Past and Anticipated Community Involvement of Master Gardener Trainees

Introduction

Texas Master Gardeners are local community members who are enthusiastic about gardening. One expectation upon completion of the Texas Master Gardner program is that individuals will share their horticultural knowledge with others in the community. After receiving training, participants must volunteer for at least 50 hours of service in the year following their training. The volunteer service is required for certification as Texas Master Gardeners.

Master Gardener volunteers participate in different projects throughout the year. Projects include answering gardening phone calls at the county Extension office, working with 4-H youth, conducting workshops, and planting community gardens (Texas Master Gardener Web site, 2004b). According to the 2003 Texas Master Gardener Annual Report, 5,450 volunteers participated in programs in 110 Texas counties. These volunteers provided a total of 353,643 service hours to Texas Cooperative Extension, equating an economic value of $5.8 million (Texas Master Gardener Web site, 2004a).

With its large number of volunteers and required hours of community service, the Texas Master Gardener program is more or less anecdotally viewed by various Extension personnel as a horticultural program containing elements of community development. Previous research has revealed some support for this idea (Rohs & Westerfield, 1996; Finch, 1997; Schrock, Meyer, Ascher, & Snyder, 2000; Schrock, Meyer, Ascher, & Snyder, 2000a). These studies, which were conducted in Texas, Georgia, and Missouri, asked Master Gardeners to rate their reasons for being involved in the Master Gardener Program. "Community-related" reasons were second only to "access to horticultural knowledge" as reasons for joining and participating in the program.

The study described in this article empirically examined the degree to which the Master Gardner program includes elements indicative of community development. Specifically, we examine the past and anticipated community-level involvement of new Master Gardner trainees. Before describing the methodology and findings, we provide a brief overview of community development.

Community Development

Various definitions have been proposed for the concept of community development. For purposes of this article, community development is defined as a process of building and strengthening the economic and social viability of a community (Theodori, 2005). Two types of development commonly referred to as "development in community" and "development of community" and two broad spheres of activity generally known as "task accomplishment" and "structure building" must be understood when considering how communities change and advance (Summers, 1986; Theodori, 2005; Wilkinson, 1999).

Development in Community and Development of Community

Development in community refers to an approach to bring about improvements, primarily infrastructural enhancements, in the community. Examples include economic growth; modernization; improved service delivery; and business retention, expansion, and recruitment. Development of community is a much broader process than economic development, modernization, improved service delivery, and other developments in the community. This type of development, which focuses on the social aspects of local life, consists of establishing, fostering, and maintaining processes in the community that encourage communication and cooperation between/among individuals, informal groups, and formal organization.

Task Accomplishment and Structure Building

Task accomplishment refers to activities that move people toward specific goals. These activities are generally related to a particular project being conducted by a specific group within the community. Structure building refers to activities that create and foster community-level relationships. These activities are commonly focused on developing and/or strengthening relationships between/among individuals, groups, and organizations within the community, while reducing and/or circumventing the barriers to cooperation, collaboration, and communication.

Methodology

The investigation was part of a larger study that examined the effectiveness of different learning formats in the Master Gardener program. The population for the study was Master Gardener participants in the 107 Texas counties that have active Master Gardener programs. A proportional stratified sample (Borg & Gall, 1989) was drawn to ensure that Master Gardener programs from all 12 Texas Cooperative Extension Districts were appropriately represented. Based on the distribution of programs throughout the state, one test program out of every 10 programs would represent each district. Therefore, 16 test programs statewide were considered for the sample.

Test programs were selected using demographic information provided by the Texas State Data Center. Demographic averages in race, income, and education level were calculated for each Texas Cooperative Extension district. Using the calculated averages, the county program most representative of the district was chosen for inclusion in the study.

Overall, six counties participated in the study, resulting in a response rate of 37.5%. These counties represented four of the 12 Cooperative Extension Districts in Texas. Counties that chose not to participate in the study indicated that their trainings were complete, they did not have an active Master Gardener program, or their trainings were held during the fall.

Data were collected during late spring and early summer 2004 via survey questionnaire and analyzed using the statistical software package SPSS^®. The questionnaire contained three parts. The first section included turfgrass management knowledge and perception questions; the second part consisted of community participation questions; and the third section collected demographic information. Participants were asked to provide information related to their participation in local clubs, groups, and organizations. Other questions asked participants to indicate how they will share their Master Gardener experience with other community members.

Findings

Descriptive statistics were used to identify Master Gardener participants' levels of community activity. As shown in Table 1, 94 individuals participated in the study. Participants were primarily white (97%), married (78%), college educated (86%) females (68%) with a median age of 55 years. Results are sorted by descending frequency counts.

Primary reasons for being involved in the Master Gardener program included the training received (92%), association with other gardeners (70%), and/or to give back to the community (64%) (Table 2).

Participation in community development activities was the variable of interest in the study. Items used to determine participation included answering Extension calls, landscaping projects, demonstration gardening, youth gardening, and speaking engagements.

Forty-four participants indicated they had no previous experience with any of these activities before joining the Master Gardener program. Forty-eight participants indicated they had completed one or more of the activities prior to joining the Master Gardener program. The results indicated some slight differences between those individuals with previous experience and those with no experience. Exactly one-half of the women included in the group had no previous experience, while the majority of male participants had previous experience. Individuals with no past experience reported lower levels of education than those individuals with prior experience. Results are presented in Table 3.

Participants were also asked to indicate if they would participate in the same activities after completion of their Master Gardener training. A comparison of past experience with anticipated behavior is depicted in Table 4.

All individuals indicated that they would participate in some type of activity. The 44 individuals with no past experience were most likely to get involved in landscaping and gardening projects. The results also indicated that individuals were more likely to participate in the same type of activities both prior to and after their Master Gardener training. Speaking engagements-media was the least likely specific activity for individuals to pursue after their training.

Interaction is a keystone of community development (Kaufman, 1959; Wilkinson, 1970, 1999; Theodori, 2005), so individuals were asked to indicate what groups they would share their experiences with in the future. Educational and school groups (62%), environmental groups (53%), youth groups (51%), and church groups (50%) topped the list. While this is significant involvement with others, it does not indicate whether individuals are communicating their experience or just providing their expertise. Results are depicted in Table 5.

A final question asked individuals to indicate if they would continue to share their Master Gardener experience after the required 50 hours of service. Only eight individuals indicated they would not continue to share their experience. All of the individuals were females with some college education. Their primary reason for getting involved in the program was to receive training. Giving back to the community was not a high priority for joining the Master Gardener program. A demographic sketch is provided in Table 6.

Discussion

Several observations can be made by looking at participants' past experience and anticipated experience. First, all respondents anticipated being involved immediately following their training. Individuals with no prior experience anticipated being involved in new activities. Whereas individuals with prior experience were willing to look at new activities, they remained loyal to their previous activity. It is also possible that some individuals did not anticipate deviating from their previous activity.

It is also noted that individuals can and do join the Master Gardener program only for the training and certification. Several participants indicated a projected lack of involvement after the required 50 hours of service. It is likely that these individuals completed the certification process for personal gain and training only.

The overall picture is that Master Gardener program participants do participate in community development activities; however, the nature of this development needs to be further examined. Many Master Gardener activities are geared toward developments in the community rather than development of the community. The focus tends to be on "task accomplishments" (i.e., activities that move people toward specific goals) rather than on "structure building" activities (i.e., activities that establish and maintain community relationships). While individuals are involved, they tend to stay in their "comfort zone" without veering into new areas.

Recommendations related to program implementation seem appropriate to enhance the community development opportunities associated with the Master Gardener program. Procedures should be implemented that would require Master Gardener program trainees to share their experience with someone outside the gardening field of interest during their 50 hours of required service. This would accomplish two things: it would expose more people to the program and it would work toward true development of community. This recommendation would be applicable to Extension programs that use volunteers to disseminate information to the general public.

Conclusion

In the study described here we investigated the degree to which the Master Gardner program includes elements indicative of community development. Specifically, we examined the past and anticipated community-level involvement of new Master Gardner trainees. Future research should be conducted that links anticipated involvement with actual involvement. Future research should also examine prior organizational interaction and make a comparison with anticipated and/or actual sharing of their Master Gardener experience.

The Master Gardener program reaches a large number of Extension clientele each year. The program has the potential to reach an even larger number of individuals through innovative outreach methods. By incorporating procedures that require interaction with community members outside the gardening field of interest, the Master Gardener program can have an even larger and more positive impact on society.

References

Borg, W.R., & Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational research: An introduction (5th ed.). New York: Longman.

Finch, C.R. (1997). Profile of an active Master Gardener chapter. Hort Technology, 7(4), 371-376.

Kaufman, H. F. (1959). Toward an interactional conception of community. Social Forces, 38, 8-17.

Rohs, F.R., & Westerfield, R.R. (1996). Factors influencing volunteering in the Master Gardener program. Hort Technology, 6(3), 281-285.

Schrock, D.S., Meyer, M., Ascher, P., & Snyder, M. (2000). Benefits and values of the Master Gardener program. Journal of Extension [On-line], 38(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2000february/rb2.html

Schrock, D.S., Meyer, M, Ascher, P., & Snyder, M. (2000a). Reasons for becoming involved as a Master Gardener. Hort Technology, 10(3), 626-630.

Summers, G.F. (1986). Rural community development. Annual Review of Sociology, 12, 34-71.

Texas Master Gardener Web site. (2004a). Texas Master Gardener 2003 Annual Report. Retrieved July 26, 2004, from http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/mastergd/2003mgreport.html

Texas Master Gardener Web site. (2004b). Become a Texas Master Gardener. Retrieved July 26, 2004, from http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/mastergd/becomingMG.html

Theodori, G. L. (2005). Community and community development in resource-based areas: Operational definitions rooted in an interactional perspective. Society and Natural Resources, 18, 661-669.

Wilkinson, K.P. (1970). The community as a social field. Social Forces, 48, 311-322.

Wilkinson, K.P. (1999). The community in rural America. Middleton, WI: Social Ecology Press