|
October 2006
|
       |
Contents
Editor's PageJOE Reviewers RockOkay, so "contribute" may be a more appropriate verb than "rock" to describe the service JOE reviewers perform for their colleagues and the journal. But contribute they do. I receive countless notes from authors telling me that their reviews have helped them strengthen their articles, that they were "right on," and that they raised thought-provoking, challenging points. That doesn't surprise me, and it shouldn't surprise you. If you are interested in finding out who those generous and accomplished colleagues are, just check out the Peer Reviewers list that's a link at the end of every issue. If you are interested in joining their ranks, visit JOE FAQ #12 <http://www.joe.org/ques1.html#Q12>, and follow through. Not only do JOE reviewers contribute by reviewing journal submissions. They also contribute by submitting articles themselves and having them undergo evaluation in our blind peer-review process. In fact, seven JOE reviewers are among the authors of articles in the October issue. And an eighth very qualified author has just submitted an application to join the JOE Peer Reviewers Committee. JOE reviewers review up to 12 submissions a year. It's hard work, and they do it well. We owe them a huge vote of thanks. This is mine. A "Freebee" for Extension ProfessionalsMany of you are familiar with George McDowell's excellent and influential Land-Grant Universities and Extension into the 21st Century, and you may be disturbed to learn that it is out of print. But I recently received this message from Professor McDowell: "Here is a freebee for Extension professionals. I have retired, and my 2001 book, Land-Grant Universities and Extension into the 21st Century, is out of print. It is also somewhat out of date, at least with respect to some of the details about Extension. However, I think the analysis and arguments made are still relevant and perhaps useful to the continuing discussion about the evolution/survival of Extension. So when it went out of print, I asked that the book copyright be reassigned to me. I have put the entire book on my Virginia Tech Web page <http://www.aaec.vt.edu/faculty/mcdowell/book/> as an accessible resource for anyone to use. It is in PDF form, but excerpts can be copied, or the entire document can be copied. Obviously, reference to the book or quotations require the usual attributions, but there are no copyright restrictions. It's a freebee!" "Still relevant and useful"? I'd say so. October JOEAfter almost 6 years and 34 Editor's Pages, I've just about run out of superlatives, so I'll simply proceed to calling your attention to a few of the fine articles in this issue. We have a Feature on the "Change Agent States for Diversity Project: The Catalyst Team Approach." The next two articles, "Conflict as a Form of Capital in Controversial Community Development Projects" and "Pfiesteria Hysteria, Agriculture, and Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay: The Extension Bridge over Troubled Waters," suggest that conflict is not necessarily a bad thing. Difficult, granted, but not necessarily bad. We also have a handful of interesting articles that deal in one way or another with livestock, with how to identify livestock and how to reach livestock producers. I've chosen a new way to emphasize them. Check out the last Feature, the last Research in Brief, the last Ideas at Work, and the last Tools of the Trade to find those articles. We have a couple of articles about international work, too--and so much more. Laura Hoelscher, Editor joe-ed@joe.org
Extension Education About Healthy Weight: A Case Study Emphasizes Need to Find the Target AudienceBarbara Lohse Jodi L. Stotts The Pennsylvania State University Strategic Planning for 2004-2009 activities of CSREES include actionable strategies to decrease obesity, including sponsoring education and Extension programs. Extension educators recognize a critical gap "in understanding the factors that affect behavior and lead to obesity and in finding ways to intervene to change those factors to prevent obesity." Extension education is cited as a vehicle to begin closing this gap because it "reaches across the country with county-based programs focusing on individuals and communities to promote behaviors that support physical fitness and healthy weight." (United States Department of Agriculture) History suggests that reaching the intended audience for education on weight management will be problematic because, in general, emphasis on reaching an intended audience has been a recurring struggle for Extension professionals. For example, researchers have appealed to educators to focus on reach for Extension programming directed toward "non-traditional" (Bairstow, Berry, & Driscoll, 2002), "at-risk" (Klemme, Hausafus, & Shirer, 2005), and "culturally diverse (Robinson, Anding, Garza, & Hinojosa, 2003; Woodson & Sgamma, 1997) audiences. In addition, Extension has been encouraged to target programming to address public health concerns such as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (Jouridine & Green, 2001) and diet-related risk for chronic disease (Snow & Benedict, 2003). As a case in point, we present our work with Weigh to Diet, a carefully developed, theoretically based, and traditionally implemented intervention, to show that current Extension nutrition education strategies may not be reaching the audience most in need of weight-related behavior change. Following a description of the intervention and implementation outcomes, we present strategies for improving reach of Extension-based weight management education. A Case Study of Reaching Intended Audiences: Weigh to Diet InterventionWeigh to Diet (WTD) employed a newsletter approach and was designed for persons contemplating or preparing to adopt a more healthful lifestyle and prevent weight gain. Six topics were addressed: 1) measurements to determine a healthy body size (body mass index and waist circumference), 2) healthy weight defined with a focus on size acceptance and eating competence, 3) specific eating plans including low carbohydrate and DASH diets (National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 2006), 4) food guide pyramids, 5) physiology of appetite control, and 6) tips for being physically active including stretching exercises. Each topic included items eliciting reflection and content summation as well as Web-based sources for additional information (Lohse, 2003a). Extension agents, high school teachers, school nurses, and community group leaders were targeted as the instructors or presenters. An accompanying leader's guide provided lesson objectives, educational theory base, implementation instructions, community awareness activities, references, and a participant evaluation (Lohse, 2003b). County Extension and community educators were invited to a regional training workshop that included WTD training. Weigh to Diet was included in the work plan of Family and Consumer Science Agents, Kansas State Research and Extension. Extension educators followed usual and customary procedures for participant recruitment and program delivery, including newsletter and newspaper announcements, combinations with other educational opportunities, and small group, classroom, and neighborhood approaches. As directed in the leader's guide, after the intervention, educators administered and then collected and mailed evaluations to the primary author. The two-page participant evaluations solicited comments and ascertained newsletter sections studied and food preference, which served as a proxy for dietary intake (Drewnowksi & Hann, 1999). Pre- and post-education knowledge of body mass index (BMI) and readiness for health oriented lifestyle change were assessed using a retrospective pre-assessment approach. Healthy lifestyle, defined as "having a lifestyle that supports a healthy weight," was examined using a stage of change (SOC) algorithm for self-perceived readiness to adopt a healthy lifestyle. This algorithm is based on a previously validated algorithm for a specific dietary behavior (Ma, Betts, Horacek, Georgiou, White, & Nitzke, 2002). Weigh to Diet was directed to persons in contemplation and preparation stages. Additional information on SOC may be found at <http://www.uri.edu/research/cprc/transtheoretical.htm>.) Surveys were deemed usable if responses were legible and complete, and directions were followed. Occasional item non-response was present for some surveys, but appeared to be randomly distributed; pair wise removal was applied to missing values. Prior to analysis, stages of change were collapsed in to pre- and post-action groups, and BMI status was dichotomized based on Center for Disease Control and Prevention criteria of normal weight (BMI < 25) and overweight (BMI > 25). Group differences were compared using 2-tailed independent t-tests. Means were presented as ± standard deviation. A probability value < 0.05 was considered significant. Data were analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (version 13.0 for Windows, 2004, SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL). Surveys (n=415) were returned from 35 geo-diverse locations. The majority of subjects were in action/maintenance SOC for healthy lifestyle as shown in Table 1; only 28.6% were in our targeted contemplation/preparation stages.
Self-reported BMIs ranged from 19 to 42, with a mean of 26.89 ± 4.36. Overall, 68.5% were classified as overweight, with 89.3% of our target audience (i.e., contemplation/preparation SOC) having a BMI > 25. Prior to the intervention, 62% of participants did not know their BMI. Of the participants without BMI knowledge, 58% indicated knowing their BMI after the intervention. Intervention efficacy was suggested because 60% of our target group (subjects in contemplation/preparation SOC) reported post-intervention knowledge BMI. Overall, fruit, sweets, and meat products were preferred more than vegetables and dairy products. Compared to participants in action/maintenance SOC, subjects in our target audience reported significantly higher preference for high fat dairy products, sweets, and meat and eggs, and a trend for lower preference for fruit (Table 2). Thus, our target audience not only had a high proportion of overweight individuals but also reported preferring less healthy foods.
Implications of Our ReachOur target audience demonstrated a need for this intervention by having a high proportion of overweight and a preference for less healthy foods. In addition, our intervention was shown to benefit the target audience (i.e., increased numbers reported knowing BMI after lesson). However, we were not effective in reaching our intended learners; only 28.6% were in the SOC most closely associated with openness to adopt new, needed behavior change. Traditional Extension recruitment techniques were not specific enough to accomplish our educational objectives. Furthermore, undirected recruitment efforts resulting in inclusion of participants who already practice desired behavior minimize the power of an intervention to demonstrate its effectiveness. Diverting resources to successful programs and removing them from ventures less likely to succeed should be key considerations in managing Extension's limited resources, including any partnerships with education-focused funding organizations. Level of attention heretofore afforded material development must be applied to program delivery; definitive program impact requires assured delivery to the intended audience. Our effort to address the significant public health issue of obesity in Extension education has highlighted the need for Extension to focus research efforts on how to recruit intended (not just convenient) audiences, direct technology resources to securing intended learners, and develop evaluation strategies that assess whether or not intended learners were reached. Grogan (1991) addressed the issue of Extension programming reach 15 years ago, noting that "the future success of Extension will be determined not only by the relevance of its educational programs, but by the extent to which low-income and minority group citizens participate in and consider them valuable." Today, in the climate of obesity-related public health concerns, based on our work with Weigh to Diet, we replace the words "low-income" and "minority group" with "overweight" and "obese" to echo Grogan's challenge. RecommendationsRecommendations for National- and State-Level Extension Leaders
Recommendations for County and Local Extension EducatorsCarefully select and develop materials to match the needs of the intended audience. Brown and Kiernan (1998) employed a communication model to develop and formatively evaluate a home-based osteoporosis prevention program designed for women; this could be applied to weight-management.
ReferencesBairstow, R., Berry, H., & Driscoll, D. M. (2002). Tips for teaching non-traditional audiences. Journal of Extension [On-line], 40(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002december/tt1.shtml Brown, J. L., & Kiernan, N. E. (1998). A model for integrating program development and evaluation. Journal of Extension [On-line], 36(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1998june/rb5.html Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. BMI--Body Mass Index: About BMI for Adults. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/bmi/adult_BMI/about_adult_BMI.htm Drewnowski, A., & Hann, C. (1999). Food preferences and reported frequencies of food consumption as predictors of current diet in young women. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 70, 28-36. Grogan, S. (1991). Targeting audiences for the 21st century. Journal of Extension [On-line], 29(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1991winter/fut1.html Klemme, D., Hausafus, C. O., & Shirer, K. (2005). Extension staff response to increased programming for at-risk audiences. Journal of Extension [On-line], 43(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2005february/a6.shtml Jouridine, L. A., & Green, S. D. (2001). Extending our reach: Strategic opportunities for Cooperative Extension to promote infant health through Sudden Infant Death Syndrome preventative education. Journal of Extension [On-line], 39(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2001june/a8.html Ma, J., Betts, N. M., Horacek, T., Georgiou, C., White, A., & Nitzke, S. (2002). The importance of decisional balance and self-efficacy in relation to stages of change for fruit and vegetable intakes by young adults. American Journal of Health Promotion 16(3), 157-66. Lohse, B. (2003a). Weigh to diet (Fact Sheet). Available at: http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/library/fntr2/samplers/MF2595.asp Lohse, B. (2003b). Weigh to diet (Leader's Guide). Available at: http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/library/fntr2/mf2596.pdf National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. (2006). Your guide to lowering your blood pressure with DASH. Available at: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/heart/hbp/dash/ Robinson, S. F., Anding, J., Garza, B., & Hinojosa, I. (2003). Designing nutrition education programs to reach Mexican American populations. Journal of Extension [On-line], 41(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2003february/iw2.shtml Snow, G., & Benedict, J. (2003) Using social marketing to plan a nutrition education program targeting teens. Journal of Extension [On-line], 41(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2003december/a4.shtml United States Department of Agriculture. Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service strategic plan for FY 2004-2009. Available at: http://www.csrees.usda.gov/about/offices/pdfs/csrees_stratic_plan.pdf Woodson, J. M., & Sgamma, L. C. (1997). The challenge of reaching a culturally diverse audience. Journal of Extension [On-line], 35(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1997june/tt1.html View reader comments for this Commentary in the JOEDiscussion Forum. (This forum is no longer accepting new entries.)
The Change Agent States for Diversity Project: The Catalyst Team ApproachPatreese D. Ingram 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 IntroductionThe 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.
Purpose of the StudyThe 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.
MethodsThe 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. FindingsComposition of the Catalyst TeamResearch 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 TeamResearch 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:
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 TeamResearch 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
Professional Development
Recognition
The following are recommendations that had been approved and were slated for implementation.
The following are recommendations that had been made and were under discussion.
The following are recommendations to strengthen on-going efforts.
Impact of the Catalyst Team on the OrganizationResearch 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:
State Coordinators gave the following reasons for lower impact ratings (Some Impact).
Benefits of Working CollaborativelyResearch 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.
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." SummaryThe 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. ReferencesChange 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 ProjectsJeff Zacharakis 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 TurmoilTo 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.
Although writing from a business perspective, Blackhard and Gibson (2002) noted that opportunities emerge when leaders learn how to capitalize on conflict. They stated:
These points are important to understanding why managed conflict is essential to complex community development projects. The Maquoketa WatershedThe Landscape and Its Environmental ProblemsThe 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 LeaderAs 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 TurmoilEven 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 ConflictMost 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 NeighborsIn 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 FamiliesRural 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 GovernmentWhile 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 AgenciesThe 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 ConflictAlthough 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.
ConclusionsDynamic 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. ReferencesBlackard, 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 WatersD. E. Terlizzi IntroductionIn 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 ProblemEcological 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 EventErnst (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:
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:
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:
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.
OutcomesThe 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 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.
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.
Extension and Environmental AdvocacyOne 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:
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. AcknowledgementsDr. 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. ReferencesAnderson, 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 sa | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
