Improving Extension: Views from Agricultural Deans

This article presents the opinions of the dean of the College of Agriculture at the major land-grant university in each of the 50 states. While the larger study of which this was a part dealt with the effects the farm crisis has had on the land-grant institutions, the following report specifically deals with the deans' views of Cooperative Extension within today's changing economy. Keep in mind, the results are limited because they don't include the views of deans of home economics, forestry, and other colleges.

The principal researcher used a pretested instrument to interview each of the deans by telephone after they'd been contacted by letter. While the average telephone interview was 37 minutes, interviews varied from 19 minutes to two hours. In 44 (86%) of the 50 states, the dean (or acting dean) responded to the interview. Three deans referred us to a vice-president of agriculture and two had the associate dean respond. One dean asked the director of the Agricultural Experiment Station to respond. All 50 respondents were male. The deans had on the average spent 29.2 years in agriculture, with 15.5 years in administration. Most had been department chairmen.

Two of the open-ended questions in the interview specifically dealt with Cooperative Extension. One question asked what role Cooperative Extension had played in responding to the economic problems in the agricultural sector, and the other asked what changes, if any, in Cooperative Extension the respondent would like to see so Extension could become more effective in helping farmers. A summary of the responses to the second open-ended question appears in Table 1.

The administrative relationship between Cooperative Extension and the Colleges of Agriculture differ from state to state. The resulting linkages were of major concern to many deans. A fifth of the deans stated that more integration is needed between Extension and the agricultural colleges. While no deans in the North Central region specifically mentioned this, from a quarter to almost a third of the deans in other regions expressed concern over the "lack of integration."1 As one dean put it, "...Extension specialists are separate from the college. They should be managed by department chairs. This would facilitate joint interaction, joint planning, and teaching which has not worked well in the past. Farm advisers and faculty need to get together more." Suggestions were joint appointments and joint Extension faculty research programs.

Deans who were also heads of Cooperative Extension were uniformly satisfied with the administrative structure at their institution. In contrast, where Extension was administratively separated from the College of Agriculture, dissatisfaction was typically expressed with the organizational structure. For example, a dean of a southern school said, "Cooperative Extension needs to be more closely aligned with the rest of the university. The experiment station does this by joint appointments with the department...but Extension has supervisors in charge of their personnel and they would be better off putting them under the department head...." Another dean reflected this attitude when he said, "This is just a personal view, but the increasing joint staffing of agricultural personnel with specialists is important. The housing of Extension specialists with their counterparts is helpful."

About a third (32%) of the deans expressed the need for more specialists and fewer generalists to upgrade subject-matter competency. This feeling was consistent in each of the four regions. A dean at a larger north central school said, "We have already carried out major restructuring and refocusing of Cooperative Extension. We have clustered counties together so agents can be more specialized. We are putting more people out as area specialists with Ph.D.'s....We found that regular county Extension agents can no longer cope with the high technological nature and specialized nature of farm problems."

Related to this, a fourth (26%) of the deans stated that Cooperative Extension should operate on a multi-county or regional basis. This was of particular concern in the South where it was mentioned by five (39%) of the 13 deans. One dean from a southern state said, "There is a decline in the need for agents in every county and eventually county heads will begin to disappear. Politically this is hard, but the sooner it comes, the better. Get specialists into regional centers, where the farmers go for help - that's the best help." Some deans also expressed concern with the valuable time university researchers were spending providing technical advice to farmers that generalists weren't able to provide.

It should be noted that deans recognized that there's a place for generalists; that, in fact, two different clientele groups are developing. While the full-time commercial farmers may need highly technical expertise, the part-time farmers, who are growing in number, still need help from generalists. Many deans also recognized the high quality of training of many Cooperative Extension personnel. In describing this, one dean mentioned that Extension personnel have tended to see themselves as second-class citizens at the university. The university places so much prestige on the peer review in professional journals that it hurts those in applied research.

Another area of concern was research involvement of Cooperative Extension personnel. A fifth of the deans felt this area needed to be strengthened. This was especially true in the South where four mentioned lack of involvement in research as being a problem. Nine (18%) of the total respondents indicated that Cooperative Extension needs to make more use of high technology, computerizing operations where possible.

Eleven deans (22%) mentioned the need for more social research on the analysis of markets. For example, it was pointed out that it's important to study the social and cultural preferences of minority populations in urban areas to develop new markets for produce. While this type of social research was mentioned by only one dean in the West, it was mentioned by a quarter to a third of the deans elsewhere. The need for Cooperative Extension to do more multidisciplinary research was mentioned by seven (14%) of the deans.

The trend in research at land-grant universities affects Extension programs. Consequently, it's useful to examine how recent economic changes have modified research priorities of Colleges of Agriculture. Deans reported that the farm crisis has affected their research programs and these changes parallel the interests of students. Most (90%) deans reported increased emphasis on basic biotechnology types of research in their colleges, with only one dean reporting an actual decrease in research in this area. Three fourths (76%) reported an increase in research on marketing, and over half observed an increase in research on farm finance (64%) and social research (52%).

In contrast, research in production agriculture declined in 54% of the colleges. Only seven deans (14%) saw an increase in research on production while 16 (32%) witnessed no change. A number of the deans also mentioned the importance of a systems approach in research. "We are integrating what we do into production and economics. For example, in rape2 [cereal crop] production as an alternative crop, we also develop markets for this crop." Another dean pointed out that, "Not enough time is spent on developing alternatives for agriculture....We focus too much on policy or subsidies instead of the total system."

The increase in social research, marketing, business and farm finance, and especially the emphasis placed on research within a systems context bodes well for a closer integration between Cooperative Extension, the experiment stations, and the Colleges of Agriculture in the future. As one dean stated, "In research, we need to move to a systems approach in packaging and modeling in the applied area....This will increase the interaction between Extension persons and faculty."

The increase in biotechnical research may also help define the relationship between Extension and teaching/research faculty. A western dean said, "Cooperative Extension personnel need direct contact with current research. They need to definitely become more specialized. We may find that we need fewer persons [in the counties] and they will need to handle broader [geographic] areas. There will be more emphasis on biotechnical research and they need to keep up. Also, computer technology and information transfer is an important part of this."

Although the deans of agriculture had many suggestions they believed would improve Cooperative Extension, overall they spoke very highly of Extension's role in helping farmers deal with the problems brought on by the farm crisis. The following comment was representative of the attitudes of most respondents. "Cooperative Extension has been very responsive. On short notice, they have been willing to retool to help farmers in management and record keeping. There is immediate need for help now in marketing and stress programs."

When asked what role Cooperative Extension has played in meeting emerging needs of those affected by the farm crisis, 29 deans (58%) mentioned stress management programs. Half emphasized financial planning programs in helping farmers. The University of Minnesota developed a "FINPACK" program that's now used in 30 states. This was frequently mentioned by respondents as being used to help farmers deal with financial management.

Farm management techniques and record keeping were mentioned by 19 (38%) of the deans as being important programs to help farmers deal with the farm crisis. One dean gave a great deal of credit to Cooperative Extension for the excellent support Colleges of Agriculture have received from their state legislatures. However, he also said Cooperative Extension has to modernize for it can't be all things to all people.

Although the importance and recognition of its work in helping to alleviate the farm crisis was recognized, considerable concern over the present role and organization of Cooperative Extension was expressed. The following points were stressed by agricultural deans and administrators of land-grant institutions:

1. A need exists for more specialization and a higher level subject-matter competency within Extension. This was recognized in all four regions.

2. Cooperative Extension should operate more on a regional basis. This was mentioned most frequently by deans in the South.

3. Cooperative Extension needs to make greater use of an agricultural systems approach in research. For example, this could involve carrying out more social analysis of new markets in urban areas or among particular ethnic groups where particular agricultural products could be sold.

4. There's a need for more involvement in research by Extension personnel. This was felt particularly strongly by deans in the South.

5. Cooperative Extension should be closely integrated into Colleges of Agriculture. At many colleges, Cooperative Extension specialists are already under department heads. Where this wasn't the case, deans generally favored the establishment of this type of system.

6. Greater use needs to be made of high technology both in terms of information transfer and use of new computer hardware and software.

7. A need exists for more multidisciplinary work.

Contrary to what a minority of people believe, Cooperative Extension hasn't outlived its usefulness. It is, however, imperative for survival that Cooperative Extension make many of the changes suggested in this article.

1. Here are the states included in each region:

North Central: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin.

North East: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia.

South: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia.

West: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming.

2. A plant whose seeds are used for oil and leaves for animal fodder.