Editor's Page

In this "Editor's Page" I'm going to call for a particular kind of Commentary submission. But first let me highlight a coincidence in the August issue of JOE.

August JOE

Two of this month's articles, "Health and Safety Behaviors: Reduced Risks Promote Health" and "The Relationship Between Tenure and Non-Tenure Track Status of Extension Faculty and Job Satisfaction," focus on Extension staff, themselves. They address their quality of life and their degree of job satisfaction.

That's coincidence enough. But what's also noteworthy is that both cite--and cite more than once--a JOE article from 1994: "Job Satisfaction and Commitment of 4-H Agents" <http://www.joe.org/joe/1994june/rb2.html>.

In April <http://www.joe.org/joe/2000april/ed1.html> I observed that "JOE works," that "it speaks to the interests of today's Extension professionals and addresses the challenges they face." and it obviously does. These articles are proof.

But speaking of challenges . . .

JOE Is Looking for a Few (More) Good Commentaries

Last issue's Commentary, "The Gift of a New Generation" <http://www.joe.org/joe/2000june/comm1.html>, and this month's, "Addressing Educational Needs of Youth in Today's Society," are good pieces. They're implicitly challenging and thought provoking.

Now we'd like to see something a little more explicit and provocative. In our submission guidelines <http://www.joe.org/sub1.html> we ask for Commentary submissions that "offer a challenge or present a thought-provoking idea on an issue of concern to Extension," that "initiate discussion or debate."

How about it?

The authors of this issue's "Teen Pregnancy Prevention Programs: Linking Research and Practice" say they "found limited science-based information on culturally appropriate practices with Hispanics, African Americans, and Asian Americans" and that "our challenge is to conduct applied research in this multicultural context to identify culturally appropriate practices."

Do we have the resources to do it? Should we shift resources from serving other audiences to meet this challenge? If we do, will we lose our traditional support base? Ought we to care?

What about the issue of advocacy for agriculture?

Biotechnology?

Animal rights (or welfare or well-being)?

Private-sector competition?

The role and value of face-to-face contact in this high and increasingly higher tech era?

Any comments on these or any other of the myriad of issues facing us as Extension professionals today--issues about which we don't always agree? Anything that you could think about and turn into a good Commentary?

Laura Hoelscher, Editor