October 2002
Volume 40 Number 5

Commentaries

The Roles of Extension in Agricultural Economics Departments

Michael V. Martin
Vice President for Agriculture and Natural Resources
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida
Internet Address: MVM@mail.ifas.ufl.edu

Introduction

After spending 15 years as a faculty member in an economics department, I moved into university administration. Over the past decade, I have served as an associate dean, dean, and now vice president. Since joining the "dark side" of the university, my view of agricultural economists and agricultural economics departments has changed considerably. In particular, I have substantially revised my thinking about the importance of the Extension function and Extension programs in agricultural departments and for the agricultural economics larger profession.

In this commentary I argue that agricultural economists and their departments must focus more attention on their Extension mission and that, to do so, the profession must heighten the stature and enlarge the recognition for those who do Extension work well.

My Former View

While a faculty member at Oregon State University (1977-1992), I came to accept that what seemed to be the conventional wisdom on the hierarchy of work in an agricultural economics department. That is, research (as reflected primarily in journal publications) carried the greatest prestige, followed by teaching at the graduate level, undergraduate teaching, and then Extension. Those with large research appointments tended to receive larger support allocations (assistantships, travel, etc.) and seemed to collectively assume a "quality control-gatekeeper" role with respect to hiring, promotion and tenure decisions, etc.

On more than one occasion, following an interview for a faculty position, I heard the comment "he/she may be able to do Extension but isn't strong enough for a research assignment." This assertion was usually based on someone's view that the candidate's seminar was not sufficiently loaded with confusing calculus or econometrics.

Casual observation suggests this hierarchy of prestige is imbedded in the values of the American Agricultural Economics Association (AAEA). A review of the credentials of those who hold office or are granted "fellow" status supports the hypothesis that recognition flows to those whose C.V.'s are dominated by research contributions rather than Extension.

The biographical sketches that appear with the annual officer-director ballots emphasize published research even for those who have a split Extension appointment. One might well conclude that a mediocre research record is more likely to impress the AAEA membership than an outstanding Extension record.

Even if my assessment about Extension being undervalued in the agricultural economics profession is simply the result of a "Napoleon Complex" by proxy, my central contention remains. It is this: If agricultural economics departments are to be relevant, and in turn, reasonably well funded, in the future, they had better devote time, energy, and talent to building strong Extension programs.

My New View: The Case for Extension Applied Economics

Current Academic Environment

First, I offer a few "stylized facts" that describe the environment in which academic agricultural economics is now practiced.

One, funding for higher education has become increasingly politicized at both the federal and state levels. Programs are funded because voters/campaign contributors want them to be funded. And, because voters/campaign contributors want many other things funded as well, budgets for public higher education will remain tight for years to come.

Two, the cost of science-based programs in land grant universities is rising rapidly but at differential rates. As biology-based programs (agronomy, plant pathology, horticultural science, animal science, etc.) have adopted new techniques, the cost of supporting faculty in these departments or programs has risen astronomically in both absolute and relative terms. For example, faculty with big-time genetic capabilities not only draw handsome salaries, they also demand significant recurring support and large start-up packages. Meeting these demands threatens to "crowd out" other areas of activity, including social sciences such as agricultural economics.

Three, many departments in land grant universities have natural constituent bases. Hog and cattle producers obviously value animal science departments. Corn, soybean, and wheat growers tend to support agronomy departments. Golf course superintendents align with environmental horticultural departments and so on.

Agricultural economists don't typically have obvious or natural networks of supporters. Thus, their programs must create and continually reinforce their clientele base.

Four, "technology transfer" is regarded by decision makers and funders as a critical final step in the research process. For biology-based programs, technology transfer is often imbedded in research results. If an agronomist uses biotechnology in crop breeding, the release of the resulting variety effectively transfers the technology. For agricultural economics, technology transfer is not so simple.

Importance of Building Strong Extension Programs

In this context, there are several reasons why building strong Extension programs should be a major priority for agricultural economics departments and the larger profession.

First, as suggested above, Extension education is the primary means by which agricultural economics research is "translated" and "transferred" for practical application. Much of the research conducted by agricultural economists, as reported in the journals, is steeped in mathematics and/or technical lingo. If research outcomes are to be useful, they need to be recast in terms intelligible to those beyond the academic wing of the profession.

I recently read an interesting article in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics (AJAE) on "generic advertising," a very hot topic with Florida's citrus growers (Crespi & Marette, 2002). The findings offer useful insights for many commodity organizations that spend their members' money on "generic" advertising campaigns. But someone will have to interpret the findings for administrators and growers on the Florida Citrus Commission and similar organizations. Doing so will add significant value to Crespi and Marette's work. A strong Extension program can add to this value.

Second, the pace of change in the economic environment facing agricultural, food, and related industries is overwhelming. Environmental interventions, industry consolidations, freer trade agreements, changing input costs, and new technologies, among other developments, have created "teachable moments" for Extension education in agricultural economics. Simply explaining what's happening appears to be appreciated by those living through these confusing times. To use economics terminology, there is an increasing demand for Extension education that calls for a supply response by agricultural economists.

Third, as implied already, resource allocations at land grant universities are frequently influenced by constituent support. Solid, visible Extension programs can serve as a powerful means of engendering external pressure to drive decision making regarding investments in agricultural economics.

At the University of Florida, we've recently had an illustration of Extension connectedness resulting in new funding. Representatives of several of the state's agricultural organizations persuaded our Governor to allocate $1.0 million from a federal appropriation to a trade center in our Food and Resource Economics Department. The external group made three things clear in delivering this investment:

1. They were willing to expend "political capital" because the professor leading the center had gained their respect and trust via his Extension activities;
2. Along with excellent research programs, the center must have a strong Extension presence statewide, and
3. They will be watching closely to ensure that they get (b).

The University of Minnesota's Applied Economics Department (AED) benefits in many ways from a unique Extension program. The department is home to the state economist, Dr. Tom Stinson. The state contracts with AED for Stinson's services. Stinson's work is widely reported in the popular press. This obviously brings broad recognition to the department. Moreover, Stinson has an important Extension audience of one--the Governor.

Fourth, agricultural economics can create an internal Extension clientele by providing expertise to those who make administrative and fiscal decisions. The analytical framework available from economics can be quite useful to administrators. Applications of cost benefit analyses and other approaches can serve to better frame choices and trade-offs.

In Florida, many believe that retaining a viable cattle industry is important for both economic and environmental reasons. If we are to enhance the profitability of cattle production in the state through research and education, we'll need to set priorities. Here's where agricultural economists can be helpful. Disaggregating costs of production and marketing for cattle will allow administrators to answer the question: Which components can be best reduced through research and education?

In this way, agricultural economists can contribute to effective and efficient resource allocations within their institutions. They can demonstrate the value of economics to their administration. Having deans and others find their work useful can influence internal budgeting.

A Few Recommendations

What should be done to enhance Extension programs delivered by agricultural economists? Here are a few suggestions.

First, the larger profession, primarily via the AAEA, should work to heighten the stature of Extension work and of those who do it. Along with the standard annual awards, the AAEA bylaws should ensure strong Extension representation on the Board of Directors and among the officers. The criteria for achieving "fellow" status should explicitly identify a strong Extension record as equal to research and teaching.

Second, research agricultural economists should be encouraged to specifically identify the Extension activities that will follow from any proposed research project. Funding for an Extension component should be included in grant or contract submissions.

Third, agricultural economics departments should go out of their way to embrace their Extension responsibilities collectively. Rather than leaving Extension exclusively to those with Extension appointments, every department member should be committed to supporting Extension education.

Fourth, administrators at all levels in the university community should clearly articulate expectations for Extension program excellence in agricultural economics departments. The reward system, including promotion, tenure, and salary adjustments, should reflect these expectations.

And fifth, an appreciation for, and some education about, Extension should be included in the training of agricultural economics graduate students. Departments and colleges may wish to enlarge the number of Extension assistantships. They may also wish to require the preparation of an Extension presentation as part of the final sign off on theses and dissertations.

Summary

Let me succinctly restate my case. Agricultural economic departments and the profession as a whole must find ways to build public awareness and support for the things they do. Agricultural economists must create constituencies. This is particularly important as funding becomes more constrained and the cost of research in other disciplines increases.

A serious commitment to responsive, research-based Extension programs is by far the best means for justifying investments in agricultural economics' programs and departments. It is clear from my perspective as an administrator that if agricultural economics departments fail to fully embrace their research-based Extension mission, they, and in turn, the larger profession, will not prosper.

View reader comments for this Commentary in the JOE Discussion Forum. (This forum is no longer accepting new entries.)

References

Crespi, J. M., & Marette, S. (2002, August). Genetic advertising and product differentiation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 84(3) pp. 691-701.

Employee Participation in Decision Making in Extension: A Ladder of Participation to Reduce Cynicism

Thomas J. Gallagher
Leadership Development Specialist
Oregon State University Extension Service
Corvallis, Oregon
Internet Address: tomgallagher@oregonstate.edu

In the new management best seller, The Deep Blue Sea, author Wilfred Drath (2001) engages readers in the operations of a fictional piano manufacturing company. In the life of the company the senior Mr. Karl retires and is replaced by daughter, Elena, who doesn't feel comfortable with her father's "top down" leadership style. Her efforts to develop her own, more participatory, style are initially not accepted by staff, who see her effort to gain their involvement in decisions as "a false note at first" and "something of a Trojan horse, an idea that is perceived as nothing more than rhetoric" (p.65).

The problem, as Drath emphasizes, isn't one of participatory leadership not being a good idea. Rather, it is that leadership is a social agreement, "a sharing of a way of knowing leadership" (p.64). He explains that, "This shared creation of leadership was worked out through years of experience with one another...." and that social agreements take time to change.

In my 3 years as a Leadership Specialist with Extension, the single greatest plea I've heard from faculty and staff, other than for more time and resources, is for more participation in decision making. Extension leaders have heard this call, and Extension offices have, rather uniformly I suspect, included, as part of their vision and principles, having decisions made "as close to the work as possible."

However, pushing decisions down from executive to employees is complicated by Extension's "shared way of knowing leadership," which is, from what I can tell, most often "top down" in character. Efforts to engage faculty in decisions are often viewed by employees with cynicism, as "nothing more than rhetoric."

A Ladder of Decision Making

I would pose that in Extension there is a way to begin to overcome this attitude and that it is to articulate the "terms of engagement" for the interaction of leaders and employees in decision making. Of course, I am not talking about leaders abdicating legitimate authority, or employees engaging in decisions beyond their knowledge, interest, or responsibility.

The terms of engagement should vary depending on the nature of the decision to be made. This variation gives rise to what I call a "ladder of decision making." The ladder provides an image and a conceptual model to help clarify the role of participants in the process. This tool builds upon a similar image and model, a "ladder of public participation," developed by Arnstein (1969).

In this concept (Figure 1) the responsibility for the decision shifts with each step from the authority (executive), to the affected faculty and staff (employees).

Description of Levels

Level 1. Executive Decision. The executive makes the decision and does not inform employees, except possibly through a future meeting or conference or in a periodic report or newsletter.

Level 2. Executive Decision with Report. The executive makes the decision and reports, in the near future, to employees. The timely report is significant as (whether as a courtesy or warning). It provides some opportunity for employee feedback prior to implementation of the decision.

Level 3. Consultative Decision. The executive asks employees for their ideas, at least in a general way. At best, the employees are engaged explicitly in the steps in the decision-making process (Gallagher, 2000) and can influence the decision with the strength of their statement of values, their information, and their alternatives. The decision, however, rests with the executive.

Level 4. Employee Recommendation. The executive assigns or delegates the responsibility to conduct the decision-making process, the four steps, to the employees. The employees offer their recommendation(s) to the executive who makes the decision.

Level 5. Delegated Decision with Veto. The executive delegates the authority to the employees to make the decision but retains the authority to exercise veto power if necessary. (Such a veto could indicate a flawed problem-solving process that failed to engage the executive in interim reviews.)

Level 6. Delegated Decision without Veto. This is the same process as above; however, the employees make the decision and the executive supports the decision through to a future evaluation period, perhaps a year or two for most programs.

Level 7. Employee Decision. The employees make the decision and do not inform the executive, except perhaps as part of the normal reporting protocols, such as in periodic meetings or annual reports.

The Challenge in Extension

The challenge in Extension is complicated by the observation that some individuals--on both the executive and employee side--prefer a top-down decision-making style. As I've discussed in a paper on cultural values (Gallagher, 2001), some people are more hierarchical in their decision preference, others more collateral (group oriented), and still others more individualist (let's vote on it).

Anecdotal evidence, supported by current research (Saunders & Gallagher, 2002, submitted for publication) suggests that Extension is fundamentally a hierarchical institution with cultural norms that permit only a measure of collateral and individual decision making.

The challenge in Extension may be heightened by a history of poorly executed participatory processes. When executives call for employee participation but then don't design or manage an effective process of involvement, employees are quick to label such activity as placation at best and manipulation at worst. From Drath's view this history builds a relationship that becomes a "social agreement" that takes time to change. Certainly training is desirable for all parties to understand the rungs and their roles on each.

Closing Thoughts

In the practice of decision making (e.g., Kneeland, 1999) and meeting management (e.g., Doyle & Straus, 1976) there is agreement that everyone engaged in a decision process or meeting should understand his or her role. The ladder of decision making helps to define that role. The ladder provides a way to articulate who makes the decision and offers employees more certainty about how their input, which consumes their time and resources, will be used.

From these benefits, the ladder offers the even greater benefit of improving the quality of decisions by incorporating employee values, information, and alternatives into the decision. It also increases the potential for decisions to be implemented as employees help make, and "own," the decision. And the ladder offers the possibility of reducing employee skepticism, indeed what I see as cynicism, about executive decisions and executive efforts to engage in more participatory leadership. And, not least, the ladder can help structure the decision process to help save employees' number-one issue, time and resources.

References

Arnstein, S. (1969). The ladder of participation. Journal of the American Planning Association.

Doyle, M., & Strauss, D. (1976). How to make meetings work. Jove Publications.

Gallagher, T. J. (2001). The value orientations method: A tool to help understand cultural differences. The Journal of Extension [On-line], 39(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2001december/tt1.html

Gallagher, T. J. (2002). Decision making: An architect's model for Extension applications. The Journal of Extension [On-line], 40(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002april/tt1.html

Kneeland, S. (1999). Effective problem Solving: How to understand the process and practice it successfully. How to Books, Oxford, England

Saunders, K., & Gallagher, T. J. (2002). Decision-making styles: An exploration of preferences in Extension. Manuscript submitted for publication.

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.