|
February 2005
|
       |
Contents
Editor's PageJOE by the NumbersAs usual this time of year, I report on the previous year's acceptance rate, submission rate, and readership rate. I also announce a new kind of JOE number--the article number. Acceptance RateIn 2004, the acceptance rate for JOE articles was 48%. In 2003, it was 52.5%. Submission RateIn 2004, JOE received 279 submissions. This is 23 submissions more than our previous all-time high, reached in 2003. Readership RateJOE readership rate continues to rise. In 2004, there were 1,055,639 "visitors" to the JOE site who viewed 2,610,120 pages. This compares to 776,333 visitors who viewed 1,691,722 pages in 2003. These numbers all say something about the growing popularity of the Web and even more about the success of JOE as the refereed journal for Extension professionals. Article Numbers & Citing ThemStarting with this issue, articles published in JOE will be assigned article numbers that are unique across a volume (or year) of the journal. Thus, the first Commentary in the February 2005 JOE is article number 1COM1, the first Feature is 1FEA1, the first Research in Brief is 1RIB1, the first Ideas at Work is 1IAW1, and the first Tools of the Trade is 1TOT1. The April issue's first Commentary will be 2COM1 and so on. Most documentation systems have conventions governing the citation of electronic documents, including the use of article numbers, and I encourage you to consult them for guidance. As for how to cite JOE articles from February 2005 onward in JOE, itself, the correct format is: Fehlis, C. P. (2005). A call for visionary leadership. Journal of Extension [On-line], 43(1) Article 1COM1. Available at: http://www.joe/org/joe/2005february/comm1.shtml February JOETwo themes seem to run through a number of the articles in this issue: the need for leadership and tradition as a possible constraint. In "A Call for Visionary Leadership," Fehlis declares that, "the future for Extension is what we create through leaders who have a vision for what Extension might look like, how we will function, and how we will serve the needs of our customers." In "A Snapshot of the Change Agent States for Diversity Project," Ingram maintains that "leadership from the top is key in the organizational change process." In "County Level Extension Programming: Continuity and Change in the Alabama Cooperative Extension System," Robinson, Dubois, and Bailey conclude that "initiatives to change program priorities are unlikely to begin at the county level." It's the first part of their conclusion that brings us to the second theme, what Robinson et al. describe as "the continued dominance of traditional programs," namely, those targeted at production agriculture. Fehlis sounds a similar note when he says that "we cannot have leaders who constrain Extension to serving only production agriculture and to working only in rural areas" and that "our future depends upon the leaders of these land-grant universities learning from Extension's past achievements, but not allowing our future success to be hampered or held hostage by the past." In "Extension Staff Response to Increased Programming for At-Risk Audiences," a study to identify and examine individual and organizational assumptions that contribute to or inhibit Extension staff in Iowa, Klemme, Hausafus, and Shirer talk about the "basic assumption that agriculture is the primary focus of the organization." Finally, in "Extension as a Delivery System for Prevention Programming: Capacity, Barriers, and Opportunities," Hill and Parker have a different slant on tradition when they suggest that "capacity will be enhanced by reducing the perceived dichotomy between 'prevention' programming and 'traditional' Extension programming." We have a proud tradition and history in Extension, and these articles raise the issue of how to relate to it. They suggest that leadership is key. Laura Hoelscher, Editor
A Call for Visionary LeadershipChester P. Fehlis During a new employee forum, a young county agent asked compelling questions that merit thought throughout the Cooperative Extension System. He asked, "What is the future for Extension? Will Extension still exist in 30 to 40 years so that I might hope to retire?" I responded that our future can be significantly affected by each of us--by how well we do our job, how we listen and respond to the real issues facing our clientele, and whether we remember that we work for the people--and that the people ultimately decide if Extension will continue to exist. As I pondered further, I realized there is a more specific question to ask: Do we have the visionary leadership in Extension and in this land-grant university system that is necessary to carry forward our success of the last 90 years and achieve even greater success in future years? The Value of Visionary LeadershipA plan to exist 40 years from now will require much more than each individual worker expertly and precisely driving a spike in the rail. The real issue is whether anyone knows where the rail is heading and why it is heading in that direction. Leadership is unquestionably the key factor in determining if Extension will be capable of synthesizing future changes in demographics, science, technology, educational models, and human needs, and then developing a very clear and specific vision for our system. The futurist John Scharr is quoted as saying (Hempel, 1996), "The future is not some place we are going to, but one we are creating. The paths are not to be found, but made, and the activity of making them changes both the maker and the destinations." The future for Extension is what we create through leaders who have a vision for what Extension might look like, how we will function, and how we will serve the needs of our customers. Visionary leaders must know where we are going and why we are going in that direction. Visionary thinking has been recognized for thousands of years. It is described in biblical statements such as, "where there is no vision, the people perish." The Constitution of the United States, written over 200 years ago, is based on a vision of freedom for the people. That vision was so remarkable that our Constitution has withstood the challenges of time and is still valid today as a vision for democracy. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was one of the truly great visionaries of the 20th century. In his "I Have A Dream" speech delivered in August 1963, he clearly and eloquently described his vision of a world without discrimination--a vision that still inspires our world's quest for freedom for all people. Without vision and dreams, a people, a nation, a business, or an organization has no means to create a positive future because the paths lead nowhere and every day there is a new path. The Selection of Leaders in the Land-Grant University SystemA positive future for Extension depends upon having visionary leaders at all levels. It depends upon selecting individuals as director, vice president, president, or chancellor not just on their professional vitae of past accomplishments, but upon the careful analysis of their visionary leadership skills. Our future depends upon the leaders of these land-grant universities learning from Extension's past achievements, but not allowing our future success to be hampered or held hostage by the past. We must have leaders who recognize that Extension has a broad mission to serve the educational needs of the people. Leaders who recognize that the changes affecting our society also affect the Extension mission. Leaders who know that the demands of our state legislators, commissioners, courts, and local people expand our opportunities for educational progress beyond traditional programming efforts. We cannot have leaders who constrain Extension to serving only production agriculture and to working only in rural areas. The vision for Extension must parallel the needs of our nation; the vision must recognize both the basic, traditional needs and the ever-evolving needs of our society in a rapidly changing, diverse world. We need leaders with the astuteness to recognize the value of faculty contributions to traditional needs, but also to openly reward faculty who effectively respond to the needs of our dynamic society. The risk of successful, innovative, creative, and visionary Extension educational programs reverting to mediocracy in our country is real. People placed in government and university leadership roles who are not visionary and whose only knowledge of the Extension system is from the past can pose a threat that ultimately contributes to the demise of Extension. Decisions on the selection of individuals to lead Extension programs, those who supervise the Extension director and the placement of Extension in the university structure, should be among the most crucial a university president or chancellor makes. Extension remains the "front door" to the university for the majority of people and presents a tremendous opportunity to create a positive image of the visionary university that most presidents seek. Defining Excellence as a Guide for LeadersThe questions asked at orientation by the new county agent also should stimulate another question. Once we establish a clear vision for Extension nationally, how will we define excellence in Extension? How do we define excellence in Extension to a university president, a chancellor, a dean, a vice president, a faculty member from another college, our state legislatures, Congress, and our constituents? What are the metrics that define excellence in our state and national Extension system? Various reports annually rank universities and academic programs within universities based on a set of common metrics. Presidents recognize these metrics and know what they must do to strive for excellence, and department heads and faculty clearly understand what it takes to be the best in a particular discipline. In Extension, however, every institution has self-defined metrics. There are no mutual metrics that nationally define the best, or even the top 10. In my work nationally with the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy, I discovered that every Extension director believes that his or her state's Extension program is in the top five or 10 in the country. That may be good for our egos, but it is not good for Extension. That alone may prevent many state Extension programs and our national system from going from "good to great," as Jim Collins challenges us to do in his best selling book (2001). In the document, The Extension System, A Vision for the 21st Century (ECOP, 2002), we are advised to ensure that organizational decisions in the states are consistent with the 21st century vision. The decisions must also be consistent with a national vision that supports defined characteristics of excellence that will help us and any dean, president, or chancellor to pursue that vision. Extension is one of the few nationwide organizations or businesses that does not have defined metrics for success. How can a new administrator, especially one from outside Extension, have any idea of what vision they should have for excellence in the state Extension program if there are no established metrics? I fully realize the risks associated with establishing metrics for our system, but we must also recognize the risks of not establishing these metrics. If one state rewards faculty for expanding Extension into the homes of millions of urban residents while another state criticizes faculty for the same work, then we are a system destined for failure. Creativity, innovation, use of technology, and the packaging of complete educational programs for diverse audiences are metrics that I have used to reward faculty in Texas. In mid-2004, we hired a new Extension specialist to help improve our accountability and determine the economic impact of major educational programs. I anticipate that this will help us create new metrics on the relevance of many of our programs, while helping us to thoughtfully justify programs where economic impact is difficult to assess. I shaped the metrics for Texas Cooperative Extension based on more than 35 years of experience working in Extension. Yet I am not confident that those metrics truly support a national vision for excellence. I do recognize that some metrics are unique to some states. But I believe there are enough common metrics that define excellence in the Extension system such that a clear vision can evolve of where we are going and how to get us there. This effort would take tremendous courage on the part of ECOP and our federal partner, but without it, we are perceived not as a system, but merely as some 76 institutions all heading in different directions. I believe that there has never been a time in our history when Extension has been more relevant than it is today or will be through the 21st century. But our relevance can only be realized if the call for visionary leadership is answered.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
Inspecting lamb in Canada |
Meat talks in Japan |
Beef Retail in Tokyo |
Seeing pulses in Turkey |
 |
 |
 |
Marketing Washington beef |
Wagyu carcass sales |
Lentil trading in Egypt |
 |
 |
 |
Pea research in Hungary |
Shipping out |
Korean meats trading |
Foreign trade is and will continue to be central to American agriculture, and Extension can be the glue that brings that together. The experience begins with years of insights into production agriculture, risk management, pest control, quality improvement, and the wholesomeness of food and a commitment to quality. The next step is a natural for Extension workers. It involves a respect for people of all cultures and a belief that a trading world is a sharing world and that a sharing world is the best world.
View reader comments for this Commentary in the JOE Discussion Forum. (This forum is no longer accepting new entries.)
Laura Griner Hill
Assistant Professor
Washington State University
Pullman, Washington
laurahill@wsu.edu
Louise A. Parker
Director of Extension Family Programs
Washington State University
Puyallup, Washington
parker@wsu.edu
The historical function of Extension is to bring research-based knowledge in a useable form to groups, families, and individuals in local communities. Extension personnel provide an important bridge between university researchers and community knowledge-users by being able, first, to identify community needs, and second, to select, translate, and transmit relevant, research-based information to help address those needs (Russell, 1991).
Traditionally, Extension 4-H youth and family personnel have created their own curricula or made use of programs and curricula developed by other Extension agents and specialists across the nation. Increasingly, however, granting agencies at state and federal levels are requiring that programs chosen for funding be designated as "model" or "best practice" programs whose effectiveness has been demonstrated through replicated, randomized, clinical trials. One example is the Strengthening Families Program, developed at Iowa State University and supported by 9 years of longitudinal research that clearly documents program effectiveness (Spoth, Redmond, Trudeau & Shin, 2002). Because a growing percentage of Extension activities are funded by outside grants or through collaborations with agencies using outside grants, it would be beneficial to incorporate such best practice prevention programs systematically into Extension youth and family offerings.
We conducted a survey of all Family Living and 4-H personnel and county chairs employed by Washington State University Extension. The survey was designed to explore attitudes toward both prevention programs serving youth and families (generally, issue-specific, time-limited, evidence-based "best practice" programs) and traditional Extension programs (generally, ongoing skill and character building curricula and activities in the form of clubs or after-school programs).
Many of the programs we refer to as "traditional" are similar to or overlap in content, methods, and goals with the programs we refer to as "prevention" programs. However, the two categories differ in some respects, most notably in their historical development. In the eyes of funders, the primary differences are that evidence-based "prevention" programs are based in formal developmental theory and in empirical research on risk and protective factors; they have been demonstrated effective in research trials; and they have met specific criteria in order to be designated "best practice."
Numerous studies over the past decade (Basch, 1984; Beebe, Harrison, Sharma, & Hedger, 2001; Orlandi, 1986; Plested et al., 1999) have demonstrated that successful delivery of prevention programs is related to system "readiness"--that is, in order for a new program to be effectively disseminated, the organization or community implementing it must:
The primary goal of our survey was to determine the readiness of Washington's Extension system to incorporate best practice programming into its standard repertoire of volunteer training and program delivery. Drawing on the findings of previous studies of readiness, we explored participants' assessment of community needs, attitudes, and beliefs about prevention programs, and knowledge and skills required to deliver prevention programs. We also assessed whether participants felt that they had the resources necessary to implement such programs, including collaborative relationships, time and money, and organizational support.
The present investigation extends previous literature in two ways. First, although there are some research reports on Extension's delivery of specific types of prevention programs such as teen pregnancy (e.g., Johns, Moncloa, & Gong, 2000) or substance abuse (e.g., Goldberg, Spoth, Meek, & Molgaard, 2001), we found only one report that discussed the potential role of Extension as a delivery system for evidence-based prevention programs (Molgaard, 1997). Results from the present study provide important information about strengths of the system in one state with regard to implementing best practice prevention programs as well as information about barriers to implementation.
Second, there are a number of articles related to differences in attitudes between practitioners and researchers (e.g., Myers-Walls, 2000). However, our literature search revealed no information about attitudes of Extension personnel to specific types of prevention programs or to prevention programs generally, about perceived readiness to deliver such programs, or about preferences with regard to traditional Extension offerings versus designated best-practice prevention programming. The present study is therefore the first report of attitudes and perceptions of Extension personnel with respect to these two types of programs. Finally, the survey process and content may serve as a reference for other states interested in exploring readiness in their own Extension systems.
Our sample included all Extension faculty and program staff whose work involved 4-H, Family Living, or both areas. In addition, we surveyed all county chairs. Eligible personnel were identified through mailing lists maintained by state-level Extension personnel in the 4-H and Family living areas and by review of the statewide Extension personnel directory. The original mailing went to 149 individuals, of whom 16 were found to be ineligible to fill out the survey due to retirement, leave of absence, changing of jobs, or our misidentification of their jobs. The total eligible sample was thus 133 individuals, of whom 110 (83%) completed the survey within 6 weeks of the initial mailing.
The eligible sample included 39 county chairs, 39 faculty, and 55 program staff. Of these, 33 (85%) of the chairs, 35 (90%) of the faculty, and 42 (76%) of the program staff returned the survey. By program area, the sample included 77 4-H personnel, 27 Family Living, and 10 identified as both 4-H and Family Living. An additional 19 (all county chairs) were from other program areas (e.g., Agriculture). Sixty (78%) of the 4-H personnel, 23 (85%) of Family Living, 10 (100%) 4-H/Family Living, and 17 (90%) of the other program area personnel completed the survey.
An initial contact letter, introducing and endorsing the study, was mailed from the state administrative directors of the 4-H and Family Living program areas to all eligible Extension personnel. The survey itself, in addition to an explanatory cover letter and consent form, was then mailed to all participants 4 days later. The initial mailing was followed by a reminder and thank-you postcard (to all participants) 1 week later and by a replacement survey (to non-respondents) 3 weeks later (Dillman, 1991). A $2 incentive and self-addressed stamped envelope (SASE) were included with the initial survey mailing; a SASE was also included with the replacement survey. Survey content and procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board of Washington State University.
We asked participants to respond to items in several areas, including: perception of need for different types of programs; program effectiveness; the role of Extension in delivering best-practice programming; knowledge and perceived competence; and availability of resources. Within several of these areas we asked about attitudes toward 14 specific types of programs: five types of positive development programs (character building, workforce preparation, social skills development, neighborhood and community attachment, and parent training), and nine types of programs designed to prevent maladaptive outcomes (teen substance abuse, delinquency and aggression, teen pregnancy, school dropout, domestic violence, teen suicide, child abuse and neglect, and deficiencies in prenatal and infant care).
The positive development programs represent the traditional focus of Extension's youth and family programs, and the nine others represent typical best-practice or prevention program focuses. Factor analyses clearly indicated separate factors for the "traditional" and the "prevention" programs on items asking participants to rate all programs. The survey items were pilot tested in a series of 12 interviews conducted with Extension personnel.
Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed that their community needed more programming to address issues associated with specific negative outcomes (teen substance abuse, delinquency and aggression, teen pregnancy, school dropout, domestic violence, teen suicide, child abuse and neglect, and deficiencies in prenatal and infant care) as well as issues associated with the more positive outcomes traditionally targeted by Extension programs (character building, workforce preparation, social skills development, neighborhood and community attachment, and parent training). Agreement was rated on a five-point Likert-type scale.
Factor analyses on this set of items indicated that the negative outcome items constituted one factor ("Problem Outcomes") and the positive outcome items constituted a second factor ("Positive Outcomes"). Cronbach's alpha for the Problem Outcome scale was .92 and for the Positive Outcome scale .84. Thus, it is clear that these types of programs are perceived as falling into two distinct categories by survey respondents.
We asked respondents to rate the effectiveness of both issue-specific prevention programs and traditional Extension programs in preventing teen substance abuse, dropout, aggression, and the remaining negative outcomes. Factor analysis yielded two scales, one related to effectiveness of skills-based programs (Cronbach's alpha = .86) and the other to effectiveness of prevention programs (Cronbach's alpha = .94). Items were rated on a five-point Likert-type scale.
We asked respondents to rate their agreement with the following statements: "Traditional Extension activities and curricula focused on positive development and skill building may need to be supplemented by programs addressing specific topics (such as substance abuse or teen pregnancy prevention) in order to fulfill our Extension system's vision for children, youth, and families," and "Traditional Extension activities and curricula focused on positive development and skill building should be replaced by programs addressing specific topics (such as substance abuse or teen pregnancy prevention) in order to fulfill our Extension system's vision for children, youth, and families."
We measured respondents' perception of their knowledge and competence with a series of nine items rated on a five-point Likert-type scale. Factor analysis yielded two factors: one comprised of two items indicating general theoretical knowledge about child and family development (Cronbach's alpha = .84), the other indicating perceived knowledge and abilities related to prevention programming, such as risk and protective factors, identifying and implementing evidence-based programs, conducting program evaluation, and obtaining funding (Cronbach's alpha = .89). In this article we report on the items specifically related to prevention programming.
We measured respondents' perceptions about their degree of collaboration with local, state, and federal agencies and organizations; availability of resources; and organizational support. Many of the resource items were taken directly or modified from a national study of the capacity of Cooperative Extension to serve children, youth and families (Betts, Peterson, Marczak, & Richmond, 2001; Marczak, Peterson, Betts, & Earthman, 1999).
For ease of interpretation, we collapsed the five-point Likert-type scales into three categories: "Agree," "Neutral," and "Disagree."
A majority of respondents felt that there was a need in their communities for prevention programs to address each of the problem outcomes described. For example, between 55% and 70% perceived a local need for prevention programs addressing teen substance use and abuse, pregnancy, dropout, suicide, and aggression (Figure 1).
Figure 1.
Perception of Need for Prevention Programming in Community
Between one-half to two-thirds of respondents felt that prevention programs are effective in addressing the problem outcomes. In many cases, however, nearly as many respondents felt that traditional Extension programs are also effective in preventing the same problems (Figure 2). For example, 75% felt that issue-specific prevention programs are effective in preventing teen substance abuse, but 68% felt that traditional Extension programs are also effective in this regard. In prevention of child abuse, domestic abuse, and in prenatal and infant care, however, issue-specific programs were rated as significantly more effective (p< .05).
Figure 2.
Perceived Effectiveness of Issue-Specific Programs Versus Traditional
Extension Programs
A majority of respondents (63%) agreed with the statement that Extension may need to supplement its offerings with prevention programs (Figure 3). An equally strong majority (64%) disagreed with the statement that Extension should replace traditional offerings with prevention programs.
Figure 3.
Supplementing Versus Replacing Traditional Programming with Prevention
Programming
About half of all respondents expressed interest in learning more about most issue-specific prevention programs (Figure 4). Interest ranged from a low of 34% (prenatal and early infant care programs) to a high of 52% (teen substance abuse programs).
Figure 4.
Levels of Interest in Issue-Specific Programs
Overall, however, respondents were significantly more interested in learning more about programs with traditional Extension emphases than in learning more about issue-specific programs (t = 5.59, p < .0001). Interest in traditional programs ranged from a low of 57% (parent training programs) to a high of 70% (social skills development; see Figure 5).
Figure 5.
Levels of Interest in Programs with Traditional Extension Emphasis
A strong majority of participants felt that they had general knowledge and skills necessary for successful implementation of prevention programs (Figure 6). For example, 72% reported that they understand risk and resilience factors, and 92% reported feeling comfortable with interactive teaching methods This very high degree of comfort contrasts with members of other professions, especially school teachers, who report a strong preference for non-interactive teaching methods such as lecturing. Interactive methods are associated with positive program outcomes (Ennett et al., 2003), and those who are comfortable with such methods are also more successful in implementing prevention programs (Ringwalt et al., 2003). On the other hand, slightly less than half the respondents agreed that they have skills specifically related to prevention programming, such as an ability to identify prevention programs (47%) or to implement them (48%).
Figure 6.
Knowledge and Skills Relevant to Delivery of Prevention Programming
Approximately half the respondents (47%) felt that the state Extension system has a clear vision for children, youth, and family programming. Nearly two-thirds felt that the state Extension system has a clear, long-term commitment to children, youth and families (Marczak et al., 1999). Only 21% felt that paid program staff are adequately recognized for their work, but 81% felt strongly supported by their supervisors. Forty percent felt strongly supported by campus faculty.
These resource-related items elicited the strongest level of disagreement of all items on the survey. Over half (55%) disagreed that they had adequate resources (time and money) to engage in collaborative efforts, 72% disagreed that they had resources necessary to match program offerings to community needs, and 44% disagreed that they had adequate resources to conduct evaluations.
An overwhelming majority felt that collaboration with others enhanced the credibility of their own work (87%) and was worth the effort (92%; see Figure 7).
Figure 7.
Attitudes Toward Collaboration in Program Delivery
Respondents reported high levels of collaboration with Extension personnel from other counties (46%) and other program areas (48%), community agencies (56%), and schools (45%). Respondents reported a relatively low degree of collaboration with federal agencies (17%), local businesses (14%), and faculty from University departments (11%; see Figure 8).
Figure 8.
Degree of Collaboration with Various Groups
A substantial number of Extension professionals expressed positive attitudes towards prevention programs. In general, approximately one half to three quarters of survey respondents:
Very few respondents, however, believed that Extension should replace traditional programming practices with prevention programs (only 10%), and most believed that traditional skills and character building programs are also effective in preventing problems such as teen substance use/abuse, dropout, and child abuse.
Extension has significant strengths related to delivery of prevention programs, notably the following.
Most respondents believed that Extension has a clear vision of and commitment to serving children, youth and families.
Almost all felt supported by their supervisors in programming choices.
Nearly everyone reported feeling comfortable with an interactive teaching style.
Nearly everyone believed in the value of collaboration.
Most reported strong collaborative relationships with local schools and community agencies.
Some barriers to delivery of best practice programs through Extension do exist:
Limited resources (time and money);
Relatively little collaboration with university departments, local business leaders and legislators, and state and federal agencies;
Concern that Extension will lose its focus on traditional areas of emphasis if it incorporates issue-specific programs (survey and interview comments); and
Perception that prevention programs derive from a "deficit model" and are contrary to Extension's focus on positive development (from written comments).
Extension personnel have some well-developed skills (e.g., interactive teaching styles and understanding risk and resilience models) that are a good fit for the delivery of best practice prevention programs. We can capitalize on that strength if we learn to articulate it in the context of these new program opportunities.
Staff development on the identification and implementation of prevention programs is vital (with fewer than half feeling they had these skills). It would be important to emphasize ways in which professional skills currently used in "traditional" programs connect to the delivery of best practice prevention programs. For example, comfort with interactive teaching methods may be taken for granted by Extension personnel. However, many people currently delivering prevention programs do not possess these skills; this represents a significant asset for Extension relative to some of the usual venues for prevention programs (e.g., schools).
In addition, staff need to understand how "traditional" youth and family programs operate in a prevention context (e.g., reduce risks and promote resilience). For example, adult leaders in 4-H clubs often serve as mentors for young people, a well-documented protective factor (Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller, 1992).
We need to overcome the tendency to dichotomize "traditional" and "prevention" programs in Extension. If we can consistently integrate and/or recast our traditional programs as prevention programs, we may be better positioned for new external funding. To do this, staff will need to learn new ways of articulating their work in prevention terms.
Best practice prevention programs offer an ideal opportunity for integrated Extension and research projects, a goal that is clearly part of the land grant mission but often absent in 4-H youth and family arenas. Prevention programs by design have strong evaluation components that offer applied research opportunities for research faculty and graduate students. Sadly, the lowest percentage of collaboration reported by Extension personnel in the survey was with campus-based faculty. New partnerships will need to be formed and strategies for sharing program funding devised to create successful projects that integrate research and outreach. However, doing so will offer the best chance for documenting long term program impacts and in turn, for sustained funding.
Basch, C. E. (1984). Research on disseminating and implementing health education programs in schools. Journal of School Health, 54(6), 57-66.
Beebe, T. J., Harrison, P. A., Sharma, A., & Hedger, S. (2001). The community readiness survey: Development and initial validation. Evaluation Review, 25(1), 55-71.
Betts, S. C., Peterson, D. J., Marczak, M. S., & Richmond, L. S. (2001). System-wide evaluation: Taking the pulse of a national organization serving children, youth, and families at risk. Children's Services: Social Policy, Research, and Practice, 4(2), 87-101.
Dillman, D. A. (1991). The design and administration of mail surveys. Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 225-249.
Ennett, S. T., Ringwalt, C. L., Thorne, J., Rohrbach, L. A., Vincus, A., Simons-Rudolph, A., et al. (2003). A comparison of current practice in school-based substance use prevention programs with meta-analysis findings. Prevention Science, 4(1), 1-14.
Goldberg, C .J., Spoth, R., Meek, J., & Molgaard, V. K. (2001). The Capable Families and Youth Project: Extension-university-community partnerships. Journal of Extension [On-line], 39(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2001june/a6.html
Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Miller, J. Y. (1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 64-105.
Johns, M.J., Moncloa, F., & Gong, E. J. (2000). Teen pregnancy prevention programs: Linking research and practice. Journal of Extension [On-line], 38(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2000august/a1.html
Marczak, M. S., Peterson, D. J., Betts, S. C., & Earthman, E. (1999). Cooperative Extension's capacity to support programs for children, youth and families at risk: How to implement the organizational change survey: A step-by-step guide. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona, Institute for Children, Youth and Families.
Molgaard, V. K. (1997). The Extension service as key mechanism for research and services delivery for prevention of mental health disorders in rural areas. American Journal of Community Psychology, 25(4), 515-544.
Myers-Walls, J. A. (2000). An odd couple with promise: Researchers and practitioners in evaluation settings, Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 49, 341-347.
Orlandi, M. A. (1986). The diffusion and adoption of worksite health promotion innovations: an analysis of barriers. Preventive Medicine, 15(5), 522-536.
Plested, B., Smitham, D. M., Jumper-Thurman, P., Oetting, E. R., Edwards, R. W., & Tri-Ethnic Center for Prevention Research, (1999). Readiness for drug use prevention in rural minority communities. Substance Use & Misuse., 34(4-5), 521-544.
Ringwalt, C. L., Ennett, S., Johnson, R., Rohrbach, L. A., Simons-Rudolph, A., Vincus, A., et al. (2003). Factors associated with fidelity to substance use prevention curriculum guides in the nation's middle schools. Health Education & Behavior Vol 30(3) (Jun 2003): 375-391, 30(3), 375-391.
Russell, M. M. (1991). Cooperative Extension and the land-grant university: A futures history. Journal of Extension [On-line], 29(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1991summer/fut1.html
Spoth, R. L., Redmond, C., Trudeau L., & Shin C. (2002). Longitudinal substance initiation outcomes for a universal preventive intervention combining family and school programs. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 16, 129-134.
Linda Camino
Senior Scientist
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Madison, Wisconsin
lcamino@facstaff.wisc.edu
There is recent widespread support for youth engagement in communities (Sherrod, Flanagan, & Youniss, 2002). Youth engagement is predicated on the notion that youth have assets and are therefore capable of making meaningful contributions to their organizations and communities Eccles & Gootman, 2002). Youth engagement is also predicated on the notion that youth voice is a necessary component of engagement (Lansdown, 2001).
Research highlights the importance of youth engagement and voice. In 60 neighborhood-based organizations examined over 5 years, youth voice--or involving youth in decisions, problem solving, and program planning--was found to be important in fostering positive youth development (McLaughlin, Irby, & Langman, 1994). Similarly, resiliency research indicates that opportunities for meaningful participation in communities--problem solving, goal setting, and planning--are major protective factors that help youth withstand the negative impacts of neglect, poverty, and other problems (Benson, 1997; Werner, 1990).
Service-learning, especially community-based service-learning (CBSL), has become a major pathway for supporting youth engagement and voice in communities (Claus & Ogden, 1999). The National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993 expanded funding for service-learning programs, creating the Learn and Serve America program. The Learn and Serve program is divided into school and community-based divisions. CBSL is operated through community organizations, not schools. As such, CBSL is limited neither to particular academic foci, nor scholastic calendars (Bailus & Lewis, 2003). CBSL thus provides a broad context for youth engagement in communities.
While the research studies cited above show the importance of examining outcomes related to youth engagement and voice, it is equally important to determine successful practices to understand how such outcomes can be achieved. Addressing the question of how youth voice and engagement are undertaken has been under-examined, however. Critical syntheses of the youth engagement literature note a gap in such research (Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Zeldin, Camino, & Calvert, 2003). The service-learning research literature contains a similar gap. Although many service-learning programs now seek to promote civic engagement and to incorporate youth empowerment and voice into programming, there is a paucity of implementation information in service-learning research (Billig & Eyler, 2003).
The purpose of the research discussed here was to examine the practices that two Extension-sponsored CBSL programs used to promote youth engagement and voice while providing service to the community. The illumination of such practices is important to Extension educators and leaders because it assists in implementing, improving, or adjusting programming in youth engagement. For 4-H educators, particularly, it is useful to know what practices they can use both for the long-term benefit of youth and the community.
The findings discussed here are derived from evaluation research of the Youth-Led Service-Learning for Community Change Initiative. The initiative was a demonstration, implemented with a grant from Learn and Serve America, Corporation for National and Community Service. An overall aim was to learn, document, and evaluate strategies through which 4-H/Youth Development can engage community residents in community building led by youth and in understanding the outcomes that result from such strategies. The 3 1/2-year initiative was sponsored by a partnership between the Innovation Center for Community and Youth Development and National 4-H Council. The initiative was administered locally through Cooperative Extension, 4-H/Youth Development in Oxford Hills, Maine, and in Upton community in Baltimore, Maryland.
Oxford Hills is a cluster of eight towns located in rural Oxford County in western Maine. The population is 20,000, of which 95% are of European-American descent. Average per capita income in the county is $17, 323. The service-learning team, the Respect Team, engaged approximately 25 cross-grade, high-school-age youth during any one year.
Upton community is located in Baltimore, Maryland, and is one of the oldest communities in which African Americans settled in the city. The population is 6,589, of which 99% are African American. Median household income is $12,861. The team, the New Upton Group, had 15 youth, middle- and high-school-aged, participating during any one year. Both teams led and mobilized hundreds of community youth and adults in community building over the course of the initiative.
The initiative was grounded in principles of community building. Community building is an approach to prevention that typically involves grassroots democracy, self-determination, bottom-up planning and implementation, and resident empowerment (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993; Minkler, 1997). It is assumed that when diverse people from the community are involved in decision-making, then it becomes possible for residents and stakeholders to improve their capacity to achieve collective vision and goals, and readiness to respond to opportunities and challenges (Mattessich & Monsey, 1997). In the case of the demonstration initiative reported here, the goal was to bring together youth and adult residents, two groups that do not typically work together in community building (Finn & Checkoway, 1998).
The cross-site evaluation took place over 2 1/2 years and addressed several key questions, including:
What outcomes were fostered among the service-learners?
What impacts did the activities of the service-learners bring about in the communities?
What practices proved promising in enabling the service-learners to engage their voices, and lead youth and adults in community building?
This article addresses the last question; findings on the first two questions are reported elsewhere (Camino & Payne-Jackson, in press). The overall methodology for the cross-site evaluation was the multiple case study. This is a standard research and evaluation method for explaining complex community programs and for examining contemporary events where behaviors cannot be manipulated by the researcher (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Yin, 1984).
Another strength of case studies is the use of multiple sources of data to maximize validity (Patton, 1990). Data sources for this study included four site visits to each community, observation of activities and events, document review, monthly conference calls with the Extension educators in each community, 11 focus group interviews with the service-learners, and 20 individual in-depth interviews with Extension educators and community youth and adults.
Promising practices were identified through an iterative process. As the 4-H educators and teams discovered through their community work that a given practice seemed to work, it became a focus for further inquiry. That inquiry included linking the practice to outcomes, as well as to published descriptions in the community-building literature. This strategy is consistent with that urged by Patton. In a recent critique of the concepts of "best practices" and "lessons learned," he (2001) argues that rigor and confidence increase when a practice is supported by multiple and triangulated data sources, including observation, interview, program document review, and the wisdom and experience of practitioners and expert opinion contained in published sources. In the present study, triangulation included the sources noted above, as well as corroboration of practices across the two sites.
All data were maintained in detailed transcripts. Reliability was maintained through the construction of data collection protocols. The protocols were designed to elicit detailed answers to the key study questions, while also allowing for individuals to raise new research avenues and for context-appropriate probes by the researchers. The data were coded and analyzed independently by the author and another experienced researcher to guard against bias and to strengthen validity and reliability. In addition, informant checks, another method to check validity, were employed (Maxwell, 1996; Patton, 1990).
The promising practices enabling the service-learning teams to engage their voices, and lead youth and adults in community building were:
Create a core leadership team and train youth in leadership and community facilitation methods;
Develop widespread participation, and use an asset-based community approach; and
Use reflection not only for service-learners, but also for community youth and adults.
Literature on community building emphasizes the necessity of engaging wide segments of the community (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1997; Wates, 2000). Crucial is creating a core group, which takes responsibility for moving an initiative along (Minkler, 1997). For youth, providing incentives to sustain involvement is important in fostering civic engagement (Keeter, Zukin, Andolina, & Jenkins, 2002).
In Oxford Hills, there was one adult, and in Upton two adults, in addition to the 4-H Youth educators, who helped guide and coach youth. Both youth and their adult coaches recognized the importance of creating teams. This was because the service-learning was directed toward long-term community building, rather than focused on short-term, discrete projects. Because the expectation for involvement was at least 6 months, but more commonly for a year or longer, there was also recognition of the need to employ incentives.
In Upton, initial incentives included logging service hours (72 hours of community service is required for high school graduation in Maryland), stipends, and the promise of learning new skills. However, the young people reported that after participating in the team for a few months, their motivations expanded to include the intrinsic rewards of doing community-building work. For example, the New Upton Group youth initially joined because of the chance to fulfill service hours, but then became excited by learning about the little-known history of Upton as a distinctive community that nurtured African American culture, arts, and leaders. The youth were also inspired by opportunities to be part of positive community-wide change. The team in Oxford Hills was similarly motivated by discovering community assets and to learn and exercise leadership for the common good.
Successful community building also involves developing local leaders who are able to gain self-understanding, as well as facilitation and community-building skills (Mattesich & Monsey, 1997). As residents learn leadership skills, their ability to lift their voices for the common good is enhanced. In Oxford Hills and Upton, youth were trained in relevant skills, including leading and facilitating discussions, public speaking, problem solving, conflict resolution, and community event planning.
Youth also learned to routinely assess their strengths, identify areas for improvement, and to give and take constructive criticism from teammates. In particular, youth learned to recognize the difference between their personal wants and needs, and those of the community. This was important because the community-building work necessitated that youth lead the community, which meant including diverse groups and voices of youth and adults, and helping them come to consensus in decisions.
A fundamental premise of asset-based, long-term community building is that building partnerships with multiple organizations and groups yields greater likelihood of effectiveness and sustainability (McKnight, 1995; Morris, Pomery, & Murray, 2002). The teams developed several means by which to connect with, and involve, diverse groups.
The Respect Team in Oxford Hills used three primary strategies:
Planning and leading an annual Respect Week,
Delivering character education training to elementary schools, and
Planning and leading an annual Community Summit.
Respect Week consisted of speaker presentations and workshops on 5 consecutive days for students and faculty of the local high school that served eight local towns. Community children, youth, and adults were also invited. Topics included diversity, social responsibility, and the consequences of bullying and violence. Speakers represented national, regional, and local leaders.
The team also facilitated workshops on character education for elementary-school-aged children in several local schools. The youth based their training on the nationally developed curricula, but they also innovated by tailoring modules and/or creating new training materials and processes.
The annual Community Summit was a day-long event during which youth and adults discussed topics and issues related to youth and the community, and then outlined actions they would like to see occur within the next year. Examples included creating a caf&ea for youth and adults, engaging youth on the school board and other local civic boards, and establishing a teen hotline.
The New Upton Group in Baltimore also used three primary tactics:
Planning and leading a Community Youth Speak-Out,
Connecting with Upton's Planning Committee, and
Integrating into a long-term community development process.
The Community Youth Speak-Out was a day-long meeting of youth and adult residents and representatives from various organizations. The purposes were to network, obtain youth views on community development, and develop common understanding of what community youth were doing related to service-learning.
The Upton community has a Planning Committee that has been active for many years. The committee is an umbrella organization for many organizations, institutions, and associations in the community. The New Upton Group connected with the committee, and a rotating subgroup of the team attended meetings to advise the committee and participate in decision-making processes. It was the first time youth had ever served on the committee. The team also integrated into and contributed to the community's 5-year Master Planning process for comprehensive community development.
Both teams also focused on community assets by conducting community asset mapping. Asset mapping (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1997) provides widespread understanding of a number of community contexts, such as geographic layout, history, and human resources. In Upton, the team completed a photographic survey, interviews with residents on talents and skills they would be willing to teach or share with others, and research on the community's history. The team in Oxford Hills identified natural features in the area, pathways, and meeting places that could serve as resources for community building and development.
Asset mapping enabled the youth to increase their own civic understanding of the communities' historical, cultural, social, political, economic, and geographic resources. Armed with such knowledge, youth were able to speak with authority in public forums and meetings. The youth also shared their maps and results with other community groups. This contributed to the success of the teams in changing community adult attitudes from viewing youth as current or potential problems to seeing youth as responsible, knowledgeable, and contributing individuals. Finally, asset mapping formed a basis from which the youth were able to lead community involvement. Youth led various community groups in asset mapping as way to include diverse perspectives, and to facilitate community members' first-hand learning of assets and resources.
A feature of service-learning distinguishing it from community service is the emphasis on reflection (Eyler, 2001; Stafford, Boyd, & Lindner, 2003). Reflection helps individuals connect their experiences with learning. Reflection has traditionally been used in many 4-H activities, so the importance of reflection was not new to the Extension educators who supported the teams. Both teams employed several options for reflection, such as journal writing, discussion, and making videotapes.
What was new, however, was that the youth led reflection sessions among community youth and adults. The youth routinely led sessions after the community activities they implemented. The youth used a framework of questions aimed at promoting reflection on thought, feeling, and action-oriented levels (Stanfield, 1997). These reflections provided a space and framework for honest dialog through which community youth and adults were able to further learn about and from each other. As Tirozzi & Uro (1997) note, opportunities for purposeful and respectful listening and dialogue are associated with enhanced understanding and positive relationships. This is a hallmark of successful community building (Freire, 1983; Minkler, 1997).
These promising practices demonstrate that youth, not only adults, can lead community-building work. Virtually all of the literature on community building, however, is focused on and reflects, the efforts of adults, with scarce reference to youth. Specifically, efforts aimed at involving youth to focus primarily on community building are relatively few, for youth service and service-learning activities are dominated by charity and short-term project models involving discrete tasks (Kahn & Westheimer, 1999; Morton, 1995).
Looking across the promising practices, it is interesting to note similarity to ones emerging from the research by the Search Institute about assets that youth need for positive development (Benson, 1997). These include support from the community, empowerment, commitment to learning, and engagement in planning and decision making. The experience of the service-learning teams in this demonstration expands the Search Institute findings by highlighting that youth cannot only benefit from such practices, but can themselves follow the practices to promote positive community building.
The practices described here also highlight that in community building, learning is not just learning for the sake of youth; all in the community can become learners. Residents learned about their communities through asset mapping activities and reflection sessions led by youth. The vehicle for the youth to do this, CBSL, focused on community building that aimed to promote broad critical learning about the community, including the contexts of history, culture, economics, and politics.
There are several implications for Extension. First, these findings can offer guidance on how to help youth discover and lift their voices in civic work. Second, CBSL can offer another model and set of practices for 4-H to complement community service and traditional service-learning models (Stafford, Boyd, & Lindner, 2003). Just as positive youth development is built on assumptions of youth assets rather than deficits, youth-led CBSL can help others in the community develop their capacities and resources, based on collective assets. Third, this study indicates a funding source. Specifically, the Learn and Serve American Program, Corporation for National and Community Service has a dedicated funding stream for CBSL, which can be tapped by Extension.
Finally, the practices discussed here may also serve as a framework for documentation and evaluation. Such a framework can be useful in explaining to county legislators and other constituencies the multiple benefits and strategies of community building, thus adding another source of clarification and accountability for the important work of 4-H.
Acknowledgement
The demonstration initiative and the external evaluation discussed in the article were funded by a grant from Learn and Serve America, Corporation for National and Community Service (federal government). The corporation's policy is that the following acknowledgment and disclaimer appear in any external report or publication of material based upon work supported by the grant:
This material is based upon work supported by the Corporation for National Service under Learn and Serve America Grant No. 00LCGMDO27. Opinions or points of view expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Corporation or the Learn and Serve America Program.
Bailus, L, & Lewis, B. (2003). Overview of what is known about the scope of community-based service-learning in the United States. The Generator: Journal of Service-Learning and Youth Leadership, 21(3), 17-19.
Benson, P. L. (1997). All kids are our kids: What communities must do to raise caring and responsible children and adolescents. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
Billig, S. H., & Eyler, J. (2003). The state of service-learning and service-learning research. In S.H. Billig & J. Eyler, (Eds.), Deconstructing service-learning: Research exploring context, participation, and impacts, pp. 253-264. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Camino, L., & Payne-Jackson, A. (in press). Fostering social capital and community capacity for change. The Bridge.
Claus, J., & Ogden, C. (Eds.). (1999). Service-learning for youth empowerment and social change. New York: Peter D. Lang.
Eccles, J., & Gootman, J.A. (Eds.). (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. Committee on Community-Level Programs for Youth, National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Eyler, J. (2001). Creating your reflection map. New Directions for Higher Education, 114, 35-43.
Finn, J. L., & Checkoway, B. (1998).Young people as competent community builders: A challenge to social work. Social Work 43(4), 335-347.
Freire, P. (1983). Pedagogy of the oppressed New York: Continuum.
Kahn, J., & Westheimer, J. (1999). In the service of what? The politics of service-learning. In J. Claus & C. Ogden, (Eds.), Service-learning for youth empowerment and social change, pp 25-42. New York: Peter D. Lang.
Keter, S., Zukin, C., Andolina, M., & Jenkins, K. (2002). The civic and political health of the nation: A generational portrait. College Park, MD: Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, University of Maryland. http://www.civicyouth.org/
Kretzmann, J., & McKnight, J. (1997). Building communities from the inside out. Chicago: ACTA Publications.
Lansdown, G. (2001). Promoting children's participation in democratic decision-making. Florence, Italy: UNICEF Innocenti Research Center.
McLaughlin, M., Irby, I., & Langman, J. (1994). Urban sanctuaries: Neighborhood organizations in the lives and futures of inner-city youth. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McKnight, J.L. (1997). Two tools for well-being: Health systems and communities. In M. Minkler (Ed.), Community organizing and community building for health, pp. 20-29. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Mattessich, P., & Monsey, B. (1997) Community building: What makes it work. A Review of Factors Influencing Successful Community Building. St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.
Maxwell, J. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miles M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Minkler, M. (Ed.). (1997). Community organizing and community building for health. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Morris, P. V., Pomery, J., & Murray, K. E. (2002). Service-learning: Going beyond traditional Extension activities. Journal of Extension [On-line], 40(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002april/iw2.html
Morton, K. (1995). The irony of service: Charity, project, and social change in service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service-learning, Fall, 19-32.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 2nd Edition. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (2001). Evaluation, knowledge management, best practices, and high quality lessons learned. American Journal of Evaluation, 22, 329-336.
Sagawa, S. (1998). Ten years of youth in service to America. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum.
Sherrod, L., Flanagan, C., & Youniss, J. (Eds.). (2002). Growing into citizenship: Multiple pathways and diverse influences. Special issue of Applied Developmental Science, 6(4).
Stafford, J., Boyd, B., & Lindner, J. R. (2003). Community service versus service-learning: Which is best for 4-H? Journal of Extension [On-line], 41(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2003december/a1.shtml
Stanfield, R. B. (1997). The art of the focused conversation: 100 ways to access group wisdom in the workplace. Toronto: The Canadian Institute of Cultural Affairs.
Tirozzi, G. N., & Uro, G. (1997) Education reform in the United States: National policy in support of local efforts for school improvement. American Psychologist, 52, 241-249.
Wates, N. (2000). The community planning handbook: How people can shape their cities, towns, and villages in any part of the world. London: Earthscan Publications.
Werner, E. (1990). Protective factors and individual resilience. In I.S. Meisels & J. Shonkoff, (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood intervention, pp. 320-348. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zeldin, S., Camino, L., & Calvert, M. (2003). Toward an understanding of youth in community governance: Policy priorities and research directions. Social Policy Report, XVII, III. Ann Arbor, MI: Society for Research in Child Development, http://www.srcd.org/spr.html.
Lynne M. Hinkey
Trainer and Sea Grant Liaison
NOAA Coastal Services Center
Charleston, South Carolina
lynnehinkey@yahoo.com
Kristy T. Ellenberg
Environmental and Training Consultant
Ellenberg Associates, Inc.
Columbia, South Carolina
ktellenberg@earthlink.net
Brianne Kessler
Marine Protected Areas Training and Technical Institute
NOAA Coastal Services Center
Charleston, South Carolina
Brianne.Kessler@noaa.gov
The current trend in public policy decision-making is away from a command-and-control approach toward increasing collaboration. In natural resource management, the former relied on the best available scientific data (with a bit of politics thrown in for good measure) to develop policies and regulations. Given the current state of our natural resources, resource managers realized that this method was not working as well as was needed. Thus, collaboration (also known as "stakeholder involvement," "public participatory process," "consensus-based problem solving," and a host of other names with marginal differences in meaning) has become a critical strategy in resolving natural resource management problems.
Although Extension professionals should not be advocates of a position on any issue, it has been argued that Extension professionals should be advocates for the use of collaborative, inclusive, problem-solving processes (Favero & Haaland, 2000). Among the factors that have been associated with successful collaborative problem solving is the inclusion of skilled, committed people in the planning and outcome (Flynn and Harbin, 1987; McKenna & Carroll, 1999).
Extension professionals play an important role in ensuring the process is properly designed and conducted, and that it includes all of the interested and affected parties, including those with expertise, skills, and knowledge that may be helpful in resolving the issue. These parties include the experts--natural and physical scientists, economists, social scientists, planners, lawyers, and so on--those who have some authority over the issue, such as managers, and the people whose lives will be affected by the decision and those who will have to comply with the decision. Many expert stakeholders such as planners, social scientists, and resource managers are actively involved in public processes as part of their professional positions.
Although natural and physical scientists have vital information to contribute to the problem-solving process, gaining their active participation can be difficult (National Academy of Science, 1995). As advocates for public participatory processes, Extension professionals can play a critical role in bringing scientists to the table. The following discussion offers some tools and strategies to do this.
Much has been written by both scientists and non-scientists about the appropriate role of scientists in public policy decision-making (Kaiser, 2000; Kennedy, 2003; NAS, 1995; Wheeler, 1997). Some argue that while scientists should be objective in designing, conducting, and drawing conclusions about their research results, they should be advocates of public policy based on what they have learned from this research (Kennedy, 2003). Others fear that involvement in public policy decision-making, and particularly advocating a position in that process, could jeopardize one's career (Kaiser, 2000).
Extension professionals, as the interpreters of science for the public, also can help to translate collaborative processes for scientists. Extension staff can help scientists become more comfortable engaging in the process by defining what collaborative problem solving is, how it works, why scientists should be involved, and how they can effectively contribute (without losing their credibility). By comparing and contrasting the scientific method with the methodology for collaborative problem solving, Extension professionals can answer these questions using an example from the scientists' experiences.
Collaboration, like science, is a set of complex attitudes and skills that have to be learned (Boss, 2003). To define for scientists what collaborative processes are and how they work, Extension professionals can use the scientific method as a starting point. Table 1 provides a comparison of the scientific process with collaborative problem solving. This tool can help Extension professionals clearly articulate to scientists the similarities and differences in the collaborative and scientific processes in a familiar format. Extension professionals who are facilitating a collaborative process in which scientists are participating can better communicate the meeting(s) process by presenting this information either graphically using the table or orally.
|
Collaborative Problem-Solving Process |
Scientific Problem-Solving Process |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This technique proved very helpful in collaborative meetings with scie