Commentary

Extension: On the Brink of Extinction or Distinction?

David A. King
Executive Director, Indiana Higher Education Telecommunication System
Communications Consultant, Office of the Dean of Agriculture
Purdue University
Internet address: dave_king@aes.purdue.edu

Michael D. Boehlje
Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics
Purdue University
Internet address: boehlje@agecon.purdue.edu

The sky is falling. The sky is falling.

Yeah, right. We've heard that before. People have been saying that about Extension for years.

Well, if we carefully analyze the pieces we find landing all around us, the evidence indicates Chicken Little may be right this time about the future of Extension.

Why do we say that, and what can we do? Read on.

The Evidence

Information & Value

Information now has real, measurable value. Private-sector information providers such as crop advisors, business consultants, and private education and training providers are cropping up everywhere. The attraction is the revenue garnered by refining information to meet specific audience needs.

No Longer Sole Source

Extension has spent decades as a sole-source provider in the information and outreach market. Technology has created the opportunity to provide and promote access that wasn't realistic before. Because of this, the traditional education market is also more easily accessible for competitors--other universities, private education developers, and commercially based education and training organizations.

Technology combined with open access to the rapidly expanding knowledge marketplace entices private information providers to step up the competition for learners who previously were dependent on Extension as a sole-source education provider.

From Distribution to Access

A "provider mentality" focuses on the process of distribution, meaning it is driven by what we want to distribute. A "user mentality" focuses on access and the customer, meaning we now need to anticipate customer needs and provide them access to our knowledge base.

Reach vs. Richness

The richest form of interaction with Extension educators has always been face-to-face (F2F). But reaching a mass audience with F2F richness requires more resources than Extension could ever generate. But now think about Amazon.com, which uses technology to remember what individuals have ordered before and suggests other books they might find interesting, thus enhancing the richness of their interaction with the countless customers they reach.

Navigators in the Lead

Evans and Wuster (2000) also say reach, even when it carries F2F richness, is just clutter without some form of navigation. Navigators can be software (Quicken), evaluators (Consumer Reports), or search engines (Yahoo).

However, Navigators can also be people. They say private-sector Navigators are driving fundamental power shifts among the other players. Given the ongoing privatization of information, Extension must respond, or the private sector obviously will dominate.

Navigation is not a new concept to Extension. Sorting information and helping people navigate to effective answers has been the foundation of the Extension system from the beginning. However, with the number of Web sites doubling every 100 days, the amount of information to navigate through is phenomenal. Are we up to it?

Disruptive Technologies & Innovations

Christensen (2000) says, "Many of the most powerful innovations that disrupted other industries did so by enabling a larger population of less-skilled people to do, in a more convenient, less expensive setting, things that historically could be performed only by expensive specialists in centralized, inconvenient locations."

Compare the distribution of traditional Extension educational programs to the access model of other providers, where you can obtain what you want, when you want it, in the convenience of your own home or business. Clearly, we can legitimately be described as having "relatively expensive specialists in centralized, inconvenient locations."

The Consequences

Extension will continue to have difficulty coping with the transition to a marketplace environment where we are not the sole-source provider of educational opportunities. Christensen's examples clearly demonstrate that large, traditional organizations are unable to effectively compete in smaller, rapidly expanding new markets created by disruptive technologies.

Time is of the essence. Economists say the first competitor in a newly defined market niche could maintain as much as 50% market share, leaving others to fight over the remaining available customers.

Extension's 100 years of experience may give us a head start toward a successful entry into a newly defined niche of technology-mediated outreach for broader audience segments, but if we don't move quickly, others will.

Turning 100 years of inertia? Good luck.

Our Proposal

Rather than reinvent from the inside, we propose creating from scratch a new virtual Extension Service: e-CES.

Reinventing from the inside doesn't work--it is typically bound by incrementalism. As technology maven Nicholas Negroponte from MIT says, "Incrementalism is innovation's worst enemy."

We're proposing a new e-CES in classic, new-market-entrant, start-up mode. Initial goals will be to match and surpass Extension's current supply-oriented distribution system with a demand-oriented anytime, anyplace, any-source access system.

Working with a virtual foundation on the World Wide Web and other technologies, e-CES will attract new customers, new sources and providers of information, and new talent able to overcome the traditional barriers to which incumbents appear blind or by which they are constrained.

How Will We Do It?

We'll leverage our brand identity from the larger parent organization into these new markets. The value of science-based objectivity has dropped in relative importance lately, with access and timeliness moving up as higher priorities for outreach audiences. But objectivity will reemerge as a high priority--and as our competitive advantage--when access and timeliness are offered by everyone.

As a new competitor, e-CES, with its brand-based credibility, will resonate with new customers growing cynical in the commercial churn of the virtual marketplace.

Brand identity will be maintained as Land-Grant faculty and specialists build and offer new educational modules focused intensely on identified customer needs. Faculty and specialists will be reimbursed for their involvement, just as the private sector is currently doing, using consulting agreements.

Grassroots contacts will help us identify issues. We'll follow up with extensive and ongoing audience analysis pinpointing the needs of "communities of interest" well beyond traditional audiences. Having effective sensors in every community could give us a leg-up on private-sector competitors.

While attempting to cherry-pick off the best revenue-generating customers in multiple markets, private providers may not have enough foundation in any one market to gain access to the customer intelligence we can develop--if we have the right people in the field.

Also, we'll attract development talent from the dot.com-startup world. The rush to mine the virtual gold of e-commerce has chewed up and spit out some highly talented people that could find the long-term societal value (and the revenue) created by e-CES to be the next great challenge.

How Will We Fund It?

To create a seed-money, venture capital fund, we'll approach major philanthropic foundations and corporations with national scope and presence. Corporate partners will be required to have a broad understanding of the value of science-based objective information and must not expect to "own" or control the flow of educational programming.

We'll use initial funding during the startup and transition until we can establish a competitive user-fee structure that covers all operating expenses. e-CES will be a separate, public/private joint venture, but with clear public accountability and identity. It will have an "Extension inside" image and branding, much like "Intel-inside" in the computer industry.

Are We Up to It?

We'd better be. If we aren't, in the very near future we won't have a professional foundation from which to work. Anyone assuming they will be working in Extension in the same way they do today beyond the next 5 to 10 years is just not paying attention.

React On-Line

Okay, now it's your turn.

Take a look our extended discussion of these issues, available in three on-line documents at http://www.agcom.purdue.edu/AgCom/EXTonBrink:

• Boehlje, M. D., & King, D. A. (1998, October)."Extension on the brink--Meeting the private sector challenge in the information marketplace," Journal of Applied Communications, Vol. 82, No. 3.
• King, D. A., & Boehlje, M. D. (2000). "Extension's future: A conversation about what lies beyond the brink" CES-324-W. Purdue Extension.
• King, D. A., & Boehlje, M. D. (2000). "So you want to have a job in 2005? Bringing Extension back from the brink" CES-325-W. Purdue Extension.

Then, log on to our Brink of Extension Discussion Forum, also available at http://www.agcom.purdue.edu/AgCom/EXTonBrink. React to our proposal. Scan the reactions of your colleagues. Return, and react some more.

We'll use your input to help formulate the next steps in this effort to frame and implement e-CES.

References

Evans, P., & Wuster, T. (2000). Blown to bits: How the new economics of information transforms strategy. Harvard Business School Press.

Christensen, C., Bohmer, R., & Kenagy, J. (2000, September-October). "Will disruptive innovations cure health care?" Harvard Business Review.

Value-Free Extension Education?

Thomas W. Blaine
Extension District Specialist, Community Development
Ohio State University Extension, Northeast District
Wooster, Ohio
Internet Address: blaine.17@osu.edu

David B. Patton
Program Leader, Public Issues Education
Ohio State University Extension
Columbus, Ohio
Internet Address: patton.4@osu.edu

In recent years, Extension agents and specialists have become increasingly involved in programming in topical areas that address controversial public issues. This often puts these professionals in uncomfortable situations.

Many clientele look to Extension to provide information on topics that are important in their lives, but often Extension professionals fear that, in addressing controversial issues, they will be seen as promoting one side of an issue or as crossing the line from education to advocacy (Barrows, 1993).

Within Extension, agents and specialists have developed numerous key words in response to this dilemma. Often we hear that a program is based on "technically correct" information or that it is "research based." Another term that has been employed is that the programs are "unbiased" (Massey, 1994). These terms are all clearly defensive, designed to protect Extension educators from charges that they are, in fact, "biased" or advocating a particular policy.

It is our opinion that Extension educators who employ this type of stance, whether proactively or in response to criticisms from clientele or peers, are missing an opportunity to accomplish further educational objectives. They also are probably jeopardizing their own credibility.

We believe that the attainment of purely "unbiased"--or, to use a less pejorative, more contemporary term, "value free"--education is impossible. All education--no matter the topic, no matter the form of presentation-- carries values (or bias).

Philosophers of Science & Values

The current Extension dialogue can perhaps be informed by a brief examination of what philosophers of science have had to say about the nature of knowledge. The common Extension rhetoric of unbiased education-- the presentation of scientific facts only--hearkens back to the early part of the 20^th century.

That was when the well-known statistician-turned philosopher of science, Karl Pearson, argued that the essence of science is the accumulation and classification of "facts." Pearson was attempting, just as current Extension professionals are prone to do, to lay down a separation between scientific knowledge and opinion, or values.

The logical positivist movement of the 1930's was even more explicit. It attempted to demarcate all statements into two broad categories: positive and normative. Positive statements are statements of fact, while normative statements are statements of opinion.

Thus, the statement "Large-scale agricultural operations offer economies of scale in production" is positive in that it may be supported or refuted by an appeal to evidence. The statement "Farmers should expand the scale of their operations" is a normative statement because it advocates a position. It reflects an opinion, or value judgment.

One of the key philosophers to shatter logical positivism as well as the positive/normative distinction was Karl Popper. Popper argued that there are no pure statements of value-free or "positive" facts, that all facts are actually value laden.

After all, how many potential facts are there to report? An infinite number. We could report on farm-by-farm weight of cattle, the percentages of fat calories in various foods, the number of youths involved in various 4H programs, the number of new businesses in various regions, and so on. But who in Extension presents any series of random facts?

When anyone reports a finding, that person is generally trying to make a point. When we choose to cite a particular fact or the conclusion of a particular study, we are expressing a preference (a bias, if you will) that this fact is worth reporting.

It's the same for programming. When we choose to undertake a program, we are in fact declaring that this program is worth our while, consistent with our goals, and appropriate for Extension education. We are implicitly stating that the specific information contained in the program is important for our clientele to know. In other words, we are guided by our values from the beginning of our endeavor.

In expanding on Popper's work, Carl Hempel attempted to classify value judgments themselves. According to Hempel, characterizing value judgments are the type that we are faced with when we choose what problems to investigate--what particular facts to report or what programs to undertake. In these decisions, we seldom explicitly state that these efforts are "good" or appropriate, etc. But as we saw above, and as Hempel emphasized, they are value judgments nonetheless.

Appraising value judgments, on the other hand, are explicit statements of values or opinions. They include the types of statements we typically try to avoid in Extension, that a particular policy is "good" or "bad," should or should not be adopted, and so on.

The recent proliferation in the number of controversial items published by various individuals and groups on the Internet helps to illustrate the distinction in these two types of value judgments. One of the most stark examples involves the publication of instructions for making various types of explosive devices, including pipe-bombs.

Apologists for those responsible for publishing these instructions argued that they were not advocating that anyone engage in violence. Critics, however, insisted that this material was inappropriate. So, in this case, the perpetrators had made the characterizing value judgment that this material was worthy of being made public, but had abstained from the appraising value judgment that someone should engage in violence or indeed even make explosives.

Examples of issues where scientists and the public confront the interface between characterizing and appraising value judgments include recent debates over cloning, genetically modified foods, and research using fetal tissue.

Implications for Extension

So what is the implication of all of this for Extension educators?

First, we should all recognize that it is sometimes very difficult to distinguish clearly between education and advocacy. Philosophers of science have demonstrated that the line is too blurred to allow for such a clear demarcation.

Extension examples include the following scenarios:

• A family and consumer sciences educator teaching smoking cessation techniques may be labeled as anti-smoking.
• An agricultural agent teaching about economies of scale in large livestock operations may be seen as promoting these operations to the detriment of small "family farms."
• A community development agent who teaches principles of zoning may be viewed by some as opposing the free market in land use.
• A 4H/Youth agent teaching about principles of character education in school and community could be deemed to be encroaching on material best kept within the family and thus to have an anti-family bias.

Each of the above examples includes the characterizing value judgment that these topics are important but avoids making an appraising value judgment--as long as the educators involved do not openly advocate a position (anti-smoking, pro large livestock operation, etc). However, an awareness that our choices do reflect values that may be exaggerated by some members of the public will probably help us be more effective.

In other words, by acknowledging that our programs reflect our values, rather than by simply retreating behind the verbiage of "scientific objectivity," we will be in a position to defend our approaches in a credible manner, should critics seek to question them.

Second, we need a framework to make explicit all the potential roles Extension educators might adopt in dealing with controversial public issues.

Because these issues are often so complex and the public is often divided, a standard formula for delivering programs based on "value-free," "scientific," or "technically correct" information will be insufficient to ensure effective programming/education. If we understand these various approaches, we may find that numerous unique challenges will present themselves as specific issues come and go.

Third, it seems obvious that Extension's involvement in controversial public issues will increase in the future. The expectations of clientele and university administrators alike will ensure that.

We believe that as agents and specialists grapple with what issues they wish to address and how they wish to address them, they need to be aware of the "values" that they are carrying into the fray. We have a hunch that experienced Extension professionals already are aware of this, at least implicitly.

But perhaps it would be better if a more explicit recognition of this idea were in evidence in Extension discussions. Less emphasis on "value-free," "scientific," or "unbiased" information and more discussion of how Extension's programs are consistent with the values expressed in its mission statement as well as those of the community would be a good place to start.

References

Barrows, R. (Reprinted 1993). Public policy education. North Central Regional Extension Publication No. 203.

Hempel, C.G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation. New York: Free Press.

Massey, R.E. (1994). Extension education and unbiased research. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 32(3). Available: http://www.joe.org/joe/1994october/comm1.html

Pearson, K. (1900). The grammar of science. London: Black.

Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.

This article is online at http://joe.org/joe/2000october/ent-co.html.

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