|
October 2004
|
       |
Contents
Editor's PageAccentuate the ActiveYou may be surprised to learn that there's absolutely nothing wrong with using active voice and first person in JOE articles. In fact, it's recommended. The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 5th edition (JOE's style manual) says this on page 41:
And, on pages 37 - 38: "Third person: Writing 'The experimenters instructed the participants' when 'the experimenters' refers to yourself is ambiguous and may give the impression that you did not take part in your own study. Instead, use a personal pronoun: 'We instructed the participants.'" The habit of using third person, passive voice is so ingrained and ubiquitous (under the illusion that it conveys "objectivity," I think) that I do not change it in JOE articles. And I do not suggest that you change the habit of a scholarly lifetime if that would prove too difficult. But you might want to try it the next time you are preparing an article for submission to JOE. For those of you who have trouble with JOE's notoriously tight word-count restrictions--think about it--it takes fewer words to use active voice, first person. If you can't bring yourself to use first person, you might at least try active voice. October 2004 JOEThis is another very good issue, with more noteworthy articles than I have time or space to note. So I will focus on two things. First, there's the way the first Commentary, "Scholarship: Shout About it," by Keith Smith, and the first two Tools of the Trade articles, "What Cooperative Extension Professionals Need to Know About Institutional Review Boards," by Dan Weigel, Randy Brown, and Sally Martin, and "Communicating Impacts," by Karen Zotz, resonate with each other. Read them, and you'll see what I mean. Second, there's the tremendous contribution made by JOE reviewers. The many of you who have used their insightful reviews to improve your articles know what I'm talking about. So do those of you who have read and learned from all of the Feature, Research in Brief, and Ideas at Work articles in JOE over the years. But there's more. Besides Karen Zotz, four other JOE reviewers have authored or coauthored articles on a variety of topics in the October issue: Viviane Simon-Brown, Kim Greder, Carolyn Dunn, and Joseph Donaldson. I didn't plan it this way, and, of course, others of our reviewers have written articles published in JOE in the past and will continue to do so in the future. But the coincidence of five articles in a single issue has given me the opportunity to publicly thank our reviewers for the work they do on all our behalves. You can find the names of all of our near the bottom of each issue Contents page and at the JOE Peer Reviewers link on the About JOE page. They all deserve our thanks. Laura Hoelscher, Editor
Scholarship: Shout About ItKeith L. Smith, Good Work Is Not EnoughIt's time to shout about your accomplishments. Extension professionals can no longer just "do good work." Our supporters and funding resources demand more from us, in terms of reach, relevance, and efficiency. Land-grant universities need our leadership as they embrace the concept of engagement. We need to more thoroughly adopt a long-recognized and accepted method of "shouting about our work" in university circles: scholarship. Scholarship can be defined in a number of ways. Boyer (1990) identified the steps as Discovery, Integration, Application and Teaching in Scholarship Reconsidered. Elements of scholarship in the Boyer model that particularly relate to Extension include:
As Boyer taught, scholarship is not just about publishing or presenting. It's about engagement and sharing with colleagues. It's about raising the bar and going beyond simply delivering a good program to local clientele. Delivering a successful, targeted program in a county can help hundreds or possibly thousands of local clientele. Now it is our responsibility to take that program and make it national by sharing our success with countless others. One approach to doing this could be a JOE article. What a great benefit to society and taxpayers. What a great benefit to the nationwide network of Extension services. Examples of Extension ScholarshipWe can all think of great examples of scholarship in Extension, or of when a great concept has been shared and then adopted nationwide. One that comes to mind is a collaborative effort among Lydia Medeiros from Ohio State University, Virginia Hillers of Washington State University, and Patricia Kendall of Colorado State University. This team came together and developed a project to improve food safety education. The information distributed has since become the national standard for the safe handling and preparation of foods. Another example comes from Sue Donaldson at the University of Nevada, who developed a wide-reaching curriculum for agricultural educators focused on growing plants and animals on small-acreage farms in areas of environmental sensitivity. In its beginning stage, the project trained 50 educators in eight western states, and since that time Sue has sent out over 900 CD-ROMs of the program to various locations throughout the country. A third example is that of Mike Boehm, an Ohio State University Extension and Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center faculty member, who was assigned to the Biological Defense Research Directorate at the Naval Medical Research Center while serving on active duty. He and his team were responsible for the development and implementation of biological weapons (BW) detection, testing, and training effort for forward-deployed Navy units. By the end of his tour of duty, Boehm's team had reached every Navy unit, ship or shore, that had the potential for action in the Gulf to train them to use tests meant for routine air screening and other suspicious samples. Larger ships were also trained on DNA testing, among other, more sophisticated testing. Numbers Aren't Enough, EitherNobody's better than Extension professionals at developing and implementing strong programs. We do, however, need to improve in how we evaluate and share our successes. We need to think of scholarship in terms of documenting quality. Glassick, Maeroff, and Huber's (1997) book Scholarship Assessed challenges us to look not at how many publications written or how many presentations delivered, but at the characteristics of quality work and how it is documented. Scholarship demands that we evaluate our work. First, we must clearly identify the needs of the people we serve. Once our programming is in place, evaluation is imperative to determine if we've reached the needs, or if additional thought should be given to how we're approaching the issue. Once evaluations show what we're doing is meeting the needs of our clientele and that we're successful, it's time to shout! Shouting About ItWe must define Extension work and university engagement as a part of the core of the university. Engagement is about teaching, research, and service. It is that aspect of the trilogy where the walls of the campus are invisible. As universities grapple to adopt engagement as a key goal, Extension has a clear role in the process through scholarship. And who is more experienced and developed in engagement than Extension? When we define our work in the same terms as other faculty across campus, we are seen as equal partners. This can be accomplished through scholarship. In doing so, we provide a network for "closet" Extension people in other colleges, those who are Extension people at heart. Thus, Extension helps to elevate the university's ability to engage with the community in a broader way. If Extension is going to be a part of the university engagement movement, we must embrace, exemplify, and advocate for teamwork. By partnering across campus, we can meet local community needs more effectively, maximize our impact in communities, and expand our scholarship opportunities. The richness of programming and depth of thought expands when you bring disciplines together. All parties learn and grow from the experience. As more colleges in our universities expand their engagement efforts, they need to see Extension as a partner. They can learn from us, and we can learn from them. Many of these colleges have long histories of community involvement and social activism. Their perspective can enrich what we do. That's a fundamental aspect of scholarship. As an example, the College of the Arts at OSU has a long history of engaging with the community through performances and visual arts exhibits. These performances and exhibits provide a valuable learning experience for students, enhance the arts opportunities for citizens, and serve to foster thought, learning, and expression in the community. The College of Arts' involvement in teacher workshops and industrial partnerships (focused on design) affect selected communities and enhance the quality of their on-campus efforts. By combining the College of the Arts' commitment for community involvement and their knowledge of the arts with Extension's integration into local communities and awareness of local needs, the potential for affecting even more communities is broadly enhanced. By working together, we can enrich the opportunities for youth to engage in the arts through new types of 4-H programs. Through our community development work, we can help villages and towns develop sustainable strategic plans, and by partnering with College of the Arts, we can assist these communities in implementing efforts that focus on enhancing the arts aspect of their community. Scholarship Challenges
The Journal of Extension provides all of us with a tool to embrace scholarship. To celebrate the 10th anniversary of JOE going electronic and the 40th anniversary of this peer-reviewed journal's start, make this the year that you embrace scholarship in the fullest sense of the word. Share your work. You owe it to your colleagues. View reader comments for this Commentary in the JOE Discussion Forum. (This forum is no longer accepting new entries.) ReferencesBoyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Special report. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Glassick, C. E., Huber, M. T., & Maeroff, G. I. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Integrating Ecology and Relating Natural Systems to Agriculture: An Increased Priority for Extension Agricultural ProgrammingKyle Cecil Society now provides input into issues associated with environmental sustainability in a myriad of industries, including agriculture. Agriculture today exists within a system that encompasses both biological and societal concerns. This is quite different than what the first agriculture agents dealt with in 1914. Extension must now begin to modify its historical educational emphasis from one addressing primarily the production of food to one that addresses the production of food in a system encompassing both the individual's, society's, and environmental goals. Developing farm operators' knowledge and awareness of relationships between farming and natural systems functioning should be an underlying theme of Extension programming in the new century. An agricultural system that can produce not only plentiful, healthful food, but also fully functioning ecosystems should be a goal of Extension outreach and programming efforts. The Changing Context of Agricultural ExtensionExtension has focused its educational efforts on an anthropocentric agricultural production system. That is to say, Extension has historically assisted the farmer in developing farming systems that maximized food production in order to feed a growing population. The focus on production of mass-produced staple commodities has unfortunately brought with it a number of consequences that society now views as unacceptable. These include:
By no means is it implied that agriculture is the only contributor to environmental problems facing today's society. Rural and urban populations each contribute to environmental problems in their own unique way. Agriculture, however, by simple virtue of the amount of land in the world utilized for production of food products, plays a significant role in sustainability of the environment. The fact is, farmers have a major impact on environmental sustainability. Given this long tradition of agriculture-based Extension nationwide, many Extension educators may have a strictly agricultural production background and are perhaps not trained in natural resources management or ecology. Due to the complexities of environmental systems, it is unlikely that an educator with a limited or non-existent training in basic ecosystem management principles will be able to functionally integrate ecosystem management concepts into their Extension outreach efforts. Furthermore, it could be argued that without some degree of immersion into the science of ecology and natural system functioning, the level of scholarly interest in such topics would be lacking. In the search to incorporate more ecological rationale into agricultural production, educators must develop a deeper understanding of the nature of agroecosystems and the principles by which they function.
Agroecosystems are communities of plants and animals interacting with their physical and chemical environments that have been modified by people to produce food, fibre, fuel, and other products for human consumption and processing.
A Need to UnderstandA study of 369 Extension educators in North Carolina showed that survey participants were divided when asked if Extension educators developed programs that emphasized whole-farm agriculture systems (35.9% disagreed, 29.8% undecided, 34.3% agreed) and if agents taught clientele holistic approaches to problem-solving (31.7% disagreed, 35.6% undecided, and 32.8% agreed) (Minarovic & Mueller, 2000). This would indicate that an important step in changing the paradigm of Extension agriculture education would be to gain consensus on the necessity to incorporate agroecological principles into Extension programming. We cannot expect our clientele to incorporate these principles if we are not capable of or are unwilling to teach them. In rapidly changing environments, both organizations and the people who make up those organizations either change with the times or risk becoming obsolete. So, as Extension positions itself to address contemporary issues affecting society, professional staff members will need to engage in lifelong learning in order to maintain professional expertise in relevant areas (Martin, 1991). Extension agricultural staff will need to be able to think differently and acquire a new set of knowledge, skills, and abilities--just as our farm producer clientele will be required to do. The more we understand about agroecology, the better we will be able to impart this new knowledge to clients. American agriculture, in all its parts, desperately needs to develop and implement strategic plans to reposition the industry with respect to the global marketplace and the social and environmental context within which it will operate. In this effort, American agriculture needs the applied research and Extension functions of the land-grant system as never before (Bloome, 1992). A contemporary Extension agricultural program that understands agroecology and believes in the need for a more sustainable production system can lead the way toward a more profitable and environmentally friendly agriculture. View reader comments for this Commentary in the JOE Discussion Forum. (This forum is no longer accepting new entries.) ReferencesAltieri, M. A. (1995). Agroecology: The science of sustainable agriculture. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Revised and expanded edition. Bloome, P. D. (1992). Seeking a mature relationship with agriculture. Journal of Extension [On-line], 30(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1992spring/tp1.html Martin, D. (1991). Professional growth: A personal journal. Fort Collins: Colorado State University Cooperative Extension Service. Minarovic, R. E., Mueller, J. P. (2000). North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service professionals' attitudes toward sustainable agriculture. Journal of Extension [On-line], 38(1). Available on-line at http://www.joe.org/joe/2000february/a1.html Vandermeer, J. (1995). The ecological basis of alternative agriculture. Annual Review of Ecological Systems 26: 201-224.
Intelligent Consumption: Addressing Consumer Responsibilities for Natural Resources--and BeyondViviane Simon-Brown Overview
Aldo Leopold was right. At Oregon State University and other land-grant institutions, we focus our educational efforts on teaching students to professionally manage natural resources. However, as population, economic, and consumption pressures increase, addressing the responsibilities of the consumers of natural resources becomes a viable educational tool. Since 1998, the Sustainable Living Project at OSU has been offering intelligent consumption programming to adults and older youth to create an ethical foundation supporting sustainable management of natural resources. Intelligent consumption is about managing ourselves. It acknowledges the role ethics plays in decision-making. Taking a thoughtful approach to understanding cultural, economic, and environmental values; considering the barriers to living sustainably; examining national trends; and determining personal priorities are all necessary elements in educating the public about their consumer choices. In this article, I:
PressuresIn May 2001, the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters and the USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory released the Report of the Intelligent Consumption Project (Strigel & Meine, 2001). The report identified three massive pressures squeezing global forest resources: population, economic growth, and consumption. First, world population is currently at 6 billion and is projected to rise to 11 billion within 100 years. If projected increases in human population hold true, by the end of this century, the area of forest per capita in the world will drop from the currently inadequate 1.5 acres to between 0.7 and 0.8 acres (Strigel & Meine, 2001). In the United States, it will be more than halved, from 2.7 acres to about 1.3 acres (Strigel & Meine, 2001). Second, the World Bank predicts that economic growth in the next 10 years could approach 5% annually in developing countries and 2.8% in industrial countries. The combination of population growth and economic growth will create a worldwide demand for new housing units. Over the next 50 years, that demand is likely to exceed one billion (Strigel & Meine, 2001). The third pressure on forest resources is consumption, with the United States consuming a disproportionate share. U.S. citizens use twice the average for other developed countries and roughly three times that of the world as a whole (Strigel & Meine, 2001). U.S. consumption is higher than that of any other nation on Earth (Strigel & Meine, 2001), leading two researchers to state, "It would require 4 of our Earths for everybody on the planet to live the lifestyle of North Americans" (quoted in Ryan & Durning, 1997). These pressures are not unique to forestry. Similar pressures affect all Extension program areas. And our responses and solutions are also similar. SolutionsForestry's traditional--and crucial--response to the population, economic, and consumption pressures has been to become more efficient. Our educational programs focus on improving silviculture, harvest, utilization, production, management, and delivery methods. But what about the consumers of forest resources? Don't they have responsibilities too? What kind of educational programming can help them make more informed consumer decisions? Two caveats. First, one could assume that to ease pressures on forest resources, one should encourage people to reduce consumption of wood products. This assumption is misleading. The Report of the Intelligent Consumption Project strongly cautions, "Contrary to expectations, the result could be highly adverse to the environment in the U.S. and globally. Reduction of wood consumption, without accompanying success in reducing consumption in general, would likely lead to a number of undesirable consequences..." (Strigel & Meine, 2001). The report cites four negative outcomes:
The second caveat is: to make intelligent consumer decisions, consumers must be cognizant of "the right thing to do," a highly individualistic determination generally arrived at after much thought. In Lawrence Kohlberg's body of work on stages of moral development, intelligent consumption decisions match Stage 6, the highest level: "Follow individual conscience and universal principles even if risk is involved" (Kohlberg, 1984). Ethics-Based EducationEthics-based education is all about managing ourselves. It creates a philosophical foundation to support decision-making on all levels. It acknowledges that personal values, ethics, and beliefs powerfully influence decisions and actions. (The take-home message for natural resource managers is "To understand environmental facts you have to understand your own values and the values of others" [Smith & Gilden, 2000]). Self-aware people consciously align--and articulate--personal, professional, and constitutional values (Figure 1.) These values are intertwined, underpinning everything an individual does. They tell the world who she or he is and how she or he goes about his or her business (Simon-Brown, 1999). Figure 1.
An ethics-based curriculum helps students determine personal values, ethics and facts. These are defined by Smith and Gilden (2000) as follows.
An example of an Extension program that evolved into an ethics-based education program is the Sustainable Living Project at OSU. The Sustainable Living Project at OSUFalse Start: Focus on Information TransferIn 1998, the Sustainable Living Project quietly began at Oregon State University. The project's mission, to reduce environmental degradation and improve quality of life in the Pacific Northwest by fostering new consumption patterns and promoting sustainable lifestyles, targeted mainstream adults and older youth. The project defines sustainable living as "A life that is deeply satisfying, fulfilling and appealing, and at the same time, environmentally responsible" (Simon-Brown, 1998). Original efforts focused on a "one-stop shopping" approach. I provided research-based information on a variety of traditional Extension topics, such as energy conservation and usage, financial management, consumer products, healthy foods, and gardening. It didn't work. Traditional Extension audiences considered the service to be redundant; new audiences didn't engage. The decision point came when a mall shopper stopped at my booth during a Home Show. "Why should I care about this stuff? What's in it for me?" Clearly, I was offering answers to questions that my audience hadn't yet asked themselves. At about the same time, I read Yearning for Balance: Views of Americans on Consumption, Materialism, and the Environment (The Harwood Group for Merck Family Fund 1995). The report enumerates four key findings:
These non-scientific-sounding findings reflect a society at odds with its values. To move Americans from ambivalence to action, the Sustainable Living Project needed to help people think through their personal values and beliefs. New Focus: Identify Individual Values and BeliefsOur approach to the project mission changed to: help mainstream adults and older youth make informed consumer decisions by thoughtfully and consciously examining the cultural, economic and environmental aspects of our American lifestyle. In short, participants identify their own Sustainability Triangle of Values. Figure 2.
Now, the Sustainable Living workshops:
Neutrality is the most essential quality for the instructor to exhibit and its importance can't be overstated. Each participant arrives with a lifetime of values and beliefs. It is not the instructor's role to change them or to advocate certain philosophies. It is up to the participants to discover what they believe to be their most important cultural, economic and environmental values. The instructor facilitates that process by using time-honored Extension techniques: asking questions, role-playing, large and small group conversations, readings, and individual journaling. Since refocusing the project in 1999, more than 5,000 people have participated in workshops and presentations, and over 150,000 people have browsed the Web site <http://www.cof.orst.edu/cof/extended/sustain/>. An overdue formal evaluation and assessment of the project is scheduled for this year. In 2002, I informally called 25 participants from the 2000 and 2001 workshops to ask 1) if their Sustainability Triangle was displayed and 2) if they used the Sustainability Triangle in decision-making. Twenty-three (92%) said that their Sustainability Triangle was prominently displayed (usually on the refrigerator) and that they consulted it often. Twenty-one (84%) said they had used it in making major family decisions (buying or selling a vehicle or house.) Several ex-participants volunteered that, as a result of the workshops, their families had reduced energy consumption, changed eating and spending habits, and reduced the number of arguments with their teenagers! Why the Time Is Right: Implications for ExtensionGlobal, national, and regional trends underscore the timeliness of such an ethics-based education effort. According to the World Future Society (Outlook 99, 1998), the following trends affect sustainability of natural resources.
America is in the midst of a meta-transition. Time and quality of life are becoming relatively more important than money. Sixty-six percent of Americans say they want more balance in their lives. Sixty percent want to simplify their lives (Schor, 1998). The voluntary simplicity movement, which approximately 35 to 40 million Americans espouse, is moving from the early adopter phase to the early majority phase. Figure 3.
(One sure proof that the concept has become mainstream is the proliferation of commercials by car, banking, and soft drink companies exhorting consumers to simplify their lives--by buying their products.) Intelligent consumption is applicable to more than just natural resources Extension program areas such as Forestry, Agriculture and Sea Grant. A quick brainstorm list of programs that could be augmented and enhanced include:
Each topic includes aspects of intelligent consumption. Each involves cultural, economic, and environmental values. Incorporating and highlighting the ethical components could be the "grabber" that fully engages the clientele. ConclusionOregon State University--like other land-grant institutions--has a long tradition of educating people to manage natural resources. The Sustainable Living Project focuses on education to manage ourselves, by asking ethics-based questions about intelligent consumption and quality of life. Extension professionals may find it creates an ethical bridge between consumers of natural resources and the sustainable management of natural resources. References1998-99 world resources: A guide to the global environment. (1998). A Report by World Resources Institute, UNEP, UNDP, and The World Bank. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Flader, S. L., & Caldecott, J. B. (Eds.) (1991). River of the mother of God and other essays by Aldo Leopold. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Kohlberg, L. (1984). The philosophy of moral development: Moral stages and the idea of justice. HarperCollins. Oregon benchmarks: Standards for measuring statewide progress and government performance. (1998). Oregon Progress Board. Salem, Oregon. Oregon values and beliefs. (1998). Oregon Business Council. Salem, Oregon. Outlook 99. (1998). The Futurist. 32(9). Ryan, J. C., & Durning, A. T. (1997). Stuff: The secret lives of everyday things. Seattle: Northwest Environment Watch. Schor, J. (1998). The overspent American: Upscaling, downshifting, and the new consumer. New York: Basic Books. Simon-Brown, V. (1999). Choosing your group's structure, mission, and goals. Corvallis: Oregon State University. EC 1507. Available at: http://seagrant.oregonstate.edu/sgpubs/onlinepubs/EC1507.html Simon-Brown, V. (1998). The sustainable living project at OSU. Available at: http://www.cof.orst.edu/cof/extended/sustain/ Smith, C., & Gilden, J. (2000). Values: The lens through which we view reality. Corvallis: Oregon State University. Strigel, M., & Meine, C., editors. (2001). Report of the intelligent consumption project. Madison, Wisconsin. Available at: http://wisconsinacademy.org/programs/icp/report.html Yearning for balance: Views of Americans on consumption, materialism, and the environment. (1995). Merck Family Fund. Takoma Park, Maryland.
Strengthening Environmental Policy Education Through Qualitative Research: Experience with Pennsylvania's Nutrient Management Act Regulatory ReviewAlyssa Dodd Charles Abdalla Penn State Cooperative Extension IntroductionEnvironmental protection is one of the most critical and complex issues our nation faces. Many audiences--farmers, local governmental officials, watershed organizations, and concerned citizens--have questions about rapidly changing environmental policies. Extension has the opportunity to provide timely issues-oriented policy education programs "where people learn about public issues, policy-making processes, and opportunities for involvement and influence" (Hahn, 1990). While educational opportunities exist, environmental policy education is challenging from both a content and educational process perspective. The issues are dynamic and complex. Educators are challenged with enhancing understanding and providing balanced information to diverse audiences. Additional challenges include transferring time-sensitive information and motivating individuals and groups to participate in decision-making. Through our experiences in Pennsylvania, we have identified several "ingredients" we believe are essential to a "recipe of success." These include:
A recently completed project documenting the views of Pennsylvania nutrient management policy stakeholders illustrates the importance of these "ingredients" in environmental policy education. This article introduces the Pennsylvania Nutrient Management Act and the window of opportunity that presented itself to provide timely and useful public policy information to key influential stakeholders and decision makers. It describes the qualitative research methods used to document stakeholder views, presents key findings, and summarizes the demand for and use of the report. Finally, the article concludes with practical advice for Extension educators working on environmental or related natural resources policy issues. BackgroundThe Pennsylvania Nutrient Management Act (Act 6) was passed in 1993 and took effect in 1997. The Act requires all "concentrated animal operations" (CAOs) to develop and implement a state-approved nutrient management plan. A CAO is any animal production operation with more than 2,000 pounds of live weight per acre of land available to spread manure. The State Conservation Commission is responsible for implementing and enforcing Act 6. The Commission relies on the Nutrient Management Advisory Board, a 15-member board established under the Act, to review and comment on regulations (Beegle, Lanyon, & Lingenfelter, 2001). Almost all of the 67 county conservation districts have accepted local program implementation responsibilities. In 2002, the Commission began its required 5-year review of the density-based criteria for defining CAOs. The review has expanded to include an overall update of the regulations. Currently, policy discussions are underway, and changes to the Nutrient Management Act regulations are likely to occur in 2004. A decade after passage of the Nutrient Management, the regulatory revision process provides an opportunity to provide timely and useful public policy information to stakeholders and decision makers. The Nutrient Management Act revisions will affect almost 1,000 CAO and over 800 volunteer (non-CAO) livestock and poultry operations with approved Act 6 nutrient management plans. The changes will also provide environmental benefits for Pennsylvania citizens. Extension's RolePenn State Cooperative Extension is actively involved in nutrient and water policy education. Historically, Extension has focused on providing technical nutrient management expertise during the policy development process. Extension specialists trained in soil science, agricultural engineering, and animal production continue to contribute in this important role. However, Extension's role has expanded over time to include specialists trained in the social sciences, providing public policy information to stakeholders and decision makers beyond traditional agricultural audiences. Since late 2000, administrative leadership within Penn State Cooperative Extension has increased its capacity in this program area by hiring one full-time, fixed-term Extension associate (the lead author) for a period of 3 years to explore programming in this area. Additionally, one full-time, permanent Extension specialist (the co-author) devotes time to the agricultural environmental public policy programming area. Our commitment to maintain a presence within the state-level nutrient and water policy arena led to identifying the opportunity to provide timely public policy education. Extension was aware that the process to update the Pennsylvania Nutrient Management Act regulations was underway and was present during state-level policy discussions where diverse stakeholder perspectives were shared. Once the window of educational opportunity was identified, we organized quickly to document stakeholder perspectives, with the goal of providing a balanced educational resource that would lead to more informed policy discussions. MethodologyQualitative research methods were used to document diverse perspectives, issues, and solutions related to nutrient management policy in Pennsylvania. Data were gathered through key informant stakeholder interviews. Several documents were used to create a semi-structured interview survey: the Pennsylvania Nutrient Management Act and its rules, the Pennsylvania Nutrient Management Program manual, and proceedings from legislative hearings held during the spring of 2001. All questions were open-ended. Extension's presence within the state-level nutrient and water policy arena made it possible to identify key informant interviewees. Key informants were identified on the basis of their involvement in current nutrient and water policy discussions or the stakeholder organization they represent. Additional interviewees were contacted through "snowball sampling," a technique where each key informant was asked to identify other knowledgeable individuals to interview. Snowball sampling is appropriate when a study is primarily explorative, qualitative and descriptive (Atkinson & Flint, 2001). Special emphasis was placed on documenting diverse interests in nutrient management policy to support a balanced educational approach. Individuals represented the perspectives of farmers, agribusiness, agricultural consultants, government agencies, environmental interest groups, public interest groups, and educators. Twenty-eight personal interviews (22 in person, 6 phone) were conducted in July and August of 2002. Interviews took no more than 90 minutes. Interviewees were assured that all responses would remain confidential and that no ideas or perspectives would be attributed to specific stakeholders. Because of the potentially controversial nature of the subject matter, responses were recorded in writing by the interviewer instead of with a tape-recorder. While there may have been some loss of data, we believe the approach created a more comfortable informal interview, allowing greater information exchange. In most cases, the authors interviewed respondents as a team, with one responsible for note-taking. We believe four major factors increased interviewee participation.
Stakeholder responses were assembled and analyzed. Steps in the time-intensive analysis included compiling all responses to specific questions; identifying key phrases, words, and concepts; and summarizing emerging themes. As themes emerged, the information or views obtained were not attributed to specific stakeholder groups. To ensure perspectives and ideas were appropriately documented and to emphasize the importance of each stakeholders view, all interviewees were asked to review the draft research findings. Several interviewees provided written comments on the draft report. Interviewees not responding in writing were contacted via e-mail and/or telephone to ensure the draft report was received and to document additional comments. Key FindingsKey informant interviewee responses provides insight into nutrient management policy challenges, identifies key indicators of program performance and success, offers broad conclusions about nutrient management policy-making in the state, and identifies future policy directions. While we strove to include representatives of stakeholders to nutrient management issues, we were not able to be exhaustive in terms of including all possible groups and individuals. However, due to the number and diversity of interviews, we believe the findings are comprehensive and balanced from a statewide perspective. Key findings include the following.
BenefitsHard copies of the report, Nutrient Management Policy: Pennsylvania Stakeholder Views About Progress, Challenges, and Future Directions (Abdalla & Dodd, 2002), were distributed to over 100 stakeholders. The publication was also made available on the Internet at Penn State Cooperative Extension's Nutrient and Water Policy Web site <http://agenvpolicy.aers.psu.edu>. A Web statistics program, WebTrends, provides detailed information on the number of people who access the Web site and download the publication. Between December 2002 and May 2003, the report was downloaded more than 2,000 times. State-level Extension educators have formally presented the qualitative research findings to the Nutrient Management Advisory Board, the State Conservation Commission, and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's Chesapeake Bay Advisory Committee. The project highlighted Extension's commitment to agricultural and environmental public policy education and increased visibility and political support. For example, the State Conservation Commission invited Extension to present the Stakeholders Views report at four Nutrient Management Planner meetings held around the state. More than 225 nutrient management planners, county conservation district staff, farmers, and government agency staff attended. Several key agency members provided unsolicited feedback on Extension's involvement and contribution to the meetings, demonstrating an increase in political support. As a result of impact from this project and other nutrient and water policy programming efforts, the Penn State Cooperative Extension administration has extended the Extension associate position to mid-2004. ConclusionPenn State Cooperative Extension's commitment to balanced public policy education approaches that meet the needs of diverse audiences, to maintain a presence within the state-level nutrient and water policy arena and to build trust between Extension and diverse stakeholders has proven useful in identifying and exploiting opportunities for timely public policy education. The use of qualitative research methods to document nutrient management stakeholder views was instrumental in creating a useful educational resource that resulted in more informed policy discussions. Our educational philosophy is that improvements in policy come about through exchange of facts and perspectives about issues and solutions and effective participation by all interested and affected parties and when public decision makers carefully consider this input. Extension, as demonstrated in Pennsylvania, has an opportunity to facilitate this exchange, participation, and informed decision-making. For Extension educators in other states looking to become involved in nutrient and water policy education we suggest the following.
ReferencesAbdalla, C., & Dodd, A. (2002). Nutrient management policy: Pennsylvania stakeholder views about progress, challenges, and future directions. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Penn State University. Available at: http://agenvpolicy.aers.psu.edu/Documents/NMAstakeholderviews.pdf Atkinson, R., & Flint, J. (2001). Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations: Snowball research strategies. Social Research Update [On-line], 33. Available at: http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU33.html Beegle, D., Lanyon L. E., & Lingenfelter, D. D. (2001). Agronomy facts #40: Nutrient management legislation in Pennsylvania: A summary of the regulations, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences. Department of Crops and Soil Sciences, Penn State University. Available at: http://pubs.cas.psu.edu/FreePubs/pdfs/uc111.pdf Barrows, R. (1993). Public policy education. North Central Regional Extension Publication No. 203. Favero, P., & Abdalla, C. W. (1997). Creating workable implementation rules to meet the complexities of manure management: Pennsylvania's nutrient management law. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 52(5), 320-322. Hahn, A. J. (1990). Issues-oriented public policy education. Journal of Extension [On-line], 28(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1990spring/a3.html The Nutrient Management Act, title 3, Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, sections 1701-1717 (2002).
A Training Program for Cooperative Extension Agents: Implementation of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Virginia Public SchoolsDini M. Miller Program ConceptSchool administrators face tough questions from parents, students, and staff about pesticide use in and around school buildings. While many school administrators are reluctant to acknowledge that children may be exposed to pests at school, they are often more reluctant to discuss the issue of pesticide use because of the potential liability associated with exposure complaints. However, there is a philosophy of pest control for the school environment that eliminates both the real and perceived hazards of managing pests; it is Integrated Pest Management (IPM) (Greene & Breisch, 2002; Koehler & Scherer, 2002). Integrated Pest Management is a process for achieving long-term, environmentally sound pest suppression through the use of a variety of least toxic management practices. Control strategies in an IPM program extend beyond chemical remedies to include structural and procedural modifications to reduce pest access and pest resources such as food, water, and harborage (U.S. EPA, 1993). The following four practices are applied simultaneously to manage pest populations within the school environment.
There is a national movement to reduce childhood pesticide exposure. For this reason, School IPM as an alternative means of pest control is receiving federal attention (McKenna, 2001). Currently, there is a bill before Congress, the School Environment Protection Act 2003 (SEPA; H.R.121, 2003), which proposes to regulate pesticide use in locations (schools) where children might be exposed (Anonymous, 2003). Several states already have mandatory School IPM programs, e.g., Texas, Louisiana, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia (McKenna, 2001). However, many states are apprehensive about a mandated program because the school districts will not be provided with additional funds to learn about pesticide alternatives (IPM training). For this reason, many states are trying to avoid mandates by proactively establishing volunteer school IPM programs, e.g., California, Georgia, and North Carolina). Several volunteer programs have achieved great success by using the infrastructure of the Cooperative Extension Service and state universities to provide IPM education and technical support to the local school districts (Florida, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina). This support facilitates the schools' transition from a monthly pesticide application schedule to a pest management program based on education and prevention (Koehler, Fasulo, & Scherer, 2002; Koehler & Scherer, 2002). In July 2000, a pilot School IPM training program was launched in Virginia Cooperative Extension Planning District-4 (Montgomery, Giles, Pulaski, and Floyd counties and the City of Radford). The program focused on hands-on IPM training for Extension agents, their local school facilities managers, and contract pest control operators. The pilot program resulted in Montgomery County Public Schools (22 schools and 9,059 students) adopting an IPM program and implementing it with their contract pest control company (Miller, 2003). Montgomery is the largest school district in Planning District 4 and has been influential in leading other districts to adopt IPM. The success of the pilot program resulted in funds from the Virginia Pesticide Control Board (Virginia Department of Agriculture) to expand the School IPM training to additional public schools throughout the state. However, statewide expansion of the School IPM program required widespread promotion to hundreds of school employees and pest control operators throughout Virginia. Therefore, it was logical that the expansion of the School IPM program be facilitated through the infrastructure of Virginia Cooperative Extension. Agriculture and Natural Resource (ANR) agents were thought to be ideal for promoting and delivering the School IPM program for a number of reasons. Most ANR agents have established relationships with both the school administrators and the pest control operators in their counties. Many of these agents have been providing regular pesticide applicator training and environmental education as part of their Extension mission. However, most ANR agents in Virginia are only marginally familiar with indoor pest management techniques and have had no training in School IPM. Our goal was to provide this training so that we could use the Virginia Cooperative Extension network to promote the adoption of School IPM in Virginia. Training Objectives
IPM Training ProceduresA 2-day in-service training was presented to ANR agents in a public school facility. During this training, the county agents were taught how to promote and deliver a School IPM training program to their local schools. As part of the training, agents were given an overview of current pest control practices in Virginia schools and supplied with a copy of Integrated Pest Management in Schools 2000 (Long & Kramer, 2000, unpublished), a report funded by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) in 2000. This report documented three major areas of concern regarding Virginia school pest control practices:
Introduction to IPMAs an introduction to the IPM program, we discussed with the agents how poor pest management practices leave school children vulnerable to accidental pesticide exposure and schools vulnerable to litigation. Agents were next familiarized with the methods of pest prevention used in an IPM program and how proper record-keeping coupled with pest prevention could eliminate needless applications of pesticide and potential exposure risk. The agents were provided with all introductory information in a notebook so they could return to their local school administrators and promote the IPM program. Agents were also provided with PowerPoint training presentations that could be used for teaching IPM techniques. The presentations were explained in detail at the in-service so that the agents had a full understanding of the concepts presented: pest prevention, pest monitoring, reduced toxicity pest control methods, and how to keep records of pesticide applications and pest problems. Agents were encouraged to incorporate their own ideas and experiences into these School IPM presentations. Part of the introductory training was presented by the Montgomery County Extension agent who took part in the pilot School IPM program. The agent discussed his experience working with the public school system and how he worked with the school facilities engineer to promote the adoption of an IPM program. The agent shared the pesticide safety training program he developed for school grounds maintenance personnel and related how he was able to provide the schools with the pesticide safety training they needed for state certification and compliance with state law. The Facilities Engineer for Montgomery County schools was also invited to the in-service training to discuss his experience with the implementation of School IPM. The Facilities Engineer was able to address some of the questions that agents would receive from their local schools about developing an IPM pest control contract, selecting a pest control company, and how much an IPM program was going to cost. Hands-On IPM TrainingAgents participated in hands-on exercises to learn IPM techniques for specific school pests (cockroaches, ants, and rodents). The agents practiced monitoring for cockroaches in the school kitchen. They learned where and why sticky traps are placed in locations that are appealing to cockroaches and how to interpret trap catch for precision placement of cockroach baits. They also learned how to place cockroach baits so that they are accessible to the cockroaches but not to children and staff. Agents were also taught how to monitor for ants around school buildings and ant baiting techniques. Another portion of the technical pest management training involved agents touring the school facility and learning to identify potential rodent entry points and how these locations could be modified to prevent rodent invasion. Finally, the agents returned to the classroom to discuss how to teach these techniques to school personnel and pest management professionals. Promoting the School IPM ProgramThis portion of the workshop focused on the sequence of events that lead up to the IPM training session for school personnel. The agents began by identifying administrators and facilities managers who manage or supervise the pest control contract. In the rural school districts the superintendent or assistant superintendent typically oversees the district's pest control. However, in large urban districts pest control is supervised by facilities or grounds personnel. Therefore, we discussed how to best promote IPM to these different individuals. Agents also engaged in a round table discussion about how to initiate IPM training for their local school district(s). The agents were provided with materials to assess and promote proper pest management practices in schools. Each agent was provided with a sample survey for documenting their local district's current pest control practices. They were also given a sample IPM policy statement, a School IPM pest control contract, and forms for recording pesticide applications on school grounds. These promotional materials, as well as an electronic slide presentation of IPM techniques for controlling cockroaches, ants, and rodents on school grounds, were provided for the agents to take to their local school board so they might generate interest in the IPM program. It was our intention that after the School IPM training the Extension agents would return to their counties and begin working with the schools, introducing them to the School IPM concepts. Agents would have a complete introduction to the School IPM program and hands-on experience in using IPM techniques to monitor and control urban pests. Each agent would also be armed with a protocol for initiating a School IPM program in his or her school district(s) and a packaged IPM training program, complete with literature and electronic slide presentations. The intended impact of this training program was to produce Extension agents who were trained to guide their school districts through the IPM implementation process. Our ultimate goal was to have these local schools adopt IPM and replace calendar-based applications of insecticide with an IPM program based on pest prevention and reduced pesticide use. Measuring Training ImpactsTo measure the impact of the agent training we continued to communicate with the agents after they returned to their counties. We kept a record of those agents who scheduled a School IPM program in their district and of course met with them face to face at the actual training sessions. In addition, we recorded the number of school districts that adopted an IPM program. Adoption of an IPM program was defined as rewriting the pest control contract to specify the use of IPM techniques to control pests or, if pest control was done inhouse, that the plan of work was rewritten to specify the use of IPM techniques. Impacts of the Agent Training School IPM ProgramExtension Agent Short-Term Knowledge and Attitude ChangeParticipants in the School Integrated Pest Management program were examined after the IPM training to see how much of the IPM information they had understood and retained. In addition, the agents were surveyed to determine if they had received enough information and training materials to successfully promote an IPM program in their local schools. The School IPM examination covered specific pest management techniques for cockroaches, rodents, and ants, as well as conceptual ideas such as the basis of IPM (pest prevention) and the use of the term "integrated" (controlling pest by using several techniques at the same time). Sixteen agents took the exam, and the average score on the post IPM training examination was 96%. Listed below are the quantitative responses to the School IPM Training Evaluation Survey (8 questions total; 16 respondents).
Respondents were asked to rank their interest in pursuing an IPM program in their local schools based on the IPM training. Rankings were 1-5, with 1 = very willing and 5 = not willing. Fifty percent of responded with a 1; 31% responded with a 2; and 19% responded with a 3. The qualitative responses were related to what the respondents found the most/least useful about the workshop and what additional topics they thought should be included in future training sessions. Because our program focused on indoor pest control, several agents requested that outdoor weed control be included in the IPM information. There were also several requests for more information on wasp and bee control. We received only three responses to the "least useful" question. All three mentioned the redundancy of some of the IPM information. Respondents listed the take-home presentations on CD and the hands-on laboratory sessions as the "most useful" portions of the workshop. Note: A CD-ROM covering IPM on Virginia school grounds has been funded by the EPA (2003) and is currently in development. Wasp and bee control information was added to the program in 2003 and is available on the Virginia School IPM Web site <http://schoolipm.ento.vt.edu>. Long-Term Cultural and Practice ChangeAt the time of this writing, 12 of the agent participants in the School IPM training have successfully promoted and hosted School IPM workshops (full day) within their local school district(s). These programs have been presented to school administrators, facilities personnel, and pest control contractors. As of 2003, 1 year since the statewide expansion of the school IPM program, eight public school districts and one private school district have adopted School IPM, thus reducing their pesticide use and improving the environmental quality of their facilities. Table 1 indicates the number of structures and people that have benefited from adopting the IPM program.
Additional Impacts of School IPM Agent TrainingDue to the efforts of the Montgomery county Extension agent in the pilot School IPM program, Montgomery County Public Schools and the Virginia School IPM program was cited as a model and a "catalyst for change" in Safer Schools: Achieving a Healthy Learning Environment with Integrated Pest Management, a national publication published by the School Pesticide Reform Coalition and Beyond Pesticides organization in 2003. The article included a full-page description of our IPM implementation strategies, with details on the pest-monitoring program and how to keep pesticide application records. Discussion of Agent TrainingIn Virginia, pest control issues fall under the purview of the Agriculture and Natural Resource Extension agents. These agents deal predominantly with outdoor or agricultural insect pests. In fact, ANR agents are almost exclusively from a livestock or crop management background, but there are a growing number of ANR agents specializing in horticulture or weed science. However, there are currently no agents who specialize in indoor or urban pest management in Virginia. Our challenge was to generate enough interest in indoor pest management and provide enough training to make the ANR agents comfortable with promoting the School IPM program. To do this we took a learner-centered approach where the agents were engaged in the educational process and assisted in developing the program content (based on a core curriculum) and activities that were to be presented to their local school districts. Also, each of the agents was expected to take an active role in delivering a portion of School IPM training when they scheduled training for their local schools. We found that the 2-day in-service training at a school facility was a successful venue for conveying the School IPM program to the ANR agents. School IPM is a complex program with a number of detailed concepts and technical methodologies. Giving inexperienced agents the time to focus on learning a completely new set of concepts and skills required the removal of situational, institutional, and informational barriers. The overnight in-service training removed agents from their busy schedules and offices so that they were able to be fully engaged in the learning process. Training at an actual school allowed the agents to visualize how the IPM practices would be applied. Finally, the School IPM information was provided in increments with extended periods for discussion and hands-on activities to encourage participation and learning. The results of the agent training speak for themselves. The impacts of the program have been positive, with at least half of the agent participants promoting and hosting a School IPM program within a year of their own training. The post-training examination and program evaluation indicators also suggested that the agents had learned the material presented and were comfortable enough with it to promote School IPM on their own. The development and promotion of any large-scale Extension program can be difficult, even when many of the agents are familiar with the subject area. However, we were able to determine from this School IPM program that with an appropriate amount of time and training, county agents can learn, promote, and contribute to complex programs that are outside their area of expertise. This ability to train Extension personnel how to promote and deliver novel programs is particularly important for preparing local stake holders to cope with potential federal mandates like School IPM. ReferencesAnonymous. (2003). News update: How will the new congress impact PCOs in 2003?. Pest Control Technology. 31: 14, 23-24. Greene, A., & Breisch, N. L. (2002). Optimizing IPM for public buildings. Pest Control Technology. 30: 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42. Koehler, P. G., & Scherer, C. (2002). University of Florida School IPM training manual. University of Florida. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Gainesville, Florida. Koehler, P.G., Fasulo, T. R., & Scherer, C. (2002). School IPM--Readin, Writin' and Riddin' of Bugs. Available at: http://schoolipm.ifas.ufl.edu/ Long, C., & Kramer, R. D. (2000). Report--Research services to evaluate Integrated Pest Management in Virginia's schools. McKenna, L. (2001). Don't miss the bus. Pest Control Technology. 29: 23, 26, 28, 30-31, 33-34. Miller, D. M. (2003). Virginia School IPM (Integrated Pest Management). Available at: http://schoolipm.ento.vt.edu United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1993). Pest control in the school environment: adopting Integrated Pest Management. EPA Publication No. 735-F-93-012. Office of Pesticide Programs. Washington. D. C. U. S. Government Printing Office. 43 pp.
Entertainment Media Violence: Roles for Extension ProfessionalsKimberly Greder Amina Charania Iowa State University
Do the above statistics present cause for alarm? Why are these acts occurring? What can Extension professionals, parents, and other adults do to lessen this violence? This article highlights research findings related to entertainment media violence, the process used to develop and evaluate a national satellite series on this topic, and practical applications for Extension educators. The Impact of Entertainment Media Violence on Children and Families, a national satellite series produced in 2001 by Iowa State University Extension, is a form of scholarship that demonstrates land-grant universities' ability to be responsive to societal needs (Norman, 2001). Violence in America: Whose Responsibility Is It?Violence has historically played a role in entertainment. However, there's growing consensus that media violence has become more frequent, graphic, sexual, and sadistic <http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/index.cfm>. Parents blame network television, movie, and videogame producers, and they in return blame parents. Media producers say they produce what Americans say that they want, that they are practicing freedom of expression, that it is parents' responsibility to know what their children are viewing, and that the research on entertainment media violence has flaws. Politicians have become more familiar with the research on this subject, are concerned about the potential negative effects, and are putting more regulations in place (McCain, 2000). However, regulations will only be meaningful if they are enforced--at the store and at home. Violence in Entertainment Media: What Does the Research Say?Violence in television programs and movies and its impact on children and families is not a new topic. Thirty years ago, Jesse Steinfeld, then Surgeon General of the United States, warned Americans about the negative effects of television violence on the emotions and behaviors of children, "It is clear to me that the causal relationship between [exposure to] televised violence and antisocial behavior is sufficient to warrant appropriate and immediate remedial act ion... there comes a time when the data are sufficient to justify action. That time has come" (Surgeon General's |
