October 2006
Volume 44 Number 5

Features

The Change Agent States for Diversity Project: The Catalyst Team Approach

Patreese D. Ingram
Associate Professor of Agricultural and Extension Education
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania
pdi1@psu.edu

The mission of the Cooperative Extension System's Emphasis on Diversity and the strategic plan is to achieve and sustain pluralism as an integral part of every aspect of Extension: mission and vision; work force; programs; audiences; and relationships with other people, groups, and organizations.

Pathway to Diversity, 1991, p. 8

Introduction

The Change Agent States for Diversity (CASD) project was initiated by Cooperative Extension (Change Agent, 2003) in response to a number of circumstances. Among these were the growing demographic diversity of our nation (2000 Census Bureau), the persistence of inequities among more powerful and less powerful groups in the workplace (Linnehen & Konrad, 1999), and disparities among historically white and other land-grant universities (Harris & Worthen, 2004). In this article, diversity refers to differences based on identity group memberships, including race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, and social class.

CASD is a consortium of seven states dedicated to supporting greater cultural diversity in land-grant universities by bringing the needed technical skills and training to each of the member states. CASD project states include: Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania. In Missouri and North Carolina, both the 1862 and the 1890 institutions participated in the project. Through this collaborative approach, the consortium will develop successful models and strategies that can be applied throughout the system to bring about organizational change.

In 2004, seven additional states joined the project. These seven states were named the Change Agent States for Engagement (CASE). They include Delaware, Louisiana, Mississippi (each with both 1862 and 1890 institutions), New Mexico, South Dakota, Utah, and Washington. Teams in the CASE states are being mentored by teams in the CASD states.

The overall goal of the CASD project is to build the capacity of land-grant universities to function inclusively and effectively in an increasingly multicultural world. Additionally, the project aims to set standards and implement a vision for supporting healthy, thriving, culturally diverse communities through Extension, research, and academic programs. This project is supported by funding from USDA.

The framework of the project is built on four strategies: leadership development, catalyst teams, diversity coordinators, and organizational climate and profile assessments. An earlier Journal of Extension article, "A Snapshot of the Change Agent States For Diversity Project" <http://www.joe.org/joe/2005february/a5.shtml>, focused on findings related to key administrator interviews. This article focuses on the Catalyst Team approach to accomplishing diversity goals within the CASD states. For a more detailed description of the Project objectives, please refer to the first article.

The Catalyst Team in each state is an integral part of the CASD Project. While each state works individually to address diversity issues within their state, the collaborative approach of all project states working together is intended to produce achievements for the extension system that move far beyond what each state could attain alone.

Clegg, Kornberger, and Pitis (2005) state that "collaboration is typically designed to either advance a shared vision or to resolve a conflict. It usually results in either an exchange of information or a joint agreement or commitment to action between two or more parties, such as organizations" (p. 495).

Inter-organizational collaboration and networks have become increasingly important for organizations" (Clegg et al, 2005). Oliver (1990) distinguishes six reasons why organizations might collaborate with other organizations:

Necessity--to meet legal or regulatory requirements

Asymmetry--to exercise control and power over another organization

Reciprocity--to benefit by joining forces

Efficiency--to improve organizational performance through collaboration

Stability--to maintain a level of stability otherwise unreachable

Legitimacy--to collaborate in order to legitimize their own business

Clegg et al further suggest that collaboration among organizations help them to grow and expand. Specifically they state, "From a learning perspective, collaboration is an important means to access new knowledge and transfer skills that an organization lacks" (p. 360).

As depicted in the model (Figure 1), along with accessibility and sustainability, the Isoph Corporation considers collaboration as a key ingredient in the capacity to lead and manage change (Isoph, 2002). Interaction with other learners, tutors, instructors, and mentors is necessary to move beyond mere knowledge transfer to actual learning. Resource sharing across organizations encourages new perspectives and ideas (Isoph, 2002).

Figure 1.
Capacity to Initiate, Lead, and Manage Change (Printed with permission of Isoph Corporation)

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study reported here was to evaluate the progress of the Change Agent States for Diversity (CASD) Project. This evaluation assesses states' movement in three organizational change initiatives over a 5-year period of time: Organizational Profile, Valuing Differences Education, and Managing Diversity Skill Development. What role does the Catalyst Team play in helping the CASD consortium achieve its goals?

The Catalyst Team is the driving force within the CASD/CASE project in each state. The Catalyst Team makes recommendations and works with administration to implement diversity change strategies. This article focuses on the Catalyst Team initiative of the CASD (original seven) states. The following key research questions guided this part of the study.

1. What is the composition of the catalyst team; what administrative positions are represented on the team; and how often do those in administrative positions participate in the meetings?

2. What type of financial support is provided by the organization for Catalyst Team activities?

3. What diversity-related recommendations have come from the Catalyst Team? Have these recommendations been implemented?

4. To what extent has the state's participation in the CASD Project had an impact on the state Cooperative Extension organization?

5. What benefits have been derived from working collaboratively as the CASD consortium, as opposed to working as individual states?

Methods

The evaluation study was designed to collect data at two distinct points in time--at the beginning of the project (2002), and 5 years later (2007). A comparison of data collected at these two points in time will provide a basis for determining the effectiveness of the project toward achieving its goals. This article summarizes selected data collected during the first part of the project, representing baseline data.

Data were collected by telephone interview, allowing for more in-depth responses than are typically possible with quantitative methods. Interview and research questions (listed above) were developed by the researcher in consultation with members of the CASD consortium and two professors of Agricultural Sciences, both of whom have expertise in the area of research design and implementation. Open-ended questions were designed to reflect the objectives of the study. In addition, one Likert-type question was included. This item used the following scale: very high impact, high impact, some impact, not much impact, no impact.

A telephone interview was conducted with each of the State Coordinators in the Change Agent States for Diversity Project, nine from 1862 and two from 1890 organizations. A total of 11 state coordinators were interviewed.

Each Coordinator was contacted to schedule a telephone interview with the researcher. Once the date had been set, a copy of the interview questions was emailed to Coordinators for review prior to the interview. Interviews were between 45 and 75 minutes in duration. Each interview was tape recorded for accuracy of transcription. Data were analyzed using NVivo, a software package for qualitative data (NVivo, 2002). Using content-analysis procedures, the findings were separated into content-related categorizes, then grouped by theme.

Findings

Composition of the Catalyst Team

Research Question 1: What is the composition of the Catalyst Team in your state? How often does the team meet? What administrative positions are represented? And how often do those in administrative positions participate in the meetings?

Catalyst Teams ranged in size from 10 to 20 members. All teams were racially, ethnically, and gender diverse, depending upon the demographic make-up of the state. Additionally, Catalyst Teams included members who represented a diversity of program areas, organizational levels, county and campus positions, and university-wide positions. All Catalyst Teams included Extension administrators, Extension specialists, faculty, and county educators. Some teams included support staff, paraprofessionals, college communications staff, researchers, representatives from LGBT commissions, Native American programs, Migrant worker programs, and college students. One team included an ombudsman.

On all but one team, the top executive administrator of Cooperative Extension was a member of the Catalyst Team. Other administrative positions on various states' teams included Associate/Assistant Directors of Extension, Assistant Dean for Human Resources, Fiscal Officer, Head of Workforce Diversity, and University Diversity Leader.

Catalyst Teams are active. Most teams meet between two and four times per year face-to-face. Additionally, most meet monthly, bi-monthly, or quarterly by conference call for task group or committee work. One team meets monthly, rotating face-to-face, Interactive Television, and conference call venues. In a given state, meeting length ranges from most of a day to 3 days. Administrators are members in more than name only. Participation by administrators ranges from "most meetings" to "regular attendance." Extension Directors attend at least part of most meetings.

Financial Support for the Catalyst Team

Research Question 2: What type of financial support is provided by the organization for Catalyst Team activities?

It is one thing to give verbal support for diversity efforts, but it is another to back up such efforts with financial support. In all seven states, financial support was provided for the work of the Catalyst Team. Expenses related to in-state Catalyst Team meetings such as meals, and in some states, travel and hotel expenses, were picked up by the director's office. Additionally, state coordinators, USDA representatives, and representatives of the Diversity Task Force generally meet twice a year as a consortium for planning and professional development. Travel expenses to these meetings are supported by the respective state organizations. Other support for teams and members has included:

• Registration fees and travel expenses to diversity conferences and workshops for individual members or groups

• Consultant fees for special diversity training for extension educators

• Diversity focused literature and educational resources

• Part-time or full-time state diversity coordinator positions

While most teams do not have a line-item budget, their expenses are compensated by the Director's office in each state.

Recommendations from the Catalyst Team

Research Question 3: What recommendations have come from the Catalyst Team? Have these recommendations been implemented?

An important function of the Catalyst Team in each state is to make recommendations that help to move the organizational system to become more inclusive. The following are major recommendations from Catalyst Teams that have been implemented in one or more states. These recommendations are grouped into three major categories: policies, professional development, and recognition.

Policies

• Formalize a system of exit interviews.

• Include sexual orientation in the EEO statement of the organization (where not previously included).

• Include a diversity component or expectation in every individual Plan of Work.

• Create a Cooperative Extension System Diversity Administrative Fellow Program to provide leadership growth experiences for current employees from diverse backgrounds.

• Require a minimum of 8 hours of diversity-focused professional development experiences for each Extension educator each year and document these experiences in the annual Staff Review Development Program.

Professional Development

• Appoint a Catalyst Team member to each of the core area professional development planning committees and statewide conference planning teams to ensure the inclusion of diversity-focused workshops.

• Devote the statewide in-service program to the topic of diversity and make attendance mandatory for all Extension educators (recommended and implemented in one state).

• Integrate diversity issues into the on-going training offered to Extension employees.

Recognition

• Increase opportunities for recognition of diversity accomplishments through special "diversity focused" awards.

• Incorporate "diversity effort" into the selection criteria for Extension and college/university awards.

The following are recommendations that had been approved and were slated for implementation.

• Provide a system-wide training in diversity issues related to recruitment and retention of underrepresented employees.

• Train an Ombudsman in issues of diversity.

• Integrate diversity issues more fully into the on-going work of the leadership team.

The following are recommendations that had been made and were under discussion.

• Establish a mentoring program to support new underrepresented employees.

• Educate staff on the difference between diversity and affirmative action.

• Disaggregate statistics related to hiring of African Americans and Africans to more accurately reflect gains made with African Americans.

The following are recommendations to strengthen on-going efforts.

• Contact formal and informal leaders in diverse communities to establish collaborative relationships and to accurately determine needs of the community.

• Expand programs and services to reach new diverse populations and audiences.

• Increase the diversity of the workforce.

• Expand diversity focused professional development opportunities.

Impact of the Catalyst Team on the Organization

Research Question 4: To what extent has the state's participation in the CASD Project had an impact on your organization?

State Coordinators were asked to rate the impact of their state's participation in the CASD project on their state organization. Response choices were: very high impact, high impact, some impact, very little impact, and no impact. Four (57%) of the seven State Coordinators rated the impact of CASD on their organizations to be "Very High" or "High." Three (43%) Coordinators felt involvement in CASD has had "Some Impact" on their organization.

State Coordinators gave the following reasons for their high impact ratings. The CASD Consortium has provided:

• Greater awareness of issues related to gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, class, age, and other dimensions of diversity
  • "The team has created an awareness that did not exist before."
  • "Diversity is consistently a topic of conversation and attention."
• More openness to discussing diversity issues
  • "There has been a reduction in fear of discussing diversity issues."
• A new organizational philosophy and agreement to make systemic changes
  • "Being a CASD state provided motivation to do more."
  • "A lot of counties are doing a lot. Our participation in CASD has had that impact."
• A reason to look at who we are, how we look, and how we behave
  • "This has helped us to see that we need change."

State Coordinators gave the following reasons for lower impact ratings (Some Impact).

• "Although diversity is on the minds of our administrative team, it may not have been [as deeply] factored into the thinking and the program planning at the county level."

• "We have a ways to go until we embed diversity fully and integrate it into the organization."

• "Some Extension educators do not recognize that we have a problem with diversity."

• "We have been limited by our fear of possible responses to our recommendations."

Benefits of Working Collaboratively

Research Question 5: What benefits have been derived from working collaboratively as a consortium, as opposed to working as individual states?

While each state works individually on issues of diversity, it was hoped that the collaborative effort of the consortium would produce more than the sum of the parts. State Coordinators were asked to state the benefits of working collaboratively as a consortium, as opposed to working only as an individual state. A number of benefits were offered in the following comments.

• "Support, support, support and accountability, accountability, accountability!"

• "Motivation. Being a part of the consortium provides competition to make changes. Each state wants to move forward at the same pace as the other states. Leverage, leverage, leverage!"

• "A benefit is knowing that there are others having the same or different struggles, just struggling together."

• "The Consortium provides a richness of ideas and strategies that we can share with each other."

• "Learning from others provides a roadmap. There is no need to reinvent the wheel"

• "The consortium provides emotional and professional support from others for this work."

• "By rotating meetings to the consortium states, we learn about diverse issues in other states."

• "Being a part of the consortium has provided an opportunity to work with different types of institutions within the system, e.g., 1890 and 1994 institutions."

• "By pooling our resources, we can afford training and tools that would not otherwise be available to any one state."

• "Sharing training materials, books, and diversity-related resources is a benefit."

• "Being a part of the consortium created a connection to USDA that motivated participation in the effort."

Participation in the CASD Project has not been without struggles. Catalyst Teams enjoy strong positive and supportive relationships with administration (top administrators are members of most Catalyst Teams). However, one team struggles between strengthening the relationship with top administration while maintaining autonomy to raise prickly issues related to policies in the system. Other teams have echoed another struggle--that people are very busy, and "like it or not, unless you have a personal passion for this work, you can be full of good intentions and this work just does not become a top priority. It is perceived as an add-on."

Summary

The Catalyst Teams in the seven states are representative of diverse peoples, positions, and levels within their extension organization. The teams are active, and they benefit from the participation and financial support of top-level Extension administrators. The importance of both personal and resource commitment by top management is, according to Cox (1994), especially crucial to any major organizational change effort.

A variety of recommendations have emerged from the Catalyst Teams in the seven states. Many of these recommendations have been fully implemented; others are in various stages of implementation. Recommendations that have been offered are designed to have an impact on the organizational profile, increase valuing differences education, and manage diversity at the organizational level, all helping to reposition the Cooperative Extension and Land-Grant System to function successfully in a multicultural community.

Examples include incorporation of diversity competence in the formal evaluation system, infusing diversity throughout the Plan of Work, integrating diversity in statewide professional development planning and opportunities, and the creation of a Diversity Fellowship Program.

Working together as a consortium has indeed had a synergetic impact on the work, motivation, and accomplishments of the individual states. The collaborative efforts of the Catalyst Teams have strengthened the capacity of the individual organizations to create change around issues of diversity. The Change Agent States for Diversity and Engagement is an on-going project. It is hoped that the impact of the project will continue to evolve.

References

Change Agent States for Diversity. (2003). [Brochure]. [On-line], Available at: http://www.casd.cornell.edu

Clegg, S., Kornberger, M., & Pitis, T. (2005). Managing and organizations: An introduction to theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cox, T. (1994). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research & practice. CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Harris, R. P., & Worthen, H. D. (2004). Working through the challenges: Struggle and resilience within the historically black land grant institutions. Education, 124(3), 447-455.

Ingram, P. D. (2005). A snapshot of the Change Agent States for Diversity Project. Journal of Extension [On-line], 43(1), 1FEA5. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2005february/a5.shtml

Isoph Corporation (2005). On sustainability, accessibility, and collaboration. [On-line] Available at: http://www.isoph.com/theory.htm

Linnehan, F., & Konrad, A. M. (1999). Diluting diversity: Implications for intergroup inequity in organizations. Journal of Management Inquiry, 8(4), 399-414.

NVivo [Computer software]. (2002). Doncaster Victoria, Australia: QSR International.

Oliver, C. (1990). Determinants of inter-organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 241-265.

Strategic Planning TaskForce on Diversity. (October 1991). Pathway to diversity: Strategic plan for the Cooperative Extension System's emphasis on diversity.

Conflict as a Form of Capital in Controversial Community Development Projects

Jeff Zacharakis
Assistant Professor
Department of Educational Leadership
Kansas State University
Manhattan, Kansas
jzachara@ksu.edu

Without conflict and turmoil there would be little passion or interest in most community initiatives. In the United States, the notion of conflict as a positive source of energy is not typically taught to community development specialists or community workers. Rather, workshops on conflict management are offered to teach techniques on how to minimize and control conflict. Yet, by minimizing conflict we risk disempowering the community and neutralizing its energy.

This article shows how conflict is capital and how, when managed correctly, can be an asset to stimulate citizen participation in controversial community development projects. The first part of the article discusses the importance of conflict. The second part describes the environmental problems and types of conflict experienced while working in northeastern Iowa on the Maquoketa River Basin watershed project as a community development specialist for Iowa State University Extension between 2000 and 2003. Finally, the third part describes the role of the community developer and discusses some useful strategies to strengthen a conflict-laden project.

The Importance of Conflict and Turmoil

To nurture openness and honesty in any organization, a dialogue and expression of conflicting points of view must be encouraged. Leas (1982) argued there are times to curb conflict and times to instigate conflict for the good of the organization. The following summarizes Leas' (1982) five reasons conflict should be escalated rather than decreased.

1. People are so caught up in being nice and agreeable that they do not look at problems seriously or are not challenged by ideas.

2. People wanting harmony and peace make it difficult for anyone who is not like them to become part of the organization. Hence there is a tendency to promote conformity rather than an honest discussion of ideas.

3. When differences and uniqueness are accentuated, aggressive behavior is minimized. If people feel free to express themselves, they feel less disenfranchised and therefore are better able to work with others toward a manageable solution.

4. In moderate amounts, conflict is a way of expressing aggression. It is better to have this aggression expressed openly than to hold it inside until there is a volcanic explosion.

5. Finally, conflict increases consciousness, aliveness, and excitement. (Leas, 1982) pp. 107-109)

Although writing from a business perspective, Blackhard and Gibson (2002) noted that opportunities emerge when leaders learn how to capitalize on conflict. They stated:

Conflictive behavior in the workplace (or community) can range from very positive at one extreme to very counterproductive at the other. Properly managed, conflict can enhance creativity through constructive challenge and interchange, improve decisions by introducing more information and perspective, and foster learning through mutual problem solving. It can therefore further the purpose of the organization by improving the performance of its people and systems (p. ix).

These points are important to understanding why managed conflict is essential to complex community development projects.

The Maquoketa Watershed

The Landscape and Its Environmental Problems

The Maquoketa River watershed is the largest contributor of excess sediment and nutrients among the 13 major rivers into the upper Mississippi River. More than 61,000 people live in its 1,879 square mile boundary. Its landscape has many small, rural communities and small and medium-sized family farms situated in rolling hills with highly fertile soil.

The Maquoketa Watershed Project was initiated in 1998 to promote citizen-led watershed councils in each of the watershed's 25 sub-watersheds. It was an effort to strengthen citizen awareness and local participation by developing a comprehensive plan to address its environmental problems. In 1999, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allocated funds "to develop local leadership with a long-term vision and commitment to deal proactively with nonpoint source pollution issues" (Maquoketa Quarterly Report, 1999, p. 1).

Nonpoint source pollution tends to be systemic within this ecosystem and is therefore much more difficult to control than point source pollution. Throughout the United States, nonpoint source pollution has been identified as the leading cause of water quality degradation, most of which is attributed to agricultural practices (Schilling & Wolter, 2001; Shepard, 1999).

Between 1999 and 2000, rumors ran rampant throughout the region that EPA was seriously considering regulating all farming operations in the same way that industries were regulated in order to reduce nonpoint pollution. One threat was the possibility that livestock operations over 300 animal units would fall under EPA regulations instead of the current threshold of 1,000 animal units. Farmers were angry with the government for threatening further regulations and blamed them for the watershed's environmental crisis.

Assistance from a Local Leader

As the result of EPA pressure to strengthen agricultural regulations, several community members in three of the sub-watersheds requested Extension's assistance to organize community forums to discuss specific issues and opportunities to form a local watershed council. In one sub-watershed, Extension staff worked closely with Philip, a county soil and water conservation district commissioner and a resident of the watershed. Philip was a trusted neighbor and respected leader. He knew most people by name and was familiar with their farms and their personal lives. The most important decision made in each of these sub-watersheds was to identify and invite key leaders to participate on the planning committee and provide guidance on how to reach out to as many residents as possible, even those with combative personalities and chips on their shoulders.

Philip expected 50 residents to attend this first meeting, but was not shocked when the final count came close to 150. There were many reasons people attended this public forum. Some farmers merely wanted to know what "the government was up to." Other farmers, who were known to be conscientious producers, adopting all the best management practices recommended by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), wanted to support this establishment of a sub-watershed council. A few rural residents wanted to blame farmers for all the environmental problems.

Addressing the environmental issues, the pending economic threat to their livelihoods, and the stigma of being labeled a polluter, weighed heavily on every farmer's mind. These problems exacerbated the potential level of conflict. Philip and the planning committee made everyone feel welcome regardless of their reason for attending.

Types of Conflict and Turmoil

Even though there is a common belief that "Extension faculty is in a unique situation to help address these conflict-laden situations" (Corp & Darnell, 2002), it is unrealistic to think that a county director or community development specialist can manage all types of conflict. Yet they can learn to recognize points of conflict and use them to the advantage of the project. Working with these sub-watershed projects, a number of conflict types surfaced.

Family Conflict

Most farming operations include parents, brothers and sisters, and aunts or uncles. In some farming operations, family members who share in the ownership do not live on the farm or participate in its management. In one instance, a farmer arrived with his brother and father. Even though they shared ownership, his brother lived in another state and was most interested in receiving his rent, and his father was less than 5 years away from retirement and did not want to invest any money into upgrading their feedlots. It was a tremendous victory for this farmer to convince his family to attend the meeting, even though there were years of conflict between them related to planning the future of their farm.

In another family, both brothers had joint ownership and worked side by side on their diversified livestock operation. Yet only one brother attended the watershed meetings. He was totally responsible to keep the other brother, who did not trust "the government," informed about each meeting. Family conflict was often undetected, yet it affected the dynamics of the watershed project because the managing partner of the farm corporation was unable to make decisions and therefore was unable to fully participate.

Conflict Between Neighbors

In rural communities everybody's business is public knowledge. In one case several farmers were upset with their neighbor for straightening his section of the creek that ran through all their properties, resulting in greater downstream erosion. In another situation, a farmer with a large feedlot was notorious for spreading large amounts of manure when his land was frozen and the nutrients would not be absorbed into the soil.

Most of the time the community developer only knows that certain neighbors do not speak to each other, while their neighbors know the reason for the discord. Having someone like Philip identify these potential firestorms was essential to avoiding open conflict, while still enabling all parties to continue participating in the process. The Extension community developer served as facilitator and project coordinator and had to maintain a neutral position when conflict emerged in order to keep the entire group working together.

Conflict Between Rural Non-Farm Residents and Farm Families

Rural residents often complained about neighboring farmers. How close to "my" house can farmers spread manure? Don't farmers realize that smells associated with livestock production are irritating? Can't they see that their equipment tears up the road during the spring? Moreover, rural residents were quick to blame farmers for all the pollution in their watershed. On the flip side, many rural residents did not understand the seasonality, physical stress, and tight profits associated with farming.

When these problems were expressed, the group was reminded that the purpose was not to place blame but to work together to solve a common problem. Ironically, in one watershed when council members started testing their creek water for contaminants, it was discovered that one small unincorporated village of 50 homes had connected their septic systems, many years earlier, directly into a drainage tile, allowing contaminated water to flow directly into the stream. After this discovery, it became clear that everyone shared blame, and everyone shared responsibility to improve the watershed.

Conflict Between Farmers and Government

While many farmers prefer to have complete control of their operation, they have become dependent upon government payments to maintain their cash flow. Though many farmers have learned to work with their local USDA office, the tension is similar to other groups who work or live within cultures of dependency, such as corporations and welfare recipients. There was great apprehension to openly discuss government regulation, yet farmers were quick to agree that they would love to farm profitably without government payments. It was apparent that many producers did not trust federal and state government agencies.

Conflict Between Government Agencies

The final type of conflict experienced while working on these sub-watershed projects was that between local, state, and federal government agencies. Extension was the educational organization providing research and assistance on a variety of topics (e.g., nutrient management). In contrast, state and federal agencies were regulatory (Zacharakis, Morton, & Rodecap, 2002). Local representatives of state and federal agencies did not make the rules and had little latitude to interpret these rules.

It was problematic and confusing when the regulatory agencies attempted to design and implement educational components in these citizen-led sub-watershed projects. Was their purpose to generate "democratic decision-making and action" or to persuade farmers to adopt USDA's list of best management practices? For the Extension specialist, the challenge was to maintain a strong working relationship with federal and state partners while encouraging local residents to mobilize around issues that concerned them.

It was not unusual to observe multiple types of conflict during the community meetings. A farmer might be experiencing problems simultaneously in his or her family, with neighbors, and with government agencies. The complexity of multiple types of conflict increased the difficulty in managing these sub-watershed projects.

Managing Conflict

Although it is difficult to accurately predict the outcome of a difficult project, certain points of conflict can create positive energy and lead to action. Community development theory "promotes broad-based, participatory decision making in order to initiate social action processes to improve local economic, social, cultural, or environmental situations" (Christenson & Robinson, 1989, p.14). The community developer's role is to work with people to maintain the balance between economic, social, and environmental needs; individual goals; and collective needs by encouraging them to see the whole picture. The challenge is to provide public space and encouragement for citizens to engage in critical thought, careful planning, and involvement in democratic decision-making and action.

Hustedde (1998), in his insightful presidential speech to the Community Development Society, stated, "Soul can make sense out of paradox. It thrives on it. The many paradoxes within community development cause its practitioners to draw upon their intuition and their discerning spirits in deciding what is right when dealing with them" (p. 160). Hustedde (1998) argued that community developers are caught in the middle. "Community developers cannot afford to ignore the powerful or they find themselves powerless. Nor can they neglect their key concerns, which are to expand the range of affected parties' voices, action, and self-understanding" (p.160).

Kreitlow (1970) argued that when educators are involved in change or controversy they test their professional security. The issues that create conflict and tension in controversial projects also create conflict and tension for the community developer. All too often Extension workers side with key community leaders or government representatives, at the expense of the project itself or the community at large. Typically the reasoning is that Extension workers will work with these key leaders and government representatives in the future, and they cannot afford to jeopardize these relationships. The long-term result of this practice is that the community sees the Extension worker as a representative of government, rather than a fair and knowledgeable educator who can be trusted to serve the community first and foremost.

In capitalizing on conflict and maximizing community participation, the experience in the Maquoketa watershed illustrates some important community development strategies.

1. Accept conflict as an important component of a project. Conflict can be an asset that will strengthen a project.

2. Identify points of conflict, some of which are easily visible and some of which are not, and determine which ones are opportunities and which are threats.

3. Work closely with local leaders.

4. Create an environment where everyone is welcome and where their ideas will be heard and discussed.

5. Be willing to take chances and set your personal job security aside. In the end your job will become more secure.

6. Advocate for the community as a whole, not individual stakeholders or various factions. Remind everyone that the goal is to solve a problem, not to place blame.

7. Explain to your government partners that your job is to nurture citizen involvement and community empowerment and that at times this may mean that you will disagree with or challenge their agency's policies.

8. Be flexible and open to new ideas. Over time project dynamics change; therefore, you may need to change your development strategies.

Conclusions

Dynamic systems and organizations evolve because of environmental pressures such as local politics and cultural norms. Within the watershed example, the pressure on residents to change their farming practices and address environmental problems ideally might have been attributed to growing awareness and an intrinsic desire to come together and address the problem. In reality, though, the impetus to work on this problem was extrinsic. Without EPA's threat to regulate farming and without the of promise of additional government monies for cost-sharing the implementation of prescribed conservation practices, these citizens probably never would have pulled together, and these sub-watershed projects might never have been initiated.

The types of conflict identified in the Maquoketa River watershed project show that conflict is not one-dimensional and often is not directly related to project goals. Conflict has many different faces that can arise at unexpected times and in unanticipated ways. Finally, conflict is a form of capital that when reinvested and placed in its proper perspective results in a stronger project with a greater likelihood of success. As capital, conflict is a source of energy that invigorates the community. The challenge for Extension professionals in these types of projects is to recognize how conflict can be an opportunity to strengthen a project, rather than an impediment.

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge the contributions of John Rodecap, Maquoketa Watershed Project Coordinator with Agronomy Extension, and Lois Wright Morton, Extension Sociologist, Iowa State University.

References

Blackard, K., & Gibson, J. W. (2002). Capitalizing on conflict: Strategies and practices of turning conflict to synergy in organizations. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.

Christenson, J. A., & Robinson, J. W. (1989). Community development in perspective. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.

Corp, M. K., & Darnell, T. (2002). Conflict-laden issues: A learning opportunity. Journal of Extension [On-line] 40(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002february/rb1.html

Hustedde, R. J. (1998). On the soul of community development. Journal of the Community Development Society, 29, 153-167.

Kreitlow, B. W. (1973). Controversy: Its positive role in education. Journal of Extension [On-line], 11(3), 9-16. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1973fall/1973-3-a1.pdf

Leas, S. B. (1982). Leadership and conflict. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

Maquoketa Quarterly Reports (1999). EPA Region VII Water Quality Cooperative Agreement. Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. (October and December)

Schilling, K. E., & Wolter, C. F. (2001). Contribution of base flow to nonpoint source pollution loads in an agricultural watershed. Groundwater, 39(1), 49-58.

Shepard, R. (1999). Making our nonpoint source pollution education programs effective. Journal of Extension [On-line], 37(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1999october/a2.html

Zacharakis, J., Morton, L. W., & Rodecap, J. (2002). Citizen-led watershed projects: Participatory research and environmental adult learning along Iowa's Maquoketa River. Adult learning, 13(2), 19-23.

Pfiesteria Hysteria, Agriculture, and Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay: The Extension Bridge over Troubled Waters

D. E. Terlizzi
Sea Grant Water Quality Specialist
University of Maryland Cooperative Extension Center of Marine Biotechnology
Baltimore, Maryland
dterlizz@umd.edu

Introduction

In an essay titled "The Burden of Skepticism," the late astronomer Carl Sagan noted that in this era of "too much information" it was critical to maintain skepticism of new or developing ideas. However, Sagan emphasized, the "burden" of this skepticism was to risk rejection of potentially important new issues. This essay appeared in Why People Believe Weird Things (Shermer, 1998), which considers a number of recent examples of uncritical public acceptance, often based on fear, of scientific information. This may be especially true in the environmental field, where public fears of environmental phenomena are inversely related to perceived ability control these phenomena, so issues as seemingly disparate as shark attacks or pesticide contaminants in food and ground water may result in similar public over-reaction, even hysteria.

The occurrence of toxic algae events may cause similar human reactions. Whether manifested in large-scale fish deaths or human poisoning from shellfish consumption, public fear is aroused and regular media coverage of these events may exacerbate fear or potentiate the public to react irrationally to relatively minor, low-risk situations.

Consider the case of the dinoflagellate Pfiesteria piscicida in the Chesapeake Bay. Dinoflagellates are microscopic components of the phytoplankton communities common in estuarine and coastal waters worldwide. A small percentage of them are toxic, and ingestion of contaminated seafood can result in illness and death. Pfiesteria received extensive media coverage as a result of its association with fish kills in North Carolina and widely publicized accounts of human illness from exposure to Pfiesteria, including bizarre behaviors and loss of short-term memory. Reports of its unusual life history and its ability to "morph" through multiple stages along with reports of attacking fish and "eating" grisly open sores or lesions in them (Glasgow, Burkholder, Schmechel, Tester, & Rublee, 1995) contributed to the view that Pfiesteria was more of a threat than other harmful algae.

In the Chesapeake Bay, dinoflagellates are a normal and important part of the summer phytoplankton communities (Glibert & Terlizzi, 1999). It has been known for some time that species known to be toxic in other regions occurred in the Bay (Marshall, 1996), and it was a recurring question why there were no toxic events in the Chesapeake. In a sense, the Chesapeake was vulnerable, but had not experienced the toxic algal events that appeared to be occurring with increasing frequency world-wide (Hallegraeff, 1993).

This article is a case study of the so-called "Pfiesteria hysteria" in the Chesapeake Bay in 1997 from an Extension perspective. There was a need to present the public with scientific information about the ecology of harmful algae while clarifying the uncertainties including the possible role of agriculturally derived nutrients in the "outbreaks" as they were termed of Pfiesteria. The "burden" of skepticism in this case included conflict with environmental advocates eager to accept and promote the view that Pfiesteria was caused by nutrient contamination from intensive poultry production in the region.

Coping with the Nutrient Problem

Ecological impacts of nutrient pollution have been the overriding management concern in the Chesapeake Bay for decades. In response, The Chesapeake Bay Program, a combined state and federal program concerned with restoration of the Bay, has addressed the problem through nutrient reduction at the point and non-point source levels. Public education has been a key component in the Chesapeake restoration effort including the activities of the Chesapeake Bay Program, and various advocacy (e.g., Chesapeake Bay Foundation) and non-advocacy (e.g., Sea Grant) organizations. As a result, public awareness of the role of nutrients and their sources, including (perhaps especially) agriculture, in the decline of the Chesapeake is high.

To combat agriculturally derived nutrients, Maryland initiated a voluntary Nutrient Management Program in 1989 using Extension consultants funded through the Maryland Department of Agriculture and Maryland Department of the Environment (Perkinson, 1994). Although increasingly adopted by the agricultural community, failure to reach the 40% nutrient reduction goals established by the Chesapeake Bay Program resulted in growing perceptions of the environmental community that voluntary nutrient management programs were not effective. Attempts to develop legislation mandating nutrient management by the Maryland agricultural community were not successful in the early 1990s, leaving environmentalists frustrated and concerned that a major source of the non-point nutrient load to the Bay was not being adequately regulated.

The Pfiesteria Focusing Event

Ernst (2003) has recently discussed the complex interaction between the Chesapeake Bay Program, resource management agencies, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and political action. He applies the "issue-attention" cycle model developed by Downs (1972) to Chesapeake Bay management. This model consists of five stages:

1. The pre-problem stage

2. The alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm stage

3. The cost realization stage

4. The decline of intense public interest stage

5. The post-problem stage

The best opportunity for developing nutrient management legislation would be during the "alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm stage" which characterized the period in which the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, calling for 40% nutrient reductions, was developed in the 1980s. However, opportunities develop for change through specific events, termed "focusing events," even in the "post problem stage" of Chesapeake Bay Policy. These focusing events attract public attention and catalyze policy change (Downs, 1972; Birkland, 1997).

Public concern about water quality in the Chesapeake increased dramatically during a nationally publicized focusing event, the "Pfiesteria hysteria" of 1997. Reports of human symptoms of Pfiesteria exposure included short-term memory loss, respiratory problems, and numbness in extremities (Glasgow et al., 1995). Concerns about human health and the possible association of Pfiesteria with agricultural nutrients resulted in polarization of the agricultural and environmental communities. The co-occurrence of the dinoflagellate Pfiesteria piscicida with lesions and fish mortalities in the Chesapeake in 1997 was preceded by several events causing public concern:

• Peer-reviewed publications describing an unusually complex life history, including over 20 stages, toxic effects on fish, human health impacts, and connections with agriculturally derived nutrients.

• A popular account of the discovery and human health impacts of Pfiesteria, And the Waters Turned to Blood by Rodney Barker, that increased public concern.

• Prominent media coverage of Pfiesteria piscicida (e.g., New York Times) with descriptions of Pfiesteria like "cell from hell."

The Pfiesteria hysteria of 1997 was preceded in 1996 by a large fish kill in an estuarine aquaculture facility (Hyrock Farm) using water from a tributary of the Chesapeake with a low cell density of Pfiesteria and suspiciously high cell density of Gyrodinium galatheanum (now called Karlodinium micrum) (Terlizzi et al., 2000; Deeds et al., 2002). The presence of Pfiesteria in these fish kills prompted reports in both popular and technical literature that Pfiesteria was the culprit. In a less emotional climate this observation might have broadened analysis and interpretation of the problem.

However, intense media coverage before and during the Pfiesteria hysteria potentiated the public and during the summer of 1997 heightened public fear and altered consumer behavior in Maryland toward seafood and recreational use of the Bay (Strand, 1999). In addition, 1997 was an election year, and the campaign of an incumbent, environmental governor was increasing momentum along with media coverage of the Pfiesteria issue and public fears.

Consumer panic resulted in a $43 million loss in seafood sales (Lipton, 1999). The description of health impacts among Maryland Commercial fishermen and others with high exposure levels (Grattan et al., 1998) led to the conclusion that the Pfiesteria "outbreak" was a clear linkage between Chesapeake Bay water quality and human health. The fish lesion and mortality events associated with Pfiesteria occurred in Bay tributaries of the lower eastern shore of Maryland, which had developed high soil phosphorous levels as a consequence of N-based fertilizer recommendations and the use of poultry litter from the large poultry industry centered there (Coale, 1999).

As a result, agriculturally derived nutrients were now linked to Pfiesteria, fish lesions, and fish mortality and ultimately were a threat to human health. Nevertheless, some scientists remained skeptical and maintained that these connections were circumstantial. In terms of its power as a focusing event, the Pfiesteria hysteria satisfied all of the criteria used by environmental groups seeking to mobilize public reaction on an environmental issue:

• It was a "breaking" media event;

• There were compelling images of destruction (lesions and fish kills);

• There was a clearly defined villain;

• There was human drama.

The Water Quality Improvement Act of 1998 was proposed, requiring mandatory nutrient management planning in place of voluntary incentive-based programs. Evidence for the magnitude of concern that Pfiesteria threatened human health is the Congressional allotment in 1998 of $18 million to Pfiesteria projects, including the Chesapeake Bay, in spite of what some scientists regarded as circumstantial evidence. This allotment was a funding level similar to that of the annual Chesapeake Bay Program annual budget (Ernst, 2003).

The Extension "Bridge"

The guiding philosophy of Sea Grant Extension programs is a non-advocacy approach in addressing coastal, marine, and estuarine issues (Bacon, 2000). In the Pfiesteria hysteria of 1997, environmentalists and the agricultural community were in conflict, and the environmental community appeared to use the Pfiesteria focusing event to create the nutrient management legislation to control agricultural nutrients that had been unsuccessful earlier. The agricultural community felt that their voluntary contributions to nutrient reduction were being ignored and that the normal rigor of the scientific method had been disregarded. At one gathering of poultry producers protesting the Water Quality Improvement Act, Frank Perdue, founder of the eponymous, vertically integrated Poultry company, was observed carrying a sign stating "good sense, good science."

During the media frenzy that occurred during the fish lesion and mortality events of 1997 and prior to the passage of the Water Quality Improvement Act (WQIA) of 1998, the author made over 50 presentations to committees of the Chesapeake Bay program, resource agency personnel, agricultural groups, environmental groups, college classes, and concerned citizens. In addition to direct educational methods news columns, he employed feature articles in the Maryland Sea Grant Publication Maryland Aquafarmer and interviews (radio, television, and video). The goal was to provide current technical information on the nature of harmful algal blooms including Pfiesteria to educate clientele on the role of nutrients and environmental factors in algal blooms and to reduce public fear. This approach was based conceptually on the relationship between hazard and public outrage that results in public perception of risk (Hutcheson, 1999; Sandman, 1987). In the case of Pfiesteria in the Chesapeake, the hazard may be relatively small, so outrage determines the perception of risk.

During the Pfiesteria "hysteria" of 1997, educational approaches from some environmental groups were designed to increase outrage and perception of risk. For example, one Bay advocacy group released a fund-raising flyer displaying fish with lesions and raised the question, "is this the future of the Bay?" The non-advocacy approach acknowledged water quality problems in the Bay but attempted to reduce public fear through presentation of the science and discussion of the limits of the information available to guide decisions. The following points were incorporated into presentations.

• Dinoflagellates are normal components of the Bay phytoplankton community, and, although a number of species were present in the Bay that are known to be toxic elsewhere (Marshall, 1996), this was the first apparent toxic event in the Bay that accounted for some of the concern.

• Nutrients are one factor thought to be involved in the increased appearance of harmful algal blooms (Hallegraeff, 1993). The Chesapeake Bay clearly has a nutrient problem; however, the linkages of Harmful algal blooms to nutrients are not always clear (Anderson, Glibert, & Burkholder, 2002).

• Dinoflagellates other than Pfiesteria may be involved in the fish health issues observed. For example, an aquaculture fish kill was dominated by Karlodinium micrum (Terlizzi et al., 2000; Deeds et al., 2002)

• The association of dinoflagellates other than Pfiesteria but of similar size resulted in the use of the term "Pfiesteria-like," which is misleading because of the hyperbole associated with Pfiesteria and scientific challenges to Pfiesteria biology, including toxicity and aspects of its life history.

Outcomes

The WQIA was adopted by the Maryland General Assembly in 1998. The agricultural community was resistant, feeling that additional work to clarify the link between nutrients and Pfiesteria was necessary.

Paolisso (1999) notes that an important outcome of the Pfiesteria hysteria and debate surrounding the WQIA was the "emergence of a widely held view of farmers as polluters who need to be regulated" and that the environmental contributions and economic concerns of farmers were not adequately included in the debate. Concerns about human health led Environmentalists to argue in favor of the WQIA and contributed to the polarity of environmentalists and the agriculture community, who felt that their role in improvement of the environment through voluntary adoption of agricultural best management practices was overlooked (Paolisso & Maloney, 2000). Perhaps the most serious long-term consequence of the passage of the WQIA in response the health concerns of Pfiesteria is the alienation of the agricultural community. Since the passage of the WQIA the following has occurred.

• The complex, unique life history of Pfiesteria, its ability to cause lesions, and the presence of a toxin have been challenged by various investigators (Blazer, et al., 1999; Litaker, 2002; Berry et al. 2002).

• K. micrum a dinoflagellate associated with the 1996 aquaculture fish kills (Terlizzi et al., 2000) and some of the events in the Chesapeake Bay have been shown to be toxic. (Deeds et al., 2002).

• Although Pfiesteria is widely distributed in the Bay and may be correlated with nutrients, there have been no fish health or human health consequences on the scale of those reported in 1997.

• There are increasing reports that K. micrum is a possible cause of fish mortality in the Chesapeake (Goshorn et al., 2002).

• There is evidence that some of the practices required under the WQIA may actually increase nutrient release into the Chesapeake.

The comprehensive, stringent control of nitrogen and phosphorous through the WQIA could be justified by the concerns about oxygen reduction and decline of submersed aquatic vegetation in the Bay. However, the impetus for this legislation, Pfiesteria piscicida, may not be as serious a concern in the Chesapeake as was thought during the panic of 1997. It is possible that K. micrum, which was present in some of the Chesapeake fish kills in 1997, and the fish kills at Hyrock farm in 1996, 1997, and 1999 that were attributed to Pfiesteria is the real concern. Therefore, the WQIA may be as some have described "the right law for the wrong reasons."

Recent research suggests that the WQIA may increase nutrient run-off to the Bay, indicating the WQIA may have the wrong outcomes as well (Maryland Center for Agroecology, unpublished press release www.agroecol.umd.edu). When presented with evidence suggesting Pfiesteria may not be responsible for fish kills and K. micrum is the likely culprit in the Chesapeake as appears to be the case in the aquaculture kills at Hyrock farm, some argue that it is not important because something is killing fish. However, in terms of public perception and value as a focusing event to effect change, it is very important for the following reasons.

• There are no claims that K. micrum is toxic to humans.

• K. micrum has a simple life history in contrast to that reported for Pfiesteria and in common with many other dinoflagellates.

• Monitoring and management for human or ecosystem health protection are routine for many harmful algal species and could be applied to K. micrum in the Chesapeake.

Since the Pfiesteria hysteria in 1997, a toxic dinoflagellate (Dinophysis acuminata) caused the closure of oyster beds, and blooms of the toxic cyanobacterium Microcystis caused a beach closure without public over reaction. So it appears likely that if the events of the Chesapeake were attributed to a toxic dinoflagellate rather than the "cell from hell" as Pfiesteria had been described in the media, its value as a focusing event that led to the passage of the WQIA would have been limited.

In summary, this Extension effort yielded a number of outcomes that have significant implications for management of the Chesapeake and for other Extension professionals facing similar issues.

• The combination of Extension programming and applied research involved contributed to the discovery of K. micrum as the first confirmed toxic dinoflagellate in the bay.

• K. micrum is now a focal point of harmful algal monitoring in the Chesapeake.

• Citizen awareness of harmful algae, causes, and impacts in the Chesapeake increased and may help to avert "hysterias" in the future.

Extension and Environmental Advocacy

One of the potential consequences of non-advocacy education in an emotionally charged, polarized environmental issue is, ironically, the appearance of advocacy. For example, in one presentation on Pfiesteria, nutrients ,and agriculture to a group of poultry growers, one participant remarked "looks like he's on our side." In another presentation to a group of environmental writers/communicators, a prominent leader in the Bay Environmental community asked, "how can you question the linkages between nutrients and Pfiesteria and not be an apologist for Frank Perdue?" (the nationally prominent poultry integrator from the eastern shore of Maryland).

Extension educators will increasingly deal with sensitive environmental problems, and they need to be aware that in an emotionally charged climate like the Pfiesteria "hysteria" of Maryland, non-advocacy can appear to be advocacy by simply pointing out the limitations of the science we are charged with extending. Ensuring that all of the voices are heard, even in an Extension non-advocacy role, can make entry into conflict unavoidable.

There is also the problem of public perception of science. For example, Kenner (1998) notes, "Our society is awash in politicized science; very often the public recognizes it and distrusts research, scientists and associated organizations because of it." In the "Pfiesteria hysteria," both the problem--the Pfiesteria-agricultural nutrient-human health connections and the cure, mandatory nutrient management imposed on the agricultural community by the environmental interests--had political components.

Science by its very nature does little to resolve this. For example, Holling (1995) notes that in science "there are not only conflicting voices but conflicting modes of inquiry." And in events like the "Pfiesteria hysteria," these conflicts are amplified through media coverage.

Blockstein (2002) discusses the reluctance of many scientists to participate in political issues because of the risk of creating the appearance of advocacy. Extension professionals may be even more reluctant because our mission is the dissemination of research-based knowledge, but environmental issues with prominent media coverage may challenge this paradigm. Blockstein suggests the following to maintain credibility when scientific information is limited:

• Follow the facts and tell the truth.

• Obey the rules of science.

• Present caveats.

• Identify uncertainty.

• Distinguish between guesswork and uncertainty.

• Avoid hyperbole.

This is sound advice for both research scientists and Extension educators dealing with complex, volatile environmental issues, and following these guidelines may serve to ease the burden of skepticism.

Acknowledgements

Dr. Jack Greer, Maryland Sea Grant, provided some of the information on the public perception of science. This work was supported by Maryland Sea Grant and The University of Maryland College of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

References

Anderson, D.M. Glibert, P.M, & Burkholder, J.M. (2002). Harmful algal blooms and eutrophication: nutrient sources, composition, and consequences. Estuaries. 25:4 704-726.

Bacon, R. H. (2000). Outreach collaborations and partnerships: Whom do we work with? In: Fundamentals of a Sea Grant Extension Program. National Sea Grant College Program, Silver Spring, MD.

Barker, R. (1997). And the waters turned to blood. Simon & Schuster: NY.

Berry, J. P., Reece, K. S., Rein, K. S., Baden, D. G., Haas, L. W., Ribeiro, W. L., Shields, J. D., Snyder, R. V., Vogelbein, W. K., & Gawley, R. E. (2002). Are Pfiesteria species toxicogenic? Evidence against production of ichthyotoxins by Pfiesteria shumwayae. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA. 99(17) 10970-10975.

Birkland, T. A. (1997). After the disaster: Agenda setting, public policy, and focusing events. Georgetown University Press. Washington, D.C.

Blazer, V. S., Vogelbein, W. K., Densmore, C. L. May, E. B., Lilley, J. H., & Zwerner, D. E. (1999). Aphanomyces as a cause of ulcerative skin lesions of Menhaden from Chesapeake Bay tributaries. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health. 11:340-349.

Blockstein D. E. (2002). How to lose your political virginity while keeping your scientific credibility. BioScience. 52(1) 91-96.

Coale, F. J. (1999). Phosphorous from agriculture entering the Chesapeake Bay. In: B.L. Gardner & L. Koch Eds. Economics of policy options for nutrient management and Pfiesteria. Proceedings of the conference. 11/16/98 pp.13-18.

Deeds , J. R., Terlizzi, D.E ., Adolf, J. E. Stoecker, D. K., & Place A. R. (2002). Toxic activity from cultures of Karladinium micrum (=Gyrodinium galatheanum) (Dinophyceae) A dinoflagellate associated with fish mortalities in an estuarine aquaculture facility. Harmful Algae. 1(2) 169-189.

Downs, A. (1972). Up and down with ecology: The issue-attention cycle". Public Interest 28:38-50.

Ernst, H. R. (2003). Chesapeake Bay blues: Science, politics, and the struggle to save the bay. Rowman and Littlefield. Lanham.

Glasgow, H., Burkholder, J., Schmechel, D., Tester, P., & Rublee, P. (1995) Insidious effects of a toxic estuarine dinflagellate on fish survival and human health. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 46(4) 501-502.

Glibert, P. M. ,& Terlizzi, D. E. (1999). Nutrients, phytoplankton and Pfiesteria in the Chesapeake Bay. In: B. L. Gardner & L. Koch Eds. Economics of policy options for nutrient management and Pfiesteria. Proceedings of the conference. 11/16/98 pp.13-18.

Goshorn, D., Deeds, J., Tango, P., Place, A., Butler, W., & Magnien, R. (2002). Occurence of Karladinium micrum and its association with fish kills in Maryland estuaries. Abstract. Xth International Conference on Harmful Algae. Oct. 21-25. St Pete Beach, FL.

Grattan, L. M., Oldach, D., Perl, T. M., Lowitt, M. H., Matuszak, D. L., Dickson, C., Parrott, C., Shoemaker, R. C., Kauffman, L. C., Wasserman, M. P., Hebel, R. J., Charache P., & Morris, J.G. Jr. (1998). Learning and memory difficulties after environmental exposure to waterways containing toxin-producing Pfiesteria or Pfiesteria-like Dinoflagellates. The Lancet 352:532-539.

Hallegraeff, G.M. (1993). A review of harmful algal blooms and their apparent global increase. Phycologia. 32:79-99.

Holling, C. S. (1995). What barriers, What bridges? In: L. H. Gunderson, C. S. Holling, & S. S. Light. Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 3-34.

Hutcheson, S. (1999). Effective use of risk communication strategies for health and safety educational materials. Journal of Extension [On-line], 37(5. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1999october/a1.html

Kenner, B. C. (1998). Blasphemy from the hinterland: Using NPS history to improve science and natural resources management. George Wright Forum. 15(2) 5-19.

Lipton , D. W. (1999). Pfiesterias economic impact on seafood Industry sales and recreational fishing. In: B. L. Gardner & L. Koch Eds. Economics of policy options for nutrient management and Pfiesteria. Proceedings of the conference. 11/16/98 pp.35-38

Litaker,R. W., Vandersea, M. W., Kibler, S. R., Madden V. J. ,Noga, E. J., & Tester, P. A. (2002). Life cycle of the heterotrophic dinoflagellate Pfiesteria piscicida (Dinophyceae). Journal of Phycology. 38:442-463.

Marshall, H. G. (1996). Toxin producing phytoplankton in Chesapeake Bay. Virginia Journal of Science. 47(1):29-37.

Paolisso, M. (1999) Toxic algal blooms, nutrient runoff, and farming on Maryland's eastern shore. Culture and Agriculture 21(3):53-58

Paolisso, M., & Maloney, R. S. (2000). Recognizing farmer environmentalism: nutrient runoff and toxic dinoflagellate blooms in the Chesapeake Bay region. Human Organization, 59(2): 209-221.

Perkinson, R. (1994). Evolution of nutrient management in the Chesapeake Bay region. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. Nutrient Management Special Supplement. 49(2):87-88.

Shermer, M. (1998). Why people believe weird things. Freeman, New York, NY. 306 pp.

Strand, I. (1999). Pfiesteria concerns and human behavior. In: B.L. Gardner & L. Koch Eds. Economics of policy options for nutrient management and Pfiesteria. Proceedings of the conference. 11/16/98 pp.19-34.

Terlizzi, D. E., Stoecker, D. K., & Glibert, P. M. (2000). Gyrodinium galatheanum: A threat to estuarine aquaculture waters. In: R. Flos & L. Creswell,L. Eds. Abstracts of contributions presented at the international conference AQUA 2000, Responsible aquaculture in the new millenium. Nice, France, 2-6 May, 2000. European Aquaculture Society Special Publication 28, Ostende, Belgium, p.700.

Integrated Farming Systems and Pollution Prevention Initiatives Stimulate Co-Learning Extension Strategies

Christy Getz
Assistant Cooperative Extension Specialist
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, California
cgetz@nature.berkeley.edu

Keith Douglass Warner
Environmental Studies Institute
Santa Clara University
Santa Clara, California
kwarner@scu.edu

Introduction

The 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) brought the most dramatic changes to pesticide regulation since the creation of the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), including the cancellation or partial ban of several economically important organophosphate (OP) insecticides (Van Steenwyk & Zalom, 2005). Numerous alternative pest management strategies have been advanced by researchers, some new and some pre-dating the invention of OPs. Pheromone mating disruption, novel and narrow-spectrum insecticides, and biological control (in its various forms) have been demonstrated for many crops (Grafton-Cardwell, Godfrey, Chaney, & Bentley, 2005; Mills & Daane, 2005; Welter et al., 2005).

In theory, the elimination of OP pesticides should not economically disrupt agriculture (Metcalfe et al., 2002), but these alternatives challenge conventional transfer-of-technology Extension pedagogies. Whereas OP insecticides are remarkably simple to use, alternative pest management strategies are more complicated and rely more heavily on expert, ecologically based knowledge. Inserting system-oriented, ecologically based practices into conventional transfer-of-technology Extension programs has a poor record of user adoption (Röling & Wagemakers, 1998).

In this article, we situate these alternative pest management strategies within the context of the extension of integrated farming systems while specifically analyzing Extension activities of agro-environmental partnerships in California. We argue that their organizational structure, which facilitates greater participation, has been key to their success. The shift from a "transfer of technology" model to one that includes more co-learning, facilitation, and emphasis on decision-making making can help all Extension stakeholders and improve Extension's service delivery.

This article draws from a major study of California's agro-environmental partnerships, based on 3 years of field work interviewing over 230 growers, consultants, Extensionists, scientists, regulators, and grower organization staff (Warner 2004), to highlight implications for University of California (UC) Extension practices as California agriculture moves "beyond organophosphates" (Van Steenwyk & Zalom, 2005).

Agricultural Pollution and Agro-Environmental Partnerships

Agriculture is the greatest source of non-point water pollution in the U.S. (U.S. Geological Survey, 1999), and it is under significant political pressure to address this problem, especially in highly urbanized states like California. In response, Extensionists are paying increased attention to helping growers reduce the environmental impacts of agricultural production.

In 1993, the National Research Council's Soil and Water Quality: An Agenda for Agriculture recommended that integrated farming system plans should become the basis of federal, state, and local soil and water quality programs. It argued that in "systems-level approaches to analyzing agricultural production systems . . . inherent links exist among soil quality conservation, improvements in input use efficiency, increases in resistance to erosion and runoff, and the wider use of buffer zones (107)." Alternative soil, water, and farmscape management strategies have the potential to reduce the need for and environmental impact of insecticides, but an integrated systems approach places greater demands on Extension practice and grower learning.

California uses about 25% of the nation's pesticides (Aspelin & Grube, 1999; California Department of Pesticide Regulation, 1999), so the FQPA posed a particularly serious threat to agricultural production here. In the immediate aftermath of its passage, federal, state, and private foundation dollars funded agro-environmental partnerships in California, defined as: a multi-year collaboration between scientists, growers, and a growers' organization to research and implement innovative, field-scale, agroecologically informed practices. These funding agencies created semi-privatized Extension projects to develop and extend alternative, integrated farming system practices.

Grower organizations (whether local, informal networks of growers, or statewide commodity boards) have had an active interest in Extension practice for decades, but the threat of OP loss stimulated many of them to become more active partners with Cooperative Extension to develop and promote alternatives to conventional pesticides. Over the past 15 years, 32 partnerships have emerged to develop alternative practices in 16 California commodities, engaging over 500 growers and 92 University of California scientists, Extension specialists, and farm advisors (Warner, 2006a).

Agro-environmental partnerships do not seek to eliminate agrochemical use, but rather to rationalize it according to ecological principles and help growers gain confidence in OP alternatives. Participating growers avoid ecologically disruptive pesticides to prevent pollution by using pheromone-based mating disruption; novel, narrow-spectrum insecticides; and biological control strategies to the extent economically possible. Farm advisors deploy some traditional Extension practices, such as field days and newsletters, but place additional emphasis on co-learning models, fostering social networks of innovation to do research on and exchange information about ecologically based alternative pest management strategies. Farm advisors educate growers about the rapidly developing regulatory requirements associated with pesticides and facilitate field-derived knowledge exchange about agroecological pest management techniques among growers and consultants (Table 1).

More important than individual alternative pest management techniques is the emphasis partnerships place on alternative decision-making rules. Partnerships engage growers and consultants in learning more about the ecological relationships in farming systems, how to integrate the components of their farming system (e.g., how irrigation management can influence pest pressure), and how to make decisions according to environmental as well as economic criteria. This strategy requires greater participation by growers and their consultants in the educational activities of Extension than is common with the transfer-of-technology model (Warner, 2006b).

Leaders of these partnerships perceive that by participating in field-based research, growers and their consultants will receive more decision support and experience greater success with new technologies (e.g., pheromone-based codling moth mating disruption) and ecologically based pest management strategies (biological control).

Origins and Structure of Agro-Environmental Partnerships

The first efforts to develop partnership-based Extension practices took place in pears (the Randall Island Project), almonds (the Biologically Integrated Orchard System, or BIOS partnership), and winegrapes (the Lodi Woodbridge Winegrape Commission) (Calkins & Faust, 2003; Hendricks, 1995; Klonsky et al., 2004). When these early experimentations in agro-environmental partnerships indicated their potential for pollution prevention, the USEPA, the California Legislature, and the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) created programs and dedicated funding to expand the number of partnerships (Mitchell, 2001; Swezey & Broome, 2000).

The California legislature created the Biologically Integrated Farming System (BIFS) program, based at the UC Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. DPR created the Pest Management Alliance (PMA). These are the best-known agro-environmental partnerships, with 10 and 8 funded respectively for more than one year. These programs provided different programmatic incentives for alternative Extension practices.

In general, BIFS funded local networks of UC farm advisors and growers (with their pest consultants) to conduct integrated farming system research on a field scale; the PMA program relies heavily on commodity organizations to engage growers. BIFS constitutes local, place-based communities of growers who learn about farming systems together, led by an Extensionist who can draw in contributions from outside providers of scientific knowledge (Mitchell, 2001).

This approach facilitates growers exercising leadership and the development of innovative practices to take advantage of managing the interaction between components of farming systems. It seeks to foster change by facilitating a local network of innovative growers that will develop and demonstrate a suite of integrated farming system practices.

PMA partnerships have strengthened the ties between commodity board leaders and Extensionists to promote eco-rational pesticide use. PMA partnerships have only been effective among perennial crop commodity organizations. This strategy has effectively stimulated interest on the part of these organizations in environmental regulatory issues and they have recruited prominent growers to demonstrate alternative practices. In commodities where less hazardous pest management techniques already exist, PMA grants accelerate the extension of knowledge more broadly. This overall strategy does not appear to be able to capture benefits from local grower leadership in mentoring other growers, nor to assist growers in the integration of their farming systems.

In addition, the Pew Charitable Trust funded partnerships in California and elsewhere, and later established the Center for Agricultural Partnerships that funded projects in California and many other states (Warner, 2006a). Yet growers or growers' organizations (informal associations or non-profit organizations) initiated 12 partnerships, independent of these major funding programs, indicating the degree of grower interest in alternative practices.

Strategies and Impacts

The most successful agro-environmental partnerships have differed qualitatively from conventional Extension practice by: 1) incorporating greater participation of the full range of people shaping farm management decisions and 2) focusing less on transfer of technology and more on learning about the integration of farming system components. Extension strategies to prevent pollution require a different approach to pest management as well as an alternative pedagogy.

Three quarters of all partnerships have been in perennial crops, and only perennial crops have been targeted by multiple partnerships. Several factors favor partnership development in permanent crops: a farming system more amenable to agroecological strategies, greater reliance on OPs, a history of social relations within these commodities favoring collaboration, and the economic advantage of perennial crops relative to other commodities (Warner, 2006b). Through informal local networks and statewide organizations, growers have actively shaped agro-environmental partnerships to help them develop and exchange pollution prevention practices. These partnerships have been most active--and had greatest impact--on three crops with highly organized growers.

The California almond industry has documented the greatest volume reduction of OP use, from almost 500,000 pounds in 1992 to just over 100,000 pounds in 2000. Much of this reduction is attributed to growers switching to pyrethroids pesticides (less hazardous to mammals and somewhat less disruptive of beneficial insects, but acutely toxic to aquatic organisms); however, partnership activities have also played an important role (Elliott, Wilhoit, Brattesani, & Gorder, 2004; Warner, 2006a).

Pear growers reduced OP use faster than any other commodity in the history of California agriculture by substituting pheromone mating disruption products, from over 110,000 pounds in 1998 to 25,000 pounds in 2002 (Pesticide Use Reports, various years, cited in Warner 2006a). When codling moth resistance to OPs began to appear in the Sacramento region in the early 1990s, it gave a strong impetus to develop the ecological knowledge necessary to make this new pest management strategy effective. Partnerships fostered networks of expert scientific knowledge critical to the successful use of pheromones necessary to support this OP reduction. These networks also allowed participating growers to take advantage of biocontrol opportunities in less disrupted farming systems (Welter et al. 2005).

Winegrape partnerships have been very active in some regions of California, especially those of premium winegrape production, and these have shown declines in FQPA priority pesticides (Campos & Zhang, 2004). A statewide winegrape organization has developed partnerships to further help extend these practices (Dlott, 2004).

Furthermore, partnerships have facilitated the development of farm management plans that are helping growers both recognize the value of monitoring data and incorporate it into decision making (Warner, 2006b). Eleven partnerships have developed manuals to help growers assess their farming systems and optimize the relationships between farming components. Examples of manuals with decision rules that emerge from partnership activities include The Integrated Prune Farming Practices Decision Guide (Olson et al., 2003), The Code of Sustainable Winegrowing Practices Self-Assessment Workbook (California Association of Winegrape Growers & The Wine Institute, 2003), and A Seasonal Guide to Environmentally Responsible Pest Management in Almonds (Pickel, Bentley, Connell, Duncan, & Viveros, 2004).

Even though these partnerships have been among the most active and highly publicized Extension initiatives in the state, it is not possible to claim that they alone caused these declines in pesticide use. Nevertheless, they have played critical roles in demonstrating the value of more participatory Extension practice as well as integrated farming systems for pollution prevention.

Implications for Practice: New roles to Address the Crisis in Extension?

While co-learning strategies provide additional resources for Extensionists, they require them to share the agenda for Extension activities with other participants eager to agricultural prevent pollution. By shifting Extensionists' roles from industry wide-leadership to facilitating grower learning and providing technical support, partnerships have enabled Extensionists to reach more growers more efficiently and help them negotiate new environmental regulatory pressures.

As Extension budgets continue to decline, agro-environmental partnerships present Extensionists with a trade-off. Partnerships require Extensionists to assume a diminished leadership role, but provide them with new strategies and resources for expanding their professional impact. In fact, research into European Extension practice suggests that facilitation and technical support may be the most effective strategies for extending agroecological strategies (Röling & Wagemakers, 1998).

PMA Partnerships have allowed Extensionists to reach all the growers in the state through the commodity board, to increase their contact hours without having to organize additional events, and to receive positive coverage in local media (because commodity boards received funding and assumed responsibility for these activities). Grower participants in winegrape partnerships persuade their reluctant neighbor growers to attend field days, and they do so because in counties with significant opposition to agriculture, they recognize that growers must work together to improve their public image.

In spite of these demonstrated successes and results, many farm advisors report ambivalent views toward partnerships (Pence & Grieshop, 2001; Warner, 2006a). While they appreciate the extra resources partnership funding provides, they are wary of any further intrusion into their Extension education priorities when the professional incentive structures within Cooperative Extension do not explicitly reward such activities. Extensionists are already being called upon to do increasingly more with fewer staff and shrinking budgets, and partnerships require them to develop co-learning facilitation skills as an alternative to conventional transfer of technology pedagogies.

Extension services nationwide are in crisis (McDowell, 2004). On the surface these are the result of state budget shortfalls, but a more complete analysis reveals that the taxpaying public does not recognize the value Extension offers society. George McDowell (2001) argues that for Extension services to survive, they must be able to deliver a product that no other institution can and then cultivate more political support from their client base.

Technology transfer to private parties only cannot engender sufficient political support, but conservation of environmental resources, because they represent action on behalf of the common good, might. The goals and activities of agro-environmental partnerships clearly benefit society as a whole and, as such, could be the basis for engaging a broader base of clientele. Especially in highly urbanized states like California and other coastal states, environmental resource protection initiatives by Extension could result in greater programmatic support.

Conclusion

Agricultural pollution challenges both agriculture and Extension practices. Viable alternative pest management practices, using integrated farming systems approaches, will not be realized without greater participation in Extension activities and the development of appropriate decision-making support for growers. Thirty-two agro-environmental partnerships in California over the past 15 years have conducted farming systems research and Extension to prevent agricultural pollution. These partnerships explicitly help growers develop ecologically based understanding of their farming systems and optimize the relationships between components.

Through agro-environmental partnerships, farm advisors have demonstrated alternative Extension practices, such as co-learning, collaborative decision-making, and facilitation of farming system integration, yet the transfer-of-technology model continues to be the dominant operative Extension paradigm. The dearth of incentives within the professional reward structure of Extension services for co-learning strategies has meant that Extensionists participate without receiving adequate recognition for this form of service. Creating appropriate professional incentives for participating in partnerships will be critical to capturing the full potential of this emerging model of Extension. Such partnerships are an Extension strategy that deserves continued and increased programmatic and financial support within Cooperative Extension.

Acknowledgements

The second author acknowledges with gratitude support from the National Science Foundation (award BCS-0302393), the Biologically Integrated Farming Systems Work Group, the UC Santa Cruz Department of Environmental Studies, and the UC Santa Cruz Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems.

References

Aspelin, A. L., & Grube, A. H. (1999). Pesticides industry sales and usage: 1996 and 1997 market estimates. Washington DC: USEPA, Document #733-R-99-001. Retrieved September 22, 2002 from http://www.epa.gov/oppbead1/pestsales/

California Association of Winegrape Growers, & The Wine Institute. (2003). Code of sustainable winegrowing practices self-assessment workbook. San Francisco: CAWG & TWI.

California Department of Pesticide Regulation. (1999). Summary of pesticide use report data, 1997. Sacramento: CDPR. Retrieved September 22, 2002 from http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur97rep/97_pur.htm

Calkins, C. O., & Faust, R. J. (2003). Overview of area wide programs and the program for suppression of codling moth in the western USA directed by the USDA-ARS. Pest Management Science, 59(6-7), 601-604.

Campos, J., & Zhang, M. (2004). Progress toward reduced-risk pest management. Practical Winery & Vineyard, March/April, 1-6.

Dlott, J. (2004). California wine community sustainability report: Executive summary. California Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance. Retrieved May 28, 2005 from http://www.sustainablewinegrowing.org/pdfs/04_ExecSummDoc_vFinal.pdf

Elliott, B., Wilhoit, L., Brattesani, M., & Gorder, N. (2004). Pest management assessment for almonds reduced-risk alternatives to dormant organophosphate insecticides. Sacramento: CDPR. Retrieved November 20, 2003 from http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pmap/pubs/pm0401asmnt.pdf

Grafton-Cardwell, E., Godfrey, L., Chaney, W., & Bentley, W. J. (2005). Various novel insecticides are less toxic to humans, more specific to key pests. California Agriculture, 59(1), 29-34.

Hendricks, L. (1995). Almond growers reduce pesticides in Merced county field trials. California Agriculture, 49(1), 5-10.

Klonsky, K., Brodt, S., Tourte, L., Duncan, R., Hendricks, L., Ohmart, C., et al. (2004). Influence of farm management style on adoption of biologically integrated farming practices in California. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 19(4), 237-247.

McDowell, G. R. (2001). Land-grant universities and Extension into the 21st century: Re-negotiating or abandoning a social contract. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

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

Metcalfe, M., McWilliams, B., Hueth, B., Van Steenwyk, R., Sunding, D., Swoboda, A., et al. (2002). The economic importance of organophosphates in California agriculture. Retrieved October 7, 2003 from http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/publications.htm

Mills, N., & Daane, K. M. (2005). Nonpesticide alternatives can suppress crop pests. California Agriculture, 59(1), 23-28.

Mitchell, J. (2001). Innovative agricultural Extension partnerships in California's central San Joaquin valley. Journal of Extension [On-line], 39(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2001december/rb7.html

Olson, W., Pickel, C., Buchner, R., Krueger, W., Niederholzer, F., Norton, M., et al. (2003). Integrated prune farming practices decision guide. Oakland, California: UC ANR.

Pence, R. A., & Grieshop, J. I. (2001). Mapping the road for voluntary change: Partnerships in agricultural Extension. Agriculture and Human Values, 18, 209-217.

Pickel, C., Bentley, W. J., Connell, J. H., Duncan, R., & Viveros, M. (2004). A seasonal guide to environmentally responsible pest management in almonds. Oakland, California: UC DANR.

Röling, N., & Wagemakers, A. (1998). Facilitating sustainable agriculture: Participatory learning and adaptive management in times of environmental uncertainty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Swezey, S. L., & Broome, J. C. (2000). Growth predicted in biologically integrated and organic farming. California Agriculture, 54(4), 26-36.

U.S. Geological Survey. (1999). The quality of our nation's waters: Nutrients and pesticides. Reston, Virginia: USGS Circular 1225.

Van Steenwyk, R., & Zalom, F. (2005). Food quality protection act launches search for pest management alternatives. California Agriculture, 59(1), 7-12.

Warner, K. D. (2004). Agroecology in action: How the science of alternative agriculture circulates through social networks. A dissertation in the Department of Environmental Studies: UC Santa Cruz.

Warner, K. D. (2006a). Agroecology in action: Social Networks extending alternative agriculture Cambridge: MIT Press.

Warner, K. D. (2006b). Extending agroecology: Grower participation in partnerships is key to social learning. Renewable Food and Agriculture Systems, in press.

Welter, S. C., Pickel, C., Millar, J., Cave, F., Van Steenwyk, R., & Dunley, J. (2005). Pheromone mating disruption offers selective management options for key pests. California Agriculture, 59(1), 16-22.

Whole Systems Inquiry: Designing Large Educational Events

Ray D. William
Professor of Horticulture
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon
williamr@science.oregontate.edu

Molly Engle
Associate Professor of Evaluation
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon
molly.engle@oregonstate.edu

Peter B. Goodell
IPM Advisor
University of California Statewide IPM Program
Kearney Ag Center
Parlier, California
ipmpbg@uckac.edu

Carrie Koplinka-Loehr
Co-director
Northeastern IPM Center
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York
ckk3@cornell.edu

Introduction

Designing large meetings, symposia, and conferences as dynamic, functional systems are challenges for Extension educators and meeting hosts, regardless of topic, discipline, or program. Similarly, attendees expect the meeting to be engaging, presenters anticipate enthusiastic listeners with discussion, and administrators authorize travel expecting novel ideas or applications. Typical meetings such as symposiums often have a common theme, but topics become lists of concurrent sessions rather than a network of topics that relate information and learning.

The authors describe the redesign of a typical symposium format using principles of whole systems inquiry (WSI), participatory learning, and assessment. This article is organized within the context of the symposium and represents how attendees experienced the meeting with literature citations discussed within the context of the redesign. Extension educators, engineers, and doctors find this approach comfortable because they typically are "doers" who solve problems validated with science (Kolb, 1984).

Methods/Results

Organizers of the 4th National IPM symposium held in Indianapolis, Indiana, April 8-10, 2003 invited the authors to design the symposium into a participatory format using WSI principles. The theme "Building Alliances for the Future of IPM" advertised 18 topics, 70 breakout sessions, 230 papers, 560 posters, and two plenary sessions with 800 attendees during two and a half days.

1. Redesign objectives included:

2. Create a roadmap of symposium topics using principles of WSI,

3. Invite attendees to engage in the system,

4. Synthesize individual insights or remarks from each session into emergent themes for discussion, and

5. Measure personal intention to utilize ideas in disciplines and/or aggregate data for emergent themes to enhance state and national priorities.

IPM functions as a whole system even though most people focus on individual pests, pest systems, disciplines, or topics at a symposium. First, we combined the 70+ topics into 18 themes defined as inputs (themes, topics, people presenting papers, etc) and printed in the program as a roadmap (Figure 1) to represent WSI. Second, meeting inputs were transformed into outputs (information, ideas, contacts for future reference) while feedback loops (space, time, or mental capacity to absorb information) regulated system performance or function. Third, systems produced results measured as outcomes and consequences (new applications, intentional learning, behavioral change). In this case, we measured results at both the individual and aggregate state and national levels.

Figure 1.
Whole Systems Thinking Applied to IPM

Attendees chose topics both from a list and the roadmap or diagram printed in programs. After each topic or session, attendees were invited to respond to two questions, "What novel idea(s) did you gain?" and "What made this topic or project a success?" Responses were posted by attendees on sticky notes within topic rooms, collected, and synthesized into common or emergent themes (Glasser & Strauss, 1967) using modified concept (Novak & Gowin, 1984) or mind mapping (Buzan, 1983) techniques. The process was dynamic, active, participatory, and intentional, with emergent themes posted to a "mega-map" while concurrent topics continued.

Attendees wrote hundreds of comments during the first 24 hours following the plenary session. Most topics generated 20+ sticky notes for an estimated 50% response rate. Perhaps 60 attendees expressed curiosity by wandering past the "mega-map" or drew and commented directly on the map by adding feedback loops, personal perspectives about the topic or process, or drawing personal conclusions about the process and techniques.

Individuals responding to one or both questions about "novel ideas" or "topic success" either confirmed their learning or generated additional ideas. Their summaries described new IPM projects, alliances or partnerships, measures and integration, integrating social sciences and learning methods, new ways to reach audiences, and many other topics of interest to respondents. Overall, responses seemed to confirm the notion that expectation could be aggregated on a "mega-map" and synthesized within a symposium format.

Perhaps the most challenging step was synthesizing emergent themes for the final plenary session from the hundreds of comments posted for each session and the summaries that emerged on the "mega-map," given a limited timeframe. Four topics emerged, each confirming central themes of the symposium, as follows: 1) partnerships & alliances, 2) education, 3) research), and 4) evaluation. We hypothesize that evaluation was added as a result of frequent comments about systemic feedback loops and measures of success or learning made by authors throughout the event.

Themes were matched with three foci from the "The National IPM Roadmap," including a) commercial agriculture, b) natural resources, and c) urban/public settings. About 300 attendees selected one of 12 matrix topics to answer, "How does this theme contribute to achieving the IPM Roadmap goals?" Facilitators synthesized recommendations for the final report to the plenary session (Table 1).

Results generated by the synthesis groups confirmed both the goals of the event and the IPM Roadmap (Table 1). Of the 166 cards generated in the final plenary session, 52% aligned with the Partnerships & Alliances theme, with most comments in Research and Education topics. Remaining respondents commented about the need for whole systems in IPM (9% of respondents), evaluation (14%), and adoption before/after (18%). Ideas confirmed IPM networks among diverse stakeholders including shared resources, electronic monitoring and pest reporting, eco-based habitat, and integration of program monitoring/metrics. One group of cards described a farmer database of success stories while another group mentioned networking with public health and other community experts.

As attendees departed the final plenary session, they were asked to refocus their analysis toward personal learning intention by answering, "To what extent do you intend to use the knowledge or ideas gained from the symposium in your own program?" About 50 attendees placed sticky DOTS (Lev, Smith, & William, 1995) on the "IPM Action Gauge" located near exits. DOTS (delta over time) suggests intention to use ideas gained during the symposium measure as a "tank of ideas" being half to three-quarter full.

Discussion of Whole Systems Inquiry (WSI) Applied to Large Meetings

Consider for a moment that people do whole systems thinking every day of their lives. Daily tasks or activities are identified, progress monitored, and decisions modified based on feedback loops that regulate and improve overall function. Results are aggregated at the end of the day and soon become routines, except when disruptions occur that create new cycles of activities and reorganization. Even though people have practiced systems thinking for centuries, it's interesting that the science of systems thinking and practice emerged only about 50 years ago, when scientists began testing hypotheses and developing a general systems theory (Ackoff, 1974; Bateson, 1972; Bertalanffy, 1975; Churchman, 1968; Habermas, 1973).

WSI begins with the whole, considers function and behavior, and traces the flow of activities, resources, or logic through systems diagrams (Figure 1). Systems transform inputs into outputs regulated by feedback loops and interactions within and between scales (Ackoff, 1974; Senge, 1990). Systems exhibit behaviors as growth, decline or death, oscillation, or stability (Sterman, 2000), often functioning this way for extended periods until the system exhibits renewal or what is termed "creative destruction," where resources are released and reorganized into a new or different system (Holling, 2002). Systems that cycle into renewal may be provoked by innovations or novelty loops that create change, thereby prompting responses by attendees to