|
October 2003
|
       |
Contents
Editor's PageJOE Is Here to Stay: A Citation CorollaryIn my August-issue "Editor's Page," I quoted our policy statement on the permanence and continued availability of JOE:
As I said in August, this is information many of you will need to include with your P&T materials. It's also information that influences JOE style for JOE citations. What do I mean? First, JOE has made a commitment to permanence. Again as I said in August, JOE is a "'real' journal, as real as it was when it was published on paper and as real as any other peer-reviewed, refereed journal." It isn't a Web site, and it differs from the sometimes fugitive material found on the Web. Thus, JOE citation style for JOE articles is not the common "Retrieved (date) from (URL)" style. Instead, this is how JOE articles should be cited in JOE: Gorham, E. E., DeVaney, S. A., & Bechman, J. C. (1998). Adoption of financial management practices: A program assessment. Journal of Extension [On-line], 36(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1998april/a5.html Second, every article published in JOE from 1978 to the present has a specific URL. This means that citing an article as being available at www.joe.org is true as far as it goes, but it doesn't go nearly far enough. Please cite the specific URL for the specific article. You can find it by using the JOE search site <http://www.joe.org/search.html> or the JOE archive site <http://www.joe.org/archive.html>. October 2003 JOEThere are many good Features, Research in Brief articles, and Ideas at Work articles in the October issue. Reading them will prove my point. But I want to call your attention to the Tools of the Trade section of this JOE issue. It's full of a wide range of interesting--and useful—articles. I work with many Extension specialists on their Extension publications in my role as senior editor in Purdue's Department of Agricultural Communication, so I found "Transformative Explanations: Writing to Overcome Counterintuitive Ideas" particularly relevant. However, that article is only the beginning. Interested in:
The Tools of the Trade section of this issue is a good place to start. Laura Hoelscher, Editor
Evaluation of Capacity-Building Programs: A Learning Organization ApproachJohn Gruidl Ronald Hustedde Many Extension programs are designed to enhance the capacity of organizations, including small businesses, local community development organizations, and youth groups, to define and reach their goals. Improving capacity in organizations usually involves changing the process by which members of an organization work together and make decisions. Evaluating the effectiveness of Extension programs has emerged as a critical issue. For programming that entails immediate behavioral changes and/or improvements in individual skill levels, appropriate evaluation techniques are widespread (e.g., Gentry-Van Laanen & Nies, 1995; Earnest, 1999; Stevens & Lodl, 1999). However, capacity-building involves collective behavior, not simply the individual behavior of participants. Changes in organizational behavior may not occur for several years. Furthermore, measuring changes in organizational process and decision-making are problematic. There is a need among Extension educators for a new set of simple and systematic evaluation tools that capture the impact that their programming has in producing organizational change. This article identifies questions that Extension educators can ask in evaluating the impact of their interventions on a specific organization, whether a non-profit enterprise (e.g., a local development organization or chamber of commerce) or a business. The article is a first step in the design of a new "toolbox" to evaluating organizational change based on the learning organization model developed by Peter Senge and colleagues (1990, 1994, 1999). Under this model, an organization's capacity is defined by its ability to learn, to share that learning throughout the organization, and to modify its behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights. Senge (1990) defines a learning organization as one "where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free and where people are continually learning how to learn together." Such an organization has tremendous capacity to reach its goals. Any type of organization can be a learning organization, including businesses, educational institutions, nonprofits, and community groups. In this article, we begin by briefly describing the five practices that form the framework for a learning organization. Next we provide several examples of the approach's success in empowering organizations. Finally, we identify broad questions for Extension educators to ask in evaluating organizational change. The Learning Organization ApproachBecoming an organization that engages all members in active learning and provides mechanisms for the transfer and application of that knowledge requires a collective mind shift at all levels. Such mammoth change is a complex, long-term undertaking. Therefore, a Learning Organization is best viewed as an ideal, a vision of what organizations might become. Organizations or parts of organizations achieve this ideal to varying degrees. Senge (1990) identifies five disciplines that enable organizations to move toward the ideal of a Learning Organization. (In this article, the term "practice" is used instead of "discipline" to avoid confusion with the familiar term "academic discipline.") All five practices are concerned with a mind shift from seeing parts to seeing wholes, from seeing people as helpless reactors to seeing them as active participants in shaping their reality, from reacting to the present to creating the future. The five practices are:
System Thinking Senge places system thinking first on his list, because it is the conceptual cornerstone that underlies all of the other practices. Systems thinking is a body of knowledge and tools developed over the last 50 years that serve to make clearer the full patterns of the problems, issues, and situations that confront us. The tools of systems thinking allow us to talk about interrelationships more easily because they are based on feedback processes. The channels by which elements of a system "feed" influence and information to each other over time are the key to understanding the behavior of a system. It is about interdependencies within a system and between systems. It is not about organizational charts or functions. Farm children do systems thinking when they see links among the milk that a cow gives, the grass that she eats, and the droppings that fertilize the field. Systems thinking is useful as a problem-solving tool, but also as a language that changes the ordinary ways we think and talk about complex issues. Personal Mastery Personal mastery is the practice that people are drawn to the most (Senge, 1994). Personal mastery is the practice of continually clarifying and deepening our personal vision, of focusing our energies, of developing patience, and of seeing reality objectively. People in organizations often not only want to increase their own capabilities, but also to improve the capabilities of those around them. Yet, while a supportive environment for learning can be set up within the organization's infrastructure, it is the responsibility of individuals to ensure that their own learning and development continue. Mental Models The practice of mental models examines deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations, or even pictures or images that influence our behavior and understanding of the world. Mental models can explain why two people can observe the same event yet have different descriptions or reactions to it. They simply pay attention to different details. Mental models are shaped in a social context. We learn deep-seated values and develop our views and understandings of the world around us through the social groups and networks of which we are a part. Because of the tacit nature of mental models, they are generally invisible to us (Senge, Roberts, Ross, Smith, & Kleiner, 1994, p. 236). This practice seeks to bring these mental models to the surface, so that we can discuss them. Senge identifies reflection and inquiry as the two types of skills that are central to this work. Shared Vision Through the practice of shared vision, people are bound together around a common identity and sense of destiny whereby they excel and learn. Building a shared vision includes a vision or image of an organization's desired future and a set of governing values by which organization members define how they behave with each other, how they regard their stakeholders and the lines that they will and will not cross. When people know and understand these agreed-upon values, they are able to speak more easily, to speak honestly, and to reveal information. This fosters a supportive environment in which knowledge sharing can flourish. Team Learning Team learning is a practice of group interaction. Teams transform their collective thinking. They learn to mobilize their energies and actions to achieve common goals and thereby draw forth an intelligence and ability greater than the sum of the individual members' talents. Team learning uses skillful discussion and dialogue to enable team members to move beyond the more superficial requirements of team building. People can then start to move into coordinated patterns of action, and the tedious process of planning and decision-making becomes unnecessary. They are able to act in a coordinated way, each knowing what is best to do, just as a flock of birds does when it takes flight. Examples of SuccessThere are many organizations that have are applied these practices to enhance their effectiveness. Senge (1990) cites business examples, such as AT&T Corp, Intel Corp, Harley Davidson, Hewlett-Packard, Toyota, Ford Motor Co, and FedEx. At Chaparral Steel, 80% of the work force is in some form of educational enhancement at any time. They now produce a ton of steel in 1.5 employee hours compared to the national average of 6 hours (Kerka, 1995). The Electrical and Fuel Handling Division of Ford Motor Company has created 30 active team learning projects involving 1,200 employees. Sales and profits have demonstrated unprecedented growth and turn-around for the company (Bierema, 1997). However, organizations other than businesses have also benefited from the learning organization approach. For example, the Sullivan elementary school in Tallahassee applied shared vision and core values to transform itself. Evidence of its success: teacher approval ratings are up 20%, and parents are more involved (Kerka, 1995). In the United Kingdom, many community groups have adopted the learning organization principles and declared themselves "learning towns and cities." The goals of these community groups are to encourage lifelong learning and promote social and economic regeneration. For more information, visit <http://www.lifelonglearning.co.uk/learningcities/>. There are many examples of Extension programming that has utilized these practices. For example, the Cooperative Extension Service in Florida, Kentucky, and North Carolina practice systems thinking in their Natural Resource Leadership Institute. Each Institute involves approximately 30 participants who represent various sectors in natural resource issues, including environmentalists, developers, industrialists, and regulators. They spend 2 days every month studying issues from each other's perspectives. They are also taught skills of systems thinking, public conflict resolution, and deliberation. In Kentucky, more than 100 people have participated in the program. They are changing the typical culture surrounding natural resource issues from an adversarial one in which people shout at each other to one where a critical mass of natural resource advocates, developers, and government regulators can reach a better understanding of each other and begin to explore options (Hustedde, 2002). Evaluating Organizational LearningAlthough learning organizations are still concerned with tangible results, i.e., market share, productivity, profitability, and growth, they understand that learning is the key to acquiring greater results. Therefore, the orientation of the learning organization is simply learning. Under this model, the critical question in evaluating Extension programming is: To what degree has our intervention changed the structure or practice of the organization so as to facilitate learning? Here are some evaluation questions that Extension educators might ask based on the five practices. Some Systems Thinking Evaluation Questions
Some Personal Mastery Evaluation Questions
Some Shared Vision Evaluation Questions
Some Team Learning Evaluation Questions
The questions posed under each of the five practices are intended as useful tools for evaluating major Extension programming efforts. Obviously, there are more questions that can be asked, and some can be phrased differently. There is the potential to incorporate some questions into Likert-type scales, followed by open-ended questions, to elicit both quantitative and qualitative responses. There are many methodologies that can be used to address these questions, including facilitated discussions, focus groups, surveys, and informal feedback. Final CommentsWe believe that Extension programming, whether in community development, nutrition, youth development, small business, or other fields, strengthens groups by enhancing the capacity of members to work together effectively. Yet evaluating these impacts is difficult and rarely done in practice. The model of a learning organization may provide a framework to better evaluate these interventions. This article is the first step in designing a learning-based approach to program evaluation. Clearly, more research needs to be done in designing evaluation tools. However, the learning organization approach offers the promise of providing Extension educators with mechanisms to demonstrate the value of the work that they are doing in improving the long-term stability and effectiveness of organizations. ReferencesBierema, L. L. (1997). Research as development: A learning organization implementation. Annual Conference Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development: 390-397. Earnest, G. (1996). Evaluating community leadership programs. Journal of Extension [On-line], 34(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1996february/rb1.html Gentry-Van Laanen, P., & Nies, J. I. (1995). Evaluating extension program effectiveness: Food safety in Texas. Journal of Extension [On-line], 33(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1995october/a4.html Hustedde, R. J. (2002). The role of the Cooperative Extension Service and innovations in community development. Unpublished manuscript. Kerka, S. (1995). The learning organization. Myths and realities. (ERIC/ACVE MR 00004). Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday. Senge, P, Roberts, C., Ross, R., Smith, B., & Kleiner, A. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York: Doubleday. Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G., & Smith, B. (1999). The dance of change: The challenges to sustaining momentum in learning organizations. New York: Doubleday. Stevens, G., & Lodl, K. A. (1999). Community coalitions: Identifying changes in coalition members as a result of training. Journal of Extension [On-line], 37(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1999april/rb2.html
Assessing Extension Internal Organizational Needs Through an Action Research and Learning ProcessMichael Havercamp Elizabeth Christiansen Deborah Mitchell University of Nevada Reno Cooperative Extension (Extension) has a rich history of having designed educational programs based on community and organizational needs assessments. These assessments have included opinion surveys, focus groups, ethnographic, and individual interviews (Domaingue, 1989; Fishman, Pearson, & Reicks, 1999; Gamon, 1992; Guy & Rogers, 1999). The study described here employed an action learning and participatory research process (Marquardt, 1999; Reason, 1994; Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R., 2000; Havercamp, 1985) as a means of ascertaining employee perceptions about organizational issues, resources, and educational programs for a statewide Extension system in a western United States land-grant institution. This article describes the background and methodology for the study and concludes with the findings and a discussion of the study's limitations and implications for Extension organizations. BackgroundMany traditional research paradigms have tended to separate action research from the learning and education process. For example, someone designs the research, and another person implements the educational program. Perhaps this paradigm was most functional in the earlier years of Extension when the delivery of agriculture and home economics programs was a primary focus. Research through agriculture experiment stations (Stations) and education through Extension were instituted in land grant colleges of agriculture. The Stations carried out research and Extension "transferred" the research findings to community audiences. In the 21st-century where Stations and Extension are addressing a diversity of complex issues beyond traditional agriculturally delivered programs, leaders and practitioners struggle with more established paradigms hoping to find alternative approaches to data collection and learning. This study integrates traditional approaches to research and learning into an action research and learning mythology. Although action research is widely recognized as a valuable research framework, there exists no single widely accepted definition of action research (Altrichter, Kemmis, McTaggart, & Zuber-Skerritt, 2002) or a single set of central assumptions to guide it (Peterat, 1997). However, key to many descriptions of action research is the concept of a participative, collaborative approach to problem solving, change, and learning (Coghlan, D. & Brannick, T. ,2001; Heron, J., & Reason, P. ,2001; Kemmis & McTaggart, 2000; Levin, M. & Greenwood, D.,2001; Marquardt, 1999; McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J.,2002; Reason, 1994;). For Extension, the value of action research and learning lies in its capacity to enable organizations to effectively respond to change. "Learning is what makes action learning strategic rather than tactical. Fresh thinking and new learning are needed if we are to avoid responding to today's problems with yesterday's solutions while tomorrow's challenges engulf us" (Marquardt, 1999, p.4). An active learning and research framework, based in part on Weintein's conceptualization (as cited in Marquardt, 1999) was used in Nevada as a means by which learning, organizational development, self-development, and organizational resolution occurred. See Figure 1. Figure 1.
Why was an action learning and research framework chosen? As investigators, we felt that there would be psychological, emotional, and intra-organizational communicational benefits by involving the "beneficiaries" (employees) of research in the design of the components. Second, we believed that a "research process" should serve as a communication and learning tool by which employees would engage in a productive dialogue about their organization. MethodologyThe action research and learning project resulted in the implementation of three major phases. These phases included:
These tasks occurred in the year 2000. Prior to the implementation of these tasks, a decision was made in 1999 by the UNCE dean and three area directors to proceed with an internal statewide organizational needs assessment. It was agreed that the aim of the assessment would be to gather information about perceptions relating to UNCE future-oriented organizational issues, resources, and educational programs from faculty and staff who had a UNCE appointment. Additionally, perceptions about present employee concerns would be identified. Why these components? The dean and area directors desired to initiate a study that allowed for employee participation in the study's design and produce findings that would help to support a climate for purposeful organization change. In order to carry out this study, it was decided that employee focus groups and a questionnaire would be used. Initially, feedback sessions were not identified as integral. The planning stage, however, allowed for developing a living and evolving assessment design process, sufficiently flexible to allow for meaningful design changes and modifications. Phase I. Focus Groups Thirty-one percent (N=70) of UNCE salaried and funded project employees (N=226) participated in 10 focus groups, which were conducted by Michael Havercamp, an Extension State Specialist in Mediation and Group Process. Participation in the focus groups was voluntary, and all UNCE employees were invited to participate. Four focus group locations, which were determined by the UNCE area directors and dean, were selected to provide employees options with respect to location and time. During the focus groups, which ranged from 1 hour to 1 and 1/2 hours, three main questions were asked. They were designed to identify strategic organizational issues, needs, and resources that UNCE employees believed would help build the future. Focus group participants were asked to describe their vision for UNCE for the year 2005 ("what would you like to have different and what you like to keep the same?"). Participants were then asked to articulate the needs and resources that should be addressed if UNCE were to become the organization they envision. Finally, participants voluntarily filled out a short questionnaire consisting of three open-ended questions related to self development:
Each focus group room set up was arranged in a U-shape. Two flip charts (one displaying the process agenda and the other one listing the ground rules for the session) and a "magic" wall (sticky wall) were used to record responses to questions. Sessions ended by reviewing the next step in the needs assessment process, which was the development of a questionnaire based on focus group responses. Attendee responses were placed in an envelope and given to a person who was not participating in a focus group. This person typed the responses on session report sheets. These report sheets were subsequently provided to the University of Nevada's Center for Partnership Evaluation (CPE) (renamed the Center for Program Evaluation and Partnership Development in 2003), contracted by UNCE for the questionnaire construction, delivery, data analysis, and report preparation. Phase II. Employee Questionnaire Based on the responses from the focus group participants, a draft questionnaire was reviewed in April by the UNCE administrative group for its readability and content relevancy. The final six-page questionnaire was mailed to all 226 UNCE employees in May, requesting them to return the completed questionnaire in a self-addressed envelope. A reminder postcard was sent to all employees 2 weeks later. The questionnaire included a cover letter and was organized to solicit responses to five major questions, an additional open-ended item, and two demographic questions.
Thirty-six percent (N=82) of the 226 employees completed the questionnaire (Christiansen, E., & Mitchell, D., 2000). Phase III. Feedback Sessions In July of 2000, the UNCE administrative group decided that feedback sessions would be conducted whereby the employees would be given the opportunity to create an organizational improvement action plan for their unit (e.g., Western Extension Area) based on the findings from the questionnaire. In November, a 2-hour feedback session was held with 90 employees (39% of the total sample. N=226) from the three state geographical areas (units), campus-based faculty ("state specialists"), and UNCE state administrative staff (Havercamp, M., 2000). During the session, employees reviewed 14 highlights from the survey (e.g., 88% of respondents believed that they have a "clear perception of UNCE"). Following this introductory activity, small groups then brainstormed and listed possible actions and strategies for enhancing their unit's organizational health. Following a discussion of small group reports, all participants secretly voted on the possible actions to take. The results of the voting were reported and discussed. The session concluded with a discussion of some possible next steps that need to be taken. Discussion of the ResultsEfforts to raise public knowledge of UNCE within the next 5 years was seen by 84% of the respondents to be an organizational issue to which time and resources should be devoted. Issues receiving the next highest respondent acknowledgement included simplifying the university grant process, employee rewards and incentives, university student involvement in UNCE, and partnerships with universities and community colleges in the UCCSN statewide system. In terms of those issues to which respondents felt that the current level of allotted time and resources were satisfactory, only two issues received more than a 50% respondent acknowledgment: the staff performance evaluation process and regularly scheduled meetings. When compared to other resource needs, funded personnel received the largest number of affirmative responses, followed by distance education equipment, graduate assistants, cross-cultural educational materials, multi-lingual educational materials, and program funding. Innovation in programming, using the media to educate, and distance education were seen as programs and programming issues upon which the greatest time and/or resources should be devoted in the next 5 years. Of the program areas, 4-H received the highest response, followed by children, youth, and families; community development; agriculture; horticulture; and natural resources. Over 90% of the respondents viewed flexibility/adaptability and interpersonal/collaborative skills as highly important attributes for the successful performance of their job. Attributes rated as highly important by 80% of respondents included writing and time management skills, prioritizing/balancing multiple tasks, being aware of community needs, critical thinking, and a desire to make a difference. Cultural and ethnic sensitivity, evaluation, making community connections, public speaking, and teaching skills were seen as highly important by at least 70% of those completing the questionnaire. Between 51 and 65% of respondents viewed computer skills, knowledge of current technology, knowledge of UNCE policies and procedures, and research and supervisory skills as very important. Nearly 90% of the respondents felt that they are making a "positive" contribution to the community. Communication does not appear to be a concern for the significant majority of the respondents. Eighty-one percent disagreed that they had a communication problem with co-workers, while 71% also disagreed that they had difficulty communicating with their supervisor. In addition, a significant majority felt that they had a "clear perception" of UNCE; conversely, they felt that the public's perception of UNCE was inaccurate. The large majority of respondents also felt that teaching materials and equipment requirements were adequate, while there was a strong concern for the lack of time to complete job-related tasks. For a slight majority of the respondents, receiving administrative support, and resistance to "out of the box" thinking, and reaching critical audiences in the community were identified as potential areas of concern. Action priorities (those items receiving the largest number of votes by unit participants in the feedback sessions) varied across units. One unit, which represented the largest human population area in Nevada (southern Nevada), was most concerned with program expansion in natural resources; 4-H; children, youth and families; human health and nutrition; urban horticulture; and urban agriculture and alternative crops. The second largest human population area (western Nevada) was most concerned with the lack of adequate personnel support, given the demands on their time. Thus, they sought additional personnel to meet the growing challenges associated with fulfilling work-related tasks. The third Extension area, mainly rural and encompassing the largest geographical area of the state and the smallest human population, was most concerned with increasing funding options. This was especially so since some rural counties were experiencing restricted county budgets, on which Extension programs were dependent. Hiring more campus-based faculty (state specialists) and funding them adequately with programming dollars was the top concern of campus-based faculty who had an Extension appointment. The statewide administrative group was most concerned with improving the use of the media to educate, the increase of public relations efforts, and continuing efforts each year to meet with community stakeholders. Limitations of the StudyGeneralizability is limited to the 36% of Extension employees (N=82) who responded to the questionnaire. However, examination of the distribution of respondents across the five types of UNCE job classifications (county employee, state-classified employee, administrative faculty, campus-based faculty, and community-based faculty) demonstrated that it was fairly representative of the distribution of total employees within the organization. The UNCE dean and area directors determined early in the study that every employee with a UNCE appointment would have the opportunity to participate in the design and implementation of the study phases. This decision was made with the knowledge that a random sample would not be employed for the administration of the questionnaire, but the information from the questionnaire would provide a platform for discussion and planning within UNCE. A similar concern can be drawn with respect to the findings from the feedback sessions. No method was employed to ascertain that those attending feedback sessions represented the UNCE population; thus, caution must be taken in making conclusions and inferences based solely on the findings from the feedback sessions. Implications of the Study on UNCE and Extension OrganizationsOur observations are based on involvement as researchers in the process. When focus groups were conducted in Phase I, participants were given an opportunity to formulate questions for the administration of the questionnaire in Phase II. In doing so, participants had the opportunity to make personal investment in this aspect of the research design. By brainstorming questions about the future of the organization, participants were engaged in cooperative learning, sharing with each other their thoughts and ideas about UNCE. Such cooperative learning, in our view, enhanced participant understanding about organizational beliefs shared by other UNCE participants and also provided the participants with an opportunity to increase their understanding of the research process. The questionnaire has a potential "long-term" benefit because it could be administered in a subsequent year to ascertain similarities and differences in respondent opinions about the organization. Such an assessment would require changes in the research design to allow for such a comparative analysis. The feedback sessions provided a forum for participants to carefully examine findings from the questionnaire in relationship to their administrative/governing unit and area. These sessions were generally very lively, often exemplified by a cooperative spirit. The results of this study have been used by UNCE. One important example took place in 2002, approximately 1 year following the completion of the feedback sessions. UNCE and other colleges within the university were engaged in a major university-wide strategic planning effort. UNCE's statewide governing board, made up of unit administrators, the dean, elected faculty, and classified employees, met in November of 2002 to finalize a strategic planning document. This document, which is in part reflective of some of the study's results, included 4-H and elderly program utilities as strategic planning priorities. Extension organizations interested in conducting "internal" needs assessments may consider using an action learning and research process similar to the one employed in this study. As we found in Nevada, it is important to engage Extension leadership, faculty, and staff in the design and implementation of the study. ReferencesAltrichter, H., Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2002). The concept of action research. The learning organization, 9(3), 125-131. Christiansen, E., & Mitchell, D. (2000). UNCE internal needs assessment report. Reno, NV: Center for Partnership Evaluation. Reno, NV: Center for Partnership Evaluation. Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2001). Doing action research in your own organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Domaingue, R. (1989). Community development through ethnographic futures research. Journal of Extension [On-line], 27(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1989summer/fut1.html Fishman, A., Pearson, K., & Reicks, M. (1999). Gathering food and nutrition information from migrant farmworker children through in-depth interviews. Journal of Extension [On-line], 37(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1999october/rb3.html Gamon, J. (1992). Focus groups-A needs assessment tool. Journal of Extension [On-line], 30(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1992spring/tt2.html Guy, S., & Rogers, D. (1999). Community surveys: Measuring citizens' attitudes toward sustainability. Journal of Extension [On-line], 37(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1999june/a2.html Havercamp, M. (1985). An educational and community-development policy study on the decision-making control over agricultural practices by farm families. Havercamp, M. (2000). [Feedback session voting responses]. Unpublished raw data. Heron, J., & Reason, P. (2001). The practice of co-operative inquiry: Research 'with' rather than 'on' people. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 179-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 567-605). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Levin, M., & Greenwood, D. (2001). Pragmatic action research and the struggle to transform universities into learning communities. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 103-113). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Marquardt, M. J. (1999). Action learning in action: Transforming problems and people for world-class organizational learning. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing. McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2002). Action research: Principles and practice. New York: Roulade. Peterat, L. (1997). Now you see it, now you don't: What kind of research is action research? Canadian Home Economics Journal, 47(3), 119-123. Reason, P. (1994). Three approaches to participatory inquiry. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 324-339). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
A Survey-Based Model for Collecting Stakeholder Input at a Land-Grant UniversityKathleen Dodge Kelsey S. Christian Mariger IntroductionStakeholders have become increasingly estranged from land-grant universities, evidenced by reduced support from state and federal legislatures (Silag, Schultz, Bishop, Dale, & King, 1998). Land-grant university presidents have also noted a pattern of disengagement (Kellogg Commission, 1999). To stem the tide of further public disenfranchisement, the United States Congress legislated that stakeholder input be gathered by agricultural colleges when determining priorities for Extension (1998 Farm Bill, Public Law 105-185). The purpose of the research described here was to develop a survey-based model for collecting stakeholder input for land-grant universities that could be adopted by Extension specialists and educators for soliciting necessary input from their stakeholders. Calls for greater engagement between public universities and citizens emerged in the early 1980s and climaxed with two important documents, the 1998 Farm Bill and the Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities (1999) report. The 1998 Farm Bill stated that stakeholder input must be collected when setting research, Extension and education priorities. Section 102, titled "Priority Setting Process," specifically stated (italics added):
The "bill of particulars" provided by the Kellogg report (1999, p. 4) included public perceptions that university and faculty work has become "slow and unwieldy, so intent on studying things to death that it is impossible to get timely decisions or responses out of them." The report stated that "[faculty] are so inflexibly driven by disciplinary needs and concepts that they have lost sight of the institutional mission to address the contemporary multidisciplinary problems of the real world." Without changes in the way land-grant universities include stakeholders, citizens may continue to express "dissatisfaction with the status quo and a sense of impending crisis" regarding the land-grant university (Silag, et al., 1998, p. 2). The use of stakeholders in determining priorities is appropriate because they bring the notion of social responsibility to determining an agenda, a critical factor for organizations funded with public money. By incorporating social responsiveness through stakeholder input, public universities can address the call for accountability and outcomes in relation to public expectations (Altschuld & Zheng, 1995). It is clear that stakeholders need to be at the planning table, but how should they be included? Few researchers have proposed practical models for doing so. This study provides a survey-based model for collecting stakeholder input that is "inclusive, fair, balanced, transparent, comprehensive, and accountable" (Dyer, Miller, & Leval, 1999, p. 3). MethodologyA mixed-methods approach was used to develop the model. Extension specialists were invited to participate in the process. The researchers met with five Extension specialists from a variety of disciplines such as entomology, plant pathology, plant breeding, and weed science, as a group and individually between May 2 and 31, 2001 to discuss the goals of the project. The interviews were tape recorded and transcribed verbatim for accuracy during analysis. An original mailed survey for collecting stakeholder input was developed by analyzing the interview transcripts to identify items for the survey. After the questions were written, a draft was circulated among the Extension specialists and a panel of experts composed of four Extension educators and two agricultural economics faculty to determine face, content, and construct validity. The final draft of the survey was pilot tested using a one-shot mailing with a randomly selected group of producers (n=100) and yielded a 20% response rate. Further refinements were made to the survey. A final version was mailed to 750 producers who were registered with the state's Agricultural Statistics Service. The population for the survey included all wheat producers in the state (N=15,000, 1997, Census of Agriculture). The researchers drew a stratified random sample of 750 producers who had not been previously contacted for the pilot survey. Stratification was based on the proportion of producers by county (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 1996). A modified Dillman's (2000) four-phase mailing procedure was followed to garner a 29.2% usable response rate (n=219). The Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency of the survey was 0.94. Control for non-response error was addressed comprehensively. Demographic information (mean age and land ownership) of respondents was compared to corresponding characteristics of the known population (1997 Census of Agriculture). Early (first quartile) versus late (last quartile) respondents were compared for differences on 10 summated scale items regarding the importance of factors in making decisions about production practices. Ordinal data can be treated as interval data for the purpose of comparing two groups (Kerlinger, 1986). Using an independent samples t-test, no significant differences were found between early and late respondents for these procedures. In addition, a random sample of 10% (n=33) of the non-respondents were telephoned by the Agricultural Statistics Service and asked to complete selected portions of the survey (Lindner, Murphy, & Briers, 2001). No significant differences were found in the mean age of respondents versus non-respondents (0.05 alpha). Of the 10 survey questions that were compared for differences, only one was found to be significantly different. Given the strength of the evidence that there were no differences between early, late, and non-respondents, the survey results can be generalized to the population of the state's wheat producers minus one variable: the degree of importance of the terms of lease/agreement with landowners. FindingsAs the focus of this research was on building a model for collecting stakeholder input, only highlights of producers' needs are presented here. A full report of the survey findings can be obtained from the researcher via email <kelseyk@okstate.edu>. Producer Profile The average producer was a 56-year-old white male who did not plan to retire in the next 5 years. He was a full-time producer who earned all his income from farming. He was well educated, having attained at least some college education. The typical producer's farm was individually operated as a sole proprietorship, and he owned over half of the land he farmed. Last year, he planted an average of 652 acres of wheat. He ran cattle, either as cow-calf pairs or stocker feeders, and grazed his young wheat, a practice that is common in this region. The producer was likely to collect government commodity program payments, to use short-term loans to finance his operation, and to use long-term loans to cover land and equipment purchases. He bought crop insurance and has collected on a policy at least once in his life. The average producer reported cheat grass (Brome species), field bindweed, and drought to be his biggest challenges in farming. He was most interested in maximizing income when making production decisions; however, commodity prices, minimizing costs, the costs of inputs, maximizing yield, and long-term sustainability were other significant factors he considered. How Producers Obtained Production-Related Information The typical producer consulted friends, family, and other producers most often for information to solve his production problems. Business associates such as seed suppliers, grain elevator operators, and chemical and fertilizer dealers were also consulted when he needed information. His favorite publications for production information were The High Plains Journal and Progressive Farmer. Just over half of the typical producers communicated with Cooperative Extension Service (CES) employees. While most producers (86%) indicated that they did not communicate directly with faculty members, 65% did reported using CES information. The most common reasons for not using CES were "better information was available elsewhere" (n=24) and "I don't know about extension services" (n=24). Other reasons for not using CES included "slow to provide answers" (n=9) and "unresponsive to my needs" (n=9). Sixty-six percent of respondents reported that a weekly bulletin would be helpful to them. Improving Communication Between Producers and the CES Respondents were asked, "how could communication between you and the land-grant university be improved?" Not all survey respondents answered this question. Those who did wrote responses that were clustered into four themes:
The majority of the responses to this question focused on the university's lack of effective information dissemination strategies. Twenty-three of the 45 comments focused on direct mailing of information in the form of a monthly or biweekly crop production bulletin. Seven respondents wanted more face-to-face contact with CES personnel. Two producers wanted meetings with CES personnel, and two wanted up-to-date fact sheets. One respondent wrote that county Extension educators should be timelier in getting information out to farmers. Five respondents wanted more mass media approaches for disseminating information, including articles in local and major newspapers, publishing in the popular press, or expanding the weekly public television program to 30 minutes. Only four of the 77 respondents recommended that the university should use the Internet to disseminate information to producers. Recommendations for Serving StakeholdersOn March 8, 2002 the researchers met with the Extension specialists to discuss the findings. The meeting was tape recorded to accurately document statements. The conclusions and recommendations are a reflection of the data collected from producers combined with the insights of the specialists. Producers identified their most serious production problems as weeds, grazing, soil fertility, and wheat diseases. Active research continues at the university on wheat rusts, soil born mosaic virus, cheat grass (Brome species), field bindweed, wild oats, rye, and ryegrass. Producers also identified communication with the university as problematic because of poor information dissemination strategies. The chasm lies not in knowing what problems exist for producers, but in dissemination of solutions that are efficient, cost-effective, and immediately applicable to producers' situations. Every generation needs education anew. Thus, the responsibility for teaching producers about solutions to their problems falls on the CES as the off-campus educational branch of the land-grant university. Sixty-six percent of the producers called for a weekly bulletin on crop production. This appears to be an obvious solution to disseminating information; however, this proved not to be the case at this university. The Extension specialists had published a newsletter in the past and direct mailed it to producers biweekly during the growing season. The newsletter was subsidized by a grant the first year and was provided at no charge. The second year the producers were asked to pay $20/year for the publication, only one-half the actual cost of production. There were not enough paid subscriptions to continue the newsletter. One Extension specialist reported that the newsletter was evaluated and the findings were positive; however, "nobody wanted to pay for it." Fifty-nine percent of the producers surveyed never used the Internet, which is an inexpensive and effective communication tool for disseminating information to the public. Given the fact that producers do not want to pay for direct mailings and don't use the Internet, the CES may consider paying for the newsletter to be published out of operating funds. University personnel and publications were listed as the fourth and fifth most frequently consulted sources of information for producers. However, when asked to write in specific publications used for learning about crop production, less than 10% of the producers reported reading CES newsletters or university variety test reports. Less than 7% read Extension fact sheets or publications, the major form of information dissemination for research. Out of the 132 producers who listed publications they read, only one each listed the university-produced reports as a source of information. The land-grant university is obligated to provide relevant, factual, and timely information so that producers have all the resources at hand to make decisions. Through this study, it has been discovered that the majority of producers preferred to receive information via informal communication channels (friends and business associates). These sources may not be as valid and reliable as university-generated knowledge. How does CES climb the list to position itself as the number one source for information regarding crop production in this state? Knowing producers' preferred sources of information gives CES educators a powerful tool for information dissemination. Also, the adult education literature points to a felt need on the part of the learner as the impetus for seeking out information (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999). Once the learner identifies a need for information, he turns to sources that are most familiar, in this case, the popular press magazines. County educators may benefit by spending more time with businesses, cooperative elevator operators, and chemical and seed dealers disseminating information. Faculty may consider publishing short articles in the most popular magazines and journals to reach more producers than CES fact sheets reach currently. Faculty may also consider this data as base-line information for collecting stakeholder input in the future. Through the survey construction process, faculty were reflective of their educational programs and wanted to document the impact of years of disseminating information to producers. The Extension specialists were "not terribly surprised by the results," although they were somewhat unsettled by the data because educational programs had been in place for several years to encourage producers to adopt a variety of hard white wheat that had not been adopted at the time of the survey. During the focus group meeting on March 8, 2002, the Extension specialists discussed the idea that more information from the university was being disseminated than producers may have reported in the survey. For example, a crop consultant interviewed for this study reported that he attended university-sponsored field days and had received the university produced Wheat Production manual. He diffused that information to retail outlets, cooperative elevator operators, and producers as a consultant. Reporters for newspapers and other media do not always give credit for research findings. Thus, information is being disseminated, but the connection to the land-grant university is not always made clear to the public. University researchers may not always receive validation for their work, but it would be helpful if they had a better understanding of how information was diffused from the university to end users. Future research could focus on how stakeholders adopt innovations. It would appear that the this group functions as late majority adopters based on characteristics such as making little use of mass media and securing ideas from peers (Rogers, 1995). Deepening the understanding of clients' methods of adoption will allow CES educators to more effectively reach this group. Developing a Model for Collecting Stakeholder InputLand-grant universities have been directed to collect and implement stakeholder input when setting priorities for research, education, and Extension (AREERA, 1998) and to be more engaged with their constituents (Kellogg, 1999). Greene (1988) discovered that giving stakeholders a voice at the program-planning table increased the likelihood that they would use study findings to improve programs. Although including stakeholders in the priority setting process is inconvenient, costly, and time consuming, it is essential for fulfilling the land-grant mission. This research explored a process for collecting stakeholder input using survey techniques that met the call for fairness, transparency, accountability, and inclusiveness (Dyer, Miller, & Leval, 1999). The process proved to be linear and cost-effective, and yielded high-quality data that was instrumental for one academic unit in gaining a deeper understanding of their constituents. Table 1 outlines the actors, decisions, and actions required for starting the process of engaging stakeholders.
The survey was developed following high-quality survey research techniques (Dillman, 2000) and input from the Extension specialists. The specialists were intimately involved in wording the questions and ensuring that all of their information needs were satisfied. The survey was evaluated by a panel of experts, pilot tested, and administered to the producers. Results were delivered to stakeholders 10 months following the initial interviews. The faculty were called together to negotiate the conclusions and recommendations of the study based on the findings. The focus of the Extension specialists was to develop varieties and techniques for superior crop production in the state. Research was focused on selection of traits that were considered desirable by producers and consumers alike. The faculty were highly engaged in producer education and Extension activities, hosting demonstration plot field days around the state. It's not surprising that the faculty have been highly engaged with their stakeholders, yet they learned much from going through the formal process of gathering stakeholder input using this model. For example, they learned that after promoting hard white wheat for 7 years, only 4% of the farmers had adopted this crop. They also learned that education efforts to determine the optimum time for removing cattle from wheat pasture to be used for grain had not been diffused thoroughly. The mailed-survey design allowed respondents to remain anonymous; thus, feedback may have been more honest than face-to-face data collection. By using randomly selected producers, this model allowed access to underserved stakeholders, producers who have not engaged with the public university or benefited from its research. The faculty were able to learn how to better serve those who have remained in the shadows of the land-grant university by understanding their information needs and reasons for not using CES. Other faculty groups at land-grant universities may desire to test the model developed in this study. Successful replication will serve to refine the model and prove its usefulness in collecting and using stakeholder input for setting CES priorities. Acknowledgement This research was paid for by the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station, Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Oklahoma State University. ReferencesAgricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-185, 7 USC 7601, 112 Stat. 523 (1998). Available at http://www.reeusda.gov/part/areera/ Altschuld, J. W., & Zheng, H. Y. (1995). Assessing the effectiveness of research organizations: An examination of multiple approaches. Evaluation Review, 19(2), 197-216. Ary, D., Jacobs, C. J., & Razavieh, A. (1996). Introduction to research in education (5 ed.). Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2 ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Dyer, J., Miller, B., & Leval, K. (1999). In the eye of the stakeholder: Who sits at the agricultural research decision-making table? Available at http://www.csare.org/pubs/dyer.htm Greene, J. G. (1988). Stakeholder participation and utilization in program evaluation. Evaluation Review, 12(2), 91-116. Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities. (1999). Returning to our roots: The engaged institution. National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. 1307 New York Ave., NW, Suite 400. Washington, D.C. 20005. Kelsey, K. D., & Mariger, S. C. (2002). A survey-based model for setting research, education, and extension priorities at the land-grant university-A case study of Oklahoma Wheat Producers: Final report. Oklahoma State University, Agricultural Education, Communications, and 4-H Youth Development. Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavior research (3 ed.). Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Lindner, J. R., Murphy, T. H., & Briers, G. E. (2001). Handling nonresponse in social science research. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(4), 43-53. Merriam, S., B., & Caffarella, R., S. (1999). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed). New York: The Free Press. Silag, B., Schultz, A., Bishop, P., Dale, D., & King, J. (1998). Visions of change in higher education: W. K. Kellogg Foundation.
Success Outcome Markers in Extension (SOME): Evaluating the Effects of Transformational Learning ProgramsS. Kay Rockwell LaDeane Jha Eileen Krumbach Introduction
Transformational Extension programs are essentially about people relating to each other and their environment. They go beyond service, technology transfer, and facilitation to concentrated, in-depth programs that help individuals develop and grow. These programs address complex and interrelated issues in social, economic, political, and/or technological contexts. In transformational learning situations, people's behaviors, relationships, actions, and/or activities change to improve their own lives, as well as the health and well-being of a community. Relationships between educational approaches and the subject matter context (Figure 1) illustrate Extension programming that ranges from short-term service programs to in-depth programs focusing on transformational learning (Williams, Dickey, & Hergert, 2001). Service activities tend to be specific responses to focused questions or information that passes through an educator to the general public and includes answering clientele questions, promoting educational offerings, and providing information in crisis situations such as floods and droughts. Technology transfer programs provide an awareness of issues along with a more in-depth level of educational information to the learner through such efforts as publications, field days, health fairs, festivals, training events, invited presentations, Web page information, newsletters, personalized media columns and special news feature stories. Facilitation efforts bring together parties who see different aspects of a problem, constructively explore their differences, and search for (and implement) solutions that go beyond their own limited vision of what is possible (Taylor-Powell, Rosing, & Geran, 1998). For simplicity, each identified quadrant represents an important facet of Extension programming. However, these quadrants are interrelated and when brought together into in-depth programming, transformational learning occurs with corresponding behavioral changes. Figure 1.
Because of the "people factor" in the transformational quadrant, Extension has encountered numerous challenges in assessing and reporting transformational outcomes. While the Extension system is under pressure to demonstrate that transformational programs produce significant and lasting changes in their clientele, these outcomes may result from multiple agency efforts, and no single agency can claim sole credit. While assessing transformational outcomes is problematic, Extension needs to learn how to measure their contribution to program results. To address this issue, Extension staff working in the areas of welfare-to-work, youth mentoring, capacity building for youth and families, juvenile diversion, and coalition building formed a small working group to Tell Extension's Success Stories (TESS). They started with the Outcome Engineering approach (Kibel, 1999, 2000a, 2000b) and used an appreciative inquiry process (Watkins & Mohr, 2001) to explore how the concepts might apply in Extension's transformational programming. The TESS group used an iterative process over a 2-year period to think systematically, question their assumptions and mental models, engage in meaningful dialogue, and create visions that energized action. TESS also collaborated with sister agencies to test concepts in complementary types of programming. Success Outcome Markers in Extension (SOME) emerged (Jha, 2001). Developing Success Outcome MarkersSOME assesses contributions that transformational programs make to the achievement of outcomes. While SOME can be used for monitoring at the project, program, or organizational level, it can also be used to evaluate on-going or completed activities. SOME significantly alters the way a program understands its goals and assesses its performance and results. SOME uses a five-step model to confirm a vision in a social, economic, or environmental condition to which a program hopes to contribute (Figure 2). For the actors within the program's sphere of influence, SOME first identifies the vision leaders have for a program, and the mission identifies how the vision will be carried out. Program partners are then listed as well as program beneficiaries (i.e., WHOs). Outcome challenges are written for each "WHO," and success outcome markers (SOMs), identifiable actions or behaviors which indicate successful accomplishment of the outcome, are established. Transformation is accomplished through fundamental behavioral changes in clientele. Therefore, behavior change is the central concept of SOME (Kibel, 2000b; Rockwell Jha, Williams, & Thayer, 2000; Jha, 2001). Figure 2.
Step One: Create the Program Vision A program vision is a vivid and compelling description of a transformed reality one intends to be a partner in creating. It uses present tense to describe the optimum social, economic, or environmental condition the program hopes to help bring about, as well as a broad behavioral change in the primary clientele. The vision goes deeper than program objectives, is broader in its scope, and extends over a longer term. The vision represents the ideal social, economic, or environmental condition the program wants to support; it should be inspirational and broad enough to remain relevant over time. The vision statement is used throughout the programming cycle to ensure that activities are consistent with its intent (Kibel, 2000b; Rockwell et al., 2000; Jha, 2001). While achieving the vision usually lies beyond the program's potential, program activities contribute to, and facilitate, the transformed reality. Evaluation will measure the program's contribution to the vision, not the achievement of the vision.
Step Two: Describe the Mission The mission statement tells how the program will carry out the vision. It describes the domain in which the program supports the vision rather than specific activities the program will use. It's an ideal statement that describes how the program will contribute as it supports the vision (Kibel, 2000b; Rockwell et al., 2000; Jha, 2001).
Step Three: List All WHOs WHOs are individuals, groups, or organizations who work together to achieve program success. WHOs (comparable to the term "stakeholders") include those who can influence a program, as well as those the program directly targets. If the program does not directly interact with a WHO, it determines the persons the program can influence who will, in turn, interact with the WHO. In this way, the program stays within its sphere of influence, but with a broader vision (Kibel, 2000b; Rockwell et al., 2000; Jha, 2001). For example, a Juvenile Diversion program may not be able to interact with the entire police force directly, but it can interact with the police chief who can influence the police force. Therefore, the police chief would be included in the list of WHOs, but the police force would not. When listing WHOs, the program includes partners, as well as program beneficiaries. Generally, WHOs fall into four categories:
Step Four: Write an Outcome Challenge for Each WHO Outcome challenges describe intended impacts on key program partners. Outcome challenges describe how patterns of behaviors, procedures, or actions of individuals, groups, or institutions will change if the program is extremely successful. They should focus on behavioral change and be idealistic but realistic. They are phrased so they capture how the actor will behave and relate to others if the program reaches it full potential as a facilitator of change. Outcome challenges typically have three distinct parts:
Step Five: Write Success Outcome Markers for Each Who Success outcome markers (SOMs) are similar to indicators because they are identifiable actions or behaviors that lead to successful accomplishment of the outcome challenge. They advance in degree from simple participatory activities to complex, life-changing behaviors. SOMs are listed at three levels: EXPECT to see, LIKE to see, and LOVE to see (Kibel, 1999).
Monitoring the SOMs Transformational change in the end program user is the program goal, and SOMs are a way to monitor achievements that contribute to the transformational outcome. Each SOM is important individually and can be viewed as a sample indicator of behavioral change, but it is the cumulative power of the SOMs that summarizes the transformational change identified in the outcome challenge. Establishing a way to track progress is an important step in the SOM process. How SOMs will be measured--simple counts, observation, surveys, interviews, focus groups, specific instruments--and who will be responsible for gathering the information are important considerations. Identifying which SOMs are most likely to describe program outcomes and concentrating on appropriate monitoring and evaluation methods for tracking them is an essential part of monitoring success by using the Success Outcome Markers in Extension (SOME) strategy. SummaryUsing Kibel's basic outcome engineering theory (1999), a number of agencies and organizations are rethinking ways to target outcomes in complex programming. Some evaluators, such as those in the International Development Research Centre, are applying the theory in an outcome mapping context to large, complex international development grants (Earl et al., 2001); others, such as those in Cooperative Extension, are applying the theory, or parts of it, at the project, program, or organizational level to evaluate on-going or completed transformational programs. For Extension, Success Outcome Markers (SOMs), and the process of creating them, offer a new approach to plan, monitor and evaluate programs. Generating success outcome markers helps to carefully determine all partners (including beneficiaries) who may need to change to accomplish program goals and identifies steps to continuously track incremental successes. Hard-to-measure human behaviors become more concrete when success outcome markers are listed. To successfully use SOMs, one must:
Then decide how to monitor (i.e., simple counts, observations, surveys, interviews, focus groups, etc.) and report on each SOM. ReferencesEarl, S., Carden, F. & Smutylo, T. (2001). Outcome Mapping: Building learning and reflection into development programs. International Development Research Centre, PO Box 8500, Ottawa, Canada K1G 3H9. Jha, L. R. (2001). Using appreciative inquiry to test the application of outcome engineering in extension programs (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62, 2656. Kibel, B. (1999). Outcome engineering. Unpublished document, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (P.I.R.E.), Chapel Hill, NC. Kibel, B. (2000a). Accounting for spirit: A guide for organizations and programs that aim to make a deep difference in people's lives. Unpublished document, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (P.I.R.E.), Chapel Hill, NC. Kibel, B. (2000b, September). Outcome engineering toolbox: User manual. Retrieved June 15, 2001 from Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation Web site: http://www.pire.org/resultmapping/homepage.htm Rockwell, S. K. & Bennett, C. F. (2000). Targeting outcomes of programs (TOP): A hierarchy for targeting outcomes and evaluating their achievement. Retrieved July, 2002 from University of Nebraska, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources Web site: http://deal.unl.edu/TOP/ Rockwell, S. K., Jha, L. R., Williams, S. & Thayer, C. (November 2000). Using success markers for programming in Extension education. Presented to the American Evaluation Association's Annual Meeting, Honolulu, Hawaii. Available at: http://danr.ucop.edu/eee-aea/using_success_markers.htm Taylor-Powell, E., Rosing, B. & Geran, J. (1998). Evaluating collaboratives: Reaching the potential. Retrieved from the University of Wisconsin-Extension Web site: http://cecommerce.uwex.edu/pdfs/G3658_8.PDF Watkins, J. M. & Mohr, B. J. (2001). Appreciative inquiry. Jossey-Bass/Pfeifer. San Francisco, CA. Williams, S. N., Dickey, E. C., Hergert, G. W. (2001). Excerpt from the 2001 Unit Accomplishment Guidelines in Cooperative Extension. Unpublished guidelines for Cooperative Extension at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
Opportunities and Challenges for Land Use Planning in the Intermountain WestDonald McLeod Roger Coupal Andrew Seidl Katherine Inman David Taylor IntroductionArnold (2000) proposes an expansion of the Land-Grant University's (LGU) traditional rural research and outreach program to include county-level planning assistance. Rural residential development presents a planning challenge to counties throughout the western United States. County governments may lack adequate time, resources, and expertise to plan. Seidl (2001) documents the disparities between local planning needs and the existence of expertise among potential service providers. In the Intermountain West, rural communities share the following planning challenges:
Seidl (2001) found that he implications of growth on local land and other natural resources use were the most pervasive concerns of Colorado County Commissioners. This article illustrates opportunities for LGU county level planning assistance through a synthesis of four recent projects in the Intermountain West; Moffat County, Colorado; Sheridan County, Sublette County, and Uinta County, Wyoming. Through the adaptation of a comprehensive planning model and recently published accounts, strategies for LGU researchers to tackle county planning challenges in a manner acceptable to local officials are proposed. The four county projects selected are illustrative of the broader planning and development issues facing much of the Intermountain West because each focal county reflected the following:
This article describes specific planning problems confronting the four counties within the broader context of rural community planning. A schematic is provided that serves as a template for addressing county level planning needs. Given this overall planning approach, ways to establish an effective working relationship with the four counties are addressed. Land use planning focus group and survey results and interpretations are provided. It should be noted that the nuances of the planning process, in terms of who is contacted and issue development, are as important here as the research results. How the results are viewed and valued by county officials and citizens is based largely on how inclusive, location specific, and objective the process is perceived to be. Engaging the CountiesChallenges and County Needs Daniels (1999, p. 45) identifies eight obstacles to effective growth management in rural fringe areas:
Many counties in the Intermountain West face these obstacles. Efforts to address planning issues were complicated by the size of the counties and anticipated monitoring and enforcement costs (Obstacle 2). The counties encompass state, federal, and municipal lands, suggesting jurisdictional problems (Obstacle 1). Institutional change touches on several of the obstacles identified by Daniels. Three of the counties had planners. All three sought employment elsewhere either during or immediately after the LGU projects. The planning and zoning boards in each county consisted of volunteers appointed for short terms. County commissioners and other elected officials changed due to electoral outcomes. The counties had scant resources and lacked planning continuity upon which to revise their respective land use plans (Obstacles 7 and 8) due to these circumstances. Researchers from the University of Wyoming, and, for one county, Colorado State University, moved to address the planning challenges identified within the four counties. The LGU team acted to provide documented, defensible, and planning-relevant information, specifically helping the counties to address Obstacles 3, 4, 7 and 8. Addressing County Needs The 11-step planning process used by the researchers is illustrated in Figure 1. The research work assisted with land use planning efforts in steps 1-6 and 8, shaded in Figure 1. Focus groups, consisting of officials and residents from diverse backgrounds, were employed to identify issues as well as to develop working vocabularies (Step 1). The focus groups served as visioning opportunities around the following themes:
Local knowledge was utilized to help frame the issues to be addressed in a countywide survey (Step 2). Population and economic sector comparisons provided regional level inventory and analysis (Step 3)(see, for example, Taylor & Lieske, 2002). Detailed studies (Step 5)--cost of services assessment (Coupal, McLeod , & Taylor, 2002), GIS mapping and assistance (Bastian, McLeod, Germino, Reiners, & Blasko, 2002), review of existing plans and regulations as well as the survey of land use and planning preferences--provided information for local inventory and analysis (Step 4) of existing social, economic, and physical conditions in the area. The items important for the revised county land use plan come from the focus group visioning and planning survey results (Step 6). These two efforts provided citizen education, and involvement, as did a public presentation of the survey results (Step 8). Figure 1.
|
