|
February 2004
|
       |
Contents
Editor's PageJOE by the NumbersI have quite a few important numbers to mention this time around, and I'll start with a brief report of some 2003 numbers. 2003 The acceptance rate for JOE articles in 2003 was 52.5%. In 2003, JOE received 256 submissions, an all-time high and 44 more submissions than our previous record, set in 2001. JOE readership statistics have been trending steadily upward for years. In 2003, JOE had 776,333 "visitors" to the JOE site who viewed 1,691,722 pages of the journal. In 2002, 562,774 visitors viewed 1,310,318 pages--and back in 1998, 87,318 visitors viewed 262,916 pages. Good numbers, all. They say a lot about the growing popularity of the Web and even more about the success of JOE as the peer-reviewed journal for Extension professionals. 2004 2004 is a significant year for JOE, and the significant numbers are "10" and "40." In 2004, JOE is celebrating its 10th anniversary as an electronic journal and its 40th anniversary as a journal. We're highlighting our 10th anniversary as an electronic journal with this issue. One thing you'll notice is that the current issue and much of the JOE site has a new look. Many of you are now getting JOE in Verdana or Arial or, if your computer does not have those fonts, in whatever sans serif font your computer does have. Research has shown that sans serif fonts (those without short lines stemming from the upper and lower ends of letters) are easier to read on the screen. It only seemed fitting to make this change in our anniversary year. The other thing you'll notice is the contents of the February issue. February 2004 JOEIn the first JOE issue of 1994, then editor Mike Lambur welcomed readers to the "new electronic Journal of Extension." And the first Feature, "Transferring Technology Through the Internet Channel," suggested that the "Internet computer communication service may empower Extension personnel with an effective tool to aid the successful application of new technology." I'll say. In the February 2004 issue of JOE, 17 of 24 articles discuss information technology to one degree or another and illustrate how the Web and other forms of information technology have empowered us as Extension professionals to reach each other and our clientele. The first Commentary, "On Line and In Touch: Meeting the Challenges of Communication for Extension Professionals," reports on how JOE authors feel about the journal's Web-based format. From "Leadership Styles of Agricultural Communications and Information Technology Managers: What Does the Competing Values Framework Tell Us About Them?" to "Educational Interests of Extension Agents: Implications for the Delivery of Educational Programming at a Distance," all five Feature articles deal with information technology. The Ideas at Work article, "Rediscovering the Potential of In-Depth Training for Extension Educators," even reminds us that, in our increasing reliance on distance education for in-service training, we should not forget the value of face-to-face training. Perhaps most significant, all seven Tools of the Trade articles deal with the Web and other forms of information technology as just that--some tools among the many we use in our trade. Of course, the February 2004 isn't "all about" information technology. And neither are we. The second Commentary in this month's issue, "Co-Authoring Papers in Research Teams: Avoiding the Pitfalls," continues a conversation about how to do outreach or Extension scholarship that started in the December 2003 Commentaries. The next issue of JOE, the April issue, will highlight our 40th anniversary as a journal by featuring some articles that take what I've been calling "the long view of Extension." Laura Hoelscher, Editor
On Line and In Touch: Meeting the Challenges of Communication for Extension ProfessionalsHarriet Shaklee Tom Archer J. Benton Glaze, Jr. Journals form the backbone of the communication network for academic professionals. The peer review process ensures high standards of scholarship for published work. Colleagues within a discipline consult journals as they are released to keep abreast of current developments. Professionals on university campuses can relatively easily access the printed body of work through the university library system. A stroll across a well-groomed campus allows them to peruse an extensive collection of published work. Library journal collections may work well for campus professionals, but it's a long trip to the university library for Extension faculty working in Salmon, Idaho, Wauseon, Ohio, or White River Junction, Vermont. However, effective communication is just as important for Extension field faculty as it is for faculty on campus. Fortunately, progress in recent years offers a new communication tool better suited to field-based work--the World Wide Web. The Web offers universal access, whether you are at a lone Western ranch, a small Southern community, or an isolated workstation in Africa or Asia. Web-based publication allows Extension professionals to extend their reach well beyond campus boundaries and into the field where the Extension audience is located. Going ElectronicTen years ago, the Board of Directors of the Journal of Extension (JOE) made the decision to move to an electronic publication format to better serve their readers and authors. While maintaining rigor through the peer review process, the Board of Directors determined that the communication function of a journal for Extension professionals would be best served in an electronic format. Evidence for the success of the move to the Web is shown in the Journal of Extension's steady rate of growth. Readership has grown substantially over the years, with less than a quarter of a million page views in 1999 and nearly 1.7 million by 2003. In 2003, readers from 162 countries accessed the journal, up from 100 countries in 1999. Journal submissions have been on the rise as well, more than doubling in the past 5 years. There were 256 submissions in 2003 alone, a 20%-increase over the previous record high set in 2001. Ask the AuthorsIn recognition of the 10-year anniversary of the Journal of Extension's move to an electronic format, the Board of Directors conducted a survey of authors who had published in the Journal of Extension in the last 5 years. Authors were invited to respond to a set of questions about their experience with the Journal of Extension and its electronic format. The survey was administered electronically, using Zoomerang, a commercial, paid subscription service (http://www.zoomerang.com/). Of the 283 authors reached, 212 replied to the survey, a 74.9% response rate. Survey respondents included field-based and campus professionals, educators, specialists, and administrators. Forty-five percent of the respondents had been in Extension for over 10 years, and 72% were in tenure track positions. The survey respondents strongly supported the Web format of the Journal of Extension, with 76% agreeing that the electronic format of the journal helped them reach their target audience and 87% agreeing that the Web-based search capabilities expanded access to their work. Additionally, 56% indicated that they read JOE regularly to keep up in their field. Responses to open-ended questions about the pros and cons of the electronic format of the Journal of Extension tell the story behind the ratings. Frequently cited was the ease of the electronic format. Authors reported that it was easy to search, access, and share archived articles. It was also easy to reach Extension professionals who authored articles. Respondents thought it was easy to submit their work to the Journal of Extension, with several positive responses about the speed of the submission and review process, the ease of feedback from reviewers, and the short time to publication. Authors also commented on the role of JOE in their careers, with 87% agreement that Journal of Extension publication was helpful to their career progress. Authors stated that publication in JOE gave them the opportunity for professional development, assisted in their tenure/promotion, enhanced their professional reputation, legitimized their scholarship, and gave them a positive sense of accomplishment. Respondents also appreciated JOE's role as a vehicle for professional communication, increasing their ability to reach their target audience. Many authors reported receiving feedback about their work, including professional dialogue and requests for further information. Some ConcernsResults of the survey of Journal of Extension authors show that the journal has served its authors well, but some comments merit concern. Though many authors cited quick turnaround in the submission and review process, others felt the process was too slow, especially considering the electronic format. Suggestions for improvement included increasing the pool of reviewers, tightening the reviewing timeline, and eliminating consistently tardy reviewers. These comments indicate that the volume of journal submissions has expanded to the point of overburdening the reviewer pool. The JOE Board of Directors has taken action on this concern, doubling the size of the reviewer pool through recent recruitment of reviewers. The Journal of Extension depends on quality reviews from experts in the field and is grateful for the willingness of Extension professionals to serve in this role. The journal's shift to a fully electronic submission and review process should further increase efficiency. Also of concern were authors' comments about the level of regard for electronic journals in critical decisions such as promotion and tenure. Although 66% of the authors agreed that publication in JOE is well regarded by their department, others commented that their department and/or college valued electronic publications less than comparable work published in a print journal. University faculty may need to be educated about the challenges of scholarly communication in a field-based profession and the ability of Web-based publication to meet that need for university Extension programs. The concern about the value of Web publication could also reflect old habits and traditions that die hard. Many professionals, including those on primary committees, like to see something printed on higher quality paper, bound, and available to toss into a briefcase. Then, too, it could be the result of the range of quality in the material that can be found on the Web, where anyone can put thoughts in print for the world to read. Alternatively, some may doubt the permanence of information published electronically. Will it be accessible in the future? As those who grew up using electronic technology begin to dominate the ranks of Extension professionals, bound volumes of printed material are likely to be less in demand, and users of electronic media will become better at filtering out low-quality material. The Board of Directors of the Journal of Extension has adopted a policy on permanence that states, "The Journal of Extension is a professional, refereed journal, and, as such, its back issues are preserved in their entirety. The intent of Extension Journal, Inc. is to maintain all issues of the Journal of Extension in a readily available form. Multiple archives are maintained to ensure content security, information integrity, and long-term access." The FutureThe present evidence indicates that the transition to electronic publication has enhanced the viability of the Journal of Extension as a venue of professional communication. The story begins with the readers who turn to the journal for information--page views have grown by a factor of 7 in the past 5 years, including readers from over 160 countries. The growth in journal submissions suggests that authors also find the Journal of Extension to be an effective tool for professional communication. The survey responses complete the picture on the effectiveness of the electronic format. Authors' comments lauded the ability to reach Extension professionals, the ease of journal submissions, and the searchability of the database. A final survey question asked Journal of Extension authors about their view of the role of an electronic journal in today's academic environment. Authors said electronic journals were useful, essential, and excellent. Others said they were accessible, timely, and speedy. Many respondents summed it up simply: It is the future.
Co-Authoring Papers in Research Teams: Avoiding the PitfallsRichard P. Enfield Faye C. H. Lee IntroductionThese are true stories. An editor of a respected journal recently told the authors of this article that he had been contacted by an individual regarding a recent research submission that was made by a group of people who, apparently, did not quite have intellectual property rights to the data. Several months ago, one of the authors of this article was summoned to a conference room by a highly distraught colleague. Entering with apprehension, he was relieved to learn that the issue was about authorship and nothing more dire. A research assistant on a research project was demanding first authorship on an article that he and the author's colleague had been working on for several months. The colleague had conducted this research for several years, whereas the research assistant collected and analyzed the data for the past several months. The assistant wrote the first rough draft after they collaboratively drafted an outline and felt that he was entitled to be the first author. In a similar incident, another upset colleague confided that he had learned that several of his partners from a research project were putting the final touches on an article being submitted for publication. He felt he had been an equal partner on this project for the last 2 years. A partner had e-mailed the article to him, asking for comments on the article before it was sent to a journal. This colleague was livid that the article was written without his knowledge, was written without his being invited to be a co-author, and for being asked to review an article that he should have helped write. Clearly these are sticky, after-the-fact, ethical questions of authorship. Recent Journal of Extension Commentaries have addressed broad issues of scholarship in Extension (Alter, 2003) and within the 4-H Program (Astroth, 2003). In California, scholarship (creating, synthesizing, and applying knowledge) has been Extension's mission for many years. Thus, like campus-based specialists, all county-based academics are expected to conduct applied research relevant to our local constituents and publish our findings for academic and practitioner audiences. Issues such as intellectual property and authorship that used to be restricted to campuses, particularly between faculty and students (Fine & Kurdek, 1993; Smith, 2003), are creeping into Extension as our research expectations increase (Loveridge, 1998: O'Neill, 1990). In California, Extension supports issue-specific, statewide workgroups to conduct and report collaborative research projects. Drawing heavily from successful co-authoring experiences within our workgroups, we share strategies to avoid pitfalls of co-authoring papers among Extension professionals. The first and most important step is an open and honest discussion about the authorship of papers to be written. The research groups should allow adequate time to reach agreement early in the process. Every member of the team should participate. What Needs to Be Discussed?
Research groups should keep a written record of the discussion and any agreements for future reference. First Author and Co-AuthorsThe group should agree on criteria for first authorship. This agreement may be different for the primary paper and for sub-papers. Options for the primary paper that is written by the entire group include:
One research team with whom the authors worked decided that two members would be listed as first authors for their leadership in writing the paper and the research team would be the third author, with members listed in parentheses in alphabetical order. The group needs to decide the criteria for inclusion as co-author. One team decided that every co-author had to actually write a section of the paper. Another team decided that the article would be written by several individuals, reviewed by other team members, and edited by another, but that everyone would be listed as co-authors. For sub-papers, other agreements may be appropriate. These papers are usually written by one or two members. The group needs to agree on who will be lead and co-author and how the research team will be acknowledged. For example, one group decided that the first authors would actually write the paper and the last "author" of all papers would be the research team. Other issues the group may reach agreement on include:
One group decided that the lead authors would have the final say about authorship based on their perception of the intellectual contribution made by workgroup members. Revisit the IssueEven the best plans can result in disputes, so ongoing discussions and agreements are also important. Keep written records of these agreements to refresh memories. The time and energy spent on issues of authorship will prevent problems, including hurt feelings and animosity. From our experiences, including the writing of this article, we know it is possible to use the guidelines presented above and have enjoyable and professionally rewarding co-authoring experiences. ConclusionIf Extension scholarship is going to provide viable, researched-based, non-formal education in the twenty-first century, as suggested by Alter (2003), Extension professionals need to become familiar with, and implement, appropriate procedures for avoiding the authorship pitfalls described above. Having frank discussions and reaching agreements on intellectual property and authorship before writing papers are critical in research teams. The quagmire that results from either unthinking or unethical behavior will certainly not contribute to the scholarly success of Extension, and may indeed result in reduced integration of Extension into our land-grant universities. ReferencesAlter, T. R. (2003). Where is Extension scholarship falling short, and what can we do about it? Journal of Extension [Online], 41(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2003december/comm2.shtml Astroth, K. A. (2003). Doorway, doormat, or doghouse? The challenges facing 4-H youth development scholarship in land-grant universities. Journal of Extension [Online], 41(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2003december/comm1.shtml Fine, M. A., & Kurdek, L. A. (1993). Reflections on determining authorship credit and authorship order on facultystudent collaborations. American Psychologist, 49(11), 1141-1147. Loveridge, S. (1998). Publishing research in Extension. Journal of Extension [Online], 36(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1998june/tt2.html O'Neill, B. M. (1990). How to get published in a professional journal. Journal of Extension [Online], 28(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1990fall/tt2.html Smith, D. (2003). Five principles for research ethics. Monitor on Psychology, 34(1). Retrieved January 23, 2004, from http://www.apa.org/monitor/jan03/principles.html
Leadership Styles of Agricultural Communications and Information Technology Managers: What Does the Competing Values Framework Tell Us About Them?Kimberly L. Parker IntroductionAlthough the Cooperative Extension Service has been in existence for almost a century, it must have strong management and leadership to remain a viable organization in a rapidly changing, more complex, and increasingly diverse world marked by limited resources (Smith, 1990). While the terms "management" and "leadership" are often used synonymously, according to Campbell (1997) management refers to ensuring continuing efficient operations of the organization in its current mode. Leadership, in contrast, involves change. Both skills are desirable and required in today's workplace, and practitioners must use both in what has evolved to be more of an art than a science. According to Belasen (1998), the art of managing and leading organizations today lies in embracing incompatible forces instead of choosing between them. Ladewig and Rohs (2000) believe that Extension faces three major leadership challenges. First, many managers today are expected to address issues in areas in which they have limited knowledge and experience. Second, with the emergence of information technology and access to information that is contrary to most hierarchical management structures, new management competencies and styles will be required in practically every organization. Third, most managers in Extension lack any professional training in management competencies and leadership styles. The study described here compared the leadership styles of managers of agricultural communications, information technology, or combined agricultural communications and information technology units at land-grant institutions that are state partners in USDA-CSREES to identify their leadership strengths as well as potential areas for improvement. BackgroundAt most institutions, departments that specialize in agricultural communications and information technology support the Cooperative Extension Service. Over half of these units, whether or not they are combined, also support the Agricultural Experiment Station. Agricultural communications units first appeared in the early 1900s to provide communications leadership and work with all forms of traditional communications, including:
With the emergence of the WWW, most of these units have also assumed responsibility for Web site development and maintenance. Information technology units are a much newer phenomenon, many coming into existence around the advent of microcomputers in the early 1980s. These units are responsible for information technology applications and operations, and support business that is efficiently and effectively conducted through the use of state-of-the-art information systems and technologies. In most states, the agricultural communications and information technology units are separate; however, in some states the two units combined to form one administrative unit under single leadership. Vacin (1991) reported that between 1983 and 1991 11 land-grant universities consolidated their agricultural communications and information technology units, and more consolidations have occurred since then. While to some, combining these two units has seemed justified by emerging technologies that have made the missions of these two units more closely aligned, others do not feel a merger is warranted. MethodologyTheoretical Basis The Competing Values Framework developed by Quinn (1988) was selected as the theoretical basis for the study. It defines eight roles, or behaviors, that are required of managers in any organization. While individuals may have preferences and strengths in certain roles, the ultimate goal is to achieve comfort and balance using each of the eight roles. They include:
The eight roles each fall into one of four quadrants on a graph created by two axes (Figure 1). The vertical axis ranges from flexibility to control, and the horizontal axis from an internal focus with a longer time horizon to an external focus with a shorter time horizon. Because each axis is a continuum, categories are not mutually exclusive. Each quadrant of the Competing Values Framework represents a major model in organizational theory. These include the rational goal model, the internal process model, the human relations model, and the open systems model. Figure 1.
Research Questions Using the Competing Values Framework, is there a difference among the manager roles preferred by agricultural communications leaders, information technology leaders, or leaders of combined agricultural communications and information technology units at land-grant institutions that are state partners in USDA-CSREES? Using the Competing Values Framework, is there a difference between the manager roles preferred by men and women who are agricultural communications leaders, information technology leaders, or leaders of combined agricultural communications and information technology units at land-grant institutions that are state partners in USDA-CSREES? Using the Competing Values Framework, is there a difference among the manager roles preferred by agricultural communications leaders, information technology leaders, or leaders of combined agricultural communications and information technology units at land-grant institutions that are state partners in USDA-CSREES, based on other demographic factors, such as: age, education, department structure, units supported, years of employment, years of leadership experience, and region of the country employed? Design This study was quantitative and employed a cross-sectional design. Data were collected from each participant once during the data collection period to describe and compare variables at a single point in time. Instrumentation A two-part instrument was used for this study. Part one, designed by the researcher, was used to collect general demographic information about each survey participant. The information collected, as well as the corresponding variable name in parentheses where appropriate, included:
The region of the country that they worked (REGION) was assigned based on the location of the institution where the respondent was employed. Part two of the survey instrument was the Competing Values Leadership Instrument: Self-Assessment developed by Robert E. Quinn (1988), which is comprised of 16 statements. Respondents select the most appropriate response to each statement using a Likert-type scale that ranges from 1 (very infrequently) to 7 (very frequently). Statements are then paired to form eight scales that characterize leadership behavior; the score for each is calculated by determining the average response to the two statements. The variables for this instrument included responses to the 16 statements (Q1-Q16) and the computed scores for the eight leadership roles (FACILITATOR, MENTOR, INNOVATOR, BROKER, PRODUCER, DIRECTOR, COORDINATOR, MONITOR). Sampling The population that this study attempted to draw conclusions about was past, present, and future managers of agricultural communications and information technology units at land-grant institutions that are state partners in USDA-CSREES. To study this population, a sample comprised of the individuals who were currently managers in 49 states and USDA-CSREES was selected. Vermont was omitted because at the time of the study the researcher was the manager of Vermont's combined agricultural communications and information technology unit. The sample was random in that the composition of this group of managers constantly changes, and the individuals surveyed from the period of September 23 to October 31, 2002, comprised a membership of individuals unique to that point in time. Data Collection Data collection was entirely electronic. Agricultural communications and information technology managers were initially contacted on September 23, 2002, using e-mail distribution lists available for each group through USDA-CSREES. This preliminary communication introduced the study and included an embedded HTML link to the Web-based survey. The survey collected demographic information on each subject as well as replicating the Competing Values Leadership Instrument: Self-Assessment. When respondents finished completing the survey and used the "submit" button the survey was sent to the researcher via e-mail. Follow-up e-mail messages were sent weekly to remind individuals to participate. Data collection took approximately 1 month, concluding on October 31, 2002. ResultsDemographics Surveys were sent to 100 individuals, and 94 responses (94%) met the criteria of currently being managers and could be used in the study. Respondents were from 48 states as well as CREEES leaders from USDA. Rhode Island did not have these managers on their staff at the time of the study. Categorical variables in this study included AREAS, STRUCTURE, SUPPORT, REGION, GENDER, EDUCATION, and MAJOR, and are summarized in Table 1. Continuous variables in this study included AGE, EMPLOYED, LEADER, and TOTAL, and are summarized in Table 2.
The typical manager was male, age 49, with a Master's degree in a discipline other than agricultural communications or information technology. This individual managed either agricultural communications or information technology, but not both, and the majority of their units supported both the Cooperative Extension Service and the Agricultural Experiment Station. On the average, managers had been employed at the current institution for more than 15 years and had been in a leadership position at this institution for more than 8 years, although including other institutions the total number of years they had spent in leadership positions was closer to 13 years. The mode for LEADER and TOTAL (1 and 4, respectively) is noteworthy because it is much smaller than either the mean or median of each, indicating that many respondents were relative newcomers in their position. The breakdown of GENDER by the areas managed is shown in Table 3. It shows that while females equal males as managers of agricultural communications units (18% each), they comprise less than one third of the managers of information technology units or combined agricultural communications and information technology units (9% percent to 30%, and 6% to 19%, respectively).
Competing Values Leadership Instrument: Self-Assessment Nine respondents did not complete all 16 questions in the Competing Values Leadership Instrument: Self-Assessment, resulting in 12 missing values. Rather than delete these records from the study, the missing values were predicted using multiple regression. Statements one through sixteen were paired and the scores averaged to create eight managerial roles:
On a scale of 1 to 7, the mean score for these eight roles was lowest for monitor (3.8), followed by coordinator (4.7), mentor (5.1), broker and director (5.3), innovator (5.7), facilitator (5.8), and producer (6.0). The standard deviation for each score ranged from 0.9 to 1.4. The mean (m) and standard deviation (s) of the eight scores are plotted on a radar chart in Figure 2 to show the average leadership profile of the survey respondents. Figure 2.
Research Question One Among this group of managers, one-way analysis of variance did not indicate that there was a difference in the means of the eight leadership roles based on the areas managed by an individual. There were no significant differences (p<.05) among managers of agricultural communications, information technology, or combined agricultural communications and information technology units for any of the eight roles. Research Question Two One-way analysis of variance indicated that in this group of managers, gender influenced the producer role, with women having a significantly higher mean score than men (p<.0492). The mean score for females was 6.3 with a standard deviation of 0.7, while the mean score for males was 5.8 with a standard deviation of 1.1. The means of the other seven roles were not significantly different between men and women. Research Question Three Analysis of variance did not find differences in the leadership roles based on level of education, major for highest degree, structure of the unit, or units supported by the department the individual managed. Pearson correlation coefficients did not find an association between the eight roles and age, years of employment at the current institution, years in leadership at the current institution, or total years in leadership positions. The region of the country, however, influenced the coordinator role, with the Southern region having a significantly higher mean score than other regions (p<.0491). Fisher's LSD indicated that the Southern region scored significantly higher in the coordinator role than the North Central and Western regions, but not the Northeastern region. The mean score for the Southern region was 5.1 with a standard deviation of 0.9, the mean score for the North Central region was 4.3 with a standard deviation of 1.4, the mean score for the Western region was 4.3 with a standard deviation of 1.2, and the mean score for the Northeast region was 4.9 with a standard deviation of 1.3. DiscussionTo Merge or Not to Merge? In this study, 18 of the states, or 36%, had combined agricultural communications and information technology units. This is an increase from the 11 states that Vacin reported having merged units in his 1991 study. In most cases, the on-going justification for combining units has been the similarity in their missions, brought even closer through their shared use and reliance on emerging technologies. While this has made sense to some people, especially in an era of eroding budgets, others have resisted such mergers vigorously. In light of the current study, which concluded that managers of agricultural communications units and information technology units are not significantly different in any of the eight manager roles, merging may be less painful than many would believe. The majority of managers did not receive formal education in the discipline they are managing anyway, so leadership qualities and experience may be more important for managers than a working knowledge of all the disciplines in the combined unit, as Vacin (1991) suggested is a requirement. The outcome of this study, which determined that managers of agricultural communications units, information technology units, and combined information technology units are more similar than different, may help defuse the issue of whether or not to merge. Achieving Strength and Balance in Leadership Roles On a scale of 1 to 7, managers in this study assessed themselves to be above the midpoint for each of the eight leadership roles. While the scores were high, indicating self-perception is quite good, Quinn (1988) suggests the goal is to become a "master manager" by excelling in each of the eight roles. The first implication is obvious, that all managers will become adept in each role. The second implication is somewhat subtler, that good managers will achieve balance in executing all eight roles. The managers in this study had the lowest average scores in the coordinator and monitor roles, the two roles that comprise the internal process model. Leaders who have a tendency towards a conservative, cautious style characterize this model. The coordinator is expected to maintain the structure and flow of the system, and the monitor is expected to know what is going on in the unit, to determine whether people are complying with the rules, and to see if the unit is meeting its quotas. While managers may view these attributes as negative, they are important roles to be comfortable in, and should be used in concert with the other six roles to be an effective manager. In this study, managers from the Southern region demonstrated more strength than some other regions in the coordinator role. These results could reflect a more conservative, traditional nature associated with the South. The group of managers in this study most closely resembled the profile of effective managers Quinn (1988) called "conceptual producers," who also score lowest in the coordinator and monitor roles. Quinn characterizes this group as conceptually skilled because they work well with ideas and are particularly good at coming up with new ideas and selling them. Like many managers matching this profile, the individuals in this study had a higher level of graduate education and were in the upper-middle levels of management. According to Quinn, although these people tend to pay little attention to details they are highly trained, conceptually skilled, production-oriented managers who are clearly seen as effective. Leadership training, however, could make them even better. Changing the Face of the Typical Manager In this study, the majority of managers were men. According to Goering (1990), male leadership has typically dominated USDA-CSREES and its state partners. More women have advanced to positions of leadership in agricultural communications than information technology. Traditionally, more women have been attracted to careers such as writing, editing, and media relations than information technology. Men have more heavily dominated information technology as a discipline since its inception. In drawing from their existing pools of managers, combined units are also more likely to be managed by a man. A goal of USDA-CSREES and its state partners should be to recruit, hire, and advance more females to change the typical profile of these managers to be more gender neutral. While the women in this study had leadership styles that were for the most part, comparable to men, they also had strengths that could improve the overall profile of these leaders. In particular, these women exemplified the rational goal model, characterized by leaders who are predisposed towards a directive, goal-oriented style reflected in the producer and director roles. They were stronger producers than their male counterparts, being more inclined to be task-oriented and work-focused and to have high interest, motivation, energy, and personal drive. Clearly, rather than being a drawback as future USDA-CSREES state partners leaders, women are a potential asset that should be tapped. ReferencesBelasen, A. T. (1998). Paradoxes and leadership roles: Assessing and developing managerial competencies. Available at: http://www.esc.edu/ESConline/Across_ESC/Forumjournal.nsf/ web+view/8CEDA4FD8DBF9952852567CA0066523E?opendocument Campbell, R. R. (1997). Leadership: Getting it done. Available at: http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/faculty/RCampbell/Leadership/chapter3b.htm Goering, L. A. (1990). Women in Extension management. Journal of Extension [On-line],28(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1990winter/a7.html Ladewig, H., & Rohs, F. R. (2000). Southern Extension leadership development: Leadership development for a learning organization. Journal of Extension [On-line],38(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2000june/a2.html Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond rational management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers. Smith, K. L. (1990). The future leaders in Extension. Journal of Extension [On-line], 28(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1990spring/fut1.html Vacin, G. L. (1991). To merge or not to merge: Observations and recommendations. Journal of Applied Communications, 75(2), 51-55.
ORIGINS: A Valuable Web-Based Resource for Community Economic DevelopmentSuzette Barta Michael D. Woods Robert Dauffenbach Jeff Wallace IntroductionOften, tough times bring out the best in people. Despite a growing national economy throughout most of the 1990s, many rural communities in Oklahoma continued to decline economically following the oil industry bust of the mid-1980s. A few unfortunate communities watched their downtowns die, their young people move away, and their schools close. Other communities stood up and said "we're not going to take this without putting up a fight," and fight is what they have done. Leaders in these spirited communities formed active coalitions designed to affect local change. For example, since 1986, 44 communities have been a part of the Oklahoma Main Street program--focused on developing their economies through downtown revitalization and historic preservation. Others have focused on business and industry attraction, while still others have become experts in applying for available grants towards economic development projects. Many of these active communities have discovered that there are resources available to them and organizations willing to work with them in their economic development efforts. The Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service (OCES) at Oklahoma State University, the Oklahoma Department of Commerce (ODOC), and the University of Oklahoma (OU) are all examples of willing partners in these efforts. In fact, these three organizations have partnered with each other for the last 15 years to bring one very important resource to community and business leaders across the state. That resource is data. All communities seem to be hungry for data in their economic development efforts. They need economic data to understand the community's employment and income situation; demographic data to understand the community's characteristics in terms of age, sex and race; and retail sales data to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the local economy. Industrial Development Authorities need data so they know what kinds of business and industry to recruit. Grant writers need income statistics in order to show financial need. Potential business owners need demographic data in order to estimate the size of their potential market. Extension economists at OSU or the State Data Center at ODOC, or the Center for Economic and Management Research at OU are all happy to provide assistance in the area of data retrieval. However, much of the relevant data is already available to the public in the form of ORIGINS--an electronic database of Oklahoma specific information including employment, income, population, and retail sales. Recent acquisition of a mobile, wireless computer lab has made it easier than ever for the ORIGINS partners (OSU, ODOC, and OU) to take ORIGINS out into the communities where it belongs. Web training workshops offered by the ORIGINS partners are designed to teach participants how to use the site and how to implement the data for their own purposes. This article introduces the ORIGINS Web site and describes how Extension educators are using this valuable Web-based resource to assist Oklahoma communities in their economic development efforts. History of ORIGINSIn response to Oklahoma's plummeting economy in 1986, political candidates began to talk about "economic development" as the state's number one policy issue. One policy suggestion was to create a readily accessible economic development database (Hoff-Hisey, Woods, Dauffenbach, Lingerfelt, & Wallace, 1995) containing a wide array of Oklahoma-specific data. As a result, ORIGINS (Oklahoma Resources Integration General Information Network System) was established by the Oklahoma Economic Development Act of 1987 as a cooperative effort between Oklahoma State University, the University of Oklahoma, and the Oklahoma Department of Commerce. When first developed, the database was maintained at OSU, and the user was required to dial into the OSU mainframe computer system through the use of a personal computer, modem, and communication software. A toll-free telephone number was available to in-state users, but out-of-state users would be subject to long-distance charges. Users were limited to 173 minutes per logon, while data retrieval was often slow. To help speed up retrieval time, graphics were avoided. Today, the database is housed at the University of Oklahoma and has been accessible to the public, at no charge, through the World Wide Web since 1995. Especially when compared to the ORIGINS of the early 1990's, the database is extremely simple to use. Just log on at http://origins.ou.edu/. The three original entities--OSU, OU, and ODOC--still collaborate to bring this electronic bulletin board to the citizens of Oklahoma. Each entity has its own distinct role in the delivery of ORIGINS. ODOC is the home of the state data center and is the first to receive new data from sources such as the Census, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Programmers at OU's Center for Economic and Management Research (CEMR) continually update the information available on ORIGINS. As a result, the data is probably the most up-to-date collection of Oklahoma-specific data available on the Web. These programmers are always searching for ways to make the Web site more user-relevant and more user-friendly. Economists at the Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service at OSU are responsible for taking the Web site directly to Oklahoma communities. Among other activities, OCES conducts ORIGINS training workshops across the state. The workshops are both exercises in how to use the Internet and how to access and implement the wealth of information that is available from ORIGINS and on the Web. Even though the ORIGINS partnership has been around for a number of years, its relevance couldn't be any more timely than it is in today's technologically advanced environment. According to Cleland and Maggard, (2002) Web-based resources are needed in the development of community-building skills, and according to the US Department of Commerce's report, Falling Through the Net, increasing the number of Americans using technology tools is a "vitally important national goal." ORIGINS DataORIGINS is a portal to many kinds of social, economic, and demographic data that are specific to the state of Oklahoma and Oklahoma counties. Data on ORIGINS is organized into three categories: data series, reports, and data summaries. Below is a sample of some of the data available in each of the three categories. Data Series Available on ORIGINS
Reports Available on ORIGINS
Data Summaries Available on ORIGINS
New Features on ORIGINSThe days of limited logons are gone. So too is the necessity of avoiding graphics. Today's ORIGINS has some graphic features that are very impressive. For example, the retail trade data series has a graphing option. The user selects the information and ORIGINS will create the graph. In addition, several of the data series have a mapping option. Just click on the title of the map you would like to see, and ORIGINS will create a county map of Oklahoma such as the one shown in Figure 1. Some of the maps that are currently available on ORIGINS include the following.
Figure 1.
ORIGINS TrainingThe reports and statistics found on ORIGINS are designed to assist students, economic developers, community volunteers, grant writers, business-owners, researchers, etc. It is unfortunate, however, that many of these groups do not know about the Web site, and those who have heard of the site are often daunted by the sheer volume of information that is available. To help acquaint the public with the Web site, the Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service offers an ORIGINS Web training workshop to interested community groups. The purposes of the class are three-fold:
A typical ORIGINS training class generally consists of 10-20 community leaders who often include, but are not limited to, Chamber and Main Street directors, city employees, tribal representatives, librarians, bankers, and business owners. Generally, a county educator will take the lead in setting up one of these training workshops. The need for this training may arise as the county educator becomes involved in one or more community groups, such as the local Chamber of Commerce. This was the case in Pottawatomie County, where the county director worked with the Shawnee Chamber of Commerce to set up the session and to invite the interested parties. Once organized, the 2-hour training walks the participants through the ORIGINS Web site, highlights the available data, and suggests local uses of the data. Other Web sites that are good sources of data, such as the U.S. Census Bureau site (http://www.census.gov), are also examined. Until recently, the requirements for hosting an ORIGINS training workshop were difficult for a small community to meet. Most community groups do not have easy access to a computer lab that is Internet ready and will seat 10-20 people. In the past, these workshops were often held at career-technology centers (vocational schools), or, sometimes, community groups would travel to the campus of Oklahoma State University to participate in a workshop. Neither option was particularly convenient for many communities. Today, it's much easier for a community to host a Web-based workshop. The recent availability and affordability of wireless networking technologies have drastically reduced the requirements for doing so and have opened the door to computer-based training for previously underserved populations (Parsons et al, 2002). The OCES currently has one mobile, wireless computer lab with 20 laptop computers available for use across the state. The requirements for a hosting a workshop are simply:
Attaching the wireless lab to an Internet connection gives the participants the ability to work along, online, with the instructor. They are even given a little time to "play around" online. This "play time" is actually very beneficial because it allows the participants to search for the kind of information that is of interest to them while the instructor stands by, ready to answer any questions. ORIGINS Training EvaluationAbout a year ago, our partners at the Oklahoma Department of Commerce and the University of Oklahoma asked us to begin providing them feedback on the Web site. We have always been in the habit of evaluating our workshops, but now we also ask questions on our evaluations that directly pertain to the Web site and how it is being used in communities. Summaries of these evaluations and comments are provided to our partners and are used by programmers at OU to make the Web site more user-friendly. For example, ORIGINS Web training classes were recently held in Shawnee, Oklahoma and Tulsa, Oklahoma. Through coordination by the Pottawatomie County Extension Director, the Shawnee Chamber of Commerce took advantage of the mobile wireless computer lab and held their training session in a small classroom at the Pottawatomie County Extension Office. The Tulsa session was hosted by an economic development organization based in Skiatook, Oklahoma. Unfortunately, Skiatook did not have a facility equipped with high speed Internet access, so the group decided to hold the training at the Tulsa campus of Oklahoma State University. Between these two sessions, a total of 25 participants completed program evaluations. Results of these evaluations have been very positive, indicating that community leaders find this kind of training to be valuable to them in their local economic development efforts. Of the 25 respondents, 52% had never heard of ORIGINS before, and 72% had never used it. It's a shame that these people did not know that this valuable resource existed, but the good news is that 100% of the participants indicated that they would probably use ORIGINS in the future, and 76% said they would definitely use ORIGINS in the future. This kind of response is very exciting because it says two things:
When the people who indicated that they would definitely use ORIGINS again were asked how they planned to use it, some of the most common answers included:
A lot of different kinds of data are available on ORIGINS, but the data many participants believed would be the most useful to them in the future included:
When asked to identify what they liked most about ORIGINS, many respondents said they were impressed with the wealth of information that was available in one place. Ironically, the biggest problem identified is that there is "almost too much information in one place." This wealth of data available to communities over the Internet has changed the way community leaders and activists access information. The training sessions offer to "hand-hold" these leaders for a few hours as they increase their level of confidence in their ability to use this technology. Community contacts and Extension staff report use of ORIGINS for everything from grant applications to small business development. Adding Value to ORIGINS DataAs indicated above, many community leaders immediately recognize how they can use the data that is available on ORIGINS. Others may prefer to have the data assembled for them in order to address a particular issue or concern. Economists at the OCES certainly recognized this need as they began to develop their community economic development (CED) toolkit (Barta & Woods, 2002). For instance, the ORIGINS Report, as it is called, is a very popular component of the CED toolkit among Oklahoma communities. The ORIGINS Report is an environmental scan of a community and/or county that highlights trends in population, employment, income, and retail sales. For an example in Cimarron County Oklahoma, see our Web site at http://www.rd.okstate.edu/ORIGINSrpt.htm. Another very popular report in Oklahoma's CED toolkit is the Retail Trends Report (Barta & Woods, 2001). This report highlights trends in a community's retail market by tracking sales tax collections as provided by the Oklahoma Tax Commission. Sales tax collections are used to estimate trade area capture and retail pull for the local economy. A "gap analysis" for the community in 8 separate retail sectors can reveal relative strengths and weaknesses. For a recent example tracking retail sales in Dewey, OK see our Web site http://www.rd.okstate.edu/Retail.htm. Economic Impact studies, which also utilize ORIGINS data, describe the expected impact on the local economy due to a change in the economic base. The concept can be applied to a wide range of situations. Examples include:
The Center for Economic and Management Research (CEMR) at the University of Oklahoma also has some data tools available to communities. For instance, Local Area Labor Force Reports conducted by the CEMR analyze the availability of labor in local areas with particular focus given to identifying and profiling the underemployed. A local group that is interested in learning more about their labor market generally sponsors these studies. Researchers at the CEMR place hundreds or even thousands of random telephone calls to residents in the area. Currently, 28 Local Area Labor Force Reports are available on the ORIGINS Web site. Concluding RemarksThe electronic bulletin board/data base called ORIGINS has been around for 15 years, and it represents a unique and successful partnership between the two major state universities, Oklahoma State University and the University of Oklahoma, as well as with the Oklahoma Department of Commerce. Each year this Web-based resource improves as programmers at OU and ODOC become more and more skilled at updating the data files and finding better ways to present the data. Their biggest challenge is how to reasonably present such a large amount of data. In today's world, more and more data and information are becoming available online. Extension educators across Oklahoma (and the nation) recognize this fact and are taking advantage of it. When citizens in their county have data needs, educators are sending them directly to ORIGINS or are finding the data for them on ORIGINS. In fact, we recently conducted an ORIGINS training class specifically for Family and Consumer Science educators in northwest Oklahoma. Understanding the Web site will make it easier for these educators to deliver data and information to their clients. Some of these educators indicated that they would definitely use ORIGINS for such things as focus and advisory groups and program development. Technological advances, such as affordable wireless networking, are also making it easier for Extension Educators at OSU to take this resource to the public. Value-added data products, such as the "ORIGINS Report," can be quickly posted to the Internet for public consumption. The greatest challenge for educators at the Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service is how to get community leaders, many of whom are not yet comfortable with the Internet, to take advantage of this valuable resource. ReferencesBarta, S., Trzebiatowski, S., Pirtle, R., Frye, J., & Woods, M. (2002). Analysis of retail trends and taxable sales for Dewey, Oklahoma and Washington County, Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, Oklahoma State University, AE-02001, [Online]. Available at: http://www.rd.okstate.edu/Retail.htm Barta, S., Trzebiatowski, S., Gillin, S., Ralstin, S., & Woods, M. (2002). A summary of economic conditions and trends in Boise City and Cimarron County, Oklahoma, Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, Oklahoma State University, AE-02011, [Online]. Available at: http://www.rd.okstate.edu/ORIGINSrpt.htm Barta, S., Trzebiatowski, S., Frye, J., Arnold, J., & Woods, M. (2002). The economic impact of East Central University on the economy of Pontotoc County, Oklahoma, Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, Oklahoma State University, AE-02014. Barta, S., Trzebiatowski, S., Frye, J., Johnson, L., & Woods, M. (2002). The economic impact of the sports complex on the economy of Antlers, Oklahoma, Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, Oklahoma State University, AE-02134. Barta, S., Woods, M., Trzebiatowski, S., & Cain, D. (2002). The economic impact of Special Olympics Oklahoma on the economy of Stillwater, OK. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, Oklahoma State University, AE-02135. Barta, S., & Woods, M. (2001). Gap analysis: A tool for community economic development, Journal of Extension, 39(2), [Online]. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2001april/iw5.html Barta, S., & Woods, M. (2002). The community economic development toolkit, Journal of Extension, 40(5), [Online]. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002october/tt5.shtml Cleland, C., & Maggard, S. (2002). Cultivating resilient communities and rural prosperity in a dynamic and uncertain environment, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, White Paper [Online]. Available at: http://www.reeusda.gov/1700/whatnew/whtpapers/index.htm Hoff-Hisey, H., Woods, M. D., Dauffenbach, R., Lingerfelt, H., & Wallace, J. (1995). ORIGINS--Evaluation of a statewide electronic database to aid community developers. Journal of the Community Development Society, 26(2), 240-251. National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (2000). Falling through the Net: Toward digital inclusion: A report on Americans' access to technology tools, U.S. Department of Commerce, [Online]. Available at: http://search.ntia.doc.gov/pdf/fttn00.pdf Parsons, R. L., Hanson, G. D., Beck, T, J., & Martin, A. B. (2002). A successful portable computer lab training program, Journal of Extension, 40(3), [Online]. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002june/a6.html
Pond Management: An Evaluation of Web-Based Information DeliveryClifford Kraft IntroductionA continuing demographic transition of the rural and suburban landscape has changed rural land use patterns over the past several decades, leading to the increased construction of ponds on rural properties. Rural property owners often have the resources to construct ponds, and cultural perceptions have made pond ownership a symbol of the ideal rural lifestyle. Yet many new rural landowners have little familiarity with the reality of pond management and have no effective link to the knowledge base disseminated by county Cooperative Extension educators during the 1950s and 1960s, when county Extension agents were widely recognized as the key source of information for farm pond management. This article describes an effort to incorporate Web-based delivery into 21st century pond management training programs. Web-based sources of information and communication offer new methods for providing information, soliciting inquiries from pond owners, and linking energetic private landowners with others willing to share their expertise or provide assistance to others. The Internet provides the advantage of being able to address current topical issues with little time lag between problem identification and program delivery. The purpose of the study reported here was to determine the effectiveness of Web-based delivery as an educational tool for improving pond management. BackgroundIn 1998, the New York Pond Management program was reconstituted to address the needs of a large audience of rural property owners. Many rural landowners have little familiarity with managing natural resources, yet are strongly motivated to do so. This program effort was also guided by county educators, who reported widespread demand for information on this subject. For example, a survey of rural landowners in south central New York, conducted by a regional Cooperative Extension educator, identified "Managing or building a pond" as the topic of greatest importance. In another survey of New York educators, pond management was identified as one of four top priority natural resources management topics of interest (Schneider & Smallidge, 2000). During the past decade, traditional sources of written communication have been increasingly replaced by electronic information delivery, due both to fiscal constraints and the need for rapidly updated information. Although Web-based delivery of training materials by Cooperative Extension educators is no longer novel, Web use is still new enough such that many aspects of its relative benefits are being explored (Muske, Goetting, & Vukonich, 2001). In 1999, the Internet was the fourth major communications medium after word-of-mouth, the printed word, and broadcast media (O'Neill, 1999). Web use has clearly increased since that time, as the number of Web sites continues to grow (Internet Software Consortium, 2003). In order for Cooperative Extension educators to maintain credibility in an information age with numerous competing sources of information, convenient access to information must be available. Written publications are increasingly costly to print and take up valuable storage space (Jones, 1990). Additionally, electronic publications can alleviate the problem of inadvertently distributing out-of-date information (Shaffer & Hussey, 1992), which can occur as publications remain "on the shelf" despite having been replaced by updated material. Out-of-date information is often contained within written publications due to a lack of resources to prepare and publish revisions, or the "success" of a publication (i.e., in terms of sales) can obscure the need for revision, especially as resources become limiting. As was anticipated by Tennessen, PonTell, Romine, and Motheral (1997), timely Web information can be regularly updated and delivered to county offices and target audiences via PDF (printable document format) files, readily accessible within most households. Internet information delivery also facilitates electronic publication of documents that cannot be regularly updated or printed due to low demand or financial constraints. This study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of Web site use in improving pond management practices within New York state, as well as to generally evaluate Web site use as a means of improving pond management information delivery. The following three research questions were asked.
MethodologyWeb servers routinely log requests for resources, with each request considered a "hit" in the Web jargon. Although Web site developers often assess Web site use by tallying hits, these are an inadequate measure of use.
The Fish Management in New York Ponds Web site (hereafter referred to as the "pond management" Web site) was made available on-line in May 2000 at http://pond.dnr.cornell.edu/. The site provides a form from which users can submit questions and also includes a posting of "Commonly-asked Questions" that incorporates responses to such questions. This feature is intended to both reduce the volume of direct responses required and also provides a convenient listing of responses to conventional questions. Due to problems with using "hits" as a measure of Web page use, this study took advantage of information provided through the question-and-answer section of the pond management Web site. Interactions with Web site users provided direct evidence of information exchange and provided an opportunity for follow-up evaluation of impact resulting from this interaction. A quantitative assessment of questions submitted by users provided temporal information regarding Web site use and identified topics of interest to Web site users. An email survey was sent to 271 users who had submitted questions through the Web site prior to January 1, 2003 (a response to each inquiry had been previously sent within 1 month of submittal). If no response to this survey was received, a follow-up survey was emailed 1 month after the initial survey. The survey asked whether users had:
ResultsEleven questions were submitted through the Web site via email during 2000, 75 questions were submitted in 2001, 189 in 2002, and, as of June 2003, approximately 150 were submitted, indicating a projected total of 300 inquiries during 2003. The seasonal pattern (Fig. 1) of questions submitted to the Web site indicates that users were more interactive during warmer months (i.e., April through October) than during late fall or winter. The seasonal pattern exhibits a discernible peak in June and July that could either reflect a greater number of management issues that need to be resolved at that time of year or the greater availability of free time and attention to outdoor natural resource management issues on rural properties. Figure 1.
Questions submitted to the pond management Web site encompassed a broad variety of subjects, summarized into four primary areas (Table 1). These major subject areas were identified following the first 18 months of Web site activity and did not subsequently change. However, sub-categories within these areas did change from year to year, depending on unusual conditions (e.g., a long, snowy winter produced numerous questions about fish die-offs in ponds). These subject areas and major sub-categories were used as categories for organizing the "Commonly Asked Questions" pages on the Web site and were also used in organizing program material for ongoing pond management workshops.
Of the 271 surveys sent to individuals who had submitted inquiries through the pond management Web site, 171 responses were received, corresponding to a response rate of 63%. More than half of the people responding to the survey indicated that they had changed their pond management practices based upon information obtained through the Web site, and one-quarter of the respondents indicated that they had implemented "major changes" (Table 2). The proportions of respondents who had implemented major or moderate changes in pond management practices based on responses to their questions was slightly lower in both the "major" and "moderate" change categories, but these still accounted for almost 50% of total respondents. Even with the potential bias resulting from the possibility that respondents were more likely to have implemented pond management changes than non-respondents, a substantial proportion of Web site users and those who submitted questions had changed their management practices as a result of Web site use.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
