Commentary Articles

The Challenge of Extension Scholarship

Charles L. Norman
President, JOE Board of Directors
Dean and Director, Agricultural Extension Service
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Knoxville, Tennessee
Internet Address: CLNORMAN@utk.edu

The Journal of Extension (JOE) became electronic in June 1994, so this year we will be celebrating our seventh year on the Web. During this time, we have seen submissions to the journal grow tremendously, to more than 180 in 2000. Based on the number of submissions, it's clear that Extension professionals across the country want to share their programming ideas through a peer-reviewed publication.

I do believe that every Extension professional has ideas to share that will be of great benefit to their coworkers nationally. However, as I review some of the submissions and compare them to other journal articles that I read regularly, I see a need for JOE to rethink and reconsider its criteria, standards, and level of rigor for the articles it publishes.

To do this, the JOE board, over the next six months, must give serious thought to what constitutes scholarship for the journal. I think this is particularly important at this time, as land grant universities across the country continue to engage, rethink, and evaluate what constitutes scholarship in higher education.

While it might appear a simple task to define scholarship, it is not. Generally, scholarship is poorly understood at most land grant universities. Often it is defined solely by the number of articles published and the research completed. Little or no consideration may be given to the faculty member's job assignment. Furthermore, in many cases, little or no recognition to team efforts is granted by faculty peers.

As we begin to think about what scholarship includes, we must first define scholarship. In Scholarship Reconsidered--Priorities of the Professorate, Ernest L. Boyer defines the work of faculty members by classifying it into four separate but overlapping functions. These are the scholarships of "discovery," "integration," "application," and "teaching."

A group of faculty members in the College of Agriculture at Oregon State University further define scholarship this way: "Scholarship is creative work that is validated by peers and communicated" (Weiser, 1996). The Oregon State faculty describe five forms of scholarship similar to the four described by Boyer, expanding "teaching" to "learning and teaching" and adding "creative artistry" as the fifth type of scholarship.

A small group of faculty members at Penn State University, building on the "Boyer report," have developed a comprehensive, multidimensional model of scholarship, UniSCOPE, in which outreach scholarship plays a key role. They characterize the UniSCOPE model as a "challenge to the Penn State community of scholars" (Hyman et al., 2000).

There is much in all three of these efforts that challenges the broader U.S. Extension community of scholars, as well. The members of the JOE board are accepting this challenge. We believe we all must rise to meet it.

JOE must and will continue to strive to meet the needs of all Extension professionals at every level of the U.S. Extension system, from the non-tenure track professional to those who hold professorial rank. JOE should be the medium of choice through which to share innovative ideas based on Extension research.

However, higher education is undergoing tremendous change. If JOE is to remain a viable, contributing member of the Extension system, we must continually work to maintain our programming connection to both teaching and research.

At the same time, we must be mindful of the public's growing distrust and dissatisfaction with universities. Universities are viewed by some as being inappropriately focused on research and funding, and often not responsive and/or relevant to societal needs today.

As a medium to showcase the creative scholarship of Extension professionals, we will demonstrate our relevance to both higher education and the public.

Boyer, Ernest L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered--Priorities of the professorate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Hyman, D., Ayers, J. E., Cash, E. H., Fahnline, D. E., Gold, D. P., Gurgevich, E. A., Herrmann, R. O., Jurs, P. C., David E. Roth, D. E., Swisher, J. D., Whittington, M. S., & Wright, H. S. (2000). UniSCOPE 2000: A multidimensional model of scholarship for the 21st century. University Park, PA: The UniSCOPE Learning Community [On-line].
Available: http://www.outreach.psu.edu/News/Pubs/uniscope.html

Schauber, A., Aldrich-Markham, S., Olsen, J., Gredler, G., Olsen, P., & Reichenbach, M. (1998). Defining scholarship for county Extension agents. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 36(4). Available:
http://www.joe.org/joe/1998august/iw1.html

Weiser, C. J. (1996). The value of a university--Rethinking scholarship. Oregon State University [On-line]. Available:
http://www.adec.edu/clemson/papers/weiser.html

Weiser, C. J., & Houglum, L. (1998). Scholarship unbound for the 21st century. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 36(4). Available:
http://www.joe.org/joe/1998august/a1.html

Keeping a Traditional Program-Delivery Method in an "E" World

Kenneth D. Simeral
Associate Professor
Extension Agent, Agriculture & Natural Resources, Community Development
Jefferson and Harrison Counties
Ohio State University Extension
Wintersville, Ohio
Internet Address: Simeral.1@osu.edu

As we enter the twenty-first century, advances in communication technology have changed how agents deliver programs and work with clientele. The electronic world makes it very easy for educational information to be delivered quickly and efficiently. These advances must be regarded as program-delivery improvements. However, communication technology has also reduced the amount of face-to-face, personal contact with and among clientele, which used to be a hallmark of Extension work.

Questions About Benefits & Value

Can we keep some face-to-face benefits while going forward in an "e" world?

Let's look at just one traditional form of face-to-face clientele contact. Extension-related committee meetings held in the homes of clientele have gone the way of the crank telephone. This trend has been fueled not only by improved communication and delivery technology, but also by the availability of more transportation in rural areas of the country, the consolidations of schools, an increase in dual income and career families, and changes in the sociology of the family.

Has Extension programming thereby lost something that is of intrinsic value?

No matter what the causes, there is probably general agreement that entertaining and home hospitality are becoming a lost art in society overall. Using public meeting facilities or having a meeting room as part of the Extension office is seen as a way of making Extension agents' lives easier.

If we as agents have gained something, have the clientele lost something?

Clearly, I believe the answer to all my questions is "yes." Yes, we can--and we should--keep the face-to-face benefits. Yes, Extension programming has lost something intrinsically valuable. And yes, our clientele have lost something, too.

The Value of Holding Home Meetings

Holding Extension committee meetings in clientele homes is of value for a number of reasons.

Teaches Diversity & Tolerance

Developing greater understanding is the only way diversity and tolerance can grow. Especially in this day of more heterogeneous committees, when groups meet in homes, a great deal of diversity training can be accomplished, if not by specific design, then just by circumstances.

As committee members meet each other's spouses and family members, they gain more understanding of fellow members as people like themselves. Seemingly vast and unbridgeable differences in cultural or ethnic backgrounds are reduced when seen in the more personal, "human" setting of the home.

Strengthens Committees

When people experience how others live, they feel they are more a part of the group. The hosts feel acceptance because others are willing to come to their homes. The meetings, themselves, and the reasons for them become more personal to each member and are not just experienced as the usual institutional-type meetings. Committee members thus become more receptive to ideas.

Encourages Long-Term Relationships

Some Extension programming can and should be done on a long-term basis. The relationships built among committee members who participate in home-hosted meetings are much more likely to become long-term relationships. And this provides a firm foundation for longer term Extension programming.

Provides Opportunity for Sociability/Hospitality

When clientele host meetings in their homes, they learn how to welcome guests and be hospitable. Having all members of the group take turns hosting meetings allows them to develop these skills. Many times this is the only opportunity our clientele may have to learn or practice them. Creating an environment where people are comfortable and where people feel welcome leaves a positive attitude in attendees and hosts, alike.

Encourages Family Development

Parents can use the opportunity to teach hospitality and manners to their children. Further, they can also make hosting the group a total family effort. And such opportunities are becoming more rare in our "e" world.

Recapturing the Value

If we, as Extension professionals, keep these benefits in mind, I believe we can recapture what has been lost. This applies whether it is a 4-H club, a county cattlemen's group, a parenting group, or the County Extension Advisory committee.

As Extension agents, with our great ingenuity, we can surely find ways to fit the home meeting back into at least some Extension programming. We can:

• Discuss hosting meetings with volunteers to explore implementation of this concept.
• Ask farmers to host a field day.
• Host a group in our own homes, and set an example.
• Encourage clientele to be in charge of hosting meetings, if not in their homes, then at a public facility or meeting room.

Extension has a history of being not only a deliverer of information but also a conduit for learning social and interaction skills. Since Extension was founded, we have helped people develop tolerance, understand diversity, build community, learn hospitality, and enjoy stronger family units. We do not have to lose these values in our "e" world.

This article is online at http://joe.org/joe/2001february/ent-comm.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.