|
August 2002
|
|
Contents
Editor's PageThis month, I describe a wonderful new feature of the JOE Web site and "scratch the surface" of the August JOE. JOE Top 50JOE Web developer Robyn Ness has added what I think is a great feature to our Web site: "The Top 50 Most Read Articles." Visit that list to find out which articles (from the 94 issues on-line to date) JOE readers sought out most often from January 2002 through May 2002. It makes fascinating reading. The leader, with 12,709 views (in just 5 months, folks), is "Understanding Employee Motivation," by James R. Lindner. He was at Ohio State when his article appeared in the June 1998 JOE, but he's now at Texas A & M. (I know because I regularly get requests for copies of his survey instrument that I have to steer his way.) The earliest article to get some "top 50 action" (521 views) is Number 42, "Nominal Group Technique: An Alternative to Brainstorming," by John A. Sample. That article appeared in March of 1984. The most recent articles are three from the February 2002 issue, Numbers 35, 41, and 44. Remember, if you're tempted to try and "take the pulse" of Extension by analyzing the list, that JOE readers come from far afield. That is, they're not all in Extension, and they're not all in the U.S. But there's lots of food for thought here, nonetheless. Robyn plans to update the list approximately every 6 months, so keep visiting the JOE Usage Statistics page. August 2002 JOEBeyond Information Transfer Remember "Rousing the People on the Land: The Roots of the Educational Organizing Tradition in Extension Work," from the June issue? The author, Scott Peters, has a follow-up article in this month's issue, "Citizens Developing a Voice at the Table: A Story of Educational Organizing in Contemporary Extension Work." Peters' point, that Extension can be and used to be and should more often be about more than transferring technical information to clientele, was underscored by several other articles in that issue. And it's also underscored by one of the two excellent Commentaries in this month's issue, Kathleen Dodge Kelsey's "What Is Old Is New Again: Cooperative Extension's Role in Democracy Building Through Civic Engagement." Preparing for the Worst The first two Tools of the Trade articles this month allude to the events of September 11 and discuss how to prepare for crises and disasters. The author of "Working at Home When You Have No Choice: Personal Experiences and Advice" shares some tips on how to deal with not being able to reach your office--for whatever reason. The authors of "Sound Internal Communication Is Crucial in a Crisis Situation" quote from the speakers at a recent workshop, "Crisis Communications After 9/11," and discuss the importance of a workplace crisis response plan. There's valuable advice in both. I could go on about the August issue, but I've run out of space and time. The Contents page indicates just how rich it is. Laura Hoelscher, Editor
What Is Old Is New Again: Cooperative Extension's Role in Democracy Building Through Civic EngagementKathleen Dodge Kelsey IntroductionDemocracy building was a cornerstone of higher education when its founders created the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890. The land-grant university was poised to become the great equalizer of an aristocratic society by educating the commonwealth. The Cold War is credited with fundamentally changing the mission of the university from developing democratic citizens to attaining technological superiority (Checkoway, 2001; Mathews, 1997). Faculty were no longer valued for educating the masses in the virtues of a democratic society. Basic research activities rose in stature to dominate the modern university. Faculty members were forced to change their role from service to science (Rice, 1991). The noble cause of generating knowledge to solve societal problems was replaced by research agendas that would lead to a peer-reviewed journal article, which became the gold standard of success for faculty regardless of the fact that knowledge disseminated through this route is not accessible to the majority of society. Critics charge that the university does not prepare adults for a place at the democratic table (Boyte & Hollander, 1999; Checkoway, 2001). Academic disciplines focus on teaching specific content to students in the hope that after a 4-year curriculum the student will graduate a competent member of the profession, not necessarily a civically engaged or democratically minded citizen. Civic lessons are left for others to teach. The classroom is not the only domain criticized for failing to fully educate America's youth. Research and Extension activities conducted at the university have fallen under attack for not targeting more immediate needs of society. Common problems encountered by county educators are viewed as unpublishable by faculty who must be on the cutting edge of their discipline to earn promotion and tenure (Kelsey, Pense, & Mariger, 2002). What Is the Role of the Land-Grant University in Teaching Civic Engagement?The land-grant university has the power to set the tone for higher education worldwide through its prominent status. The land-grant university was established for the commonwealth and embodied the democratic ideals of a Jeffersonian society. The Cooperative Extension System (Extension), founded in 1914 by the Smith-Lever Act, was designed to forge a connection between work, education, and citizenship (Peters, 1997). Extension saw itself as building rural democracy and developing community capacity through organizational activities (Boyte & Hollander, 1999; Peters, 2002). The mission of the CSREES is "To advance knowledge for agriculture, the environment, human health and well being, and communities" (http://www.reeusda.gov/1700/about/about_csrees.htm). Extension has become the largest rural adult education agency in the world for building excellence in agricultural production and homemaking skills. It has recently expanded its work to include youth at risk and community development programs. Extension is in an optimal position to help the university reengage with communities through their army of service providers who can act as catalysts for public work. In fact, public work was the dominant driving force of the early Extension county educator. Peters (1997, p. 52-53), citing the work of Smith and Wilson (1930), described the county educator as one who brought "rural people together in groups for social intercourse and study, solving community and neighborhood problems, fostering better relations and common endeavor between town and country." Smith and Wilson presented the idea that farmers and faculty were equal brokers of knowledge, each having something to learn from the other, and that it was the county educators' role to transfer knowledge from both parties for mutual growth and development of a nation. However, in recent times Extension has come under fire for failing to remember its roots of building active citizenship through the development of human capital that is empowered and socially engaged. Over the past 40 years Extension agents moved away from the role of community organizer toward promoting the research agenda of the university, with little regard for local knowledge (Peters, 2002). Extension agents saw their role as delivering knowledge from the research professor to farmers in a limited array of disciplines, not as facilitators of knowledge exchange between the groups. One of the early scholars of the land-grant system, Liberty Hyde Bailey (1858-1954), stated in 1915:
Bailey's words remind us that higher education should not be solely about developing economic opportunities for its graduates, but rather about the business of developing graduates who are fully prepared to participate in society in economic, social, and political dimensions. How Can Extension Educators Build Democracy Through Civic Engagement?Citizens must have ethical standards, social responsibility, and civic competencies in a democratic society. Citizens must "understand their own social identities, communicate with those who are different from themselves, and build bridges across differences for a common cause" (Checkoway, 2001, p. 129). Extension educators can teach democratic values through civic engagement as a lifestyle. When we speak of teaching a lifestyle it means incorporating the values of democracy and diversity in daily lessons that are focused on problem-centered rather than discipline-based learning (Checkoway, 2001). The Wingspread Declaration on Renewing the Civic Mission of the American Research University (Boyte & Hollander, 1999) set forth several challenges for filling Americans with the spirit of democracy. Chief among these recommendations is to get communities involved in projects that are meaningful and that make a positive difference in people's lives. Participants should be immersed in a climate that is rich in difference--race, culture, ideologies, and experiences. Extension educators should help to create opportunities for the immersion experiences of participants by identifying situations where they can work with community members in solving problems. Prins and Ewert (2002) discuss Extension's role in cooperating with faith-based organizations as a way to build social capital. Extension educators must also be willing to engage in equal partnerships with the community and respect different ways of knowing. In return, the university must support and reward such activities by making itself more porous to difference, more interactive with non-academic life, and more effective in communicating with lay audiences. Reengaging the CommunityReconceptualizing scholarship at the university is a required first step in redirecting the university back toward the community. It is common practice to regard community members as human subjects and to view their problems dispassionately through values-free positivist lenses. Researchers must shift their thinking and practice toward post-positivism values and regard members of the community as full "partners and active participants in knowledge development" if they are to be successful in reengaging the community (Checkoway, 2001, p. 134). Collaborative, post-positivist, community-based projects are reemerging across America. The Wisconsin Cooperative Extension Service founded the Teen Assessment Project in the last 1980s for the purpose of conducting action research in collaboration with university faculty and Extension agents to better understand the needs of adolescents in local communities (Peters, 1997). Community members gathered with faculty to co-create a survey that answered questions that were important to citizens. The data was collected, analyzed, and disseminated by the team. Local knowledge was used to address local problems. This process empowered citizens and gave faculty meaningful work that contributed to their tenure and promotion goals. The Cornell Cooperative Extension changed its motto in 1996 to reflect a changing paradigm that acknowledges partnerships between university-generated and local knowledge. The motto is "The Cornell Cooperative Extension educational system enables people to improve their lives and communities through partnerships that put experience and research to work" (Warner, Hinrichs, Schneyer, & Joyce, 1998). The Cornell Participatory Action Network (CPARN) based at Cornell University and the Cornell Community and Rural Development Institute (CaRDI) (http://www.cardi.cornell.edu/index.cfm) also focus on community problems and solutions through action research practices. Community members partner with university faculty to collect and analyze information for the purpose of social justice and sustainability. ConclusionIn order to facilitate greater civic engagement, a space must be created that allows for practical wisdom to flourish, for the valuing of folk knowledge as a legitimate form of knowing, and for conducting research with the people, not just for the people. The Cooperative Extension Service has deep roots in facilitating this endeavor, but was misdirected by the Cold War. With globalization and a world community epistemology at hand, the time has come for Extension to reengage with communities to build partnerships that truly reflect the spirit of solidarity that the land-grant university was founded upon. ReferencesBoyte, H., & Hollander, E. (1999). Wingspread declaration on renewing the civic mission of the American research university (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 435 370). Campus Compact. Checkoway, B. (2001). Renewing the civic mission of the American research university. The Journal of Higher Education, 72(2), 125-147. Kelsey, K. D., Pense, S. L., & Mariger, S. C. (2002). A case study of land-grant university faculty perceptions' toward serving stakeholders. National Association of Colleges and Teachers of Agriculture Journal, 46(1), 50-57. Mathews, D. (1997). The public and the academy. Higher Education Exchange, 71-78. Peters, S. J. (2002). Rousing the people on the land: The roots of the educational organizing tradition in Extension work. Journal of Extension [On-line], 40(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002june/a1.html Peters, S. J. (1997). Public scholarship and the land-grant idea. Higher Education Exchange, 50-57. Prins, E., & Ewert , E. M. (2002). Cooperative Extension and faith-based organizations: Building social capital. Journal of Extension [On-line], 40(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002june/comm2.html Rice, R. E. (1991). Rethinking what it means to be a scholar (ERIC No. ED333 938). Warner, M. E., Hinrichs, C., Schneyer, J., & Joyce, L. (1998). From knowledge extended to knowledge created: Challenges for a new Extension paradigm. Journal of Extension [On-line], 36(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1998august/rb1.html
Birth to Three: Extension's Role in the Early YearsHarriet Shaklee If you've been working in the area of early childhood or concerned about young children or just plain alive and listening to the news in recent years, you've probably gathered that there's important new news about the first 3 years of life. Though psychologists have known for some time that brains are important to babies' experiences, recent years of research show that babies' experiences are also important for their brains. While infants come into the world with plenty of brain cells, those cells need to get connected to each other to function effectively. Cells do this by building synapses between each other, resulting in a rich interconnected neural network. It is the experience of everyday life that prompts this critical developmental process. And when does this all happen? The most intense period of development for humans is between birth and 3 years of age. By age 2, toddler synaptic networks are as rich as those of adults. At 3 years, they're twice as dense as those of adults and stay that way until 9-10 years of age. Synaptic development in the prefrontal cortex, the site of higher-level cognition, takes place over a longer period, peaking at one year, but continuing strong through much of adolescence. Over the teenage years, unused synapses are "pruned," i.e., eliminated, to result in a leaner organizational structure--cerebral downsizing, if you will. (Shaklee & Fletcher, 2002; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). From Research to PolicyArmed with this new information about how early experiences shape the physical structure of the brain, early childhood professionals joined concerned parents and citizens in calling for public policies and practices to support these developmental trends. Expenditures for children's development are currently focused on children from 5-18 years of age, through the extensive system of public education developed over the past 200 years. However, current brain research suggests that similar concern should be directed to the infant and preschool years. While there is clear consensus among early childhood professionals about the importance of the early years to children's development, there is less agreement about what to do about it. The body of research on early development is growing at a rapid pace, but the meaning of the findings for programs and policies is less clear. Who, ultimately, is responsible for how we care for infants and toddlers, and how should we move from research to practice in the early childhood years? (Caring for Infants and Toddlers, 2001). In many cases, policy implications have been sufficiently confusing that communities and states have made no response. The Map and Track project of the National Center for Children in Poverty reports that, by the end of the year 2000, 19 states still had no funded programs that specifically target infants and toddlers. The effect of the early years research is seen in the seven states that took their first step in early childhood funding in 2000 (National Center for Children in Poverty, 2002). In other cases, policy makers have initiated programs for infants and young children, but not always on sound research grounds. For example, the states of Georgia and Tennessee launched a program to give a classical music CD to every new mother, based on news that listening to classical music could enhance cognitive performance for children. Similarly, a new law in Florida requires that children in state-run child care centers listen to classical music daily. Such programs may be good for the classical music industry, but a look at the research raises doubts about their utility. These programs and policies were initiated in response to a study in which college students showed increased spatial reasoning skill immediately after listening to Mozart. No long-term effects were measured, and more recent studies show that even the short-term effect is inconsistent. There have been no studies with infants or toddlers showing any cognitive impact of classical music (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). Policy makers in these states could have used more direction in using research to inform policy for young children. These cases point to the difficulty of moving from research to practice in the public arena. Research is clear that the experiences of the early years shape infants' and children's brain development, but what should be done about it?
These are all promising options for parents and their young children, but which would best promote a strong start for children? Which are affordable within family, business, community, and state budgets? And which approaches fit with public ideology about appropriate roles for parents, community, and the state? (Gopnik, Meltzoff, & Kuhl, 1999; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000) Roles for ExtensionThe Cooperative Extension System is uniquely positioned to help families and communities sort out these questions as they explore the implications of early childhood research for their children. Problems in research application such as these are ideally suited to the structure and resources of the Extension System. Figure 1 below shows how the core features of the Extension System work together in developing sound research-based policy for young children. Figure 1.
Recent findings about early brain development challenge parents, citizens, communities, and policy makers at state and local levels to provide their infants and young children with a strong start in life. But the path from research to practice can be unclear as communities search for the best ways to put those findings in practice. Extension can serve a key role in guiding the process toward the sound, research-based programs most likely to meet the needs of young children and their families. ReferencesCaring for Infants and Toddlers. (2001). The Future of children, 11, Spring/Summer. Gopnik, A., Meltzoff, A., & Kuhl, P. (1999). The scientist in the crib. New York: Free Press. National Center for Children in Poverty (2002). Map and track: State Initiatives for Young Children and Families [On-line]. Available at: http://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/dept/nccp/ Shaklee, H., & Fletcher, J. (2002). Key studies that rocked the cradle: How research changed the way we care for infants and toddlers. In B. Stewart, R. Lovingood, & R. Purcell (Eds.), Research Applications in Family and Consumer Sciences. Alexandria, VA: American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences. Shonkoff, J., & Phillips (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Citizens Developing a Voice at the Table: A Story of Educational Organizing in Contemporary Extension WorkScott J. Peters IntroductionThe essence of Extension education is often understood as consisting of two kinds of work: diffusing "science-based" information and helping people "apply" such information. While this captures some of what Extension educators have done and still do, from the very beginning Extension work has also included something I call "educational organizing" (Peters, 2002). Educational organizing can be understood as the work of developing leadership, building civic capacity, and facilitating learning through bringing people and resources together to identify, deliberate about, and act on important public issues and problems. Such work helps people to learn and act together in relation to specific, real-world problems and issues they care about, over time scales that can stretch from several months to several years in length. At present, there is little useful research on the tradition of educational organizing in Extension work, either with respect to its historical foundations and development or its current shape and form. In response, I have initiated an action research project designed to help educators, specialists, and administrators to both understand and strengthen this tradition of work. The focus of the research is the development of "practitioner profiles" that provide detailed first-person accounts of actual "practice stories" of educational organizing from experienced Extension professionals. My research method is adapted from an approach developed by John Forester that aims "to take practice more seriously, to recognize sensitively and to analyze powerfully what insightful practitioners do well in the most challenging moments of their work" (Forester, 1999, p. 8). In semi-structured, tape-recorded interviews, which generally last from an hour to an hour and a half, Extension educators are asked to speak about one particular project they have pursued in a way that provides insight into what they actually do in their work. Each profile, created from the edited transcript of an interview, tells the story of a project in the educator's own words. Completed profiles provide accounts of specific practice stories, shedding light not only on the challenges educators face but what they do as they respond to them. Profiles serve as learning and theory-building tools that help us identify and critically reflect on the skills, strategies, and roles educators use, develop, and play in their everyday practice. Because profiles are constructed from the actual lived experiences of practitioners, they can help us theorize about Extension education in ways that have strong practical utility. To date, my graduate students at Cornell University and I have developed about 60 practitioner profiles of Extension educators and specialists from several states. In this article, I draw from one particularly rich profile from our collection in order to discuss some of what we are learning about the dimensions and significance of educational organizing in contemporary Extension work. The profile is of Janet Ayres, a professor and Extension specialist in leadership development in the Department of Agriculture Economics at Purdue University. Her "practice story" describes a process of public deliberation and leadership development that she coached and facilitated to help citizens in Wabash Township (near Lafayette, Indiana) gain a voice in development decisions affecting their community. The Practice StoryJanet's story, in her words, is about "how people in a community were having decisions made about their quality of life. They had no representation on [local] decision making boards and wanted to have a say in what was happening. If I were to give it a title, it would be something about citizens developing a voice at the table." (This excerpt, and those that follow, from Peters, Hittleman, & Ayres, 2001) The story began in 1994 when a township trustee asked Scott Rumble, an Extension educator in Tippecanoe County, Indiana, for help. Scott then called Janet to ask for her help. The first thing Janet and Scott did was to arrange a meeting with the trustee to learn more about the trustee's situation and perspective. Their "work" at this meeting was to draw out the trustee's concerns and listen carefully to what she said. Here is how Janet described what they did:
Based on what they heard, Janet and Scott had to decide whether it made sense for them to get involved. They asked themselves whether what they heard from the trustee was only a "personal agenda," or whether it was "truly a public issue where education and bringing the people together would make a difference." They could not answer this question without taking another important step: explaining the role they could play and suggesting a process to get things started. As Janet recalls,
Janet and Scott's next step was to help the trustee begin to organize around her concerns and settle on a process for taking action. Here, Janet continued her listening and drawing out work with the larger group the trustee brought together, while also helping them to settle on a process for taking action. In her words,
The process the steering committee settled on was adapted from the "Take Charge" program, which Janet had previously designed and used with other groups. Take Charge is an approach that is grounded in three sequential public meetings that move people through a process of identifying the strengths and weaknesses of their community, developing a vision of the future, and deciding on issues that need to be addressed to move toward their vision. After deciding to use this approach, the steering committee gathered data on the households in the township, built a relationship with the local media, and worked on logistical issues related to holding the three public meetings (where to hold them, for example). From this point on in the story, Janet played two main roles. She coachedthe steering committee as it moved through the Take Charge process, and she facilitatedthe three public meetings they organized. Janet summarized these roles this way:
Through her facilitation role at the three public meetings, Janet continued her listening and drawing out work. As she put it, "Part of my job is to hear what they're saying and to hear the common themes and the common threads. At the end of the meeting, I would summarize what I heard as the common threads." She also worked hard to make sure those who attended the meetings did not just stick with "people of their own kind," but instead got a chance to get to know, and eventually work with, people who were different. As she told me, this was intentional:
Something else Janet did that she counted as significant, not only for her facilitation role but for her coaching role as well, was to suggest alternative approaches to problem solving. This was particularly important here, because some people started with the idea that the "solution" to their problem of being shut out of decision-making tables was to hire a lawyer and file a lawsuit. But Janet wanted people to look for other solutions. As she put it,
The three public meetings Janet facilitated were quite successful. They were lively and well attended. Agreement was reached on six priority issues to work on (e.g., the effects of growth on the school system), and a volunteer task force was created for each. The steering committee organized monthly educational meetings about the issues during the time the task forces were doing their work. During this time, Janet continued her coaching role. She added to this two other roles: linking the group with experts at Purdue University who could help people better understand the six priority issues and conducting skills workshops for the key leaders who emerged from the process. Here she describes these roles:
The recommendations were put together in a report that was published and shared not only with local decision-makers, but also with every household in the county. After that, the process of implementation began, which was still underway when I interviewed Janet in June of 2001. Janet's story can be viewed as a success story, at least with respect to helping people in Wabash Township to organize to effectively deal with their original problem of feeling shut out of the decision making process. The citizens of Wabash Township did, in the end, develop a voice at the table--many voices at many tables, in fact. DiscussionWe can learn a great deal about educational organizing from Janet's practice story. Here, I only have space to briefly discuss three things. First, Janet's story helps us learn something about the breadth of roles such work involves as it unfolds over time. From the account of Janet's practice story provided above, we can see that she played seven different roles as the work progressed:
But we learn more from Janet's profile than just what roles she played. We learn something about how she played them as well. For example, we learn that when Janet is "facilitating," she is intentionally working to get people from different backgrounds to listen to and learn from each other. Second, a careful reading of Janet's profile helps us see that educational organizing demands more than subject matter expertise and a technical competence in the seven roles named above. It also demands an embrace of--and an ability to model or live out--a set of principles and values that serve to guide or ground technical skills and knowledge. In Janet's case, we learn from reading her entire profile that these include:
Interestingly, while Janet has three degrees from two land-grant universities (Purdue and Cornell), she did not learn these things in her formal education. She learned them from watching and listening to her father, a dairy farmer who was deeply involved in community affairs. Finally, Janet's profile helps us to see both how and what people can learn as a result of educational organizing. To see this, we must begin with Janet's definition of education. According to Janet,
As an Extension specialist grounded in this view of education, Janet helped community members learn much more than a set of technical skills. She did help them learn important concrete skills, such as how to chair a task force, how to work with the media, how to do research on community issues, how to write a vision statement, and how to develop action plans. But she also helped them learn how others in their community--particularly those from different neighborhoods or different socioeconomic circumstances--viewed things. Through Janet's artful facilitation work, they learned to hear each other's thoughts and concerns, and to understand each other's hopes and interests. They learned "tolerance and respect." They learned to move from thinking in terms of "I, me, mine" to "we." They learned to shift from seeing people with different views as "enemies" and "opponents" to seeing them as potential collaborators. Additionally, people not only learned that it is possible to work together, they developed a new frame of reference for how to work together. As Janet told me, they began to see themselves as collaborative problem-solvers. People who did not see themselves as having power began to discover that they could, in fact, act together to change the world. And what they learned in this specific experience, in Janet's view, could be applied to other cases in the future:
Learning from Practice StoriesThe above discussion only begins to scratch the surface of what can be learned from Janet's story. There are many more lessons and insights to be found in her story than I have space to draw out. Additionally, there are many questions her story leads us to raise about a host of things, ranging from the immediately practical (e.g., how do we deal with the challenges of local politics in Extension work?) to the deeply philosophical (e.g., what is the relationship between education and democracy?). While rich practice stories like the one Janet tells can be invaluable tools for research aimed at building theory about practice, I am finding in my own work that they can also serve as powerful learning tools in classroom, staff development, and organizational development settings. Such stories not only help us learn "how to do it," but also just what the "it" is, and why it matters. In other words, while practice stories help us learn tips and strategies useful for improving the technical practice of educational organizing, they also help us learn something about its value and significance, both in relation to people in communities across the nation who are struggling to address public problems and to the Extension system itself, which is struggling to develop a clear, vital, and compelling sense of purpose and relevance in a new time. These days, change and revitalization efforts in the Extension system frequently come with calls to "think outside the box." As important and useful as that might be, perhaps we need to think more deeply and critically about what is in the box, too. Perhaps if we do so we will discover that the seeds of revitalization are already emerging from within, in the practice of educators like Janet Ayres. Perhaps we will discover in their work the continuing relevance and power of one of Extension's best historical traditions. And perhaps we will find inspiration and hope for the difficult but essential work of renewing it in our time. ReferencesForester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge: MIT Press. Peters, S. J., Hittleman,M., & Ayres, J. (2001). "Bringing Citizens' Voices to the Table: A Profile of Janet Ayres." Unpublished Manuscript. Peters, Scott J. (2002. Rousing the people on the land: The roots of an educational organizing tradition in Extension work." Journal of Extension[On-line], 40(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002june/a1.html
Health Professions and Cooperative Extension: An Emerging PartnershipErin P. Condo Kenneth E. Martin IntroductionRapid changes in healthcare are raising concerns about access to and cost and quality of care. Disease prevention and health promotion continue to be important programmatic needs. And, while healthcare makes an important contribution to the local economy, concerns about healthcare infrastructure in rural areas and access for minorities and limited resource individuals and families remain important challenges. The Cooperative Extension System in partnership with the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES) has increased its engagement with the community to identify and ameliorate community health problems, but Extension as a resource is still underutilized within the university. The USDA-CSREES funded pilot project entitled "Health Professions and Cooperative Extension: An Emerging Partnership" is part of the "Healthy People...Healthy Communities" initiative. This project works to bridge the gap between the university and community by offering a community-based service-learning experience for health professions students across disciplines. The "Healthy People...Healthy Communities" initiative is guided by three main goals:
The pilot project, "Health Professions and Cooperative Extension: An Emerging Partnership," placed health science interns in community-based education and outreach programs in partnership with county Extension faculty and staff. Each project contributed to one or more of the "Healthy People...Healthy Communities" goals and provided students with service-learning opportunities. Funding was awarded to seven students in Illinois, Missouri, Ohio, and West Virginia during the summer of 2000, providing them with a rare opportunity to learn in mostly rural community settings. Learning goals for the students included working at the community level to assess community healthcare needs and to develop and deliver a health education program to a high-priority audience. Long-term effects expected as a result of the grant include placing health professions students in underserved rural areas; enhancing the capacity of Extension to deliver health education and outreach to underserved populations; and fostering the integration of research, higher education, and Extension. This article evaluates the success of this grant in meeting three specific goals:
The diversity of projects and methods undertaken throughout this project provide for a rich understanding of how Extension can better its own efforts in expanding partnerships and providing community-driven programs. MethodsAt the end of the internship, students reflected on their experiences in written reports to the project team. These reports were studied to determine the extent of student learning, new partnerships created or enhanced, and improved Extension capacity to deliver health promotion and education. Second, grant applicants (Extension administrators and specialists) and the Extension agents/educators at the county level were administered a telephone survey that further evaluated the experience of Extension faculty and staff in implementing this grant project to meet its objectives. This article discusses the projects that were created or enhanced, and the target client populations reached by each of the projects. Further, the extent to which collaborations were built and what students learned through service in the community-based setting are discussed. Finally, this article assesses the outcomes of the pilot project and makes recommendations for its further implementation. FindingsOverview of Projects Five disciplines, including medicine, nursing, social work, physical therapy, and nurse midwifery, were represented in this grant project. This range of disciplines allows for diverse perspectives and skill sets to guide project development in the community. The grant program was flexible in terms of which kinds of projects could be developed so that students could easily match their learning objectives to community-identified needs and existing Extension projects. Student involvement ranged from observation to active participation and leadership in service delivery and project development. The Extension educator at each site worked to oversee community projects; assist the student in making contacts with community members, leaders, and organizations; and to provide education and limited supervision. Projects developed by the students in conjunction with Extension agents include the safe-sitter program, Dining with Diabetes, recycled medical equipment, nutrition and health for young mothers, food safety workshops, and the development of a rural health clinic. Through these projects, a variety of client populations were reached, including low-income teens, geriatric women, diabetics, children, food vendors, the medically uninsured/underinsured, and young parents (Table 1). Table 1.
Service-Learning Benefits Increasingly, universities are turning to service-learning as a method of engaging campuses with surrounding communities. Extension, rooted in community involvement, is the ideal vehicle for providing opportunities in student learning through community involvement. It is useful here to provide a working definition of service-learning. A recent review of the literature devoted to university service-learning models reveals that most scholars and practitioners identify several major learning components. These learning components include orientation and reflection, reciprocal learning, interdisciplinary learning, community partnerships, needs and assets assessments, and social change. Orientation and reflection are interdependent and crucial to implementing service-learning. First, orientation should work to define the goals and to clarify the role of each party (students, Extension, and community), including types of activities involved, evaluation criteria, and hours of work (Cauley, 2000). Reflection is a tool used throughout and at the completion of a project or activity to evaluate and re-evaluate the roles and expectations of each party and comes in many forms, both formal and informal (Eyler, Giles, & Schmeide, 1996). It is also useful in connecting community work to the health professions. Reciprocal and interdisciplinary learning are also central to service-learning. In this framework, the student, community, and organization all benefit from the project, learn from the project, and bring valuable resources to the project. This idea holds true in interdisciplinary learning as well, where each health profession brings different, but equally valuable, knowledge to the project. The pilot project succeeded in meeting these service-learning objectives. Concerning orientation and reflection, all students were required to write a report documenting their activities, successes, and suggestions for future development. Many students had not before heard of Extension, and much of their orientation centered around familiarizing themselves with Extension and the community to be worked in. A medical student wrote, "the first two weeks of the internship were dedicated to learning about healthcare needs in this area and also in some surrounding areas. It also involved learning what services Extension provides to the community." However, the majority of respondents reported that there was not a proper introduction to project responsibilities. This was in part due to the newness of the project, but also due to the desired flexibility to carry out community-based projects. Still, the majority of the students report that, although they were somewhat autonomous in carrying out their responsibilities, they were always able to obtain the needed guidance from the local Extension educator. The interdisciplinary and reciprocal nature of the internship experience was invaluable to student learning. Extension agents provided a link to the community, and they helped with the development of learning objectives while the students implemented the projects. Not only were different disciplines, such as diet, nursing, and medicine represented, but different types of community agencies offering their own expertise were utilized to further the students' learning objectives as well as the goals of the communities. And all parties brought their own expertise to the projects. As one Extension educator said of working with a nursing student, "it was good to have someone come into the office and give us a different viewpoint." Students essentially worked for social change in the area of healthcare. Each project in some way enhanced efforts to improve access to healthcare with community input and involvement, the third goal of the "Healthy People: Healthy Communities" initiative. One administrator responds "we met this [goal] by making more resources available through the recycled medical equipment project. The goal of adopting healthy behaviors and lifestyles was also met." Each project developed out of a community-identified need and built upon community strengths. Two students organized focus groups and community meetings to determine the desire for the respective projects, and a research study was done to determine the need for another project. One Extension agent reported, "the student really helped to organize the social reconnaissance meeting so that we could get input from the community to determine their interest in pursuing being a federally qualified health center in our county." Concrete service-learning activities included project development, outreach, observation, grant writing, assessment, public relations, and community organizing. At a minimum, students gained an enhanced understanding of community practice and the diversity of rural healthcare needs, the impact of which cannot be underestimated. At most, sustainable projects were developed and initiated. Perhaps the most noticeable service-learning benefit was the creation of new or the enhancement of existing community partnerships. Partnership Development The value of community partnerships was apparent to the participating health professions students. As a logical first step in implementing a community-based project, students identified collaborating with their community as a learning objective. One grantee described one of her objectives while initiating the Safe-Sitter program as identifying "potential relationships between healthcare and Extension." Her work reflects this goal, as she "developed a community-based coalition for project collaboration." To promote the Dining with Diabetes project, one student wrote, "county Extension educators will work with health departments, hospitals, community dietitians, and other diabetic support groups." Another student, working with the Recycled Medical Equipment Project wrote, "planning meetings were held which brought together the county Extension agent, the Rural Health Education Partnership site coordinator, the regional community health promotion specialist, representatives from two rural hospitals, and a community member.... Many community leaders were brought together that had never met each other." Although many students reflected that they had not before heard of Extension, they described it as an invaluable resource for community collaboration in promoting health and health education. A theme of many students' responses was the idea that Extension was a "best kept secret." Students learned about Extension in general, but also learned about the role of the Extension agent as a community leader and facilitator of change. Through this project, the Extension agent took on a new role, that of a facilitator of learning for health professions students. Local Extension offices gained new partners through the collaborative work of the students in the community. An agent reported, "I was able to network with some organizations that I hadn't been able to get into before." To do this, some students arranged public meetings where community members and social and health service administrators came together to assess community needs and provide direction to projects. Examples of new partners identified by the agents/educators included the county health department, local nurses, the Girl Scouts, local hospitals, local citizens, and government officials. However, two agents reported that students used existing community partnerships rather than making new community ties. For administrators, this project served as an opportunity to gain new partners in health professions schools, including schools of social work, medicine, nursing, and physical therapy. Although there were only five disciplines represented in the pilot project, these connections led to additional linkages with other health science programs such as the schools of pharmacy in two states. Through this pilot project, as one Extension applicant indicated, "we are learning to talk the same language with the health professions." This grant program also expanded Extension's partnership with communities. One Extension specialist reported, "the contacts that were made will really enhance the efforts of other educators and help them get similar contacts in place." Another applicant reflected, "...although many organizations may have known about each other, they had not worked together in a partnership like this before these projects." Partnerships were also reportedly strengthened at the state level. Benefits to ExtensionThe benefits to Extension were many and varied. One obvious benefit is that Extension programs were developed at little or no cost to local offices, and students provided the energy and mobilization to initiate community projects. All parties indicated that the internship provided an atmosphere that fostered a mutual relationship among student, agent, and community. A variety of new and old target groups were reached through these joint efforts, providing a valuable service-learning experience for the students. Additionally, the health professionals provided a new perspective on program delivery at the community level. This project brought higher visibility of Extension to the community by creating and strengthening partnerships. At the same time, students, some who previously had not heard of Extension, learned the value of Extension as an educational resource. These efforts undoubtedly worked to expand the mission of Extension to include healthcare and to become more engaged with the university through facilitating learning experiences for students. It should be noted that, although this program was targeted at health professions, its aims are perfectly suitable for working with other disciplines within the university such as engineering, public administration, economics, and more. Extension could partner with these departments to provide community-based service-learning experiences for students, while using the skills of these students to contribute to the expanding mission of Extension. Project Challenges and RecommendationsA majority of the challenges faced by all participants were logistical in nature. Some felt that the 2-month timeframe for the project limited the opportunities for the student to become really involved in the community. The short time allotted and the short notice of the project to agents created problems in finding a "good fit" between agents and students, especially when students have such a structured program. Another major challenge to implementing the project was the lack of orientation to the project in terms of expectations for the student and the agent. Proper orientation is essential in ensuring that the student has a meaningful learning experience in the field and that the project itself is successful without creating an additional burden to the agent. Despite the challenges to implementing this project for the first time, benefits of the project were realized in health professions education programs, Extension, and underserved rural communities. There was unanimous agreement that the project should continue providing more opportunities for health professions students to learn in the community setting and for Extension to be the link to the community. The "Health Professions and Cooperative Extension: An Emerging Partnership" pilot project resulted in the development of various community projects that have worked to expand the role of Extension in the community and in the university. With limited seed money, community-based projects have been initiated whose benefits are still being realized. In turn, Extension has become more visible and more effective in partnering with communities. For more information about the "Healthy People...Healthy Communities" initiative, visit the National Network for Health Web site at http://www.nnh.org/. ReferencesCauley, K. (2000). Integrating student learning objectives with community service objectives through service-learning in health professions schools curricula. Paper presented at the Community-Campus Partnerships for Health's Annual Conference, Washington, DC. Eyler, J., Giles, D.E. Jr., & Schmiede, A. (1996). A practitioner's guide to reflection in service-learning. Nashville: Vanderbilt University.
The Integration of Research and Extension: A Preliminary StudyRebecca Gould George Ham Kansas State University Introduction"Almost all of the problems of contemporary America require interdisciplinary solutions." Furthermore, "...our institutions could be better organized to bring them to bear on local problems in a coherent way." These statements from In Returning to Our Roots: The Engaged Institution (1999) point to the need for increased connectedness within the land-grant system. According to Kerr (1987), no one questions the financing of agriculture research with public monies. What is in question is how to best leverage funds to enhance the return on investment of both federal and state dollars and to fulfill the land-grant mission. Simply stated, the mission of public and land-grant institutions should be to advance the common good (Kellogg Commission, 2000). Implied in the 1996 Farm Bill (http://www.usda.gov/farmbill/titles.htm) and specified in the 1998 Farm Bill (http://www.agnr.umd.edu/users/NERA/workshop/NERAReview.html) was integration of Research (AES) and Extension (CES). The National Research Council (1996) reported on the need for change in the land-grant system in four key areas, one of which was to stimulate the linkages among teaching, research, and Extension. The report recommended changes in formula funding to alleviate separation of these entities. In his remarks regarding the National Research Council (NRC) report, Webb (1998) commented that the organization of administrative and funding structures within the land-grant system hinders integration. McDowell (2001) discussed the rhetoric of integration by pointing out that of the $950 million budget FY 2000 CSREES budget, $39 million was allotted for integration activities. Although there are challenges to integration, Webb (1998) pointed out that where research-Extension linkages exist, the dynamic that occurs through the flow of information enriches the research process and the use of these findings to serve the public. These linkages also ensure that current knowledge is disseminated through outreach. Thompson and Gwynn (1989) reported that deans of Colleges of Agriculture have been concerned about the lack of such linkages or increasing integration for a long time. Purpose and ObjectivesSince the 1996 NRC report, the realignment of research and Extension has received heightened attention. However, there was no information found in the literature on how this was occurring throughout the land-grant system. The purpose of the study reported here was to investigate the status of the integration of research and Extension within the land-grant system. Specific objectives included to:
MethodsAn online survey was developed and pilot tested. The 22-item survey was based on a review of the literature and discussions with administrators within a land-grant system. Nine close-ended questions pertained to setting agendas, determining appointments, methods of interaction, future directions, and demographics. Open-ended questions were designed to gain more specific examples about collaborative efforts, incentives for collaborating, allocating funds, submitting joint AES/CES proposals, and additional suggestions for integrating Extension and research. The survey was built using an in-house developed survey software package. Approximately 10 AES/CES faculty around the United States were emailed a draft of the survey and asked to review the questions for clarity and relevance to the purposes of the study. Three of the faculty suggested changes to the wording, length of the survey, and extensiveness of close-ended questions. The survey was then configured for online distribution. An email notice was sent to the us-aesdirs@reeusda.gov and us-cesdirs@reeusda.gov listservs requesting that they link to the Web site and complete the survey. Individuals on these listservs include dean/directors, associate directors, and assistant directors at each land-grant institution. Because of the unique way in which AES/CES is organized at land-grant institutions, there was no way to determine the exact number of individuals at each institution who might be on the listserv; therefore an overall response rate could not be calculated. A follow-up reminder was sent approximately one week after the initial electronic mailing. The executive directors of the four regional associations of research directors (Northeast, North Central, South, and West) who received the online survey suggested that the orientation of the questions was by state and difficult to answer from a regional perspective. Therefore, open-ended questions were posed to the executive directors. These included:
Qualitative and quantitative data were downloaded into an ExcelTM spreadsheet and analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Institutional Review Board of Kansas State University approved the study. Results and DiscussionDemographics Ninety-two individuals responded to the survey, with 53% having their primary area of responsibility in AES and 47% holding CES appointments. About 30% of the respondents were from the western region of the United States (Table 1). Table 1.
Responsibility for Research and Extension Appointments and Agenda Sixty-seven percent of the respondents indicated that the Administrative Head of Agriculture made AES appointments, while 82% of the respondents indicated the Director of Extension assigned CES appointments (Table 2). Open-ended comments from respondents indicated that the respective administrative heads made appointments after input from department heads and faculty. Individual researchers (74%), stakeholders (71%), and College of Agriculture administration (69%) established the AES agenda. Extension agents and specialists (83%), stakeholders (79%), and the Director of Extension (77%) established the CES agenda (Table 3). One respondent commented that a regular and ongoing needs assessment was conducted at the county level to prepare the CES agenda. Table 2.
Table 3.
Methods for Enhancing Collaboration Between Research and Extension Eighty-six percent of the respondents indicated that enhancing the collaborative efforts between AES and CES was a concern at their university; 80% identified ways to enhance the interaction. Many commented that collaboration was already ongoing. One respondent aptly stated that, "...our ability to document/demonstrate relevance is driving us to improve." Another respondent summarized the reasons for integration, "We are an applied research and extension system, one family, different functions, same goals, ultimately." A strategic plan/vision was the impetus for enhanced cooperation at some universities. Funding opportunities was yet another driver of collaboration. Examples included the establishment of internal grant funds, special accounts, or a reorientation towards outcome-based funding. According to several individuals, there are more available competitive funds through AES, which are awarded with outcomes as the dominant consideration. Outcomes for CES are harder to measure and articulate. In nonagricultural related areas, research is not as closely aligned with CES as deemed necessary. To paraphrase one respondent, Extension in land-grant universities is broader than the AES agenda. The need for an effective feedback mechanism between CES field staff, who hear the concerns of clients, and the campus staff, who conduct the research, was a concern. Funding sources, expectations of faculty, and differences in reporting requirements contribute to problems with collaboration. Several respondents pointed out that collaboration must be reinforced by administration. The most common method of interaction was co-housing AES and CES faculty within a department, which was reported by 50% of the respondents (Table 4). The respondents also indicated that joint faculty appointments, some county faculty joint appointments, college- and community-based teams, and all of the options listed were common methods of interaction. One university held joint monthly meetings to keep AES and CES faculty informed on issues facing both programs. Table 4.
Thirty-five percent of the respondents indicated that the number of joint proposals submitted was 1 to 20% (Table 5). Joint proposals were encouraged using the assistance of a grants/contract office that saw the grant process through from inception through closing of a funded grant, administrative oversight by respective associate directors, greater merit increases based on joint proposals, and higher funding ceilings on seed grants for integrated projects. Table 5.
Respondents provided numerous examples of collaborative efforts among land-grant universities. A summary of these follows.
Incentives for Collaborative Efforts Incentives to enhance collaborative efforts ranged from legislative mandates to seed grants. For one respondent, the primary incentive was the federal AREERA requirement. Some universities require interaction as part of the position, which is evaluated through the promotion and tenure process. Salary adjustments for individuals who served as coordinators, merit increases, nonfinancial acknowledgement, and overload payment for CES faculty who teach also were mentioned. One university set aside monies to bring CES and AES faculty together to develop joint projects. Examples of Best Practices in Collaboration Both general and specific examples of best collaborative practices were provided. These included Area of Expertise teams, Research to Outreach initiatives, and a three-tiered team system of individual project teams, group teams, and college-wide teams. Many of the best practices centered around commodity-type programs, such as blueberries, cotton, and wheat, or issue-based programs, such as fire ants, water quality, manure management, and nutrient management. As an example of a best practice, program-planning groups were used for needs identification, priority setting, and review of preproposals for federal formula funds. Other universities touted their best practice as a diagnostic to discovery activity approach and research farms that were fully integrated Extension/research facilities. In one state, the Directors of AES and CES conducted regional listening sessions to understand how research and Extension could address issues facing agriculture. In some instances, Extension faculty were conducting applied research in conjunction with campus faculty. Other respondents commented that they were not interested in integration beyond AES and Extension agriculture, where integration makes sense. Additional comments on enhancing collaborative efforts were provided. Some noted the lack of understanding of the land-grant mission and the development of a more modern perspective of AES and CES. Implied in many comments was the need for increased communication between AES and CES, a respect for the missions of each entity, and a desire to work together. Funding Sources and Resource Issues Seventy-seven percent of respondents indicated that CES faculty qualify for AES research funds. Respondents (60%) most frequently cited the College of Human Ecology as the recipient of AES/CES dollars allocated outside of the College of Agriculture (Table 6). A 1-5% allocation of AES dollars outside of the College of Agriculture was the most common response (27%) (Table 7). Respondents indicated that funds were typically allocated by the administrative head (either Dean of the College of Agriculture, AES Director, or unit leader). Funds also were allocated by faculty appointments at the time of hire, Hatch project designation, competitive proposals, departmental block grants, or a combination of these. One university provided funds to academic departments and other units based on research portfolio, level of activity, uniqueness of the unit, and project expense. Table 6.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
