April 2005
Volume 43 Number 2

Commentaries

Applied Extension Research in an Era of Devolution

Thomas W. Blaine
Associate Professor
Ohio State University Extension
blaine.17@osu.edu

Introduction and Problem Statement

Extension has an impressive history of providing combinations of educational programming and applied research that have had important impacts on the lives of people throughout the United States. The traditional formula for funding for all of these initiatives has involved a blend of federal, state, and local government expenditures--along with nominal fees occasionally paid directly by clientele who use Extension materials or attend Extension programs, workshops, and seminars.

In recent years, however, the trend has been clearly established that the federal government has been providing smaller portions of Extension budgets, leaving state and local governments to pick up the tab--or else requiring Extension to make substantial budget cuts that have led to a scaling back of a variety of Extension activities (McDowell, 2004).

Despite euphemistic admonitions from marketing and management schools of thought about " doing more with less," the economic principle of opportunity cost achieves primacy here, as it always does. Fewer resources from the central government will in fact require Extension educators to change the way we operate--not by doing more with less, but by changing priorities within the context of our mission--and there appears to be a consensus that we should be prepared to do so (Bull, Cote, Warner, & McKinnie, 2004; King & Boehlje, 2000).

It is important, in fact essential, to note at this point that the trend away from central government funding of Extension (devolution) is by no means limited to Extension. It includes government funding priorities all across the board, involving a host of publicly provided goods and services that Americans typically expect from government, especially related to environmental programs like recycling, but also impacting initiatives such as grants for child care programs.

The trends in devolution show no signs of abating. With additional resources being devoted to the " war on terror," homeland security, expanded military operations abroad, along with prioritizing tax cuts, it seems very unlikely that the federal government will reverse recent trends in funding programs whose costs have been increasingly shifted to smaller, more localized units of government.

But this will put local policy decision makers (county commissioners, city councils, state legislators) into positions where they must decide whether to raise revenues to continue these programs and, if so, how to fund them. Many of these officials will be faced with making decisions they previously would not have to have made. Examples include maintaining a recycling program in order to avoid having to create a new landfill now that the federal monies for the program have been eliminated; upgrading the water treatment plant now that the matching funds have been cut; and expanding or renovating local streets, roads, and bridges due to increased congestion once the time limit on revenue sharing for such projects has expired.

Many other examples exist, including community counseling programs, youth activities, and creation and maintenance of parks and green space. There are almost certainly others for which these dilemmas are not yet obvious.

Extension's Role--From Research to Program

So what does this mean for Extension? Because a large percentage of Extension work has always been at the local level and because Extension educators typically work to provide information to local officials, it seems clear that the trends in devolution are favorable to an expanded role for locally focused applied Extension research. This gains further support when considering Extension's association with the land-grant university system, which is among the premier research networks in the world (Smith, 2004; McDowell, 2001; Weiser & Houglum, 1998).

So what is the direction this research should take? Much of it undoubtedly should be aimed at measuring public attitudes toward initiatives that have been proposed--what do residents believe about the merits of these programs?--how do they feel about local funds going to support them?--what should be the source of funding (property tax, usage fee, income tax, real estate transfer fee, etc.)?

There is no doubt that local policy decision makers who have little experience in making these kinds of decisions are highly interested in knowing what their constituents think. Providing these officials with this kind of information should, at a minimum, constitute a significant component of Extension work in this new era of devolution. It seems almost axiomatic that we owe these officials this much.

A key advantage of this kind of work that must not be overlooked, however, is how easy it is to turn this kind of research into programming, which is Extension's traditional strength (Cooper & Graham, 2001). Just as public officials hunger for public opinion results, so do residents in general. One way to get a community excited about Extension work is to produce a program based on public opinion results from members of that community.

Locally driven Extension research projects do not just provide information that residents and officials find useful, they provide a way of demonstrating that Extension takes the community seriously enough to bring university resources to bear in conducting rigorous analyses of topics that are locally important or even vital. This commitment to local community is probably more important in an era of devolution than in previous times.

The Caveats

Obviously, many Extension educators reading this may be skeptical, because some caveats emerge as obvious. Let's address some of these.

• The specter that may appear to many who consider all of this may be something along the line that highly localized research may involve a duplication of effort, will lead to Extension researchers "reinventing wheels," or will generate research that is not capable of producing materials, methods, or knowledge that can be generalized to various other settings.
  
  But this should not be the case. Science has always progressed by researchers pursuing specific, often highly disaggregated topics. Tying these studies together in a coherent way where others can gain from them and therefore further refine their studies is the principal role of the academic journal, and in this case the Journal of Extension should be no exception.

• The quality of the research must be high. Again, the Journal of Extension plays a key role here. The review process for the journal is rigorous. Previous issues of the Journal are replete with extensive discussions of response rates, the related issue of non-response bias, rigorous statistical tools (Likert scales, regressions) and principles of survey design (reliability and validity).
  
  However, it seems obvious that many Extension educators who engage in applied research will not submit their findings to the Journal or to any other journal, for that matter--and that is fine. But what is critical is that, whether the Extension researcher plans to submit research findings for review or not, he or she must adopt the same standards of excellence and competence in any case in order to maintain credibility--which, once lost, is hard to regain.

• Applied Extension research must not be seen as self-serving. Any large organization, including Extension, tends to have an incentive toward engaging in activities that expand its scope and perpetuate its role. That is understandable. After all, one impact of a successful Extension research program in a community would be to improve the organization's status in the community, and in a (very cynical) sense that can be seen as self-serving. But that is completely different from engaging in research projects, for example, that are explicitly designed to demonstrate Extension's effectiveness in dealing with problems or in helping communities achieve objectives.
  
  Unfortunately, a lot of the published research on Extension program evaluation carries this kind of stigma. Not that program evaluation is not important--it is essential (Diem, 2002). But in the coming applied Extension research paradigm described in this Commentary, the role of program evaluation research should be minimized and brought forward once the other applied research programs referred to above have been completed. One rule of thumb is that although the applied research discussed here should be done by Extension, it should not be about Extension in particular, but rather about local topics that are important to communities and with which, because of its expertise, Extension came to be involved.
  
  It is important to note that although program evaluation research should form a smaller component of overall Extension research, it may emerge as more important than ever in documenting the impacts that the applied research efforts have had on communities. Moreover, given the experience that program evaluation specialists have in conducting research, their input will be very useful and, in some cases, indispensable to Extension educators who are thrust into the new research environment but have relatively little training or experience in conducting applied research.

Conclusions

While recent cutbacks in federal government funding of a host of services traditionally provided by the public sector (including Extension) have had some severe implications, this trend in devolution potentially offers a unique opportunity to Extension educators to conduct timely research projects for local officials and members of the public at large. Given that a higher portion of public sector decisions must be made locally now, along with Extension's traditionally high profile in local communities and its link to the research oriented land-grant university system, a symbiosis is emerging here that simply should not be overlooked.

A shift in priorities toward issue-oriented local research is well within Extension's capabilities, but it will mean a change in the specific activities that Extension educators engage in. Integrating program evaluation research resources into activities centering around community-based, issue-oriented research; prioritizing the identification of timely issues in communities; and applying highly rigorous research procedures to these efforts will ensure that Extension provides the kinds of educational services that will benefit communities nationwide in this era of continued devolution.

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

References

Bull, N. H., Cote, L. S., Warner, P. D., & McKinnie, M. R. (2004). Is Extension relevant for the 21st century? Journal of Extension [On-line], 42(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004december/comm2.shtml

Cooper, A. W., & Graham, D. L.  (2001). Competencies needed to be successful county agents and county supervisors. Journal of Extension [On-line], 39(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2001february/rb3.html

Diem, K. G. (2002). Using research methods to evaluate your Extension program. Journal of Extension [On-line], 40(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002december/a1.shtml

King, D. A., & Boehlje, M. D. (2000). Extension: On the brink of distinction or extinction? Journal of Extension [On-line], 38(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2000october/comm1.html

McDowell, G. R. (2004). Is Extension an idea whose time has come--and gone? Journal of Extension [On-line], 42(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004december/comm1.shtml

McDowell, G. R. (2001). Land-grant universities and Extension into the 21st century. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.

Smith, K. L. (2004). Scholarship: Shout about it. Journal of Extension [On-line], 42(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004october/comm1.shtml

Weiser, C. J., & Houglum, L. (1998). Scholarship unbound for the 21st century. Journal of Extension [On-line], 36(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1998august/a1.html

Lessons Learned Abroad

David Youmans
Rural Development Specialist, Retired
Washington State University
Prosser, Washington
youmans@wsu.edu

Background

For decades, land-grant university Extension workers have made their way to the far reaches of the world to participate in a variety of agricultural, rural family, trade, and development activities. These efforts have been funded by several sources, principally agencies of the U.S. Government, such as USDA, FAS, and USAID. Non-governmental organizations have likewise been important sources of development and relief funding overseas and have engaged seasoned Extension workers in the implementation of projects worldwide.

Those agencies and organizations have made productive use of land-grant outreach personnel because their own goals and objectives as well as their target clienteles were consistent with the world of professional Extension. Otherwise stated, agriculture, rural family life, consumer affairs, youth education, natural resource allocation, community development, and trade among peoples who seek to better their lives through knowledge and improvement is the world of professional Extension.

During the long tenure of American involvement overseas, much of the traditional thrust was the attempted transfer of U.S. Extension methodology to venues offshore. The assumption was that if a practice was successful at home, it would most certainly work abroad. Sometimes that turned out to be indeed the case.

But, at other times, American efforts failed miserably. They failed, most likely, because a parallel assumption that human behavior was culturally unconditional was simply not the case. While the basic needs of food, shelter, and subsistence income were somewhat universal, as were notions of joy, grief and fear, almost every human activity and value associated with those aspects of life turned out to be profoundly cultural. Even the perceptions of poverty and wealth differed remarkably from place to place.

Transformation

It was not until the early 1980's that American development personnel began to really "listen" to host nationals, and even then the ideas of technology transfer, trickle-down economics, and other constructs continued to persist. But gradually, experienced and sensitive development workers began to prevail in their advocacy of farming systems research that commenced to harness knowledge and involve aid recipients in decision making. At that time also, the "women in development" movement found a home in foreign assistance philosophy, thus tapping the talent, wisdom, and energy of more than half the world's population. Significant discovery!

Training-and-visit strategies began to emerge from South Asia that centered on intensified training of large cadres of Extension ranks in timely or pressing subject matters, followed by immediate implementation of strategies learned, followed by more intensive training on subsequent pressing problem issues, and so on. Today in development circles, notions of social marketing and community mobilization are widely discussed.

As time goes on, models emerge, experiments are launched, methodologies are developed and implemented, and nomenclatures wax and wane. In all of these dynamics, the one constant is change! The world changes. Peoples' needs change. Problems change. Available resources change.

In any Extension methodology, there are useful elements and others that are probably short-lived if they work at all. An over-riding rule of survival in international Extension work is to involve clients as equal partners in the task at hand, identifying issues through their eyes and values and implementing what works. Then, get rid of what doesn't work, no matter who thinks it's a great idea! Common sense is the best Extension tool in all this. And common sense is a rather pervasive international language.

Transition

It is likely not enough for American Extension workers to have implemented some of these principles successfully during their tenure abroad, to have concluded their assignments on a high note, and to have perhaps made a lasting difference in some corner of the world. Invariably, those same workers then returned to duties as usual in the U.S. and got on with their professional lives wherever they left off at earlier times. The difference between earlier times and now is that the U.S. has changed.

The issue here is not the gradual change that always takes place across the land with economic fluctuations, emerging cropping patterns, evolving family configurations, population displacements, and consumer trends. A whole new factor has now entered on the American scene, that of security. Oh, some Americans have always known a degree of economic insecurity and even personal insecurity in certain situations. But national insecurity is new to America, especially homeland insecurity.

At the same time, Extension professionals must face the same problem-solving challenges they always face in roughly the same traditional areas of endeavor, but in a remarkably less secure country! So, among the lessons to be learned from all those years of service abroad is that the clients and associates remembered from projects in places like southern Asia, eastern Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, or parts of Africa more than likely faced similar insecurity their entire lives. Yet, together with those Americans who worked beside them, they prevailed in their tasks despite that insecurity. And so must we.

Since 9/11, Americans have experienced widespread paranoia. Whoever we are, we have now been influenced and even encouraged to look with suspicion upon persons unlike ourselves (whatever it is that we are supposed to look like). Those are not the values that built America. They are not the values that will rebuild America. And they are certainly not the values that will sustain productive extension work. Let us remember that people in Palestine, Israel, and other Middle Eastern areas, as well as in Colombia and several African nations live in personal danger constantly. Yet they get on with the business of their lives each day with the resourcefulness they can muster. And, believe it or not, Extension work takes place in those countries every day as well.

Application

Looking at the legacy of American Extension work abroad, the lessons learned are legion, and many can be applied to a changing and even uncertain homeland scenario today. Extension workers are fewer than in earlier times, and problems are more complex. But fortunately, clients are many times more informed and largely more aware. It is imperative that clients become partners in problem solving, or problems will likely remain unsolved.

Indigenous knowledge simply should be heard and incorporated into the dynamic or a truly valuable resource will be negated. Inclusion of community volunteers becomes an increasingly vital resource in Extension work, not only as helping hands but also as managers and instructors. Citizen empowerment and action worked abroad, and it works at home. And in all this, nobody's gift is too small.

On a similar track, memories from overseas recall many traditional, folk, cultural, and religious organizations and social configurations that proved to be useful program vehicles for Extension work. Certain similarities are found in American community groups. Prominent among these are the churches and faith-based organizations. Extension in the U.S. has come far from the days when the church-state separation created some sort of razor-wire barrier to effective programming.

Today, many priests, pastors, and congregational groups can be welcome partners and collaborators in Extension work, especially in reaching ethnic and new immigrant audiences. Likewise, new and fertile Extension ground is to be found in Islamic, Buddhist, Jewish, Native American, and other cultural and religious realms where traditional Extension has had limited prior success. Festive, ethnic, and cultural celebrations are also offering open doors to Extension workers willing to be engaging in their personal outreach.

In recent years, Extension made its presence felt with its participation in foreign trade. Washington State University may possibly have pioneered the role of Extension Trade Specialist attached to its own international trade development center (IMPACT). The involvement of that specialist and a cadre of colleagues in some 28 export destinations of the world brought lessons learned abroad home to a grower/producer clientele in a very dramatic way.

Being on the ground in the marketplace, interacting with offshore buyers and consumers, was a landmark achievement for Extension and for home state exporters. An additional bonus was the array of valuable insights into how foreign traders trade, how overseas buyers evaluate commodities, how offshore retailers value products, and how consumers around the world actually prepare and consume food items grown in Oregon or Minnesota or Georgia.

It may seem there would be little to learn from abroad about "women in development" by Extension workers in the country that probably coined the terminology. Yet examples of the high profile of American women in the direct marketing and farmers' market activity seen across the U.S. landscape today recall all too distinctly images of women in village markets of Cameroon or the tanguis of Mexican ejidos. The counterpart of women's community savings and loan schemes in Appalachia can be seen even earlier in rural Bangladesh. And women's weaving and handicraft coops in trendy American university communities have antecedents in rural Bolivia and Lesotho. And there were Extension workers involved in their inception.

The list goes on in other realms of professional Extension work.

• Agriculturalists have returned from abroad to engage in the propagation and cultivation of ancient crops seen perhaps for the first time in foreign lands. Now acreages of spelt, teff, millet, and red lentil extend across the American landscape.

• Extension staff who have worked with youth in Latin America and Asia have returned from lands whose population is grossly juvenile to a U.S. in which a traditional population is graying while a youth boom is occurring among a burgeoning Hispanic community.

• Natural resource Extension workers have seen denudation and devastation on a vast scale in some offshore locations and have returned to find alarmingly similar mistakes being made at home in the name of economic growth.

• Family/consumer Extension professionals have gained new insights into the stark realities of absentee male populations and reverse gender roles being played out in some world regions, while at the same time discovering delightfully wonderful and fulfilling grandmothering profiles in action. But they have also witnessed the grinding desperation of sweatshop garment manufacture for American showrooms.

• Finally in community development, the apex of lessons to be learned must certainly be found among the indigenous Andean communities where communal labor is expected, the common good is valued, and shared property is the norm.

Outlook

In summary, it might be said that the world has become a remarkably small place. Extension work is very important in collective efforts to resolve problems of human, resource, production, consumer, and societal dimensions. Americans have become increasingly exposed to the world and have been involved in sharing development efforts internationally. They have learned many things that, without exception, have application at home. In today's world of global and national insecurity, the question remains as to whether or not American Extension workers have learned the most valuable lesson of all. The world itself is the ultimate, finite resource. There are no we and they. There are only we.

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

Copyright © by Extension Journal, Inc. ISSN 1077-5315. Articles appearing in the Journal become the property of the Journal. Single copies of articles may be reproduced in electronic or print form for use in educational or training activities. Inclusion of articles in other publications, electronic sources, or systematic large-scale distribution may be done only with prior electronic or written permission of the Journal Editorial Office, joe-ed@joe.org.

If you have difficulties viewing or printing this page, please contact JOE Technical Support.