4-H contribution, in addition to the shooting sports program, included crafts, cooking, sewing, gardening and animal projects, involving the county 4-H agent, state specialists, parents, and adult, teen and junior volunteer leaders. The youth met three times a week for two hours each day during the camp to learn about archery. The meeting place, a local elementary school's outdoor playground, was within walking distance of the housing project. Collecting and gathering equipment for the project was challenging because of physical differences among the youth, including the physically challenged as well as a variety of ages. Equipment use, care, and handling were covered at the outset, individually and in group settings. It was important to help youth learn to respect equipment early, both because it was borrowed and for personal safety reasons. The next step included picking out individual equipment with help from junior leaders (bows, arrows, arm guards and finger tabs). When youth required specialized size or equipment needs, leaders were quick to find the piece needed due to their broad range of shooting sports contacts within the community. A real plus for the program was adequate volunteer staff to take care of any need that arose. One significant issue was that participants became very possessive of the equipment they were offered. Children wanted to hold on to their equipment and use the same tools each day. Because of this, we made every effort to have more than enough equipment available and frequently talked about the different types and qualities of equipment using the opportunity to teach some consumer issues related to archery purchases. This helped youth to resist the need to scramble over equipment and, instead, test sizes and comfort of various pieces. Once youth found equipment that they felt suited their height, weight and skill levels, we labeled the pieces with a name tag. This helped the youth to begin caring for the equipment and feel there was a place for them each day. This seemed to influence the high daily return rate of the youth. Next, we taught fundamental shooting skills for the bow and arrow, namely stance, pre-draw, draw, anchor, aim, release, and follow through. We made no effort or particular mention of score keeping even though youth were interested in learning how to score their hits. They were quick to share scores with their peers, which promoted math skills, neighborly self-directed fun, and a rousing cheer for any youth who hit the bull's eye. The kids began to feel proud. A firing line was designated. Styrofoam blocks served as backstops and targets were provided by the local 4-H office. Youth received one-on-one coaching. They were taught how to nock an arrow with emphasis on pointing the bow and arrow down range. They also learned how to draw, aim, and release an arrow. The important thing was to teach safety while increasing the success rate of target hits. One of the beauties of archery is that success can come quickly with big targets, short-range distance, and lots of coaching. This especially helps younger youth who tend to get frustrated. Although the 4-H shooting sports project is not unlike other 4-H projects, it has a lot of unique characteristics. It is action-oriented and an activity that youth do not regularly experience. Youth do not associate it with traditional education strategies although there is a large amount of cognitive development as youth focus greater attention on fundamentals and strategies to hit a target. Youth are attracted to archery (and other shooting sports programs - rifle, air pistol, shotgun, muzzleloading and hunting) because they simply think shooting sports are cool, fun, and something to brag about. We are teaching for success; we want youth to experience a measure of accomplishment and be encouraged to continue in the activity. We want them to be involved in long range activities to gain important life skills such as self-esteem, self- responsibility, character building, managing feelings and self- discipline on a personal level. On the social level, we want these youth to develop life skills in the areas of empathy, sharing, concern for others, accepting differences, and cooperation. Hard-to-reach youth probably have had more experience with successive failures compared to other children in the educational arena. Therefore, a 4-H shooting sports program offers a lot of positive opportunities. The advantage, no matter which of the six sports are offered, is that project goals do not focus solely on developing marksmanship skills. They encourage developing life skills such as confidence, decisionmaking, respect for equipment, positive peer/adult partnerships and safety. Shooting sports programs also bring out messages of personal pride that come with mastery, personal discipline, responsibility and sportmanship. These skills and messages are life builders. Youth learn the strategies of working with others in a disciplined environment. They learn about competition with themselves and others. They learn that they can become someone else's resource. They learn to choose involvement levels in self- determined activities. They learn that being cool doesn't require senseless actions that put themselves and others in danger. They learn through commitment and interest that they can become part of a much bigger family of shooting sports enthusiasts and have the opportunity to carry on positive activities in life. Four-H is the lead youth organization filling the gap in firearm safety education. Fast on 4-H's footsteps are the National Rifle Association, International Hunter Education Association, Boy Scouts of America, and other organizations that are recognizing the need for organized skill training in hunter education, firearm safety, and shooting sports. All these programs are beginning to recognize the double advantage of involving hard-to-reach youth with mainstream audiences. When youth complete 4-H shooting sports programs they walk away with a thorough instruction of gun safety, training in responsible shooting practices and firearm use, a developing self -confidence, personal discipline, responsibility and sportsmanship, an appreciation and understanding of natural resources, a skill to use for life, a value for working with others in a disciplined environment, understanding about how to save and raise money for their own equipment, the opportunity to enroll in other 4-H projects and an opportunity to learn about competition with themselves and others. Follow-up activities after completing summer camp include an array of events and activities sponsored by local shooting sports groups that are often eager to keep youth involved. Many local groups offer hunting and fishing events and special workshops. Yearly evaluations from the New Mexico shooting sports program demonstrate that the program has hit the mark, meeting the needs of many of today's youth as demonstrated by summative evaluation examples obtained from program participates. Youth have reported to us many important aspects about the program. For example: "For me, shooting was exciting and fun to do. I was always interested in the outdoors and had been hunting for awhile. I was interested in finding a program that would give me more experience in these things." "The program was not only fun, but I liked the competition aspect of it. I found myself working harder because I wanted to do well for the leaders that were helping me." "The volunteers are very important to the program's success. I think that we all realized that without them, we would have no help. Someday, I would like to possibly volunteer and coach in the shooting sports program." "I'd like to go to college and continue shooting and I'm looking for a school that offers a scholarship in shooting sports." "I personally practice at least 2-3 hours a day throughout the year. Our club also holds a fund raiser shoot to raise money for our team at least once a month for six months." "I've learned to be a better sportsman. We all work towards the same goal which is to improve our individual skills and knowledge. I think we remember more because 4-H shooting sports is hands-on and we get to experience shooting in a safe environment. Because we want to do well in competition, we read the manuals more and study harder." If youth choose to become involved in competitive shooting events, they can contact any of the 50 state 4-H programs, the National Rifle Association or state and local shooting sports associations. Some events cost money, some do not. Often groups offer discounts and sponsorships to those who express need. Sports sections in newspapers are good sources for tracking shooting sports organizations and events. For example, during hunting and fishing days, there are groups sponsoring activities so young people may become acquainted with the different disciplines. Many people argue that shooting sports are not a recommended or appropriate project for high-risk youth because of trends toward violent behaviors with guns and gang activity today. However, shooting sports projects teach the safe and respectful use of these tools. Safe handling practices are constantly stressed. Shooting sports equipment is used and handled with respect. We are helping prevent home and field accidents by teaching and emphasizing safe storage, cleaning, handling, and use. Four-H shooting sports have an outstanding safety rating compared to some other 4-H projects and activities due to the heavy emphasis on respect and safety. Shooting sports tend to attract hard-to-reach youth who would otherwise not seek out 4-H as a viable opportunity. Shooting sports also attract adult leaders who would not normally think of themselves as potential 4-H leaders. Shooting sports is the hook for involving youth in 4-H. This can lead to involvement in many important youth development skill paths. In many cases, changing the lives of youth in positive ways and often opening doors to vocational or avocational opportunities. The shooting sports program attracts youth who would not normally come in contact with 4-H. The program offers a set of skills that, in the 1980s, had seen a decline in participation. Because of changes in families and an increasingly urban population, there is now at least one generation of youth who have not been taught hunting and shooting sports skills at home. The trend is reversing with 4-H taking the leadership. Today, the shooting sports project is one of the fastest-growing 4-H projects with an equal number of boys and girls involved. New Mexico is using the shooting sports program in unique and innovative ways. Several New Mexico 4-H specialists, agents and volunteers have been trained in 4-H shooting sports at regional workshops sponsored by the National 4-H Shooting Sports Committee. Approximately 8,000 youth have been reached since the program began in 1983, reflecting a 600% increase in participation. An increasing come from non-traditional audiences such as youth-at-risk and older teens. Other state 4-H programs are seeing increased enrollment figures in shooting sports projects. In 4-H's never-ending challenge to be more inclusive, shooting sports projects offer an excellent opportunity to open new doors to youth who are at risk.
County Extension Agents and On-Farm Research Work: Results of a Kansas SurveyDavid Norman
Stanley Freyenberger
Bryan Schurle
Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Contribution No. 97-99-J In recent years, interest has been increasing in On-Farm Research (OFR), not only in low income countries, where it has been associated closely with the farming systems research approach (Norman, Worman, Siebert, & Modiakotla, 1995), but also in the US, where it has been linked with the sustainable agriculture movement. Arguments have been made that considerable complementarity exists between station-based and farm-based research and that ideally these should be viewed as being on a continuum rather than as substitutes for each other (Norman, Frankenberger, & Hildebrand, 1994). Considerable support and enthusiasm for OFR exists on the part of farmers, as indicated by a 1993 survey of farmers in Kansas. This survey indicated that both conventional farmers and those with an overt sustainable agriculture orientation were supportive of OFR, whether done by themselves or in cooperation with outsiders (Freyenberger, Bloomquist, Norman, Regehr, & Schurle, 1994). However, the support for OFR by farmers with a sustainable agriculture orientation was relatively greater, potentially because of the location specificity of many technologies relating to sustainable agriculture. Because OFR appears to be quite common and strongly supported by farmers, Extension may have a major role to play in terms of coordinating these efforts and sharing the results. This paper reports the results of a survey designed to ascertain the degree and type of OFR-related work implemented by county Extension agents (CEAs) in Kansas, who was responsible for it, what information was collected, what was done with the results, and what were the attitudes of CEAs toward on-farm work. In 1993, a survey was mailed through the associate director of Cooperative Extension to all 105 county Extension agents in Kansas. Eighty-one surveys were returned and results are reported here. Parts of the survey involved collecting information about the trials/demonstrations the agents had coordinated on farms, their perceptions of the constraints to involvement in such activities, and some attitudinal information.
The CEAs were involved with both trials (really OFR) and demonstrations, which together we term on-farm work (OFW). In the survey we tried to distinguish between the two, considering trials as experimental in nature and demonstrations as OFW that involves recommended technologies or final-stage testing of a technology. On average, the number of trials/demonstrations implemented per CEA in 1993 was almost 6 (median 4) with a range from 0 (3.7% of the CEAs) to more than 15 (2.4% of the CEAs). More than 65% of the CEAs implemented between 2 and 6 trials/demonstrations in 1993. Information on some of the types of trials/demonstrations implemented by CEAs is given in Table 1. By far the majority of the trials/demonstrations could be considered as being demonstration (72%). In terms of the trials/demonstrations for which detailed information was available, the most common were crop related (66%), with those relating to livestock being less frequent (16%). This finding is consistent with results obtained elsewhere. For example, farmers in Kansas, in their own initiated research, tend to concentrate much more on crop-related issues (Freyenberger et al., 1994). One major reason for this is that OFW with livestock is methodologically more complex than that with crops (Norman et al., 1995). In terms of crop-related OFW, about 54% of the trials/demonstrations on which detailed information was collected involved evaluation of crop varieties and 88% of these were implemented in a demonstration format. In contrast, those that required more of a systems perspective or were livestock related tended to be implemented in the form of trials.
In the survey, a number of questions were asked concerning the dynamics and responsibilities in suggesting, designing, and implementing the trials/demonstrations. A consolidated summary of some of the major issues is given in Table 2. The results clearly show that much of the initiative for suggesting and designing trials/demonstrations with which the CEAs are associated comes from the agents themselves, but that their implementation requires the cooperation of the farmers, who play a major role in providing necessary equipment. Farmers also collaborate with CEAs in monitoring the trials/demonstrations and in collecting data.
Part of the survey was designed to ascertain the intended purposes of trials and demonstrations. Results indicate the CEAs' perceptions of the trials/demonstrations with which they were associated. Yield was the focus for 33% of the trials and 49% of the demonstrations. Providing visuals for field days were the most important stated intentions of 40% of the demonstrations and 27% of the trials. Experiments were the focuses of 7% of the demonstrations and 37% of the trials. Other criteria were of only minor importance. The use of OFW to provide a focus for field days has merit, given the findings of the farmers survey that other farmers were major sources of information (Freyenberger et al., 1994). Farm tours and field days provide opportunities for contact not only with CEAs but also with other farmers. Results indicate that field days were held for nearly 70% of the trials/demonstrations but were more common for demonstrations (77%) than for trials (49%). Given the predominance of demonstrations related to crops, field days were held for 80% of the crop-related OFW compared to only 32% for livestock-related work. On average, attendance at field days was 55 persons, and the CEAs expressed purpose of such field days was to provide farmers with a visual perception of the technologies being evaluated. This is consistent with the intention underlying OFW discussed earlier. However, the results indicate that another important reason for such field days is to provide an opportunity for meetings, something that seems to be important, particularly for livestock- related work. Meetings can provide a very important forum for obtaining farmers opinions, not only on technologies that are shortly to be, or are being, recommended (i.e., demonstrations) but also for those that are still in the developmental stage (i.e., trials). OFW researchers see the latter as an increasingly important purpose of OFW that allows incorporation of a systems perspective and ensures consideration of the multiple evaluation criteria underlying farmers' decisions (Norman, Frankenberger, & Hildebrand, 1994, Norman et al., 1995).
The survey also provided information on the types of data collected from trials/demonstrations and responsibility for their analysis. No data were collected for 21% of the trials/demonstrations, which is consistent with the notion that the basic intention of many of the trials/demonstrations is to provide a focus for field days. However, such trials/demonstrations represent a lost opportunity in terms of transmitting detailed information on the results to others who were not present at the field days. Also much of the data collection emphasized only technical data (i.e., 42% of the trials/demonstrations), and only 14% involved the collection of both technical and economic information. Once again, this represents a missed opportunity in the sense that OFW, in contrast to the more artificial environment on experiment stations, provides an operational milieu in which results can be interpreted from both the technical and socio- economic viewpoints, which are both critically important in a farm production environment. The major responsibility for analyzing data from trials/demonstrations falls on the CEAs themselves (68% of the time). Farmers appear to have little involvement in this exercise by themselves (2%), although in 11% of the cases, they worked with the CEA in data analysis. Data analysis provides opportunities for farmer-farmer interactions and close working relationships with the CEA, which OFW practitioners recognize as a way to maximize the payoff from OFW (Norman et al., 1995). The survey also provided details on dissemination of the results of the trials/demonstrations with which CEAs are associated. Reports were published/produced on about 23% of the trials/demonstrations with the county, with Kansas State University (KSU) as the most popular publisher. KSU appeared to be relatively more popular for trials (50%), whereas the county outlet was relatively more popular for demonstrations (54%). Newspapers also were used as a way of disseminating findings. The average number of copies of the reports produced was 730. The most important types of report produced were informational fliers or summary reports (50% of the total reports produced). More than one type of report was produced in about 20% of the cases, and statistical reports and detailed descriptive reports were relatively more common for trials than demonstrations (i.e., about 19% compared with 5%). The major recipients of the reports were farmers (58%) with little difference between trials (61%) and demonstrations (58%). The KSU Agricultural Experiment Station was a more significant recipient of reports based on trials (i.e., 16% compared with 9%), whereas agribusiness was a relatively more significant recipient of results from demonstrations (i.e., 23% and 15%). This is to be expected, given that crop varieties were major components of demonstrations.
Because the Program Development Committees (PDAs) have a major influence on the priorities of the different activities of CEAs, information was obtained about them. The PDCs enthusiastically supported OFW (i.e., 90% compared with only 3% who were not supportive), which is consistent with results from the farmers' survey noted earlier (Freyenberger et al., 1994). Based on these results, we can assume that the vast majority of CEAs felt they had a mandate to be supportive of OFW. However, the perceptions among CEAs was that OFW was not optimal at the time of the survey. Having too many other duties was by far the most important constraint, and together with the lack of adequate equipment, were more important than other constraints. Some concerns existed among CEAs about their expertise in designing and analyzing the results of OFW, but in aggregate this was no more limiting than the lack of a strategic plan for OFW or farmers not being interested in OFW. CEAs also were asked to indicate potential solutions to the constraints of OFW. The importance of the specific solutions for each of the perceived constraints does differ, but in aggregate, the three major groups of potential solutions were: Kansas State University assistance and training (35%), budgetary increases including hiring extra staff and purchasing necessary equipment (34%), and better planning of OFW activities (16%). The implication of these findings is that CEAs apparently support greater OFW but that its increased implementation will be very dependent on factors outside their control. The CEAs, who want to expand their OFW activities, obviously feel the need for appropriate support systems in the form of finance and training opportunities. An open-ended question to CEAs on what they would like to see done in OFW yielded the results given in Table 3. The relatively greater emphasis on crop compared to livestock work would be analogous to what is currently occurring (see Table 2), but greater emphasis within the crops-related area would be placed on topics in agronomy and crop protection (i.e., soil quality, weeds, and insects). Such topics often require more of a systems perspective in designing solutions and thus would be appropriate for OFW, which often can provide a more realistic environment than would exist under experiment station conditions in which to examine such issues and evaluate appropriate solutions.
The survey results indicate that OFW activities associated with CEAs in Kansas is fairly common, and that CEAs play important roles in initiating, implementing, analyzing, and distributing the results of such work. Demonstrations tend to be more common than trials, and more emphasis is placed on crop- related than on livestock-related work. The CEAs appear to have positive attitudes towards OFW, but major constraints exist in terms of expanding such work. Given the popularity of OFW among farmers, OFW should be given consideration for priority in the duties of Extension staff and greater support including both budgetary support and training in design and analysis of such work. Extension personnel have a unique opportunity to make the on-station to on-farm research continuum workable.
Freyenberger, S., Bloomquist, L., Norman, D., Regehr, D., & Schurle, B. (1994). On-farm research in Kansas, 1993: A survey of farmers' opinions. Report of Progress No.720. Manhattan: Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station. Norman, D., Frankenberger, T. & Hildebrand, P. (1994). Agricultural research in developed countries: past, present and future of farming systems research and Extension. Journal of Production Agriculture, 7(1): 124-131. Norman, D., Worman, F., Siebert, J., & Modiakgotla, E. (1995). The farming systems approach to development and appropriate technology generation. Farming Systems Management Series Number 10. Rome: Farm Management and Production Service, Agriculture Service District, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Development and Evaluation of Activity-Oriented Nutrition Classes for Pregnant and Parenting TeensDarcy Owen
Patricia Kendall
Karen Wilken
Adolescence is a period of profound physical, social, and psychological development. Coupling pregnancy and parenthood with this stage of growth can put both the mother and child at health and behavioral risk (Flanagan, McGath, Meyer, & Coll, 1995). Due to the biological changes occurring during adolescence and pregnancy, nutritional requirements increase. Unfortunately, when needs are highest, many teens are dieting, skipping meals, snacking, consuming fast foods, and performing other poor dietary habits (Gutierrez & King, 1993). Research has shown that some of the nutrients most needed during this period, for example, energy, calcium and iron, are also the ones most lacking in the teens' diets (Sargent, Schulken, Kemper, & Hussey, 1994). Providing school or community-based nutrition education for pregnant and parenting teens may be one way to help improve the dietary intake of the teen and her child. According to Story & Resnick (1986), interventions that focus on the environment, behavior, and personality of the teen will have a better chance of making a positive impact. Thus, to be effective, nutrition interventions for teens should consider the environment (school, home) of the teen, teach teens skills and behaviors through active participation, foster the development of an internal locus of control and help build the confidence necessary to make dietary changes. With these components in mind, we sought to locate and/or adapt a nutrition education curriculum for pregnant and parenting teens for use in a joint project between the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and Colorado State University Cooperative Extension (CE). The purpose of this study was to develop and pilot test a four week nutrition workshop series designed for pregnant and parenting teens as part of the Teen Parents for Healthy Children project. The objectives were to help teen participants: (a) increase their knowledge of good nutrition practices for pregnant and postpartum women, infants, and children, (b) increase their ability to plan nutritionally balanced meals/snacks, interpret food labels, and select, buy and/or prepare appropriate foods to meet their own and their families' needs, and (c) improve their dietary behavior and intake. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the program was measured by pre and post knowledge questionnaires, behavior/skill checklists, and 24-hour food recalls.
Based on WIC's 3-month check pick-up cycle, we chose to limit our curriculum to four classes. It was envisioned that teens would attend a nutrition education class as part of their WIC check pick-up appointment every three months for a year. We selected four lessons from the University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension's Great Beginnings Curriculum (Burke, Long, & Luppold, 1994) to modify and adapt for the project. Using a combination of social and cognitive learning theories, we modified the lecture-oriented classes into interactive nutrition activity-oriented classes using the constructs of behavioral capability, expectations, and expectancies. The four nutrition activities were evaluated for suitability by WIC nutritionists and educators in five metro counties. Pre- and post-knowledge questionnaires, skill/behavior checklists, and 24-hour food recalls were used to assess the effectiveness of the workshop series. A separate questionnaire was used to gather demographic information. The 20-point knowledge questionnaire was adapted from the knowledge test provided with the Great Beginnings curriculum. Cronbach's alpha reliability analysis yielded an alpha coefficient of 0.78, which is considered quite acceptable. The 8-item skill/behavior checklist and 24-hour recall instruments were adapted directly from those used nationally by the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP). Questions on the skill/behavior checklist were classified as nutrition practices (five questions) or food resource management practices (three questions). The initial design of the project called for recruiting teens through the WIC program. It was projected that approximately 60 pregnant and parenting Colorado WIC teens would be reached during the pilot evaluation. However, recruiting the teens, finding classroom space, and working with WIC's 3-month out appointment system proved most difficult and we moved our pilot evaluation to the public schools. In the end, we held classes at one WIC clinic in Arvada and three public high schools (Denver, Aurora, and Fort Collins). For comparative purposes, a group of pregnant and parenting teens at one of the high schools took all of the tests, but did not participate in the workshop series. To fit the time and curriculum constraints of participating schools, the workshop series consisted of four one-hour classes which extended over a period of four weeks. At each class, participants received handouts which complemented the information presented. The same instructor facilitated all the classes and administered the evaluation instruments ensuring consistency in format and content. Statistical analysis of data from the evaluation instruments was performed by Colorado State University Statistical Services using the Statistical Package of the Social Sciences (SPSS), release 5.0, March 1993. The level of significance was set at p<0.05. frequencies were calculated for the demographic information. paired 2-tailed t-tests were used to compare mean scores on pre and post knowledge tests. one-way analysis of variance was used to determine any significant differences between the treatment and control groups. chi-square multiple range tests were used to analyze changes in skill/behavior by location.
From August through October 1995, 60 teens from the four locations took part in the workshop series. The control group consisted of 10 teens who did not participate in the classes, but took pre and post questionnaires. Because of frequent illness and absenteeism among these high risk pregnant and parenting teens, paired pre/post data was available for only 39 treatment and 10 control participants. Very few demographic differences were seen among the treatment and control groups. Overall, participants ranged in age from 13 to 20 years old; mean age was 16.3 (+/-1.5). Educational level ranged from 7th to 12th grade; mean grade level was 9.7 (+/ -1.3). Most of the participants were either White (54%) or Hispanic/Mexican American (26%). More than half (61%) of the participants were pregnant and the rest had delivered their babies. Most (71%) of the children were under 1 year of age. The majority (78%) of teens who had delivered were not nursing. Two- thirds of the teens were on the WIC program. Almost all (98%) of the teens lived with other people. More teens (40%) lived with their mothers only than either their fathers only (4%) or both parents (29%). In the majority of homes (64%), one of the teen's parents did most of the food purchasing; 15% of the teens reported purchasing food in combination with a parent. Likewise, 47% of the participants reported a parent doing all the cooking, while 28% shared cooking responsibilities. Results from the pre/post-knowledge questionnaires indicated a significant improvement in participants' nutrition knowledge score. Total mean pre-test scores were 59% and post-test scores were 87%, representing a significant 28% (p<0.001) increase in knowledge score. in comparison, no change was seen in the pre- and post-knowledge scores of the control group (68% and 70%, respectively). Among the treatment groups, 87% reported making a positive skill/behavior change in at least one of the eight nutrition or food resource management practices evaluated; 54% made a positive change in two or more, 39% in three or more, 16% in four or more, and 8% in 5 or more of the 8 skills/behaviors measured. More teens reported making changes in food resource management practices, such as planning meals ahead and using a shopping list, than in nutrition practices such as using the Food Guide Pyramid and selecting low fat foods at fast food restaurants. The mean number of positive skill/behavior changes made by location ranged from 1.4 for the control group to 2.5 for the Arvada treatment group. Differences in mean changes made were significant (p<0.05) only between these two groups. Comparison of pre/post 24-hour food recalls showed no change from pre to post workshop for either the treatment or control groups, thus indicating no positive nor negative effect on dietary behavior. The lack in dietary behavior change could be due to a variety of factors. An obvious factor was the short length of the workshop series. Given our initial constraints, the program was limited to four sessions. Although to expect dietary change in four sessions may be unrealistic, the results achieved with this program were no different than those reported by Alley, McCloud-Harrison, Peishe & Rafter (1995) for a nine-month long nutrition education program with pregnant teens. This would indicate that factors besides length may be important. One important barrier to dietary change seen in this study and reported by Schneck, Sideras, Fox, & Dupuis (1990) was lack of control on the part of the teens regarding food purchasing and cooking practices in the home. Most teens in this study lived at home and were not responsible for food purchasing or cooking. Thus, it may have been difficult for them to make dietary changes. Another factor interfering with dietary change may relate to teens' views on food and nutrition. Story and Resnick (1986), in their survey of 900 high school students, found that most teens thought they were too busy, and it was too inconvenient for them, to make dietary changes. Further, they felt no urgency to make dietary changes; for example, there was plenty of time later in life to worry about diet. Similar attitudes were expressed informally by the participants in this study. In terms of Prochaska's Stages of Change theory (Prochaska, Velicer, DiClements, Guadagnoli, & Rossi, 1990), these teens may have been in the precontemplation stage regarding dietary improvement. They would need to progress both through this stage and the contemplation stage to the action stage before any dietary change could be expected. This may take more than just time to accomplish.
As a result of this pilot evaluation we saw significant improvement in nutrition knowledge scores among teen participants in a four-session nutrition education program compared to no change in the control group. We also saw some positive movement in self-reported skills/behaviors among participants. Despite this, no changes were seen in dietary intake as recorded on 24- hour food recalls completed pre and post intervention. Does this mean that short term nutrition education programs with this target audience are warranted? If the goal is improvement in nutrition knowledge, yes. If it is behavioral change, perhaps not. Gaining new knowledge is certainly an important step in the process of changing behavior, but does not guarantee such change. Readiness, willingness, self-efficacy and the ability to change are also crucial. Because these take much time and nurturance to develop, they may not be within the scope of many Cooperative Extension or WIC nutrition education programs targeted to this audience. Based on the difficulty we experienced recruiting teens for non-mandated classes through WIC clinics, we recommend that when possible nutrition education programs for pregnant and parenting teens be incorporated as part of already established school curriculums for such teens. Because, as evidenced in this study, teens often don't have control over their home environment, involving the teen's family (especially the mother and/or grandmother) and significant friends or partners in the program is encouraged. Cooperative Extension and WIC educators can provide a valuable service to such programs by serving on curriculum development committees and providing in-service trainings for teachers. In some cases it may be most efficacious for Extension or WIC educators to provide the nutrition education component of the curriculum or to provide an auxiliary after-school nutrition education program. By working together, classroom teachers in cooperation with Extension and WIC educators can ensure that the teens receive not only important nutrition information, but the incentives and support necessary to make positive changes in their diets.
Alley, H., McCloud-Harrison, J., Peisher, A.V., & Rafter, J.A. (1995). Expectations may be too high for changing diets of pregnant teens. Journal of Extension, 33(1). Burke, J. Long, V. & Luppold, D. (1994). Great Beginnings: A nutrition curriculum for pregnant and parenting teens. Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension. Flanagan, P.J., McGrath, M.M., Meyer, E.C., & Coll, C.G. (1995). Adolescent development and transitions to motherhood. Pediatrics, 96(2), 273-277. Gutierrez, Y. & King, J.C. (1993). Nutrition during teenage pregnancy. Pediatric Annals, 22(2), 99-108. Prochaska, J.O., Velicer, W.F., DiClemente, C.C., Guadagnoli, E., & Rossi, J.S. (1990). Patterns of change: Dynamic typology applied to smoking cessation. Behavioral Research 26, 83-107. Sargent, M.E., Schulken, E.D., Kemper, K.A., & Hussey, J.A. (1994). Black and white adolescent females pre-pregnancy status. Adolescence, 29, 845-858. Schneck, M.E., Sideras, K.S., Fox, R.A., Dupuis, L. (1990). Low-income pregnant adolescents and their infants: Dietary findings and health outcomes. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 90, 555-558. Story, M. & Resnick, M.D. (1986). Adolescents' views on food and nutrition. Journal of Nutrition Education, 18(4), 188- 192. Acknowledgments: This project was jointly funded by Colorado State University Cooperative Extension and Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service through CREES-USDA Project 93-ENEP-0-0600. Factors Associated With Clothing Care Practices of Adolescents Enrolled in 4-H ProgramsJoyce A. Smith
Kathryn J. Cox
Norma A. Pitts
Hak P. Tam
Today's teens have grown up in a "disposable society" in which replacement often substitutes for repair. When environmental concerns and waste reduction are becoming increasingly critical factors in quality of life, less attention is being paid to teaching and providing positive role models for youth in relation to clothing care and maintenance skills. These skills are needed to lengthen wear life of clothing and reduce waste. Although family and consumer science education programs have de-emphasized skill development over the last decade, Extension 4 -H clothing programs continue to offer skill-based projects and learning experiences. Many women who taught clothing care skills while serving as role models are now employed outside the home and devote less time to clothing care and maintenance themselves. Today's youth are not being taught skills to care for and maintain clothing to extend wear as were previous generations, since fewer adult role models exist who practice such skills. These factors contribute to less importance being placed not only on maintaining and extending the wear-life of clothing in today's society, but also in preparing today's youth to do so in the future. However, little is known about current norms followed by adolescents in caring for and maintaining clothing. It is important to establish a "baseline" of youth clothing care and maintenance practices as a foundation for program development. This study was designed to identify and describe clothing care and repair practices of adolescents and the impact of 4-H clothing project participation on those practices. Little empirical data is available on the clothing care practices of teens. Barnes (1955) reported that 7th to 9th grade girls assumed some responsibility for washing, ironing, mending, and deciding on dry cleaning needs of their own clothing, but were less likely to darn socks. Girls whose mothers were employed outside the home assumed more responsibility for their own clothing care (washing, ironing, and mending) than girls whose mothers were not employed. Lawrence, Tasker and Babcock (1983) studied time spent on housework by urban adolescents. They reported that teens spent less than two minutes per day on clothing care and unlike the Barnes (1955) study, time spent remained unchanged whether or not the mother was employed outside the home. The time of data collection, 1955 versus 1983, and location of sample, rural for Barnes, urban for Lawrence, Tasker and Babcock may explain some variations in findings. When teens did assist in laundry activities, daughters were more likely to do so than were sons. A study conducted by Whirlpool Corporation as reported by the Soap and Detergent Association (1988) determined that the female head of household did the laundry 93% of time, with 34% using help from family members. Teenage daughters provided that help 25% of the time and teenage sons 14% of the time. Age and gender impact clothing care practices. Koester and May (1985) found that as age increased, adolescents were more likely to repair, wash, and iron own clothes and needed fewer reminders to do so. Adolescents were also more likely to wash family clothing as age increased. Gender differences existed with adolescent girls more likely to care for own and family clothing than adolescent boys. When adolescent boys and girls were in the same family, boys were even less likely to care for family clothing. Despite an exhaustive search of the literature since 1990, only one study (Sanik & Bard, 1996) was found which reported on clothing care practices. It confirmed earlier findings that major responsibility for home laundry rests with female homemakers with only occasional help from daughters and less from sons. Four-H project curricula include clothing care as well as the development of clothing construction and repair skills associated with responsible consumer behavior. Both types of learning contribute to extending the wear life of apparel and improved use of resources. Examining the impact of 4-H clothing project enrollment contributes to program evaluation and adds to the body of knowledge on which to base future programs efforts. From an environmental perspective, the results can determine the potential contributions of textiles and clothing education to environmental concerns.
Data for the study were collected using a mail survey. The questionnaire was developed for a larger study to collect data on selection, care, and grooming practices of adolescents. Data on care and repair practices were analyzed for this phase of the study. Clothing care questions addressed the following topics: (a) teen clothing care practices for own clothing, (b) teen clothing care activities for family clothing, (c) teen clothing repair practices for own clothing, (d) teen clothing repair activities for family clothing, and (e) disposition of clothing not repaired. Practices were measured on a 4 point Likert-type scale: Never (0), sometimes (1), usually (2), and always (3). For statistical analysis, "usually" and "always" were merged into a combined category "most of the time". Youth also identified types of repair made to clothing in their household, who completed the repair, and the disposition of items not repaired. Researchers developed the questionnaire based on Dillman's Total Design Method for survey research (1978). The instrument was reviewed by three family and consumer science youth educators for content validity. The instrument was then pilot tested with 35 4-H members in one rural and one urban county in central Ohio and further refined. The study population consisted of adolescents enrolled in 4- H programs in Ohio. Random number tables were used to select the sample of three hundred youth from membership lists of Ohio 4-H members, age 13-19, from a stratified sample of six rural and three urban counties. The total 4-H enrollment in the three urban counties sampled approximated the total 4-H enrollment of the six rural counties sampled as well as the proportion of urban/rural 4 -H enrollment in Ohio. The questionnaire and cover letter was mailed to 300 adolescents. A second survey was mailed to non-respondents, the week following the return deadline. The final usable response rate after one mail follow-up was 53% (n=158) a | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
