UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Agricultural extension agent roles in Canada and the United States Yeshewalul, Ayele 1982

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1983_A2 Y48.pdf [ 14.59MB ]
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0055869.json
JSON-LD: 1.0055869+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0055869.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0055869+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0055869+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0055869+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0055869 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0055869.txt
Citation
1.0055869.ris

Full Text

AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION AGENT ROLES I N CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES  by AYELE  YESHEWALUL  B . S c , C o l l e g e o f A g r i c u l t u r e , E t h i o p i a , 1957 M . S c , U n i v e r s i t y o f N e b r a s k a , U.S.A., 1959 M.P.A., H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y , U.S.A., 1970 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T OF THE REQUIREMENTS  FOR THE DEGREE OF  DOCTOR OF  EDUCATION  in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Adult We a c c e p t  Education)  t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n as conforming  to the required  standard  THE U N I V E R S I T Y OF B R I T I S H  COLUMBIA  1982 © Ayele Yeshewalul,  1982  In p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of  requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the  the  University  of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make it  f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference  and  study.  I further  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may  be granted by the head of  department or by h i s or her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .  my  It i s  understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain  s h a l l not be allowed without my  permission.  Department o f The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3  DE-6  (3/81)  written  i i  ABSTRACT M o d e r n s o c i e t i e s make v a r i o u s p r o v i s i o n s f o r t h e of  adults  involved  engaged  i n such  depending  it  out  the  country.  agency and t h e c l i e n t e l e  p e r c e p t i o n . and  role  e m p l o y e d by e i t h e r agriculture.  educators  these  adult  titles educators  role  and  carry  t o be a f f e c t e d by t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f  The p u r p o s e o f t h i s  whom t h e y  investigation  performance  a university  Role  framework f o r t h i s an  How  extension workers) perceive t h e i r  appears  employing  Individual adult  e d u c a t i o n a l work a r e known by d i f f e r e n t  upon  (agricultural  in agriculture.  education  theory  study  of  their  serve.  i s to  compare  local  the  extension  role  workers  or a governmental department  was  selected  as  the  because of i t sc a p a c i t y t o  of  conceptual accommodate  e x t e n s i o n worker's p e r c e p t i o n s of e x p e c t a t i o n s regarding h i s  d u t i e s h e l d by h i s e m p l o y e r a n d h i s c l i e n t e l e . The p r o v i s i o n o f a g r i c u l t u r a l (government  model)  Ministries Extension  of  i s primarily  Agriculture.  Service  in  the  extension service a responsibility  In  comparison,  United  States  The were  and c o u n t y  development, a t t i t u d e methods  and  techniques  sources  (university  toward  and e x t e n s i o n  the  model)  Land-Grant  of e x t e n s i o n workers and t h e i r  personal  of  Cooperative  governments.  following aspects  investigated:  Canada  of p r o v i n c i a l  the  i n v o l v e s the F e d e r a l Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , Universities,  in  characteristics,  role  professional  regulatory responsibilities,  information,  choice  functions.  Data  roles  of  use of  methods and  were  obtained  through  a  mail  agriculturalists  questionnaire  study,  the  district  a g e n t s i n Idaho and  county  Washington.  research, w i t h i n the l i m i t a t i o n s  indicate  there  two  variables belief  69  r e s u l t s of t h i s that  d i f f e r e n c e s between in  by  i n A l b e r t a a n d B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , a n d 84  extension a g r i c u l t u r a l The  completed  kinds  were  the a g r i c u l t u r a l of  investigated.  statistically extension  organizational The  most  striking  significant  workers  models  on  of the  employed  most o f t h e  finding  was  the  o f t h e two g r o u p s t h a t p e r f o r m i n g r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s h a s a  negative educators.  effect  on e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r s ' p e r f o r m a n c e a s  Implications  research are discussed.  and  recommendations  for  extension further  iv  TABLE OF CONTENTS  ABSTRACT  i i  TABLE OF CONTENTS  iv  LIST OF TABLES  vii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  xiv  CHAPTER I  1  INTRODUCTION  1  Statement Of The Problem  4  S i g n i f i c a n c e Of The Study  5  Design Of The Study  6  S i t e And Population  7  O r g a n i z a t i o n Of The D i s s e r t a t i o n  9  CHAPTER II  10  BACKGROUND OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICES A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension  10  S e r v i c e In Canada  A l b e r t a A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension  11  Service  16  Scope And Purpose  16  S t r u c t u r e And O r g a n i z a t i o n  20  B r i t i s h Columbia A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension  Service  25  Scope And Purpose  25  S t r u c t u r e And O r g a n i z a t i o n  29  Cooperative  Extension  S e r v i c e In The United  States  .... 34  Scope And Purpose  36  S t r u c t u r e And O r g a n i z a t i o n  45  F e d e r a l Extension The Cooperative  Service  Extension  46 Service  47  V  Idaho C o o p e r a t i v e  Extension Service ..  Washington Cooperative  Extension Service  47 49  Summary  54  CHAPTER I I I  56  THEORETICAL FOUNDATION  56  Role Theory  56  Utility  60  Research  Of R o l e T h e o r y Questions  CHAPTER I V  66 69  RESEARCH DESIGN  69  Data C o l l e c t i o n Procedures  69  D e v e l o p m e n t Of Q u e s t i o n n a i r e  71  Pre-testing  80  Of Q u e s t i o n n a i r e  A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Of Q u e s t i o n n a i r e  82  Field Visits  83  A n a l y s i s Procedures CHAPTER V  84 86  D E S C R I P T I V E CHARACTERISTICS AND REGULATORY DUTIES  86  Personal Characteristics  86  Professional  89  Regulatory  Development  Functions  Summary  108 124  CHAPTER VI  127  METHODS AND EXTENSION ROLE FUNCTIONS  127  M e t h o d s And S o u r c e s Of I n f o r m a t i o n  127  E x t e n s i o n M e t h o d s And T e c h n i q u e s  130  Extension Role  135  Functions  vi  Summary CHAPTER VII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS  177 179 179  Purpose  179  Research Design  181  Findings  182  Conclusions  1 92  Research Question 1  192  Research Question 2  193  Research Question 3  194  Research Question 4  194  Summary  195  An Overview  196  Limitations  198  Implications  200  Recommendations For F u r t h e r Research  202  A Concluding Note  204  BIBLIOGRAPHY  206  APPENDIX I  215  THE QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX II SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES APPENDIX I I I CORRESPONDENCE  215 226 226 283 283  vii  L I S T OF  TABLES  Table 1 '.  Survey  Table  Participation  .  83  2  Distribution Table  Rates  Of R e s p o n d e n t s By Age  87  3  Distribution  Of  Respondents  By  Years  Of  Extension  Experience Table  88  4  Distribution  Of  Respondents  By Y e a r s Of Employment I n  Current P o s i t i o n Table  5  D i s t r i b u t i o n Of Table  88  R e s p o n d e n t s By F u r t h e r F o r m a l  ....  A g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s ' Rankings  F o r P r o f e s s i o n a l And  Of F i e l d Of  In-Service Training  Interest  Programs  95  6b  County Of  Extension Agricultural  Interest  For  Agents'  Professional  And  Ranking  Of  In-Service  Field  Training  Programs Table  95  7  Distribution  Of R e s p o n d e n t s By F r e q u e n c y  Of  Occurrence  Of V a r i o u s P r o f e s s i o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t I d e a s Table  91  6a  District  Table  Study  97  8a  Distribution  And  Mean  Scores  Of  District  vi i i  Agriculturalists'  Agreement W i t h V a r i o u s  Statements  On  A t t i t u d e Towards R e g u l a t o r y F u n c t i o n s ' Table  109  8b  Distribution  And  Mean  Agricultural  Agents'  Scores  Of  Agreement W i t h  County  Extension  Various  Statements  On A t t i t u d e T o w a r d s R e g u l a t o r y F u n c t i o n s Table  111  9  Distribution  Of R e s p o n d e n t s As Members I n P r o f e s s i o n a l  Societies Table  128  10  Distribution  Of  Respondents  By  Reading  Of  Research  Journals  129  T a b l e 11 Distribution  Of  Respondents  By  Frequency  Of  Use  Of  V a r i o u s M e t h o d s And T e c h n i q u e s Table  132  12  D i s t r i b u t i o n Of R e s p o n d e n t s By T h e i r P e r c e i v e d R a t i n g Of The  Importance  Of  Extension  Role  F u n c t i o n s To T h e i r  Organization Table  137  13  D i s t r i b u t i o n Of R e s p o n d e n t s By T h e i r P e r c e i v e d R a t i n g Of The I m p o r t a n c e Of  Extension  Role  Functions  To  Their  Clientele Table  142  14  Distribution Importance Performance  Of Of  Respondents Extension  Role  By  Their  Rating  Functions  For  Of The Role 147  Table  15  Distribution  Of  R e s p o n d e n t s By Time S p e n t On E x t e n s i o n  Role Functions Table  16  Distribution Table  Of R e s p o n d e n t s By F i e l d Of S p e c i a l i z a t i o n  Of R e s p o n d e n t s By U n i v e r s i t i e s A t t e n d e d  .227  ...228  19  Distribution  Of  Respondents  By  Diplomas  Or  Received After Joining Extension Service Table  ..227  18  Distribution Table  Of R e s p o n d e n t s By A c a d e m i c Q u a l i f i c a t i o n  17  Distribution Table  152  Degrees ....229  20  Distribution  Of  Respondents  By  Further  Formal Study  Specialization  229  T a b l e 21 Distribution  Of R e s p o n d e n t s By C o l l e g e s And  Universities  Attended For F u r t h e r Formal Study Table  230  22  Comparison Extension  Of  District  Agricultural  Agriculturalists Agents  On  And  County  Professional  D e v e l o p m e n t I d e a s : L e v e l Of S i g n i f i c a n c e Table  23  Comparison Extension  Of  District  Agricultural  Agriculturalists Agents  D e v e l o p m e n t I d e a s : Oneway ANOVA Table  231  24  On  And  County  Professional 233  X  Comparison  Of  District  Extension  Agricultural  Agriculturalists Agents  On  And  County  Attitude  Towards  Regulatory F u n c t i o n s : L e v e l Of S i g n i f i c a n c e  ....236  Table 25 Comparison  Of  District  Extension  Agricultural  Agriculturalists Agents  On  And  County  Attitude  Toward  Regulatory F u n c t i o n s : Oneway ANOVA  238  Table 26 Distribution  Of  Respondents  By  Membership  In  Professional Societies  241  Table 27 Respondents'  Rankings  of  Sources  Of  Research  Information  242  Table 28 Comparison Extension  Of  District  Agricultural  Agriculturalists Agents  On  And  County  Sources Of Research  Information: L e v e l Of S i g n i f i c a n c e  242  Table 29 Comparison Extension  Of  District  Agricultural  Agriculturalists Agents  On  And  County  Sources Of Research  Information: Oneway ANOVA  243  Table 30 Comparison  Of  District  Extension  Agricultural  Agriculturalists Agents  On  Their  And  County  Ratings  Of  Extension Role F u n c t i o n s : Oneway ANOVA  244  Table 31 Comparison  Of  The  Respondents'  Three  Ratings  Of  E x t e n s i o n T a b l e  R o l e  Of  I m p o r t a n c e  Of  O r g a n i z a t i o n :  I m p o r t a n c e  Of  O r g a n i z a t i o n :  P r o b . )  246  E x t e n s i o n Of  R a t i n g s  R o l e  Of  The  F u n c t i o n s  P e r c e i v e d To  T h e i r  S i g n i f i c a n c e  247  The  R e s p o n d e n t s '  E x t e n s i o n  R a t i n g s  R o l e  Of  The  F u n c t i o n s  P e r c e i v e d To  T h e i r  ANOVA  248  34 Of  I m p o r t a n c e  Of  C l i e n t e l e :  The  R e s p o n d e n t s '  E x t e n s i o n  L e v e l  Of  R a t i n g s  R o l e  Of  The  F u n c t i o n s  .  P e r c e i v e d To  T h e i r  S i g n i f i c a n c e  251  35  C o m p a r i s o n  Of  I m p o r t a n c e  Of  C l i e n t e l e :  The  R e s p o n d e n t s '  E x t e n s i o n  R a t i n g s  R o l e  Oneway  ANOVA  Of  R e s p o n d e n t s '  Of  The  F u n c t i o n s  P e r c e i v e d To  T h e i r 252  36  C o m p a r i s o n Of  R e s p o n d e n t s '  Oneway  C o m p a r i s o n  T a b l e  (F  33 Of  T a b l e  The  L e v e l  C o m p a r i s o n  T a b l e  ANOVAR  32  C o m p a r i s o n  T a b l e  F u n c t i o n s :  The  E x t e n s i o n  R o l e  F u n c t i o n s  R a t i n g s To  Of  The  I m p o r t a n c e  T h e m s e l v e s :  L e v e l  Of  S i g n i f i c a n c e T a b l e  37  C o m p a r i s o n Of T a b l e  255  Of  E x t e n s i o n  The R o l e  R e s p o n d e n t s '  R a t i n g s  F u n c t i o n s  T h e m s e l v e s :  To  Of  The  I m p o r t a n c e  Oneway  ANOVA  38  C o m p a r i s o n E x t e n s i o n  Of  D i s t r i c t  A g r i c u l t u r a l  A g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s A g e n t s  On  W i t h  C o u n t y  P r o f e s s i o n a l  256  Development  Ideas: T-Test  259  T a b l e 39 Comparison  Of  Extension  Agricultural  Regulatory  District  Functions:  Agriculturalists Agents  On  With  Attitude  County Towards  T-Test  261  T a b l e 40 Comparison Extension  Of  District  Agricultural  Agriculturalists Agents  I n f o r m a t i o n : Oneway ANOVA  On  With  County  S o u r c e s Of R e s e a r c h  (Between C o u n t r i e s )  264  T a b l e 41 Comparison Extension  Of  The  Respondents'  Three  Ratings  Of  R o l e F u n c t i o n s : ANOVAR  265  T a b l e 42 Comparison Extension And  Of  District  Agriculturalists  With  A g e n t s By F r e q u e n c y Of Use Of V a r i o u s  County Methods  Techniques: Chi-square  274  T a b l e 43 Comparison Extension  Of  District  Agricultural  Agriculturalists  With  A g e n t s B a s e d On R a t e d  County  Efficiency  Of V a r i o u s Methods And T e c h n i q u e s : C h i - S q u a r e  275  T a b l e 44 Comparison Extension  Of  District  Agricultural  Agriculturalists  With  County  A g e n t s By Time Spent On E x t e n s i o n  Role F u n c t i o n s : Chi-square  276  T a b l e 45 Distribution  Of R e s p o n d e n t s  B a s e d On R a t e d E f f i c i e n c y Of  V a r i o u s Methods And T e c h n i q u e s  277  xi i i  T a b l e 46 D i s t r i b u t i o n Of Respondents By E x t e n s i o n R o l e As Ranked By Mean S c o r e s  Functions 280  xiv  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS No author and  researcher  have h a d f i n e r c o o p e r a t i o n t h a n  r e c e i v e d from t h e d i s t r i c t  agriculturalists  B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a ; and from t h e county  agents  in  Idaho  v a l u a b l e time  and  Washington,  researcher expresses  essential  i n c a r r y i n g out the study.  Division  of  Alberta  Agriculture,  B r i t i s h Columbia M i n i s t r y  to  Extension  Mr. John  Extension The his  The  of  ten  their  district  i n the pre-testing and h e l p f u l .  and  institutions  The s t a f f  The  Agriculture  was  at the Extension  the Extension and  Service  Food,  of  and t h e  S e r v i c e of t h e U n i v e r s i t i e s of Idaho and  W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e were most h e l p f u l . goes  shared  a p p r e c i a t i o n t o a l l o f them.  c o o p e r a t i o n o f many i n d i v i d u a l s  Cooperative  willingly  were v e r y c o o p e r a t i v e  his fullest  in Alberta agricultural  i n A l b e r t a , who p a r t i c i p a t e d  the questionnaire  The  who  this  extension  t o complete the q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  agriculturalists of  could  G. C a l p a s ,  Particular  Director  acknowledgement  of A l b e r t a A g r i c u l t u r e  Division. researcher g r a t e f u l l y acknowledges h i s indebtedness  dissertation  benefited  greatly  Professor  supervisory from  the  James F. R i c h a r d s  encouragement and u n t i r i n g of a busy s c h e d u l e ,  helpful  m a t e r i a l s on  extension  of  invaluable in  in  The  advice  shaping  the  researcher  and  help  study.  of His  r e a d i n e s s t o h e l p , even i n t h e m i d d l e  are appreciated.  particularly  appreciate  committee.  to  identifying  i n Canada.  Dr.  George  Winter  was  r e p o r t s and other u s e f u l The  researcher  i s also  D r . LeRoy T r a v i s ' h e l p f u l c r i t i c i s m and guidance  XV  in d e a l i n g w i t h the t h e o r e t i c a l The  researcher  is grateful  A c c o u n t s Manager, f o r her in  resolving  the  also expressed  framework. to  constant  computing  Ms.  J . M.  support  Kapelus,  and  efficient  f a c i l i t i e s need.  t o Dr. M a l c o l m G r i e g ,  Senior  Computer actions  Appreciation i s  Analyst,  for  i n v a l u a b l e c o n s u l t a t i o n i n u s i n g t h e SPSS p r o g r a m t o a n a l y z e research A  the  data. vote  family  his  of  for  thanks  their  goes  warm  to  Professor K j e l l  hospitality.  Rubenson  Professor  and  Rubenson's  ecouragement i s g r e a t l y acknowledged. The  concern  A l b e r s and and  and  J a n D.  their  encouragement  Nuquist  families  A  special  vote  my  c o l l e a g u e s Jo  i s also gratefully appreciated.  were  hospitable surroundings.  of  extremely To  helpful  them warm and  of  thanks  and  a f f e c t i o n a t e thanks.  goes  to  my  b r o t h e r - i n - l a w Dr.  my  P u p i , f o r t i m e l y encouragement,  assistance  Hamere and  successfully Above  this  S.  support  so  a l l  this  researcher  t o an o u t s t a n d i n g Griffith,  study  possible.  immeasurable p e r s o n a l Finally,  this  this  Habte,  undertaking  the  study  wishes to express  scholar  whose p a t i e n c e , The  and  untiring might  be  and  teacher,  interest  resultant  and  his sincere Professor  g u i d a n c e made  experiences  are  of  acknowledge  the  value. researcher  g o v e r n m e n t s of E t h i o p i a and made  that  Demissie  sister,  completed.  appreciation William  and  They  provided  Sablewongel Yeshewalul, nieces  Ann  possible.  wishes  to  Canada f o r t h e i r c o l l a b o r a t i o n w h i c h Appreciation  is  expressed  to  xvi  Mr.  A.  F.  Shirran l o r his cooperation  and  warmness.  xvii  To my always s u p p o r t i v e parents W/Yemenushal Damtew G/Yeshewalul Melke Tsedik  •1  CHAPTER I  INTRODUCTION  [ A g r i c u l t u r a l ] development...is not a matter of isolated p l a n s and s t a t i s t i c s , t a r g e t s and b u d g e t s , t e c h n o l o g y a n d m e t h o d , m a t e r i a l and p r o f e s s i o n a l staff, or administrative agencies and o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Rather, i t i s an e f f e c t i v e u s e o f t h e s e e d u c a t i o n a l means f o r c h a n g i n g t h e minds and a c t i o n s of p e o p l e so t h e y h e l p t h e m s e l v e s . Hence, t h e p r o c e s s i s one o f w o r k i n g w i t h p e o p l e , n o t f o r them; of helping p e o p l e become s e l f - r e l i a n t , n o t dependent; of making people the actors i n the drama, not t h e s p e c t a t o r s ; i n s h o r t , of h e l p i n g p e o p l e p u t u s e f u l k n o w l e d g e t o work for them [linking action problems with knowledge r e s o u r c e s o r t e c h n o l o g y t r a n s f e r ] . This i s the essence of [agricultural] extension... ( L e a g a n s , 1963 : 6) An  agricultural  and a c a t a l y s t Extension's  extension service  i s an a g e n c y  f o r i n d i v i d u a l and group a c t i o n  fundamental methods  characteristic to  (Mulcahy,  has  been  to  adapt  and  demands.  One o f i t s v a l u e s c e n t e r s i n i t s p h i l o s o p h y , t o a s s i s t  a s an e c o n o m i c educational (1949  and  or  : 176) c a u t i o n t h a t  assume  that  educational  conditions  and  T h i s a s s i s t a n c e c a n be d e l i v e r e d ( 1 )  technical  service;  ever-changing  1979).  programs  people to help themselves.  meet  f o r change  (3)  service; both.  (2)  as  a  social  However, Brunner  " t h e r e i s no g r e a t e r m i s t a k e  technical  'know-how' w i l l  'know-how'  unaided  s o l v e the problems  by  and  a n d Yang than  social  to and  of t h e farmers of  the w o r l d . " Agricultural  extension services  i n t h e w o r l d have  commonly  2  been  provided  either  directly  by  government  a g r i c u l t u r e o r by c o l l e g e s a n d u n i v e r s i t i e s a government department of organizational America J 1 ) . university The  models f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l  These  Government Model  extension exist  the  :  i n North  government  the a g r i c u l t u r a l  extension  function  activities.  and  Williams  (1968  services  the  extension service  with  The  other  These  :  responsibilities  regulatory  innovations, educational  but one,  Britain  activities  of  services  (p.131).  may  the  contribute  there  be  may  which  well  contribute  argues  substantially is  primarily  these  activities  on  Some a d u l t e d u c a t o r s activities  In t h i s study, North S t a t e s of America.  agricultural  to an  range of  educational  t h a t s t u d i e s a r e needed t o determine  regulatory  of r e g u l a t o r y  extension  States,  a more l i m i t e d to  between  institutions.  United  purpose  He s u g g e s t s  effects  and  " i f extension's  regulatory a c t i v i t i e s purposes."  teaching  1 3 0 ) , who s t u d i e d t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l  in Australia,  model  government  establishing appropriate professional relations  t h e e x t e n s i o n s e r v i c e and r e s e a r c h and  (1)  prominent  by a d e p a r t m e n t o f a g r i c u l t u r e .  i n s p e c t i o n and r e g u l a t o r y  effect  two  with  models.  incorporates  that  i n co-operation  They may be d e s c r i b e d a s t h e  is provided d i r e c t l y  involve  agriculture.  departments of  the  extension  have a l s o q u e s t i o n e d t h e  on a g r i c u l t u r a l  A m e r i c a means Canada  extension  and  the  work.  United  3  B r u n n e r and  Yang  (1949  : 182)  asserted that:  The Extension worker i s an e d u c a t o r . He s h o u l d have no r e g u l a t o r y o r p o l i c e d u t i e s . These f u n c t i o n s a r e utterly incompatible. When f o r purposes of economy they are combined...education always s u f f e r s . The  U n i v e r s i t y M o d e l : The  Cooperative  Extension Service i s  provided  in a cooperative financial  arrangement  federal  department  the l a n d - g r a n t  and  the  county  intentionally from the l i s t this  model  government  excluded  It  grew  f a c t o r s between  has the  Another d i s t i n g u i s h i n g one  The  out  of  model  personnel.  :  i n the  The  university factor  is  a  United  19th  absence a s one  and  the  of  of t h e  b a s e d and  the other  of t h e s e  i s the e f f e c t  agricultural  producers  primary  t h e r o l e p e r c e p t i o n and  i n d i v i d u a l adult educators  who  are working  of t h e n a t i o n .  of  models.  models i s the  the  the  States  distinguishing  Of  f o r m s of o r g a n i z a t i o n on  land-  regulatory  government  b e t w e e n t h e two  university  of a d u l t e d u c a t i o n  In  century.  i n an e x e c u t i v e d e p a r t m e n t o f g o v e r n m e n t . field  has  t h e need f o r t h e a p p l i c a t i o n  been r e g a r d e d  i s land-grant  extension  which  knowledge i n a g r i c u l t u r e  responsibilities  the  universities  o r g a n i z a t i o n i s a p a r t of the  system concept,  Distinguishing Factors  that  sponsors.  which  t h e p e r f o r m a n c e of r e g u l a t o r y f u n c t i o n s  extension  grant u n i v e r s i t i e s  scientific  are  of r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the  innovation.  of a g r i c u l t u r e ,  in  i s based  concern  two  to  distinct  performance  directly  fact  with  of the  4  Statement of the The  agricultural  institution conducted  which  extension  provides  primarily  Problem s e r v i c e i s an a d u l t  informal,  beyond  non-credit  conceptualized  as  m e t h o d o l o g y ; and  i t i s t y p i c a l l y research-based  of  communication  those  between  functional  component  links  is  o f an e x t e n s i o n  country.  guiding principle  client  needs  philosophy  of  implemented It  has  to  be  in  is  workers employed i n Prior  by  of problems  aspect  unexplored: organization individual  on  agricultural  i s "helping a  any  people  Service  has  been  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l models. agricultural  agricultural and  university  extension models.  e x t e n s i o n s e r v i c e have a l s o d e a l t  related  differential  the r o l e  in  The  the  of the a g r i c u l t u r a l  the  crucial  research p r i o r i t i e s .  to  agricultural  w i t h i n s y s t e m s b a s e d on e a c h m o d e l .  important  the  which  d i s s e m i n a t i o n of  effective  government  s t u d i e s of a g r i c u l t u r a l  with a variety work  conducted both  is  by  and  for  Extension  that  and  conduit  N o r t h A m e r i c a u n d e r two  work  process  t o s e r v e as  into  reported  content  practices  of e x t e n s i o n  translated  widely  The  agricultural  i t strives  Agricultural  been  extension  and  been  engaged i n r e s e a r c h  system f o r e f f e c t i v e of  I t has  with a free flow  operationalized  information  to help themselves",  program  producation.  k n o w l e d g e and The  in  individuals  engaged i n a g r i c u l t u r a l  these  education  the formal c l a s s r o o m .  educational  education  However, a t l e a s t  e x t e n s i o n s e r v i c e has  effect  p e r c e p t i o n and extension  extension  of role  worker.  the  two  forms  performance of  one gone of the  5  Most  developing  their agriculture. traditional  nations'  Their total  s e c t o r and  increase productivity new  ideas  and  In  development  of  n a t i o n s choose between t h e s e  two  rigorous  analysis  p e r f o r m a n c e and extension  economy i s made up  in agriculture  practices.  the  of  r e q u i r e s the  establishing the  knowledge  in  agricultural  differential  of  role  this  The  large  effort  extension  the  to of  appropriate  some  for  developing  effects  level  on  of  any  on  the  agricultural  perceptions workers  and  establishment  According  for  extending  adult  education role".  concerned  To  employed  application  education : 266),  in  to  explore  the  performance  of  t h e two  of  kinds  not  be e f f e c t i v e ,  The  particularly  of t h i s new  Study  in  extension service l a i d agriculture  e x t e n s i o n denotes the  resources"  w i t h the adoption  serving their c l i e n t e l e . is  role  o f an a g r i c u l t u r a l  t o Boone (1970  "educational  is  models.  foundation  itself  field  dissertation  S i g n i f i c a n c e of the  be  a  models, i n the absence  their  extension  organizational  of  of  (information)  agriculture,  r o l e p e r c e p t i o n of the  purpose  differences  the  depend  worker.  The  The  conditions  v e r y s m a l l modern s e c t o r .  e x t e n s i o n system to disseminate promoting  economic  o f new  and  service  "process  stands  for  r u r a l adult educators  must  agricultural practices in  generation  of  v a l u a b l e to the  k n o w l e d g e and  to-day.  the  new  knowledge  farmers;  integration  in  i t i s the of  these  6  new has  findings  i t s i m p a c t on f a r m e r s .  choose  The  aspects of a g r i c u l t u r e which  problem,  however,  i s how  b e t w e e n t h e two o r g a n i z a t i o n a l m e c h a n i s m s t h a t  established desired  f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l extension  role  agricultural This  perception extension  and  so  as  performance  to  of  produce  the  the  individual  worker.  b e t w e e n t h e two N o r t h A m e r i c a n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  agricultural  perception  and  extension  extension  performance  worker.  to  h a v e been  s t u d y i s a modest e f f o r t t o w a r d s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f  differences for  into the operational  in  terms  of  the  the  models  o f t h e i r i m p a c t on r o l e individual  The f i n d i n g s o f t h i s  agricultural  s t u d y may s e r v e  several  purposes. 1.  They w i l l  agricultural 2.  They  make a v a i l a b l e extension  will  some  work c a n be  identify  and  better  their  ultimately  contribute  efficiency  i n extension  roles. to  agents  work.  t r a i n i n g programs t o h e l p  understand  which  organized.  The f i n d i n g s c a n a l s o be u s e d a s a g u i d e i n conducting  by  and a n a l y z e t h e r o l e s t h a t  p e r f o r m a n d may assume i n e x t e n s i o n 3.  perspectives  extension  Such  increased  developing workers  training  effectiveness  may and  work.  Design of t h e Study The for  researcher  used r o l e t h e o r y as a t h e o r e t i c a l  examining d i f f e r e n c e s  agricultural  extension  i n role perception workers  foundation  and performance  employed w i t h i n  of  t h e government  7  and  the u n i v e r s i t y models.  which  were  discussed Six  reviewed  The  r e l e v a n t l i t e r a t u r e and  to develop  the  framework f o r the study  major  variables  were  selected  i n r o l e p e r c e p t i o n and  as  potentially  role  performance  factors  of a g r i c u l t u r a l  e x t e n s i o n workers employed w i t h i n the  the u n i v e r s i t y models.  include:  personal  The  and  sources  methods  and  techniques,  of  questionnaire designed i n Chapter  and  of  The  conducted data  were  obtained  characteristics  the  adjacent of  of  states.  s e r v i c e s by  similar  f o r t h e two  in order  the U n i t e d  States  Alberta,  British  in  researcher  assumed  the general  agricultural  provinces  and  the  similar  responses  T h e s e p r o v i n c e s and  the  two needs  to  the  s t a t e s were  to:  i n t o account  r e s e a r c h e r who minimize  The  these v a r i a b l e s i s  the c l i e n t e l e as w e l l as s i m i l a r  selected  2.  functions,  functions.  Thus, these c o n d i t i o n s g e n e r a t e  the e x t e n s i o n workers.  take  The  c l i e n t e l e and  n e e d s by  1.  t h e d a t a on  i n Canada and  Washington.  t o be  development,  Population  C o l u m b i a , I d a h o and  circumstances  role  study  IV.  r e s e a r c h was  America.  for  regulatory  extension  to c o l l e c t  government  selected  professional  information,  S i t e and The  variables  characteristics,  methods  described  are  i n Chapter I I I .  distinguishing  and  studies  the  geographical  proximity  i s l o c a t e d i n Vancouver, B r i t i s h  t h e c o s t and  time  to  the  Columbia,  to conduct the r e s e a r c h ,  and  8  3.  take  i n t o a c c o u n t any d i f f e r e n c e s  agricultural between To of  the  extension  services  between  a p i c t u r e as  agricultural  and  of  district  extension  factors  beyond  agriculturalists  agricultural  systems  agents  by  functions  in  Canada,  and  However,  Idaho, The  and  British  Washington, Columbia home  and  as  4-H  function  Development B r a n c h under (British  Annual Report,  a g e n t s who  county  as  the  and  4-  services  is  performed  the S p e c i a l i s t  Columbia  Ministry  and  though  Regional  not  Extension  economics part  of  in  agents;  the  Regulatory  Youth Service  o f A g r i c u l t u r e and  Food,  1980). a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s and c o u n t y e x t e n s i o n a g r i c u l t u r a l  s a t i s f i e d the f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a  were  selected  for  study: 1.  were  employed  as d i s t r i c t  extension a g r i c u l t u r a l 2.  a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s and  had had two o r more y e a r s  criteria  served  as  county  a g e n t s ; and of  'experience  as  a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s or county e x t e n s i o n a g r i c u l t u r a l These  the  extension  Home E c o n o m i c s  S e r v i c e had e l i m i n a t e d t h e s e r v i c e s o f  District  reduce  t h e s e agents a r e p a r t of a g r i c u l t u r a l e x t e n s i o n ' s  Columbia.  Division  to  possible  e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r s , known  i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s .  in Alberta,  the  and  the scope of t h i s s t u d y , the d a t a  H a g e n t s were e x c l u d e d f r o m t h i s s t u d y . performed  of  states.  were o b t a i n e d f r o m t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l  this  provinces  o b t a i n a s b r o a d and c o m p r e h e n s i v e  influence  British  in administration  a  basis  for  eliminating  district agents. the  less  9  e x p e r i e n c e d agents from the  study.  O r g a n i z a t i o n of the D i s s e r t a t i o n The United III  background States  of  of e x t e n s i o n America  i s discussed  i s concerned w i t h the t h e o r e t i c a l  Chapter  f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s , and  in  the  Canada  and  i n Chapter I I .  foundation  IV d e s c r i b e s the r e s e a r c h d e s i g n  V and VI d i s c u s s t h e f i n d i n g s f r o m  VII.  services  study.  Chapter  for this  adopted, w h i l e A  i m p l i c a t i o n s are set f o r t h  the  study.  Chapters  summary  of  i n Chapter  10  CHAPTER I I  BACKGROUND OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICES As role  a  first  step  i n the study of the r o l e  performance of t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l  within  the  extension  two m o d e l s f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l  perception  workers  extension  and  employed  service,  this  chapter w i l l  r e v i e w t h e scope and p u r p o s e , and t h e s t r u c t u r e and  organization  of a g r i c u l t u r a l  government model. the  model,  The c h a p t e r two  extension the  and  in  extension the  i s divided  different  services  United  into  two  organizational  in  States, sections.  models  section  (1)  the  agricultural  the  the u n i v e r s i t y Because  for  s e r v i c e , t h e f o r m a t o f t h e two s e c t i o n s  first  Canada,  of  agricultural differs.  extension  In  service in  Canada i s r e v i e w e d b r i e f l y ;  (2) t h e scope and p u r p o s e ,  and  structure  of the A l b e r t a A g r i c u l t u r e  Extension  Service  and o r g a n i z a t i o n  are discussed;  structure Extension scope United  and  organization  Service  and  organization  are of  discussed; the  Federal  Extension  Service,  Cooperative  Extension  Service  in  Service  and  In the second s e c t i o n  of t h e C o o p e r a t i v e E x t e n s i o n  Cooperative  Extension  purpose,  the  of the B r i t i s h Columbia A g r i c u l t u r e  are presented.  purpose  States  and (3) t h e scope and  the  are presented.  and  (2)  the  Extension in and This  Service  Service;  the Washington  and  the  the  i n the  structure  particular,  and the Idaho  Cooperative  background w i l l  u n d e r s t a n d i n g how t h e two m o d e l s d e v e l o p e d  (1)  i n North  be u s e f u l America.  11  Agricultural The in  E x t e n s i o n S e r v i c e i n Canada  Canadian F e d e r a l Department of A g r i c u l t u r e  1867,  the year  Publication  department  organized consisting  demonstration,  No.  1123,  and of  1975).  inaugurated  trains  travelling  a  equipped  across  s a m p l e s o f good s e e d s t o f a r m e r s  1906  Keesing,  Instruction  Act  June  Federal  and  The  Act  "aiding  i n d u s t r y by  agriculture..." encouragement  The "to  purpose  of  agriculture  and  permanent b e n e f i t w i l l  and  demonstration  the  c a r r i e d on a l o n g  nature"  financial  a s s i s t a n c e to the p r o v i n c e s  "for  (Report with not  ( S t a t u t e s , 1913,  the purpose of s u p p l e m e n t i n g  agricultural  a  education  on A g r i c u l t u r a l lack  and  to  his  i n q u i r i n g of p o s s i b l e s o u r c e s ,  give  instruction  The  extending  However, such  Act  the  improvement of  of  after  a  granted years  work  of  agriculture"  : 5).  m a t e r i a l , the  in  [so t h a t ] great  Confronted  investigator  s t a t u s of the Act a f t e r  satisfaction.  to  education,  1915  for  instruction  f o r a p e r i o d of ten  and  the  passed  was  : J35).  Instruction Act,  able to e s t a b l i s h the  period  c.5  f o r the  of r e l e v a n t s o u r c e  in  l i n e s w e l l d e v i s e d and  continuous  to  Agricultural  was  Act  through  at  and  milestone  in a l l provinces  result  stopping  Government  development of Canadian A g r i c u l t u r e . farming  for  ( P a r l i a m e n t of C a n a d a ,  a  the  extension  i t s control,  was  advancing  6,  the  materials  1913  and  of  The  (Canada  1906,  special  Canada,  exhibit  1965).  In  with  s p e c i f i e d p o i n t s t o e x p l a i n wheat smut and  and  formed  of C o n f e d e r a t i o n , w i t h l i m i t e d p o w e r s  Agriculture  campaign  was  the  ten  searching  as the U n i v e r s i t y  of  was year and  British  12  C o l u m b i a Law British  Library  Columbia  and  Faculty  Regional  Canada  Agriculture  Canada R e g i o n a l O f f i c e  Act  expired  period  the  and  was  not  Regional  Constitution  a l l o c a t e s the provinces.  sharing and  the  of  Service Office  i n V i c t o r i a , and  Agriculture  concluded  the  end  been c l e a r l y  of  that  the  ten  year  the  established.  (Constitution  practice,  both  levels  Acts,  1867  to  of g o v e r n m e n t  work i n a g r i c u l t u r a l d e v e l o p m e n t .  responsibilities  Victoria,  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for a g r i c u l t u r a l extension  In  Provincial  in  Vancouver,  extended at  Canada  Sciences,  in  investigator  f o r r e a s o n s w h i c h have not  The 1982)  i n Ottawa, the  Agricultural  Extension  Agriculture  Canada L i b r a r y  Pacific  of  Departments  of  for inspection  and  Both the  Agriculture regulatory  to are  Federal  also  have  activities  in  agriculture. An Federal  Experimental Department  discovering and  the  Farms  of  S y s t e m had  Agriculture  (Canada A g r i c u l t u r e Department  agricultural  Publication of  to  Report,  1977  reported p e r c e n t of research  farmer  and  : 210-215).  that  the  its and  1886  No.  his  as  various  of  their  1123,  1975  c o n d u c t s 51  cycle  application  activities as  to  of  Branch  extension.  by  the  means  of  regions, resources"  :  5).  The  p e r c e n t of  " i n extension  i t "  the work  between r e s e a r c h ,  A Canada A g r i c u l t u r e Research  a  of  i s involved  to break the  Federal  extension  b e s t use  Agriculture  r e s e a r c h p r o g r a m and  because i t i s d i f f i c u l t transfer  "in  agricultural possibilities  to a s s i s t farmers i n making the  Federal  been e s t a b l i s h e d  its  (Task  Force  Task F o r c e  (1977)  devotes The  link  being a necessary condition  about  5  between for  the  13  a p p l i c a t i o n and a d o p t i o n also  been  emphasized  of improved a g r i c u l t u r a l in  A g r i c u l t u r e Canada (1977 :  that  same  Task  technology  Force  report  has by  222):  ...until research is applied through effective extension, i t has no actual economic significance. On t h e o t h e r h a n d , e x t e n s i o n , without t h e backup a f f o r d e d by the scientists and e n g i n e e r s , has very limited potential. The  F e d e r a l Department of A g r i c u l t u r e  extension  role  I t s main  role  appraisal  of  In  Where  1932,  such  the  Services  Federal  a  farm o r r e s e a r c h  extension  has  been  limited station. " i n the  system, and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of  deficiencies  exist,...to  indicate  1977 : 2 1 5 ) .  government e s t a b l i s h e d t h e Canadian  Coordinating  Committee  (CASCC)  as  the  f e d e r a l - p r o v i n c i a l c o o r d i n a t i o n mechanism i n a g r i c u l t u r a l  matters 1977  agricultural  (Task F o r c e R e p o r t ,  Agricultural major  in  t h e whole e x t e n s i o n  deficiencies. solutions"  a t each e x p e r i m e n t a l  performs  (Task F o r c e R e p o r t ,  1977).  CASCC  (Task  Force  Report,  : 252) i s p r i m a r i l y r e s p o n s i b l e t o : coordinate the t o t a l n a t i o n a l e f f o r t toward the economic and s o c i a l development of the agricultural i n d u s t r y and t o promote t h e optimum utilization of manpower and financial resources w i t h i n and between t h e various operational agencies.  Since  1964 t h e CASCC h a s been s p o n s o r i n g  Agricultural The for  Services Coordination  p r o v i n c i a l and r e g i o n a l  Committees.  p r o v i n c i a l Departments of A g r i c u l t u r e  agricultural  extension  are  s e r v i c e s and p r o v i d e  responsible  the  necessary  14  link The  between the departments  particular provinces  interest  Canadian  agriculture,  assume to  a  Columbia  province  of  responsible  extension  work  conduct  program  (Task  research  and  only  as  for  the e f f o r t s vary  Sciences,  amount  of r e s e a r c h  f e d e r a l sources  vary  functions  originate  Akinbode,  1969;  i n h i s study  characteristics with  of  to  among  of  district  of the Their grants  instruction of  limited The  national  research  involvement they to  regulatory  from  province. activities.  and  primary  functions  Transition,  1979-80).  in  (Job,  1970;  Akinbode  and  (1969  and  agriculturalists,  asserted  that  f i e l d worker i n these  their  : 5-65)  "the  b r a n c h e s must  to educational a c t i v i t i e s . "  T r a n s i t i o n , 1970  :  socio-economic  Columbia  ( T r a d i t i o n and  in  receive  A l b e r t a Government Study of a l l A g r i c u l t u r a l E x t e n s i o n Alberta  British  British  f u n c t i o n which the  of  activity.  r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the  farmers  faculties  conduct a  from p r o v i n c e  their  perform i s undoubtedly a b a r r i e r  that:  of  i n a l l D i v i s i o n s of M i n i s t r y of  Tradition  the  do  auxiliary  1977).  A l b e r t a A g r i c u l t u r e Annual Report,  in  1964).  research  the U n i v e r s i t y  an  Report,  A g r i c u l t u r e , as an a d j u n c t  policing  (Allin,  for residential  government model i n c o r p o r a t e s  Extension  contacts  farmer  particular  a b o u t 30 p e r c e n t  Force the  p r o v i n c i a l and  5),  and  in  F a c u l t y of A g r i c u l t u r a l  The  the  responsibility  Some o f them, s u c h as  universities  1965;  and  universities,  are  research.  amount  also  agencies  accordingly.  The  and  research  An  Services  recommended  15  A conscious effort h a s t o be made to consolidate a l l extension a c t i v i t i e s within the Extension Division [so t h a t ] other D i v i s i o n s w o u l d be f r e e d t o c o n c e n t r a t e upon r e g u l a t o r y and n o n - e x t e n s i o n f u n c t i o n s . The D i s t r i c t duties, land  Agriculturalist  such as p l a n n i n g  clearing  or  h a s a l s o been g i v e n  and g r a n t i n g  draining  has  farm c r e d i t , ensuring  been  done  r e g u l a t i o n s , and i m p l e m e n t i n g p r o v i n c i a l and  policy  Associates, Associates  administration  i n compliance  and  federal  (Task F o r c e R e p o r t ,  1979; a n d E x t e n s i o n (1979 : 4) b e l i e v e d  additional  Perspectives,  that with  programs  1977; W i n t e r and  n.d.).  W i n t e r and  that:  T h e s e r e g u l a t o r y a c t i v i t i e s may o c c a s i o n a l l y impair the image of the district agriculturalist i n the farm community. I n s t e a d of being regarded as a source of help and information, he i s sometimes c o n s i d e r e d t o be a 'programme p o l i c e m a n ' . Lamble ambiguity also  (1980 : 1 3 3 ) , i n h i s s t u d y o f r o l e c o n f l i c t  i n the Extension  found out t h a t  aspects  of  recommended  their  D i v i s i o n of A l b e r t a A g r i c u l t u r e ,  "[District  concerned with c o n f l i c t s  between  job".  and r o l e  He  has  A g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s ] are e s p e c i a l l y the (1980  educational : 133,139)  and  service  identified  that:  Program and p o l i c y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ... c a n and does c o n f l i c t with the educational a s p e c t o f e x t e n s i o n and t h e s e l f - i m p r o v e m e n t of t h e e x t e n s i o n a g e n t s ; [ a n d ] c o n s i d e r a t i o n [ s h o u l d ] be g i v e n to reassigning District Agriculturalist duties which are p r i m a r i l y of a s e r v i c e or a d m i n i s t r a t i v e nature to other personnel [appropriate d i v i s i o n ] .  and  16  Since  the  provision  Canada i s a p r o v i n c i a l and  the  of a g r i c u l t u r a l  responsibility,  s t r u c t u r e and  and  purpose,  o r g a n i z a t i o n of t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l  extension  s e r v i c e s of A l b e r t a and  British  Alberta Agricultural section  the s t r u c t u r e  i s concerned  and  the  scope  C o l u m b i a , where t h e d a t a  s t u d y were o b t a i n e d , a r e p r e s e n t e d  This  extension service in  organization  for  the  purpose,  and  next.  Extension  Service  w i t h t h e s c o p e and of  the  Alberta  Agricultural  Extension Service.  S c o p e and The  Purpose A l b e r t a Department of A g r i c u l t u r e ,  Agriculture, 'those,  in  doing  the  administration 'Agricultural first  the  e a r l y y e a r s was work  and  were  inspection matters.  report  of  1905.  The  by a g r i c u l t u r a l  societies,  related  subjects,  were  meetings,  and  philosophy instruct pursuing Having of  the  of  the  and  farmer  i n "the  h i s work and  situation"  covered  In  education l a t e s t and  then  (Annual  by  1906  of p r e p a r i n g and  t h i s k n o w l e d g e he  to  first the  for  reference  activities,  various  work was  and  lectures,  Department's expressed  as  most i m p r o v e d methods marketing  1906  his  to of  products.  t o make t h e  : 105).  to  Department's  agricultural  the  i s in a position Report,  responsible  educational  provided  demonstrations. agricultural  The  back  sponsored  known a s A l b e r t a  e x t e n s i o n o r i e n t e d though  primarily  E d u c a t i o n Work' d a t e s  annual  now  Extension  best was  17  provided  through various meetings  trains,  summer  institutes,  and stock  Although established first was  the as  district  personal  lectures,  agricultural  judging  demonstration  societies,  women's  schools.  agricultural  extension  service  was  a branch of A l b e r t a A g r i c u l t u r e u n t i l  agriculturalist  h a d been a p p o i n t e d  full-time  was  employed  Branch.  fairs,  and  Agents'  and  duties  contact,  visiting  and  solving  i n boys' and g i r l s '  T r a n s i t i o n Report,  1970).  agricultural  rural  and  include  finding  meetings, and a s s i s t i n g  responsible  I t s long life.  not  1938, t h e  in  1920.  He  to the Livestock farmers,  making  problems,  holding  work  (Tradition  and  term o b j e c t i v e i s t o improve  The  f u n c t i o n of t h e e x t e n s i o n  s e r v i c e a s s t a t e d i n t h e 1938 A n n u a l R e p o r t  ( p . 62) was:  to co-ordinate the extension program of every branch of the Department of Agriculture and i n s o f a r a s p o s s i b l e to cooperate with a l l other extension agencies t o e f f e c t t h e most e c o n o m i c a l a n d e f f e c t i v e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e e f f o r t s of a l l workers i n this field. Its  m a i n p u r p o s e was " t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n  of i n f o r m a t i o n  to  agriculture  and...the  agricultural  and  home  and r u r a l  economics  life."  interpretation  of  agricultural  work r e s u l t s a n d g u i d a n c e . emerged. 21  improvement o f  The 1961 A n n u a l R e p o r t o f A l b e r t a  A g r i c u l t u r e extended the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y the  pertaining  of the agent t o research  and  By 1970 f i v e e x t e n s i o n  experimental  f u n c t i o n s had  T h e s e were ( T r a d i t i o n a n d T r a n s i t i o n R e p o r t ,  t o 5-44) : 1. d i s t r i b u t i o n  of i n f o r m a t i o n ,  include  1970: 5-  18  2.  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of  3.  guidance to farm f a m i l i e s ,  4.  service  5.  program achievement  The as  function,  district  and, evaluation.  a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s were a l s o e x p e c t e d " t o  l i n e s of c o m m u n i c a t i o n b e t w e e n  A g r i c u l t u r e , and :  results,  137).  research  farmers,  institutions..."  They a l s o p e r f o r m e d a l i a i s o n  the  serve  Department  (Annual Report,  r o l e which  of 1961  involves:  t h e f a r m f a m i l i e s on t h e l a n d and t h e s o u r c e of reliable information including the Alberta Department of Agriculture, the Faculty of A g r i c u l t u r e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y of Alberta and the Canada Department of A g r i c u l t u r e ( A n n u a l R e p o r t , 1959 : 1 4 9 ) . The  1970  p u r p o s e of  A n n u a l R e p o r t of A l b e r t a the  (Annual Report,  Extension 1970  : 55)  Agriculture  Service  Division.  main p u r p o s e was  t h e m s e l v e s , t h r o u g h p r o g r a m s of c o n t i n u i n g their has  e c o n o m i c and clarified  emphasize the  and  s o c i a l goals." redefined  The  this  f o l l o w i n g g o a l s f o r the  1971  stated .The  a  broader  Division's  "to help people e d u c a t i o n , to Annual Report  p u r p o s e of extension  the  help  achieve (p.53)  d i v i s i o n to  programs:  1. The s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y of f a r m families and o p e r a t o r s as m a n a g e r s , i n a l l a s p e c t s of agricultural enterprises... 2. The promotion and maintenance of c o m m u n i t y and i n d i v i d u a l self-determination among r u r a l p e o p l e . . . 3. E x t e n s i o n p r o g r a m s a t t e m p t e d t o f o s t e r systematic education in agriculture and a s s o c i a t e d t e c h n i c a l and b u s i n e s s s k i l l s at the vocational level for b o t h y o u t h s and adults.  19  The  Extension  "increased labor,  Service  Division  responsibilities in  farm  nutrition,  credit, housing,  (Annual Report,  continued  farm  management,  market  education  consumer and  rural counselling"  a n d management;  and  rural  development" In  and  (Annual Report,  1974 :  development.  economics  and  community  18). a basic  concept f o r i t s  I t s d e f i n i t i o n of t h e  of a g r i c u l t u r a l development  functions  home  resources  1976 A l b e r t a A g r i c u l t u r e d e f i n e d  agricultural  farm  education,  1973 : 1 0 ) . I t s e d u c a t i o n a n d s e r v i c e  management;  assume  a g r i c u l t u r a l development,  became " a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n home  to  (Annual Report,  basic  concept  1976 : 11) was:  t o i m p r o v e human, l a n d a n d c a p i t a l r e s o u r c e s through p h y s i c a l l y i n c r e a s i n g the productive capability of l a n d , adding f i n a n c i a l inputs to farm and related enterprises, and advancing i n d i v i d u a l a n d f a m i l y management, a l l of which c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e b u i l d i n g of independent farm family units which integrate mutually to support viable communities and a strong and stable agricultural industry. The  Extension  Service  D i v i s i o n continued  r o l e as t h e d e l i v e r y system and o f f e r e d technical,  production  Calpas, Director (Extension district  of  and Alberta  Information  management  1981  maintain i t s  intensified  extension  information.  Agriculture  Bulletin,  to  Extension :  19)  J o h n G. Division,  describes  agriculturalist: as a s p e c i a l i s t i n t h e p r o c e s s o f extension and as a g e n e r a l p r a c t i t i o n e r i n t h e f u l l range a g r i c u l t u r a l t e c h n o l o g y , is well backed by t h e r e s o u r c e s o f t h e D e p a r t m e n t [Alberta Agriculture], Agriculture Canada,  of  the  20  u n i v e r s i t i e s and He  sees  the present  agribusiness.  and f u t u r e r o l e s of t h e E x t e n s i o n  t o be - t h e f o l l o w i n g f o u r m a i n f u n c t i o n s Bulletin,  1981  (Extension  Division Information  : 20):  1. i n f o r m a t i o n t r a n s f e r , 2. i n d u c e m e n t t o c h a n g e , 3. i n f o r m a t i o n v a l i d a t i o n , a n d , 4. h e l p i n g .groups and i n d i v i d u a l s t h r o u g h o u t the agricultural community to develop a r a t i o n a l e f o r sound decision-making. I n summary, t h e s c o p e a n d p u r p o s e o f t h e A l b e r t a Service  are the e f f i c i e n t  professional order  them t o a c h i e v e  S t r u c t u r e and This organized  responsibilities  of  agriculturalists, agricultural  economic and s o c i a l  in  goals.  the a g r i c u l t u r a l  extension  is  and  the  development  on  services  organizational  regional  directors  coordination programs,  work i s to  structures, and  district  structure for overall  including  agricultural  work. 1916,  were  Livestock  how  the  the  'District  a g e n t s were a p p o i n t e d agents  farmers,  i n A l b e r t a so a s t o d e l i v e r t h e i n t e n d e d Discussion  In  their  to  and  Organization  section covers  farmers.  extension  d e l i v e r y of t e c h n i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n  services dealing with a g r i c u l t u r e  to help  Extension  employed  Branch  responsibility  of  Agents'  division  and c a r r i e d o u t t h e i r full-time Alberta  f o r the d i s t r i c t  and  was  work.  were  Agriculture.  By  formed and 1920  responsible In  a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s was  1942  the  to the the  transferred  21  from  the  Livestock  Extension  Service  distribution In  to  Province  whose  Agricultural  function  was  the  information. was r e o r g a n i z e d Service  i n t o seven  B r a n c h was  raised  l e v e l , a d o p t e d t h e c o n c e p t of r e g i o n a l i z a t i o n , and extension  into s i x regions. directly  sponsored  the  Minister  of  senior  public  activities  The A g r i c u l t u r a l  is  Minister,  main  Agriculture  decentralize  Division through  Alberta  t h e newly c r e a t e d  The A g r i c u l t u r e E x t e n s i o n  to d i v i s i o n a l began  Branch  to  of a g r i c u l t u r a l  1966,  divisions.  Branch  by  Alberta  by  Extension  Service  t h e P r o v i n c i a l Government Agriculture.  servant,  d i v i d i n g the  The  i s the executive  Deputy  o f f i c e r of  A l b e r t a A g r i c u l t u r e and has f i v e a s s i s t a n t deputy m i n i s t e r s are  responsible  development; marketing.  f o r production; research  The A s s i s t a n t D e p u t y  responsibility  and  service oriented provide  Each  Several  international  f o r Development  has  including Extension,  that  and  services  to  d i v i s i o n s which are p r i m a r i l y  the subject  matter s p e c i a l i s t  expertise  Service Division."  regional office  who i s r e s p o n s i b l e Division.  Minister  and  the d e l i v e r y of i n f o r m a t i o n  communities.  for the Extension  and m a r k e t i n g s e r v i c e s ;  operation;  for several divisions,  are concerned with farms  and  economic  who  t o the  i s administered Director  of  by a R e g i o n a l the  Extension  Director Service  Some o f t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f t h e r e g i o n a l d i r e c t o r  (Memorandum, 1977 : 1) i n c l u d e :  1. [ b e i n g ] senior regional department representative responsible for regional p l a n n i n g , a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and c o o r d i n a t i o n ,  22  2. [ t a k i n g ] initiative in coordination and ensuring cooperation in the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of programs i n a r e g i o n , 3. [ b e i n g ] s e n i o r r e g i o n a l spokesman a n d a r b i t e r f o r staff i n the region in their involvement with other agencies. The  regional  staff  consists  a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s and r e g i o n a l specialists  represent  programs and p o l i c i e s , services point  as  specialists.  throughout the Province  families.  The  district  extension  worker  agriculturalist wide  at  office.  coordinates  The f o c a l programs  E a c h o f 64  district  district  is  the a g r i c u l t u r a l  level.  The  district  c a r r i e s the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of keeping a b r e a s t of  range  of  government  counselling  their  extension  scientific  and  technical  a g r i c u l t u r a l development as w e l l as of f e d e r a l , local  regional  s e r v i c e s an a v e r a g e o f 1000 f a r m  agriculturalist  the  the  the region.  and t h e d e l i v e r y system t h r o u g h which  offices  district  for their division's  the r e g i o n a l d i r e c t o r  i s the d i s t r i c t  the  While  and a r e r e s p o n s i b l e  resource s p e c i a l i s t s within  reach the c l i e n t e l e  a  of  policy.  In  the  knowledge provincial  p r o c e s s of farm  for  the  addition,  he  is  education  program.  agriculturalist  district  and i n d i v i d u a l farm s i t u a t i o n s .  responsible Some  (Position  for  conducting  an  of t h e p o s i t i o n d u t i e s Description  for  of a  1. p r o v i d e s professional counsel to f a r m e r s and a g r i - b u s i n e s s i n the area of agricultural production, management, m a r k e t i n g , c r e d i t , and t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s of  and In  extension district  Agrologist  include:  and  management  he i n t e r p r e t s t h e i m p l i c a t i o n o f t h e s e p o l i c i e s  findings  of  II)  23  government p o l i c y . 2. p a r t i c i p a t e s a n d c a r r i e s o u t p r o j e c t s within the technical and agricultural educational program uniquely suited to the district. 3. i n d e p e n d e n t l y i n t e r p r e t s p o l i c y and e x p e d i t e s p r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l programs i n a defined geographical area. 4. r e p r e s e n t s t h e Department and a d v i s e s various commissions, boards, agri-business, e t c . , and r e p o r t s t o s u p e r i o r s . 5. r e v i e w s legislation, policies, a g r i c u l t u r a l and e x t e n s i o n literature and research. The  senior  district  Agrologist  I I I ) has  managing  staff  region.  This  leadership staff  including  programs  extension  Reference,  agricultural  was  Reference,  in  a  responsibility defined  involves  the  development  of  geographical provision  of  and d e l i v e r y t o  structure  Committee  established  in  agricultural  services, (AACC).  is  matters,  the  The AACC  Alberta  (Terms  of  p r i m a r i l y to coordinate  the  toward economic and s o c i a l development of  the  i n d u s t r y a n d t o p r o m o t e t h e optimum u t i l i z a t i o n o f  manpower a n d f i n a n c i a l agencies  within  extension  Coordinating  effort  position  program  organization  1976)  (Position Description for  area.  agricultural  Agricultural  added  responsibility  in  The o t h e r  the  and  i n h i s defined  provincial  agriculturalist  Alberta.  resources This  among t h e  coordination  various  operational  structure  1976 : 1) s h a l l :  1. p r o v i d e a forum f o r d i s c u s s i o n of policy and program a r e a s of i n t e r e s t t o Alberta agriculture, 2. on. m a t t e r s related to agriculture programs and p o l i c i e s , advise the Alberta  (Terms o f  24  M i n i s t e r of A g r i c u l t u r e and where n e c e s s a r y , t h r o u g h him a d v i s e t h e F e d e r a l Minister of Agriculture, P r e s i d e n t s o f U n i v e r s i t i e s and other agencies, 3. k e e p u n d e r r e g u l a r review the broad aspects of a g r i c u l t u r a l r e s e a r c h , extension and e d u c a t i o n i n A l b e r t a w i t h t h e o b j e c t o f : a. f a c i l i t a t i n g inter-group communication and coordination management levels, b. a s s e s s i n g immediate and future n e e d s and d e v e l o p i n g p r o p o s a l s t o meet them, c. a d v i s i n g on j o i n t u s e s o f a v a i l a b l e f a c i l i t i e s and personnel, d. c o n t r i b u t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n and ideas bearing on regional and national policies affecting agriculture, e. c a r r y o u t s p e c i a l assignments on behalf of Canadian Agricultural S e r v i c e s C o o r d i n a t i n g C o m m i t t e e (CASCC) a p p r o p r i a t e t o the above o b j e c t i v e s . The  AACC (Terms of R e f e r e n c e ,  M i n i s t e r of A l b e r t a A g r i c u l t u r e member of  the  University  Faculty  of  E c o n o m i c and Agriculture;  Alberta;  Marketing the  three  member  as  the  and  Services,  the  subject  matter b a s i s .  The  c o m m i t t e e s as  required  I n summary, t h e organized  agricultural  of  the  Alberta  and  an  quorum of AACC c o n s i s t s  of  Agriculture  The  AACC i s s u p p o r t e d  by  on  or  a  specific  extension  under s i x r e g i o n a l o f f i c e s .  Canada,  commodity  C o m m i t t e e may  with  ex  of  structured  to deal  another  Production, of  B e a v e r lodge;.,  each  Each A d v i s o r y  Deputy  A g r i c u l t u r e Canada R e s e a r c h  Alberta Agriculture. are  Forestry  Development  and  Secretary.  Committees which  is  of  and  Lacombe,  Advisory  and  the  Dean and  A s s i s t a n t M i n i s t e r s of  v o t i n g members r e p r e s e n t i n g  University,  hoc  (Chairman); the  Agriculture  Directors  S t a t i o n s at Lethbridge, officio  of  1 9 7 6 ) , c o n s i s t s of  e s t a b l i s h ad  problems.  service  in  Each r e g i o n a l  Alberta office  25  is administered Director  of  the  Agricultural coordinate  by a r e g i o n a l d i r e c t o r who Extension  Coordinating the  development  the  the  programs  agricultural  manpower  and  various o p e r a t i o n a l agencies The  next  section  British This purpose,  with  The as  work  another  utilize  among  example  the  of  s e r v i c e , the  Extension  focuses  and  the  British  on  organization  Service the of  scope the  and  British  Service.  i n 1893  the and  Department  (Wales,  n e e d s of t h e  the  Report,  farming The  development 1913/14).  agriculturalist  of  1964).  guide farmers.  under the L i v e s t o c k Branch. district  resources  extension  chapter  structure  Columbia  towards  (Annual  social  to  B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a D e p a r t m e n t of A g r i c u l t u r e ,  established  consult  and  and  Purpose  British  ascertain  economic  to  Service.  Columbia A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension  S c o p e and  Alberta  established  industry  Columbia A g r i c u l t u r a l  the  of  The  the  in Alberta.  deals  s e c t i o n of t h i s and  was  financial  government model f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l Columbia Extension  Division.  Committee  provincial  of  effectively  Service  i s responsible to  The The  now  A g r i c u l t u r e and  I t s primary population,  known  Food,  o b j e c t i v e was and  to  extension  extension first  appears i n the  of  to  agriculture  work was  recorded  to  advise,  s c o p e of t h e D e p a r t m e n t was and  was  organized  a p p o i n t m e n t of  1913/14 A n n u a l R e p o r t  a of  26  the 66)  Department. has  The  reported  L i v e s t o c k Branch that  a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s was educative may  the  work  of g r e a t  conducted  importance  1947  (Annual  and  the  t h e D e v e l o p m e n t and E x t e n s i o n  R e p o r t , 1947).  The  farm l a b o r .  Branch,  district  "essential  Branch  the  was  s c o p e o f t h e B r a n c h was  major  delivery  clearing,  r o l e of  system  and  The  B r a n c h h a s p r o v i d e d " a d v i c e and g u i d a n c e  production  of  a  greater  ( A n n u a l R e p o r t , 1959  :  encourage  farm  improved  diversity  50).  Its  of  Agriculture  and  by  p r a c t i c e s and  several  Food,  but  only  stated  the  function  of  each  Branch and (Job,  responsible  1965 The  "to  E x t e n s i o n work the  Department  1965). t o be  Job  was of  several  (1965  :  3)  "a c o m b i n a t i o n o f  is  primarily  educational,  f o r e x t e n s i o n work o f a g e n e r a l n a t u r e . . . "  e x t e n s i o n m e t h o d s and include  t e c h n i q u e s u s e d by  personal  days, demonstrations, b u l l e t i n s , The  were  : 3).  agriculturalists  1951).  the  The D e v e l o p m e n t and E x t e n s i o n  " i s t h e b r a n c h whose f u n c t i o n  is  in  to help r u r a l people to  of  branch  r e g u l a t o r y and e d u c a t i o n a l work".  public  as an a d j u n c t t o t h e  (Job,  the  commodities..."  purposes  : 45).  branches  r o l e s p e r f o r m e d by e a c h b r a n c h  farm  primary  h e l p t h e m s e l v e s " ( A n n u a l R e p o r t , 1961 performed  they  created  relations.  also  that  enlarged to  engineering, land  E x t e n s i o n h a s been t h e f u n d a m e n t a l  providing  :  work."  i n c l u d e e x t e n s i o n work, a g r i c u l t u r a l and  by  work be c a r r i e d o u t i n o r d e r t o show f a r m e r s how  most p r o f i t a b l y c a r r y o u t t h e i r In  ( A n n u a l R e p o r t , 1913/14  district  contacts,  and n e w s l e t t e r s  agriculturalist  the  district  meetings,  field-  (Annual Report,  h a s been d e s c r i b e d  as  the  27  'key'  man  i n e x t e n s i o n and t h e p u b l i c  of t h e Department the  in hisdistrict.  agricultural  activities  in  relations  H i s jobs a r e  programs  with  the Department 1957 A n n u a l  local  Report  activities  agricultural  i n h i s community  with  of  planned  emphasize the problems community.  i t s scope  emphasis  on  stated  farm  of  t o p a s s on t h e  farmers;  to  plan  committees; and t o r e p r e s e n t  Department  has  linked  i n each d i s t r i c t  production  extension  management  coordinate  (Annual R e p o r t , 1954/1957).  programs  of  the  and  and  programs,  The  extension designed to  marketing  D u r i n g t h e 1960's t h e A g r i c u l t u r a l  expanded  units.  the  to  his district;  f i n d i n g s of r e s e a r c h and e x p e r i m e n t s t o  representative  in  each  Extension Branch with  increasing  the development  of economic  The 1965 A n n u a l R e p o r t o f t h e  Department  (1965  :  16)  that: Recognition of t h e need for extension programmes t o be more c l o s e l y interrelated with economic e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e t o t a l farm enterprise produced changes in the application of the [Development and E x t e n s i o n ] B r a n c h ' s p o l i c i e s . . . i n i t i a l moves were made t o w a r d t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f p a c k a g e style farm recommmendations affecting management decisions at the t o t a l farm operations level. As a p a r t o f t h i s shift, greater emphasis was p l a c e d upon closer cooperation with other agencies, particular t h e Canada D e p a r t m e n t o f A g r i c u l t u r e a n d t h e U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia... the changes will represent an a d j u n c t t o r a t h e r t h a n a replacement of p r e v i o u s p r a c t i c e s .  The B r a n c h h a s i m p l e m e n t e d t h i s development programs.  through  a  multiplicity  approach  of  agricultural  of e d u c a t i o n a l and s e r v i c e  The B r a n c h ( A n n u a l R e p o r t , 1977 :  20-21)  has  acted  28  as: 1. c o o r d i n a t o r with other local  for  integrated resource planning  resource m i n i s t r i e s at the p r o v i n c i a l ,  i n concert  regional,  and  dealing  with  levels;  2. f a c i l i t a t o r  f o r ^extension  programs  in  farmers; 3. c o o r d i n a t o r f o r a number o f s p e c i a l p r o j e c t s a n d related  to agricultural  4. l o c a l department  reference  studies  development; and point  for agricultural  l e g i s l a t i o n and  programs.  As p a r t o f t h e D e p a r t m e n t ' s Agricultural  Extension  program d e l i v e r y  (Annual  reorganization  Service  in  1980,  the  adopted a r e g i o n a l approach t o  Report,  1980).  The s c o p e  and  purpose  o f t h e ' R e g i o n a l E x t e n s i o n S e r v i c e ' i s t o e n s u r e a more  balanced  development of t h e p r o v i n c e ' s a g r i c u l t u r e and food direct  involvement  of  farmers  E x t e n s i o n program p l a n n i n g w i l l and  district  constitute continue  levels.  the basic s t a f f  (Annual occur  The  at  district  Report,  industry with 1980  provincial,  : 5).  regional  agriculturalist  of t h e r e g i o n a l  structure  and  t o p r o v i d e t h e major e x t e n s i o n c o n t a c t w i t h farmers  New M a n d a t e , 1 9 8 0 ) . extension  service  The p r i m a r y will  be  purpose  to  of  facilitate  reorganizing effective  will will (A the  extension  p r o g r a m p l a n n i n g , d e l i v e r y and e v a l u a t i o n a t t h e r e g i o n a l l e v e l ; and  t o accommodate o t h e r  farming  public  services  (Guidelines  for  of  the  department  to  the  E x t e n s i o n P r o g r a m m i n g , 1980 :  iii). In  summary, t h e s c o p e and p u r p o s e o f t h e R e g i o n a l  Extension  29  S e r v i c e of t h e M i n i s t r y of A g r i c u l t u r e and Food  i s to f a c i l i t a t e  e f f e c t i v e e x t e n s i o n program p l a n n i n g , d e l i v e r y and e v a l u a t i o n a t the  regional level,  the  province's  involvement to  a n d t o e n s u r e a more b a l a n c e d  agriculture  of farmers.  and  food  industry  development of with  The d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t  be t h e m a j o r e x t e n s i o n  link  with  direct continues  farmers.  S t r u c t u r e and O r g a n i z a t i o n This s e c t i o n i s concerned with the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e of t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l  extension  directors  and  district  mechanism  for  overall  agricultural British  extension  agriculturalists; agricultural service,  of  organized  Columbia  as a d i v i s i o n  of A g r i c u l t u r e .  regional  and t h e c o o r d i n a t i o n  programs,  a l l within  including the  the  Agricultural  the  P r o v i n c e of  'Development  and  Extension  B r a n c h was  Extension'.  S e r v i c e was r e o r g a n i z e d a s a d i v i s i o n  Services  in  the  structure continued and F o o d Service The  Service  was  of the L i v e s t o c k Branch i n t h e M i n i s t r y  I n 1947 a s e p a r a t e  name  Extension  Extension  M i n i s t r y of A g r i c u l t u r e .  By under  created  1966  the  Production  This organizational  up t o 1980, when t h e M i n i s t r y o f A g r i c u l t u r e  i m p l e m e n t e d a new r e g i o n a l s t r u c t u r e f o r t h e  Extension  i n the province. major  reasons  given  r e o r g a n i z a t i o n of the Extension 4-5;  the  Columbia.  The B r i t i s h  under  service; duties  by  Service  and G u i d e l i n e s f o r E x t e n s i o n  the  Ministry  (A New M a n d a t e ,  Programming,  f o r the 1980  :  1980 : 1-2) w e r e :  30  1. t o  ensure  and s e r v i c e s  effective  d e l i v e r y of the m i n i s t r y ' s  to farmers;  2. t o e n c o u r a g e p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f p r o d u c e r s i n t h e of  s p e c i f i c c o m m o d i t y - r e l a t e d programs of a r e g i o n ; 3. t o  encourage  greater  agencies i n providing The  Ministry  increasing  cooperation  decentralized  its  on  d e v e l o p m e n t and d e l i v e r y .  extension  The  Regional  Report,  1980).  Five  b a s e d on a g r i c u l t u r a l  boundaries  (A  by a R e g i o n a l D i r e c t o r  d e v e l o p m e n t and 1980).  Each  accountable  to  Operations,  who  regulatory  offices  and  implementation Regional the has  services,  responsibilities Extension  cropping  1980).  of  Programming,  in  the  reports  Deputy  1980:6-7)  office i s for  Director  his  program Report,  directly  for  been  natural  (Annual  Minister  Extension.  Regional  have  and  regional  region  is  Operations  i s responsible  responsibility  including  program  d i r e c t s extension  the  Director  Assistant the  who  with  Service  regions  areas  Each  who  its  for Field  administrative  established  Mandate,  of  Extension  (Annual  district  among  services  regionalization  u n d e r an A s s i s t a n t D e p u t y M i n i s t e r  region's  and  and c o o r d i n a t i o n  directly  New  designing  services.  emphasis  administered  program  and  for  is  Field  production  and  Some  the  of  (Guidelines  include:  1. s e r v e a s t h e s e n i o r M i n i s t r y spokesman in the r e g i o n . 2. g i v e . . . d i r e c t i o n t o s t a f f serving a region r e l a t i v e t o t h e d e v e l o p m e n t and implementation of regional extension programs. 3. c o o r d i n a t e regional program p l a n n i n g  to  31  i n c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h r e g i o n a l and s p e c i a l i s t staff; commodity groups and agricultural organizations. 4. r e p r e s e n t , or arrange f o r the representation of, agriculture on r e g i o n a l interagency resource committees. 5. e v a l u a t e t h e c o s t a n d e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f r e g i o n a l programs. The  delivery  the primary province. major  system through  producers  The d i s t r i c t  extension  with  of  (Licensed  production  Science  Agriculturalist, organizer  in  offices  role  factors  acts  planning  to  primary  an and  district  the  t o provide the  i s to provide  Position as  reach  a n d r e p o r t s t o one o f f i v e  and t e c h n i c a l  producers.  advisor, delivery  agriculturalist's position  information  Description:  e x t e n s i o n / e d u c a t i o n programs a t t h e d i s t r i c t The  throughout  f a r m management s k i l l s  Officer  1981) the  farmers  H i s primary  improvement of g e n e r a l  knowledge  district  a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s continue  link  Regional D i r e c t o r s . for  a r e 18  which e x t e n s i o n programs  District  educator of  He  and  agricultural  and r e g i o n a l l e v e l .  functions include:  1. o r g a n i z e and conduct a district a g r i c u l t u r a l e x t e n s i o n / e d u c a t i o n program; 2. a d v i s e i n d i v i d u a l o r g r o u p s o f p r i m a r y producers i n matters p e r t a i n i n g to general farm business management and technical production skills intended t o improve e f f i c i e n c y and p r o f i t a b i l i t y of p r o d u c t i o n ; 3. p a r t i c i p a t e in regional extension programming a c t i v i t i e s ; 4. p r o t e c t the public interest in a g r i c u l t u r a l resources; 5. p r o m o t e sound agricultural development. The including  other o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e i n a g r i c u l t u r a l agricultural  extension  service,  is  the  matters, British  32  Columbia A g r i c u l t u r a l (Task  Force  primarily of  the  Services Coordination  Report,  1977).  to coordinate agricultural  utilization  of  The  manpower  and  and  operational agencies i n  Report,  1977). British  consists  of  the  Columbia Deputy  (Chairman);  the  Dean  Agricultural  Sciences  another  by  and  toward development  Force  of  science,  committee  can  deal with s p e c i f i c  Field  is  Canada  s o i l s s c i e n c e , and s o c i a l  under  There regional  Extension an  are  service,  is  Coordination coordinate  matters, the  five  Food  Stations  at  science,  food  science.  Each  Services  extension  including  provincial  British  Regional  t o one  agricultural  of  the  extension  Agricultural  Committee  effort  by a  organizational structure  Columbia  The  in  administration  i s administered  The o t h e r  British  Committee. the  and  A s s i s t a n t Deputy M i n i s t e r f o r  office  Deputy M i n i s t e r s .  agricultural  1977)  Research  D i r e c t o r who r e p o r t s d i r e c t l y a n d i s a c c o u n t a b l e Assistant  Report,  The B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a ASCC i s s u p p o r t e d  Regional  directly  Each  Force  problems.  Operations.  regions.  (Task  e s t a b l i s h a d hoc c o m m i t t e e s a s r e q u i r e d t o  I n summary, t h e Columbia  the  t h e F a c u l t y of  l e a d c o m m i t t e e s on a n i m a l s c i e n c e , e n g i n e e r i n g  lead  among  Agriculture  member  optimum  of t h e U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a ; and  Vancouver.  science, plant  in  the  Columbia  of  (BCASCC)  established  resources  (Task  Minister  was  promote  British  the D i r e c t o r s of the A g r i c u l t u r e Agassiz  to  ASCC  and  effort  financial  various  The  Committee  the provincial sector  Committee  toward  is  Services  responsible  development  to  of t h e  33  agricultural  industry  utilization various  of  sector  manpower  operational  and  and  to  financial  agencies i n B r i t i s h  I n v i e w i n g Canada a s w h o l e , t h e extension Federal  service  of  Department  of  the evaluation solutions.  resources  of t h e whole e x t e n s i o n  Government,  A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension  services  the  i s administered  to the D i r e c t o r  on  of  are  by a R e g i o n a l D i r e c t o r  concerned  The D i s t r i c t  o r t o an  District  Agriculturalist and  or  regulations, and  policy  and  to  one  of  has  administration.  branch  Each  regional  Assistant  Deputy  divisions, including and  i s the major  regulatory link  additional duties,  credit,  been  done  of  who i s r e s p o n s i b l e  production  farm  implementing  Iti s  the Regional D i r e c t o r s .  h a s been g i v e n  granting  draining  with  Agriculturalist  and  clearing  reports  t o farmers.  Agriculture.  Service  s c o p e and information  o f f i c e s w i t h i n an e x e c u t i v e  of Extension  that  planning  role  for residential  Service's  agriculture  Ministry  farmers  as  extension  I t s main  economic  M i n i s t e r who h a s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r s e v e r a l  services.  The  s e r v i c e and i n d i c a t i o n  r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s only  under r e g i o n a l  Extension,  agriculture  research.  professional  office  of  stations.  p u r p o s e a r e t h e d e l i v e r y o f t e c h n i c a l and  the  the  Columbia.  provision  farms or r e s e a r c h  provincial  organized  among  of A g r i c u l t u r e performs a l i m i t e d  have  i n s t r u c t i o n and  and  optimum  The. C a n a d i a n u n i v e r s i t i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y f a c u l t i e s  agriculture,  The  the  i n Canada i s a p r o v i n c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .  role at experimental is  promote  ensuring in  that  compliance  p r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l  with The such land with  programs  34  A l t h o u g h A l b e r t a and B r i t i s h Columbia and  purpose  differ the  some on t h e i r  Extension  responsible Regional  responsible  similar  extension  f o r extension reports  Extension  matters  in  directly  Service.  services,  The D i r e c t o r  the  province.  The  Director,  in  for regulatory Extension,  that  are  Regional  Columbia  under  the  who  Assistant  has  including Regional  report  turn,  is  Extension  and a r e  Deputy  Services, services.  responsible  communities.  S e r v i c e s , however, i s Minister  responsibility  and r e g u l a t o r y  directly  Extension  for  for several that are  the  Field  divisions,  concerned  A l l the Regional to  several  concerned with the  The  production  Each  s e r v i c e but d i r e c t s  and s e r v i c e s t o farms and  Operations  of  and i s a c c o u n t a b l e t o t h e  d e l i v e r y of information  directly  they  t o t h e A s s i s t a n t D e p u t y M i n i s t e r f o r D e v e l o p m e n t who  including  British  scope  D i v i s i o n of A l b e r t a A g r i c u l t u r e i s s o l e l y  no r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  divisions,  agricultural  organizational structure.  Service  Director  D i r e c t o r of  has  for their  have  with  Directors  Assistant  Deputy  Minister.  Cooperative Extension The  Service  Cooperative Extension  American i n n o v a t i o n .  Williams  i n the United  Service,  States  u n i v e r s i t y m o d e l , i s an  (1968:21) n o t e d  that:  Much o f what has happened i n the United States h a s been u s e d a s g u i d e l i n e s f o r t h e r e v i e w , r e c o n s t r u c t i o n , and redevelopment of extension services i n other c o u n t r i e s . . . . It i s important to recognize that the United States experience applies many principles  35  bearing on f e d e r a l - s t a t e the administration of extension service. This  section  Extension  focuses  Service  on  the  i n the United  development States.  (1) t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a n d s c o p e a n d Extension  Service  as  a  s t r u c t u r e and o r g a n i z a t i o n Idaho  Cooperative  The  Cooperative  gradual  The but  .nation. and  and  work  mechanics,  Eddy, J r .  of  the  the  Land-Grant  Universities  revolution  system  reflecting  The i n d u s t r i a l artisans  and  (1957 : 9) h a s n o t e d t h a t  satisfaction a practical  i n e x i s t i n g patterns c o n c e p t and needed a  i t s aims."  dissatisfaction  Washington  Universities  r e s u l t e d from a  the  needs  with  their  period  of the political  c l a s s e s which  labourers,  "utilitarianism  of education. practical  of  the  the  r i g h t o f t h e common man t o be r u l e d by  class  E d w a r d D.. found  'Progress'  education  to  no was help  c l a s s e s began t o  economic p l i g h t , infirmity.  included  became  wealth.  Everywhere, the i n d u s t r i a l  i n e q u a l i t y , and t h e i r p o l i t i c a l  not  Service, the  i n a g r i c u l t u r e a n d home  c o n s c i o u s and wanted t o share t h e e d u c a t i o n a l  and  and (2) t h e  Extension  Service  Extension  (Eddy, 1957).  farmers,  voice  Cooperative  I t was t h e p r o d u c t o f many f o r c e s , e c o n o m i c ,  social  realize  the  includes  Service.  Land-Grant steady  of  institution,  of the Federal  e c o n o m i c s i s an i n t e g r a l p a r t system.  of the Cooperative  The d i s c u s s i o n  purpose  nationwide  Extension  Cooperative Extension  r e l a t i o n s a n d on a professional  their  The p o l i t i c a l  social gospel  was " t h e w o r t h a n d d i g n i t y o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l a n d  by ' g e n t l e m e n - s t a t e s m a n '  his  representatives  " ( R i l e y , 1965 : 1 9 ) . One o f  36  t h e most s i g n i f i c a n t of  a  unique  t r i p o d of Grant  o u t c o m e s o f t h e movement was  philosophy  instruction,  Universities  p r e s c r i b e d by also  very  classical  of  university  r e s e a r c h and  system)  the l e g i s l a t i o n  different  in  scope  of  The  o n l y new  schoolmasters,  " t h e n e e d e d men  The  new  proportion  t o t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e common p e o p l e .  has  stated  masses,... idea  that  thus one  that  t h a t t h e n a t i o n and  it  was  a n a t i o n had aim  of  "higher  learning:  of  business  Riley  education  education  were  s t a t e prosper  should  in  (1965  for  s e t i t s stamp of a p p r o v a l  higher  the  almost  institutions  to  19)  concept  3).  of  o c c a s i o n a l men  but  from  involved  committed  :  the  :  Land-  institutions  responsibilities  d o c t o r s , l a w y e r s , and  commerce" ( E d d y , 1957  the  i n concept,  i n s t i t u t i o n s of t h a t t i m e w h i c h were  e x c l u s i v e l y w i t h the p r e p a r a t i o n of  and  (i.e.,  1957).  were n o t  emergence  s e r v i c e , which i s the  extension  (Eddy,  the  on  be  the the the  pract i c a l . . . "  Scope and Several establishment Act  of  1914  1862,  the H a t c h Act of  the  marking  Morrill the  were  Extension and  important  to  S e r v i c e : the  the  the  Morrill  the Smith-Lever  established  Agricultural  Act  of  Land-Grant  Experiment S t a t i o n s  (research)  Extension Service.  Act of  first  acts  1887,  respectively,  the Cooperative The  legislative  of t h e C o o p e r a t i v e  which,  Universities, and  basic  Purpose  1862  milestone  was in  an the  educational growth  revolution,  of an  i d e a , the  37  d e m o c r a t i z a t i o n of h i g h e r l e a r n i n g f i t t e d order.  The  Act  emerging  social  e s t a b l i s h e d the Land-Grant U n i v e r s i t i e s  f o r the  p u r p o s e of p r o v i d i n g l i b e r a l and  workers i n the  excluding  other  and  industries scientific  t o an  practical  and and  education  mechanical  classical  studies.  of s y s t e m a t i c a g r i c u l t u r a l  s e r v e s as  in  landmark  distinguished 1939).  the  from c l a s s i c a l  development  and  liberal  Universities  government.  are  Thus  the  integral intent  w i t h the C o n s t i t u t i o n f o r 1957).  This  agricultural  was  the  education  first  institutions  control stage  The  Morrill  education  and  scientific  as  (Baker,  c h a r a c t e r , the  of t h e M o r r i l l  local  was  of  without  arts education  I n s p i t e of t h e n a t i o n a l o r i g i n and  Grant  farmers  trades,  Act marks the b e g i n n i n g a  for  of  the  A c t was  of  state  in  keeping  education  (Eddy,  where f o r m a l and  p r o v i d e d to farmers  Land-  and  informal  agricultural  scientists The  second  stage  a d d i t i o n of r e s e a r c h  of t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l d e v e l o p m e n t was  to  instruction.  became more f o r m a l i z e d , t h e answers.  Their  requests  from  own  questions.  of  passed  1887  was  agricultural Grant  who To  subject-matter  f o u n d many q u e s t i o n s  wanted  respond  i n order  experiment  Universities  the  without  d i l e m m a s were compounded by t h e number o f  farmers  production  faculty  As  the  answers  (Eddy, 1957).  agricultural  t o t h i s demand, t h e H a t c h  t o s e t up a  stations  to  nation-wide  in connection Under  this  system  w i t h the  act,  funds  appropriated: to conduct original investigations and  and o t h e r r e s e a r c h e s , experiments bearing  Act of  Landwere  38  directly on and contributing to the e s t a b l i s h m e n t and maintenance of a permanent and e f f e c t i v e a g r i c u l t u r e i n d u s t r y (24 S t a t . 440).. The  role f i r s t  identified  compiling...and  the  f o r the experiment  d i s s e m i n a t i o n . . . of  s c i e n c e and i t s p r a c t i c a l society"  (Riley,  " t h i s experimental for  the county The  third  agricultural  1956  application :  117).  Baker  adult education  stage  of  extension  the as  an  the  was  "the  s u b j e c t matter of  t o t h e v o c a t i o n s of  work i n a g r i c u l t u r e  agents'  stations  rural  ( 1 9 3 9 : 3) s t a t e d t h a t  later  s e r v e d as t h e b a s i s  programs."  movement  was  integral  the  addition  of  p a r t of t h e Land-Grant  i n s t i t u t i o n s and of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Department of  Agriculture  (USDA).  s t a t i o n s had  By t h e t u r n o f t h e c e n t u r y  been w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d accumulation desirable farmers.  to  Work  strictly  a  :  Seaman  agents  practices  1962  started  under  agricultural  (Simons,  way  toward  an  information.  to  5-8).  the This  to  the A.  Farmers'  Although  early Agricultural  I t became  rendered  conduct  farmers early  demonstrations  i n the Southern demonstration  until  officially  was  were e i t h e r  efforts  States,  1914 were s t r i c t l y  b u t i n a few c a s e s  States  work  t h e r e were some c o o p e r a t i v e  1862  of  of Cooperative  E x t e n s i o n Work i n t h e U n i t e d  from  Cooperative  g o v e r n m e n t model a n d " t h e L a n d - G r a n t C o l l e g e s n o t o n l y cooperate  eventual  Knapp's s u p e r v i s i o n , and  F e d e r a l p r o j e c t a n d was a f o r e r u n n e r  Extension Service.  services  their  f i n d a method o f p r o v i d i n g t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t o t h e  I n 1903, t h e USDA  recommended  in  on  o f a v a s t body o f e s s e n t i a l  Demonstration employed  and  the experiment  the  under a d i d not  indifferent  39  to or c r i t i c a l also  of i t " (Simons,  stressed  that  "the adult  a g e n t s was n o t c o n n e c t e d w i t h these  beginning  1962 : 8).. R i l e y  years".  education  the  a g r i c u l t u r e h a d begun o f f e r i n g f o r m a l  :  268)  work o f Knapp a n d h i s  land-grant  Nevertheless  (1965  institutions  several  classes  in  colleges  of  farmers  in  for  response t o the farmers' expressed i n t e r e s t s . The  County  Farm  development of t h e other  extension  has  agricultural  organizations  B u r e a u was f i r s t  Bureau  combined  played  extension (Eddy,  sponsored as l o c a l  a larger part programs  1957).  The C o u n t y Farm  up  together.  p r i m a r y p u r p o s e o f t h e Farm B u r e a u was t o p r o v i d e funds  (Lancaster,  1966).  "contributions state  matching  governments extension Bureau  a  extension federated  prerequisite  The  (Baker,  program.  (Baker,  1939  :  the  Farm  Bureaus  and  made  the  condition 1939).  on  The  l e a d e r s h i p and  a  county  Act  basis  recognizes  The  16). as  a  Many part  organization  County  Farm  Farm  a  Farm  of a county  Bureaus  t o p l a n and c a r r y state  state of t h e i r  of  for installation  I n 1919 t h e s e  were  on a s t a t e  Bureaus  were  t o become t h e A m e r i c a n Farm B u r e a u F e d e r a t i o n ,  farm o r g a n i z a t i o n .  was e s t a b l i s h e d  work  Smith-Lever  into state organizations  federated  general  funds"  organization  agent  extension  The  from p r i v a t e i n d i v i d u a l s as a l e g i t i m a t e p a r t of  promoted  agricultural again  for  than a l l  farmers' o r g a n i z a t i o n s .  a n d t h e Farm B u r e a u movement grew  additional  i n the  t o (Baker,  The A m e r i c a n Farm B u r e a u 1939 : 1 9 ) :  1. c o r r e l a t e a n d s t r e n g t h e n the s t a t e farm bureaus and s i m i l a r s t a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n s  a  Federation  40  of the several states i n the national federation; 2. p r o m o t e , p r o t e c t , and r e p r e s e n t t h e business, economic, s o c i a l , and e d u c a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s of t h e f a r m e r s o f t h e n a t i o n ; and 3. d e v e l o p a g r i c u l t u r e . B e c a u s e o f t h e s e b r o a d o b j e c t i v e s , many s t a t e s have c h a n g e d their to  e m p h a s i s i n t h e p r o g r a m o f t h e Farm B u r e a u f r o m  legislative  brought  and  business  activities  a new r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e f a r m e r  state  and f e d e r a l governments.  with  county  [farmers]  agent  :  n a t u r e o f t h e i r work"  extension  agent  would (Baker,  emerged  as  the s e r v i c e s of the f e d e r a l ,  an  state,  f o r i n f o r m a t i o n and p r o v i d i n g  answering  t o groups and i n d i v i d u a l s " As  pressures  t o farmers developed, Smith-Lever  Service and  as of  an  integral  the  accumulation  t o a g r i c u l t u r e and r u r a l  the  and  U.S. C o n g r e s s  A c t i n 1914, c r e a t i n g  A c t i n 1914 was and  (Darkenwald  service  on t h e need t o d i f f u s e  U.S.  A c c o r d i n g t o Malone and F l o w e r s  problems  relationship  requests  Universities  discovery  a  Farm  ,  the  Smith-Lever  agents  provides "direct  165).  Extension  extension  The a g e n t  information passing  uniting  county,  governments.  instruction 1982  educational  : 9 6 ) . Thus, the county  educational and  the  the  This  r e l a t i o n s w i t h the county  Bureaus "because they b e l i e v e d t h a t such interfere  1939).  and  And t h e c o u n t y  discontinued their administrative  1939  (Baker,  education  part  of  Department  to  Merriam, practical acted  by  the Cooperative the  of  Land-Grant Agriculture.  (1980 : 1 3 4 ) , t h e p a s s a g e o f t h e  the  result  of  of r e s e a r c h - b a s e d  living,  coupled  "subsequent  rapid  knowledge  related  with  b e i n g f a c e d by t h e r u r a l p o p u l a t i o n " .  some  pressing  The C o o p e r a t i v e  41  E x t e n s i o n S e r v i c e A c t , a s amended i n 1977, l i s t e d  the  purposes  of t h e E x t e n s i o n S e r v i c e a s t o : aid in diffusing among the people of the United States useful and practical information on subjects relating to agriculture, uses of s o l a r energy with respect t o a g r i c u l t u r e , a n d home e c o n o m i c s , and t o e n c o u r a g e t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e same (91 S t a t . 1011). T h i s marks " t h e b e g i n n i n g education the  of  organized,  e f f o r t s and t h e b e g i n n i n g  university  accountable  into  the  t o the s o c i a l  public  non-formal  university  of a t r e n d towards b r i n g i n g domain  as  a  social  system i t h e l p s t o produce"  actor  ( F o x , 1982  : 163). As  noted  i n t h e 1958 r e p o r t on S c o p e a n d R e s p o s i b i l i t y o f  the C o o p e r a t i v e  E x t e n s i o n S e r v i c e , known a s S c o p e R e p o r t  t h i s broad  charter clearly  education  for action  themselves.  In  identifies  directed  performing  objectives  for  in  t o t h e needs of t h e p e o p l e  relation  function  towards h e l p i n g people  this  the Cooperative  Extension's  function,  four  as  to help -general  Extension Service are described (Scope R e p o r t ,  1. G r e a t e r a b i l i t y in maintaining more e f f i c i e n t f a r m s a n d b e t t e r homes. 2. G r e a t e r ability i n acquiring higher i n c o m e s a n d l e v e l s o f l i v i n g on a c o n t i n u i n g basis. 3. I n c r e a s e d c o m p e t e n c y a n d willingness, by both adults and y o u t h , t o assume l e a d e r s h i p and c i t i z e n s h i p r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . 4. I n c r e a s e d a b i l i t y a n d w i l l i n g n e s s t o undertake organized g r o u p a c t i o n when s u c h action will contribute effectively to improving t h e i r welfare. These o b j e c t i v e s a r e a c h i e v e d  (1958),  through:  1958 : 3 ) :  42  giving of instruction and practical demonstrations i n a g r i c u l t u r e , uses of s o l a r e n e r g y w i t h r e s p e c t t o a g r i c u l t u r e , a n d home economics and s u b j e c t s r e l a t i n g t h e r e t o t o persons not a t t e n d i n g or r e s i d e n t i n said c o l l e g e s . . . and i m p a r t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n on s a i d subjects through demonstrations, p u b l i c a t i o n s , a n d o t h e r w i s e ... (91 S t a t . 1011). The  Scope Report  (1958) h a s i d e n t i f i e d  t h e h a r d c o r e o f an  adequate  program  informal  to  priority  attention  nine areas  of by  so i d e n t i f i e d  -1. E f f i c i e n c y  education,  the Cooperative  2. E f f i c i e n c y  in  the  high The  (1958) were:  production  marketing,  consumption of a g r i c u l t u r a l  given  Extension Service.  i n t h e Scope Report  in agricultural  be  distribution,  and  products  3. C o n s e r v a t i o n , d e v e l o p m e n t , a n d u s e o f n a t u r a l  resources  4. Management on t h e f a r m a n d i n t h e home 5. F a m i l y  living  6. Y o u t h d e v e l o p m e n t 7. L e a d e r s h i p  development  8. Community i m p r o v e m e n t a n d r e s o u r c e 9. P u b l i c The  Scope R e p o r t  development  affairs ( 1 9 5 8 : 8) h a s recommended t h a t :  a l t h o u g h t h e degree of emphasis w i t h r e s p e c t to each of these a r e a s may v a r y f r o m one c q u n t y o r one s t a t e t o a n o t h e r , the t o t a l effort of e x t e n s i o n work i n the United S t a t e s should f u l l y r e c o g n i z e these areas of e m p h a s i s. The  Smith-Lever  Grant  A c t was a p a r t o f t h e p a t t e r n o f p r e v i o u s  Universities  legislation.  And t h e C o o p e r a t i v e  Land-  Extension  43  Service has  i s the  at  only nationwide adult education  l e a s t one  the U n i t e d  representative  States.  in essentially  and  its  academic  base"  that  every county  " I t s unique c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are  comprehensiveness, 82  institution  in  diversity,  (Greenwood,  1981-  : 6). . The  university  activities. separate  model  the  reached  committees  representatives  be  United  1939  outlining  1938.  Land-Grant  agreement  for  : 9).  of the  arrangements  Baker  the  and  in  1919  for research regulatory  and  work  T h i s a g r e e m e n t was  Agriculture policy with  w r i t t e n by (1939  regulatory  e s t a b l i s h e d by The  that  : 9-10)  of  to the  a l l  "the  t h e c o l l e g e s and the  Secretary  was  as  of  of  extension  work and  and  enforcement"  state  the  and  colleges  law  f o r m a l l y a c c e p t e d by  Department  two  conference  Association  S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t of A g r i c u l t u r e i n a l e t t e r  Secretary  letter  been f i r m l y  i n 1919  of  responsible  s t a t e departments (Baker,  incorporate  of t h e N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f C o m m i s s i o n e r s  A g r i c u l t u r e r e a c h e d an should  not  T h i s d i s t i n c t i o n has  agreements  between  does  sent  governors in  its  by in  the the 1923  cooperative  s t a t e departments.  Agriculture  the  as  follows:  'In a l l r e g u l a t o r y work and m a t t e r s of law e n f o r c e m e n t , we cooperate with the State department of a g r i c u l t u r e , or such law e n f o r c e m e n t a g e n c i e s as t h e S t a t e may have created. Our r e s e a r c h w o r k , i f done i n c o o p e r a t i o n with the States, i s c a r r i e d on w i t h t h e experiment stations of the land-grant colleges. Our extension work i n a g r i c u l t u r e and home e c o n o m i c s i s c a r r i e d on with the extension d i v i s i o n s of the agricultural  quoted  The by  44  colleges .... I am informed that the National Association of Commissioners, Secretaries, and Departments of A g r i c u l t u r e and the Association of Land-Grant Colleges have e n d o r s e d a n d recommended t h e g e n e r a l p l a n o f administration and t h a t i t i s spreading rapidly. General development along this l i n e , i t appears, w i l l enable the Federal government t o c o o p e r a t e w i t h d i f f e r e n t S t a t e agencies without c o n f u s i o n of f u n c t i o n s . ' The States'  second  a g r e e m e n t was e s t a b l i s h e d b e c a u s e o f t h e U n i t e d  experience  1930's.  The  focus p u b l i c  in i t s agricultural  severe droughts attention  r e g u l a t o r y problems.  development  and d u s t  i n dramatic  brought  the  units for  are new  Since  of  these  and  Virginia,  agencies,  and W a l c o t t , many  relationships  activities  of  planning  the  with  different  to  guide  the  I n 1936, t h e A s s o c i a t i o n o f L a n d a  Committee  to  reached  establish  on  July  a system  to  study  8,  1938  at  new  particularly  1940 : 1 5 6 - 1 5 7 ) .  the Land-Grant U n i v e r s i t i e s In  the  together, p a r t i c u l a r l y activities,  Mt.  Weather  to  and (Gaus  Agreement  to bring related functions  t o keep e x t e n s i o n p u r p o s e s and  Mt.  of c o - o r d i n a t i o n as  between t h e Department of A g r i c u l t u r e  r e a l i g n m e n t s were made i n o r d e r  regulatory  programs  o f F e d e r a l - S t a t e R e l a t i o n s (Gaus a n d W a l c o t t , 1940  w e l l as c o l l a b o r a t i o n state  important  overall  appointed  : 1 5 7 ) . An a g r e e m e n t was Weather,  rehabilitation  i n t e r d e p e n d e n t , p r o v i s i o n was n e e d e d  a l l efforts.  Universities  arrangements  into  sensitively  arrangements  integration Grant  so  o f 1934 h e l p e d t o  The d e v e l o p m e n t o f v a r i o u s f o r m s o f r e l i e f  U.S.D.A.  other departments.  the  ways on n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s a n d  a s s i s t a n c e as w e l l as c o n s e r v a t i o n and had  storms  during  provide  separate  from  u n i f i e d p l a n n i n g as a  45  guide t o a c t i o n , has  also  i n t e g r a t i o n and c o l l a b o r a t i o n .  reaffirmed  research  and  memoranda  that  extension  the  have  and a r e m u t u a l l y  The  relationships  been  i n t h e f i e l d of  clearly  satisfactory  agreement  established  in  (Gaus a n d W a l c o t t ,  1940  e s t a b l i s h e d the understanding  that  : 463). These agreements c l e a r l y Cooperative  Extension personnel  i n s p e c t i o n and o t h e r  w o u l d n o t be r e q u i r e d t o p e r f o r m  regulatory  activities.  Accordingly,  the  most w i d e l y r e c o g n i z e d d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e g o v e r n m e n t a n d t h e u n i v e r s i t y m o d e l s was e s t a b l i s h e d f o r m a l l y i n 1923, some 9 y e a r s after  the establishment In  summary,  establishment States.  three  legislative  of t h e C o o p e r a t i v e  Cooperative  Extension  The  influenced  the  of  scope  1914  was  the  Cooperative and  basic  Extension  purpose  of  the  S e r v i c e i s t o d i f f u s e u s e f u l and p r a c t i c a l  i n f o r m a t i o n on s u b j e c t s r e l a t i n g their  acts  which created t h i s nationwide  i n the United States.  Extension Service.  Extension Service i n the United  However, t h e S m i t h - L e v e r A c t  legislation Service  of the Cooperative  t o a g r i c u l t u r e and t o encourage  application.  S t r u c t u r e and O r g a n i z a t i o n The including  Cooperative  the Land-Grant  governments. a  Extension  Universities  and  undertaking  federal  and  local  The o r g a n i z a t i o n s t r u c t u r e h a s been e s t a b l i s h e d by  'Memorandum o f U n d e r s t a n d i n g '  Land-Grant  Service i s a joint  institutions  b e t w e e n t h e USDA a n d t h e v a r i o u s  i n l i n e with the basic federal  extension  46  legislation,  the Smith-Lever Act.  of  agreement, t h e r e  and  i t s counties.  informal; The  agreement  i s a l s o an u n d e r s t a n d i n g In  i n others  I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e memorandum  some  states  between each s t a t e  this  understanding  i t i s i n t h e form of a d e f i n i t e  defines  each p a r t n e r ' s  is  memorandum.  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and j o i n t  obligations.  Federal Extension The  Service  USDA h a s a g r e e d t o m a i n t a i n  unit, Federal Extension  Service.  under  of  the  direction  the  a  central  administrative  The F e d e r a l E x t e n s i o n Secretary  of  Service,  Agriculture, i s  r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of t h e Smith-Lever A c t and of other  laws and r e g u l a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g c o o p e r a t i v e  (Williams, all  extension  conducted Extension 1963;  1968).  According  work  through  in the  t o t h e memorandum o f  agriculture land-grant  and  1966; W i l l i a m s ,  1. p r o v i d e  home  economics  (Kelsey  The F e d e r a l and  Hearne,  n a t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p and s t i m u l a t i o n ;  by  institutions,  o f work a n d b u d g e t s  the d i r e c t o r s of e x t e n s i o n to  release  federal  a t the Land-Grant  grants-in-aid  f o r the  a p p r o v e d p l a n s , a n d t o r e c e i v e r e p o r t s on t h e y e a r ' s 3. c o n d u c t can  work;  such a c t i v i t i e s as a r e of a n a t i o n a l n a t u r e , o r  b e t t e r be done on a n a t i o n w i d e  4. s e r v e  is  1968) a r e a s f o l l o w s :  2. e x a m i n e a n d a p p r o v e t h e a n n u a l p l a n s submitted  work  understanding  institutions.  S e r v i c e ' s major r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s  Clark,  extension  basis;  a s t h e e d u c a t i o n a l arm o f t h e USDA; a n d  47  5. a s s i s t and  state extension  Grant  Extension  stated  in  institutions  distinct  the have  Service memorandum o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g , agreed  work i n  section  agriculture  machinery  focuses  established  particular",  the  Cooperative  Extension  Extension  by  structure Service  The  Extension  Cooperative  Idaho,  the  of the Federal  Program Development  Idaho  formal  distinct  Land-Grant  described  in  organization  and  t h e Washington  Director  is  of  t o t h e USDA.  of  the  in Idaho  Cooperative  extension  work.  Service  i s the  off-campus  institution,  Service.  a s w e l l a s an  (Guide t o Extension  1976).  Service  'line'  responsible  a  of A g r i c u l t u r e of the U n i v e r s i t y  Extension  i n Idaho,  terms  with  Universities,  and  land-grant  Extension  a  administrative  organizational structure f o rthe  Cooperative  maintain  economics  and a c c e p t a b l e  the  Extension  state's  and  Service  e d u c a t i o n a l arm o f t h e C o l l e g e  The  home  Service f o rproviding a g r i c u l t u r a l  Idaho C o o p e r a t i v e  affiliate  and  on  the  organize  t h e Land-  f o r t h e c o n d u c t a n d management  s e l e c t e d by t h e i n s t i t u t i o n  This  of  to  administrative division  of e x t e n s i o n director  development  implementation.  The C o o p e r a t i v e As  s e r v i c e s i n program  to  (Organization,  and  'staff'.  t h e Dean  A g r i c u l t u r e and t o the A d m i n i s t r a t o r  University  of  of  the  of  1977) may be  The the  Federal  Extension  College  of  Extension  48  Service.  The  l i n e o r g a n i z a t i o n c o n s i s t s of the D i r e c t o r ,  district  s u p e r v i s o r s , and c o u n t y s t a f f .  handles  the  administration  organization; assistance  the  staff  through  and  The  supervision  organization  the  line  various  organization  f u n c t i o n s of the  provides  staff  four  specialized  units.  The  county  extension  o f f i c e s a r e the b a s i c program u n i t s of the  Cooperative  Extension  Service.  University  and  individual  the  There a r e agreements between t h e  conduct of e x t e n s i o n Cooperative kinds  of e x t e n s i o n  of  county  work i n t h e v a r i o u s  Extension  1. D i s t r i c t  Service  The  1977)  Idaho  has f o u r  Supervisors  3. C o u n t y E x t e n s i o n  Agricultural  Agents  Specialists  The  four  Extension  District  Director  their district The  Supervisors  to assist  (Organization,  county Extension  to  S t a f f Chairman p r o v i d e s  t o d e v e l o p an  Extension  program.  The C h a i r m a n  respect  to  management, a n d o f f i c i a l  programs  the They  within  1977).  i n order  commissioners  responsible  in coordinating  staff  with  are  f o r managing groups of c o u n t y u n i t s .  are a l s o responsible  1971 ) .  counties.  f o r the  workers:  S t a f f Chairmen  staff  commissioners  (Organization,  2. C o u n t y E x t e n s i o n  4.  the  boards  effective  coordinated  i s responsible  coordinating relations  with  leadership to  county the  f o r other  county  programs,  office  board  (Job D e s c r i p t i o n : County Extension  county  of  county  S t a f f Chairman,  49  The  County E x t e n s i o n  District  Supervisor  A g r i c u l t u r a l Agent i s r e s p o n s i b l e t o a  for  administration,  and  s u p e r v i s i o n of p r o g r a m d e v e l o p m e n t and  training.  the agent  and  plans,  educational  conducts,  programs  in  reports the  D e s c r i p t i o n : County E x t e n s i o n The  specialists  responsible  to  or program  responsibility  The  and  1961  The  are  D i r e c t o r through department  heads  program  of  :  1914  and  for  was  forth  organizational  and  "set  state  law  the  'line' 1977)  President Secretary  Administrator The  line  Washington  i n the  passed  structure  federal  in  1913"  of Washington  S e r v i c e may  'staff'.  The  i s responsible to  also  Extension  be  State  described  Director  (Job  the:  1. Dean of t h e C o l l e g e o f A g r i c u l t u r e and  2.  Director  102).  in  the  coordinating  Extension  machinery  the  Extension  Description,  the  have  Service  Service  U n i v e r s i t y Cooperative of  function  leaders  to  administrative  formal  terms  1971). staff  Extension  Extension  Smith-Lever Act (Turner,  geographic  extension  1977).  general  Cooperative  evaluates  and  a  report  Washington Cooperative The  particular,  (Job  Agent,  the E x t e n s i o n  In  overall  area  perform  leaders.  (Organization,  assigned  for  through  him  to  of t h e U n i v e r s i t y ; and of  Agriculture,  of the F e d e r a l  organization  consists  Extension of  the  USDA,  through  the  Service. Director,  Associate  50  Director, staff.  Extension The  Supervisors  Associate  Director  responsible  to  responsible  for administrative  personnel,  Service.  administration staff  through are  The  and  has  Director.  line  1977) i s  including  he i s the  management p h a s e s o f t h e  organization  undertakes  the  f u n c t i o n s of t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n ;  provides units.  units  county  In p a r t i c u l a r ,  management,  supervision  program  and  (Job" D e s c r i p t i o n ,  financial  various staff  basic  University  and  organization  the  the  county  Extension  operation,  Extension  the  the  (six districts)  of  specialized  The c o u n t y the  assistance  extension  extension  work.  signed agreements w i t h the i n d i v i d u a l  commissioners f o r the conduct of E x t e n s i o n  offices The  boards of  work  i n the  various counties. The  Washington Cooperative  of e x t e n s i o n  E x t e n s i o n S e r v i c e has f o u r  workers:  1. E x t e n s i o n  Supervisor  2. C o u n t y o r A r e a  Extension  Chairperson  3. C o u n t y o r A r e a  Extension  Agent  4. E x t e n s i o n The  kinds  Specialist  Extension  Supervisor  ( J o b D e s c r i p t i o n , 1977), i s named  by a n d i s r e s p o n s i b l e t o t h e E x t e n s i o n  Director.  His  general  responsibilities include: 1. r e p r e s e n t matters  t h e E x t e n s i o n D i r e c t o r on p e r s o n n e l  a t the county  2. r e p r e s e n t  the  or area  county  and  fiscal  level;  or a r e a c h a i r p e r s o n s and s t a f f t o  the E x t e n s i o n D i r e c t o r ; and  51  3.. work w i t h c o u n t y staff  to  insure  education societal The  effort  or a  area  balanced  that  chairpersons  county  reflects  or  appropriate  county or area extension chairperson  i s named by t h e E x t e n s i o n  the  board  chairperson  area  and  Extension  audience  and  needs.  1977)  of  county  for a specific  the E x t e n s i o n major  extension  Supervisor  responsibilities  (Job D e s c r i p t i o n ,  Director  in  consultation  commissioners  to  service  county or area.  staff  He i s r e s p o n s i b l e t o  assigned  to that d i s t r i c t .  of  chairperson  the  as  with  The  three  (Job D e s c r i p t i o n ,  1977) a r e : 1.  insure  that  staff  members  are  effective  extension  educators; 2. d e v e l o p  a  educational societal 3.  process effort  effectively  integrate  county chairperson  responsibility The Chairperson  reflects  appropriate  extension  audience  and  needs;-and  program l e a d e r ( s ) , The  t o insure that the county  program  specialists  inputs  from  the state  and s u p e r v i s o r s .  i s a team-builder  and  the  team-building  e x t e n d s beyond t h e c o u n t y .  county of  extension the  county.  agent The  is Area  responsible Extension  to  Agent  the is  responsible tothe: 1. c o u n t y c h a i r p e r s o n  f o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e matter;  2. a l l c o u n t y c h a i r p e r s o n s The  county  or  area  extension  i n the area agent's  and  f o r program. r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s (Job  52  Description, A.  1977)  developing  program(s)  and  with  county or clientele  area  educational  n e e d s and  extension  educational  programs  policies;  developing  where n e e d e d ; C.  c a r r y i n g out  consistent  p r o g r a m s and B.  include:  materials  to  support  and  understanding  and  demonstrating  p h a s e s of p r o g r a m d e v e l o p m e n t  the  following  five  process:  (1) . a u d i e n c e n e e d s a s s e s s m e n t (2) . o b j e c t i v e  setting  (3) . e d u c a t i o n a l p l a n (4) . i m p l e m e n t a t i o n  development  s t r a t e g i e s and  methods  (5) . e v a l u a t i o n The  extension  responsible  to the  specialist  has  the  The  extension  responsibility  1. e v a l u a t e ,  appraise,  a. c o m b i n i n g extension  is  appropriate  (Job D e s c r i p t i o n ,  interpret  social  subject-matter  e n v i r o n m e n t , and  clientele  programing;  by:  their  agents,  educational other  workers i n accomplishing b. e x t e n d i n g  through the  specialist  and  n e e d s as a b a s i s f o r e f f e c t i v e leadership  1977)  to:  i n f o r m a t i o n , p h y s i c a l and  2.. p r o v i d e  Description,  s t a t e program l e a d e r  department chairman. 1977)  (Job  efforts  specialists,  with and  county  research  joint projects.  educational  c l i e n t e l e - - p r o f e s s i o n a l and  programs  directly  nonprofessional.  to  53  3. p r o v i d e  county extension  planning, determining  agents  assistance  i n d i c a t o r s of progress,  in  project  and measuring  r e s u l t s ; and 4. p r e p a r e and  and s t i m u l a t e p r e p a r a t i o n of t e a c h i n g  p u b l i c a t i o n s relevant to subject-matter  materials  assignment  for  b o t h y o u t h and a d u l t s . In  summary,  cooperative  the  financial  Department  of  Cooperative  Extension  arrangement  Agriculture,  the  in  Service  which  Land-Grant  the  is  a  Federal  U n i v e r s i t i e s , and  county governments a r e sponsors.  The o r g a n i z a t i o n s t r u c t u r e h a s  been e s t a b l i s h e d by a 'Memorandum  of Understanding'  USDA  and  the  there  i s also  counties.  various an  land-grant  understanding  The F e d e r a l  institutions.  between  Extension  University grant  involving  a distinct  basis,  on  Service  subjects  application.  of  other  Extension  work. having  Extension  and i t s  laws  and  as  The land-  t o o r g a n i z e and  f o r t h e conduct and  work  is  the county extension  The s c o p e a n d p u r p o s e  f o r the  Work.  University,  administrative division  but  b a s i c program u n i t . Extension  Cooperative  state  undertake the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  management o f e x t e n s i o n district  and  the  In a d d i t i o n ,  i s responsible  of Idaho and Washington S t a t e  institutions,  maintain  each  Service  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the Smith-Lever A c t regulations  between  on  o f f i c e as the  the  Cooperative  i s t o d i f f u s e u s e f u l and p r a c t i c a l  information  relating  to  agriculture  and  of  organized  t o encourage  their  54  Summary Agricultural provided  extension  either  agriculture,  directly  or by c o l l e g e s  government departments of The is  a  provision  It i s  district  addition  to  has  The the  professional  organized  his  has  implementing  under  normal  delivery services  regional  the  of t e c h n i c a l  and  on  agriculture  to  within  of  an  Agriculture.  major l i n k with farmers. duties,  compliance and  Canada  purpose of  Ministry  extension  in  in  offices  been given other d u t i e s ,  provincial  of  i n c o o p e r a t i o n with  scope and  Government, the  been  are  - departments  such  approving farm c r e d i t grants, ensuring that  draining  America  agriculture.  a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t i s the  agriculturalist and  universities  Extension S e r v i c e are  e x e c u t i v e branch of the The  and  North  government  responsibility.  economic i n f o r m a t i o n and farmers.  by  in  of A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension S e r v i c e  provincial  Agricultural  services  with  In  the  district  as  planning  land c l e a r i n g regulations,  federal  programs  Cooperative  Extension  and  or and  policy  admini s t r a t i o n . In  comparison,  the  c o o p e r a t i v e arrangement Agriculture, are  Universities  and  is  system.  I t s scope and  information  on  which  the  Land-Grant U n i v e r s i t i e s ,  participants.  institution  base.  the  in  It an  is  a  integral  Service  Federal and  Department  of  county governments  nationwide  adult  part  the  of  I t s unique c h a r a c t e r i s t i c  education Land-Grant  i s i t s academic  purpose i s to d i f f u s e u s e f u l  subjects  is a  r e l a t i n g to a g r i c u l t u r e  and and  practical encourage  55  t h e i r  a p p l i c a t i o n .  b a s i s ,  but  p r o g r a m  u n i t .  main  l i n k  The  h a v i n g The  w i t h  any  r e g u l a t o r y  two  s e p a r a t e  E x t e n s i o n  the  c o u n t y  c o u n t y  a g r e e m e n t s  The a  o r g a n i z e d  in  o f f i c e  a g r i c u l t u r a l  a g e n t  p o l i c y  r e a c h e d  i s  e x t e n s i o n  e x t e n s i o n  f a r m e r s .  a c t i v i t i e s ,  work  on as  not  r e q u i r e d  t h a t  has  been  and  1938.  the  a g e n t '  i s  1919  d i s t r i c t  to  b a s i c  i s  the  p e r f o r m  e s t a b l i s h e d  by  56  CHAPTER I I I  THEORETICAL FOUNDATION I t h a s been w i d e l y extension  work  i s conducted  workers employed i n Prior  work  researcher  systems  extension  reasonable  to  based  on  to  employing  theoretical  university  models.  agricultural model.  of these work  extension  However, two m a j o r  on  the  h i s role.  way  It  the forms the seems  t h a t how an e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r c a r r i e s o u t  i s i n f l u e n c e d by h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g  organization  he s e e k s t o s e r v e has  performs  extension  s e r v i c e have a l s o d e a l t  each  extension  worker  assume  his responsibilities  variables  related  agricultural  individual  people  extension  agricultural  agricultural  and  i s i n t e r e s t e d i n the e f f e c t  organizing  effective  the  government  of problems  within  his  both  that  by  studies in agricultural  with a variety  of  reported  expects  expect  of  what  h i m t o do a n d by what t h e him.  been d e a l t w i t h by r o l e  frame of r e f e r e n c e  of  for this  The  theory study  study  of  researchers. i s based  on  such The role  theory. This chapter  discuss role theory  study;  study  various positions i n the a g r i c u l t u r a l  (3)  present  review  (1)  this  and  (2)  will  i n v e s t i g a t i o n s which used r o l e theory t o  the research questions  Role An  agricultural  as i t p e r t a i n s t o  extension  extension  service;  f o r the study.  Theory s e r v i c e a s an o r g a n i z a t i o n c a n be  57  considered  a  social  system  encompassing  many  positions,  s t a t u s e s , a n d r o l e s w h i c h a r e i n f l u e n c e d by t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n well  a s by i t s c l i e n t e l e  (Abdullah,  1964).  An e x t e n s i o n  must t a k e a c c o u n t o f t h e p e r c e p t i o n s a n d t h e expectations  of  h i s employer  extension worker's give  r o l e a n d d e t e r m i n e how much  recognizes  required to provide  an a p p r o p r i a t e c o n c e p t u a l  as  present  purposes given  conceived  structure  individuals  organization  by  Parsons  seemed  focuses  on s o c i a l  participating The  system  of  c o n s i s t s of three  of t h e e x t e n s i o n ego.  set of s e l f  which  Role  very appropriate f o r  in  the  the  According  who to  and  functioning  the  extension agent,  two s u b s y s t e m s ,  to  by  Parsons  as  (1957)  each  of  the  e x p e c t a t i o n s of t h e  role  of  the  o f >the e x t e n s i o n  the  roles  i n f l u e n c e the behaviour  refered  Wilkening  'role'  of  the extension  The l a s t  that  the  agricultural  subsystems:  is  from a  e x t e n s i o n worker, and t h e s e e x p e c t a t i o n s  the a c t i v i t i e s to  worker,  may h a v e d i f f e r e n t  agricultural  refers  A theory  framework.  subsystems  which Parsons r e f e r s t o as the ' a l t e r s ' ,  subsystems  will  these c o n s i d e r a t i o n s .  the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , and t h e c l i e n t e l e .  'actor',  he  o f an o r g a n i z a t i o n may be a n a l y z e d  organization.  is  weight  (1956/57 : 63-85; 1968 : 24-67) h a s s u g g e s t e d  p o i n t of view which of  conflicting  t h e s e f a c t s a n d g i v e s e m p h a s i s t o them was  theory  Parsons  worker  and h i s c l i e n t e l e v i s a v i s t h e  them i n d e c i d i n g h i s own r o l e p e r f o r m a n c e .  explicitly  the  often  as  worker.  Parsons  r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s as t w o - f o l d .  influence  (1951  :  38)  The a c t o r h a s a  e x p e c t a t i o n s w h i c h must be met, a n d t h e  i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h a l s o have a s e t o f e x p e c t a t i o n s  persons f o r him.  he  58  The  e x t e n s i o n worker f i l l s  service. own  He  standards  'ego'.  and  perceptions and  ego.  i f these  I f , on  r o l e expectations are  t h e o t h e r h a n d , ego  McEachern  definition  as  According  complete  also  on  among single and  social  clientele.  rewarding  the  sanction  The  they  of  (1972 is  role  in a  social  and  that  at  behavior the  actions the  by  same t i m e , by  his  role  :  329-330)  the  between  his  worker clientele  "has  mainly  and  mainly  [organization]".  his  employing  he  i s expected  client  agricultural  on  items.  located  extension  his  on  of r o l e d e f i n e r s where  Burdge  his  of  dispelled  consensus  role definition  position  a study  s t a t e d t h a t the e x t e n s i o n worker i s o f t e n  quite different apparent  thus  positions  sets  relationships with  t o engage i n c e r t a i n subsystem,  sanction  consensus  of  concept  secondary-group r e l a t i o n s h i p s with (1972)  will  receive  i n Massachusetts;  a  the  Rogers  worker's  primary-group  saw  focused  of  w i t h ego's  (1958) c a r r i e d o u t  incumbents  variable  to  o r g a n i z a t i o n and  is  the  they a  perceptions are  role  there  among  Rather,  extension  and  that  expectations  in accord alter  does not  reaction  as  arises.  superintendency  notion  system.  i s the probable  e x p e c t a t i o n s become g r a t i f i c a t i o n ,  Mason  extension  v a l u e s , which Parsons r e f e r s to  Parsons,  'role-conflict'  school  i n the  e x p e c t a t i o n s which conform to h i s  of the e x p e c t a t i o n s of a l t e r ,  Gross,  the  o f b e l i e f s and  these  of a l t e r ,  the  his self-role  A l t e r , a s u s e d by  others,  ego  has  a role position  expected  organization to carry  subsystem.  extension  They  It  workers  out  seems have  59  impressions  or p e r c e p t i o n s  expectations clientele  of  they  their  r a t h e r than c o m p l e t e knowledge of  employing  serve.  These - p e r c e p t i o n s  extension worker's performance. on w h i c h  he  compares  believes  others  his  expect  concerned, h i s perceptions alters'  actual  At  least  actual  of  others concerning concepts  may  performance  him.  So  of a l t e r s '  and  far  the  with  the  basis  what  as h i s b e h a v i o r  expectations can  of  i n f l u e n c e the  they p r o v i d e  e x p e c t a t i o n s a r e what he  p e r c e p t i o n of h i s own  The  organization  use  rather  used  should in  be  this  he is than  t o compare h i s  r o l e performance w i t h the e x p e c t a t i o n s  what he  the  of  doing. study  w i t h i n the r o l e  f r a m e w o r k a r e d e f i n e d as f o l l o w s : 1. r o l e p e r c e p t i o n : t h e p e r c e p t i o n w h i c h one has of the normative expectations of a position as w e l l a s t h e p e r c e p t i o n of t h e way o t h e r s e x p e c t one t o p e r f o r m ( M a r t i n and M a c d o n e l l , 1978 : 6 9 ) . 2. r o l e p e r f o r m a n c e : t h e a c t u a l e n a c t m e n t o f b e h a v i o r s i n t h e s i t u a t i o n ( I b i d . , p. 70). 3. r o l e c o n f l i c t : any s i t u a t i o n i n w h i c h t h e i n c u m b e n t of a f o c a l p o s i t i o n p e r c e i v e s t h a t he is confronted with incompatible expectations (Gross, Mason and M c E a c h e r n , 1965 : 2 4 8 ) . 4. i n t e r - r o l e c o n f l i c t : an individual perceives that others hold different e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r him a s t h e i n c u m b e n t of two o r more p o s i t i o n s ( I b i d . , p. 249). 5. i n t r a - r o l e c o n f l i c t : [an i n d i v i d u a l ] p e r c e i v e s t h a t o t h e r s [ w i t h i n and outside the organization] hold different expectations for him as the incumbent of a single p o s i t i o n ( I b i d . , p. 248-249). 6. r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s : t h e p r e s c r i p t i o n s and p r o s c r i p t i o n s h e l d [ f o r the b e h a v i o r of an  theory  60  individual who occupies p o s i t i o n ] ( K a h n , e t a l . , 1964 B a s e d upon t h e on  the  workers  role  employed  models.  The  study  workers  are  located  e m p l o y s them and  assumes in  have  been  possible  to  served  by  agricultural  the  subsystem which they basis for this the  Although  for  using  study.  an a l t e r n a t e a p p r o a c h .  whether not  or not  essential  t o the study no  expectations  from  to  provisions the  determine were  extension  the  made  on  their  not  the  extension  expectations, because i t  accuracy  for collecting  workers'  the  w o u l d have  Because the  h i s p e r c e p t i o n s a r e a c c u r a t e , and  perceptions,  and  f a c t o r was  w o r k e r a c t s i n t e r m s of h i s p e r c e p t i o n o f a l t e r s '  would  extension  organization  this  Role  It  individual  such a p r o c e s s  r e q u i r e d a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount of t i m e ,  which  serve.  workers to o b t a i n testimony  e x p e c t a t i o n s of the w o r k e r s .  basis  extension  the o r g a n i z a t i o n subsystem  interview  the  agricultural  that  s u p e r v i s o r s w i t h i n the e x t e n s i o n  clientele  of  focuses  k i n d s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  the c l i e n t e l e  provides a theoretical  performance  study  i n t h e two  both  theory  workers'  particular 14).  foregoing considerations, this  r o l e p e r c e p t i o n s and  extension  a :  was  of  his  data  supervisors  on or  clientele.  Utility The positions  application in  increasingly organizational  of  of R o l e role  agricultural in  recent  theory  extension  years  s t r u c t u r e and  Theory t o the  study  service  has  of  been  t o g a i n an u n d e r s t a n d i n g  function.  A few  various used of  the  s t u d i e s which used  6.1  role  theory  reviewed  t o analyze  t o develop  the A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension  a theoretical  Service  were  framework a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h i s  research. Wilkening agent's  (1957 : 2 ) , i n h i s s t u d y o f t h e c o u n t y  role,  stated  that  "The c o n c e p t  r o l e c a n be u s e d i n a  g e n e r a l sense as the r o l e of the e x t e n s i o n agent, the  functions  and  community...". matter they  of  studied  do  in  performed.  agents, to  role  suggest  an  roles  (1957) of  to  the  home e c o n o m i c s a g e n t s ,  agent  definition  county  determine  and  used  to  i n the  becomes  were  made  evaluating  role  theory  extension how  i n t h e p a s t a n d how t h e y  Comparisons  definition,  role  executing,  Wilkening  attempt  of  referring  a  e x t e n s i o n s p e c i a l i s t s do a n d what  self-percept ion  performed t h e i r be  what  i n planning,  program. the  Wisconsin  h i s analysis,  identifying  should  extension  In  relationships  extension  the feel  agents agents they  the and in had  should  among t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l  a n d 4-H C l u b a g e n t s w i t h  consensus, and f u l f i l l m e n t .  respect  Hisfindings  that: the. degree of r o l e fulfillment of the individual agent varies with h i s own personal orientation, whether with those w i t h whom he w o r k s o r w i t h t h o s e i n s u p e r i o r positions, and w i t h t h e degree of c o n t r o l over h i s a c t i v i t i e s , as i n d i c a t e d by h i s status i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n . An h y p o t h e s i s i s suggested that persons i n intermediate positions such as county e x t e n s i o n workers w i l l tend t o conform t o t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s of t h o s e w i t h whom t h e y work a t t h e l o c a l l e v e l or with those a t higher l e v e l s , depending upon t h e n a t u r e o f r e w a r d s t h e y a r e s e e k i n g and upon t h e i r c o n t r o l of r e l a t i o n s h i p s a t the r e s p e c t i v e l e v e l s (Wilkening, 1957 : 49) .  62  In  other  words,  e x p e c t a t i o n s of the and  these-  The  conceived h e l d by  presumably  may  have  different  extension  worker,  i n f l u e n c e the a c t i v i t i e s  D e e k e n s (1958) s t u d i e d t h e  study  It by  subsystems  r o l e of the a g r i c u l t u r a l  specialists  research.  the  of  worker.  Brown and  Service.  of  expectations  the e x t e n s i o n  matter  each  in  the  is  similar  focused  on  t h e m s e l v e s and  the a l t e r s .  They  role  Pennsylvania  the  in  of  Cooperative  approach  to  r o l e of e x t e n s i o n  the p e r c e p t i o n s  (1958  : 263)  the  Extension  the  present  s p e c i a l i s t s as  of r o l e  reported  subject  expectations  that:  L i t t l e e v i d e n c e was f o u n d that specialists define their job as communicators of problems to the researcher; predominant interest i s i n c o m m u n i c a t i n g k n o w l e d g e of subject matter to counties. Specialists p e r c e i v e a l t e r groups as h a v i n g d i f f e r e n t i a l r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s but a r e o r i e n t e d p r i m a r i l y to county agents and are motivated to conform to t h e i r e x p e c t a t i o n s . Wilkening agents working study  was  and  Smith  (1958) s t u d i e d t h e  on Farm and  concerned  work  i d e n t i f i e d at  least  with  of  extension  Home D e v e l o p m e n t i n W i s c o n s i n .  with  the  county extension agents appointed intensive  role  farm  problem  of r o l e d e f i n i t i o n o f  to give  greater  families.  four aspects  Their  emphasis  Wilkening  of r o l e which can  be  These a r e : 1. t h e f u n c t i o n s performed by occupant, 2. t h e n a t u r e of t h e interaction t h e r o l e o c c u p a n t and o t h e r s , 3. c o n s e n s u s with respect to b e h a v i o r and the conformance or  the  role  between expected deviance  and  to  Smith  studied.  63  from t h i s e x p e c t e d b e h a v i o r (norms), and 4. t h e situational context involving p e r s o n s and r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e t o t h e role o c c u p a n t ( W i l k e n i n g a n d S m i t h , 1958 : 1 9 ) . Their  study  was  most c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e f u n c t i o n s p e r f o r m e d  the e x t e n s i o n a g e n t s . from t h e i r  W i l k e n i n g and S m i t h  (1958  by  : 26) c o n c l u d e d  study of the e x t e n s i o n agents' r o l e d e f i n i t i o n  that:  role definition with a system of professional service i s a process which i n v o l v e s commitment t o t h e j o b . . . selective o r i e n t a t i o n toward the c l i e n t e l e or to the 'system'... They  (1958  :26) h a v e a l s o  found e v i d e n c e  that:  the performance of certain functions requires an orientation toward the hierarchical system, w h i l e the performance o f o t h e r s i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h an orientation toward the ' c l i e n t e l e ' , or at l e a s t t o the l o c a l l e v e l of the system. I n t h e c a s e of f u n c t i o n s p e r f o r m e d W i l k e n i n g and S m i t h  (1958  by  the  : 27) s u g g e s t e d  Extension  Service,  that:  the p e r f o r m a n c e of t h e ' t e a c h i n g ' f u n c t i o n , strictly speaking, requires a system of rewards and controls above the c l i e n t or l o c a l l e v e l . . . t h e performance of functions such as providing technical advice and i n f o r m a t i o n and c o n s u l t i n g i n t h e problems of management of the farm and home have t h e i r immediate rewards t o the individual, h e n c e , r e q u i r e a minimum o f c o n t r o l o f s t a t e and n a t i o n a l l e v e l s . T h i s i s e v i d e n t i n the g e n e r a l l a c k of s u p e r v i s i o n of the e x t e n s i o n program on the p a r t of the f e d e r a l o f f i c e and t h e h i g h d e g r e e o f autonomy on t h e part of t h e c o u n t y o f f i c e s w i t h i n t h e s t a t e . Bible  and Brown  e x t e n t of r o l e  (1963) h a v e u s e d r o l e t h e o r y t o a s s e s s t h e  consensus  (on  expectations  and  performances)  64  among  and  between  extension  advisory  extension agents i n Pennsylvania. in  theoretical  formulation  were c o l l e c t e d  committee  members a n d  The i n v e s t i g a t i o n  is  similar  t o the present study, but the data  f r o m two g r o u p s .  They  (1963 : 81) r e p o r t e d  that:  consensus on r o l e definition and role performance was relatively low among c o m m i t t e e members a n d among c o u n t y e x t e n s i o n agents. . . . Both c o m m i t t e e members and extension agents had h i g h e r c o n s e n s u s on perception of r o l e expectations than on p e r c e p t i o n of r o l e performance. Job  (1965)  agriculturalists the  majority  Bible position  and to  i n B r i t i s h Columbia.  role  on  their  selected  H i s data  district  indicated  that  agriculturalists identified their  functions  as  'consultant',  consensus of  on  county  role  extension  definition, directors  'source  the county extension d i r e c t o r s  county  and  the  in  Missouri  and t h e i r c o u n t y e x t e n s i o n  p e r c e p t i o n of r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s and  did  of  of  McNabb ( 1 9 6 6 ) e x a m i n e d b o t h t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f  p e r c e i v e d by d i r e c t o r s that  roles  and ' s t u d e n t ' .  performance  found  the  of the d i s t r i c t  major e x t e n s i o n information',  studied  staff.  Bible  staff.  had g r e a t e r  role  role as They  agreement  performances  than  a n d McNabb (1966 :14) s u g g e s t  that: where there exists a dual structural arrangement f o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e purposes l i k e the s t a t e and c o u n t y o r g a n i z a t i o n s , adequate communication i n role definition toa l l concerned is doubly important... for e f f e e t i v e . . . r o l e performance... Morehouse  (.1968 : i i ) ,  i n h i s s t u d y of r o l e p e r c e p t i o n and  65  performance Scotia,  found  r o l e s but their  among that  agents  "are  work where t h e y w o u l d l i k e  district  (1970)  agriculturalist  northern A l b e r t a .  He  c o n t a c t s of the d i s t r i c t R e c e n t l y , Lamble social in  conforming w i t h i n the  the  general  Nova  expected scope  16)  role  Extension  t h a t about h a l f  agriculturalist :  to their  educational  i n the Peace R i v e r  (1980  in  of  t o change e m p h a s i s . "  studied  found  personnel  of  a  District  of the  clientele  were e d u c a t i o n a l .  viewed  organization  a  e x p l o r e d "the p o t e n t i a l  utility  understanding  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l behavior  phenomena" i n r e l a t i o n  district  and  role ambiguity  agriculturalists  Agriculture.  Lamble  functional  i n the E x t e n s i o n D i v i s i o n  (1980  : 117)  a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t ' s p o s i t i o n as c o n t a c t and  at the  of r o l e  as  s y s t e m and  to r o l e - c o n f l i c t  the  extension  there are c e r t a i n areas  McNaughton  in  agricultural  "the  theory  levels  for  of  Alberta  c o n c e p t u a l i z e d the  district  focal point for client-agency  t h e d e l i v e r y a g e n t f o r t h e p r o g r a m s and  services  of  agency." These  i n v e s t i g a t o r s used r o l e t h e o r y  problems r e l a t e d  to study a v a r i e t y  t o e x t e n s i o n work w i t h i n s y s t e m s b a s e d i n  model.  However,  no  effect  of p e r f o r m i n g  researcher  had  attempted  r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s on  educational  effectiveness,  encountered  in  the  chapter  d e a l s w i t h the  attempt  to answer.  present  a  the e x t e n s i o n  limitation study.  to assess  The  which next  each the  worker's  was  s e c t i o n of  r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s which the  of  study  also this will  66  Research In  this  selected workers  research  to in  study  Questions  r o l e theory as conceived  the  functions  of  by P a r s o n s  agricultural  t h e government and u n i v e r s i t y models.  agricultural  extension  the u n i v e r s i t y Agricultural of  agriculture  the  fact  other  be e x t e n d e d t o p o t e n t i a l information.  extend  these  research  services that  were  research  related  born  based  out  has  that research f i n d i n g s should  u s e r s a l o n g w i t h encouragement t o adopt  Agricultural  ( K e l l o g g a n d Knapp, 1 9 6 6 ) .  extension  serves not only t o  on  through  the  philosophy  B e c a u s e t h e two  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l patterns, there are  t o be d i f f e r e n c e s i n e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r s '  i s the r e l a t i v e  importance  of  a c t i o n - o r i e n t e d and  types of e d u c a t i o n a l programs.  m o d e l s have d i f f e r e n t  and  t o t h e needs of t h e p e o p l e  I t i s based  t o improve themselves  problem-solving  in  broad  resources but a l s o t o h e l p r e l a t e the teaching  h e l p i n g people  of  knowledge  disciplines  programs of t h e i n s t i t u t i o n  2. What  of  models? extension  and  positions  w o r k e r s i n t h e government and  a p p l i c a t i o n s , and o u t of a c o n c e r n  such  be a n s w e r e d  t h e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e two m o d e l s .  1. What a r e t h e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e  recognition  extension  The r e s e a r c h  q u e s t i o n s w h i c h f o l l o w h a v e been f o r m u l a t e d a n d w i l l to determine  was  likely  positions.  of d i f f e r e n t  of p r o f e s s i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t i n t h e two m o d e l s ?  kinds  67  Agricultural extension  worker  and  an o r g a n i z e r "  of  carrying  stages:  for  out  an e x t e n s i o n  of farm  This  does  an  h a v e on h i s r o l e  performance?  The  extension  of formal  educator,  i s the  free  official  of  i n s t r u c t i o n and  particular  extension  skills  regulatory  functions.  functions  stigma This  not  one o f p e r s u a s i o n .  communication  any  worker's  agent's i n f l u e n c e has  a u t h o r i t y but r a t h e r  responsibility  related  development.  f o r performing  agricultural  process  f a c t e m p h a s i z e s t h e i m p o r t a n c e and need  effects  responsibility  require  The  technology,  program c o n s i s t s of four  These r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s  3. What  program.  ( K e l l o g g a n d Knapp, 1966 : 1 8 7 ) . The  sound p r o f e s s i o n a l  other  education  i s "an a d v i s e r , a t e a c h e r  competencies.  one  i s an a d u l t  knowing t h e community, program p l a n n i n g ,  evaluation. and  extension  of  H i s main  information,  as  t h a t m i g h t be a t t a c h e d educational  approach  fosters  f o r c h a n g e among p e o p l e a n d m o t i v a t e s them t o a c t i o n  leads  to  change  (Leagans,  1963).  Since  a c t i v i t i e s a r e t h e f u n c t i o n o f an o r g a n i z a t i o n of  the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n  authority  rather  observers believe educational regulatory to  of  than they  strategy.  laws  and  through might  be  educational  them  with  performance  f u n c t i o n w i t h i n t h e g o v e r n m e n t m o d e l may be  h a v e an e f f e c t  on t h e a g e n t ' s e d u c a t i o n a l  that  regulatory  by  legal  leadership,  incompatible the  a  which has c o n t r o l  implements  Therefore,  an  t o some  desire  desirable  been  some  extension of  the  expected  performance.  Such  68  an  i n f l u e n c e m i g h t be a b s e n t  4.  What a r e t h e  from t h e u n i v e r s i t y  differences  between  model.  government  and  u n i v e r s i t y models w i t h r e g a r d t o e x t e n s i o n workers' : a.  selection  of  adult  education  methods  and  techniques? b.  scope of e d u c a t i o n a l  responsibilities?  c.  interest  i n research?  d.  interest  i n k i n d s of p r o f e s s i o n a l  upgrading?  e. m e m b e r s h i p i n p r o f e s s i o n a l s o c i e t i e s ? f. r e a d i n g The research key  role  One  'triple and  interests?  responsibility  model  the  than  of  different  Extension  the  between  in  practices  government  extension  workers  in  model. can  be  university  Therefore, expected  to  the be  regard  s i x variables.  differences  in  role  perceptions  e x t e n s i o n workers employed  the next  the  government and u n i v e r s i t y models w i t h  T h e s e r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s were e s t a b l i s h e d  models.  Service.  a s t r o n g l y b a s e d p r o f e s s i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t and c l o s e extension  more  instruction,  e x t e n s i o n has g i v e n t h e Land-Grant U n i v e r s i t i e s a  l i n k s of r e s e a r c h and  to these  resident  i n development of the C o o p e r a t i v e  expects  behavior  for  in  The r e s e a r c h d e s i g n chapter.  the  and  role  government  f o r the study w i l l  to  explore  performance and  the of  university  be d e v e l o p e d  in  69  CHAPTER I V  RESEARCH DESIGN In  the pervious chapter  research  questions  for  the theoretical  this  study  were d e v e l o p e d  l i t e r a t u r e were r e v i e w e d .  This chapter  design  I t i s comprised  used i n the study.  collection chapter  and  analysis  discusses  administration  of  the  study  agriculturalists  was  the  research  The f i r s t s e c t i o n o f t h e  and  statistical  pre-testing  and  field visits.  The  procedures  used  to  designed  to collect  data  from t h e d i s t r i c t from  the  e x t e n s i o n a g r i c u l t u r a l a g e n t s i n I d a h o a n d W a s h i n g t o n so  performance  of  represented  differences  these  in  The  perceptions working  by g o v e r n m e n t and u n i v e r s i t y  The  mail  d i s t a n c e , expense and time methods.  questionnaire  that  i n systems which  models.  study  i n v o l v e d w i t h u s i n g any  is a  mail  face-to-face  T h i s survey method i s sometimes  "survey  role  was c h o s e n due t o t h e  as not b e i n g as e x a c t as o t h e r methods, but states  and  Procedures  b a s i c d a t a c o l l e c t i o n method o f t h i s  questionnaire.  interview  role  adult educators  Data C o l l e c t i o n  410-411)  and r e l a t e d  i n A l b e r t a and B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , and  as t o e x p l o r e t h e  are  the  o f two s e c t i o n s : d a t a  development,  the  and  the data.  The  county  describes  questionnaire,  second s e c t i o n d e s c r i b e s analyze  procedures.  the  framework  Kerlinger  criticized (1973  :  r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s l a r g e and s m a l l  7.0  populations  to discover  the r e l a t i v e  interrelationships of...variables."  i n c i d e n c e , d i s t r i b u t i o n and He  continues:  a l t h o u g h the approach and t h e techniques of survey research c a n be u s e d on a n y s e t o f objects that c a n be w e l l - d e f i n e d , survey research f o c u s e s on p e o p l e , t h e v i t a l f a c t s of people, and t h e i r beliefs, opinions, a t t i t u d e s , m o t i v a t i o n s , and b e h a v i o r . Dillman of  (1978)  notes that mail q u e s t i o n n a i r e  the s t e p c h i l d r e n of survey  this  method  have  always  according  to  Dillman  brought  i t  [mail  competitive  with  studies."  Dillman  research,  been  (1978  2)  recent  questionnaire]  (1978)  data  considered  :  face-to-face  and  to  interviews  also  h a s been one collected  suspect.  However,  developments the  point  f o r many  by  "have  of  being  kinds  of  reports that return rates f o r  m a i l q u e s t i o n n a i r e c a n be i n c r e a s e d  by  incorporating  rewards,  t r u s t a n d some m e a s u r e t o m i n i m i z e t h e c o s t s f o r r e s p o n d e n t s . The  researcher,  following  following  Dillman's  insights,  took the  three approaches t o insure high r e t u r n r a t e s  f o r the  questionnaires. 1. The  confidentiality  was e x p l i c i t l y order  to  of  the extension  stated at the beginning  develop  trust  between  of t h e the  worker's answers questionnaire  respondents  in  and  the  sent  to  researcher. 2. A s t a m p e d s e l f - a d d r e s s e d facilitate  ease  of responding  return  envelope  was  and t o a v o i d postage c o s t  to the  respondents. 3. C o v e r l e t t e r s  from t h e heads of e x t e n s i o n  divisions  and  71  the  researcher  e x p l a i n i n g the  t h e p u r p o s e and  study  p o t e n t i a l value  This s e c t i o n i s focused  the q u e s t i o n n a i r e  data  p e r t a i n i n g t o the v a r i a b l e s of  the  following  questionnaire,  is  the  (2) p r e - t e s t i n g  D e v e l o p m e n t of  major  q u e s t i o n n a i r e was variables  s e l e c t e d because they between  the  questions "the  for  The  following  government  and  the  [and  characteristics:  of e x p e r i e n c e  was a l l  purposes.  visits.  i n f o r m a t i o n on  These  variables  six were  used  used  because  method  ( I s a a c and  For  of  some  it  is  attitude  Michael,  1979  (Appendix I ) c o n s i s t e d of  : the  six parts:  information to describe  almost  (4) f i e l d  scale is  nine-page q u e s t i o n n a i r e  The  f o l l o w i n g items  years  of e x t e n s i o n  of  personal  experience,  i n c u r r e n t p o s i t i o n (employment).  p a r t of t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e  Age  questionnaire,  u n i v e r s i t y models.  widely  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were a s k e d : a g e , years  of  were e x p e c t e d t o be d i s t i n g u i s h i n g f a c t o r s  useful  Personal  and  (1) d e v e l o p m e n t  to c o l l e c t  measurement] i n b e h a v i o r a l r e s e a r c h " 100).  Specifically,  of  study.  the L i k e r t - t y p e r a t i n g  most  obtain  Questionnaire  designed  selected  used t o  study.  presented:  (3) a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f q u e s t i o n n a i r e , and  A  so as t o i n d i c a t e  of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n .  on  information  were s e n t  was  designed  the p o p u l a t i o n  to  secure  This  demographic  studied.  s e l e c t e d b e c a u s e i t i s a common v a r i a b l e a s k e d i n survey  research  questionnaires  for  descriptive  72  Years  of  extension  s e r v i c e of a g r i c u l t u r a l Years  was  s e l e c t e d to d e s c r i b e the years  e x t e n s i o n workers i n each  of e x p e r i e n c e  in current  position  d e s c r i b e t h e number of y e a r s a g r i c u l t u r a l been i n t h e i r  c u r r e n t employment i n e a c h  P r o f e s s i o n a l development: qualifications working  in  universities  and  (b)  w o r k e r s had  s t a r t e d working  received,  study  attended, service  field  of  training  interest  The  to  reply  'Uncertain' designed  to  of h i g h e r  reasonable  degrees the  and  and  more t h a n  of  maintains continuous a  expect  and were  extension  extension,  diploma  universities  'Often*,  on  in-  respondents  'Seldom', ' N e v e r ' ,  academic  extension  which  a  was  qualifications  and  workers  certain  and  questionnaire  in  i s assumed t h a t a u n i v e r s i t y , a s an  learning,  to  scale  T h i s p a r t of t h e  data  development  qualifications personnel  'Always',  secure  It  after  of s t u d y ,  o p i n i o n on v a r i o u s p r o f e s s i o n a l  Likert-type  f o r each item.  professional countries.  t o as  colleges  or  started  e i g h t i t e m s of t h e o p i n i o n q u e s t i o n were  m e a s u r e d on a f i v e - p o i n t were  to  f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l c o m p e t e n c e and  p r o g r a m s , and  development i d e a s .  study  in agricultural  specialization,  workers  major f i e l d  formal  selected  i n c l u d e : (a) a c a d e m i c  from which diplomas  further  was  country.  extension  extension,  country.  e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r s have  items  agricultural  agricultural  c o l l e g e s and obtained;  when  The  of  level  the  two  institution of  academic  p r o f e s s i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t of i t s  government  institution.  Thus,  d i f f e r e n c e s between the e x t e n s i o n  e m p l o y e d i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y m o d e l and  their counterparts  it  is  workers employed  73  i n t h e g o v e r n m e n t m o d e l on  these v a r i a b l e s .  Academic q u a l i f i c a t i o n  was  s e l e c t e d t o i n d i c a t e the  requirements  f o r employing extension workers.  that  university  the  qualifications  than  model  the  might  It  require  government  model  general  was  expected  higher  academic  at  the  time  of  employment. Field  of  specialization,  s e l e c t e d b e c a u s e i t has extension  workers  agricultural employed  the  whereas t h e i r  had  Colleges  and  i n d i c a t e the  government  where  the  develop its  of  started  the  in  work  in  workers  extension,  government  attended  model  were s e l e c t e d b e c a u s e  the  i t i s reasonable  extension  may  i n t e g r a l p a r t of to  u n d e r g r a d u a t e and  not  workers'  exist,  agriculture  university  i s an  not  are  assume  workers.  the  that  the  needs.  In  the  because the u n i v e r s i t y two  assume  separate the  of  graduate programs  and  institutions  responsibility  programs which the department of a g r i c u l t u r e  extension  training  that extension  in  Since extension  m o d e l t h i s may  extension  likely  they  specialize  employed  e s t a b l i s h both  the department of  model  kinds  was  u n i v e r s i t i e s which are the major s u p p l i e r s  universities,  for  time  expected  universities  land-grant  extension  the  of e m p l o y m e n t ,  agriculture.  workers.  universities  the time  upon  the  I t was  counterparts  extension  in  at  university  major i n s p e c i a l i z e d  they  a bearing  extension.  in  at  Thus, i t i s r e a s o n a b l e  needs  to for  t o assume t h a t  w o r k e r s e m p l o y e d i n t h e g o v e r n m e n t m o d e l may  be  more  t o a t t e n d u n i v e r s i t i e s w h i c h have e s t a b l i s h e d programs i n  extension  outside t h e i r country  than  their  counterparts  employed  74  in  the u n i v e r s i t y Further  indications extension the  formal for  study  was s e l e c t e d b e c a u s e i t i s one o f t h e  continuing  personnel.  attitude  Extension  higher  of  today.  learning,  stimulus  may  than  model  received  learning  years  university, to  than  was  undertake  to  more  that the extension  would  of  meet  of  a  department of  workers employed  more  further  formal  employed i n t h e government model. s e l e c t e d a s an i n d i c a t o r  academic e x p e c t a t i o n s  department of a g r i c u l t u r e , university than  i n the u n i v e r s i t y  because i t Because  than  i n the  the e x t e n s i o n workers employed i n t h e  m o d e l w o u l d be e x p e c t e d  t o earn  higher  qualifications  t h e e x t e n s i o n workers employed i n t h e government model. Study  areas  the  constant  a b e a r i n g upon t h e l e v e l o f q u a l i f i c a t i o n a t t a i n e d .  of h i g h e r  the  a s an i n s t i t u t i o n o f  have  development  their counterparts  Diploma  in prior  expected  i t was e x p e c t e d  the u n i v e r s i t y  has  be  a  for professional  agriculture,  study  Since  toward  work c a n n o t w h o l l y depend upon  knowledge and s k i l l s o b t a i n e d  demands  in  model do.  specialization  of i n t e r e s t  competence.  for  counterparts agriculture  i n w h i c h an a g e n t f e l t  than  employed  extension  selected  because he  i t indicates  needed  to  possess  Because of g r e a t e r p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m e x p e c t a t i o n s i n  the u n i v e r s i t y workers  was  i n the department of a g r i c u l t u r e , in  their  the  university  role  as  adult  model  may  educators,  e m p l o y e d i n t h e g o v e r n m e n t model may or r e l a t e d  fields  for  their  role  as  extension  specialize in while  their  specialize in information  providers. Colleges  and  universities  which the respondents  attended  75  for  f u r t h e r f o r m a l s t u d y were  institutions upgrading  which  are  programs.  selected  sources  of  I t i s expected  country  university extension  than  model, is  necessitates  an the  those  integral  extension  in  workers  the  of  of  interest  for  expected model  in-service  express training  counterparts  their  needs  employed i n the  of  an  interest  programs  employed  because  guidelines  their  institution  various  in  workers. the  opportunities  extension,  because  professional  professional  for  to maintain  was  whereas  and  their  they  may  continuous  an  assume eductors.  d e v e l o p m e n t i d e a s were of  policies  E x t e n s i o n S e r v i c e m i g h t have i n workers  competence.  learning,  e x t e n s i o n workers than a order  It  university  i n f o r m a t i o n more t h a n a d u l t  the A g r i c u l t u r a l  of h i g h e r  indicate  i n p r o f e s s i o n a l competence  providing opportunities for extension up-date  and i n -  they  s e l e c t e d b e c a u s e t h e y h a v e a b e a r i n g upon t h e t y p e or  upgrading  competence  extension  agriculture  r o l e as p r o v i d e r s of on  which  i n t h e g o v e r n m e n t model w o u l d e x p r e s s  in specialized  Opinions  universities  instruction  t h a t the e x t e n s i o n workers employed i n  would  interest  training  outside  the government model.  professional  s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g p r o g r a m s were s e l e c t e d self-perceived  workers  professional  p r o g r a m s f o r e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r s more t h a n Field  professional  land-grant  p a r t of r e s i d e n t i a l  establishment  indicate  attend universities  extension  because  they  t h a t more e x t e n s i o n  e m p l o y e d i n t h e g o v e r n m e n t model may their  because  is  A  expected  professional  department  of  to  continuously  u n i v e r s i t y , as to  provide  an  more  development of i t s  agriculture  i t s h i g h academic e x p e c t a t i o n s .  does,  in  76  Methods and sources membership  in  professional  j o u r n a l s or other information. workers  in  extension In  the  societies,  the  two  models  i s a link  update  their  and  whereas t h i s  employed  in  extension  are  In  Thus, f o r  the  while  t o be t h e p r o v i n c i a l  addition,  the  i n the  extension  for  w o r k e r s t o have membership publications those  so  their source  department  of  a u n i v e r s i t y , a s an i n s t i t u t i o n o f  l e a r n i n g , may have h i g h e r  than  The  within  e m p l o y e d i n t h e g o v e r n m e n t model t h e i r main  agriculture.  specialties,  of r e s e a r c h  s i t u a t i o n may n o t e x i s t  t o be t h e u n i v e r s i t y ,  i n f o r m a t i o n was e x p e c t e d  research  research  t h e u n i v e r s i t y model t h e i r m a i n s o u r c e o f  i n f o r m a t i o n was e x p e c t e d  higher  of  information.  research  p r o v i n c i a l department of a g r i c u l t u r e .  of  reading  include:  between r e s e a r c h and t h e f a r m e r s .  extension  system,  counterparts  items  T h e s e i t e m s were a s k e d t o d e t e r m i n e how  university,  workers  The  r e s e a r c h p u b l i c a t i o n s , and s o u r c e s  service  university  of i n f o r m a t i o n :  expectations  for i t s  extension  i n p r o f e s s i o n a l s o c i e t i e s and t o r e a d as  to  remain  expectations held  up by  t o date a  in their  department  of  selected  to  i n p r o f e s s i o n a l improvement and u p - d a t i n g  of  agriculture. Membership reflect  in  an i n t e r e s t  information.  It  professional  was  expected  societies  that  more  was  extension  workers  e m p l o y e d i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y model w i l l  be members o f p r o f e s s i o n a l  societies  employed i n t h e government  than  their  counterparts  model. Reading of research was s e l e c t e d b e c a u s e  i t  j o u r n a l s or other indicates  the  research publications extent  of  continuous  77  interest  in  remaining  up t o d a t e  university  t h e p r o f e s s i o n as w e l l a s t h e in  their  l e v e l of c o n c e r n  specialties.  Because  for  of  the  e x p e c t a t i o n of h i g h e r p r o f e s s i o n a l competence f o r i t s  personnel,  it  was  expected  employed i n the u n i v e r s i t y  t h a t more of t h e e x t e n s i o n  workers  read r e s e a r c h p u b l i c a t i o n s than  their  c o u n t e r p a r t s employed i n the government model. S o u r c e s o f r e s e a r c h i n f o r m a t i o n were s e l e c t e d b e c a u s e have  a  bearing  upon  the  primary  link  of  extension s e r v i c e workers f o r research data. that  the  main  source  of  research  w o r k e r s employed i n the government Department  of  A g r i c u l t u r e , and  toward  performing  negative = SA;  model  A g r e e = A; =  of 5 = SA;  SD) 4 = A;  positions  was  negative  of n e g a t i v e reflects  in  performing positive  2 = D;  and  that order ( 1 = SA;  statements. statements  the  to  was  respondent's  of r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s . o p i n i o n and  those  attitude five  D;  and  Strongly Values  were a s s i g n e d t o statements; 4 = D;  and  the  and  the  5 =  SD)  f o r r e v e r s i n g the s c o r i n g  provide  degree  assess  =  3 = U;  reason  employed  to the q u e s t i o n .  1 = SD  2 = A;  to  Provincial  s c a l e ( S t r o n g l y Agree  for positive  The  be  f i v e p o s i t i v e and  Disagree  used f o r responses  3 = U;  expected  University.  question  U;  was  for their counterparts  A Likert-type rating  Undecided =  v a l u e s were r e v e r s e d for  The  would  r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s had  statements.  Disagree  five  functions:  It  agriculture  information for extension  in the u n i v e r s i t y model, the Land-Grant Regulatory  the  they  of  Scores  a  total  score  that  p o s i t i v e n e s s toward above  3.0  the  indicate  b e l o w show a n e g a t i v e o p i n i o n .  a  This  78  p a r t o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was agent's  attitudes  extension  toward r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s .  indicates  government  model  that  extension  The  workers  functions  in  the  are  university  employed  selected  model  because  do  they  b e a r i n g upon t h e e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r ' s p e r f o r m a n c e  each  literature  do p e r f o r m r e g u l a t o r y a c t i v i t i e s ,  c o u n t e r p a r t s employed regulatory  d e s i g n e d t o s e c u r e s c o r e s on  in  on the  while  their  not.  The  may  have a  of h i s e x t e n s i o n  duties.  and  M e t h o d s and t e c h n i q u e s : A t t i t u d e s t o w a r d  eighteen  technique  t h e f r e q u e n c y and  efficiency two was  were  assessed  to  determine  o f e a c h method and t e c h n i q u e u s e d by  models.  The  ' O f t e n ' , ' S o m e t i m e s ' , ' R a r e l y ' , and  scale  ('Very  Efficient', was  r e g a r d i n g how  persuading  in  'Efficient',  'Never'.  A  four-point  'Somewhat E f f i c i e n t ' ,  efficient  farmers t o adopt  e a c h method a n d t e c h n i q u e i s  recommended p r a c t i c e s . they i n d i c a t e the  Methods  that w i l l  by t h e i r  clientele.  employed and  most l i k e l y I t was  result  in and  instructional  m e t h o d s and t e c h n i q u e s w h i c h t h e e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r s m i g h t way  and  a l s o used t o measure the e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r ' s  t e c h n i q u e s were s e l e c t e d b e c a u s e  a  the  s c a l e w h i c h r e s p o n d e n t s were t o a n s w e r  t o as  opinion  agents  f r e q u e n c y o f use o f e a c h method and t e c h n i q u e  a s k e d on a f o u r - p o i n t  'Inefficient')  methods  use  i n t h e a d o p t i o n o f new  expected that the e x t e n s i o n  in  ideas  workers  i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y m o d e l use a w i d e r v a r i e t y o f methods  techniques  than  their  government  model  because  provincial  department  of  counterparts the  employed  university,  agriculture,  expects  more the  in  the  than  the  extension  7.9  workers  to  expected  t o know more methods  clientele  perform  to  role  included ( 1 ) rate  in this section.  to  and t h u s , they  techniques  to  extension  their  extension  function.  Likert-type Important'  first  requested  role  functions their  function  from  of e x t e n s i o n  'Not  Extension  role  functions  role  agricultural  The q u e s t i o n  on how  f u n c t i o n was i n d i c a t e d respond  to  as  T h i s p a r t of t h e  selected  way  functions  extension  behavior  of  extension  extension  because  they  gathering is  to  organizations  of the a g r i c u l t u r a l  workers.  information collect and  studying  the a g r i c u l t u r a l  demensions of t h e i r Before  data  clientele  to  was  e x t e n s i o n workers'  r o l e w h i c h may a f f e c t  the role  study  from  the  on  the  extension workers.  a p p r o a c h was n o t s e l e c t e d b e c a u s e t h e r e s e a r c h e r in  five-point 'Very  d a t a on a g e n t s '  were  each  to  f o r each.  t o secure  r o l e as a g r i c u l t u r a l  alternative  extension  expected  designed  on  to  how e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r s e m p l o y e d i n e a c h m o d e l saw t h e i r  professional An  a n d 'None'  of  and  spent  Applicable'  role  order  clientele  they  service.  i s s p e n t on e a c h e x t e n s i o n  was  in  q u e s t i o n was r a t e d on a  ranging  'Some', ' L i t t l e ' ,  indicate  their  The r e s p o n d e n t s were  organization,  The  scale  questionnaire role.  teach  functions  on a f o u r - p o i n t s c a l e w h i c h r e s p o n d e n t s were t o 'Much',  c a n be  role  a n d ( 2 ) i n d i c a t e how much t i m e  themselves,  much t i m e  and  f u n c t i o n s : Fourteen  various  importance  role  adult educators,  t o a d o p t new p r a c t i c e s .  Extension were  as  This  interested  perceptions of performance.  t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was p r e t e s t e d , t h e members o f  the  80  researcher's for  s u p e r v i s o r y c o m m i t t e e were r e q u e s t e d  face v a l i d i t y .  and  The  committee  evaluated  s u g g e s t e d some m a j o r r e v i s i o n s , and  r e w o r d i n g of  items.  investigator  six  s e c t i o n s b e c a u s e he  into  c o n v e n i e n t way  to organize  were:  Section  I  :  the  Section  'Methods  Techniques';  and  Functions'.  A total  questionnaire. researcher's  IV  : 'Regulatory Section  amended  was  with ten d i s t r i c t  s e l e c t e d by  the  the  Extension  the  six agricultural  VI  :  pre-tested  for  agriculturalists  extension  regions.  The  regions.  extension  telephone w i t h each  The  the  :  Role  revised  a p p r o v e d by  the  pre-test  The  researcher  and  i n A l b e r t a who  face were  Director  district field  and  requested  the  appointments in  to v i s i t the  of  district  offices within  agriculturalist  i n t e r v i e w and  agriculturalist  selected  set p r i o r  i n v e s t i g a t o r personally presented  to each d i s t r i c t  content  D i v i s i o n of A l b e r t a A g r i c u l t u r e from f o u r  four  office.  Section V  Questionnaire  were l o c a t e d i n t e n d i s t r i c t  a  in  II :  Sources  'Extension  appear  a  sections  and  Function';  agriculturalists  conduct  six  i n v e s t i g a t o r i n c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h the  of  by  final  s u p e r v i s o r y committee f o r f i e l d p r e - t e s t i n g .  questionnaire  validity  The  q u e s t i o n n a i r e was  P r e - t e s t i n g of The  the  and  f o u n d t h a t t o he  I I I : 'Methods  of twenty q u e s t i o n s  The  divided  C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ' ; Section  ' P r o f e s s i o n a l Development'; S e c t i o n of I n f o r m a t i o n ' ;  had  information.  'Personal  questionnaire  minor rearrangement  The  questionnaire  the  t o examine i t  order  the  to  district  questionnaire  each  respondent  81  to  complete the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . After  was t h e n to  each  respondent  interviewed to identify questions  be a m b i g u o u s , i r r e l e v a n t  The did  respondents f e l t not c l e a r l y  The  major  considered or unclear.  ( 2 ) were  restricted,  On t h e b a s i s o f t h e s u g g e s t i o n s  or  (3)  a n d comments  were made i n some o f t h e q u e s t i o n s .  m a j o r c h a n g e s made i n t h e  Pre-tested  he  t h a t some o f t h e p r e - t e s t e d q u e s t i o n s : ( 1 )  modifications  t e s t i n g and f i n a l  which  t o h i s work s i t u a t i o n s ,  indicate choices,  were n o t s p e c i f i c . some  h a d c o m p l e t e d t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e he  questionnaire  between  the  pre-  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n were t h e f o l l o w i n g :  Question  Question  Finally  Administered  I f y o u were g i v e n s t u d y l e a v e at full s a l a r y t o improve your p r o f e s s i o n a l competence and q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , how w o u l d you rank the following i n order of t h e i r interest to you i n t h i s r e g a r d .  I f y o u were g i v e n s t u d y l e a v e at f u l l s a l a r y t o improve your p r o f e s s i o n a l competence and q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , how w o u l d y o u rank t h e f o l l o w i n g i n o r d e r of t h e i r i n t e r e s t t o you i n t h i s regard. Use an X t o i n d i c a t e t h o s e c h o i c e s w h i c h a r e o f no i n t e r e s t whatsoever t o you.  If you c o u l d arrange i n service training for yourself how would you rank t h e following i n order of t h e i r usefulness t o you.  If you c o u l d arrange i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g f o r y o u r s e l f how w o u l d you r a n k t h e f o l l o w i n g i n o r d e r of t h e i r u s e f u l n e s s t o y o u . Use an X t o i n d i c a t e t h o s e c h o i c e s w h i c h a r e o f no i n t e r e s t whatsoever t o you.  Are you a s u b s c r i b e r t o any r e s e a r c h j o u r n a l s o r publications?  Do y o u r e a d o r l o o k o v e r any research journals or other research p u b l i c a t i o n s regularly?  An agent who s e c u r e s an advanced degree i s o f f e r e d a better position i nthe organization.  An a g e n t who s e c u r e s an a d v a n c e d degree i s o f f e r e d a b e t t e r p o s i t i o n within the A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension Service.  82  An agent with an a d v a n c e d degree i s paid a higher s a l a r y t h a n an a g e n t w i t h o u t an a d v a n c e d degree i f both h a v e t h e same e x p e r i e n c e . One w i l l final  recognize readily  that the ambiguity  was r e d u c e d  i nthe  form. A reliability  attitudes many  performing  researchers  recommend  Kerber,  on  attitude  based  on  the the  r e g u l a t o r y f u n c t i o n , because calculation  measurement  1967; B o r g a n d G a l l ,  coefficient level  c o e f f i c i e n t was c a l c u l a t e d on t h e q u e s t i o n o f  toward  evidence  the  An a g e n t w i t h an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e i s p a i d a h i g h e r s a l a r y t h a n an a g e n t w i t h o u t an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e i f b o t h h a v e t h e same e x p e r i e n c e and j o b r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .  the  1971).  addition item  of  The s p l i t - h a l f  Spearman-Brown  a t t i t u d e s toward  the computation  reliability  i n q u e s t i o n n a i r e s ( H i l l and  t h a t i n d i c a t e s a good d e g r e e o f question  of  reliability  formula  internal  was 0.85, a  consistency  on  the regulatory function.  In  of Cronbach's  alpha  and  standardized  a l p h a c o e f f i c i e n t s were 0.88 a n d 0.89, r e s p e c t i v e l y ,  again confirm the toward  performing  reliability  of  the  question  of  which  attitudes  regulatory function.  A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of Q u e s t i o n n a i r e As  has  district agents The  from  Alberta,  and  Departments  and  stated  agriculturalists  names  total  been  the  and  extension  county  subjects  were t h e  agricultural  B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , Idaho and Washington.  addresses  of  previously,  were  obtained  from  the  provincial  A g r i c u l t u r e and t h e Land-Grant U n i v e r s i t i e s .  A  o f 192 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were s e n t o u t a n d 153 w e r e c o m p l e t e d  returned.  The e f f e c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n  r a t e was 79.7 p e r c e n t  83  (Table the  1).  T h i s was  six-week  an  postal  e x c e l l e n t r a t e of  strike  return,  which, delayed  the  considering r e t u r n of  the  questionnaires. Table 1 Survey P a r t i c i p a t i o n Provinces/States  Sample S i z e  %Return  Returned  63 21 84  52 17 69  82.5 80.9 82. 1  Idaho Washington Sub-total  49 59 1 08  34 50 84  69.4 84.7 77.8  Grand-total  1 92  1 53  79.7  Alberta B r i t i s h Columbia Sub-total  Each d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t agent  who  satisfied  agriculturalists the  Rates  who  questionnaire  researcher study,  and  along  the  with  criteria,  cover  xeroxed  from the  was  t h e a n o n y m i t y of  individual  Field  the  explaining  the  return envelope.  The  and  two  states  while  questionnaires.  Visits  conducted  field  visits  to  Alberta  t h e p r e - t e s t i n g o f q u e s t i o n n a i r e , and  C o l u m b i a M i n i s t r y of A g r i c u l t u r e and  t h e U n i v e r s i t i e s o f I d a h o and  sent  i n four d i f f e r e n t c o l o r s for return provinces  Agriculture during  ten d i s t r i c t  study,  divisions  two  researcher  agricultural  (Appendix I I I ) from  w i t h a stamped s e l f - a d d r e s s e d  identification  British  except those  letters  the heads of e x t e n s i o n  was  The  county extension  p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the p i l o t  questionnaire  maintaining  and  to  the  F o o d as w e l l as  Washington S t a t e d u r i n g  the  to  data  84  collection  period.  During  interviewed several staff Regional  Directors  and  deal  his  in  of  information researcher  time for  the  the  at  field  visits,  headquarters;  District the  The  field  researcher  with  several  spent  collecting  a good  additional  study a l s o provided  t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o become f a i r l y  the a g r i c u l t u r a l  met  S u p e r v i s o r s ; and  libraries  study.  the  knowledgeable  e x t e n s i o n s e r v i c e s i n t h e two  the  about  p r o v i n c e s and  two  states.  Analysis Questionnaire Package  for  following computer  the  d a t a were a n a l y z e d Social  programs  Sciences,  from  UBC  u s i n g t h e UBC UBC  : SPSS  : SPSS  package  Statistical  (1980). were  The  used  for  analysis:  SPSS  procedure  distributional study.  The  procedure  of c e n t r a l CROSSTABS  frequency  FREQUENCIES  characteristics  This  statistics  experience,  of  provided  procedure The  academic  years  was  t e n d e n c y and  distribution.  v a r i a b l e s : age,  diploma  Procedures  was  used  to  obtain  e a c h of t h e v a r i a b l e s u n d e r the  common  descriptive  of d i s p e r s i o n . u s e d t o p r o d u c e two-way  years  of  distribution  and of  time  of c u r r e n t e m p l o y m e n t , f u r t h e r f o r m a l  spent  frequency  study, reading  r e s e a r c h p u b l i c a t i o n s , methods  on e x t e n s i o n r o l e counts  f u n c t i o n s , based  i n t h e t a b l e s , was  the  extension  r e c e i v e d , membership i n p r o f e s s i o n a l s o c i e t i e s ,  techniques,  joint  d e g r e e of a s s o c a t i o n o f e a c h of  qualifications,  of r e s e a r c h j o u r n a l s o r o t h e r  the  measured  and on by  85  the  chi-square SPSS  statistic.  procedure  ONEWAY  ANOVA  was  r e l a t i o n s h i p among i n d e p e n d e n t g r o u p s w i t h of  group  used  to  options  for contrasts  means, a n d m u l t i p l e c o m p a r i s o n s o f g r o u p means.  p r o c e d u r e was u s e d on t h e v a r i a b l e s o f p r o f e s s i o n a l ideas,  sources  and e x t e n s i o n The the  examine  of  role  research  information,  variables  functions,  functions.  means of  development  regulatory  T-TEST p r o c e d u r e was u s e d f o r t e s t i n g  group  This  between  Canada  professional  differences  and the U n i t e d  development  ideas  States  and  of  on t h e  regulatory  funct ions. SPSS among  procedure  dependent  procedure repeated  extension The  (within  provides measures.  relationships role  among  a  was  group)  design This the  used t o examine factors  (variables).  f o r analyzing  procedure three  was  ratings  relationships  factors  used on  involving  t o . determine  the  v a r i a b l e s of  used  i n developing  f o rthe research  and  refining  h a v e been d e s c r i b e d  data  the  data,  two  are described  i n the second s e c t i o n .  f i n d i n g s and d i s c u s s i o n  chapters.  are presented  the  i n the f i r s t  s e c t i o n of t h i s c h a p t e r and t h e p r o c e d u r e s f o r t h e " a n a l y s i s the  The  functions.  procedures  questionnaire  ANOVAR  of  The a n a l y s e s o f i n the following  86  CHAPTER V  D E S C R I P T I V E CHARACTERISTICS AND REGULATORY DUTIES The  purposes of t h i s and  present  and  speaking,  discuss  the  the  succeeding  findings  of  Canada  two  p r o v i n c e s a n d t h e two s t a t e s o p e r a t e the  and  findings  requires  agriculturalists these  under  provinces  precaution  and t h e county and  the  agents'  in  the  because  the  study:  agents'  this  years  of c u r r e n t employment.  extension  agents'  chapter  the v a r i a b l e s characteristics,  attitude  toward  age  Characteristics  s e c t i o n of t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , t h e respondents  to declare their  district  and  personal  This  responsibilities.  asked  The  agents of  s t a t e s may n o t be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f o t h e r  Personal In  district  extension a g r i c u l t u r a l  p r o f e s s i o n a l development  regulatory  government  g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of t h e  a d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e f i n d i n g s on t h r e e o f  investigated  provinces  Although, the  e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r s i n Canada a n d t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . present  Strictly  two  two s t a t e s i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s .  u n i v e r s i t y models, r e s p e c t i v e l y ,  are to  study.  t h e f i n d i n g s may o n l y be a p p l i c a b l e t o  in  and  the  chapter  ranged  age, years of  experience  and  f r o m 24 t o 65 y e a r s w i t h t h e mean age f o r  agriculturalists  being  agricultural  agents  statistically  extension  were  significant  3 8 . 9 years and 42.1  (Table  difference in  f o r the 2).  t h e age  county  T h e r e was a distribution  87  Table 2 o f R e s p o n d e n t s by Age  Distribution Age in Years  Alberta (N=51) Percent  British Columbia (N=17) Percent  21-35 36-50 51-65  64.7 23.5 11.8  52.9 17.6 29.4  61 .8* 22. 1* 16.2*  36.4 33.3 30.3  38.0 38.0 24.0  37.3* 36.1* 26.5*  40.4 12.3  38.9 11.2  42.7 11.0  41 .7 11.0  42. 1 11.0  m e a n ( y r s ) 35.7 s.d. 10.7  Canada (N=68) Percent  Idaho (N=33) Percent  United States (N=83) Percent  Washington (N=50) Percent  *A c h i - s q u a r e v a l u e o f 8.9 was o b t a i n e d . T h i s i s s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e 0.01 l e v e l . between t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l kinds  of  services. younger  e x t e n s i o n workers employed i n  organizational The  than  district  the county  models  for agricultural  agriculturalists  were  extension a g r i c u l t u r a l  i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y model t h e r e i s a  tendency  the  extension  significantly  agents.  to  Because  employ  agents  w i t h a m a s t e r ' s degree and e a r n i n g a m a s t e r ' s degree t a k e s the  American  agents  Canadian agents. his  tend  to  be  In a d d i t i o n the  older  when  investigator  two  time,  h i r e d than t h e learned  during  c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h e x t e n s i o n a d m i n i s t r a t o r s i n Edmonton t h a t  Alberta  Agriculture  relatively  high  agriculturalists  Extension Division  turnover  rate  who  moving  are  among to  h a s been e x p e r i e n c i n g a i t s younger other  district  divisions  of t h e  organization. The had  been  respondents working  were a s k e d  t o r e p o r t how  in agricultural  t h e y h a d been e m p l o y e d by t h e i r  many  years  e x t e n s i o n a s w e l l a s how  they long  current extension organizations.  88  Table 3 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Y e a r s o f E x t e n s i o n E x p e r i e n c e  Years  Alberta (N=52) Percent  1-5 6-10 11-15 1 6-20 21-25 26-30 31-35  36.5 38.5 15.4 -  3.8 3.8 1 .9  mean(yrs) s .d.  8.4 6.7  British Columbia (N=17) Percent 23.5 29.4 5.9 11.8 23.5 5.9 —  1 2.6 8.5  Canada (N=69) Percent  Idaho (N=34) Percent  Washington (N=50) Percent  United States (N=84) Percent  33.3 36.2 13.0 2.9 8.7 4.3 1 .4  20.6 20.6 26.5 14.7 5.9 8.8 2.9  40.0 16.0 8.0 16.0 10.0 4.0 6.0  32. 1 17.9 15.5 15.5 8.3 6.0 4.8  9.5 7.4  13.1 7.8  11.7 9.6  12.3 8.9  A c h i - s q u a r e v a l u e o f 12.6 was o b t a i n e d . T h i s i s s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e 0.05 l e v e l . Table 4 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Y e a r s o f Employment i n C u r r e n t P o s i t i o n  Years  Alberta (N=51) Percent  1-5 6-10 11-15 1 6-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 mean(yrs) s .d.  60.8 29.4 2.0 2.0 3.9 2.0 6.1 6.3  British Columbia (N=17) Percent 58.8 23.5 5.9 5.9 5.9 —  6.9 6.3 .  Canada (N=68) Percent  Idaho (N=33) Percent  Washington (N=49) Percent 57. 1 14.3 14.3 14.3 -  United States (N=82) Percent  60.3 27.9 2.9 2.9 4.4 1 .5  30.3 42.4 12.1 3.0 6.1 6.1 —  —  —  6.3 6.2  9.2 6.8  7.1 5.6  8.0 6.2  A c h i - s q u a r e v a l u e o f 12.6 was o b t a i n e d . T h i s i s s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e 0.05 l e v e l .  46.3 25.6 13.4 9.8 2.4 2.4  89  As shown to  i n T a b l e 3, t h e number  o f y e a r s o f work r a n g e d  35 y e a r s w i t h t h e mean y e a r f o r c o u n t y e x t e n s i o n  agents  b e i n g 12.3 y e a r s a n d f o r d i s t r i c t  One-half  years  of  of  the d i s t r i c t  service.  difference  experience.  was  agricultural  Overall,  relatively  for  year  and  46.3  organizations  for district  county  statistically American  years  by  ranged  service  extension agents  agriculturalists.  county  current  district extension  organizations  o f y e a r s o f work w i t h  b e i n g 6.3 y e a r s a n d agents  8.0.  d i f f e r e n c e between  the  and  their  f r o m 2 t o 34 y e a r s w i t h t h e mean  agricultural  in  the  their  The number  significant  agents  of  t h a t 60.3 p e r c e n t o f t h e of  10  significant  agents  percent  distribution  employment w i t h t h e C a n a d i a n extension  statistically  agriculturalists  agriculturalists  extension  about  of d i s t r i c t  a g e n t s had been w i t h  f i v e or fewer y e a r s .  current  a  longer tenure than the d i s t r i c t  agriculturalists  and  the county extension a g r i c u l t u r a l  The d a t a i n T a b l e 4 show  agricultural  agents  9.5.  a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s had fewer than  i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n  county e x t e n s i o n  had  There  2  agricultural  agriculturalists  of t h e county e x t e n s i o n a g r i c u l t u a l  seven-tenth  from  agents  by  tending  There  the  was  Canadian  years to  for  of be  the a and  current newer  to  employment.  P r o f e s s i o n a l Development The academic  respondents  were  qualifications  agricultural  extension;  asked when  their  to they  major  declare started  their  highest  working  in  f i e l d s of s t u d y ; and t h e  90  institutions The  extension  and  degree. very  diplomas  o r d e g r e e s were  d a t a as r e p o r t e d i n A p p e n d i x I I , T a b l e  the county degree  from which t h e i r  for  The  few  agricultural  36.9  percent  agents  t h i s was  have  doctor's degrees.  16 show t h a t a l l  have  their  m a j o r i t y of t h e a g e n t s h a v e  a  bachelor's  highest  master's  I n c o n t r a s t , 98.6  85.4  t h i s was  the  district  agricultural possess  for  h i g h e s t academic q u a l i f i c a t i o n .  Few  a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s have a m a s t e r ' s d e g r e e .  The  their  academic q u a l i f i c a t i o n s  i n t h e g o v e r n m e n t model a t t h e t i m e statistically be role  a  significant.  possible  factor  of  their  counterparts  employment,  which  These d i f f e r e n c e s i n e d u c a t i o n  t o p r o d u c e an  distribution  impact  on  their  was might  extension  as r e p o r t e d i n Appendix I I , T a b l e  t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y of t h e d i s t r i c t animal  science  agricultural agriculture frequently the  than  model  performance. The  in  of  and  e x t e n s i o n workers employed i n the u n i v e r s i t y  higher  and  percent  a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s have a b a c h e l o r ' s d e g r e e  of  academic  degrees  the d i s t r i c t percent  obtained.  county  respondents country service.  at  agents and  36.8  majored  percent  in  agricultural  the  same  education  extension had  specialized  the This  agricultural  time result models  workers  from  had  indicates for  agents,  started that  a l l  areas  of  next  most and  respectively.  extension working  the  agricultural  the  General  agriculturalists  in agricultural  they  extension  field.  were  shows  specialized  of t h e c o u n t y  r e p o r t e d m a j o r s by t h e d i s t r i c t  organizational extension  while  agriculturalists  17  two  in  No  either  in extension kinds  extension hired specialization  of their in  91  agriculture to  rather than r e s t r i c t i n g  those  applicants  e x t e n s i o n or c l o s e l y The  agriculturalists  in  U n i t e d S t a t e s ; one  Idaho  and  in  Alberta  individual  All  the  Washington  institutions  in  in  agricultural  in their  have  respective provinces  Few  of  taken t h e i r  received  the  Columbia  the  district  training  f r o m B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a was  i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s .  had  of  British  county e x t e n s i o n a g r i c u l t u r a l had  Washington  and  Canada.  had been t r a i n e d a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y agents  in  I I show t h a t most  Alberta  diplomas or degrees  or from o t h e r i n s t i t u t i o n s  Britain.  specialized  18 i n A p p e n d i x  agriculturalists  received their  in  had  only  related areas.  data i n Table  district  who  t h e i r employment p o l i c y  their  i n the trained  agents i n  degrees  from  Most of t h e a g e n t s i n Idaho o f I d a h o , w h i l e most  of  the  e a r n e d t h e i r d e g r e e s o u t s i d e of t h e  s t a t e , a l t h o u g h none had done so i n C a n a d a . The they  r e s p o n d e n t s were r e q u e s t e d t o  had  working  pursued  further  in agricultural  report  formal study a f t e r  whether  or  not  t h e y had  started  extension service.  Table 5 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by F u r t h e r F o r m a l S t u d y  Formal Study No Yes  Alberta (N=51 ) Percent  British Columbia (N=16) Percent  Canada (N=67) Percent  56.9 43. 1  56.3 43.7  56.7 43.3  Idaho (N=34) Percent 47. 1 52.9  A c h i - s q u a r e v a l u e o f 0.15 was o b t a i n e d . T h i s i s n o t s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e 0.05 l e v e l .  Washington (N=50) Percent 58.0 42.0  United States (N=84) Percent 53.6 46.4  92  The  d a t a i n T a b l e 5 show  agricultural  that  extension  less  workers  than  50  percent  employed  in  t h e two  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l m o d e l s have p u r s u e d was  no  a  statistically  g r o u p s who  reported that  Table  in  19  significant they  Appendix  II  extension  had  k i n d s of  formal study.  There  d i f f e r e n c e between t h e pursued  further  their  agricultural  training  a few t h e i r  programs.  A l l  programs  and  statistically extension  workers  employed  study  employed  graduate  The  in  the  than  degrees.  between  the  specialization II,  for Table  agriculturalists have s p e c i a l i z e d respectively.  of  the  a  agricultural university  Agricultural  extension  u n i v e r s i t y m o d e l s had c o m p l e t e d more their  counterparts  employed  in  the  models. respondents  Washington  graduate  T h e r e was  the  who  had e x p r e s s e d an  interest  f o r m a l s t u d y were a l s o a s k e d t o i n d i c a t e t h e i r  Appendix  degree  g o v e r n m e n t and  qualifications.  in  programs  government  master's  significant difference  models i n t h e i r workers  their  the  I n c o n t r a s t , a p p r o x i m a t e l y 55  a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s had c o m p l e t e d  received  and  a g e n t s had c o m p l e t e d p r o g r a m s o f  d o c t o r a l degree.  p e r c e n t of t h e d i s t r i c t  two  studies.  g r a d u a t e s t u d i e s ; most o f them had e a r n e d t h e i r m a s t e r ' s and  the  i n d i c a t e s the t y p e s of d i p l o m a s  degrees they r e c e i v e d a f t e r county  further  of  such 20  program. revealed  The that  major  data most  in further  as of  field  of  reported i n the  district  i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a and o n e - q u a r t e r i n A l b e r t a in Adult Fewer  county  have s p e c i a l i z e d respondents  Education  and  extension  Extension agents  i n t h e same a r e a s .  appear  to  be  clearly  in  Education, Idaho  While the associated  and tasks with  93  education,  most  interested  in  of areas  appears that they but  as  workers  of  saw  providers  According  the  of  orientation  formal  " i n order  primary  the  education  the  agriculture  technical  in  as  informal  of t h e i r  specialized  instructional  workers]  o u t s i d e the t r a d i t i o n a l c l a s s r o o m this  study  Metcalfe  extension  institutions  formal study are district attended Canada  1981).  the  programs  same in  adult  "their (2)  "the  only  to  continued, educators  as t a k i n g p l a c e The  finding  phenomenon i d e n t i f i e d  the  government  have  Table  21  outside  University i n A d u l t and  the major source  of  Idaho  extension  attended in  i n A l b e r t a and their  model  in by for  respective  British  the  Columbia  took  the U n i v e r s i t y  training  for  The  provinces  Extension Education  education.  II.  B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a have  agriculturalists  extension  for further  Appendix  However, both  of  i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , and  provides  and  ( 1 9 6 5 : 163)  of e d u c a t i o n  respondents  Most o f t h e d i s t r i c t  training  He  identify  (1)  work]"  education  i n the United S t a t e s .  of A l b e r t a and  not  because  settings."  the  reported in  institutions  do  extension  service.  agriculturalists  and  graduate  that  (1965) i s a l s o a p p a r e n t  agricultural The  suggests  educators,  h a v e been l i m i t e d  view of  must c o n c e i v e  as  it  their-clientele.  model  settings.  were  because  agricultural  extension  education concepts"  to gain a broader  [extension  some  educators,  [toward  models  f u n c t i o n not  university  adult  both  services to  (1965: 163),  themselves  breadth  in  their  to Metcalfe employed  respondents  The most  in  University do  offer  (Blackburn,  their further of A r i z o n a  was  University  of  of  its  county  94  e x t e n s i o n a g r i c u l t u r a l agents, and again the next source  of  extension  education  U n i v e r s i t y of A r i z o n a . their  training  Idaho  Most of the agents  in i n s t i t u t i o n s  from Washington have attended further  for  in  who  were  of  No  the took  agents  Arizona  for  i n t e r e s t e d i n graduate s t u d i e s were  These areas of i n t e r e s t are shown i n district  agriculturalists  extension agents.  education  were  than  the  Tables  more  f o r such a program. 6a  and  interested  county  6b.  in  extension  The  studying  agricultural  They ranked e x t e n s i o n education as t h e i r second area of  interest  for  both  t r a i n i n g programs.  professional  The  most i n t e r e s t e d  county  competence  extension  adult  in-service agents  i n areas of s p e c i a l i z e d a g r i c u l t u r e .  education as areas of i n t e r e s t  extension for their  competence and i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g programs. note  and  agricultural  ranked s p e c i a l i z e d a g r i c u l t u r e higher than  to  was  Washington  University  asked to rank t h e i r major areas of i n t e r e s t  or  agents  i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s . the  popular  specialization.  Respondents  were  most  that the h i g h e s t i n t e r e s t  in e x t e n s i o n came from the agents  education  professional  It i s  interesting  i n p u r s u i n g graduate employed  in  They  the  studies  government  model. Eight  statements  were  presented, i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e and.  respondents were asked to g i v e t h e i r o p i n i o n on. how these p r o f e s s i o n a l development extension o r g a n i z a t i o n s . felt  that  the  responses  ideas occur i n t h e i r  T h i s q u e s t i o n was might  frequently agricultural  asked because  i t was  be a r e f l e c t i o n of the type of  p o l i c i e s the A g r i c u l t u r a l E x t e n s i o n  Service  has  in  providing  T a b l e 6a D i s t r i c t A g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s ' Rankings of F i e l d of I n t e r e s t f o r P r o f e s s i o n a l and I n - S e r v i c e T r a i n i n g Programs British  A1berta  Field  of Study  Mean Adu1t Educat i on Agricultural Economics A g r i c u l t u r a l Mechanics Animal Science Extension Education Forestry Plant Science Pou1 t r y S c i e n c e Rural Sociology So i1 S c i e n c e  In-Serv i ce T r a i n i ng  Professional Competence  5. 7 5. 1 10 .8 4 .8 3 .8 16 . 3 3 .5 14 .6 8 .4 5 .. 1  Rank 6 5 8 3 2 10 1 9 7 4  Mean 6. 1 5 .3 9 .9 •4 .9 4. 1 16 .0 3 .2 14 .2 8 .2 4 .9  Rank 6 5 8 3 2 10 1 9 7 4  P r o f e s s i ona1 Competence Mean 6 .2 4..0 15.. 1 3,, 2 2 .8 14 . 7 3 ,6 . 13..4 9..4 6 .2 .  Rank 5 4 10 2 1 9 3 8 7 5  Columbia  Canada  In-Service T r a 1 n i ng Mean  Rank  5 .5 5. 8 15 . 3 3 .4 3. 1 13 .6 3 .8 13 .0 9 .6 6..9  4 5 10 2 1 9 3 8 7 6  Professional Competence Mean 5,.8 4 .8 11 .8 . 4 .4 . 3. 5 15 .9 . 3. 5 14 . 3 8..6 5 .4 .  Rank 6 4 8 3 2 10 1 9 7 5  In-Serv i ce Training Mean 6 5 11 4 3 15 3 13 8 5  .0 .4 . 2 .5 .9 .4 . 3 .9 .6 . ,4 .  Rant 6 5 8 3 2 10 1 9 7 4  T a b l e 6b County E x t e n s i o n A g r i c u l t u r a l Agents' Rankings of F i e l d of I n t e r e s t f o r P r o f e s s i o n a l and I n - S e r v i c e T r a i n i n g Programs Idaho  Field  of Study  P r o f e s s i onal Competence Mean  Adu1t E d u c a t i on Agricultural Economics A g r i c u l t u r a l Mechanics Animal Science Extension Education Forestry Plant Science Poultry Science Rural Sociology Soil Science  9 5 13 3 6 12 4 16 15 6  . 1 . 1 .9 . .9 . . 2 . 7 . 2 .. 1 . .0 .6 .  Rank 6 3 8 1 4 7 2 10 9 5  United  Wash i n g t o n In-Serv i ce Training  Mean 8 .9 4..5 1 1.5 3 .9 5..7 1 1 .6 . 3.,8 14,. 2 14 ., 1 5..6  P r o f e s s i ona1 Competence  Rank  Mean  Rank  6 3 7 2 5 8 1 10 9 4  10. 1 5.0 12.2 7.6 7.0 12.0 5. 1 17.2 15.6 7.3  6 1 8 5 3 7 2 10 9 4  In-Serv i ce T r a i n i ng Mean 9 .9 5 .6 10 .9 7 .7 . 6 .6 . 13 . 2 4. ,7 15 .9 . 16 .. 1 6. 2  Rank 6 2 7 5 4 8 1 9 10 3  P r o f e s s i ona1 Competence Mean 9. 7 5 .0 12 .8 6. 1 6. 7 12 . 2 4..7 16 . 7 15..3 7..0  Rank 6 2 8 3 4 7 1 10 9 5  States In-Serv i c e T r a i n i ng Mean 9 .5 5. 1 1 1. 1 6.. 1 6.. 2 12 . 5 4. 3 15 . 2 15 . 3 6 .0 .  Rant 6 2 7 4 5 8 1 9 10 3  96  opportunities professional The  agents  if  there  presented was  the a g r i c u l t u r a l  the  continuously  a n a l y s i s was  in  Table  a statistically  up-date  7.  In  their  order  significant  e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r s employed  k i n d s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l models a t-test  to  competence.  responses are  determine between  for  for .agricultural  difference  in  the  extension  p e r f o r m e d on e a c h s t a t e m e n t .  In  d a t a were s u b j e c t e d t o one-way ANOVA a n a l y s i s  to  two  works,  addition,  for contrasts  and m u l t i p l e c o m p a r i s o n s o f g r o u p means on e a c h s t a t e m e n t . S t a t e m e n t j _ : An a g e n t who s e c u r e s an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e i s o f f e r e d a b e t t e r p o s i t i o n w i t h i n the a g r i c u l t u r a l e x t e n s i o n s e r v i c e . Most extension  of  the  district  agricultural  advanced  significant  on  their  a better position  degree.  difference  w o r k e r s employed  and  agents perceived that t h e i r  extension organizations offer s e c u r e s an  agriculturalists  There  between  was  the  no  of  this  agricultural  a  who  statistically  agricultural  statement  county  f o r an a g e n t  i n t h e two o r g a n i z a t i o n a l m o d e l s  opinions  the  for  (Tables  extension extension  23 and  38, i n  Appendix I I ) . Accordingly, agricultural  this  suggests  that  extension services offer  e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r s who  secured advanced  both  organizations  for  better p o s i t i o n s to those degrees.  S t a t e m e n t 2 : E a r n i n g an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e i s c o n s i d e r e d by the organization as t h e most i m p o r t a n t method an a g e n t c a n use t o improve h i s competence. As  indicated  in  Table  7,  95.1  percent  of  the  county  Table 7 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Respondents by F r e q u e n c y of O c c u r r e n c e o f V a r i o u s P r o f e s s i o n a l Development Ideas Professional  Development  A1 ways  Ideas  -  1 . An a g e n t who s e c u r e s an a d v a n c e d degree i s o f f e r e d a better p o s i t i o n within the a g r i c u l t u r a l extension serv i ce.  A l b e r t a (N=51) B r i t i s h Columbia (N=17) C a n a d a (N=68) I d a h o (N=34) W a s h i n g t o n (N=48) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=82)  8 .8 6. 3 7.. 3  2 . E a r n i n g an a d v a n c e d degree i s c o n s i d e r e d by t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a s t h e most i m p o r t a n t m e t h o d an a g e n t c a n u s e t o improve h i s competence.  A l b e r t a (N=51) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=17) C a n a d a (N=G8) I d a h o (N=34) W a s h i n g t o n (N=48) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=82)  5 .9 1. 5 26 .5 10 .4 17 . 1  3 . An a g e n t who r e t u r n s f o r a n a d v a n c e d d e g r e e i s p a i d w e l l enough through fellowships, scholarships. or s a b b a t i c a l l e a v e to almost equal h i s r e g u l a r annual s a l a r y .  A l b e r t a (N=48) B r i t i s h Columbia (N=17) C a n a d a (N=65) I d a h o (N=32) W a s h i n g t o n (N=48) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=80)  4 . An a g e n t w i t h an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e i s p a i d a h i g h e r s a l a r y t h a n an a g e n t w i t h o u t an advanced d e g r e e i f b o t h h a v e t h e same e x p e r i e n c e and j o b r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .  A l b e r t a (N=50) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=16) C a n a d a (N=66) I d a h o (N=34) W a s h i n g t o n (N=48) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=82)  -  Often 56 .9 29 .4 50 .0 50 .0 45..8 47 .6  Seldom  Never  31 .. 58 . 38 . 29 .. 27 ., 28 .  2 5 2 4 2  4 8 2 4 1 1  .0 .9 .9 . 2 .4  5 .9 23 .5 10 . 3 2 .0 1. 2  . 3 .4 .8 .8 . 3 . 3  • 47.. 1 35 .. 3 44 . 1 11 ..8 27 . 1 20.. 7  3. 1 1. 2  35 .4 1 1 .8 29 . 2 37 . 5 4. 2 17 . 5  25 ..0 35 .. 3 27 , . 7 21 ..9 45 ..8 36 ,. 2  22 29 24 31 35 33  4 .0 3 .0 47 . 1 39 .6 42 .7  36 .0 18 .8 31 .8 44 . 1 41 .. 7 42 . 7  20..0 18 ,8 , 19 . 7 5 .9 . 6. 3 6. 1  30 .0 62 .4 37 . 9 2. 1 1. 2  35 29 33 58 56 57  .9 .4 .6 . 3 .4 . 7  Uncerta i n 9 .8 . 5 .9 8 .8 1 1 .8 . 16..7 14 . .6 1 1 .8 . 5 .9 . 10 .3 2 .9 . 4 .2 . 3.7 16..7 23 .5 18,.5 6..3 14 . .6 1 1 .2 . 10. O 7 .6 . 2..9 10 .4 7.. 3  Table Professional  Development  7-- C o n t i n u e d A1 ways  Ideas  5 . An a g e n t who r e t u r n s f o r a n advanced degree w i l l continue t o be e n t i t l e d t o s a l a r y i n c r e a s e s d e s p i t e h i s absence.  A l b e r t a (N=50) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N= 17) C a n a d a (N=67) I d a h o (N=33) W a s h i n g t o n (N=48) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=81)  4 3 30 4 14  6 . An a g e n t who e a r n s an a d v a n c e d degree gets a higher p o s i t i o n than an agent of s i m i l a r p r o f e s s i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e who d o e s n o t h a v e a n advanced degree.  A l b e r t a (N-50) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N= 17) C a n a d a (N=67) I d a h o (N=34) W a s h i n g t o n (N=48) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=82)  7 . When a n a g e n t ' s work b e g i n s t o d e c r e a s e i n q u a n t i t y and/or q u a l i t y , the o r g a n i z a t i o n w i l l suggest graduate study.  A l b e r t a (N=47) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N= 17) C a n a d a (N=64) I d a h o (N=33) W a s h i n g t o n (N=47) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=80)  8 . C o n s i d e r i n g both the costs and b e n e f i t s o f o b t a i n i n g an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a n a g e n t makes a f i n a n c i a l g a i n by g e t t i n g an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e .  A l b e r t a (N=51) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N= 17) C a n a d a (N=G8) I d a h o (N=34) W a s h i n g t o n (N=48) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=82)  Often  Seldom  58 .0 64,. 7 59 . 7 42 .4 52 . 1 48 . 1  .0 . 2 .8 .6 .5 .9  8 .0 1 1. 8 9 .0 4. 2 2 .4  20,.0 17,.6 19,. 4 8 . 8 16,. 7 13,. 4  .. 1 . 2 .5 . 7  46..8 23..5 40..6 39..4 36 . 2 37 .5 .  29 .8 64 .7 39,, 1 12 , 1 17 .0 15 .0  19,; 1 1 1 .8 , 17 . ,2 27 . 3 38 . , 3 33 ., 7  33 .. 3 35 ..3 33 ..8 38 . 2 37 . 5 37 . .8  39 .. 2 23 .. 5 35 ,. 3 32 . .4 35 .. 5 34 . . 1  9,.8 35 ., 3 16 .. 2 2 .9 . 4 .2 , 3 .7 ,  17 . 7 5.,9 14.. 7 1 1 .8 . 10.,4 1 1 .0  8 6 6 20 14  .0  .0 . 3 . 2 .8  .0 . 4 .4 . 2 . 7 . 3  2 .0 1. 5 1 1 .8 8. 3 9 .8  32 29 31 58 58 58  .0 .4 . 3 .8 . 3 . 5  38 41 38 20 12 15  4 3 21 8 13  . 3  -  -14 . 7 12 . 5 13 ..4  .0 . 1 .8 .8  6 5 6 3 6 4  Uncerta1n  .0 .9 .0 .0 . 3 .9  24 29 25 18 16 17  .0  Never  99  extension  agricultural  a g e n t s , and  a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s perceived organizations the  consider  the  for  statistically the  this  agricultural  (Table  38,  also  significant the  extension  competence.  revealed  indicated  provinces  results  that  and  The  that  of  the  there  was  a  responses  of  between the  two  two  models  one-way  were  be  t-test  there  the  d i f f e r e n c e s between a g r i c u l t u r a l  two  extension  workers employed i n the The  district  advanced degree to  d i f f e r e n c e between  i n Appendix I I ) .  analysis  agricultural  o f an  improve  statement  significant  p e r c e n t of t h e  their  earning  most i m p o r t a n t method t o  analysis  of  that  79.4  ANOVA  statistically  extension states  workers  (Table  23,  in  Appendix I I ) . Accordingly, university considers improve  model an  advanced  Although have the  offering most  of  secured  advanced  believed  that  be  most  the  their  the  that  degree  agents their  as  the  encourages the  employed  extension  most  the  offers degrees,  that better a  their  method a g e n t s can  to  advanced  organizations. government model  for  percent  consider  way  counterparts  positions  lesser  organizations  important  of  the  organization  agents to obtain  agents employed i n the as  in  important  b e t t e r p o s i t i o n s w i t h i n the  same p e r c e p t i o n  organization  a l l  perceived  c o m p e t e n c e and  d e g r e e s by  their  almost  an  of  that  agents the  who  agents  advanced degree  use  t o improve  to  their  competence. S t a t e m e n t 3_ : An a g e n t who r e t u r n s f o r an advanced degree paid well enough through fellowships, scholarships, s a b b a t i c a l leave to almost equal h i s regular annual s a l a r y .  is or  100  Most of t h e d i s t r i c t agricultural or  agents perceived that t h i s  seldom'  in their  The  t-test  7).  a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s and c o u n t y  statistically  agricultural  w o r k e r s employed  ( T a b l e 38,  i n Appendix I I ) .  The  differences  extension agricultural county  the  the  were  'uncertain'  responses  of t h e c o u n t y  and  Idaho  and  the  the  county  between  The  this  their  extension  in Alberta  district  about  agriculturalists  statement the  agents  statement.  in  'never' o c c u r s or  occurrence  Washington  statement  indicated  in their extension  in  were  Fifty  their equally  p e r c e n t of  'never' o c c u r s or  were  o c c u r r e n c e ; the remainder of the a g e n t s  the statement o c c u r s ' o f t e n or seldom'  organization.  in  Idaho;  ( T a b l e 23, i n A p p e n d i x I I ) .  responses to t h i s  about  perceived that seldom'  statistically  agriculturalists  agents perceived that t h i s  extension  responses  district  agents i n Washington  indicated that  agricultural  the  on t h e i r  'uncertain'  a  i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a ; and b e t w e e n  extension organization.  the  no  were  statement o c c u r s ' o f t e n or seldom'  they  was  district  Alberta  in  B r i t i s h Columbia expressed that t h i s  divided  the  (Table  the  in  agents  o r g a n i z a t i o n s ; w h i l e most o f t h e  that  there  agents i n Washington  Most of t h e d i s t r i c t that  'often  and  agriculturalists agricultural  there  i n t h e two m o d e l s on t h e i r  between  extension  agriculturalists  that  between  one-way ANOVA r e v e a l e d t h a t  significant  the  showed  difference  extension  statement occurs  extension organizations  analysis  significant  extension  Most  statement  of does  the  in  their  Idaho a g e n t s , however,  occur  extension organization.  'always,  often  or  T h e s e a n a l y s e s show  101  that over f i f t y  p e r c e n t of the  employed  both  in  organization providing  models  encouraged  to  extension  extension  that  get  scholarships,  However, t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l e a c h s t a t e seem t o v a r y  perceived  agents  fellowships,  development  agricultural  their  advanced or  workers extension  degrees  sabbatical  by  leave.  workers i n each province  i n their perception  of t h i s  and  professional  incentive.  Accordingly,  the a g r i c u l t u r a l  extension  organizations  in  A l b e r t a a n d I d a h o seem t o e n c o u r a g e t h e i r a g r i c u l t u r a l  extension  workers  extension  by  implementing t h i s  organizations that  in British  i n c e n t i v e more t h a n t h e  Columbia  and  Washington,  d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h i n the models a r e g r e a t e r  indicating  t h a n between t h e  models. S t a t e m e n t <| : An a g e n t w i t h an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e i s p a i d a higher salary than agent w i t h o u t an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e i f b o t h have t h e same e x p e r i e n c e a n d j o b r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . As  indicated  extension  in  agents,  Table and  34.8  a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s perceived often' test  that  in their agricultural analysis  significant workers  clearly  difference  employed  7,  this  of  statement occurs  'always or  organizations. there  was a  The  Similarly,  ANOVA  one-way  (Table  agricultural  38,  in  extension  a n a l y s i s a l s o showed t h a t  significant  differences  responses  the  and t h e p r o v i n c e s  states  of t h i s  Appendix I I ) .  were s t a t i s t i c a l l y between  t-  statistically  i n t h e two m o d e l s on t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n idea  county district  the  of  the  the  indicated that between  percent  percent  extension  p r o f e s s i o n a l development the  85.4  on  the  there  perceived  (Table  23, i n  102  Appendix  11) .  One  notes  that  agriculturalists statement 7).  in  both  systems p r o v i d e sabbatical  of  British  Columbia  perceived  the  university  model  more  who for  positions  work  for  to  an  agricultural  encouragement  earn advanced  extension  such as f e l l o w s h i p s ,  l e a v e , and b e t t e r workers  the  district that  this  extension organization  agricultural  incentives,  extension  who  percent  'never' o c c u r s i n t h e i r  Although  provide  62.4  s c h o l a r s h i p s or  advanced  by p a y i n g h i g h e r  d e g r e e s and by g i v i n g  organizational  their  extension  (Table  agricultural degree,  work  seems  salaries  recognition  the to  to agents  of  improved  competence. Statement 5 : An a g e n t who r e t u r n s f o r an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e w i l l c o n t i n u e t o be e n t i t l e d t o s a l a r y i n c r e a s e s d e s p i t e h i s a b s e n c e . The  data  agricultural and 53.0  Table  that  an  those  show  that  employed  a g e n t who  e n t i t l e d to salary  analysis  7  e x t e n s i o n workers employed  p e r c e n t of  perceived not  in  there  were  responses  But  statistically between  C o l u m b i a and Appendix  II).  those  II).  the in  Idaho's  of  i n the government the  the model  university  increases d u r i n g h i s absence.  i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e was  Appendix  percent  model  r e t u r n s f o r an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e i s The  no a_ s t a t i s t i c a l l y  d i f f e r e n c e on t h e p e r c e p t i o n between in  in  65.7  t-test  significant  t h e two m o d e l s  (Table  38,  t h e one-way ANOVA a n a l y s i s showed  that  significant respondents  Idaho county  and  differences in  Alberta  Washington  extension  on  and  (Table  agricultural  the  British 23,  in  agents  103  differ  on t h e i r  Alberta  and  responses from the  British  agricultural  agents  f o r an a d v a n c e d  Columbia.  agent  who  entitled  degree  returns  continues  for  of t h e c o u n t y e x t e n s i o n  to  be  entitled  workers  employed  respondents  degree w i l l  that  most  of  the  agricultural  i n t h e two e x t e n s i o n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l are  time  to salary  graduate  i f an  c o n t i n u e t o be  s y s t e m s p e r c e i v e d t h a t e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r s who programs  are  not  entitled  d u r i n g the time they are o f f the j o b .  government  salary  increases d e s p i t e h i s absence. indicate  differences  returns  to  H o w e v e r , most o f t h e  an a d v a n c e d  analyses  extension  Washington,  A l b e r t a and B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a were u n c e r t a i n  to salary  The  Most  in  i n I d a h o p e r c e i v e d t h a t an a g e n t who  i n c r e a s e s d e s p i t e h i s absence. in Washington,  respondents  within  the  pursuing  increases  However, t h e r e were  university  model  than  full  within  more the  model.  S t a t e m e n t 6 : An a g e n t who earns an advanced degree gets a h i g h e r p o s i t i o n t h a n an a g e n t o f s i m i l a r p r o f e s s i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e who d o e s n o t h a v e an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e . The  data  extension  in  agents,  agriculturalists this  T a b l e 7 show t h a t 68.3  have  statement occurs  organizations, (Table  38,  indicated  and  32.8  percent  expressed 'always  or  their often'  a d i f f e r e n c e w h i c h was  in  Appendix  II).  The  p e r c e n t of the c o u n t y of  the  district  perceived opinion in  their  extension  s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant one-way  ANOVA  t h a t t h e r e were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t  analysis differences  on t h e s e r e s p o n s e s b e t w e e n t h e r e s p o n d e n t s i n t h e p r o v i n c e s in the s t a t e s  that  ( T a b l e 23, i n A p p e n d i x I I ) .  and  1 04  Agricultural models higher  extension  are encouraged positions  w o r k e r s employed  t o get advanced  for  their  d e g r e e s by  p e r c e n t i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a who  statement result the  o c c u r s 'always or o f t e n '  indicates that  district  earn  their qualifications. extension the this  by  organizations.  'always  Similarly,  recognize  or the  Overall,  the  increased  of  the  worker's  in  their  in  or  sabbatical  extension are  a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s in Alberta higher  positions  to  which  qualifications.  competence.  t o improve the In  order  agricultural advanced  agricultural  to accomplish this  provides fellowships,  leave f o r further  scholarships,  s t u d i e s , and r e w a r d s t h o s e  have e a r n e d t h e advanced  d e g r e e by o f f e r i n g  positions  and  salaries.  organizing  agricultural  higher  that  Washington  u n i v e r s i t y model f o r o r g a n i z i n g  o b j e c t i v e , the o r g a n i z a t i o n  county  have i n d i c a t e d  agents  t o be t h e most i m p o r t a n t way  extension  than  p e r c e n t of  e x t e n s i o n s e r v i c e a p p e a r s t o c o n s i d e r t h e e a r n i n g o f an degree  This  more  and 34.0  who  often'  d e g r e e s by b e i n g o f f e r e d  for their  the  and B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a t o  agents i n Washington  e n c o u r a g e d more t h a n t h e d i s t r i c t earn advanced  encouraged  and  that  organization.  percent  agriculturalists in Alberta  statement occurs  70.6  offered higher positions for  T h e r e were 66.6  agricultural  district  being  T h e r e were  indicated  in their  Idaho's agents are  degrees  offered  percent in Alberta  have  agriculturalists in Alberta  advanced  being  qualifications.  p e r c e n t o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s i n I d a h o , 34.0 29.4  i n the u n i v e r s i t y  extension  The  better  government  service  also  and  who  higher  model  for  provides  105  fellowships,  scholarships,  agricultural degrees,  extension  and  '• t h e  most  workers'  them  that  the  important  incentives  are  offering  to  improve  the in  to  for  get  those  advanced  better positions.  It  advanced degree  agricultural  provision  the  leave  desire  r e c o g n i t i o n o f an  and  greater  who  by  way  competence,  sabbatical  workers  rewards  seems, t h e r e f o r e ,  or  of  extension  other  university  as  perceived  model t h a n i n  the  government model. S t a t e m e n t 1_ When an agent's work begins to decrease in quantity and/or q u a l i t y , the o r g a n i z a t i o n w i l l suggest graduate study. :  The  district  agricultural  agents  this  statement.  the  district  extension occurs  agriculturalists  The  data  agricultural  r e m a i n d e r of statement  or  and  51.3  indicated  their  responses  to  43.7  percent  of  p e r c e n t of that  this  county  statement  t h e s e r e s p o n d e n t s have e x p r e s s e d t h e v i e w t h a t  this  responses  employed i n the  i n the  t h e y were ' u n c e r t a i n '  statistically  between two  that  the  extension  the  The  these  in their  extension  organization.  T h e r e were no  to  agents  'never' o c c u r s or  or  county  i n T a b l e 7 show t h a t  seldom'  item.  provinces  the  were e q u a l l y d i v i d e d on  agriculturalists  'often  and  significant  agricultural  about  the  differences  on  extension  models or between  agents  s t a t e s as  i n Appendix I I , Tables  reported  employed  workers in  the 23  28. Accordingly,  employed i n the organizations  i f most o f  the  agricultural  u n i v e r s i t y model p e r c e v e d t h a t  considers  an  a d v a n c e d d e g r e e as  extension  workers  their  extension  t h e most  important  106  way  f o r improving  number  competency,  indicate  that  organizational extension  his not  with  agricultural  competency.  extension  But,  organizations  competency  on  the  i n e x t e n s i o n work.  Apparently  seen by a m a j o r i t y o f e x t e n s i o n  results extension  idea  use q u a n t i t y and/or q u a l i t y  f o r a d v i s i n g the extension  quality  the  workers i n both  s y s t e m s were e q u a l l y d i v i d e d  of t h e c r i t e r i a  by t h e i r  t h e same  of e x t e n s i o n workers t o p e r c e i v e q u a n t i t y and/or  o f work t o be a s s o c i a t e d  one  t h e n one e x p e c t s a t l e a s t  that  o f work  worker t o  update  graduate study i s  w o r k e r s as a means  employed  o r g a n i z a t i o n as a remedy f o r u n s a t i s f a c t o r y p e r f o r m a n c e  of e x t e n s i o n  workers.  Statement 8 : Considering both the c o s t s and benefits o b t a i n i n g an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e an a g e n t makes a f i n a n c i a l g a i n g e t t i n g an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e . As  indicated  i n T a b l e 7, 85.3  the a g r i c u l t u r a l  extension  and  models,  government  degree.  statistically  38,  workers employed a financial employed The  t-test  extension  i n Appendix  of by  and 69.1  percent  in  university  the  of  r e s p e c t i v e l y , reported that considering  significant  the a g r i c u l t u r a l (Table  The  percent  w o r k e r s employed  t h e c o s t s and b e n e f i t s , a f i n a n c i a l advanced  as  gain results  showed  difference  that  there  was  on t h e r e s p o n s e s  workers employed  II).  f r o m g e t t i n g an  in  the  two  More o f t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l  a  between models  extension  i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y model r e s p o n d e d t h a t t h e r e i s  gain  by  getting  i n t h e government district  an  advanced  degree  than  those  model.  agriculturalists  in  A l b e r t a and t h e c o u n t y  e x t e n s i o n a g r i c u l t u r a l a g e n t s i n I d a h o and W a s h i n g t o n  indicated  107  different  opinions  on  this  item.  Over  85  r e s p o n d e n t s i n I d a h o and W a s h i n g t o n ,  and  Alberta  statement  have  expressed  extension organizations  that  and  the  results  are  convinced  advanced  model degree  agricultural the  than  the  most  extension  an  way  to  workers  sabbatical  o f an a d v a n c e d  pronounced service,  higher  position  i n t h e g o v e r n m e n t model the  organization,  s c h o l a r s h i p s , or s a b b a t i c a l  for  however,  w o r k e r s t o o b t a i n an a d v a n c e d  degree  by  providing for  those  by  and idea  d e g r e e a s t h e most  who  a  organization  Although the  and t h e i d e a o f r e w a r d i n g t h e e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r with  To a c c o m p l i s h  degree w i t h b e t t e r  role  degree  the  d e g r e e , and r e w a r d i n g t h o s e  t o i m p r o v e an e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r ' s  advanced  improve  leave  h i g h e r p o s i t i o n s , as w e l l a s h i g h e r s a l a r i e s .  i m p o r t a n t way  which  ' considers  extension  s e c u r e an a d v a n c e d  earning  gain  the  their  i n a c q u i r i n g an a d v a n c e d  the  district  in  perceive  or  i n Idaho  workers  organization important  workers  scholarships,  considering  differences  degree.  their  i t s agricultural  e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r s who  of  in their  the  e x t e n s i o n worker's r o l e performance.  fellowships, interested  as  extension  encourages  occurs  in  ( T a b l e 23, i n A p p e n d i x I I ) .  more  agricultural believe  of t h e  percent  i n Alberta that there i s a f i n a n c i a l  summary,  university  this,  significant  f r o m g e t t i n g an a d v a n c e d  In  72  county e x t e n s i o n a g r i c u l t u r a l agents  Washington  agriculturalists  about  'always, o f t e n , or seldom',  w h i c h were s t a t i s t i c a l l y Accordingly,  the  percent  performance, obtains  and s a l a r y a r e  agricultural encourages providing  an less  extension  i t s extension fellowships,  l e a v e and o f f e r i n g a b e t t e r  position  108  within  the extension  organization.  model p e r c e i v e d  that  for  workers  extension  training period degree.  as  their  organizations  to  an  I n d i v i d u a l s working i n each  get  salary  incentive  A g r i c u l t u r a l extension  to  graduate  performance  decreases  agricultural are  study  model,  from o b t a i n i n g  during  f o r an  that  quantity  that  their  the  advanced  organization  will  w o r k e r when h i s r o l e  and/or  quality.  there  counterparts  employed  i s a financial  The  gain  i n the  which r e s u l t s  an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e .  Regulatory  Functions  R e s p o n d e n t s were r e q u e s t e d t o i n d i c a t e t h e i r a g r e e m e n t ten  statements  worker's  describing  performing  possible  regulatory  r o l e on h i s e f f e c t i v e n e s s appropriate presented  response  extension their  to  as  significant  of  an  educator,  statement. To  a t t i t u d e towards r e g u l a t o r y  analysis  was  extension  circling  the  These responses a r e i f there  was  a  between t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l models  on  d u t i e s , a t - t e s t a n a l y s i s was  statement.  calculated  with  of h i s extension by  determine  difference  an  w o r k e r s e m p l o y e d i n t h e two o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  p e r f o r m e d on e a c h r e g u l a t o r y ANOVA  effects  d u t i e s as p a r t  each  i n T a b l e s 8a a n d 8b.  statistically  the  w o r k e r s e m p l o y e d i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y model  c o n v i n c e d , more t h a n  government  return  f o r an e x t e n s i o n in  extension  increases  allowances  workers employed i n both models  were e q u a l l y d i v i d e d on t h e o p i n i o n suggest  do n o t make  In  addition,  for contrasts  c o m p a r i s o n s o f g r o u p means o f t h e r e s p o n s e s on  and  each  one-way multiple  regulatory  T a b l e 8a D i s t r i b u t i o n a n d Mean S c o r e s o f D i s t r i c t A g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s ' Agreement w i t h V a r i o u s S t a t e m e n t s on A t t i t u d e towards R e g u l a t o r y Functions British  Alberta Statements  Agree  Disagree  Mean  Agree  Canada  Columbia  D i sagree  Mean  Agree  D i sagree  Mean  1. An a g e n t who h a s r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s i s not as f r e e t o examine a l l p r o b l e m s o b j e c t i v e l y a s he w o u l d b e w i t h o u t such d u t i e s .  82 .0  14.0  2. 16  62 . 5  25.0  2.31  77.3  16.7  2.20  2. P e r f o r m i n g t h e e d u c a t i o n a l aspect of r e g u l a t o r y f u n c t i o n s f o r another o f f i c e o r a g e n c y has a p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on t h e a g e n t ' s a b i l i t y t o c a r r y o u t his other extension duties.  48 .0  28.0  3.16*  50.0  18.8  3.31*  48.5  25.7  3.20*  R e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s may d i s c o u r a g e p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f p e o p l e i n a program which the agent organizes.  82 .0  10.0  2.16  62.5  31.3  2.31  77.3  15.1  2.20  4. R e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s w h i c h p r o v i d e for s p e c i f i e d control of stocking, o r o f l a n d improvement a n d l a n d u s e , o r f o r t h e c o n t r o l o f p e s t s o r weeds may f a c i l i t a t e a n a g e n t ' s e f f o r t t o persuade h i s c l i e n t e l e to adopt the r e q u i r e d information.  44 .0  32.0  50.1  31.3  3.25*  45.4  31.8  3.15*  70.0  12.0  68.8  25.0  2.44  69.7  15.1  2.36  3.  R e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s may d e c r e a s e t h e a g e n t ' s i n f l u e n c e on h i s c l i e n t e l e .  3.12*  2.34  O  Table  8 a - - Cont i n u e d British  Alberta  6.  R e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s may i n c r e a s e t h e a g e n t ' s s t a t u s i n h i s f a r m community, thus can f a c i l i t a t e h i s e f f o r t to influence h i s c l i e n t e l e to accept the a p p r o p r i a t e i n n o v a t i o n s .  7. An a g e n t ' s r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s may f a c i l i t a t e h i s e f f o r t s to perform the o t h e r d u t i e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h h i s pos i t i on. 8.  R e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s which p r e s c r i b e s p e c i f i e d grades of commodities o r i n s p e c t i o n o f p r e m i s e s may f a c i l i t a t e a n a g e n t ' s e d u c a t i o n a l p e r f o r m a n c e by p r o v i d i n g a t e a c h a b l e moment f o r h i s c l i e n t e l e to acquire a given i nformat i on.  9. R e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s may i n t e r f e r e w i t h an a g e n t ' s a b i l i t y t o m o t i v a t e h i s c l i e n t e l e t o a d o p t new k n o w l e d g e or skill. 10.  An a g e n t n e e d s t o r e m a i n c l e a r o f any t y p e o f r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s i n o r d e r t o be e f f e c t i v e i n h i s e x t e n s i o n work.  •Mean  scores  Disagree  Mean  Agree  above  3.00  indicate  a positive  Di s a g r e e  Mean  25.0  62.5  2.38  18.2  71.2  2.32  2.88  31.3  62.5  2.44  35.3  • 47.7  2.77  20.4  3 . 35*  33.3  33.3  2.87  54.7  23.4  3.23*  71.4  18.3  2 . 39  62.5  31.3  2.38  69.2  21.5  2.39  59 .6  29.8  2.55  62.5  25.0  2.38  60.3  28.6  2.51  D i sagree  Mean  Agree  16.0  74 .0  2.30  36.7  42 .9  61.2  Agree  Statements  Canada  Columbia  attitude  towards  Regulatory Functions.  The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f "Agree" e q u a l s t h e r e s p o n s e s o f S t r o n g l y Agree and Agree; and " D i s a g r e e " e q u a l s t h e r e s p o n s e s o f D i s a g r e e and S t r o n g l y D i s a g r e e . The m i s s i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n i s the responses of the Undecided.  T a b l e 8b D i s t r i b u t i o n a n d Mean S c o r e s o f C o u n t y E x t e n s i o n A g r i c u l t u r a l Agents' Agreement w i t h V a r i o u s S t a t e m e n t s on A t t i t u d e t o w a r d s R e g u l a t o r y F u n c t i o n s  Statements  Agree  D i sagree  An a g e n t who h a s r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s i s not as f r e e t o examine a l l p r o b l e m s o b j e c t i v e l y a s he w o u l d b e w i t h o u t such d u t i e s .  84 .8  Performing the educational aspect of r e g u l a t o r y f u n c t i o n s f o r a n o t h e r o f f i c e o r a g e n c y has a p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on t h e a g e n t ' s a b i l i t y t o c a r r y o u t his other extension duties.  60.6  R e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s may d i s c o u r a g e p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f people i n a program which t h e agent o r g a n i z e s .  84 . 8  9. 1  R e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s which p r o v i d e f o r ' s p e c i f i e d c o n t r o l of s t o c k i n g , o r o f l a n d improvement and l a n d u s e , o r f o r t h e c o n t r o l o f p e s t s o r weeds may f a c i l i t a t e a n a g e n t ' s e f f o r t t o p e r s u a d e h i s c l i e n t e l e t o adopt the r e q u i r e d information.  57 .6  R e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s may d e c r e a s e t h e a g e n t ' s i n f l u e n c e on h i s c l i e n t e l e .  78.8  United  Washington  Idaho Mean  Agree  Di s a g r e e  Mean  Agree  Disagree  Mean  1 . 54  90.1  6.1  1.64  3.11*  1 . 79  93 . 8  3.46*  40.4  46.8  2.87  48.7  36.2  1 . 88  84.8  6.5  1.85  84.8  7.6  27 . 3  3 . 39*  30.4  45.7  2.80  41.8  38.0  3.05*  12.1  2 .06  82.6  8.7  1.94  81.0  10.1  1.99  9. 1  21.2  4. 2  States  1.86  T a b l e 8b-- Cont i nued I  Statements 6.  8.  a  h  Washington  o  Agree'  Disagree  Mean  Agree  R e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s may i n c r e a s e t h e a g e n t ' s s t a t u s i n h i s f a r m community, thus can f a c i l i t a t e h i s e f f o r t to influence h i s c l i e n t e l e to accept the a p p r o p r i a t e i n n o v a t i o n s .  15.6  71.9  2.22  An a g e n t ' s r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s may f a c i l i t a t e h i s e f f o r t s to perform the other d u t i e s a s s o c i a t e d with his position.  18.2  60.6  R e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s which p r e s c r i b e s p e c i f i e d grades of commodities or i n s p e c t i o n o f p r e m i s e s may f a c i l i t a t e a n a g e n t ' s e d u c a t i o n a l p e r f o r m a n c e by p r o v i d i n g a t e a c h a b l e moment f o r h i s c l i e n t e l e to acquire a given information.  39.4  9. R e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s may i n t e r f e r e w i t h an a g e n t ' s a b i l i t y t o m o t i v a t e h i s c l i e n t e l e t o a d o p t new k n o w l e d g e or s k i l l . 10.  d  An a g e n t n e e d s t o r e m a i n c l e a r o f any t y p e o f r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s i n o r d e r t o be e f f e c t i v e i n h i s e x t e n s i o n work.  *Mean  scores  above  3.00  indicate  a positive  United  Disagree  Mean  Agree  6.4  85.1  1.96  2.39  8.5  78.7  42.4  2.85  21.2  81.8  9.1  2.03  72.7  15.2  2.03  attitude  towards  Regulatory  States  Disagree  Mean  10.2  79.7  2.06  2.15  12.5  71.2  2.25  48.9  2.64  28.7  46.2  2.73  74.5  8.5  2.06  77.5  8.7  2.05  83.0  6.4  1.68  78.7  10.0  1.83  Functions.  The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f " A g r e e " e q u a l s t h e r e s p o n s e s o f S t r o n g l y A g r e e a n d A g r e e ; a n d " D i s a g r e e " e q u a l s t h e r e s p o n s e s of D i s a g r e e and S t r o n g l y D i s a g r e e . The m i s s i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n i s the responses of the Undecided.  •1 1 3  statement.  The  discussed  (a)  countries,  analyses if  and  there  (b)  for was  if  each a  there  regulatory  difference  statement  between  were  the  two  were d i f f e r e n c e s among t h e  four  groups. S t a t e m e n t J_ : An a g e n t who h a s r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s i s n o t a s free to examine a l l problems o b j e c t i v e l y as he w o u l d w i t h o u t s u c h dut i e s . T h e r e were 77.3 and 90.1 agreed  with  extension  statement  workers  than  workers employed  This  result  employed  i n the government  duty  indicate  a g r i c u l t u r a l agents i n district  Washington C o l u m b i a on  the  the  statement  to  government  indicates  that  a  agricultural  believe  model  create r o l e - c o n f l i c t  Alberta;  their agents  the  that  ( T a b l e 39,  more  extension  e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r s who  were  model. r e s u l t s as r e p o r t e d  Washington  statistically and  between  T h e r e was  in  Appendix  t h a t the responses of county e x t e n s i o n  agriculturalists  were  Washington  in  than  one-way ANOVA a n a l y s i s 25  8b).  who  i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y model have n e g a t i v e a t t i t u d e s  regulatory  Table  and  i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y model t e n d i n g  towards  There  agriculturalists,  i n t h e two m o d e l s on t h i s  counterparts  II).  8a  difference  r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s may  in Appendix  II,  (Tables  employed  their  performing  1  significant  w i t h t h o s e employed  The  district  p e r c e n t of the county e x t e n s i o n a g r i c u l t u r a l agents  statistically  more  p e r c e n t of the  in  differ  Alberta  significant and  responses. believe,  between These more  from  and  those  British  findings than  and  between British  indicate the  the  Columbia.  differences Washington  of  that  district  1 14  agriculturalists extension  of  worker  Alberta  who  such  Washington  British  duties,  as  thus  objectively creating  agents' a t t i t u d e d i d not  that of t h e i r  Columbia,  that  an  p e r f o r m s r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s may n o t be a s  f r e e t o examine a l l problems without  and  as  he  might  be  role-conflict.  The  significantly  from  differ  c o u n t e r p a r t s i n Idaho.  Statement 2 : P e r f o r m i n g t h e e d u c a t i o n a l a s p e c t of r e g u l a t o r y f u n c t i o n s f o r a n o t h e r o f f i c e or agency has a p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on the agent's a b i l i t y t o c a r r y out h i s other e x t e n s i o n d u t i e s . Agricultural indicate  a  (Tables  8a  extension  positive and  workers  attitude  8b).  towards  responses However,  agents d i f f e r (Table  significant with  Idaho  towards t h i s these  this  both models  regulatory  in  the  two  duty  significant  countries  on  ( T a b l e 39, i n A p p e n d i x I I ) . the  one-way  in their  25,  in  T h e r e was no a s t a t i s t i c a l l y  d i f f e r e n c e between e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r s their  employed  in  ANOVA a n a l y s i s  responses from t h e agents  Appendix  II).  There  d i f f e r e n c e between t h e a g e n t s agents  indicates that  tending  to  have  was  a  in  the  indicate  of t h i s  statistically states,  a more p o s i t i v e  attitude  agents.  Overall,  t h a t w i t h i n t h e g o v e r n m e n t m o d e l more  t h a n t h e u n i v e r s i t y m o d e l t h e r e seems t o positive effect  Washington  two  r e g u l a t o r y duty than Washington  findings  in  Idaho  be  consensus  f u n c t i o n on a g e n t s ' r o l e  on  the  performance.  Statement 3 : R e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s may d i s c o u r a g e p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f p e o p l e i n a program which t h e agent o r g a n i z e s . There  were  84.8  percent  of  the  county  extension  115  agricultural  agents,  a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s who T h e r e was  and  agreed with  a statistically  agricultural  in  the  39,  respondents employed  agreed the  item,  difference employed  w i t h the  employed  i n Appendix I I ) .  in  towards t h i s  agents  with  the  statement 3 (Tables  workers . this  of  in  district  8a and  8b).  between  the  in  the  extension  u n i v e r s i t y model e x p r e s s i n g  agreement than the (Table  percent  significant  extension  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l m o d e l s on employed  77.3  a higher  the  workers level  government  of  the  extension  agents  u n i v e r s i t y m o d e l have a more n e g a t i v e  attitude  r e g u l a t o r y duty  statements,  of  model  Although over t h r e e - f o u r t h s  the  two  than  their  counterparts  in  the  government model. The II,  one-way ANOVA a n a l y s i s r e s u l t s as  Table  25  significant this  that  differences  item.  discourage  indicate  They  between  a l l  agreed  participation  agricultural intra-role  extension conflict  performance  of  the  there  of  and  that people  were two  appear  to  be  agricultural  regulatory  no of  in  a So,  functions  the  four groups duties  program  on may  which  the  the c o n d i t i o n s  for  present  for  extension  f u n c t i o n s and  i n Appendix statistically  regulatory  worker o r g a n i z e s .  o b l i g a t e d to conduct r e g u l a t o r y educational  any  reported  who  the  worker  role who  perceives  is the  conflict.  Statement 4 : Regulatory duties which provide for specified c o n t r o l of s t o c k i n g , o r o f l a n d i m p r o v e m e n t and l a n d u s e , o r f o r t h e c o n t r o l of p e s t s o r weeds may f a c i l i t a t e an agent's effort t o persuade h i s c l i e n t e l e t o adopt the r e q u i r e d i n f o r m a t i o n . The  data  i n T a b l e s 8a and  8b  i n d i c a t e t h a t agents employed  1 16  in  both  organizational  models  for  agricultural  s e r v i c e s have a p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e  towards t h i s  There  significant  was  no  agricultural responses  a  e x t e n s i o n workers  on  this  w o r k e r s employed that t h i s the  statistically  i n the  i t e m ( T a b l e 39,  two  extension  regulatory difference  countries  i n Appendix  II).  r e g u l a t o r y d u t y may  e x t e n s i o n worker's role  between  in  their  Extension  i n both e x t e n s i o n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l models  specific  duty.  believe  have a p o s i t i v e e f f e c t  performance.  H o w e v e r , t h e one-way ANOVA a n a l y s i s r e s u l t s a s r e p o r t e d Appendix  I I , T a b l e 25 shows t h a t  r e s p o n s e s from Washington's significant  difference  s t a t e s w i t h Washington Idaho a g e n t s . that the  this  were  81.0  agents  his  decrease clients  significant the  two  the  a  statistically  the agents employed  r e g u l a t o r y d u t y may  a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s who may  T h e r e was  i n the  two  a g e n t s t e n d i n g t o d i s a g r e e more t h a n t h a n  S t a t e m e n t 5_ : Regulatory i n f l u e n c e on h i s c l i e n t s .  agricultural  agents.  between  e x t e n s i o n worker's r o l e  There  in  Idaho's agents d i f f e r i n t h e i r  A c c o r d i n g l y , Washington's  specific  on  duties  agricultural and  have a n e g a t i v e e f f e c t  8b).  may  of  69.7  agreed that  ( T a b l e s 8a  believe  decrease  the  county  percent performing  of  agent's  extension  the  district  regulatory  e x t e n s i o n worker's There  the  was  a  duties  influence  models,  with  those  u n i v e r s i t y m o d e l t e n d i n g t o a g r e e more w i t h t h i s  on  statistically  d i f f e r e n c e between t h e e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r s e m p l o y e d  organizational  on  performance.  percent and  a g e n t s seem t o  employed statement  in  i n the than  1 17  did  those  employed  in  the  government  Appendix I I ) .  This  the  model b e l i e v e t h a t  in  university intra-role  model  indicates that extension  conflict  on  39,  in  workers employed i n  regulatory the  (Table  duties  extension  may  result  worker's  role  performance. The  one-way ANOVA  agriculturalists county extension Washington negative  have  attitude  counterparts regulatory  in  analysis  indicates  Alberta differ  agricultural  in their  towards r e g u l a t o r y Alberta  d u t i e s may  the  and  d e c r e a s e an  significant  appear  to  the  Agents  responsibility  they  district  responses from  agents i n Washington.  indicated a s t a t i s t i c a l l y  in  that  in  stronger  than  their  believe  that  agent's communication with  his  clientele. S t a t e m e n t 6 : R e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s may i n c r e a s e t h e a g e n t ' s status in his farm community, thus can facilitate his e f f o r t to i n f l u e n c e h i s c l i e n t e l e t o a c c e p t the a p p r o p r i a t e innovations. T h e r e were 71.2 and  79.7  p e r c e n t of t h e  disagreed  with  statistically American attitude in  p e r c e n t of  statement  significant  agricultural  extension  indicates  to  influence that  the  8a  agriculturalists  agricultural and  8b).  d i f f e r e n c e s between the  This  performing regulatory ability  6 (Tables  towards performing II).  district  county extension  a g e n t s , o r b e t w e e n any  Appendix  the  two  of  regulatory finding,  the  agents  T h e r e were Canadian  four groups i n  duties that  (Tables  his  clientele  p e r f o r m a n c e of  to  regulatory  their  of  the  extension  accept  and  39,  majority  d e c r e a s e the  no  25 and  workers employed i n both models  d u t i e s may  who  believe worker's  innovations,  d u t y may  lead  to  118  intra-role  conflict  f o r the e x t e n s i o n worker.  S t a t e m e n t 7 : An a g e n t ' s r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s may facilitate his e f f o r t to perform the other duties associated with h i s p o s i t i o n . The  d a t a i n T a b l e s 8a a n d 8b show t h a t 47.7 p e r c e n t o f t h e  district  agriculturalists  and  71.2  percent  of  the  county  extension agricultural  a g e n t s d i s a g r e e d w i t h s t a t e m e n t 7.  was  significant  a  statistically  between t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l models,  with  the  model t e n d i n g employed The  in  result  The Tabletheir  the  may  pronounced university  to  difference  i n the responses  e x t e n s i o n workers employed  e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r s employed disagree  more  than  g o v e r n m e n t model  lead  to  the  in  i n the  university  extension  intra-role  conflict  workers  which  is  i n t h e case of t h e e x t e n s i o n workers employed  showed  Alberta's d i s t r i c t  reported  in  more  i n the  Appendix  Washington.  There  were  statistically  d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e o p i n i o n s of d i s t r i c t and  significant  agents  and  between t h e o p i n i o n s o f d i s t r i c t  agriculturalists  and  the county e x t e n s i o n agents  Washington.  agriculturalists  in  Alberta  toward t h i s advantage  did  the  agents employed  tended  to  have  of p e r f o r m i n g  agents i n  agriculturalists in  the county e x t e n s i o n a g r i c u l t u r a l  in  I I ,  agriculturalists differ in  r e s p o n s e s from t h e c o u n t y e x t e n s i o n a g r i c u l t u r a l  attitude  two  ( T a b l e 39, i n A p p e n d i x I I ) .  one-way ANOVA a n a l y s i s , a s  Idaho and  than  the  model.  25  Alberta  There  i n Idaho, in Alberta  The a more  regulatory  i n t h e two s t a t e s .  suggests that the county e x t e n s i o n a g r i c u l t u r a l  This  agents  district positive duties finding i n the  119  two  s t a t e s b e l i e v e that performing  to  inter-role  conflict  extension worker's  with  r e g u l a t o r y f u n c t i o n s may  lead  other d u t i e s a s s o c i a t e d with  the  position.  Statement 8 : Regulatory d u t i e s which p r e s c r i b e s p e c i f i e d grades of commodities or i n s p e c t i o n of premises may facilitate an agent's e d u c a t i o n a l performance by p r o v i d i n g a teachable moment f o r h i s c l i e n t e l e to a c q u i r e given i n f o r m a t i o n . There  were  agricultural  28.7  agents,  a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s who There was  percent and  agreed  a statistically  agricultural  of  54.7  the percent  a positive  university  model  regulatory  duty  significant  difference  in  workers  The  a  worker's  between  employed  educational  government  towards  this  Accordingly,  not  agricultural  model  facilitate may  extension  district  r e v e a l e d that  of  different  from those of the county extension a g r i c u l t u r a l  in Idaho and Washington. their  agriculturalists  There were responses  to  this regulatory duties.  opinions  on  the  i n the government model were, more i n c l i n e d  one-way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e r e s u l t s  differences  the  r o l e performance, but  The  b e n e f i t s from performing  the  the  organization  the  attitude  in Appendix I I ) .  conflict.  8b).  those employed i n the  negative  39,  in  s p e c i f i c r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s may  intra-role  see p o s i t i v e  district  extension workers employed in the u n i v e r s i t y  extension  result  a t t i t u d e and  having (Table  b e l i e v e that these the  the  extension workers employed in the two  having  agricultural  of  extension  with statement 8 (Tables 8a and  models, with the extension workers employed model  county  in  Alberta  statistically between  the  the were  agents  significant district  120  agriculturalists agricultural  in  agents  agriculturalists the  Alberta in  and  Idaho  i n Alberta  and  the  Washington.  county e x t e n s i o n a g r i c u l t u r a l  i n Appendix  II).  agriculturalists duties,  such  premises,  may  facilitate  These f i n d i n g s  grading  provide  the  performance.  This  conclude  was  not  The  or  moment,  with  and,  extension  attitude  expressed  the  by  the  toward t h i s  agriculturalists, agricultural  agents  of may role  county  thus  one  role  regulatory  agents  under  to  inter-  performance. were  equally  duty.  may i n t e r f e r e w i t h an a g e n t ' s t o adopt new knowledge o r  and  significant  working  lead  i n B r i t i s h Columbia  d a t a i n T a b l e s 8a a n d 8b show t h a t  was a s t a t i s t i c a l l y of  thus,  educational  the agent's e d u c a t i o n a l  Statement 9 : Regulatory duties a b i l i t y to motivate h i s c l i e n t e l e skill.  district  inspection  agents i n Idaho and Washington,  agriculturalists  d i v i d e d on t h e i r  The  regulatory  t h a t e x t e n s i o n workers employed i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y  conflict district  Washington  view that  m o d e l b e l i e v e t h a t t h e s e r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s may role  while  i n d i c a t e that the d i s t r i c t  agriculturalist's  view  district  r e g u l a t o r y duty (Table  commodities,  teachable  district  extension a g r i c u l t u r a l may  of  a  The  a g e n t s i n Idaho and  i n Alberta expressed their  as  extension  indicated a positive attitude  i n d i c a t e d a n e g a t i v e a t t i t u d e toward t h i s 25,  county  77.5  69.2 p e r c e n t o f t h e  percent  of  the  county  a g r e e d w i t h s t a t e m e n t 9. d i f f e r e n c e between t h e t h e two m o d e l s ,  There  opinions  with the agents  e m p l o y e d i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y model t e n d i n g t o have a more n e g a t i v e attitude  towards  this  regulatory  duty  than  did  the  agents  1.21  employed  i n t h e government model  The 25  ( T a b l e 39, i n Appendix I I ) .  one-way ANOVA r e s u l t s a s r e p o r t e d , i n A p p e n d i x  indicated  that  there  were  no  statistically  d i f f e r e n c e s between any o f t h e f o u r g r o u p s . four  groups  duty.  have  expressed  The r e s u l t s c l e a r l y  models  believe  significant  However,  a l l  a n e g a t i v e a t t i t u d e s towards  show t h a t  agents  employed  in  t h a t p e r f o r m i n g r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s may  w i t h an a g e n t ' s a b i l i t y knowledge  I I , Table  to motivate h i s c l i e n t e l e  o r t o d e v e l o p a new  to  the  this both  interfere adopt  new  skill.  S t a t e m e n t 10 : An a g e n t needs t o remain c l e a r o f any t y p e o f r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s i n o r d e r t o be e f f e c t i v e i n h i s extension work. There  were  agricultural  78.7  agents,  agriculturalists and 8 b ) . have  who  and have  percent  of  60.3  percent  a  county  of  the  agreed with statement  The e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r s e m p l o y e d  indicated  the  statistically  extension district  10 ( T a b l e s 8a  i n the university  significant  more  model  negative  a t t i t u d e towards p e r f o r m i n g r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s than t h e e x t e n s i o n workers  employed  i n t h e government model  ( T a b l e 39, i n Appendix  II). The  one-way ANOVA  agriculturalists item  indicated  i n Alberta- d i f f e r  that  differ  The d i s t r i c t in  their  a g r i c u l t u r a l agents significant  agriculturalists attitudes  i n Washington.  the  district  i n t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward  from^the county e x t e n s i o n a g r i c u l t u r a l  Washington. also  analysis  from  in the  There  d i f f e r e n c e s on t h e s e f i n d i n g s  agents  i n Idaho and  British county  were  this  Columbia extension  statistically  (Table 25, i n Appendix  1 22  II). less  The  district  a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s i n A l b e r t a tended  n e g a t i v e a t t i t u d e s towards performing  than  did  the county  Washington.  suggest  Similarly,  the d i s t r i c t  agricultural  and  county  aspects  in  performing  of r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s and  the  county  These f i n d i n g s  employed  in  the  In p a r t i c u l a r ,  with  role  conflicts  between  the  the  the agent's e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n  summary, p e r c e p t i o n s o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r  workers'  f u n c t i o n s suggest educational  extension  university  Opposite agricultural their  following The government  the  expressed  performing  agricultural may  be  extension  in conflict  h e n c e be a f f e c t e d  workers  models  various regulatory  that  responsibilities  r e g u l a t o r y f u n c t i o n s and  agricultural  and  British  work.  regulatory  the  concern  and  a g e n t s i n Washington have s t r o n g l y  their  such  duty  c o n f l i c t s between the e d u c a t i o n a l  expressed  In  workers  of e x t e n s i o n w o r k .  extension a g r i c u l t u r a l  extension  Washington.  extension  model p e r c e i v e r o l e  regulatory  a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s in  n e g a t i v e a t t i t u d e s than  agents  that a g r i c u l t u r a l  university  this regulatory  e x t e n s i o n a g r i c u l t u r a l agents i n Idaho  C o l u m b i a - t e n d e d t o have l e s s extension  t o have  by  with  them.  The  employed i n the government the  following  opinions  and on  statements.  views:  There  was  disagreement  between  e x t e n s i o n workers employed i n the government counterparts  employed  in  the  university  the model  on  the  items. agricultural model  extension  workers  believe that s p e c i f i c  employed  in  the  r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s , such  as g r a d i n g of c o m m o d i t i e s o r i n s p e c t i n g of p r e m i s e s ,  may  provide  123  a t e a c h a b l e moment, t h u s educational  role  e x p r e s s e d by model,  educational  performance.  their  who  facilitating  role  believe  employed that  f u n c t i o n may be  in  f u n c t i o n , t h e s o u r c e Of i n t r a - r o l e Different employed  in  significant  views: the  The  stronger  functions  district  performance of  suggest and  role  the  university  extension  conflict  worker's  with  regulatory  extension  expressed  views  effects  r e s p o n s e s may  the  model  positive  d i d the  worker's  conflict.  statements d e a l i n g with the than  in  agricultural  university  extension  W h e r e a s , t h e o p p o s i t e v i e w was  counterparts  apparently  the  on  of  the  workers  statistically following  performing  regulatory  agriculturalists.  conflict  which  may  six  Their  affect  role  h e n c e some e v i d e n c e s t o s u p p o r t t h e s e p a r a t i o n  the functions.  Both  groups  expressed  the  opinions  that  r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s may: 1. d e c r e a s e  agent's  objectivity  i n examining a l l problems  i n e x t e n s i o n work. 2. d i s c o u r a g e p a r t i c i p a t i o n  of c l i e n t e l e .  3. d e c r e a s e t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l  extension  worker's  influence  on h i s c l i e n t e l e . 4. n o t efforts  to  facilitate perform  the  the  agricultural  other  duties  extension  associated  worker's  with  his  position. 5. ability  interfere  with  the  agricultural  extension  worker's  to motivate h i s c l i e n t e l e .  6. d e c r e a s e effectiveness  the  agricultural  i n h i s e x t e n s i o n work.  extension  worker's  124  S i m i l a r views:  Agricultural  e x t e n s i o n workers employed i n  both models agreed t h a t : 1. p e r f o r m i n g functions  for  which provide improvement may  the  another  and  of  of  regulatory  regulatory duties  stocking,  or  of  land  l a n d u s e , o r f o r t h e c o n t r o l o f p e s t s o r weeds conflict.  2. r e g u l a t o r y  t h u s may  aspect  agency, and p e r f o r m i n g  for specified control  not l e a d t o r o l e  agricultural  educational  responsibilities  extension  worker's  l e a d t o a source  clientele  may  have  conflicting  expectation  decrease  s t a t u s i n h i s farm  of c o n f l i c t with  may  community,  with the expectations  regard  i s the source  the  to  the  position.  of i n t r a - r o l e  the This  conflict.  Summary  Personal C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s The d i s t r i c t tenure  and  were  agriculturalists newer  extension a g r i c u l t u r a l  Professional The  their  model  counterparts  employment. extension  extension  younger, work  had  than  shorter  the  county  agents.  Development  agricultural  university  to  were  No  extension  possessed in  the  higher  in  the  academic q u a l i f i c a t i o n s  than  government  respondents  i n either country  workers  had  employed  model  specialized  a t the time  at  the  time  of  in agricultural  they had s t a r t e d  working  125  in extension service. restrict who  their  t h e two o r g a n i z a t i o n a l m o d e l s d i d n o t  employment p o l i c y  had s p e c i a l i z e d All  So,  only to those e x t e n s i o n workers  in- e x t e n s i o n o r c l o s e l y  related areas.  the c o u n t y e x t e n s i o n a g r i c u l t u r a l , agents have  p r o g r a m s o f g r a d u a t e s t u d i e s ; most o f them have master's 55.6  d e g r e e and a few  p e r c e n t of the  their  district  The  district  studying  agriculturalists  agriculturalists  extension  agricultural specialized The  education  agents  as  performance various who  than  were  In c o n t r a s t ,  have  completed  degrees.  more  the  most  model  extension  believe  government model t h a t t h e i r degree  were  their  interested  county  interested  in  extension  in  areas  of  in  the  agriculture.  agricultural  university  who  received  d o c t o r a l degrees.  g r a d u a t e p r o g r a m s and r e c e i v e d t h e i r m a s t e r ' s  completed  the  most  more  employed  those  employed  organization considers way  to  i t s extension  t y p e s o f a s s i s t a n c e and  as w e l l as h i g h e r  than  important  and encourages  s e c u r e an a d v a n c e d  workers  rewards  in  an  improve workers  the  advanced  their by  role  providing  those e x t e n s i o n workers  d e g r e e w i t h b e t t e r and h i g h e r  positions,  salaries.  Regulatory Functions Even workers  though  it  had  been  i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y model w o u l d h a v e n e g a t i v e v i e w s o f t h e  e f f e c t s of p e r f o r m i n g r e g u l a t o r y work,  anticipated that a l l extension  i t  had  been  government model would  thought regard  f u n c t i o n s on t h e i r  that the  extension performance  educational  workers of  in  the  regulatory  126  functions their  as h a v i n g e i t h e r a n e u t r a l or a p o s i t i v e i n f l u e n c e  educational  though  t h o s e who  work.  The  interesting finding  have l i t t l e  o r no r e g u l a t o r y  h a v e s t r o n g n e g a t i v e v i e w s on t h e duties  as  would  responsibilities perceive  that  be  effects  expected,  f o r c a r r y i n g out such performing  those  of  is  that  on  even  duties to perform performing who  regulatory  have  such  routine  duties  also  s u c h d u t i e s h a s a n e g a t i v e e f f e c t on  their  educational  e f f o r t s though  t h e y do n o t  about  t h i s e f f e c t a s do t h e f o r m e r  group.  feel  as  strongly  127  CHAPTER VI  METHODS AND In  EXTENSION ROLE FUNCTIONS  t h i s c h a p t e r , t h e f i n d i n g s on a g e n t s '  s o u r c e s of i n f o r m a t i o n , agents' and  agents'  extension  u s e o f methods a n d  c h o i c e o f methods a n d t e c h n i q u e s  role  functions  are  presented  and  discussed.  Methods and Sources R e s p o n d e n t s were professional any  asked  societies,  of I n f o r m a t i o n  to  declare  their  and a l s o whether they  research journals or other p u b l i c a t i o n s .  membership  read or look  in over  In a d d i t i o n ,  they  were r e q u e s t e d t o r a n k v a r i o u s s u p p l i e r s o f r e s e a r c h i n f o r m a t i o n in  terms of t h e i r  u s e f u l n e s s as s o u r c e s  f o r the l a t e s t  research  results. The d a t a  i n Table  agriculturalists  have  L e s s t h a n 25.0 p e r c e n t members  of  9 show t h a t 62.7 p e r c e n t o f t h e membership of  the Canadian  the  in  district  in  Appendix  societies British  31.1  Columbia  respective Agrologists corporation  II).  percent and  Institutes is  a  societies.  agriculturalists  S o c i e t y o f E x t e n s i o n , a n d 53.7  have m e m b e r s h i p s i n t h e A g r i c u l t u r a l 26,  professional  district  When of 9.8  of  the  Institute  asked  to l i s t  district  percent  in  i n each p r o v i n c e , which  their  percent (Table  professional  agriculturalists Alberta  Agrologists.  professional  o f Canada  are  society  The  listed  their  Institute  established  encompasses a l l  in  of as  a  disciplines  128  in  agriculture,  percent  of  which  the  i s unique t o Canada.  county  extension  memberships i n p r o f e s s i o n a l  In contrast,  agricultural  societies  agents  96.3 have  (Table 9 ) .  Table 9 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f R e s p o n d e n t s a s Members in Professional Societies British Columbia (N=16) Percent  Alberta (N=51) Percent  Member No Yes  49.0 51 .0  Canada (N=67) Percent  Idaho (N=33) Percent  37.3 62.7  3.0 97.0  100.0  Washington (N=49) Percent  United States (N=82) Percent 3.7 96.3  4.1 95.9  A c h i - s q u a r e v a l u e o f 27.4 was o b t a i n e d . T h i s i s s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e 0.01 l e v e l . There  are  National  82.9  Association  Appendix I I ) . between county  percent  the  of County A g r i c u l t u r a l  distribution  professional  societies  t h e a g e n t s who a r e members o f t h e  T h e r e was a s t a t i s t i c a l l y  extension  agricultural  of  for  district  agricultural  agents  societies. agents  More  tended  than the d i s t r i c t  to  explained  British  difference  agriculturalists by the  members  membership county in  and in  extension  professional  H o w e v e r , when one  a n d s t a t e , one n o t e s t h a t a l l  a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s from B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a have membership  in professional be  be  ( T a b l e 26, i n  significant  agriculturalists.  observes the data of each province district  of  Agents  societies.  by t h e f a c t  Columbia  The B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a  that  Institute  employment i n t h e e x t e n s i o n  only of  applicants Agrologists  situation  may  who a r e members o f are  work o f t h e M i n i s t r y o f  eligible for Agriculture  129  and  F o o d , a c o n d i t i o n w h i c h may l e a d some o f them t o r e g a r d t h e  i n s t i t u t e as something o t h e r As  indicated  agriculturalists agricultural research  i n Table and  than p r o f e s s i o n a l societies..  10,  85.4  58.2  percent  percent  of  of  county  the  a g e n t s have r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e y  journals  or other  significant difference  for  a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s and county  agents  by  reading  agricultural  interest,  agents  such  research  extension  with  over  T h e r e was a  the  distribution  extension  more  look  agricultural  county  extension  tending t o read research j o u r n a l s or other  r e s e a r c h p u b l i c a t i o n s than not d e t e r m i n e d  between  district extension  or  research publications.  statistically district  read  the  the extent  the d i s t r i c t to  publications  which or  agriculturalists.  the  organization  reimbursed  Iti s  provided  i f purchased  by t h e  workers.  T a b l e 10 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f R e s p o n d e n t s by Reading of Research J o u r n a l s  Read No Yes  Alberta (N=51 ) Percent  British Columbia (N=16) Percent  Canada (N=67) Percent  I daho (N=33) Percent  45. 1 54.9  31.3 68.7  41.8 58.2  21.2 78.8  Washington (N=49) Percent 10.2 89.8  United States (N=82) Percent 14.6 85.4  A c h i - s q u a r e v a l u e o f 13.8 was o b t a i n e d . T h i s i s s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e 0.01 l e v e l .  The  respondents'  information  are  rankings  reported i n Table  of  sources  of  27 i n A p p e n d i x I I .  research The d a t a  1 30  show .that t h e d i s t r i c t Ministry  of  a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s have  Agriculture first;  second; U n i v e r s i t i e s t h i r d ;  and  c o n t r a s t , the county e x t e n s i o n first;  Business  or  Agriculture third;  and  sources  of  research county  (Tables  40,  in  c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the workers  in  the  information university research model  ranked  Federal  fourth.  Department  between  Appendix  models.  For  the  rankings  the  These  district agents  findings  agricultural  m o d e l , t h e main s o u r c e  are  extension of  research  i s t h e P r o v i n c i a l D e p a r t m e n t of A g r i c u l t u r e ; and i s of a p p r e c i a b l y  the  f o r them.  agricultural  information  less  important  worker's  land-grant  D e p a r t m e n t o f A g r i c u l t u r e has  a  the  source  of  In comparison, i n the u n i v e r s i t y  extension  i s the  as  of  fourth.  agricultural  II).  In  Universities  d i f f e r e n c e s i n the  extension  government  information  research  second;  information  and  and  a g e n t s have  significant  agriculturalists 29  or I n d u s t r y  S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t of A g r i c u l t u r e  T h e r e were s t a t i s t i c a l l y of  Provincial  F e d e r a l M i n i s t r y of A g r i c u l t u r e Business  Industry  ranked  low  main  source  u n i v e r s i t y ; and  s t a t u s as a s o u r c e  the  of  of State  research  information.  Extension A list presented  of e i g h t e e n in  i n d i c a t e how well  as  extension  f r e q u e n t l y they  farmers to  use  and  techniques  R e s p o n d e n t s were a s k e d e a c h method  efficient adopt  Techniques  methods  the q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  (b) t o r a t e how  in persuading  M e t h o d s and  and  e a c h method and  recommended  was (a)  to  technique  as  technique  was  practices.  These  131  questions  were  m e t h o d s and likely The  techniques  result  responses  Table  asked  42.  because  i n d i c a t e the  w h i c h a g e n t s use  i n the a d o p t i o n  o f new  d e g r e e of a s s o c i a t i o n workers  statistic  between  employed  in  11 and  was  the  i n a way  i d e a s by  were t a b u l a t e d i n T a b l e  A chi-square  extension  they  instructional  that w i l l  their  clientele.  i n Appendix  indicated  i n Table  responses  of  t h e g o v e r n m e n t m o d e l and  11, t e l e p h o n e  calls,  ' o f t e n ' by  farm  visits  techniques the  same  the d i s t r i c t  and  u s e d by  i n Appendix  technique.  calls,  extension a g r i c u l t u r a l  a statistically  II)  between two  frequency  of  use  of  newsletters,  group  in  the  and  agents with  discussions, and  counterparts  and  employed  in  the  circular  The  42,  workers  models i n t h e i r  letters,  newspaper  radio.  extension  a r t i c l e s , posters, extension  workers  t o make more  frequent  l e t t e r s , e x t e n s i o n n e w s l e t t e r s , group demonstrations  than  the government model.  of n e w s p a p e r a r t i c l e s , p o s t e r in  extension  organization  u n i v e r s i t y model tended  process  d i f f e r e n c e (Table  agricultural  bulletins,  of b u l l e t i n s , c i r c u l a r  discussions  the  significant  extension  demonstrations,  employed  The  Telephone  the county  the  agents  techniques  were t h e t h r e e l e a d i n g m e t h o d s  in  use  and  bulletins  employed  use  those  frequency.  T h e r e was  process  the  farm v i s i t s  agriculturalists.  in  agricultural  n e w s p a p e r a r t i c l e s were t h e t h r e e l e a d i n g methods and used  II  computed t o d e t e r m i n e  e m p l o y e d i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y m o d e l on e a c h method and As  most  and  government model than  radio  was  did More  their frequent  reported  i n the u n i v e r s i t y  by  model.  f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e t h a t the e x t e n s i o n workers employed i n the  Table 11 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Frequency of Use of V a r i o u s Methods and Techniques Alberta Methods and Techniques Agricultural Fairs A g r i c u l t u r a l f i e l d days B u l l e t ins Circular Letters Extension newsletters Farm v i s i t s Group d i s c u s s i o n s Lectures Meetings Messages and announcements Newspaper a r t i c l e s Posters Process demonstrations Radio R e s u l t demonstrations Telephone c a l l s Television Workshops British  Often 2.0 39.2 8.0 8.2 92.0 18.0 4.0 31.4 26.5 71.2 10.0 13.5 4.0 96. 1 9.8  Somet imes  Rarely  14.0 36.5 25.5 42.0 34.7 8.0 48.0 54.0 64.7 46.9 21 .2 48.0 29.2 57.7 24.0 2.0 8.0 39.2  78.0 63.5 23.5 34.0 40.8 34.0 38.0 3.9 22.4 7.7 40.0 50.0 25.0 64.0 2.0 20.0 47. 1  Often  Somet imes  Rarely  5.9 35.3 29.4 6.3 23.5 58.5 17.6 41 .2 17.6 11.8 23.5 17.6 88.2 11.8  17.6 23.5 35.3 50.0 41.2 41.2 29.4 11.8 41.2 64.7 41.2 17.6 29.4 23.5 17.6 5.9 5.9 • 41.2  76.5 41 .2 35.3 43.8 29.4 35.3 88.2 17.6 \ 1 7.6 47. 1 58.8 52.9 52.9 58.8 5.9 35.3 47. 1  Columbia  Methods and Techniques Agricultural Fairs A g r i c u l t u r a l f i e l d days B u l l e t ins Circular Letters Extension newsletters Farm v i s i t s Group d i s c u s s i o n s Lectures Meetings Messages and announcements Newspaper a r t i c l e s Posters Process demonstrations Radio R e s u l t demonstrations Telephone c a l l s Television Workshops  133  Table  11—  Continued  Idaho Methods and  Techniques  Agricultural Fairs A g r i c u l t u r a l f i e l d days Bulletins Circular Letters Extension n e w s l e t t e r s Farm v i s i t s Group d i s c u s s i o n s Lectures Meetings Messages and announcements Newspaper a r t i c l e s Posters Process demonstrations Radio R e s u l t demonstrations Telephone c a l l s Television Workshops  Often 5.9 8.8 66.7 29.4 24.2 94. 1 30.3 9.1 32.4 47. 1 38.2 6.5 8.8 32.4 9.4 94. 1 3.1 8.8  Sometimes 20.6 47. 1 27.3 55.9 60.6 5.9 54.5 48.5 61 .8 38.2 52.9 16.1 29.4 35.3 31.3 2.9 9.4 55.9  Rarely  Never'  67.6 44. 1 6.1 11.8 12.1 15.2 36.4 5.9 14.7 5.9 58. 1 61 .8 17.6 56.3 2.9 28. 1 35.3  5.9 2.9 3.0 6.1 2.9 19.4 14.7 3.1 59.4 "  Washington Methods and  Techniques  Agricultural Fairs A g r i c u l t u r a l f i e l d days Bulletins Circular Letters Extension newsletters Farm v i s i t s Group d i s c u s s i o n s Lectures Meet ings Messages and announcements Newspaper a r t i c l e s Posters Process demonstrations Radio R e s u l t demonstrations Telephone c a l l s Television Workshops  Often 10.0 10.0 69.4 26.5 28.6 74.0 38.8 8.2 36.7 25.0 27.7 2. 1 4.2 27.7 8.0 94.0 2.2 16.3  Somet imes 12.0 44.0 26.5 51 .0 65.3 26.0 51 .0 59.2 55. 1 66.7 66.0 14.6 18.8 27.7 28.0 4.0 10.9 36.7  Ra r e1y 74.0 44.0 4.1 12.2 4. 1 10.2 30.6 8.2 8.3 6.4 52. 1 64.6 27.7 58.0 4.0 30.4 44.9  Never 4.0 2.0 10.2 2.0 2.0 31 .3 12.5 17.0 6.0 56.5 2.0  1 34  Table  11—  Continued  Canada Methods and Techniques Agricultural Fairs A g r i c u l t u r a l f i e l d days Bulletins Circular Letters Extension n e w s l e t t e r s Farm v i s i t s Group d i s c u s s i o n s Lectures Meetings Messages and announcements Newspaper a r t i c l e s Posters Process demonstrations Radio Result demonstrations Telephone c a l l s Television Workshops Uinted  Often  Somet imes  3.0 8.7 36.8 7.6 12.1 83.6 17.9 3.0 33.8 24.2 56.5 7.5 15.9 7.5 94. 1 10.3  14.9 33.3 27.9 43.9 36.4 16.4 43.4 43.4 58.8 51.5 26. 1 40.3 29.2 49.3 22.4 2.9 7.5 39.7  Rarely  Never  77.6 58.0 26.5 36.4 37.9 34.3 50.7 7.4 21.2 17.4 44.8 50.8 31.9 62.7 2.9 23.9 47. 1  4.5 8.8 12.1 13.6 4.5 3.0 3.0 7.5 20.0 2.9 7.5 68.7 2.9  Rarely  Never  71.4 44.0 4.9 12.0 7.3 12.2 32.9 7.2 11.0 6.2 54.4. 63.4 23.5 57.3 2.4 29.5 41 .0  4.8 1 .2 7.2 2.4  -  States  Methods and Techniques  Often  Agricultural Fairs A g r i c u l t u r a l f i e l d days Bulletins Circular Letters Extension n e w s l e t t e r s Farm v i s i t s Group d i s c u s s i o n s Lectures Meetings Messages and announcements Newspaper a r t i c l e s Posters Process demonstrations Radio Result demonstrations Telephone c a l l s T e l e v i sion Workshops  8.3 9.5 68.3 27.7 26.8 82. 1 35.4 8.5 34.9 34. 1 32. 1 . 3.8 6. 1 29.6 8.5 94.0 2.6 13.3  Somet imes  „  15.5 45.2 26.8 53.0 63.4 17.9 52.4 54.9 57.8 54.9 60.5 15.2 23.2 30.9 29.3 3.6 10.3 44.6  -  3.7 1 .2 26.6 7.3 16.0 4.9 57.7 1 .2  135  university  m o d e l were more i n c l i n e d  techniques  than  were  their  government model, as s t i p u l a t e d  t o use f o r m a l  counterparts  50.7  percent in  percent  of  of t h e county  Appendix I I ) .  was  a  the d i s t r i c t  university farm  significant workers  m o d e l s on t h e i r  visits  and  bulletins  and  difference  demonstrations. model tended  result  agricultural  government model tended than 43,  did their  (Table  45,  between  the  employed i n t h e government and  extension  to give higher  of  bulletins,  Extension  to give  demonstrations  c o u n t e r p a r t s employed i n t h e government hand , t h e  techniques  43 i n A p p e n d i x I I , t h e r e  r a t i n g s of e f f i c i e n c y  result  employed i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y for  'efficient'  a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s and by 45.8  As r e p o r t e d i n T a b l e  extension  i n the  A c t o f 1914.  extension a g r i c u l t u r a l agents  statistically  agricultural  employed  i n the Smith-Lever  T e l e p h o n e c a l l s have been r a t e d a s by  instructional  higher  ratings  ratings  than  did  their  On  the  other  model.  workers  workers  employed for  c o u n t e r p a r t s employed i n u n i v e r s i t y  i n the  farm  visits  model  (Table  i n Appendix I I ) . In  the  summary, t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l  university  techniques their  model  use  more  e x t e n s i o n workers employed various  types  in  o f methods a n d  t o t e a c h t h e i r c l i e n t e l e t o a d o p t new p r a c t i c e s  than  c o u n t e r p a r t s employed i n t h e government model do.  Extension Role The  district  agricultural  agents  Functions  agriculturalists were  requested  and  the  county  to  (1)  rate  extension fourteen  136  extension  role  functions  agricultural  extension  perception)  and  to  question  themselves  was  they  asked  perform  a n d what t h e y  expect  them  to  order  to  find  as  and  their  performance), each  (role  and  o u t ^what f u n c t i o n s a g e n t s o r g a n i z a t i o n and  clientele These  12 t o 15. to  rank  order  the  role function.  One-way ANOVA a n a l y s i s was p e r f o r m e d t o d e t e r m i n e i f statistically  agricultural  significant  differences  e x t e n s i o n workers employed i n  the  u n i v e r s i t y m o d e l s a s w e l l a s among t h e d i s t r i c t of  the  two  role  d e t e r m i n e r o l e a g r e e m e n t among t h e t h r e e r a t i n g s  on e a c h e x t e n s i o n  were  (2)  function.  occupants of t h e p o s i t i o n .  mean s c o r e s were c a l c u l a t e d  functions  to  clientele  s p e n t on p e r f o r m i n g  perceive their  perform  importance their  (role  responses a r e tabulated i n Tables The  of  organization, to  i n d i c a t e how much t i m e This  in  provinces  and  the  between government  the and  agriculturalists  county extension  a g e n t s o f t h e two s t a t e s on e a c h r a t i n g o f  there  the  agricultural  extension  role  functions. ANOVAR a n a l y s i s was c a l c u l a t e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p s among t h e t h r e e r a t i n g s on e a c h e x t e n s i o n A chi-square were  t e s t was a l s o c a l c u l a t e d t o d e t e r m i n e  significant  district agents  role function.  differences  between  t h e amounts of time t h e  a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s and t h e c o u n t y e x t e n s i o n said  they  spent  on  i f there  performing  each  agricultural  extension  role  function. The  findings  perceptions  of  on  the  agents'  role  expectations  of  performance, their  agents'  organization  and  T a b l e 12 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f R e s p o n d e n t s by t h e i r P e r c e i v e d R a t i n g of t h e Importance o f E x t e n s i o n Role Functions to t h e i r Organization Very Important  Functions Adu1t  educator  Adviser/Consultant  Agricultural credit program a d m i n i s t r a t o r  Agricultural enforcement  regulations officer  Emergency measures program a d m i n i s t r a t o r  Important  Somewhat Important  A l b e r t a (N=52) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=17) C a n a d a (N=69) I d a h o (N=31) W a s h i n g t o n (N=48) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=79)  48 41 46 51 75 65  . 1 .2 . 4 .6 .0 .8  38 41 39 45 20 30  .4 . 2 . 1 . 2 .8 .4  13 . 5 17 .6 14 .5 3. 2 4. 2 3 .8  A l b e r t a (N=52) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=17) C a n a d a (N=69) I d a h o (N=33) W a s h i n g t o n (N=49) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=82)  44 52 46 57 40 47  .2 .9 .4 .6 .8 .6  46 41 44 27 28 28  . 2 . 2 . .9 .2 .6 . ,0  9 5 8 9 28 20  A l b e r t a (N=51) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=17) C a n a d a (N=68) I d a h o (N=33) W a s h i n g t o n (N=49) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=82) A l b e r t a (N=52) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=16) C a n a d a (N=68) I d a h o (N=33) W a s h i n g t o n (N=49) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=82) A l b e r t a (N=52) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=17) C a n a d a (N=69) I d a h o (N=32) W a s h i n g t o n (N=48) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=80)  2 .0 1 .5 3..0 1 .. 2  2 .9 .  Not Applicable -  -  6. 1 2 .5  2.0 1. 2  25,. 5 35 . 3 27 .9 . 27 . 3 4. , 1 13..4  19 .6 1 1 .8 17 .6 12 . 1 10 .2 1 1 .0 .  43 . 1 35.3 41.2 57.6 75 . 5 68.3  1 1 .5 . 12. 5 1 1 .8  9..6 18 . 7 1 1 .8 . 6.. 1 10.. 2 8. 5  32 . 7 25 .0 30. 8 21 .. 2 14 . 3 17 .. 1  46. 2 43 . 8 45.6 72 . 7 73.5 73.2  19 .3 23. 5 20. 3 15. 6 12 .5 13 .7  17 . 3 1 1 .8 15 . .9 18..8 .7 16 . 17..5  19 . 2 17 .6 , 18 .9 . 43 ..8 33 ,. 3 37 . .5  40.4 47. 1 42.0 21.9 37.5 31.3  9 .8 . 17 . .6 1 1 .8 10.. 2 6 .. 1  2 .0 . 1 .. 2 3 ,8  .6 .9 . 7 . 1 .6 . 7  Least Important  Table  Very Important  Funct ions Fac i 1 i t a t o r o r s e r v i c e agent  A l b e r t a (N=51) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=17) C a n a d a (N=G8) I d a h o (N=32) W a s h i n g t o n (N=49) Uni t e d S t a t e s (N=81)  Inspection acts enforcement o f f i c e r  A l b e r t a (N=52) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=17) C a n a d a (N=69) I d a h o (N=33) W a s h i n g t o n (N=49) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=82)  O r g a n i z e r and supervisor of events  Organizer  Program  12-- C o n t i n u e d  of  groups  administrator  21 .6 17 .6 20 .6 15 .6 16 .3 16 .0  Important 49 47 48 28 34 32  .0 . 1 . 5 . 1 . 7 . 1  7. 7 5 .9 7. 2 2 .0 1. 2 .4 . 2 . 7 .2 . 7 .3  Somewhat Important  Least Important  21 .6 17 .6 20 .6 34 .4 34 .7 34 .6  5 .8 5 .9 5 .9 18 .8 6. 1 1 1. 1  2.0 11.8 4.4 3. 1 8. 2 6 . 2  26 .9 23 . 5 26 . 2 18 . 2 14 . 3 15,.9  57.7 64 . 7 59.4 72.7 83.7 79.2  8. 2  2.0 1. 5 2.0 1. 2  7 .7 5 .9 7 .2 9. 1 3. 7  46 47 47 36 38 37  .9 .0 .0 .4 .8 .8  22 . 5 1 1 .8 19 . 7 24 , .2 16,.3 19,.5  A l b e r t a (N=49) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=17) C a n a d a (N=66) I d a h o (N=33) W a s h i n g t o n (N=49) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=82)  20 41 25 21 34 29  A l b e r t a (N=52) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=17) C a n a d a (N=69) I d a h o (N=33) W a s h i n g t o n (N=49) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=82)  13 . 5 35.. 3 18 . .8 30.. 3 36 .. 7 34 .. 1  44 . 2 52 .9 46 . 5 36.,4 49..0 43,.9  40,,4 1 1 .8 . 33 ,, 3 24 , 2 10., 2 15.,9  . 1 ,9 .  A l b e r t a (N=52) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=17) C a n a d a (N=69) I d a h o (N=33) W a s h i n g t o n (N=47) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=80)  36 ..5 23 ,,5 33 ..3 21 ..2 21 ..3 21 ..2  26 .. 9 47 , . 1 31 ,.9 42,.4 38 . , 3 40..0  28.,9 23 .. 5 27 . ,6 21 ., 2 23. 4 22. 5  7 .7 5 .9 7 .2 12 .1 8 .5 10. 0  6 18 8 12  .. . , , .  1 2 2 2  1 ,4 . 9., 1 4 .1 6. 1  Not Applicable  -  --  -3.0 8.5 6.3  Table  Very Important  Funct ions Program  planner  P u b l i c r e l a t i ons  Sources of and i d e a s  Student  12-- Cont i n u e d  information  Important  Somewhat Important  Least Important  Not Applicable  5 .9  3. 1 2. 1 2.5  A l b e r t a (N=51) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=17) C a n a d a (N=68) I d a h o (N=32) W a s h i n g t o n (N=48) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=80)  35,, 3 23 . 5 .4 32 , 50,.0 52 , , 1 51 ,, 3  41 53 44 28 37 33  .2 .0 . 1 . 1 . 5 . 7  17 .6 23 . 5 19 . 1 12 . 5 4. 1 7. 5  A l b e r t a (N=51) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=17) C a n a d a (N=68) I d a h o (N=33) W a s h i n g t o n (N=49) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=82)  43 ., 1 64 , 7 48 . .5 48 .5 38 . .8 42 .7  43 23 38 39 46 43  . 1 .5 . 2 .4 .9 .9  1 1 .8 1 1 .8 1 1.8 6 .0 12,.2 9 .7  A l b e r t a (N=52) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=17) C a n a d a (N=69) I d a h o (N=33) W a s h i n g t o n (N=49) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=82)  46. 2 64. 7 50. 7 54 .5 57 .1 56. 1  36 29 34 36 28 31  .5 .4 , .8 .4 .6 ,.7  17,.3 5,.9 14,. 5 9,. 1 10 . 2 9,.8  2 .0 1 ., 2  2.0 1.2  A l b e r t a (N=45) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=15) C a n a d a (N=60) I d a h o (N=32) W a s h i n g t o n (N=45) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=77)  4 .4  37 ,8 , 6,, 7 30,.0 15,.6 35,,6 27 ,2 ,  22 . 2 40,.0 26 ,.7 9 .4 , 17 . ,7 14 . ,3  20.0 33.3 23.3 34 .4 26.7 29 .9  3 .3 15 ..6 8 .9 1 1 .7  15 , .6 20,,0 16 ,. 7 25 ..0 1 1 ,. 1 16 ..9  4 6 4 5  .4 .3 . 2 .0  2 .0 1. 6. 2. 3.  5 1 1 7  -  140  c l i e n t e l e , and time spent, f o r each extension discussed  i n the following  Adult  educator:  importance of t h i s their  clientele  contrast, same  clientele The  function  as  sixth;  first  one-way ANOVA  and  a g e n t s on t h e i r themselves.  However,  differences Columbia  In  ranked  fifth  that  agricultural  extension  role  as  agriculturalists  in  to their  there  were  of  this  was  function  statistically  no  agriculturalists agricultural  to  significant in  British  agents i n Idaho  ( T a b l e s 30 a n d 37, i n A p p e n d i x I I ) .  extension  the  t h e American and t h e Canadian  importance  there  agents  organization,  the county extension  Washington  themselves as f o u r t h .  indicate  between t h e d i s t r i c t  and  to  ( T a b l e 46, i n A p p e n d i x I I ) .  between of  as f o u r t h ,  agricultural  to their  ratings  organization  to  analyses  difference  a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s ranked t h e  to their  and t h i r d t o themselves  significant  and  district  the county extension  function  are  sections.  The  as  role function  The  county  agents i n Idaho and Washington see t h e i r  adult  educators  more  than  the  district  B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a do ( T a b l e 46, i n A p p e n d i x  II). The  one-way ANOVA a n a l y s i s on  importance there  of  this  function  were s t a t i s t i c a l l y  Canadian  and  American  the  to their  significant agents,  respondents' organizations  differences  perceived shows  that  between  the  as w e l l as between A l b e r t a and  W a s h i n g t o n , and between B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a and Washington 30  and  33,  particularly  i n Appendix  the county  II).  extension  The  American  agricultural  (Tables  agents  and  agents  in  141  Washington  believed  g r e a t e r emphasis  that  their  American  agricultural  agents  ( T a b l e 46,  collectively  agents i n Washington  organization  placed  on p e r f o r m i n g a s an a d u l t e d u c a t o r t h a n d i d t h e  Canadian agents i n each p r o v i n c e The  extension organization  as  an  adult  and  in  the  Appendix I I ) .  county  extension  t o a marked degree view  their  e d u c a t i o n i n s t i t u t i o n more t h a n t h e  Canadian agents c o l l e c t i v e l y and i n each  province.  A l t h o u g h t h e C a n a d i a n a n d A m e r i c a n a g e n t s d i d n o t d i f f e r on their  r a t i n g s of t h e importance of t h i s  their  clientele,  there  were  d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e d i s t r i c t extension a g r i c u l t u r a l between  those  in  also a s t a t i s t i c a l l y agriculturalists 35,  in  Appendix  as  significant  a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s and t h e county  a g e n t s i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a and Idaho; and  British  C o l u m b i a and W a s h i n g t o n .  significant  II).  There  was  d i f f e r e n c e between t h e d i s t r i c t  The d i s t r i c t  perceive  adult  counterparts  statistically  i n A l b e r t a and B r i t i s h Columbia  Columbia d i d not perform  f u n c t i o n a s p e r c e i v e d by  their  ( T a b l e s 30  agriculturalists  clientele  in British  expected  them  e d u c a t o r s a s much a s was t h e c a s e w i t h  i n A l b e r t a and i n e a c h s t a t e  and  to  their  ( T a b l e 46, i n A p p e n d i x  II). The ANOVAR statistically  analysis significant  results  indicated  differences  w i t h i n each c o u n t r y as w e l l as w i t h i n state  (Table  41,  i n Appendix  II).  each  province  were  ratings  and  each  The r e s u l t s a s r e p o r t e d i n  I I i n T a b l e 46 i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e  between  the  was  e x p e c t a t i o n s of t h e a g e n t s employed  p e r c e p t i o n of t h e i r  there  among t h e t h r e e  Appendix  and t h e i r  that  role  conflict  i n both models  e x p e c t a t i o n s of t h e i r  clientele.  T a b l e 13 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f R e s p o n d e n t s by t h e i r P e r c e i v e d R a t i n g of the Importance of E x t e n s i o n R o l e Functions to t h e i r C l i e n t e l e , Funct i ons Adu1t  educator  Adv i s e r / C o n s u l t a n t  Agricultural credit program a d m i n i s t r a t o r  Agricultural enforcement  regulations officer  Emergency measures program a d m i n i s t r a t o r  Very Important  Important  Somewhat Important  9 37 16 9 6 7  .6 .4 . 2 .3 .3 .5  -  19 31 27 28  . . . .  1 3 1 7  • 38 . 5 31 . 3 36 .8 40 .6 29 . 1 33 . 8  A l b e r t a (N=51) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=16) Canada (N=67) Idaho (N=33) Washington (N=48) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=81)  43 37 41 60 75 69  . 1 .5 .8 .6 .0 . 1  45'. 1 62 . 5 49 . 2 33 . 4 25 .0 28 . 5  1 1.8  A l b e r t a (N=49) B r i t i s h Columbia (N=16) C a n a d a (N=65) Idaho (N=32) Washington (N=49) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=81)  2 .0 12 . 5 4 .6 3.. 1 2 .0 2 .5  16 .4 18 .8 16 .9 6.. 2 3. ,6  26 18 24 25 12 17  .5 .8 . 7 .0 .2 . .3  18 12 16 25 6 13  .4 .5 . .9 .0 .. 1 .6  36.7 37.4 36.9 46.9 73.5 63 .0  2 .0 . 1 .. 2  2..0 18.. 7 6..0 3,. 1 2 .0 2.. 5  27 12 23 9 8 8  . 5 . 5 . .9 .4 . . 2 .6 .  27 25 26 12 14 13  . .5 . .0 .8 . 5 . 3 .6 .  43.0 43.8 43.3 75.0 73.5 74. 1  12 .0 . 6 . 3 10..6 3..0 6.. 1 4 .9 .  16..0 6 . 3 13..6 18 .8 . 14 . 3 16.. 1  10..0 6 . 3 9 .. 1 18 .8 18 .4 . 18 . 5  24 . .0 31 . 1 25 . .8 34 . ,4 20..4 ,9 25 .  38.0 50.0 40.9 25.0 40.8 34.6  A l b e r t a (N=51) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=16) C a n a d a (N=67) Idaho (N=32) Washington (N=49) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=81) A l b e r t a (N=50) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=1G) C a n a d a (N=66) I d a h o (N=32) Washington (N=49) Uni t e d S t a t e s (N=81)  •  .9 . 3 .9 .8 . 5 .0  Not Applicable  A l b e r t a (N=52) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=16) C a n a d a (N=68) I d a h o (N=32) Washington (N=48) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=80)  25 .0  26 31 27 18 37 30  Least Important  --  --  9 .0 3 .0  3 .0  -  1. 2  1 .2  •  4>N3  Table  13-- C o n t i n u e d Very Important  Funct ions Faci1i tator or s e r v i c e agent  A l b e r t a (N=51) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=16) C a n a d a (N=67) I d a h o (N=31) Washington (N=49) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=80)  Inspection acts enforcement officer  A l b e r t a (N=51) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=16.) C a n a d a (N=67) I d a h o (N=33) W a s h i n g t o n (N=49) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=82)  25 31 26 16 22 20  .5 . 2 .9 . 1 .4 .0  2 .0 1 .5 3 .0 4. 1 3 .7  Somewhat Important  Least Important  Not Applicable  39. 2 43.8 40. 3 51.6 36 . 7 42 . 5  21 .6 18 . 7 20 .9 22 .6 28 .6 26 .2  11.7 9.0 9.7 4. 1 6.3  2.0 6 . 3 3.0 8.2 5.0  12.5 3.0 6 . 1 2.4  17 .6 .4 .0 . 1 . 7  21.6 18 . 7 20.9 18 . 2 10. 2 13.4  39.2 43.7 40. 3 45.4 42.6 43 . 8  21 .6 12 .5 19..4 9,. 1 21 .3 . 16 . 3  2.0 6 . 3 3.0 6 . 1 2. 1 3.7  5.8 4 . 5 -  13 3 4 3  58.8 68.8 61.2 69.7 81.6 76.8  O r g a n i z e r and supervisor of events  A l b e r t a (N=51) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=16) C a n a d a (N=67) I d a h o (N=33) W a s h i n g t o n (N=47) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=80)  31 37 32 39 34 36  Organizer  A l b e r t a ( N = 51) B r i t i s h Columbia (N=16) C a n a d a (N=67) I d a h o (N=33) W a s h i n g t o n (N=48) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=81)  1 1.8 18 .8 13 .4 39 .4 25 . .0 30..9  41.1 18.8 35.8 51.5 43 . 7 46 .9  37 . 3 .6 43 . 38 .9 . 6 .1 29 .2 19..8  7.8 18.8 10.4 3.0 1. 2  2.0 1 .5 2. 1 1. 2  A l b e r t a (N=52) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=16) C a n a d a (N=68) I d a h o (N=33) W a s h i n g t o n (N=47) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=80)  17 , . 3 12 .4 . 16 . 2 21 . . 2 12 .8 . 16., 3  21.2 25.0 22 . 1 39.4 29 .8 33 . 7  34 .6 31 .3 33..8 27 .3 27 .6 27 .5  23 . 1 31.3 25 .0 9. 1 21.3 16.2  3.8 2.9 3.0 8.5 6.3  Program  of  groups  administrator  .4 .5 .8 .4 .0 . 2  Important  Table  13-- Cont i n u e d Very Important  Funct ions  Important  Somewhat Important  Least Important  Not Applicable  9. 8 18 . 8 11 .9 6. 1 14 .6 1 1. 1  3.0 2. 1 2.5  A l b e r t a (N=51) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=16) C a n a d a (N=67) I d a h o (N=33) W a s h i n g t o n (N=48) Uni t e d S t a t e s (N=81)  15.7 18.8 16.4 30. 3 18.8 23.5  31 31 31 21 31 27  .4 . 2 .4 .2 . 2 . 1  43 . 1 31 . 2 40.. 3 39 .4 33 .3 35 .8  Publ i c r e l a t i ons  A l b e r t a (N=49) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=14) C a n a d a (N=G3) I d a h o (N=33) W a s h i n g t o n (N=48) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=81)  36 . 7 42.9 38 . 1 24.2 16.7 19.8  34 21 31 45 39 42  . 7 .4 . 7. . 5 . 5 .0  20..4 21 .4 20..6 18 . 2 29..2 24 . 7  8. 2 14 . 3 9 .6 12 . 1 12 . 5 12..3  2. 1 1.2  Sources of and i d e a s  A l b e r t a (N=50) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=16) C a n a d a (N=66) I d a h o (N=33) W a s h i n g t o n (N=48) Uni t e d S t a t e s (N=81)  54.0 75.0 59. 1 57 . 6 72.9 66.7  36 .0 25 • O 33 . 3 42.. 4 22 .9 30 .9  8 .0 .  2..0  6 .. 1  1 .5 .  2. 1 1. 2  A l b e r t a (N=43) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=14) C a n a d a (N=57) I d a h o (N=31) W a s h i n g t o n (N=44) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=75)  9.3 7. 1 8.8 16 . 1 2.3 8.0  7..0 7 .. 1 7 .0 . 9.. 7 4, 5 6, .7  Program  Student  planner  Information  -  2 ., 1 1 .2 23..3 17. 5 22 . .6 25. 0 24 .0  30.. 2 50..0 35.. 1 19.. 3 40.,9 32 . .0  30. 2 35.8 31.6 32 . 3 27 . 3 29.3  145  The  American  their  and  extension  priority  on  the  Canadian  organizations  performing  (b) t h e i r  expect  them  to  place  a  high  clientele  function  would  to their  organization  g i v e i t a lower  time  statistically  performing significant  American  agents  T a b l e 44,  i n Appendix  are  some a g e n t s  on  this  function.  There  d i f f e r e n c e between  time  s p e n t on t h i s  i n b o t h m o d e l s who  the  function  I I ) . These f i n d i n g s  to and  rating.  O v e r 53 p e r c e n t o f t h e a g e n t s e m p l o y e d i n b o t h m o d e l s 'much'  (a)  as a d u l t e d u c a t o r s and h e n c e t e n d e d  g i v e h i g h e r r a t i n g s of t h i s that  agents both p e r c e i v e d that  was  no  a  Canadian  and  ( T a b l e 15  and  indicate  do n o t i d e n t i f y  spent  that  there  themselves  as  adult educators. Overall,  i t  was  u n i v e r s i t y model w o u l d more  than  their  e x p e c t e d t h a t the agents employed i n the identify  counterparts  government model;  themselves would  as  who  however, t h e s e r e s u l t s  adult  educators  are employed  do  not  i n the  support  that  expectation. Advi ser/Consultant: agents  rated  organization themselves  the as as  agriculturalists o r g a n i z a t i o n and ( T a b l e 46, The  The  county  importance fifth,  to  of  this  their  second.  In  ranked  the  extension function  clientele  comparison, function  t o t h e m s e l v e s ; and  second  agricultural to  their  as f i r s t , the  and  to  district  as  first  to  their  to  their  clientele  i n Appendix I I ) . one-way ANOVA a n a l y s e s r e s u l t s  statistically  significant  differences  show t h a t t h e r e were between  any  groups  no on  146  their  ratings  of  the  o r g a n i z a t i o n and t o  importance  themselves  of  this  function to their  30,  (Tables  33,  37,  and  in  Appendix I I ) . There the  were  Canadian  extension  statistically  and  American  agricultural  significant  agents,  agents  agriculturalists  in  ratings  importance of t h i s  of  the  Alberta  in and  ( T a b l e s 30 a n d 3 5 , i n . A p p e n d i x Canada,  collectively,  perceive  their  and  clientele  advisers/consultants counterparts 46,  as  and  British  The  to their  them  was  clientele  workers  to  the  their  d i d not  behave  case  in  as  with  their  i n Washington  (Table  i n Appendix I I ) .  significant  i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e were  d i f f e r e n c e s among t h e t h r e e r a t i n g s  i n each p r o v i n c e , and i n t h e s t a t e of Washington  in  Appendix  conflict,  I I ) . The  and o v e r a l l  results  agriculturalists  gave  higher  gave t o t h e i r in  rating  Washington  of t h i s  perceived that t h e i r  and  function  in  t h a t t h e r e was  role  in  British  and  gave  Appendix  a  both  Columbia  t o themselves than they  clientele  t h a n t h e y gave t o t h e i r  ( T a b l e 46,  41,  The  American  the county e x t e n s i o n a g r i c u l t u r a l  advisers/consultants  clientele  i n Alberta  o r g a n i z a t i o n and c l i e n t e l e .  particular  (Table  t h e Canadian agents and i n p a r t i c u l a r  district a  indicate  statistically  i n each c o u n t r y ;  and  as  on  province, singly,  i n America and, i n p a r t i c u l a r ,  The ANOVAR a n a l y s i s  and  county  and t h e d i s t r i c t  extension  expected as  between  the  Columbia  function  each  much  between  Washington  II).  in  differences  agents  agents i n  e x p e c t them t o  higher  rating  behave  to their  o r g a n i z a t i o n and t o themselves  I I ) . These  data  suggest  that  the  T a b l e 14 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f R e s p o n d e n t s by t h e i r R a t i n g of t h e Importance o f E x t e n s i o n Role Functions f o r Role Performance Very Important  Funct i ons Adu1t  educator  Adviser/Consultant  Agricultural credit program a d m i n i s t r a t o r  Agricultural enforcement  regulations officer  Emergency measures program a d m i n i s t r a t o r  Important  Somewhat Important  Least Important 2.0 11.8 4.5  A l b e r t a (N=50) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=17) C a n a d a (N=67) I d a h o (N=33) W a s h i n g t o n (N=50) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=83)  46 47 46 48 60 55  .0 .0 . 3 .5 .0 .4  44 .0 1 1.8 35 .8 42 .4 32 .0 36 .2  8.0 29.4 13.4 9.1 8.0 8.4  A l b e r t a (N=50) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=17) C a n a d a (N=67) I d a h o (N=33) W a s h i n g t o n (N=50) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=83)  68 82 71 66 66 66  .0 .4 .6 .7 .0 .3  22 17 20 27 28 27  10.0  A l b e r t a (N=50) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=17) C a n a d a (N=67) I d a h o (N=34) W a s h i n g t o n (N=49) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=83)  2 .0 5 .9 3..0 2 .9 1. 2  A l b e r t a (N=49) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=17) C a n a d a (N=66) I d a h o (N=34) W a s h i n g t o n (N=49) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=83) A l b e r t a (N=50) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=17) C a n a d a (N=67) I d a h o (N=34) W a s h i n g t o n (N=49) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=83)  4..0 5..9 4.. 5  .0 .6 .9 . 3 .0 . 7  Not Applicable  7.5 3.0 4.0 3.6  3.0 1.2  2.0 1.2  10 .0 5 .9 9 .0 5 .9 2 .0 3 .6  20.0 17.6 19.3 8.8 2.0 4.8  24.0 35.3 26.9 23.6 20.5 21.7  44.0 35.3 41.8 58.8 75.5 68.7  4. 1 1 1 .9 . 6. 1 2 .9 . 2..0 2 .4  8.2 17.6 10.6 5.9 2.0 3.6  36.7 17.6 31.8 20.6 12.3 15.7  51.0 52.9 51.5 70.6 83.7 78.3  14 5 11 8 6 7  20.0 5.9 16.4 20.6 10.2 14.5  22.0 35.3 25.4 35.3 34.7 34.9  40.0 47.0 41.8 35.3 49.0 43.4  . .0 .9 . .9 . .8 .. 1 . 2  Table  14-- C o n t i n u e d Very Important  Funct ions  32 .0 23 . 5 29 .9 12 . 1 8. 2 9..8  56 .0 52 .9 55. 1 81.8 87.8 85.4  50 .0 50 .0 50..0 38.. 2 49..0 44 . 6  18 6 15 32 18 24  10 .0 6 .3 . 9 . 1 8..8 2 .0 4 .8 .  4.0  16.0 29.4 • 19.4 23.5 30.6 27 .7  36 .0 23 . 5 32 . .8 .9 52 . 40..8 45 .. 8  36..0 35 .3 35 . .8 20.. 7 24 . 5 22 , .9  8 11 9 2 4 3  . .0 .8 . . .0 .9 ,. 1 .6  4.0 3.0 -  22 .0 23.5 22.4 20.6 12.2 15.7  32 . .0 23 ,.5 29 ..9 38. 2 40. 9 39. 8  32 . .0 41 ..2 34 . .3 29 ..4 26 ..5 27 . 7  10..0 1 1 ,8 . 10..4 8 . .9 8 . , 2 8.. 4  4 .O  Inspection acts enforcement o f f i c e r  A l b e r t a (N=50) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=17) C a n a d a (N=67) I d a h o (N=33) W a s h i n g t o n (N=49) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=82)  -  A l b e r t a (N=50) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=16) C a n a d a (N=66) I d a h o (N=34) W a s h i n g t o n (N=49) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=83)  18.0 37 . 4 22.7 20.6 30.6 26.5  A l b e r t a (N=50) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=17) C a n a d a (N=67) I d a h o (N=34) W a s h i n g t o n (N=49) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=83) A l b e r t a (N=50) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=17) C a n a d a (N=67) I d a h o (N=34) W a s h i n g t o n (N=49) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=83)  Organizer  Program  of  groups  administrator  Not Applicable  8 .0 1 1.8 9 .0 6. 1 2 .0 3 .7  24 .0 18.8 22.7 15.2 16 . 3 15.9  --  .0 .6 .4 .4 . 1 .8  4 .0 1 1.8 6 .0  -  -  -  2 .0 1. 2  32 25 30 24 18 20  Least Important 6 .0 6 .3 6. 1 • ' 18 . 2 6. 1 1 1 .0  A l b e r t a (N=50) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=16) C a n a d a (N=66) I d a h o (N=33) W a s h i n g t o n (N=49) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=82)  34 43 36 39 55 48  Somewhat Important .0 .0 . 3 . 2 .4 . 7  Fac i 1 i t a t o r o r s e r v i c e agent  O r g a n i z e r and supervisor of events  Important  .0 .3 . 2. .4 .4 . 1  4.0 6 . 3 4 . 5 3.0 4 . 1 3.6  -  3 .O -  -  3.0 2.9 12.2 8.4  Table  Very Important  Funct ions Program  planner  Pub l i e r e l a t i e n s  Sources of and i d e a s  Student  14-- C o n t 1 n u e d  information  Important  Somewhat Important  Least Important  A l b e r t a (N=49) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=17) C a n a d a (N=66) I d a h o (N=34) W a s h i n g t o n (N=49) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=83)  38 35 37 35 44 41  .8 . 3 .9 . 3 . 9 .0  40 35 39 44 44 44  .8 . 3 .4 . 1 .9 .6  18 .4 23 . 5 19 . 7 1 1.8 8.2 9 .6  2 5 3 5  2 .4  2.9 2.0 2.4  A l b e r t a CN=50) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=17) C a n a d a (N=67) I d a h o (N=34) W a s h i n g t o n (N=48) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=82)  56 58 56 58 41 48  .0 .8 . 7 .8 . 7 .8  30 35 31 32 41 37  .0 . 3 . 3 .4 .7 .8  10 .0 5 .9 9 .0  4 .0  -  A l b e r t a (N=50) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=17) C a n a d a (N=67) I d a h o (N=34) W a s h i n g t o n (N=50) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=84)  74 .0 70 .6 73.. 1 70 .6 76 .0 73 . .8  16 . .0 23.. 5 17 . .9 26 .. 5 22 .0 . 23 . .8  A l b e r t a (N=43) B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a (N=16) C a n a d a (N=59) I d a h o (N=31) W a s h i n g t o n (N=45) U n i t e d S t a t e s (N=7G)  7 .0 . 6.. 3 6..8 19,.4 15 . .6 17 . 1  20..9 . 31 ,. 2 23 .. 7 32..2 26 ..7 28 .9  16 .6 9. 7 8 5 7 2 2 2  .0 .9 .5 .9 .0 .4  25,.6 12.. 5 22,.0 19.,4 24 .4 , 22 , .4  .O .9 .0 .9  Not Applicable  3 .0 8. ,8  -  3 .7 2 .0 . 1 ,, 5  1 1 ,6 . 6.. 3 10., 2 9.,6 1 1 .1 10. 5  -  34 .9 43.7 37 .3 19.4 22.2 21.1  150  Canadian alters  agents  and c o n s i d e r  extension the  have r o l e  perceive  province  are i n c o n f l i c t with  adviser/consultant  extension  particular,  as  each  workers perform.  county  they  in  their  a s one o f  the  their  functions  The. A m e r i c a n a g e n t s , i n g e n e r a l , a n d  agricultural c o n f l i c t with  agents their  in  Washington, i n  organization, in  that  o r g a n i z a t i o n d i d n o t e x p e c t them t o b e h a v e  advisers/consultants. T h e r e was no a s t a t i s t i c a l l y  the American and t h e Canadian function percent  (Table  44,  in  significant  agents  on  Appendix I I ) .  time  this  a l m o s t no a g e n t s performing  as  extension  role  employed  in  function the  spent  spent  (Table  university  an a d v i s e r / c o n s u l t a n t  on  this  One n o t e s t h a t o v e r 73  of t h e Canadian and A m e r i c a n a g e n t s  performing  d i f f e r e n c e between  'much'  time  15).  Although,  model  consider  a s one o f t h e i r  functions,  t h e y s p e n t a s much t i m e a s t h e a g e n t s e m p l o y e d i n t h e g o v e r n m e n t model p e r f o r m i n g  this  function.  Agents employed i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y perceived  expectations  adviser/consultant, f u n c t i o n as t h e i r who  consider  Agricultural agriculturalists  clientele  spend  counterparts  their as  and  the role credit  conform  clientele  much  time  as t e n t h .  their  behave  performing  a s one o f t h e i r  c o n f l i c t with their  program a d m i n i s t r a t o r :  r a t e d t h e i m p o r t a n c e of t h i s to  to  to  as this  employed i n t h e government model,  adviser/consultant  functions despite  organization  and  of  model  themselves  as  twelfth,  extension  role  alters. The  district  function to their and  to  their  In c o n t r a s t , the American agents rated the  151  f u n c t i o n as t w e l f t h t o t h e i r to  themselves The  the  clientele  and  ( T a b l e 46, i n A p p e n d i x I I ) . .  one-way  statistically  organization, their  ANOVA  analyses  significant  indicate  that  there  were  d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e American  C a n a d i a n a g e n t s on t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h i s  o r g a n i z a t i o n and c l i e n t e l e , and  to  and  function to their  themselves  (Table  30, i n  Appendix I I ) . The  American  agricultural function  agents  overall  and  agents i n Washington,  in  lower than the Canadian agents  30, 3 3 , 3 5 , a n d 3 7 , i n A p p e n d i x  II).  each p r o v i n c e c o n s i d e r a g r i c u l t u r a l of  the  extension  American  role  agents,  agricultural There  was  also  between t h e d i s t r i c t the  county  a  p r o g r a m d u t i e s a s one  they  p e r f o r m more t h a n t h e  the  county  statistically  agricultural  Columbia  (Table 35).  The d i s t r i c t  tended t o rate t h i s  extension a g r i c u l t u r a l  significant British  agents  in  agriculturalists  clientele  more  than  the  and  I d a h o on t h e i r  than  (Table 46).  Columbia  to  agents  the  their  in  Idaho  there  were  county  The d i s t r i c t  believe their  e x p e c t them t o p e r f o r m t h e r o l e o f a g r i c u l t u r a l administrator  Columbia  function  higher  i n Idaho  in British  difference  agriculturalists in British  function  agents  extension  i n p a r t i c u l a r , do.  p e r c e i v e d r a t i n g s of the importance of t h i s clientele  this  i n each p r o v i n c e ( T a b l e s  agriculturalists in  extension  rated  credit  and  agents i n Washington,  particular,  extension  So, t h e Canadian agents i n  functions  i n general,  the county  credit  clientele program  believe  their  e x p e c t them t o do s o .  The ANOVAR a n a l y s i s  shows  that  statistically  T a b l e 15 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f R e s p o n d e n t s by Time S p e n t on E x t e n s i o n R o l e F u n c t i o n s Alberta Functions  Much  Some  Little  Adult educator Advi ser/Consultant Agricultural credit program a d m i n i s t r a t o r Agricultural regulations enforcement o f f i c e r Emergency measures program a d m i n i s t r a t o r F a c i l i t a t o r or s e r v i c e agent Inspection acts enforcement o f f i c e r O r g a n i z e r and supervisor of events Organizer of groups Program a d m i n i s t r a t o r Program planner Public relations Source of i n f o r m a t i o n and i d e a s Student  62.0 : 78.0  28.0 20.0  10.0 2.0  -  20.0  44.4  35.6  45.5  47.7  18.2  38.6  40.9  46.0  18.0  2.3 30.0 -  6.8  4.5  40.9  None _  -  6.0 54.5  32.7 20.4 26.5 41 .7 56.0  53. 1 49.0 53. 1 50.0 34.0  12.2 28.6 18.4 8.3 10.0  77 . 1 10.5  20.8 31.6  34.2 34.2  23.7 23.7  Funct ions  Much  Some  Little  None  Adult educator Adviser/Consultant Agricultural credit program a d m i n i s t r a t o r Agricultural regulations enforcement o f f i c e r Emergency measures program a d m i n i s t r a t o r F a c i l i t a t o r or s e r v i c e agent Inspection acts enforcement o f f i c e r O r g a n i z e r and supervisor of events Organizer of groups Program a d m i n i s t r a t o r Program planner Public relations Source of information and i d e a s Student  29.4 70.6  35.3 29.4  35.3 -  6.7  20.0  46.7  26.7  -  26.7  26.7  46.7  . 26.7  66.7  British  2.0 2.0 2.0 -  Columbia  6.7 43.8 -  -  43.8 7.1  —  -  12.5  -  42.9  50.0  47. 1 23.5 23.5 23.5 41 .2  47. 1 52.9 52.9 47.1 35.3  5.9 23.5 23.5 29.4 23.5  64.7 -  23.5 15.4  11.8 53.8  30.8  Table  15— Continued  Idaho Functions  Much  Adult educator Advi ser/Consultant Agricultural credit program a d m i n i s t r a t o r Agricultural regulations enforcement o f f i c e r Emergency measures program a d m i n i s t r a t o r F a c i l i t a t o r or s e r v i c e agent Inspection acts enforcement o f f i c e r O r g a n i z e r and supervisor of events Organizer of groups Program a d m i n i s t r a t o r Program p l a n n e r Public relations Source of i n f o r m a t i o n and i d e a s Student  47. 1 70.6  Some -41.2 26.5  Little 11.8 2.9  None _  -  -  -  39.3  60.7  -  7.1  10.7  82. 1  13.3  50.0  36.7  61 .8  14.7  -  14.8  85.2  23.5 -  -  38.2 29.4 20.6 29.4 52.9  50.0 64.7 50.0 52.9 35.3  11.8 5.9 26.5 14.7 11.8  2.9 2.9 -  61.8 17.9  35.3 42.9  2.9 21.9  17.9  Funct ions  Much  Some  Little  None  Adult educator Advi ser/Consultant Agricultural credit program a d m i n i s t r a t o r Agricultural regulations enforcement o f f i c e r Emergency measures program a d m i n i s t r a t o r F a c i l i t a t o r or s e r v i c e agent Inspection acts enforcement o f f i c e r O r g a n i z e r and supervisor of events Organizer of groups Program a d m i n i s t r a t o r Program p l a n n e r Public relations Source of i n f o r m a t i o n and i d e a s Student  68. 1 75.0  29.8 22.9  Washington  -  2.1 12.8  -  -  -  2.6  53.8  17.8  64.4  15.6  -  -  5.3  _  2.1 87.2 94.7 43.6 2.2  2.6  97.4 9.3 2.1 -  34.8 21 .7 18.6 36.2 19.6  50.0 54.3 41 .9 53.2 58.7  15.2 23.9 30.2 8.5 21.7  66.7 5.4  .33.3 32.4  51 .4  10.8  1 54  Table  15-- C o n t i n u e d  Canada Functions  Much  Some  Little  Adult educator Adviser/Consuitant Agricultural credit program a d m i n i s t r a t o r Agricultural regulations enforcement o f f i c e r Emergency m e a s u r e s program a d m i n i s t r a t o r F a c i l i t a t o r or s e r v i c e agent Inspection acts enforcement o f f i c e r O r g a n i z e r and supervisor of events Organizer of groups Program a d m i n i s t r a t o r Program planner Public relations Source of i n f o r m a t i o n and i d e a s Student  53.7 76.1  29.9 22.4  16.4 1 .5  1 .7  20.0  45.0  33.3  -  11.9  40.7  47.4  3.4  13.6  35.6  47.4  33.3  45.5  16.7  4.5  5.2  41 .4  53.4  36.4 21.2 25.8 36.9 52.2  51 .5 50.0 53.0 49.2 34.3  10.2 27.3 19.7 13.9 13.5  73.8 7.8  21.5 27.5  4.6 39.2  25.5  Functions  Much  Some  Little  None  Adult educator Advi ser/Consultant Agricultural credit program a d m i n i s t r a t o r Agricultural regulations enforcement o f f i c e r Emergency measures program a d m i n i s t r a t o r F a c i l i t a t o r or s e r v i c e agent Inspection acts enforcement o f f i c e r O r g a n i z e r and supervisor of events Organizer of groups Program a d m i n i s t r a t o r Program planner Public relations Source of i n f o r m a t i o n and i d e a s Student  59.3 73.2  34.6 24.4  6.1 1 .2  United  -  None -  1 .9 1 .5 1 .5 -  -  States  -  -  -  20.3 -  1 .2  23.9  76. 1  3.0  7.6  89.4  7.2  52.2  40.6  63.3  15.2  -  1 .2  7.7  92.3 6.5 2.5 -  36.3 25.0 19.5 33.3 33.7  50.0 58.8 45.5 53. 1 48.7  13.7 16.2 28.5 11.1 17.6  64.6 10.8  34.2 36.9  1 .2 38.5  13.8  155  significant  d i f f e r e n c e s among t h e t h r e e r a t i n g s o f e a c h c o u n t r y  and W a s h i n g t o n Appendix  II  state in  (Table 41).  Table  The  results  46 show t h a t t h e r e was  Canada b e t w e e n t h e a g e n t s and t h e i r c l i e n t e l e ; and,  in  their  particular,  alters.  clientele  i n Washington  The  Canadian  and  in  America and  e x p e c t them t o p e r f o r m a s a g r i c u l t u r a l  credit  program  Washington,  in  than  they  perceived  e x p e c t s them t o p e r f o r m i n t h i s way.  agents  organization  and  the  The  extension  as a g r i c u l t u r a l  degree  clientele  a g r e e m e n t on t h i s  county  perform  administrators to a lesser  than  they  their  American  agricultural  credit  program  perceived  e x p e c t them t o p e r f o r m .  their  There  function within Alberta, B r i t i s h  was  Columbia  (Table 41).  T h e r e was  a statistically  Canadian  and  American  significant agents  on  than  the  American  II).  O v e r 66.0 of . t h e  agents  difference  to  spend  more  ( T a b l e 15 and T a b l e 44,  p e r c e n t of the C a n a d i a n a g e n t s American  agents  between  t h e t i m e s p e n t on  f u n c t i o n w i t h the Canadian agents t e n d i n g  percent  conflict in  their  in particular,  the  role  that  a g e n t s and,  Idaho  in  perceived  organization  and  reported  s t a t e between the a g e n t s  agents  administrators to a greater extent  role  as  spent  time  and  this time  i n Appendix about  24.0  performing t h i s  function. Although these r e s u l t s in  the  credit  government model p e r f o r m a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of programs,  t h e f i n d i n g s a l s o show t h a t t h e i r  i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y model and, the  again i n d i c a t e that agents  in particular,  employed  agricultural counterparts  o v e r 39.0  percent of  a g e n t s i n I d a h o , r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e y engage i n a d m i n i s t e r i n g  156  some a g r i c u l t u r a l  credit  programs.  program  administrator  function  i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y model t h a n i n t h e g o v e r n m e n t  Agricultural Canadian  has  Overall agricultural  a lower status  regulations  and A m e r i c a n  enforcement  as an e x t e n s i o n r o l e  officer:  one.  Both  and  the  a g e n t s gave t h e same r a n k i n g s ( t h i r t e e n t h  out of f o u r t e e n t h ) t o the importance of t h i s f u n c t i o n organization  credit  clientele,  and  to  themselves  to  their  ( T a b l e 46, i n  Appendix I I ) . T h e r e were s t a t i s t i c a l l y the  countries,  Washington and  tended  on  their  ( T a b l e 37,  to  rate  h i g h e r than the agricultural of  in  Accordingly,  function  II).  agents  did.  i n Washington  of  this  between  British  Columbia  The  The  to  in Alberta  function  Canadian  agents  extension  lower  themselves  ratings  than  the r e s u l t s  d i d ( T a b l e 46,  i n d i c a t e that  p r o v i n c e view the a g r i c u l t u r a l a s an e x t e n s i o n r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  one-way  ANOVA  i n each analyses  the  or B r i t i s h Columbia d i d .  t o themselves than the  i n B r i t i s h Columbia  to  to themselves  county  t e n d e d £o g i v e  function  function  a g e n t s , c o l l e c t i v e l y , and The  between  Alberta,  importance of t h i s f u n c t i o n  i m p o r t a n c e of t h i s  each  and  between  the agents i n Idaho tended t o g i v e n lower r a t i n g s  agriculturalists II).  Appendix  agriculturalists  Similarly, the  in  American  agents  differences  r a t i n g s of i m p o r t a n c e of t h i s  the  the importance  district  Washington  and B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , and  Idaho  themselves  between  significant  in  district Appendix  the Canadian  regulations more t h a n  of  agents  enforcement  the  American  state. results  show t h a t  t h e r e were  157  statistically between of  this  significant  d i f f e r e n c e s between  p r o v i n c e s a n d s t a t e s on t h e i r function  to their  the countries  and  r a t i n g s of t h e importance  o r g a n i z a t i o n and c l i e n t e l e  (Tables  33  and 3 5 , i n A p p e n d i x I I ) . The  Canadian agents i n each p r o v i n c e tended t o g i v e  r a t i n g s of t h e importance of t h i s than  the  Appendix  American  II).  perceived  These  that  agricultural  II). the  in  each  indicate  clientele  to  state that  expect  r e g u l a t i o n s enforcement  their  did  the  clientele  ( T a b l e 46, i n  Canadian  them  to  o f f i c e r s more t h a n  significant  Alberta  analysis  agents  perform  e x p e c t them t o p e r f o r m i n t h e U n i t e d  i n d i c a t e d by t h e ANOVAR  statistically Canada,  data  their  agents' c l i e n t e l e As  agents  function  results,  American States.  there  and  as  between  e x t e n s i o n workers i n Canada, i n p a r t i c u l a r ,  Washington  and  their  w o r k e r s i n Canada and, i n p a r t i c u l a r , Alberta  were  ( T a b l e s 41 a n d 46, i n A p p e n d i x  The a n a l y s e s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e was r o l e c o n f l i c t  Alberta,  well  as  consider a g r i c u l t u r a l  as  d i f f e r e n c e s among t h e t h r e e r a t i n g s i n  and W a s h i n g t o n ,  agricultural  higher  extension  alters.  So, t h e e x t e n s i o n  the extension  workers  in  in  workers  Washington  in  do n o t  r e g u l a t i o n s enforcement d u t i e s as t h e duty  of  extension workers.  T h e r e was r o l e a g r e e m e n t  in  the United States, o v e r a l l ,  on t h i s  i n Idaho and i n B r i t i s h  function Columbia  (Table 41, i n Appendix I I ) . As  indicated  in  T a b l e 15 a n d i n A p p e n d i x  t h e r e was a s t a t i s t i c a l l y time the  Canadian  and  significant  I I i n T a b l e 44,  difference  between  the  A m e r i c a n a g e n t s s p e n t on t h i s  function  with  C a n a d i a n s t e n d i n g t o s p e n d more t i m e  than  the  Americans.  1 58  Accordingly,  .52.6  percent  g o v e r n m e n t m o d e l and university  model  function. assumed  model  Although that  agricultural  the  p e r c e n t of t h e a g e n t s employed i n  the  this  extension  control,  was  agents performed  workers  in  the  of  extension  r o l e performance.  the  government  livestock  agricultural  regulatory  land  that  development, Similarly,  as  about  some  regulatory animal  measuring  enforcement  health weaning  perform  that  duties,  (bull  water  part  their  of  o n e - t e n t h of that  for  weights  purebred  stock  their  their they  such  checking  of  as  control),  requirement  r e g i s t e r i n g p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t i o n , as p a r t  they  such  responsibilities,  of  some  extension  model r e p o r t e d  regulation  was  functions  agricultural  enforcement  this  it  e m p l o y e d i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y model v e r i f i e d  weed c o n t r o l ,  role  undertaken  employed i n both models  regulations  control,  fairs,  employed  spending time performing  study  About h a l f  perform a g r i c u l t u r a l  perform  agents  agents d i d , these f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e  employed  counterparts  the  reported  when  regulatory duties.  weed  in  no A m e r i c a n  and a l l C a n a d i a n  workers  10.6  of  as  local and  extension  performance. In  correct  conclusion,  these  findings  to  that  the  assume  responsibilities distinguishing  may  not  be  indicate  that  performance regarded  of as  f a c t o r s b e t w e e n t h e u n i v e r s i t y and  it  seems  regulatory one  the  of  the  government  models. Emergency m e a s u r e s p r o g r a m a d m i n i s t r a t o r : in  both  Agents  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l m o d e l s gave t h e same r a n k i n g s  employed (eleventh  159  out o f f o u r t e e n t h )  t o the importance of t h i s  organization  clientele,  and  and  to  function  themselves  to  their  ( T a b l e 46 i n  Appendix I I ) . The  one-way  statistically Washington this  extension  district  part  of t h e i r  extension  United  Appendix  agricultural analysis  States, II).  agents  measures  The  province  view t h i s  indicate  differences  agents  function  more t h a n  that  (Tables  there  there  41  the  and  i n each s t a t e and t h e i r not  to  a g r e e m e n t on t h i s  46 i n  conflict  alters.  consider  a s one o f t h e i r  were  ratings i n  was r o l e  The  emergency  extension  function  were  no  a  (Table  43  statistically  significant  on t h e amount o f t i m e  i n Appendix  II).  role  in  each  o v e r 40 p e r c e n t o f t h e a g e n t s e m p l o y e d function  not  to  be  the  Canadian  a g e n t s a n d 59.4  spent  of  on  of  this  indicate  i n both models  responsibility  percent  difference  These f i n d i n g s  s e r v i c e s , a n d y e t t h e d a t a i n T a b l e 15 show t h a t the  function  f u n c t i o n as  among t h e t h r e e  show t h a t  administrator  b e t w e e n t h e two c o u n t r i e s  this  of  a n d f o r Canada a s a w h o l e .  There  that  and  importance this  a  i n Washington do.  results  results  T h e r e was r o l e  Alberta  rating  performance)  agents  i n e a c h s t a t e seem  program  functions.  (role  Idaho and Washington  between t h e American American  r a t i n g s of  was  ( T a b l e s 37 a n d 46 i n A p p e n d i x I I ) .  duties  significant  there  between  a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s i n Alberta  ANOVAR  statistically  difference  that  t o themselves with Albertans  county extension The  revealed  w o r k e r s on t h e i r  than Washingtonians  The  the  analyses  significant  function  higher  ANOVA  feel  extension  52.6 p e r c e n t o f  the American  agents  160  spent time performing t h i s Facilitator rated  the  function.  o r s e r v i c e a g e n t : The d i s t r i c t  importance of t h i s  ninth, to  their  seventh.  In  clientele  comparison,  function  to their  as  themselves  as  fifth,  and  the  county  extension  function  seventh  c l i e n t e l e , and e i g h t h  their  organization  as  agents ranked t h e to  agriculturalists  as  ninth  to  to  agricultural  their  organization,  t o themselves  ( T a b l e 46  in Appendix I I ) . The  one-way  statistically in  Idaho  on  facilitator  differences  that  there  between e x t e n s i o n  and between e x t e n s i o n  their  workers  were  workers  in  Alberta  r a t i n g s of t h e importance of p e r f o r m i n g as  o r s e r v i c e agent t o t h e i r  Canadian  agriculturalists  agents  i n Alberta  importance of t h i s  the  American  agents  Idaho i n p a r t i c u l a r . agents  organization  (Tables  30  perform  that  the  district  organization  than d i d  c o l l e c t i v e l y and t h e e x t e n s i o n  workers i n  function  to their  These f i n d i n g s  that  facilitator  counterparts'  perceptions  organization  in particular  and  ratings to  as  their  collectively  gave h i g h e r  and t h e d i s t r i c t  degree p e r c e i v e  46,  indicates  33 i n A p p e n d i x I I ) . The  the  analysis  significant  t h e two c o u n t r i e s ,  and  and  ANOVA  indicate that  agriculturalists their or  i n Alberta  organization service  the  agent  t o a marked  expects more  of the importance of t h i s  Canadian  them  than  their  function  i n America and i n t h e s t a t e of Idaho  to  to  (Table  i n Appendix I I ) . The  ANOVAR  analysis  revealed  that  there  were  no  role  1.61  conflicts nation  on  this  function  within  d a t a i n T a b l e 15 i n d i c a t e  Canadian  agents  and  a statistically  significant  on t i m e s p e n t on t h i s So, t h e f i n d i n g s functions  94.5  percent  of  the  difference  function  between t h e two  countries  ( T a b l e 44, i n A p p e n d i x I I ) .  indicate the service  function  extension  t o be one o f  workers  perform  in  models. acts  enforcement  American agents rated organization, (fourteenth) The  clientele  and f o r t h e i r  significant  ratings  and t o t h e i r differences  differences  organization. between  II).  each s t a t e  indicate that  to  their  each  province  to  the  function  and  function  each  t o themselves significant  agriculturalists  acts  enforcement  in duty  of  i n each  their  this  province  function  be  province part  to  agents i n  T h e s e f i n d i n g s show  each to  on  t o t h e m s e l v e s ( T a b l e 37,  importance  II).  countries  state  agriculturalists  ( T a b l e 46, i n A p p e n d i x  t h e r e were  between t h e two  than d i d the county extension a g r i c u l t u r a l  district  inspection  function  T h e r e were s t a t i s t i c a l l y  The d i s t r i c t  gave h i g h e r r a t i n g s themselves  C a n a d i a n and t h e  r o l e performance as l a s t  of importance of t h i s  of importance of t h i s  in Appendix  The  the importance of t h i s  One-way ANOVA a n a l y s e s r e s u l t s  their  ratings  officer:  ( T a b l e 46, i n A p p e n d i x I I ) .  statistically  the  that  o r s e r v i c e a g e n t s . _ T h e r e was no  which a g r i c u l t u r a l  Inspection  on  s t a t e and  98.8 p e r c e n t o f t h e A m e r i c a n a g e n t s s p e n t  time p e r f o r m i n g as f a c i l i t a t o r s  both  province,  (Table 41, i n Appendix I I ) .  The  the  each  that  consider  of t h e i r  role  162  performance that  is  more t h a n t h e a g e n t s i n e a c h  consistent  with  the  state  do,  a  finding  o r i g i n a l assumptions concerning  b e t w e e n t h e two m o d e l s . The  Canadian agents and t h e e x t e n s i o n  gave a h i g h e r r a t i n g organization  than  workers  t o the importance of t h i s the  agents  in  in  function to their  America and i n the s t a t e of  Washington.  A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e Canadian agents and t h e  workers  Alberta perceived that their  in  extension organization  to  counterparts  i n A m e r i c a , i n g e n e r a l , and i n Washington  The  ANOVAR  United  results  analysis  significant States  indicate  American  duties  more  than  their state,in  ( T a b l e s 30, 33 a n d 46, i n A p p e n d i x I I ) .  statistically the  inspection  extension  e x p e c t s them  particular,  perform  Alberta  41  there  and t h e i r  inspection duties.  show  that  there  were  d i f f e r e n c e s among t h e t h r e e r a t i n g s i n  (Tables that  agents  results  and was  46, i n A p p e n d i x role-conflict  clientele  T h e r e was r o l e  II).  The  between  the  who e x p e c t them t o p e r f o r m  a g r e e m e n t on t h i s  function i n  each p r o v i n c e i n Canada. The that  d a t a i n T a b l e 15 a n d i n A p p e n d i x  there  was  a  statistically  II in  significant  d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e C a n a d i a n and American s p e n t on t h i s  percent  Canadian  of  agents  inspection  44  show  difference  a g e n t s on t h e t i m e  f u n c t i o n w i t h t h e Canadian a g e n t s t e n d i n g t o spend  more t i m e t h a n t h e A m e r i c a n 7.7  Table  acts  agents.  the  American  spent  'some  enforcement  e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r s employed  These  data  indicate  that  a g e n t s , a n d 46.6 p e r c e n t o f t h e or  little' officers.  time The  i n t h e government model  performing  as  agricultural listed  some  163  inspection  duties,  shelterbelt  such  program  inspection,  weed  inspection,  as  credit  inspection,  inspection,  program  dairy  native  f a r m i n s p e c t i o n , as p a r t  range  inspection,  development  loan  improvement program  of t h e i r r o l e  performance.  However, t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s employed i n the u n i v e r s i t y model d i d not  list  any  inspection  agricultural  regulations  suggests that  t h e y may  enforcement reported 92.3  and  that  acts,  hence  as  having  inspection  of the a g e n t s w o r k i n g  and  the  duties.  on  regulations meaning  or  enforcement  the assumptions  of  this  extension.  t h e s e f i n d i n g s show t h a t a few  function  distinguishing university  may  factors  and  Nevertheless  extension  workers  i n the u n i v e r s i t y model p e r f o r m i n s p e c t i o n d u t i e s ,  this  not  be  between  regarded  the  as  government  one  of  and the  model a n d  the  model.  O r g a n i z e r and agriculturalists  supervisor  The function  organization  as s e v e n t h , t o t h e i r c l i e n t e l e as  fourth,  themselves  as  agricultural  agents ranked the  organization  and  rated  of e v e n t s :  the importance of t h i s  ( T a b l e 46,  this  i n the u n i v e r s i t y model d i d  i s i n harmony w i t h  the l i t e r a t u r e  some  hence  same  t h e m s e l v e s as p e r f o r m i n g i n s p e c t i o n  Overall, employed  duties,  except  have c o n s i d e r e d a g r i c u l t u r a l  inspection  a f i n d i n g that  s t u d y and  enforcement  they performed  percent  not p e r c e i v e  responsibilities  sixth.  to  In  contrast, function  themselves,  i n Appendix I I ) .  the as  and t h i r d  county  district to t h e i r and  to  extension  seventh  to  their  to t h e i r  clientele  164  T h e r e was a s t a t i s t i c a l l y Washington and A l b e r t a importance  of  Washington  tending  district  extension function  to  rate  agriculturalists  Appendix I I ) . agents  this  in  significant  Washington  w o r k e r s on t h e i r  this  Alberta  the  consider  the d i s t r i c t The  one-way  statistically in  Alberta  importance  Columbia  and  this  with  tending  the  agriculturalists  in Alberta  II).  district  So,  the  p e r f o r m and they p e r c e i v e them  to  perform  than t h e i r  as  to  their  on  their  function  higher  agriculturalists their  extension  between  extension  organization  i t s district  Columbia  in  in  were workers of and  the to  British  Appendix  expects  o f e v e n t s more statistically  workers importance the  tending  organization  agriculturalists  a  with  than t h e agents i n Idaho  The e x t e n s i o n  than  i n B r i t i s h Columbia  T h e r e was  r a t i n g s of t h e  British  of  than the d i s t r i c t  and s u p e r v i s o r s  function  expects  ratings  organization  in  Appendix II)..  that  organization  agriculturalists higher  show  ( T a b l e s 3 3 , 37 a n d 4 6 ,  C o l u m b i a a n d I d a h o on t h e i r function  supervisor  between e x t e n s i o n  their  in Alberta.  difference  agricultural  agriculturalists  organizers  counterparts  significant  to  district  to rate this  a n d 46, i n  t o be p e r f o r m e d  results  Columbia  function  the  in Alberta.  differences  British  37  and  function  analyses  significant  of  themselves,  ANOVA  than  extension  'organizer  agriculturalists  the agents i n  higher  (Tables  county  e v e n t s ' a more i m p o r t a n t e x t e n s i o n do  function  between  r a t i n g s on t h e  to themselves, with  in  Accordingly,  difference  to  in British of  this  district rate  this  ( T a b l e s 33 a n d 46, i n in  British  t o perform as  Columbia organizers  165  and in  s u p e r v i s o r s o f e v e n t s more t h a n t h e  extension  organization  t h a t t h e r e were  statistically  Idaho. The  ANOVAR  significant  analysis  shows  d i f f e r e n c e s among t h e  States  as a w h o l e and  results  indicate role-conflict  Idaho  and  (Table  especially  Accordingly, those  in  ratings 41,  the American  Idaho p e r c e i v e d  Canada  r o l e a g r e e m e n t on  and  in  the  this  United  i n Appendix I I ) .  their  e x p e c t them t o p e r f o r m as o r g a n i z e r s and T h e r e was  in  between the e x t e n s i o n  i n A m e r i c a n as a w h o l e and  in Appendix I I ) . and  i n Idaho  three  workers  in  (Table  46,  clientele agents,  as  that their  Washington s t a t e (Tables  41  each and  whole,  clientele  s u p e r v i s o r s of  function in  The  events.  province  46,  in  i n Appendix  II). O v e r 86 p e r c e n t  of the a g e n t s employed i n b o t h models  'much o r some' t i m e p e r f o r m i n g events  (Table  15).  There  as o r g a n i z e r s o r was  s p e n t on  this  These events' workers  f u n c t i o n (Table  findings  f u n c t i o n was employed  of e x t e n s i o n  rated  fourth.  A m e r i c a n a g e n t s on  ' o r g a n i z e r and the  the  time  supervisor  agricultural  i n b o t h m o d e l s as one  of g r o u p s : the  o r g a n i z a t i o n and as  by  significant  i n Appendix I I ) .  indicate that considered  of  of the  of  extension  responsibilities  workers.  Organizer agents  44,  supervisors  no a s t a t i s t i c a l l y  d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e C a n a d i a n and  spent  In  The  county  importance  t o t h e m s e l v e s as  of  extension this  s i x t h , and  c o n t r a s t , the d i s t r i c t  agricultural  function  to  to their  clientele  agriculturalists  their  ranked  166  the  function  as eighth  to their  as n i n t h t o t h e m s e l v e s The  countries,  to  the  significant  differences  and between A l b e r t a  of importance of t h i s  and 3 7 ) .  The A m e r i c a n importance  Alberta  and  this  there  function  t o themselves  function  ( T a b l e 46, i n A p p e n d i x  to  on  their  ( T a b l e s 30  higher  rating  themselves than the  district  II).  agriculturalists  So, t h e American  p e r f o r m i n g a s an ' o r g a n i z e r  a more i m p o r t a n t d u t y t h a n do t h e i r  were  b e t w e e n a g e n t s i n t h e two  a g e n t s i n each s t a t e gave  of  i n each s t a t e c o n s i d e r  i n d i c a t e that  and Idaho or Washington  Canadian a g e n t s , as a whole, and t h e in  and c l i e n t e l e ,  ( T a b l e 46, i n Appendix I I ) .  one-way ANOVA a n a l y s e s r e s u l t s  statistically  ratings  organization  counterparts  agents  of groups' as i n Alberta  or  i n Canada a s a w h o l e . There the  were  extension  Washington their  statistically  workers  on  their  organization  agriculturalists function in  to their  function  importance  The  one-way  statistically  countries,  the  and  function to  i n Alberta  rated  between  Columbia  II).  The  lower than the extension  district of  this  workers  (Table 32, i n Appendix I I ) . British  Columbia  o f g r o u p s ' t o be a more i m p o r t a n t  extension  i n the opinion  case f o r t h e i r  British  (Table 33, i n Appendix  workers  'organizer  and  differences  r a t i n g s of importance of t h i s  B r i t i s h Columbia and Washington  perceive  were  i n Alberta  organization  Thus, t h e e x t e n s i o n  the  significant  i n Washington  of t h e i r  counterparts ANOVA  extension  organization  than  is  i n Alberta.  analyses  significant  and  results also differences  and between each p r o v i n c e  show t h a t  between  there  t h e two  and each s t a t e , as w e l l as  167  b e t w e e n I d a h o and this  W a s h i n g t o n on t h e i r  function to t h e i r  clientele  r a t i n g s of  ( T a b l e s 30 and  importance 35,  of  i n Appendix  II). Both agents this  w i t h i n s t a t e s and  i n I d a h o and  analyzed  Washington tended  function to t h e i r  clientele  as  a  single  t o irate t h e  higher than  a s a s i n g l e g r o u p o r when a n a l y z e d  their  clientele  expect  on a p r o v i n c i a l  them t o p e r f o r m  g r o u p s more t h a n  their  model  i n Appendix I I ) .  ( T a b l e 46, The  c o u n t e r p a r t s employed i n  differences  among  the  three  importance  of  agents  basis.  model  Thus,  perceive  as o r g a n i z e r s of the  ANOVAR a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e were  significant  the  the Canadian  the e x t e n s i o n agents employed i n the u n i v e r s i t y that  group,  government  statistically  ratings  i n Canada,  B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a and W a s h i n g t o n , w i t h a l l t e n d i n g t o g i v e r a t i n g s t o the and  lower  extension their  between  their  the  organization, I d a h o and The employed  (Tables role  So,  the e x t e n s i o n  41  and  46,  in  c o n f l i c t between  the  i n Canada as a w h o l e workers  in  i n Canada a s a w h o l e p e r c e i v e t h a t t h e i r  o r g a n i z a t i o n s expect than  clientele  i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a and  organization. and  function to their o r g a n i z a t i o n  These f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e  workers  Columbia  more  of t h i s  ratings to their  Appendix I I ) .  and  importance  them t o p e r f o r m  clientele  extension there  as  organizers  do.  Although  t h e r e was  workers  in  Washington  were  role  higher  a g r e e m e n t s on  British extension  of  role  this  groups conflict  and  their  function in  i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s as a w h o l e . data in  i n Table the  15 show t h a t 71.2  government  model  and  percent 83.8  of  the  percent  agents of  those  168  employed  i n the u n i v e r s i t y  performing  as  statistically the 44,  organizers  significant  Canadian  agents  spent  of  'much  groups.  difference  or  some'  There  between  the  was  administrator:  clientele  contrast,  clientele The  the  their  county  and (Table  agriculturalists  rated  organization  to their  extension  to their  one-way  ANOVA  organization  of  as  agricultural  organization,  as s i x t h ,  eighth.  In  agents rated the  and as n i n t h t o  their  ( T a b l e 46, i n A p p e n d i x I I ) .  analyses  significant  ratings  The d i s t r i c t  function  and t o themselves  statistically  revealed  differences  importance  of  that  between this  there  any  groups  function  and c l i e n t e l e , and t o themselves  were no  to  (Tables  on  their  30, 33,  37 a n d 46, i n A p p e n d i x I I ) . The  ANOVAR  statistically  analysis  significant  results differences  that  there  among t h e t h r e e  basis.  c o n f l i c t between t h e e x t e n s i o n  their  was  clientele  extension their  w o r k e r s employed  less  a g r e e m e n t on t h i s  on  ( T a b l e s 41 a n d 4 6 , i n A p p e n d i x  clientele  administrators  general.  role  analyzed  expect than  function  they  a  provincial  II).  i n t h e g o v e r n m e n t model them  to  actually  perform do.  were  ratings i n  and  There  when  indicate  Canada as a s i n g l e group  that  a  function  as n i n t h , and t o t h e m s e l v e s  f u n c t i o n as e i g h t h  the  no  the American  on t h e t i m e s p e n t on t h i s  importance of t h i s  to t h e i r  and  time  i n Appendix I I ) . Program  35,  model  as  workers Hence, perceive program  T h e r e was r o l e  i n Idaho and f o r t h e U n i t e d  States i n  169  The  data i n Table  agents  employed  performing  as  in  15 i n d i c a t e t h a t o v e r 65 p e r c e n t the  program  statistically  two  models spent  administrator.  significant  difference  no  a  between t h e Canadian  and  a g e n t s on t h e t i m e s p e n t on t h i s  Appendix  I I ) . These f i n d i n g s  extension  workers  function  that  organizations  them t o p e r f o r m a r e s i m i l a r .  that their  was  ( T a b l e 44, i n  what  agricultural  employed i n the u n i v e r s i t y model p e r f o r m  what t h e y p e r c e i v e d t h e i r  government  the  'much o r some' t i m e There  American  indicate  of  model  However, t h e i r  experience role  clientele  and  e x p e c t them  clientele  expect  c o u n t e r p a r t s i n the  conflict, to  and  where t h e y p e r c e i v e  perform  less  as  program  administrators. In c o n c l u s i o n , e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r s employed i n t h e government model  have  provincial  been  given  the  a s w e l l as f e d e r a l p r o g r a m s .  i n d i c a t e that the c l i e n t e l e of  administrative  e x t e n s i o n worker  rated  the  third,  to t h e i r  can not s a t i s f y  to their  with both  findings  results  kind  that  the  groups.  function  agricultural  to their  agents  organization  t o t h e m s e l v e s as  agriculturalists  r a t e d the  as  fifth.  function seventh to  i n Appendix I I ) .  one-way ANOVA a n a l y s e s r e s u l t s  statistically  the  o r g a n i z a t i o n and t o t h e m s e l v e s , and  ( T a b l e 46,  administer  i n agreement w i t h such  a s e i g h t h , and  the d i s t r i c t  clientele The  no  clientele  to  However, t h e s e  county extension  i m p o r t a n c e of t h i s  In c o m p a r i s o n ,  their  a r e not  arrangements  P r o g r a m p l a n n e r : The  as f i f t h  responsibilities  significant  i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e were  d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n any g r o u p s  on  170  their  r a t i n g s of  organization 35,  37  and  and  46,  The  Alberta  and  c l i e n t e l e , and  (Tables  30,  both  to themselves  analysis  results  differences  i n Canada as a  whole,  as  a whole.  The  between  show  in  clientele.  So,  models  perceive  that  the  extension  The  ( T a b l e s 41  data  Canadian  organizations  in  and  Table  American  performing  as  significant  difference  on  the  function  overall i s one  extension  their  the  show  that  o v e r 86  'much  T h e r e was  no  ( T a b l e 44, that  important duties  there  were  employed  role  the time  statistically  Canadian  agents  i n Appendix I I ) .  the  which  own  some' a  to  from  p e r c e n t of  or  A m e r i c a n and  suggest  the  e x p e c t them  their  15  function  analyses  relations:  i m p o r t a n c e of  extension  this  as  i n Appendix I I ) .  between the  in  in  role expectations  46,  planners.  and  agents  clientele  well  spent  ratings  program the  planning  agricultural  w o r k e r s employed i n both models p e r f o r m .  Public  clientele,  of  as  were  agents employed i n both  extension  their  agents  program  t i m e s p e n t on  The  and  three  indicate that  extension  their  performance  33,  there  Washington  findings  the  that  among t h e  p e r f o r m as p r o g r a m p l a n n e r s l e s s t h a n t h e their  their  i n Appendix I I ) .  conflicts  m o d e l s and in  to  significant  States  role  function  ANOVAR  statistically  United  i m p o r t a n c e of program p l a n n e r  this  and  The  function  district to  t o t h e m s e l v e s as  agricultural  organization,  their third.  agents rated sixth  to  agriculturalists  the  their  rated  the  organization,  to  their  In c o n t r a s t ,  the  county  function clientele  as  third  to  and  fourth  to  171  themselves The  ( T a b l e 46, i n Appendix I I ) .  one-way ANOVA a n a l y s e s  statistically their  significant  ratings  organization  of  importance  there  between t h e d i s t r i c t extension  agriculturalists Washington  extension Washington functions to  function  between  any  function  t o give 35,  'public  were  no  g r o u p s on to  their  ( T a b l e 30, i n A p p e n d i x I I ) .  to their  significant  i n Alberta  clientele  difference  and the  higher  with  preceived  relations'  county  ratings of  the d i s t r i c t  r a t i n g s than the  i n Appendix I I ) .  i n Alberta  of extension  there  a g e n t s i n W a s h i n g t o n on t h e i r  (Table  that  that  this  agriculturalists  tending  workers  of  was a s t a t i s t i c a l l y  agricultural  importance of t h i s  in  differences  and t o themselves  However,  indicate  Accordingly, the  more  than  those  a s one o f t h e more  work, w h i c h t h e i r  agents  clientele  in  important  expect  them  perform. The  ANOVAR a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d  significant  differences  as  well  as  46,  i n Appendix  extension  I I ) . There  workers and t h e i r  each  models  perceive  perform  among t h e t h r e e  w i t h i n each province  within  the  that  province that  function  of  ratings  i n each  country  ( T a b l e s 41 a n d between  the  i n each c o u n t r y as w e l l as  Respondents employed i n both  organization  public  statistically  role-conflict  clientele  their  were  and each s t a t e  was  and s t a t e .  there  expects  relations  more  that than  they their  c l i e n t e l e do. Over 82 p e r c e n t o f t h e a g e n t s e m p l o y e d i n b o t h m o d e l s 'much o r some' t i m e p e r f o r m i n g p u b l i c 15).  There  was  no  a  relation  statistically  functions  significant  spent (Table  difference  17.2  b e t w e e n t h e A m e r i c a n a n d C a n a d i a n a g e n t s on t h e this  function In  public  (Table  summary, relations  which t h e i r  respondents f u n c t i o n as  agents rated  organization  first.  one  each of  to their  and c l i e n t e l e  clientele  their  ratings  (Table  significant  of  organization,  to  importance their  the  perceived the  important  The  functions  county  of  this  extension function  to  as second, and t o themselves as agriculturalists  organization  one-way ANOVA a n a l y s e s  statistically  country  the importance  In comparison, the d i s t r i c t  The no  in  and i d e a s :  f u n c t i o n as second t o t h e i r first  on  e x p e c t them t o p e r f o r m .  Source of i n f o r m a t i o n  their  spent  44, i n Appendix I I ) .  organizations  agricultural  time  rated  this  and t o themselves,-  and  46, i n A p p e n d i x I I ) . results  revealed  that  there  were  d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n a n y g r o u p s on of  clientele  this  function  to  and t o t h e m s e l v e s  their  (Tables 30,  33, 3 5 , 37 a n d 46, i n A p p e n d i x I I ) . The  ANOVAR  analysis  results  show  that  there  statistically  significant  d i f f e r e n c e s among t h e t h r e e  Alberta  i n Canada  as  United  and States  extension  as a whole.  workers  and  their  organization  organization  whole. that of  i n Washington  or  their  organizations  information  and i d e a s  the  i n A l b e r t a and i n  the United  Thus, these suggest t h a t a l l t h e  and t h e  between  Canada a s a w h o l e , a s w e l l a s b e t w e e n t h e e x t e n s i o n their  ratings i n  a whole, and i n Washington  T h e r e was r o l e - c o n f l i c t  were  workers  and  States  as a  respondents  perceive  e x p e c t them t o p e r f o r m l e s s a s a s o u r c e t h a n do t h e i r  clientele  (Tables  41 a n d  173  46,  i n Appendix  importance  I I ) . There  of t h i s  individual  was r o l e a g r e e m e n t on t h e p e r c e i v e d  f u n c t i o n t o t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n s , c l i e n t e l e and  e x t e n s i o n workers  i n B r i t i s h Columbia  O v e r 95 p e r c e n t o f t h e C a n a d i a n 'much  or  ideas  some'  time  between  t i m e s p e n t on t h i s So,  was  function  and  to  a  lesser  assessment,  thus  a  statistically  and the American  extension  organizational  performance)  agents  spent  significant a g e n t s on t h e  (Table 44). workers  employed  in  both  models c o n s i d e r s e r v i n g as s o u r c e s of  i n f o r m a t i o n a n d i d e a s a s one (role  no  the Canadian  the a g r i c u l t u r a l  extension  and American  p e r f o r m i n g as sources of i n f o r m a t i o n and  ( T a b l e 1 5 ) . There  difference  and I d a h o .  of  their  major  responsibilities  and they a l s o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e i r extent  their  almost  employers,  a l l the  agree  respondents  clientele, with  this  perform  the  funct ion. S t u d e n t : The d i s t r i c t of  this  tenth,  function  to their  and  their  to  agriculturalists organization  clientele  county e x t e n s i o n a g r i c u l t u r a l tenth to their 46,  rated the importance  and  to  as t w e l f t h .  agents  themselves  as  In contrast, the  r a t e d t h e same f u n c t i o n  o r g a n i z a t i o n , c l i e n t e l e , and t o t h e m s e l v e s  as  (Table  i n Appendix I I ) . The  one-way  statistically Canadian  ANOVA  significant  agents,  and  analyses  revealed  d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e  between t h e d i s t r i c t  A l b e r t a and t h e county e x t e n s i o n a g r i c u l t u r a l their  that  r a t i n g s o f i m p o r t a n c e on t h i s  function  there American  were and  agriculturalists in agents  i n I d a h o on  t o themselves.  The  174  county extension a g r i c u l t u r a l importance of t h i s district  function  a g e n t s i n Idaho tended t o r a t e t h e  t o themselves higher  agriculturalists  in  agents  Accordingly,  (Tables  30,  i t appears that  t o themselves higher 37  and  46,  in  useful  improvement. greater  for  However  degree  the  appear  ANOVAR  statistically Canada,  in  whole. Idaho,  significant Idaho,  for  extension  workers  in  consider  results  i n Washington  than  their  indicate  same  they  function  believe  expect  agreement singly  this  the  to  a  student  there  were  among t h e t h r e e r a t i n g s i n  and t h e i r  i n Idaho,  clientele.  Washington  they perform t h i s  them  to  perform. gave a  organization  clientele function  in  would  in Alberta  alters;  and  function  in more  S i m i l a r l y , the  higher  rating  and t o t h e m s e l v e s  give.  The  There  and i n B r i t i s h  was  to than role  Columbia,  ( T a b l e s 41 a n d 46, i n A p p e n d i x I I ) .  The agents  on  to their  their  Idaho  and i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s as a  Canadian e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r s as a whole the  professional  that  and i n A m e r i c a as a whole  perceive that  alters  learning  c o n f l i c t between t h e e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r s i n  e x t e n s i o n workers  A m e r i c a as a whole  a  performing  as w e l l as between t h e C a n a d i a n a g e n t s and t h e i r agricultural  the  counterparts in Alberta.  differences  i n Washington,  T h e r e was r o l e  as  facts  to  analysis  than  Appendix I I ) .  acquiring  f u n c t i o n more i m p o r t a n t t h a n do t h e i r The  agents  t h e C a n a d i a n more t h a n t h e A m e r i c a n  agents consider performing the student function experience  d i d the  A l b e r t a ; and t h e Canadian  t e n d e d t o r a t e t h e same f u n c t i o n American  than  data i n Table employed  15 show t h a t  over  74.5  percent  of  the  i n b o t h models spent time as s t u d e n t s l e a r n i n g  175  new i d e a s . between this  There  the  Canadian  function The  and American  analyses i n d i c a t e that  workers  those  government  employed  in  the  f u n c t i o n more i m p o r t a n t t h a n t h e i r summary, t h e r o l e  university  were  and  clientele  employed i n  explored  clientele In  the  do,  more and  do.  in this  performance  the  of the  government  section.  p e r c e p t i o n s of  the following extension functions to t h e i r  their  model  model c o n s i d e r t h e s t u d e n t  employed i n both models r e p o r t e d t h e i r of  clientele  p e r c e p t i o n and r o l e  e x t e n s i o n workers models  i n the university  consider performing the student function organization  agricultural  difference  a g e n t s on t h e t i m e s p e n t on  important than both t h e i r  In  significant  ( T a b l e 44, i n A p p e n d i x I I ) .  overall  extension  was no a s t a t i s t i c a l l y  The  and  agents  importance  organization,  to  and t o t h e m s e l v e s .  university  model,  the American  extension  workers  perform as: - agricultural administrators to  to  credit  to a lesser  and  emergency  degree  measures  programs  than t h e i r  alters  expect  them  - student t o a g r e a t e r e x t e n t than t h e i r  alters  expect  them  perform.  perform. - a d v i s e r / c o n s u l t a n t and s o u r c e of i n f o r m a t i o n and i d e a s t o  a g r e a t e r e x t e n t than t h e i r - adult educator, officer perform.  o r g a n i z a t i o n expect  program  planner  t o a greater extent than t h e i r  and  them t o p e r f o r m . public  clientele  relations  e x p e c t them t o  176  -  i n s p e c t i o n  s u p e r v i s o r  of  e x p e c t  t o  them  In  the  p e r f o r m -  to  m o d e l ,  of  e x p e c t s  s o u r c e  of  a d u l t  p u b l i c  c l i e n t e l e  d e g r e e  than  them  C a n a d i a n  t h e i r  and  c l i e n t e l e  e x t e n s i o n  e x p e c t  t h e i r  r a n k i n g  of  government  them  t o  to  w o r k e r s  than  t h e i r  a l t e r s  and  them  them  to  a  o f f i c e r  t o  l e s s e r  p e r f o m .  l e s s e r  i d e a s to  d e g r e e  than  to  to  a  g r e a t e r  e x t e n t  a d m i n i s t r a t o r , to  a  p r o g r a m  g r e a t e r  p r o g r a m  a d m i n i s t r a t o r  to  them  to  p e r f o m .  w o r k e r s  e m p l o y e d  in  b o t h  m o d e l s  on  of  the  e x t e n s i o n  model  1.  emergency  2.  i n s p e c t i o n  a  t h e i r  few  c l i e n t e l e  r o l e - c o n f l i c t .  and  to  T h e s e  a r e : m e a s u r e s a c t s  p l a n n e r , than  p e r f o r m .  e x p e c t  no  than  e x t e n t  c l i e n t e l e  i n d i c a t e s  t h e i r  p e r f o r m .  s t u d e n t  c r e d i t  i m p o r t a n c e  a  p e r f o r m .  and  o r g a n i z a t i o n ,  w h i c h  e x t e n t  e n f o r c e m e n t  p r o g r a m  o f f i c e r  e x t e n s i o n  t h e i r  g r o u p s  e x p e c t s  a g r i c u l t u r a l  The  f i n d i n g  than  g r e a t e r  e x p e c t  e d u c a t o r ,  r e l a t i o n s  -  to  i n f o r m a t i o n  o r g a n i z a t i o n -  the  r e g u l a t i o n s  a l t e r s  o r g a n i z e r  -  d e g r e e  l e s s e r  o r g a n i z e r  p e r f o r m .  t h e i r  o r g a n i z a t i o n  the  a  and  a s :  than  -  to  to  o f f i c e r  p e r f o r m .  a g r i c u l t u r a l  d e g r e e  same  e v e n t s  government  them  -  t h e i r  e n f o r c e m e n t  a d v i s e r / c o n s u l t a n t  e x p e c t  t h e i r  a c t s  p r o g r a m  e n f o r c e m e n t  a d m i n i s t r a t o r o f f i c e r  a  l e s s e r  p e r c e i v e d  the  f u n c t i o n s  t h e m s e l v e s , f u n c t i o n s  a f o r  177  3.  facilitator  or s e r v i c e agents  4. o r g a n i z e r a n d s u p e r v i s o r o f And  events  f o r t h e u n i v e r s i t y model t h e f u n c t i o n s a r e : 1. a g r i c u l t u r a l  r e g u l a t i o n s enforcement  officer  2. o r g a n i z e r o f g r o u p s 3.  facilitator  or s e r v i c e agent  4. p r o g r a m a d m i n i s t r a t o r One  notes  an a c c e p t a b l e  that  'facilitator  extension  models f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l  role  or s e r v i c e agent'  function  f o r both  seems t o be  organizational  extension s e r v i c e .  Summary  Methods and S o u r c e s of I n f o r m a t i o n More  of the county extension a g r i c u l t u r a l  be members i n p r o f e s s i o n a l s o c i e t i e s a n d r e a d or  other  research  publications  agents tended t o  research  than  the  journals district  agriculturalists. The  extension workers  consider source  employed  in  the  government  model  t h e P r o v i n c i a l Department of A g r i c u l t u r e as t h e i r  of r e s e a r c h  information,  university  model  consider  main source  of research  while  the  those  employed  main  i n the  Land-Grant U n i v e r s i t y as t h e i r  information.  E x t e n s i o n Methods and T e c h n i q u e s The university  agricultural model  extension  use a wider  workers  variety  employed  o f methods a n d  in  the  techniques  178  than  their  c o u n t e r p a r t s employed i n the government  findings  indicate  that  extension  u n i v e r s i t y model a p p a r e n t l y effectively  teach  Extension Role Although models  their  'facilitator The with other  know more methods and  clientele  t o a d o p t new  in  the  techniques  to  practices.  e x t e n s i o n workers employed i n both o r g a n i z a t i o n a l role-conflict  or both  seem t o a g r e e  employed  The  Functions  perceived  clientele  workers  model.  on  their  on most o f t h e e x t e n s i o n their  perceptions  or s e r v i c e agent'  summary  with  and  of  or  f u n c t i o n s , they  role-conflict  on  function.  c o n c l u s i o n s of t h i s  be p r e s e n t e d  role no  i s s u e s t h a t h a v e been i d e n t i f i e d  discussion, w i l l  organization,  i n the next  investigation, i n the course  chapter.  along of  the  179  CHAPTER VII  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS T h i s chapter through  a  draws  summary  of  purpose of the study,  note are a l s o  the  the  presented  research d e s i g n ,  An overview, l i m i t a t i o n s recommendations  together  for  and  further  previous material.  six  chapters  I t covers the  f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s .  implications research  of  the  study  and  as w e l l as a c o n c l u d i n g  presented.  Purpose Agricultural provided  extension  either  directly  services by  in  North  government  America departments  a g r i c u l t u r e , or by c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s i n c o o p e r a t i o n of  agriculture.  The  are of with  government  departments  structures  may be d e s c r i b e d as the government model, i n Canada,  and  the u n i v e r s i t y model, i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s .  of  agricultural  responsibility. the  Government,  extension  service  in  organizational  The  Canada i s a p r o v i n c i a l  I t i s organized w i t h i n an executive the  provision  M i n i s t r y of A g r i c u l t u r e .  branch  of  The Cooperative  Extension S e r v i c e i n the United S t a t e s i s a c o o p e r a t i v e l y funded and managed arrangement  in  which  the  Federal  Department  of  A g r i c u l t u r e , the Land-Grant U n i v e r s i t i e s , and county governments are  partners.  It  i s an  integral  part  of  the  Land-Grant  U n i v e r s i t i e s system. The  government and the  university  models  for organizing  180  agricultural  extension s e r v i c e s have been i n use  century  North  in  variety  of  within  systems  America.  problems  related  that  extension how  responsibilities  has  extension  of  employed  agricultural  agricultural university  unexplored. carries  i n the two  the  extension  It out  is his  of what h i s farmers  to explore the d i f f e r e n c e s in extension  kinds of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l models for  services.  More  specifically,  the  i n t h i s study were:  differences workers  between  in  the  the  positions  government  and  of the  models?  2. What  is  the  relative  importance of d i f f e r e n t  p r o f e s s i o n a l development i n the two 3. What e f f e c t s for  individual  r o l e performance of a g r i c u l t u r a l  extension  are  gone  the  him.  research q u e s t i o n s addressed 1 . What  of  to do and by what the  purpose of t h i s study was  r o l e p e r c e p t i o n s and  work  differential  i s i n f l u e n c e d by h i s understanding  he seeks to serve expect  workers  extension  extension' o r g a n i z a t i o n  worker  employing o r g a n i z a t i o n expects him  The  investigated a  However, the  r o l e performance  worker  an  have  agricultural  forms of a g r i c u l t u r a l  on the r o l e p e r c e p t i o n and  assumed  to  based on each model.  e f f e c t of these two  agricultural  Researchers  f o r over h a l f a  performing  models?  does an extension  regulatory  kinds of  worker's  functions  responsibility  have  on  his  role  government  and  performance? 4. What university  are  the  differences  between  models with regard to extension workers':  a. s e l e c t i o n  of a d u l t education methods and  techniques?  181  b. scope of e d u c a t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ? c. i n t e r e s t  i n research?  d. i n t e r e s t  i n kinds of p r o f e s s i o n a l upgrading?  e. membership i n p r o f e s s i o n a l s o c i e t i e s ? f. reading  interests?  Research  Design  T h i s study used r o l e theory as the conceptual examining  extension  workers'  in  systems  which  university  models.  It  are  represented by  government  reasonable  assume that an extension worker takes account  to  and  roles  framework for  the p e r c e p t i o n s of the o f t e n  conflicting  expectations  seems  of  his  o r g a n i z a t i o n and c l i e n t e l e v i s a v i s h i s r o l e and determines much  weight  he  performance.  will  give  them  in  deciding  his  Role theory as conceived by Parsons  because i t e x p l i c i t l y  own  was  of  how role  selected  r e c o g n i z e s these m u l t i p l e e x p e c t a t i o n s  and  g i v e s emphasis to them. The  variables  studied  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , agents' of  methods  regulatory  and  p r o f e s s i o n a l development,  responsibilities,  data  were  agents'  and Washington.  The  agents'  use  methods  and  extension r o l e f u n c t i o n s . obtained  84 county  personal  a t t i t u d e toward  choice . of  through  completed by 69 d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s Columbia, and  agents'  sources of i n f o r m a t i o n , agents'  techniques, and agents' The  include  a  mail  questionnaire  i n A l b e r t a and  e x t e n s i o n a g r i c u l t u r a l agents  in  British Idaho  e f f e c t i v e r e t u r n rate f o r the q u e s t i o n n a i r e  182  was  79.7  percent.  (a)  take  into  account  researcher  who  take  account  into  agricultural s t a t e s , and  These p r o v i n c e s and  is  the  s t a t e s were s e l e c t e d to  geographical  proximity  to  the  l o c a t e d i n Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia, any  differences  extension  services  (c) minimize  the  in  administration  between provinces.and  cost  and  time  to  (b) of  between  conduct  the  research. The  data  were  analyzed u s i n g the UBC  for S o c i a l Sciences to produce v a r i o u s chi-squares  to  examine  the  descriptive  relationship  c o n t r a s t s of group means;  and  dependent  statistics;  ANOVA  analysis  to  among independent groups with o p t i o n s f o r  means  ANOVAR  Package  degree of a s s o c i a t i o n ; t - t e s t f o r  t e s t i n g d i f f e r e n c e s of group means; one-way examine  Statistical  and  analysis  multiple to  comparisons  examine  of  group  relationships  among  ( w i t h i n group) v a r i a b l e s .  Findings The  extension workers employed i n the u n i v e r s i t y model were  o l d e r than t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s employed i n the government model. The  higher percentages  category the  of extension workers in the youngest  i n A l b e r t a and B r i t i s h Columbia may  r e l a t i v e l y higher turnover  in these p r o v i n c e s than The shorter  be accounted  r a t e of people  in the two  age  for by  i n t h i s age  group  states.  extension workers employed i n the government model  had  tenure  the  e x t e n s i o n workers  and  were  employed  newer in  to the  extension university  work model.  than  These  183  findings  may  turnover  have  been  due,  at l e a s t  r a t e among t h e y o u n g e s t age  comparison motivate  to  the s t a t e s .  the  extension  in  A l s o the u n i v e r s i t y environment  may  workers  the s i t u a t i o n  to  with  longer  tenure  model  counterparts  employment.  The  qualifications employment,  improve  their  extension role,  leading  and  had  possessed in  which  their  associated counterparts  the  e x t e n s i o n workers employed i n  the  h i g h e r academic q u a l i f i c a t i o n s  than  government  university  than  been  model.  More of t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l  their  their  to  t h e i r c u r r e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n than  employed i n the government  university  seek  i n which the e x t e n s i o n workers employed i n the  u n i v e r s i t y model had longer  group i n the  higher  provinces  p r o f e s s i o n a l competence t o p e r f o r m to  i n p a r t , to the  model  model  at  requires  the  government  model  is  consistent  with  the  higher at  of  academic  the  the  time  time  of  investigator's  expectation. No  respondents  had  specialized  e i t h e r c o u n t r y at the time work. in  i t was  expected  extension in  s t a r t e d working  in extension  that extension workers  t h e u n i v e r s i t y model w o u l d have s p e c i a l i z e d  their in  Although  t h e y had  in agricultural  the  the  and  sciences.  The  agricultural  extension hired  of  results  in  this  study  support  assumption t h a t the e x t e n s i o n workers employed i n the  government model would major  areas  in extension  c o u n t e r p a r t s employed i n the government model have majored  specialized agriculture,  only  employed  two  specialization  in  kinds  other of  their  areas  of  agricultural  organizational extension  in agriculture  workers  r a t h e r than  models  for  from  a l l  restricting  184  their  employment p o l i c y  specialized  i n a g r i c u l t u r a l e x t e n s i o n or  Although professional workers' the  there  seems  role  This higher  university,  opportunities  in an  of  agriculture.  service  to  institution  be  maintain  areas.  extension  i n both models,  in  the  due  university  to the  its  fact  high  that  academic  higher  learning,  p r o v i d e s more  encouragement  for  continuous  professional  extension  workers  results  w o r k e r s employed i n the studies  of  had  continuous  agricultural  s u p p o r t may  order  its  The  graduate  improve the  of  related  encouragement f o r  somewhat s t r o n g e r  level  and  development  be  closely  performance i n extension  e x p e c t a t i o n s as  of  to  development to  s u p p o r t a p p e a r s t o be  model. a  t o o n l y t h o s e e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r s who  also  indicate  university  than the  than  a  that  department more  extension  model h a v e c o m p l e t e d  programs  e x t e n s i o n workers employed i n  government model, which i s c o n s i s t e n t  with  the  of  the  investigator's  expectation. Extension be the  the  education  p r i m a r y a r e a s of  g o v e r n m e n t and  extension  specialize adult  w i t h the  workers  agriculture  for professional  models,  to  development  in  respectively,  assumption.  employed  appear  i n the  I t was  a  finding  expected  university  specialized  while  their  agriculture of  in  information.  counterparts  order  Although  e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r s i n the  university  interested  training  in  further  to  assume the  model in  would their  results were  extension  not  that  model w o u l d  i n e x t e n s i o n b e c a u s e t h e y m i g h t assume t h e i r r o l e  educators,  providers  specialized  interest  university  which i s i n c o n s i s t e n t the  and  as  major  in  role  as  show  that  primarily  education,  the  185  result an  may be e x p l a i n e d by t h e f a c t  emerging  thus  field  extension  inclined areas  of  training  an  the  in  the  in  the  own c o u n t r y .  university This  p a r t of r e s i d e n t i a l  establishment  extension  of  many o f t h e l a n d - g r a n t  Because  established  the  programs  extension workers tend  their  their further  i s consistent  upgrading  with  extension i s  which  government  universities  while  universities  instruction  summer s c h o o l t r a i n i n g such  more  took  finding  professional  w o r k e r s more t h a n  extension  model m i g h t be  outside their country,  assumption that i n the land-grant integral  the  programs and  e x t e n s i o n workers employed i n t h e government  employed  in their  studies  is  sciences.  further training  counterparts  in university  workers employed i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y  of a g r i c u l t u r a l  model took  the  of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n  t o pursue graduate  Most  that extension education  necessitates programs  model.  for  Moreover,  have e s t a b l i s h e d t h r e e  programs f o r e x t e n s i o n  weeks  workers.  a r e few i n C a n a d a , most o f t h e C a n a d i a n t o take  these  short courses  i n the United  States. The  e x t e n s i o n workers employed i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y  stronger negative model c o n c e r n i n g on  their  views than the e f f e c t s  e d u c a t i o n a l work.  t h e A m e r c i a n a g e n t s w o u l d be the  do t h o s e  working  of p e r f o r m i n g While  i n the  government  r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s has  i t h a d been a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t  negatively  predisposed  regarding  performance of r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s because of t h e i r  of s e p a r a t i n g r e g u l a t i o n a n d e d u c a t i o n , that  model h a v e  the  Canadian  i t h a d been  tradition  anticipated  a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s would have p e r c e i v e d  r e g u l a t o r y and e d u c a t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s  as  their  complementary.  186  However,  members  of  both  groups  reported  that  t h e y saw  i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y b e t w e e n p e r f o r m i n g t h e two  functions,  American  a  extension  perception. Amercian  There  and  performance tenth  workers were  the  of r e g u l a t o r y  claimed  that  appears  to  reached  1938  perform  clearly  t h a t agents would  without  their  employing  be  in  the  by v a r i o u s  other  inspection  and  distinguishing previously  such  of  the  feature  between  is  the  two  of  the  journals  counterparts  extension  or  employed  consistent  institution its  be  duties  involved  i n the workers  t h e y s p e n t no  the  time  performed  performance  such  models  w o r k e r s employed  m o d e l t e n d e d t o be members o f p r o f e s s i o n a l  are  not  a as  of  c l e a r cut had  been  reported.  More  research  agreements  official  extension  not  which  i t seems h i g h l y  i n s t e a d t o h a v e them  duties  one-  claim  shall  becoming  Accordingly  regulatory  a  they  government model s a i d t h a t  officials.  the  About  as the n a t i o n a l  assigned  p e r f o r m i n g such d u t i e s , a r r a n g i n g  the  i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y model  Furthermore  In c o n t r a s t , almost h a l f  negative  regarding  duties,  organization  the  both  duties.  state that  such d u t i e s .  unlikely  decision.  inspection  inasmuch  for  workers  workers employed  be q u e s t i o n a b l e  to  employed  extension  and  stornger  findings  t h e y were p e r f o r m i n g s u c h  i n 1919 and  required  unexpected  Canadian  of t h e e x t e n s i o n  reporting  with  an  research  societies  and  read  p u b l i c a t i o n s than  their  i n the government model.  with  of h i g h e r  extension  other  the  assumption  l e a r n i n g , may  workers  to  have  i n the u n i v e r s i t y  These  findings  t h a t a u n i v e r s i t y , as  have h i g h e r membership  expectations in  an for  professional  187  societies to date  and  to read  r e s e a r c h p u b l i c a t i o n s so a s  i n t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n s than  The workers  main  source  employed  University,  and  government  in for  model,  of  These f i n d i n g s are  research  the  model  counterparts  Provincial  consistent  up  agriculture.  information  university  their  the  a department of  to remain  for  extension  i s the  Land-Grant  employed  in  the  Department of A g r i c u l t u r e .  with  the  assumptions  for  the  models. More  of  the  e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r s employed i n the  model t e n d e d t o use  various types  of methods and  t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s employed i n the finding more t h a n extension  The  workers  to perform  as a d u l t e d u c a t o r s ,  t o know more methods and  techniques  agricultural  extension workers are  organization  worlds,  i f not  alters,  thus  conflict  r e f e r s to the  perceives  and  clientele,  do.  The  university, expects  and  the  thus  to teach  they their  leading  his  to  or  agricultural  both  who  on any  to  link  interests.  In t h i s  i n which the  performance  have  Their  the e x p e c t a t i o n s of  role-conflict.  situation  job  men-in-the-middle,  reconcile conflicting  is  p e r c e p t i o n of t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s o f e i t h e r  perceived  than  t o a d o p t new p r a c t i c e s .  r o l e p e r f o r m a n c e s m i g h t be a f f e c t e d by  clientele  model  the p r o v i n c i a l department of a g r i c u l t u r e ,  between t h e i r different  techniques  i s i n harmony w i t h t h e e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t t h e  are expected clientele  government  university  his  of t h e e x t e n s i o n  study  extension  incompatible  their roleworker  with  organization,  role  functions.  e x t e n s i o n workers employed i n the government  role-conflict  on  his  ten of the e x t e n s i o n  functions.  or The  model Six  188  of the c o n f l i c t s organization In  were  and  with  two  contrast, their  their  with both  clientele,  clientele,  Five  of  the  their  groups.  Both  the  perceived  fewer c o n f l i c t s w i t h t h e i r  degree  than  organization  A m e r i c a n and  they d i d w i t h t h e i r  they  identify  on  by e i t h e r  g r o u p of e x t e n s i o n  both  groups,  with  model  different with  three  their  with  both  workers  organzations  that  than  suggests  organizations to a  their  clientele. f u n c t i o n s was  these greater  No  role  perceived  workers.  findings indicate  there  and  finding  f o u r of the e x t e n s i o n r o l e  the  in  were  employing  with their  conflict  Although,  clientele.  the Canadian e x t e n s i o n  clientele, a  identify  but  role-conflicts  with  educators  their  c o u n t e r p a r t s employed i n the u n i v e r s i t y  two  adult  with  t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n and  p e r c e i v e d t h e same number o f r o l e - c o n f l i c t s , proportions.  two  these  were s t a t i s t i c a l l y  role-conflicts  for  significant differences  b e t w e e n t h e e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r s e m p l o y e d i n t h e g o v e r n m e n t and university  models  e x p e c t a t i o n s on  the  on  university  education  role  Although  model  view  institution  government assumptions  more  than  model. of  and  role  the e x t e n s i o n workers employed i n their  more t h a n  the government model, they d i d not educators  perceptions  following eight extension role functions.  Adult educator: the  their  the  the The  this  p r e v i o u s study conducted  organization  their  finding  study;  as  employed  inconsistent  however,  by M e t c a l f e  themselves  workers  is  an  adult  c o u n t e r p a r t s employed i n  identify  extension  as  with  adult i n the the  i t i s i n harmony w i t h a  (1965).  189  Adviser/Consultant; university behave as employed  model  Extension  perceived  that their  advisers/consultants in  the  government  employed i n the u n i v e r s i t y  model  clientele  and  time  as  counterparts  much  credit  workers  agricultural  credit  than  university  model  do.  literature  on  their they  The e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r s to  their  this  This  extension.  counterpart  they  in  the  government one  of  counterparts result  There  is  the function.  employed  'little'  time  in  their  spent  administration,  perform  extension  employed  consistent  this  difference  performing  this  model  them while  to  perform  their  perceived  i n the with  the  of the the reported  model d e c l a r e d  function. between  function.  counterparts  that  T h e r e was the  a  extension  m o d e l s on  the  Extension workers  that t h e i r  agricultural  that t h e i r  perform  W h e r e a s , 23.9 p e r c e n t o f  university  performing  significant  expect  university  model  w e r e 66.7 p e r c e n t  employed i n t h e government model p e r c e i v e d not  as t h e i r  Agricultural  w o r k e r s employed i n t h e government and u n i v e r s i t y  do  perceived  function  program a d m i n i s t r a t o r :  their  time performing  statistically  time  them t o  counterparts  w o r k e r s e m p l o y e d i n t h e g o v e r n m e n t m o d e l who  spent  the  t o behave as a d v i s e r / c o n s u l t a n t ,  program d u t i e s as  more  spending  expect  their  conform  performing  employed  functions  extension  than  in  employed i n t h e government model.  Agricultural extension  more  employed  clientele  model d i d .  expectations of t h e i r spend  workers  employers  credit  employed  employers expect  program in  the  them t o  t h e same f u n c t i o n .  Agricultural  r e g u l a t i o n s enforcement o f f i c e r :  Extension  190  w o r k e r s employed regulations functions  the  enforcement more  university the  in  than  model.  'some  and  or  enforcement  duties  one  the  52.6  p e r c e n t of  the  h a v e f o u n d a way  is  someone e l s e so t h a t any  done by  their the  extension  extension  spending  of  or  little'  with  the  l i t e r a t u r e on  significant spent  difference  performing  previously, the  this  these  p e r f o r m a n c e of  distinguishing  the  Similarly,  work  conflict  with  10.6  performing  was  percent  function.  As  has  d u t i e s may  not  inconsistent  the  time  they  alluded  to  to believe  that  been  be  reported  statistically  g r o u p s on  researcher  such a c l e a r  u n i v e r s i t y and  of  agricultural  a  two  f a c t o r between t h e  workers  regulatory  between the  f i n d i n g s l e a d the  their  spending  u n i v e r s i t y model  There  the  regulations  These f i n d i n g s a r e  extension.  regulatory  with  extension  anticipated  time  r e g u l a t i o n s enforcement d u t i e s .  in  them r e p o r t e d  insuring that  w o r k e r s employed i n the  extension  workers employed i n  agricultural  work i s e l i m i n a t e d .  'some  their  employed  remaining  apparently  agricultural  role-conflicts  performing and  view of  extension  experience  time  duties,  as  counterparts  Although  clientele,  little'  model  their  g o v e r n m e n t m o d e l do  employer  government  the  cut  government  models.  the  Facilitator  or  government  model  them t o p e r f o r m as counterparts extension perceived  s e r v i c e agent: Extension  facilitator  employed  workers their  perceive  i n the  employed  responsibility  or  that  their  workers employed organization  in  expects  s e r v i c e a g e n t more t h a n  u n i v e r s i t y m o d e l do. the  government  as p r o v i d e r s  of  in  their  More o f model  s e r v i c e s to  the have  their  191  clientele,  a  finding  t h a t i s i n harmony w i t h t h e  literature  on  extension. I n s p e c t i o n a c t s enforcement o f f i c e r : employed  in  the  enforcement duty their was  government  model  consider  t o be p a r t o f t h e i r  counterparts  no p e r c e i v e d  Extension  inspection  acts  r o l e p e r f o r m a n c e more  than  e m p l o y e d i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y m o d e l do.  role-conflict  and  46.6  percent  of t h e  w o r k e r s employed i n the government model r e p o r t e d or  little'  remaining  time  conflict expect  performing  extension  workers  Although  t h e r e was  functions.  inspection have  extension  to  perform  inspection  duties,  a s s u m p t i o n s of t h i s  a  finding  study  T h e r e was  a statistically  g r o u p s on  the  time  Organizer  they  and  Extension  as  counterparts  one  of  their  The  extension  m o d e l seem t o e n c o u r a g e organize people  and  the  of  performing  on  the  extension. two  this function.  the  extension  employed  organizer duties  of  groups  more t h a n This  their  finding  is  workers employed i n the  university  actively  of  people  a c t i o n a s a means of  helping  help  out  and  the  literature  to c a r r y  study  in  the  themselves for c o l l e c t i v e  t o h e l p t h e m s e l v e s and  percent  i n harmony w i t h  employed i n the government model.  extension.  who  d i f f e r e n c e between t h e  c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the a s s u m p t i o n s of t h i s on  clientele  time  workers  u n i v e r s i t y model c o n s i d e r p e r f o r m i n g function  their  literature  spent performing  of g r o u p s :  the  role-  t h a t i s not  significant  whereas  workers perceived  'little'  the  'some  these  and  spending  extension  t o assume  i n s p e c t i o n d u t i e s , 7.7  extension workers reported  There  spending  duties,  managed n o t  between the American a g e n t s them  workers  groups  various  phases  of  1 92  extension  work.  Student:  The  e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r s employed i n t h e government  model c o n s i d e r p e r f o r m i n g experience, than  the student  function  useful for acquiring facts  their  counterparts  as  a  learning  f o r teaching people,  more  employed i n the u n i v e r s i t y model.  The  e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r s employed i n t h e government model g e t the  research  information  outside their in  the  may  more  disseminate  to  farmers  for extension  than  their  research  that student  employed  information to This  f u n c t i o n i s seen as  w o r k e r s employed i n t h e  counterparts  of from  s t a t i o n s w i t h i n the u n i v e r s i t y .  e x p l a i n the fact  more i m p o r t a n t model  model  from the r e s e a r c h  situation  disseminate  o r g a n i z a t i o n , whereas t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s  university  farmers  they  most  government  employed i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y  model.  Conclusions The m a j o r c o n c l u s i o n s o f t h i s the  four research questions  study  are  agricultural university The extension  the  extension  centered  around  t h a t were e s t a b l i s h e d .  Research Question What  were  differences workers  in  1  between the  the  positions  government  and  of the  models?  study  d i d show d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e p o s i t i o n s o f t h e  workers  employed  in  the  government and  university  193  models on e i g h t of the fourteen  extension  extension  in  workers  agricultural  credit  facilitator important  or  extension  be  service  counterparts discussions  government  and  functions  in  the  extension employed  role in  than  university  view  do  model  more  their  S i m i l a r l y , the  and organizer  functions  the  model  student f u n c t i o n to be  more  adviser/consultant,  The  inspections,  i n the u n i v e r s i t y model.  workers employed  important  functions.  regulations,  function,  role  employed  educator,  the  programs,  extension  counterparts  adult  employed  role  of groups to  than  government model.  consider  do  their  The d e t a i l e d  are presented i n Chapter 6 and on pages 185  to  190  in Chapter 7. •  Research Question 2 What  is  the  relative  importance  of  d i f f e r e n t kinds of  p r o f e s s i o n a l development i n the two models? The  findings indicate  that  although  there  seems  to  be  encouragement f o r continuous p r o f e s s i o n a l development to improve the  agricultural  extension models,  extension  s e r v i c e i n both the  support  appears  u n i v e r s i t y than i n the indicate  that  appear to  be  development respectively.  important the  Findings  university to  government  extension  in  the  workers'  be  role  performance  and  the  government  somewhat stronger  model.  The  in  i n the  findings  also  education and s p e c i a l i z e d a g r i c u l t u r e areas  of  government  interest and  and d i s c u s s i o n s  for  professional  university  models,  are presented i n Chapter  194  5 and on pages 182  to 183  i n Chapter  7.  Research Question  3  What e f f e c t s does an extension worker's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y performing The  for  r e g u l a t o r y f u n c t i o n s have on h i s r o l e performance? findings  show  that  agricultural  extension  employed i n the u n i v e r s i t y model tended  to  their  government  counterparts  employed  r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s may  in  i n Chapter  The  detailed  5 and on pages 183  Research Question What  more  than  model  that  l e a d to r o l e c o n f l i c t and hence a f f e c t  extension workers' r o l e performance. are presented  the  believe  workers  to 184  the  discussions i n Chapter  7.  4  are the d i f f e r e n c e s between government and  university  models with regard to extension workers': a. s e l e c t i o n of a d u l t education methods and  techniques?  b. scope of e d u c a t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ? c. i n t e r e s t  i n research?  d. i n t e r e s t  i n kinds of p r o f e s s i o n a l upgrading?  e. membership i n p r o f e s s i o n a l s o c i e t i e s ? f. reading  interests?  Extension workers employed i n the u n i v e r s i t y wider  v a r i e t y of methods and techniques,  model  in  professional  a  read or look over more  r e s e a r c h j o u r n a l s or other r e s e a r c h p u b l i c a t i o n s , and have memberships  use  s o c i e t i e s than  their  more  counterparts  195  employed  in  model.  The  model  have  a  e d u c a t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , as s t i p u l a t e d  in  employed  Act  the  in  government  the  university  extension wider  of 1914, than t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s employed  model. were  The extension workers employed primarily  interested  in  extension  education  as  a  field  for  f i n d i n g s and d i s c u s s i o n s are presented  of  Smith-Lever  university  model  agriculture,  while  t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s i n the government model show in  scope  i n the government  in the  specialized  the  workers  major  interest  f u r t h e r study.  in Chapters 5 and  The  6  and  of  the  on pages 184 to 185 i n Chapter 7.  Summary There  were  differences  extension workers employed  in  between the  the  positions  government  and  university  models on e i g h t of the fourteen extension r o l e f u n c t i o n s . The  perceptions  of  the extension workers employed  two models i n d i c a t e that the u n i v e r s i t y model appears g r e a t e r encouragement  to  i n the offer  than the government model to i t s extension  workers to continue p r o f e s s i o n a l development i n order to improve their  role  performance.  government  and  importance  to  in  the  The extension workers employed university  models  appear  extension education and s p e c i a l i z e d  i n the  to  give  agriculture,  r e s p e c t i v e l y , f o r t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l development. The extension workers tended  to  government  employed  university  model  b e l i e v e more than t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s employed  i n the  model that performing  in  the  r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s may  lea:d  to  196  role conflict The  and  hence a f f e c t  extension  workers  role  employed  t e n d e d t o use more v a r i o u s t y p e s their  counterparts  extension a  employed  scope  counterparts  of  in  extension  i n North of these  extension  two  service  differences  in  agricultural  the  major  those  responsibilities  they  their  Overview university  models  for  The  researcher  forms way  of  f o r over  agricultural  purpose of  the  study  perceptions  and  r o l e p e r f o r m a n c e of  employed  in  extension was  to  two  worker explore  forms  four research questions  workers employed time performing not  established policy  were in  of  that the  to  university  perform  of the C o o p e r a t i v e  this  about  i n s p e c t i o n and  required  the of  extension services.  w o r k e r s employed i n the government model  findings  a  i n t e r e s t e d i n the  organizing  individual  half  The  workers  the  was  organizing  the  role  interesting  were  have  than  differed  employed i n the u n i v e r s i t y model w i t h r e g a r d  answers t o the  spending  The  on  extension  Extension  extension  than  t h e g o v e r n m e n t m o d e l do.  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l models f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l  The  techniques  s e r v i c e s h a v e been i n use  America.  performs h i s r o l e .  from  model  employed i n the government model.  g o v e r n m e n t and  agricultural  effect  the u n i v e r s i t y  of methods and  educational  An  century  in  w o r k e r s e m p l o y e d i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y m o d e l seem t o  wider  The  performance.  to  the  investigation. one-tenth model  of  the  reported  r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s , which according  Extension  to  Service.  a  long  197  . S i m i l a r l y , about h a l f of the  government  regulatory  duties.  alternative someone  model  way a  literature.  reported  not  insuring  finding  These  regulatory  extension  Apparently  of  else,  the  that  results  feature  During staff  the  at headquarters,  and  district  The  two  during  in  his  services  both  visits  the  district  participation Although,  of c l i e n t e l e the  level  structures inception are  the the  being gradually  agricultural  district  or  the  or  the  regional their  own  regional  in  service.  and  two  researcher  programs  most  decentralization  of  (2)  the  and  programs.  clientele service  m a n d a t e s and  The  states.  organization,  the  extension  the  several  directors  extension  extension  implemented  regional  levels,  of  primary  extension  the  struck  Cooperative Extension  of  reported  with  extension  (1)  were:  university  extension  decentralization  of  agricultural  were  in of  of  cut  university  been  met  provinces  which  in  has  researcher  two  participation  decentralization district  the  i n the  systems,  clear  of  workers.  concepts  field  at  s e r v i c e s as  visits,  supervisors,  a  by the  performance  such  an  done  with  g o v e r n m e n t and  i n c l u d i n g many o f  fundamental  prevalent  be  the  of e x t e n s i o n  field  the  and  find  are  inconsistent  not  between  to  duties  that  in  inspection  able  these  show  models f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l e x t e n s i o n in previous studies  were  is  r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s may  distinguishing  performing  they  which  workers employed  the  at  the  organizational  system  Service,  and  since  the p r i n c i p l e s  government  model  primary reasons for and  the  services  at  for the the  l e v e l s were t o e n c o u r a g e t h e p a r t i c i p a t i o n  198  of  clientele  in  planning  e x t e n s i o n p r o g r a m s and services  to  'helping  The  to  help  in their  to  or  supervisor  the  for  agricultural  own  the  of  from  extension worker.  themselves',  clientele. the  expectations  lives,  which  is  on  participation  a l s o be  director  conflict the  relationship  p o l i c i e s and and  a  likelihood  or  district  is  f o r the e x t e n s i o n  have a  likely  programs, thereby  enhancing  consistent  role for  the  clientele  in  of  implementation  facilitates  will  to  reducing  participation  t h a t they  way  extension  s u p e r v i s o r or r e g i o n a l d i r e c t o r  Similarly,  the  service.  l o c a l e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r so t h a t t h e y This  and  d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n can  b e t w e e n t h e e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r and  reduce the  own  extension  The  regional  p r o g r a m p l a n n i n g and  cooperation  own  extension  r o l e - c o n f l i c t s b e t w e e n an  relationship.  likelihood  extension  their  e x t e n s i o n p r o g r a m s may  eliminate  discussion  expectations  also  help  together  and  c l o s e r working involve  control  to  h i s e m p l o y e r and bring  their  concept brings a  of d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n of s e r v i c e s and  minimize  w o r k e r and  'participation'  s u b j e c t s who  foundation  concepts  of c l i e n t e l e  The  people  philosophical  of  p e r s p e c t i v e to a g r i c u l t u r a l development  t r e a t s the c l i e n t e l e as i.e.  implementation  to ensure e f f e c t i v e d e l i v e r y of  clientele.  more p e o p l e - c e n t e r e d  and  clientele,  close  and  may  hold c o n f l i c t i n g  role  worker.  L i m i t a t ions The  ability  restricted  by  the  t o g e n e r a l i z e the  r e s u l t s of t h i s  following factors.  research  is  199  The  first  limitation  was t h e u s e o f a g r i c u l t u r a l  workers from l i m i t e d g e o g r a p h i c a l a r e a s .  The c o l l e c t i o n o f d a t a  f r o m t h e e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r s i n t h e two a d j a c e n t adjacent were  of  the  This l i m i t s  the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of  results. A further limitation  the  resulted  from t h e  i n s p e c t i o n and r e g u l a t i o n q u e s t i o n s .  instrumentation  The e x t e n s i o n  employed i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y model r e p o r t e d t h a t they performing not  list  i n s p e c t i o n and r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s .  local  d u t i e s , such  fairs,  registering  as animal  as  regulatory  duties.  i n s p e c t i o n as h a v i n g  any  inspection responsibilities.  not  Moreover,  w o r k e r s may h a v e c o n s i d e r e d a g r i c u l t u r a l and  some  be  the  checking s t o c k and strictly extension  r e g u l a t i o n s enforcement  t h e same m e a n i n g when t h e y d i d n o t l i s t This study a l s o i n d i c a t e s that  t h e e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r s e m p l o y e d i n t h e two o r g a n i z a t i o n a l see  that  their  performing  educational  believe  that  effort,  regulatory  the e f f e c t s of performing  determine  educational the  most  models  r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s h a s a n e g a t i v e e f f e c t on which  leads  the  investigator  to  r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o u g h t t o be d i v o r c e d  f r o m e d u c a t i o n a l work i n o r d e r  worker's  time  regulatory  of purebred  p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t i o n s , w h i c h may  considered  workers  spent  h e a l t h requirements  measuring weaning weights  of  However, they d i d  any i n s p e c t i o n r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s e x c e p t  enforcement for  respondents  t h e p o p u l a t i o n of e x t e n s i o n workers i n  o t h e r p r o v i n c e s and s t a t e s . the  p r o v i n c e s a n d two  s t a t e s d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y mean t h a t  representative  extension  to avoid r o l e - c o n f l i c t .  regulatory  effectiveness effective  ways  duties has  on  not  of  the  However, extension  been a s s e s s e d t o  facilitating  the  200  performance of the e d u c a t i o n a l In  addition,  extension  workers  regulatory had  no  in  the  be remembered t h a t United  educational  duties  role.  performance  with  hand, the  the  impact  work  extension performing  a p p e a r s t o h a v e on t h e i r c l i e n t e l e ' s a c c e p t a n c e o f Accordingly,  to  of  same  experiential  of  i s , they  i n f l u e n c e of such  On t h e o t h e r  them a s e d u c a t o r s .  perfectly  the  f o r most o f t h e  i n c a r r y i n g o u f s u c h d u t i e s and h e n c e  w o r k e r s i n C a n a d a were a c q u a i n t e d  the  States  t r y i n g to p r e d i c t the p o s s i b l e  their  such  functions.  a n d i n s p e c t i o n d u t i e s was h y p o t h e t i c a l , t h a t  a c t u a l experience  were o n l y on  i t must  and r e g u l a t o r y  set bases,  a l t h o u g h both groups  questions,  thereby  they  yielding  responded  d i d so f r o m answers  difference  that  were  not  comparable.  Implicat ions The f i n d i n g s o f t h i s insights,  i n v e s t i g a t i o n , together  s u g g e s t some i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r e x t e n s i o n .  While  the  tasks  of  the  a p p e a r t o be c l e a r l y a s s o c i a t e d respondents  were  a g r i c u l t u r e than  study  as  agricultural with  interested  in  areas  education.  clientele.  1 9 6 5 ) , some e x t e n s i o n informal  c o n c e i v e of e d u c a t i o n  adult  most of  of  the  that  they  but as p r o v i d e r s  According w o r k e r s do  in  workers  specialized  I t appears  educators  as t a k i n g p l a c e  extension  education,  f u n c t i o n not as e d u c a t o r s ,  services to t h e i r  (Metcalfe,  themselves  more  i n extension  saw t h e i r p r i m a r y technical  with r e s u l t i n g  because the  of  to a  previous  not  identify  t h e y do n o t  natural  societal  201  s e t t i n g .  Such  w o r k e r s '  j o b  on  p r o f e s s o r s  to  i m p r o v e  T h i s  a  t h e i r  of  e x t e n s i o n  c o n c e p t i o n  About  of  model  p e r f o r m i n g  r e g u l a t o r y  were  p e r f o r m e d  c o n f l i c t t i m e l y  w i t h  t h a t  e x t e n s i o n B r i t i s h  have  f i n d by  w o r k e r s  i n t e r f e r i n g of  the  e v i d e n t l y  p o l i c y r e a c h e d  t h a t in  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  a d u l t  as  p r o g r a m s  e d u c a t i o n .  might t h e y  l e a d  to  c a r r y  out  so  p r i o r i t y  the  to  even  t h a t  was  of  to  a l t e r n a t e  any  of  the  time  a n t i c i p a t e d  they  It  r o l e -  would  be  r o l e - c o n f l i c t in  why  see  d u t i e s ,  the  r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s  r e g u l a t o r y  means  s p e n d  e l i m i n a t e d .  they  in  a p p a r e n t l y  A g r i c u l t u r e  p e r f o r m  h a l f  t h e s e  s t u d y i n g  t h o u g h  not  y e t  p e r c e i v e d  e d u c a t i o n a l o t h e r  do  d u t i e s ,  t h a t  work  D e p a r t m e n t s  t h e i r  they  e m p l o y e d  A l b e r t a  h a l f and  s u c h  f o r  and  of  the  i n s p e c t i o n  a c t i v i t y  e s p e c i a l l y  e x t e n s i o n  f o r  in  as l i g h t  w o r k e r s  f u l f i l l i n g  have t h e i r  f u n c t i o n s .  u n i v e r s i t y  r e g u l a t o r y  t h a t  r e d u c e  c o n t i n u e  t h a t  S i m i l a r l y , the  to  the  d e v i s e d  r e g u l a t o r y  of  e x t e n s i o n  t r a i n i n g  w o r k e r s  i n s u r i n g  e l s e  d i r e c t l y  w i t h  f i n d i n g  of  e x t e n s i o n  g i v e  r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s  expand  w o r k e r s  i n s p e c t i o n  someone  w o r k e r s  e x t e n s i o n  and  o r d e r  C o l u m b i a  the  p l a c e s  e d u c a t i o n  e x t e n s i o n  r e p o r t e d  ways  t h e i r  i n  e x t e n s i o n  the  government  to  a d u l t  a f f e c t  r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .  h a l f  a b l e  to  c o n c e p t i o n  of  of  may  s i t u a t i o n  e d u c a t i o n  w o r k e r s '  e f f e c t i v e n e s s  e d u c a t i o n  T h i s  e x t e n s i o n  e d u c a t i o n a l  were  about  p e r f o r m a n c e .  e n l a r g e d  i n c r e a s e d  b e l i e f  and  on.e-tenth model  have  i n s p e c t i o n  has 1919  been and  of  the  r e p o r t e d d u t i e s ,  e s t a b l i s h e d 1938.  T h e s e  e x t e n s i o n s p e n d i n g w h i c h by  i s  w o r k e r s time  not  two  a g r e e m e n t s  in  e m p l o y e d  p e r f o r m i n g harmony  in  some  w i t h  a  s e p a r a t e  a g r e e m e n t s  c l e a r l y  e s t a b l i s h e d  202  the  understanding that Cooperative Extension  be  required  activities. I d a h o and  to  perform  It  might  be  Washington State  inspection  activities  c o m p r e h e n d why assumed  inspection  a  of  small  despite  them t o do  the  their  for fact  of  their  importance  for  agricultural  regulatory  and  workers i n order  them  have  to  apparently  such r e g u l a t o r y e m p l o y e r s do  duties  not  require  are  scarce.  substantiate  Research  extension  service  p r o g r e s s of a g r i c u l t u r a l  studies  organization are  regulatory  so.  effective  research  the  extension  performing that  not  f o r the U n i v e r s i t i e s of  Recommendations f o r F u r t h e r An  other  investigate  percentage  responsibility  voluntarily  and  appropriate to  personnel would  for  each  of  the  is  development.  is  or v e r i f y  n e e d e d s t u d i e s and  a  n e e d f o r f o l l o w up  its  findings.  This  extension  the  on  two  models  t h i s study  study  r e f i n e m e n t o f p r o c e d u r e s t o use  major  Although  agricultural  n u m e r o u s , c o m p a r a t i v e s t u d i e s of  There  of  points  to to  in conducting  them. Although  role-conflict  workers i n each model, performance  of  Accordingly,  before  the  their any  has  been i d e n t i f i e d f o r  impact duties major  of  such  has  not  efforts  conflict been  are  extension on  the  documented.  undertaken  to  ameliorate  t h e d o c u m e n t e d r o l e - c o n f l i c t , i t w o u l d seem j u d i c i o u s  to  assess  first  T h e n , when t h e  i t s i n f l u e n c e on  practical  the  i m p o r t a n c e of  workers'  effectiveness.  role-conflict  has  been  203  ascertained,  the  appropriate  corrective  action  will  become  apparent. The  populations  necessarily the  two  the  of  which  findings.  by  using  larger  regulatory the  two  models  However,  the  assumption  that  for  extension  for  government  they  duties. been  The  suggested that instruments d e f i n i t i o n s of of the  duties.  by  study  the  of be  extension  models  and  e f f e c t s of  extension  not  support  service.  and  the is  A b o u t h a l f of  inadequacies  of  be  the that  a l s o about  one-tenth  u n i v e r s i t y model  declared  regulatory  that  the  government  government model r e p o r t e d  performing  in  work.  responsibilities  d u t i e s , and  believes  the  performance  university  employed i n the  r e g u l a t i o n and  did  regulatory  extension  regulatory  role  agricultural  this  further research for  university  workers'  between  researcher  further research  extension  in  time  agricultural  generalizability  some i n s i g h t s on  perform regulatory  produced  the  provided  agricultural  spent  and  not  effectiveness.  performing  their counterparts  that  for  s e l e c t e d s a m p l e s of  organizing  factor  were  workers employed i n  models  thus l i m i t s  workers employed i n the  t h e y d i d not of  the  results  distinguishing models  has  d u t y on  research  extension  randomly  i n c o r p o r a t i n g measures of study  the  this  I t i s recommended t h a t  workers employed i n the  This  of  for  organizational  services,  study  done  representative  kinds  extension  selected  such  and  results  inspection might  instrumentation.  conducted  functions i n s p e c t i o n and  to  by  have It  refining  include specific  is the  precise examples  204  The  study  of  agricultural  extension  organizations  complex due to the many i n t e r r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s each  other  clarify in  one  provide  in  time.  Consequently  which  i t becomes  the d i f f e r e n c e s between the two extension research. evidence  Continued  to support  research  upon  d i f f i c u l t to organizations  on t h i s problem  should  or r e f u t e the c o n c l u s i o n s which have  been presented  h e r e i n and would  understanding  of  the  act  are  two  also  adult  contribute  education  to  a  better  organizations for  a g r i c u l t u r a l extension s e r v i c e .  A Concluding T h i s study regulatory  has provided  duty,  Note  some i n s i g h t s  on  the  effects  of  one of the d i s t i n g u i s h i n g f a c t o r s between the  u n i v e r s i t y and the government models, on the extension  workers'  educational  research  role  performance.  The  results  i n d i c a t e that even though the extension university  model,  who  have  perform, have strong negative such d u t i e s , model,  who  their  little  workers employed i n the  or no r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s to  views on the e f f e c t s of performing  counterparts  employed  in  feel  the  government  have r o u t i n e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r c a r r y i n g out such  r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s a l s o b e l i e v e that performing negative  of t h i s  such d u t i e s has a  e f f e c t on t h e i r e d u c a t i o n a l e f f o r t s though they do  not  as s t r o n g l y about t h i s e f f e c t as do the former group.  So,  both groups b e l i e v e negative regulatory  that  regulatory  e f f e c t on e d u c a t i o n a l work. duties  on  the  extension  responsibilities  have  a  The e f f e c t s of performing worker's  educational  205  effectiveness organize  extension  effectiveness cannot  i s therefore  be  effective educational  of considerable  services.  Until  i s made, t h e c o s t  determined ways  of  nor  of  t o t h o s e who  some a s s e s s m e n t o f r e l a t i v e the  existing  recommendations  facilitating  and r e g u l a t o r y  interest  the  functions.  made  role-conflict on  performance  t h e most of  the  206  BIBLIOGRAPHY  Abdullah, F. M. " A n a l y s i s of the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Role of the County Extension Director in California." Ph.D. D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin, 1964. Agrologists  Act,  R.  S. B r i t i s h Columbia, 1979,  C.  12.  Akinbode, Isaac A d e f o l u . "The R e l a t i o n s h i p s between the SocioEconomic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Farmers in B r i t i s h Columbia and t h e i r Contacts with D i s t r i c t Agriculturalists." M.Sc. T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1969. Alberta Agriculture. Agriculture, 1977. Alberta Agriculture. December 1, 1977.  D i s t r i c t Focus. Memorandum: (Typewritten.)  Edmonton: Regional  Alberta Directors,  Alberta Agriculture. "Terms of Reference: A l b e r t a A g r i c u l t u r a l Coordinating Committee, 1976." Edmonton, 1976. (Mimeographed.) Alberta Agriculture. Position n.d. (Typewritten.)  Description  Alberta Agriculture. Position Description n.d. (Typewritten.) [Alberta Agriculture], (Typewritten.)  for  for Agrologist Agrologist  Extension P e r s p e c t i v e s ,  n.p.,  II, III, n.d.  Allin, J . S. "The Role of A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension in the Education Rural A d u l t s : The Changing Scene." The J o u r n a l of Education of the F a c u l t y of Education of the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 10 (1964) : 36-47. Ashby, E r i c . A f r i c a n U n i v e r s i t i e s and Western T r a d i t i o n : The Godkin L e c t u r e s at Harvard U n i v e r s i t y . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1964. Baker, Gladys. The County Agent. Chicago Press, 1939.  Chicago:  Bible, Bond L. and Brown, Emory J . S a t i s f a c t i o n of Extension Advisory Rural Sociology 28 (1963) : 81-90. Bible, Bond L. and McNabb, Coy Administrative Effectiveness." 5-14.  University  of  "Role Consensus and Committee Members."  G. "Role Consensus and R u r a l S o c i o l o g y 31 (1966) :  207  Blackburn, Don. "Extension Education in Information B u l l e t i n 13 (1981) : 8-9.  Canada."  Extension  Boone, Edgar J. "The Cooperative Extension Service." In Handbook of Adult Education, pp. 265-281. Edited by Robert M. Smith, George F. Aker and J . R. K i d d . New York: The Macmillan Company, 1970. Borg,  Walter Research.  R. and Gall, Meredith New York: Longman Inc.,  British Columbia Ministry of Extension Programming, n.d.  Damien. 1979.  Agriculture. (Typewritten.)  Educational Guidelines  to  B r i t i s h Columbia M i n i s t r y of A g r i c u l t u r e and Food. Memorandum: Lincensed Science Officer Position Description: District A g r i c u l t u r a l i s t , A p r i l 6, 1981. (Typewritten.) British Columbia Ministry of A g r i c u l t u r e and Food. A New Mandate. V i c t o r i a : M i n i s t r y of A g r i c u l t u r e and Food, 1980. Brown, Emory J . and Diekens, A l b e r t . "Roles of the Subject-Matter S p e c i a l i s t . " Rural Sociology 23 263-276.  Extension (1958) :  Brunner, Edmund deS. and Yang, E. Hsin Pao. R u r a l America and the Extension S e r v i c e . New York: Columbia University, 1949. Calpas, John G. "Agricultural E x t e n s i o n S e r v i c e s : The Years Ahead." Extension Information B u l l e t i n 13 (1981) : 19-20. Canada Department of A g r i c u l t u r e . O r g a n i z a t i o n and A c t i v i t i e s of the Canada Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , P u b l i c a t i o n 1123. Ottawa: Canada Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , 1975. Canada Department of Agriculture. A Task Force Report: O r i e n t a t i o n of Canadian A g r i c u l t u r e . Volume 1, Part A. Ottawa: Canada Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , 1977. Clark, Robert C. "Organization f o r the Work." In Cooperative Extension S e r v i c e , pp. 33-47. Edited H. C. Sanders. Englewood: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc., 1966.  The by  Clark, Robert C. and Abraham, Roland H., eds. Administration in E x t e n s i o n . Madison: The N a t i o n a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension Center f o r Advanced Study, U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin, 1959. Clark, Robert C. and R a l s t o n , N. P., eds. D i r e c t i n g the Cooperative Extension S e r v i c e . Madison: The National Agricultural Extension Center for Advanced Study, U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin, 1962.  208  Colorado S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y and Iowa Center f o r A g r i c u l t u r a l and Economic Development. The Century Ahead: The Proceedings of a Seminar on A g r i c u l t u r a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n in the LandGrant System h e l d June 16-19, 1963. F o r t C o l l i n s : Colorado State U n i v e r s i t y , 1963. Crouch, Bruce R. and Chamala, Shankariah, eds. . Extension Education and Rural Development: Experience i n Communicat i o n and Innovation. Volume I. New York: John Wiley and Sons L t d . , 1981. , eds. Extension Education and Rural Development: Experience i n S t r a t e g i e s for Planned Change. Volume I I . New York: John Wiley and Sons L t d . , 1981. Darkenwald, Gordon G. and Merriam, Sharan B. Adult E d u c a t i o n : Foundations of P r a c t i c e . New York: Harper and Row, P u b l i s h e r s , 1982. Davis, Kingsley. Company, 1949. Dillman, Don Method.  Human S o c i e t y .  New  York:  The  Macmillan  A. M a i l and Telephone Surveys: The T o t a l New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1978.  Design  Eddy,  Edward Danforth, J r . C o l l e g e s f o r Our Land-Grant Idea i n American E d u c a t i o n . and B r o t h e r s , 1957.  Land and Time: The New York: Harper  Farm  and Ranch Management C o n s u l t a n t s L t d . T r a d i t i o n and T r a n s i t i o n : Extension Education f o r the Farm Unit i n a Changing S o c i e t y . C a l g a r y : Farm and Ranch Management C o n s u l t a n t s L t d . , 1970.  Ferguson, Clarence M. R e f l e c t i o n s of An Extension E x e c u t i v e . Madison: The N a t i o n a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension Center for Advanced Study, U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin, 1964. Fox,  Robert David. "An A n a l y s i s of the Role of S p e c i a l I n t e r e s t Groups i n the Formation of the Cooperative Extension S e r v i c e . " Adult Education 32 (1982) : 156-164.  Gaus, John M. and Wolcott, Leon 0. P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and the U n i t e d S t a t e s Department of A g r i c u l t u r e . Chicago: P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n S e r v i c e , 1940. G e t z e l s , Jacob W. " A d m i n i s t r a t i o n as a A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Theory i n E d u c a t i o n , by Andrew W. H a l p i n . Chicago: The Center, 1958.  Social Process." In pp. 150-165. E d i t e d Midwest Adminstration  209  Government of Canada. C o n s i t u t i o n A c t s , 1867 to 1982. Canadian Government P u b l i s h i n g Centre, Supply and Canada, 1982. Greenwood, Mary N e l l . "A Sound B u i l d on i n Planning f o r the Agents D i r e c t o r y , 1981, p.6.  Ottawa: Services  S t r u c t u r e . . . A Foundation to Future." 1981-1982 County  Gross, Neal, Mason, Ward S. and McEachern, Alexander W. E x p l o r a t i o n s i n Role A n a l y s i s . New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965. Hightower, Jim. Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times. Schenkman P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1973. Hill,  Cambridge,  Mass.:  Joseph E. and Kerber, August. Models, Methods, and A n a l y t i c a l Procedures in E d u c a t i o n a l Research. Detroit: Wayne State U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1967.  H u l l , C. Hadlai and Nie, Norman H. SPSS Update 7-9. McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1981.  New  York:  H u l l , C. Hadlai and Nie, Norman H. SPSS Pocket Guide 9. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1981.  : Release  Isaac, Stephen and M i c h a e l , W i l l i a m B. Handbook i n Research and Evaluation. San Diego: E d i t s P u b l i s h e r s , 1979. Job, Claude H. "A Study of the Roles of S e l e c t e d Agricultural Extension Agents in B r i t i s h Columbia." ' M.Sc. T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1965. Kahn, Robert L., Wolfe, Donald M., Quinn, Robert P. and Snoek, J. Diedrick. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l S t r e s s : S t u d i e s i n Role C o n f l i c t and Ambiguity. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964. Keesing, Paul Brunton. "A Study of P r o v i n c i a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension S e r v i c e s i n Canada: 1952 - 1961." M.Sc. T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1965. Kellogg, Charles E. and Knapp, David C. A g r i c u l t u r e : Science in the P u b l i c S e r v i c e . McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966. Kelsey, Lincoln David Extension Work, 3rd A s s o c i a t e s , 1963.  The C o l l e g e of New York:  and Hearne, C. C h i l e s . Cooperative ed. . New York: Comstock Publishing  Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of B e h a v i o r a l Research. York: H o l t , Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973.  New  210  Kita, Stanley. UBC SPSS V e r s i o n 8.00 (Under MTS). U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Computing Center,  Vancouver: 1980.  Lamble, Gordon W. "Role C o n f l i c t and Ambiguity of A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension Agents." Ph.D. D i s s e r t a t i o n , Texas A & M U n i v e r s i t y , 1980. Lancaster, J. J. "Non-Extension Organization" In Cooperative Extension S e r v i c e , pp. 276-283. Edited H. C. Sanders. Englewood: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc., 1966.  The by  Leagans, J . Paul. The Role of Extension Education i n Rural Development. B u l l e t i n 3. I t h a c a : New York State College of A g r i c u l t u r e , 1963. L i k e r t , Rensis. "The Method of C o n s t r u c t i n g an A t t i t u d e S c a l e . " In Readings i n A t t i t u d e Theory and Measurement, pp. 90-95. Edited by M a r t i n F i s h b e i n . New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967. L i n t o n , Ralph. The Study of Man. Company, Inc., 1936.  New  York: D.  Appleton-Century  Malone, V i o l e t M. and Flowers, J r . , W. L. "Education for Economic and S o c i a l Development." In S e r v i n g Personal and Community Needs through Adult Education, pp. 129-146. San F r a n c i s c o : E d i t e d by Edgar J . Bonne, Ronald W. Shearon, Estelle E. White and A s s o c i a t e s . San F r a n c i s o : Jossey Bass P u b l i s h e r s , 1980. M a r t i n , W i l f r e d B. W. and Macdonell, Allan J. Canadian E d u c a t i o n : A S o c i o l o g i c a l A n a l y s i s . Scarborough: P r e n t i c e H a l l of Canada, L t d . , 1978. McNaughton, Gordon R. Agriculturalist." Columbia, 1970.  "The M.Sc.  E d u c a t i o n a l Role of the T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of  District British  Metcalfe, W i l l i a m Warner. "Concepts of Education Held by Informal Adult Educators." Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago, 1965. Miller, Delbert Measurement.  C. Handbook of Research Design and S o c i a l New York: David Mckay Company, Inc., 1977.  Morehouse, Ralph E. "A Study of Role P e r c e p t i o n and Performance Among A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension Personnel in Nova S c o t i a . " M.Sc. T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1965. Mulcahy, Sheila, ed. The Cooperative Extension S e r v i c e in Transition. Madison: U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin - Extension, 1 979.  21 1  Mumford, Frederick B. The Land Grant C o l l e g e B u l l e t i n 419. Columbia: U n i v e r s i t y of M i s s o u r i , Newcomb, Theodore Press, 1952. Nie,  M.  S o c i a l Psychology.  New  Movement. J u l y 1940.  York: The  Dryden  Norman H. and A s s o c i a t e s . S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r the S o c i a l S c i e n c e s (SPSS), 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975.  Parliament of Canada. Report on A g r i c u l t u r a l I n s t r u c t i o n Act, 1913-14. Ottawa: Parliament of Canada, 1915. Parliament of Canada. Report of the M i n i s t e r of A g r i c u l t u r e f o r the Dominion of Canada f o r the Five Months ended March 31, 1906. Ottawa: Parliament of Canada, 1906. Parsons, T a l c o t t . "Suggestions f o r a S o c i o l o g i c a l Approach to the Theory of O r g a n i z a t i o n s - I, I I . " Administrative Science Q u a r t e r l y 1 (1956/57) : 63-85; 225-239. Parsons, T a l c o t t .  The S o c i a l System.  New  York: The Free Press,  Parsons, T a l c o t t and S h i l s , Edward A. "The S o c i a l System." In Toward a General Theory of A c t i o n , pp. 190-233. E d i t e d by Talcott Parsons and Edward A. Shils. Cambridge: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1962. Province of Alberta. Annual Reports of the Department of A g r i c u l t u r e f o r the Years 1905-06. Edmonton: Government P r i n t e r , 1907. Province of Alberta. Annual Report of the Department of A g r i c u l t u r e f o r . t h e Year 1938. Edmonton: Government P r i n t e r , 1939. Province of Alberta. Annual Report of the Department of A g r i c u l t u r e f o r the Year 1959. Edmonton: Government P r i n t e r , 1960. Province of. Alberta. Annual Report of the Department of A g r i c u l t u r e f o r the Year 1961. Edmonton: Government P r i n t e r , 1962. Province of Alberta. Annual Report of the Department of A g r i c u l t u r e f o r the year 1970. Edmonton: Government P r i n t e r , 1971. Province of Alberta. Annual Report of the Department of A g r i c u l t u r e f o r the year 1971. Edmonton: Government P r i n t e r , 1972.  212  Province of A l b e r t a . Annual Report of A l b e r t a A g r i c u l t u r e f o r the Year 1973. Edmonton: Government P r i n t e r , 1974. Province of A l b e r t a . Annual Report of A l b e r t a A g r i c u l t u r e f o r the Year 1974. Edmonton: Government P r i n t e r , 1975. Province of A l b e r t a . Annual Report of A l b e r t a A g r i c u l t u r e f o r the Year 1976. Edmonton: Government P r i n t e r , 1977. Province Of Alberta. the year 1979-80.  Annual Report of A l b e r t a A g r i c u l t u r e f o r Edmonton: Government P r i n t e r , 1980.  Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. Annual Report of the Department of A g r i c u l t u r e f o r the years 1913 and 1914. V i c t o r i a : Government P r i n t e r , 1915. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. Annual Report of the Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , 1947. V i c t o r i a : Government P r i n t e r , 1948. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. Annual Report of the Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , 1951. V i c t o r i a : Government P r i n t e r , 1952. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. Annual Report of the Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , 1954. V i c t o r i a : Government P r i n t e r , 1955. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. Annual Report of the Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , 1957. V i c t o r i a : Government P r i n t e r , 1958. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. Annual Report of the Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , 1959. V i c t o r i a : Government P r i n t e r , 1960. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. Annual Report of the Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , 1961. V i c t o r i a : Government P r i n t e r , 1962. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. Annual Report of the Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , 1965. V i c t o r i a : Government P r i n t e r , 1966. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. Annual Report of the Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , 1966. V i c t o r i a : Government P r i n t e r , 1967. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. 1980 Annual Report: M i n i s t r y of A g r i c u l t u r e and Food. V i c t o r i a : Government P r i n t e r , 1981. R i l e y , Thomas L e s l i e . "The Development of Extension i n the Land-Grant U n i v e r s i t i e s , 1862-1914." Ph.D. Dissertation, U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago, 1965. Rogers, E v e r e t t M. and Burdge, Rabel J . S o c i a l Change i n Rural Societies. Englewood C l i f f s : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc., 1972.  21 3  Roling, Niels. "Alternative Approaches in Extension" In Progress i n Rural E x t e n s i o n and Community Development: Extension and R e l a t i v e Advantage i n Rural Development. Volume I, pp. 87-115. E d i t e d by Gwyn E. Jones and Maurice J . R o l l s . New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1982. Sarbin, Theodore R. "Role Theory." In Handbook on S o c i a l Psychology. Volume I, pp. 223-258. E d i t e d by Lindzey, Gardner Lindzey. ' Reading: Addison-Wesley P u b l i s h i n g Company, Inc., 1959. 9  S a r b i n , Theodore R. and A l l e n , Vernon L. "Role Theory." In Handbook on S o c i a l Psychology. Volume I, 2nd ed., pp. 488-567. E d i t e d by Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson. Reading: Addison-Wesley P u b l i s h i n g Company, Inc., 1968. Sargent, S. S t a n s f e l d . "Conceptions of Role and Ego in Contemporary Psychology." In S o c i a l Psychology at the Crossroads, pp. 355-370. E d i t e d by John H. Rohrer and Muzafer S h e r i f . New York: Harper and B r o t h e r s , 1951. Scott, Roy V. The R e l u c t a n t Farmer: The Rise of A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension to 1914. Urbana: U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s Press, 1 970. Simons, L. R. E a r l y Development of Cooperative E x t e n s i o n Work in A g r i c u l t u r e and Home Economics i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s of America. I t h a c a : New York State C o l l e g e of A g r i c u l t u r e at C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y , 1962. Snedecor, George W. and Cochran, W i l l i a m G. Stat i st i c a l Methods. 7th ed. Ames: The Iowa State U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1980. S t a t u t e s of Canada , 1913,  C.  5.  Turner, R u s s e l l M. The F i r s t 45 Years: A H i s t o r y of Cooperative Extension i n Washington S t a t e . Pullman: Washington State University,1961. Wales, B. E. "The Development of Adult E d u c a t i o n . " The J o u r n a l of Education of the F a c u l t y of Education of the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 10 (1964) : 5-16. Washington S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Cooperative E x t e n s i o n S e r v i c e . D e s c r i p t i o n s , n.p., 1977. (Mimeographed.)  Job  Wilkening, E. A. The County E x t e n s i o n Agent i n Wisconsin: P e r c e p t i o n s of Role D e f i n i t i o n s as Viewed by Agents. Research Bulletin 203. Madison: U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin, 1 957.  214  Wilkening, E. A. and Smith, R i c h a r d . "Perception of F u n c t i o n s , Organizational O r i e n t a t i o n , and Role D e f i n i t i o n of a Group of S p e c i a l Extension Agents." The Midwest S o c i o l o g i s t 21 (1958) : 19-28. Williams, Donald B. A g r i c u l t u r a l E x t e n s i o n : Farm Extension S e r v i c e s i n A u s t r a l i a , B r i t a i n and the U n i t e d S t a t e s of America. New York: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1968. Winter, George and A s s o c i a t e s . A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension S e r v i c e s in B r i t i s h Columbia, A l b e r t a and Oregon. V i c t o r i a : Select Standing Committee on A g r i c u l t u r e , 1979. United S t a t e s Department of Agriculture. The Cooperative Extension S e r v i c e To-day: A Statement of Scope and R e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Washington, D. C : 1958. United States Statutes at Large, The Act to E s t a b l i s h a Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , May 15, 1862 , (12 S t a t . 387). , The M o r r i l l Act of J u l y 2,  1862  , ( 12 S t a t . 503) . August 30, 1890  , The Second M o r r i l l Act of , (26 S t a t . 417). ,  The Hatch Act of March 2,  1887  , (24 S t a t . 440). , 1914  The Smith-Lever Act of May  8,  , (38 S t a t . 372).  June 26, September  1953  , The Smith-Lever Act as amended, , (67 S t a t . 83T  29, 1977  , The Smith-Lever Act as amended, , (91 l i t a t . 1011).  University of Idaho Cooperative Extension Service. Job D e s c r i p t i o n : County Extension S t a f f Chairman, n.p., 1971. (Typewritten.) University of Idaho Cooperative Extension Service. Job D e s c r i p t i o n : County Extension Agricultural Agent, n.p., 1971. (Typewritten.) _ [University of Idaho Cooperative Extension S e r v i c e ] . Guide to Extension Program Development i n Idaho, n.p., 1976. (Typewritten.) [ U n i v e r s i t y of Idaho Cooperative Extension S e r v i c e ] . O r g a n i z a t i o n , n.p., 1977. (Typewritten.)  Chapter I:  APPENDIX I  THE QUESTIONNAIRE  INSTRUCTION  Please read the cover Please answer quest ionnai r e ,  letter.  a l l questions  on a l l s i d e s of the  Please check i f you have answered a l l q u e s t i o n s a l l s i d e s of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  on  Please m a i l the q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n the addressed and stamped envelope.  THANK YOU  AGRICULTURAL  EXTENSION AGENT  ROLES  QUESTIONNAIRE I am c o n d u c t i n g t h i s s t u d y o f e x t e n s i o n a g e n t r o l e s i n t h e p r o v i n c e s o f A l b e r t a a n d B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , and the s t a t e s of Idaho and Washington. I appreciate your w i l l i n g n e s s and consent which is indicated by c o m p l e t i n g and r e t u r n i n g t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n t h e a d d r e s s e d and stamped e n v e l o p e e n c l o s e d . Y o u r a n s w e r s a r e c o n f i d e n t i a l a n d no name i s r e q u i r e d . Thank y o u f o r your c o o p e r a t i o n . ( P l e a s e do n o t a b b r e v i a t e o r i n i t i a l y o u r a n s w e r s ) Background  Professional  I n f o r m a t i on  6.  1.  Date of b i r t h .  2.  How many extension? states)  3.  How many y e a r s h a v e you been working a g r i c u l t u r a l extension position?  4.  years have been (Please include  What was your s t a r t e d working a.  19 _____ working in work i n other  in  agricultural provinces or  your  (field  I f y o u were g i v e n s t u d y l e a v e a t f u l l salary to improve y o u r p r o f e s s i o n a l c o m p e t e n c e a n d q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , how w o u l d you rank the f o l l o w i n g i n o r d e r of t h e i r i n t e r e s t t o you in t h i s regard. Use a n X t o i n d i c a t e t h o s e c h o i c e s which a r e o f no i n t e r e s t w h a t s o e v e r t o y o u .  current adult  highest academic qualification in agricultural extension? Diploma  Development  when y o u  or major)  education  agricultural  economics  agricultrual  mechanics  animal  science  extension b.  Bachelor's  degree  (field  science  poultry Master's degree  (field  or major)  rural soi1  Doctor's  degree  (field  From which colleges or u n i v e r s i t i e s diplomas or degrees?  education  forestry  or major)  plant  c.  (engineering)  or major)  science  sociology sc i ence  others  (specify)  d i d you r e c e i v e y o u r 7.  Have you pursued any further formal study s t a r t e d working i n a g r i c u l t u r a l extension?  after  you  If your response f o r question the f o l l o w i n g questions. a.  What  further  formal  study  7 i s yes, please  answer  Sources  o f I n f o r m a t i on  Are you a member a s s o c i at i ons?  d i d you pursue?  of  any  professional  you have  received  a degree: If  b.  What  degree?  c.  What  was y o u r  yes, please  Canadian  check  Society  of  Adult Which  college  or u n i v e r s i t y d i d you a t t e n d ?  Education  Agricultural Northwest  If you c o u l d arrange i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g f o r y o u r s e l f how would you rank the f o l l o w i n g i n o r d e r of t h e i r u s e f u l n e s s to you Use an X to i n d i c a t e t h o s e c h o i c e s which a r e of no i n t e r e s t w h a t s o e v e r t o y o u . adult  education  agricultural  economics  agricultural  mechanics  that  apply.  Extension f o r Adult  Association  Education  o f t h e USA  I n s t i t u t e o f Canada  Adult  Education  Association  National  Association  of County  National  Association  of Extension  National  Association  of County  American  Association  of A g r i c u l t u r a l  Rural  Sociological  Agricultural Home  4-H C l u b  Agents  Economics Agents  Colleges  Society  (engineering) Others  animal  any r e s p o n s e s  specialization? Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n  d.  or  No  Yes If  societies  (specify)  .  science  extension  education  forestry plant pou11 rural s o i1  science ry  sc i ence  sociology sc ience  10.  In a d d i t i o n t o the a g r i c u l t u r a l e x t e n s i o n service, o t h e r a g e n c i e s do e x t e n s i o n work w i t h f a r m e r s ?  which  11.  Do you research  read o r look o v e r any r e s e a r c h publications regularly? Yes  If y e s , p l e a s e l i s t the research publications.  j o u r n a l s or  other  13.  No research  journals  or  If you had a q u e s t i o n w h i c h you c o u l d not answer w i t h o u t knowing t h e l a t e s t r e s e a r c h r e s u l t s , where would you look for this information? P l e a s e rank the f o l l o w i n g sources in terms of their usefulness as sources of research i nformat1 on.  other Business Federal  or  Industry  Department  Provincial  or M i n i s t r y of A g r i c u l t u r e  or S t a t e Department  of A g r i c u l t u r e  Un i v e r s i t i e s Others  Regu1atory 14. 12.  I n a d d i t i o n t o what you l i s t e d i n no. 11, p l e a s e r e l a t e d p u b l i c a t i o n s you r e a d r e g u l a r l y .  list  (specify)  F u n c t i on  Please perform  list t h e major i f any.  kinds  of r e g u l a t o r y a c t i v i t i e s  you  job  S3  f— 1  15.  The f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t s d e s c r i b e v a r i o u s e d u c a t i o n a l performance. Please indicate statement.  ways an a g e n t ' s p e r f o r m a n c e o f r e g u l a t o r y f u n c t i o n s m i g h t h a v e a n e f f e c t on his y o u r o p i n i o n on e a c h i d e a e x p r e s s e d by c i r c l i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t e r e s p o n s e f o r e a c h  to be  Strongly Agree  Agree  Undec i d e d  D i sagree  Strongly D i sagree  Performing the educational aspect of regulatory f u n c t i o n s f o r a n o t h e r o f f i c e o r a g e n c y has a positive effect on the a g e n t ' s a b i l i t y t o c a r r y out h i s o t h e r extension duties.  Strongly Agree  Agree  Undec i ded  D i sagree  Strongly D i sagree  Regulatory duties p e o p l e i n a program  Strongly Agree  Agree  Undecided  Disagree  Strongly D1sagree  Strongly Agree  Agree  Undecided  Disagree  Strongly D i sagree  influence  Strongly Agree  Agree  Undecided  Disagree  Strongly D i sagree  R e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s may i n c r e a s e t h e a g e n t ' s status in his f a r m community, t h u s c a n f a c i l i t a t e h i s e f f o r t t o influence his clientele to accept the appropriate i nnovat i ons.  Strongly Agree  Agree  Undecided  Disagree  Strongly D i sagree  An a g e n t ' s r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s may to perform the other duties pos i t i on.  his effort with his  Strongly Agree  Agree  Undecided  Disagree  Strongly Disagree  R e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s which p e r s c r i b e s p e c f i e d grades of commodities or i n s p e c t i o n o f p r e m i s e s may facilitate an a g e n t ' s educational performance by providing a teachable moment f o r h i s c l i e n t e l e t o a c q u i r e a g i v e n i nformat i o n .  Strongly Agree  Agree  Undecided  Disagree  Strongly Disagree  Regulatory duties may ability to motivate knowledge or s k i l l .  interfere with an agent's his clientele to adopt new  Strongly Agree  Agree  Undecided  D1sagree  Strongly Disagree  An agent needs to remain clear of any type of regulatory duties in order to be e f f e c t i v e i n h i s e x t e n s i o n work.  Strongly Agree  Agree  Undec i ded  D i sagree  Strongly D i sagree  An agent who has r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s examine a l l problems objectively without such duties.  i s not as he  as f r e e would  may discourage participation which the agent o r g a n i z e s .  of  Regulatory d u t i e s which p r o v i d e f o r s p e c i f i e d c o n t r o l o f s t o c k i n g , o r o f l a n d improvement a n d l a n d use, or for the control o f p e s t s o r weeds may f a c i l i t a t e an a g e n t ' s e f f o r t to persuade h i s c l i e n t e l e to adopt the required information. Regulatory duties on h i s c 1 i e n t e l e .  may  d e c r e a s e the agent's  facilitate associated  N3  o  Methods and 16.  Techniques  How f r e q u e n t l y do you u s e t h e f o l l o w i n g methods and t e c h n i q u e s t o t e a c h o r disseminate c h e c k t h e one most a p p r o p r i a t e c o l u m n f o r e a c h method and t e c h n i q u e . (Often = at l e a s t o n c e p e r month; R a r e l y = a t l e a s t o n c e p e r y e a r ) Often Agricultural Agriculture  information to farmers? Please o n c e p e r week; S o m e t i m e s -• a t l e a s t  Sometimes  Rarely  Never  Fairs field  days  Bulletins Circular  . letters  Extension  newsletters  Farm v i s i t s Group d i s c u s s i o n s Lectures Meetings  _  Messages  and  announcements  Newspaper a r t i c l e s Posters Process  demonstrations  Radio Result  . demonstrations  Telephone  calls  Television Workshops Others  _  (specify)  17.  Please rate each of recommended p r a c t i c e s ?  the following methods a n d t e c h n i q u e s i n t e r m s o f i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n p e r s u a d i n g f a r m e r s t o C h e c k t h e one most a p p r o p r i a t e c o l u m n f o r e a c h method a n d t e c h n i q u e t o i n d i c a t e y o u r r a t i n g .  Very Agricultural  Fairs  Agriculturae  field  Efficient  Efficient  Somewhat  Efficient  adopt  Inefficient  ' days  Bulletins Circular  letters  Extension Farm  newsletters  visits  Group d i s c u s s i o n s  ____  Lectures Meetings Messages  and announcements  Newspaper  articles  Posters Process  demonstrations  Radio Result  demonstrations  Telephone  calls  Television  •  ,  Workshops Others  (specify)  N3 to  Rol e P e r c e p t i o n s 18.  and  Role  Performance  P l e a s e r a t e e^ch of the f o l l o w i n g e x t e n s i o n r o l e f u n c t i o n s i n order of your perception of their importance to your agricultural extension organization, and your p e r c e p t i o n of t h e i r importance to your c l i e n t e l e . C i r c l e the a p p r o p r i a t e r e s p o n s e f o r each r o l e f u n c t i o n under each column t o i n d i c a t e your r a t i n g . (VI = V e r y Important; I = Important; SI = Somewhat I m p o r t a n t ; LI = L e a s t I m p o r t a n t ; NA = Not A p p l i c a b l e )  Rate of p e r c e i v e d i m p o r t a n c e t o my clientele  Rate of p e r c e i v e d i m p o r t a n c e t o my organization  Adu1t  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  officer  VI  I  SI  LI  . NA  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  events  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  VI  i  si  LI  NA  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  educator  Adviser/Consultant • Agricultural  credit  Agricultural  r e g u l a t i o n s enforcement  Emergency  administrator  measures program  Facilitator Inspection  program  or  service  acts  Organizer  and  Organizer  of  administrator  agent  enforcement  supervisor  officer  of  groups  Program  administrator  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  Program  planner  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  Pub l i e  r e 1 a t i ons  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  Source  of  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  information  Student Others  (specify)  and  ideas  The following are extension role functions which an agricultural e x t e n s i o n a g e n t may p e r f o r m . Please indicate the i m p o r t a n c e o f e a c h r o l e f u n c t i o n t o y o u by c i r c l i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t e r e s p o n s e . (VI = Very Important; I = Important; SI Somewhat Important; LI = Least Important; NA = Not A p p l i c a b l e ) . A l s o i n d i c a t e how much t i m e y o u s p e n t o n e a c h r o l e f u n c t i o n by c h e c k i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t e column.  Importance  to  Time  me Much  Adu1t  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  officer  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  events  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  educator  Adviser/Consultant Agricultural  credit  Agricultural  r e g u l a t i o n s enforcement  Emergency  measures program  Facilitator Inspection  program  administrator  administrator  o r s e r v i c e agent acts  officer  enforcement  Organizer  and s u p e r v i s o r  of  Organizer  of groups  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  Program  administrator  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  Program  planner  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  VI  I  SI  LI  NA  P u b l i c r e l a t i ons Source  of information  Student Others  (specify)  and  ideas  Some  spent Little  None  P r o f e s s i ona1 20.  Development  P l e a s e r e a d e a c h s t a t e m e n t and g i v e y o u r o p i n i o n a b o u t how f r e q u e n t l y extension organization. C i r c l e t h e most a p p r o p r i a t e r e s p o n s e f o r e a c h In  a.  b.  c.  d.  e.  f.  g.  h.  my  agricultural  extension  the idea expressed statement.  occurs  in  your  agricultural  service:  a n a g e n t who s e c u r e s an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e b e t t e r p o s i t i o n w i t h i n the a g r i c u l t u r a l  is offered a extension service.  Always  Often  Seldom  Never  Uncertain  Always  Often  Seldom  Never  Uncertain  a n a g e n t who r e t u r n s f o r an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e i s p a i d w e l l enough through f e l l o w s h i p s , s c h o l a r s h i p s , or s a b b a t i c a l leave to almost equal h i s r e g u l a r annual salary.  Always  Often  Seldom  Never  Uncertain  an a g e n t w i t h an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e i s p a i d a h i g h e r s a l a r y t h a n a n a g e n t w i t h o u t an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e i f b o t h h a v e t h e same e x p e r i e n c e a n d j o b r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .  Always  Often  Seldom  Never  Uncertain  a n a g e n t who r e t u r n s f o r an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e c o n t i n u e t o be e n t i t l e d t o s a l a r y i n c r e a s e s his absence.  Always  Often  Seldom  Never  Uncertain  a n a g e n t who e a r n s an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e g e t s a h i g h e r p o s i t i o n t h a n an a g e n t o f s i m i l a r p r o f e s s i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e who d o e s n o t h a v e an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e .  Always  Often  Seldom  Never  Uncertain  when a n a g e n t ' s work b e g i n s t o d e c r e a s e i n q u a n t i t y and/or q u a l i t y , the o r g a n i z a t i o n w i l l suggest graduate study.  Always  Often  Seldom  Never  Uncertain  c o n s i d e r i n g b o t h t h e c o s t s and b e n e f i t s of o b t a i n i n g an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a n a g e n t makes a f i n a n c i a l g a i n by g e t t i n g an advanced d e g r e e .  Always  Often  Seldom  Never  Uncertain  e a r n i n g an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e i s c o n s i d e r e d by t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n as t h e most i m p o r t a n t method an a g e n t use t o improve h i s competence.  THANK YOU  FOR  YOUR TIME AND  can  will despite  COOPERATION  IN COMPLETING THIS  QUESTIONNAIRE  ho  APPENDIX II  SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES  T a b l e 16 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by A c a d e m i c Q u a l i f i c a t i o n  D i pioma/Degree D i p 1 oma B a c h e l o r ' s Degree Master's Degree Doctor's Degree  A1berta (N=52) Percent 1 .9 84.6 13.5  Br i t i sh Columbi a (N=17) Percent  Idaho (N=34) Percent  Canada (N=69) Percent 1 .4 85.4 13.0  88 1 1  52 .9 44 . 1 2.9  Washi n g t o n (N=50) Percent  26 .0 64 .0 10.0  United States (N=84) Percent  36.9 56.0 7. 1  A c h i - s q u a r e v a l u e o f 40.4 was o b t a i n e d . T h i s i s s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e 0.01 l e v e l .  T a b l e 17 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by F i e l d o f S p e c i a l i z a t i o n  Major/Field Agricultural Economics A g r i c u l t u r a l Mechanics (Eng i n e e r i ng) Animal S c i e n c e Plant Science Pou1 t r y S c i e n c e So i1 S c i e n c e Forestry General Agriculture Agricultural Education Horti cu1ture Entomo1ogy Plant Pathology Range S c i e n c e Business Administration  A1berta (N=47) Percent 12 .8 2. 1 44 .7 10 .6 2 .. 1 4 .3 . 19 . 1 2 .. 1 2 .1 -  British Columbi a (N=13) Percent  Idaho (N=31) Percent  Canada (N=60) Percent  7. 7  1 1. 7  76 .9 7. 7 7. 7 -  1. 7 51 .7 10 .6 1 .. 7 3.. 3 16 . , 7 1 .. 7 1 .. 7 -  3 .2 -  51 . .6 3. 2 3 .2 . 6 .5 . 25..8 3.,2 3..2 -  Washi n g t o n (N=45) Percent  Uni t e d States (N=76) Percent  8 .9  6 .6  2..2 26.. 7 17 . .8 4. 4 2, .2 . 3 13 , 6 , . 7 8 .9 . 2. 2 4..4  1 ,. 3 36.. 8 1 1 .8 . 2 .6 . 2 .6 . 10.. 5 14 . 5 6 . .6 1 .. 3 2..6 1 .. 3 1 .. 3  -  2.. 2  T a b l e 18 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by U n i v e r s i t i e s A t t e n d e d  Un i v e r s i t i e s U n i v e r s i t y of Alberta U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y U n i v e r s i t y of Saskatchewan U n i v e r s i t y of Manitoba U n i v e r s i t y of Guelph B r i g h a m Young U n i v e r s i t y Utah S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Montana S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y C a l i f o r n i a State University U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota Pennsylvania State University Cambridge University U n i v e r s i t y of Arizona Oregon S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Colorado State University U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Michigan State University Oklahoma S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Purdue U n i v e r s i t y Southern I l l i n o i s University U n i v e r s i t y o f Idaho Washington S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Iowa S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y U n i v e r s i t y o f Wyoming U n i v e r s i t y of Nebraska U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s Ohio State U n i v e r s i t y U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin North Dakota S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y South Dakota S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y U n i v e r s i t y of Arkansas  Alberta (N = 51) Percent 51.0 2.0 15.7 15.7 2.0 3.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0  Br i t i sh Columbia (N=17) Percent  Canada (N=68) Percent  11.8 58.8 5.9 5.9 11.8 5.9  41.2 16.2 1.5 13.2 14.7 1.5 2.9 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 .1.5  Idaho (N=34) Percent  2.9  2.9 8.8  2.9 2.9 76 . 5 2.9  Washington (N=49) Percent  Uni t e d States (N=83) Percent  -  1.2  2.0  1.2  12.2 2.0 4.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.1 42.9 2.0 2.0 4.1 2.0 6.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0  1.2 10.8 1.2 2.4 1.2 1.2 2.4 1.2 34 . 9 25.3 2.4 1.2 2.4 1.2 3.6 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2  CO  T a b l e 19 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Respondents by D i p l o m a s or Degrees R e c e i v e d A f t e r Joining Extension Service  Type D i p i oma B a c h e l o r ' s Degree M a s t e r ' s Degree D o c t o r ' s Degree  Alberta (N= 6) Percent 16.7 16 . 7 66.6  Br i t i sh Columbia (N= 3) Percent 66 . 7 33.3  Canada (N= 9 ) Percent 33 . 3 11.1 55.6  Idaho (N= 7) Percent  100.0  Washington (N=11) Percent  90.9 9.1  United States (N=18) Percent  94.4 5.6  A c h i - s q u a r e v a l u e o f 9.6 was o b t a i n e d . T h i s i s s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e 0.05 l e v e l .  Distribution Formal  Sub.j e c t A d u 1 t E d u c a t i on Agricultural Economics Animal S c i e n c e Extension Education Forest ry Plant Science So i1 S c i e n c e F a r m Management Communication Development Hort i c u l t u r e Plant Pathology W i l d L i f e Management Urban and Regional P l a n n i n g Rural Sociology  A1berta (N= 8) Percent  T a b l e 20 o f Respondents by F u r t h e r Study S p e c i a l i z a t i o n British Columb i a (N= 3) Percent 66.7 33.3  Canada (N=11) Percent  12.5 25 .0  18 . 9 . 9. 18 .  25 .0  18 . 2  12.5  9. 1  12.5  9. 1  12.5  9 . 1  Idaho (N=10) Percent  10.0 30.0 20.0  10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0  Washington (N=16) Percent 6.3 6.3 25.0 12.5 6.3 6.3 6.3 18.8 6.3 6.3 -  United States (N=26) Percent 3.8 7.7 26.9 15.4 3.8 3.8 3.8 11 .5 3.8 7.7 3.8 3.8 3.8  T a b l e 21 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f R e s p o n d e n t s by C o l 1eges and U n i v e r s i t i e s A t t e n d e d f o r F u r t h e r Formal Study  Col 1eges a n d Un i v e r s i t i e s U n i v e r s i t y of Saskatchewan U n i v e r s i t y of Manitoba U n i v e r s i t y of Guelph U n i v e r s i t y of Arizona U n i v e r s i t y of Oregon Oregon S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Colorado State University U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota U n i v e r s i t y of Colorado Red D e e r C o l l e g e U n i v e r s i t y of Calgary Purdue U n i v e r s i t y U n i v e r s i t y of Idaho Washington State U n i v e r s i t y Iowa S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y U n i v e r s i t y of Northern Colorado Ohio State U n i v e r s i t y Seattle University Reading U n i v e r s i t y  A1 b e r t a (N=17) Percent 5.9 5.9 5.9 23.5  British Columb i a (N= 5) Percent 20.0 20. 20. 20.  5.9 11.8 5 1 1 1 1 5 5.  Canada (N=22) Percent 9 4 . 9 , 22 . 4 . 4 . 9 . 4 . 9 . 9. 4 . 4 .  Idaho (N=14) Percent  21.4 7.1 7.1  57.1  7.1  20.0  Washington (N=20) Percent  Uni t e d States (N=34) Percent  25.0 15.0  8.8 2.9 14.7 11.8  5.0 15.0 25.0 5.0 5.0 5.0  2.9 32.4 14.7 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9  4.5  ho o  T a b l e 22 Comparison o f D i s t r i c t A g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s and C o u n t y E x t e n s i o n A g r i c u l t u r a l A g e n t s on P r o f e s s i o n a l Development Ideas: L e v e l o f S i g n i f i c a n c e 1)  Statements 1.  An a g e n t who secures an advanced degree i s o f f e r e d a better position within the a g r i c u l t u r a l extension serv i ce:  2.  E a r n i n g an a d v a n c e d degree i s c o n s i d e r e d by t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a s t h e most important method an a g e n t can use to improve h i s competence:  3.  An a g e n t who r e t u r n s f o r an advanced degree i s paid well enough t h r o u g h f e l l o w s h i p s , s c h o l a r s h i p s , or s a b b a t i c a l leave to almost equal h i s r e g u l a r annnual s a l a r y :  4.  An a g e n t w i t h a n a d v a n c e d degree i s paid a higher s a l a r y t h a n an a g e n t w i t h o u t an a d v a n c e d degree i f b o t h h a v e t h e same experience and job r e s p o n s i b i1 i t i e s :  5.  An a g e n t who r e t u r n s f o r an advanced degree w i l l continue t o be e n t i t l e d t o s a l a r y i n c r e a s e s d e s p i t e h i s absence:  AB v s BC T Prob  AB v s ID T Prob  AB v s WA T Prob  BC v s ID T Prob  BC v s WA T Prob  ID VS WA T Prob  CA v s US T Prob  N3  T a b l e 22-- C o n t i n u e d AB v s BC T Prob  Statements 6. An a g e n t who e a r n s an a d v a n c e d degree gets a higher p o s i t i o n t h a n an agent o f s i m i l a r p r o f e s s i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e who does n o t have an advanced degree:  AB v s ID T Prob  AB v s WA T Prob  **  *  *  *  BC v s ID T Prob  *  BC v s WA T Prob  ID VS WA T Prob  CA v s US T Prob  **  7. When a n a g e n t ' s work b e g i n s t o d e c r e a s e i n q u a n t i t y and/or q u a l i t y , the organization will suggest graduate study: 8.  C o n s i d e r i n g both the c o s t s and b e n e f i t s o f o b t a i n i n g an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a n a g e n t makes a f i n a n c i a l g a i n by g e t t i n g an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e :  **Significant •Significant AB=Alberta ID=Idaho 1) R e f e r  a t t h e 0.01 a t t h e 0.05  **  level level  B C = B r i t i s h Columbia WA=Washington  CA=Canada US=United  t o T a b l e s 23 a n d 38 f o r t h e c o m p l e t e  States  T - T e s t a n d Oneway  ANOVA  analyses.  T a b l e 23 Comparison of D i s t r i c t A g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s and C o u n t y E x t e n s i o n A g r i c u l t u r a l A g e n t s on P r o f e s s i o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t I d e a s : Oneway ANOVA  Statements  Degrees of Freedom  Mean Squares  F Rat i o s  F Prob.  0.65  T Values  T Prob.  An a g e n t who s e c u r e s an advanced degree i s o f f e r e d a better p o s i t i o n within the a g r i c u l t u r a l extension serv ice: Between groups Within groups  3 146  0.60 1 .08  0.55  3 146  8 . 38 0.81  10. 34  E a r n i n g an advanced degree i s c o n s i d e r e d by t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a s t h e most i m p o r t a n t m e t h o d an a g e n t c a n u s e t o improve his competence: Between groups Within groups Contrast AB v s ID AB v s WA BC v s ID BC v s WA  0.00**  146 146 146 146  02 36 74 39  0.00** 0.00** 0.00** 0.02*  .97 . 19 .68  0.05* 0.03* 0.01**  An a g e n t who r e t u r n s f o r a n advanced degree i s paid well enough t h r o u g h f e l l o w s h i p s , scholarships, or sabbatical leave t o almost equal h i s r e g u l a r annnual s a l a r y : Between groups Within groups Contrast AB v s WA BC v s ID ID v s WA  3 141 141 141 141  3 . 16 0.97  3.25  0.02*  K3 OJ OJ  T a b l e 2 3 - - Cont i n u e d  Statements 4.  Degrees of Freedom  Mean Squares  F Rat i o s  F Prob.  T Values  T Prob.  An a g e n t w i t h a n a d v a n c e d degree i s paid a higher s a l a r y t h a n an a g e n t w i t h o u t an advanced degree i f b o t h h a v e t h e same e x p e r i e n c e and j o b responsibi1ities: Between groups Within groups Contrast AB v s ID AB v s WA BC v s ID BC v s WA  3 144  t  21.13 1.15  18.42  0.00**  144 144 144 144  -5.81 -4.80 -5.42 -4.58  0.00* 0.00* O.OO* 0.00*  -2.44 -2 .19 2 . 28  0.02* 0.03* 0.02*  -3 .04 -2 . 16 -2 . 44  0.00* 0.03* 0.02*  5. An a g e n t who r e t u r n s f o r a n advanced degree w i l l continue to be e n t i t l e d t o s a l a r y i n c r e a s e s d e s p i t e h i s absence: Between groups Within groups Contrast AB v s ID BC v s ID ID v s WA 6.  3 144  5.83 2.20  2.GG  0.05*  144 144 144  An a g e n t who e a r n s a n a d v a n c e d degree gets a higher p o s i t i o n t h a n an agent of s i m i l a r professional e x p e r i e n c e who d o e s n o t have an advanced degree: Between groups Within groups Contrast AB v s ID AB v s WA BC v s ID  3 145 145 145 145  5.26 1 . 29  4 .09  0.01**  T a b l e 23-- C o n t i n u e d Degrees of Freedom  Statements  Mean Squares  F Rat i o s  F Prob.  T Values  T Prob  -2.19 -2.24  0.03 0.03  7. When a n a g e n t ' s work b e g i n s t o d e c r e a s e i n q u a n t i t y and/or q u a l i t y , the organization will suggest graduate study: Between groups Within groups 8.  3 140  1.27 0.25  1.38  0.92  3 146  3.21 1.20  2.68  0.05*  C o n s i d e r i n g b o t h t h e c o s t s and b e n e f i t s o f o b t a i n i n g an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a n a g e n t makes a f i n a n c i a l g a i n by g e t t i n g an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e : Between groups Within groups Contrast AB v s ID AB v s WA  **Significant •Significant AB=Alberta ID=Idaho  at at  the the  146 146  0.01 0.05  level level  B C = B r i t i s h Columbia WA = Wash i n g t o n  CA=Canada US=United  States  T a b l e 24 Comparison of D i s t r i c t A g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s and C o u n t y E x t e n s i o n A g r i c u l t u r a l A g e n t s on A t t i t u d e Towards R e g u l a t o r y F u n c t i o n s : L e v e l o f S i g n i f i c a n c e 1) AB v s BC T Prob  Statements 1.  An a g e n t who h a s r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s i s not as f r e e to examine a l l problems o b j e c t i v e l y a s he w o u l d be without such d u t i e s :  2.  P e r f o r m i n g the educational aspect of r e g u l a t o r y f u n c t i o n s f o r a n o t h e r o f f i c e or agency h a s a p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on t h e agent's a b i l i t y to c a r r y out his other extension duties:  3.  R e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s may discourage participation of p e o p l e i n a program which the agent o r g a n i z e s :  4.  R e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s which p r o v i d e f o r s p e c i f i e d c o n t r o l of s t o c k i n g , o r o f l a n d improvement and l a n d use, o r f o r the c o n t r o l o f p e s t s o r weeds may facilitate an a g e n t ' s e f f o r t s t o p e r s u a d e h i s c l i e n t e l e t o adopt the required information: '  5.  R e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s may the agent's i n f l u e n c e clientele :  AB v s ID T Prob  AB v s WA T Prob  BC v s ID T Prob  BC v s WA T Prob  ID VS WA T Prob  CA v s US t Prob  decrease on h i s  Co ON  Table AB vs BC T Prob  Statements  AB v s ID T Prob  6.  R e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s may increase the a g e n t ' s s t a t u s i n h i s farm community, t h u s c a n f a c i l i t a t e his e f f o r t to influence h i s c l i e n t e l e t o a c c e p t the appropriate innovations:  7.  An a g e n t ' s r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s may f a c i l i t a t e h i s e f f o r t t o perform the other duties associated with h i s position:  *  R e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s which p r e s c r i b e s p e c i f i e d grades of commodities or i n s p e c t i o n o f p r e m i s e s may facilitate' an a g e n t ' s e d u c a t i o n a l p e r f o r m a n c e by p r o v i d i n g a t e a c h a b l e moment f o r h i s c l i e n t e l e to acquire a given information:  *  8.  9.  10.  24-- C o n t i n u e d AB v s WA T Prob  BC v s ID T Prob  BC v s WA T Prob  **  *  An a g e n t n e e d s t o r e m a i n c l e a r of any t y p e o f r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s i n o r d e r t o be e f f e c t i v e i n h i s e x t e n s i o n work:  AB=Alberta ID=Idaho 1) R e f e r  at at  t h e 0.01 t h e 0.05  t o T a b l e s 29  and  *  **  level level  B C = B r i t i s h Columbia WA=Washington 39  CA v s US T Prob  **  R e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s may interfere w i t h an a g e n t ' s a b i l i t y t o m o t i v a t e h i s c l i e n t e l e to adopt new k n o w l e d g e o r s k i l l :  **Significant •Significant  ID v s WA T Prob  CA=Canada US=United  f o r the complete  States  T - T e s t and  Oneway ANOVA a n a l y s e s  *  **  T a b l e 25 Comparison of D i s t r i c t A g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s and County E x t e n s i o n A g r i c u l t u r a l A g e n t s on A t t i t u d e T o w a r d R e g u l a t o r y F u n c t i o n s : Oneway ANOVA  Statements  Degrees of Freedom  Mean Squares  F Rat i o s  F Prob.  4.89  0.00**  T Values  T Prob.  An a g e n t who h a s r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s i s not as f r e e to examine a l l problems o b j e c t i v e l y a s he w o u l d b e without such d u t i e s : Between groups Within groups Cont r a s t AB v s WA BC v s WA  3 143  4 . 22 0.86  143 143  3.29 2.87  0.00** 0.01**  2.43  0.02*  Performing the educational aspect of r e g u l a t o r y functions f o r a n o t h e r o f f i c e or agency h a s a p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on t h e agent's a b i l i t y to c a r r y out his other extension duties: Between groups Within groups Contrast ID v s WA  3 142  37 1 1  2.14  0. 10  142  R e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s may discourage participation of p e o p l e i n a program which t h e agent o r g a n i z e s : Between g r o u p s Within groups  3 141  1 .46 0.83  1 . 74  0. 16  1S3  CO  Table 25-- Cont i nued  Statements  Degrees of Freedom  Mean Squares  Rat i os  F Prob.  2 . 22  0.09  T Values  T Prob.  2.48  0.01**  2.19  0.03**  2. 19 3.65  0.03* 0.00**  4. Regulatory d u t i e s which provide f o r s p e c i f i e d c o n t r o l of stock, or of land improvement and land use, or f o r the c o n t r o l of p e s t s or weeds may f a c i l i t a t e an agent's e f f o r t s to persuade h i s c l i e n t e l e to adopt the required information: Between groups W i t h i n groups Contrast ID vs WA  3 141  2.42 1 .09  141  5. Regulatory d u t i e s may decrease the agent's i n f l u e n c e on h i s c1i entele: Between groups W i t h i n groups Contrast AB vs WA  3 141  1 .84 0.82  2 . 24  0.09  141  Regulatory d u t i e s may i n c r e a s e the agent's s t a t u s in h i s farm community, thus can f a c i l i t a t e h i s e f f o r t to i n f l u e n c e h i s c l i e n t e l e to accept the a p p r o p r i a t e innovations: Between groups W i t h i n groups  3 141  1 .23 0.86  1 .43  0.24  3 141  4 . 39 0.96  4.58  0.00**  An agent's r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s may f a c i l i t a t e h i s e f f o r t to perform the other d u t i e s a s s o c i a t e d with h i s p o s i t i o n : Between groups W i t h i n groups Contrast AB vs ID AB vs WA  141 141  Table Degrees of Freedom  Statements 8.  4.24 1 . 10  3 140  F Rat i o s  F Prob.  3 .86  0.01**  140 140  T Values  T Prob.  2.11 3.31  0.04* 0. OO* *  2 . 18 4.01 2 . 27  0.03* 0.00*" 0.02*  R e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s may interfere w i t h an a g e n t ' s a b i l i t y t o m o t i v a t e h i s c l i e n t e l e t o adopt new k n o w l e d g e o r s k i l l : Between g r o u p s Within groups  10.  Mean Squares  R e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s which p r e s c r i b e s p e c i f i e d grades of commodities or i n s p e c t i o n of p r e m i s e s may f a c i l i t a t e a n agent's e d u c a t i o n a l performance by p r o v i d i n g a t e a c h a b l e moment f o r h i s c l i e n t e l e to a c q u i r e a g i v e n i n f o r m a t i o n : Between groups Within groups Contrast AB v s ID AB v s WA  9.  25-- C o n t i nued  3 141  1 . 35 0.90  1 .49  0.22  3 139  6.40 1.11  5.75  0.00**  An a g e n t n e e d s t o r e m a i n c l e a r of any t y p e of r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s i n o r d e r t o be e f f e c t i v e i n h i s e x t e n s i o n work: Between groups Within groups Contrast AB v s ID AB v s WA BC v s WA  **Significant •Significant AB=Alberta ID=Idaho  a t t h e 0.01 a t t h e 0.05  139 139 139  level level  B C = B r i t i s h Columbia WA=Wasnington  CA=Canada US=United  States  N3  JS O  T a b l e 26 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Respondents by Membership in P r o f e s s i o n a l S o c i e t i e s  Soc i e t i es o r  Associations  Canadian S o c i e t y of Extension Agricultural I n s t i t u t e of Canada N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f County Agricultural Agents N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f County 4-H C l u b A g e n t s B r i t i s h Columbia I n s t i t u t e of A g r o l o g i s t s C a n a d i a n S o c i e t y o f Range Management C a n a d i a n S o c i e t y o f Animal Science A l b e r t a I n s t i t u t e of Agrologists A m e r i c a n S o c i e t y o f Animal Science Idaho A s s o c i a t i o n o f County Agricultural Agents Washington Extension Agents A s s o c i a t i on Others  Alberta (N=51) Percent 25.5 43. 1  British Columbia (N=16) Percent 18.8 87 . 5  Canada (N=67) Percent 23.9 53 . 7  Idaho (N=33) Percent  9. 1  2.0 9 . 8  4 . 5  25 .0 12.5  6.0 4. 5 7.5 9 . 1  75.5 6. 1  10.2  82.9 7. 3  9.8 2.4  6. 1  27 . 3  Uni t e d States (N=82) Percent  1. 2  3.0 93.9  31 .3  Washington (N=49) Percent  8 . 2 81.6  4.9 59.8  T a b l e 27 R e s p o n d e n t s ' Rankings of S o u r c e s of R e s e a r c h I n f o r m a t i o n  Sources Business or Industry M i n i s t r y or Federal Department of A g r i c u l t u r e P r o v i n c i a l or State Department of A g r i c u l t u r e Universities  Alberta Mean Rank  British Columbia Mean Rank  Canada Mean Rank  Idaho Mean Rank  Washington Mean Rank  United States Mean Rank  3.00  4  3.62  4  3.13  4  2.67  2  2.58  2  2.61  2  2.58  2  2.29  2  2.52  2  2.80  3  2.73  3  2.76  3  1.28 2.92  1 3  1.13 2.87  1 3  1.25 2.91  1 3  3.10 1.03  4 1  3.20 1.13  4 1  3.16 1.09  4 1  T a b l e 28 C o m p a r i s o n of D i s t r i c t A g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s and C o u n t y E x t e n s i o n A g r i c u l t u r a l A g e n t s on S o u r c e s of R e s e a r c h I n f o r m a t i o n : L e v e l o f S i g n i f i c a n c e 1) AB v s BC T Prob  Sources Business  or  AB v s ID T Prob  AB v s WA T Prob  Industry  M i n i s t r y or Federal Department of Agriculture P r o v i n i c a l or Department  State of Agriculture  Un i v e r s i t i e s  **Significant •Significant AB=Alberta ID=Idaho 1)  Refer  to  at at  the the  0.01 0.05  level level  B C = B r i t i s h Columbia WA=Washington Tables  27  a n d 40  for  the  CA=Canada US=United complete  States  Oneway  ANOVA a n a l y s e s .  BC v s ID T Prob  BC v s WA T Prob  ID VS WA T Prob  CA v s US F Prob  T a b l e 29 Comparison of D i s t r i c t A g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s and County E x t e n s i o n A g r i c u l t u r a l A g e n t s on S o u r c e s o f R e s e a r c h I n f o r m a t i o n : Oneway ANOVA Degrees of Freedom  Sources Business  or  Mean Squares  F Rat i o s  F Prob.  5.54  0.00**  T Values  T Prob.  -2 2 3 3  . 27 . 28 . 18 . 76  0.03* 0.02* 0.00** 0.00**  •10.21 •12.34 -8.54 - 9 . 70  0.00** 0.00** 0.00** O.OO**  13 . 24 13 . 9 3 9 . 36 9.34  0.00** 0.00** 0.00** 0.00**  Industry:  Between groups Within groups Contrast AB v s BC AB v s WA BC v s ID BC v s WA  4.16 0 . 75  3 120 120 120 120 120  M i n i s t r y or Federal Department of A g r i c u l t u r e : Between groups Within groups  3 108  0.89 0.89  1 .00  34.63 0.45  76 . 24  0.40  P r o v i n c i a l or State Department of A g r i c u l t u r e : 3 1 1 1  Between groups Within groups Contrast AB v s ID AB v s WA BC v s ID BC v s WA  1 1 1 1  1 1 1 1  0.00**  1 1 1 1  Un i v e r s i t i e s : 3 140  Between g r o u p s Within groups Cont r a s t ,AB v s ID AB v s WA BC v s ID BC v s WA  **Significant •Significant AB=Alberta ID=Idaho  at at  3 9 . 12 0.40  140 140 140 140  t h e 0.01 the 0.05  98.48  0.00**  level level  BC=British Columbia WA = W a s h i n g t o n  CA=Canada US = U n i t e d  States  t~o -Pco  T a b l e 30 Comparison of D i s t r i c t Agriculturalists and C o u n t y E x t e n s i o n A g r i c u l t u r a l Agents on T h e i r R a t i n g s o f E x t e n s i o n R o l e F u n c t i o n s : Oneway ANOVA Perce i ved Importance to Their Organization Degrees of Mean F Freedom Squares Rat i o s  E x t e n s i on Rol e Funct i ons Adult  Perceived Importance to Their -CIientele F Prob.  Degrees of Freedom  Mean Squares  Importance to The R e s p o n d e n t s Degrees of Freedom  F Rat i o s  F Prob.  2 . 50  0 . 12  1 148  10.71  0.00**  1 1 .99  Mean Squares  F Rat i o s  F Prob.  1 .98 0.56  3.54  0.06  1 148  0.21 0.47  0.45  0.50  0.00**  1 148  12.25 0.96  12.81  0.00**  0.00**  1 147  6.21 0.59  10.49  0.00**  educator  Between g r o u p s Within groups  1 146  3.35 0.41  8.20  0.00**  1 146  2 . 28 0.91  1 149  1.41 0.66  2.13  0.15  1 146  3.90 0 . 36  1 148  10. 73 1.15  9 . 34  0.00**  1 144  15.83 1 . 32  1 148  9 . 55 0 . 78  12.20  0.00**  1 146  8 .92 0.81  10.99  1 147  0 . 33 1 .30  0.25  0.62  1 145  0.05 1 . 73  0.03  0.87  1 148  2.58 1.13  2.29  0.13  1 147  4 . 34 1 .09  3.98  0.05*  1 145  0.60 1 .07  0.56  0.45  1 146  0.07 1 .04  0.07  0.79  1 149  4.40 0.61  7.23  0.01**  1 147  1 .48 0.90  1 .65  0.20  1 147  7.45 0.52  14.30  Adviser/Consultant Between g r o u p s Within groups Agricultural Credit program administrator Between g r o u p s Within groups Agricultural enforcement  regulations officer  Between g r o u p s Within groups Emergency measures program administrator Between groups Within groups Fac i 1 i t a t o r or s e r v i c e agent Between groups Within groups Inspection acts enforcement officer Between g r o u p s Within groups  0.00** r-o  Table Perceived Importance to Their Organization Degrees of Mean F Freedom Squares Rat i os  E x t e n s i on Rol e Funct i ons O g r a n i z e r and s u p e r v i s o r of  of  Degrees of Freedom  Degrees of Freedom  Mean Squares  F Ratios  F Prob.  1.47  0.23  1 147  0.00**  Mean Squares  F Rat i os  F Prob.  0.57 0.83  0.69  0.41  1 148  6 . 19 0.81  7.61  0.01**  1 148  0.57 1.18  0.48  0.49  1 146  0 . 22 0.96  0.23  0.64  1 145  1 .24 0.84  1 149  2 .07 0.66  3.12  0.08  1 146  1 1 . 37 0 . 74  15.29  1 147  3.63 1 .09  3.32  0.07  1 146  0 . 72 1 . 24  0.58  1 146  1 . 75 0.84  2 .09  0.15  1 146  0.12 0.98  0.13  0.72  1 147  0 . 19 0.75  0 . 25  0.62  1 148  0 . 25 0 . 59  0.43  0.51  1 142  3.57 0.96  3.70  0.06  1 147  0.38 0.63  0.60  0.44  1 149  0.06 0.60  0.10  0.75  1 145  0.50 0.44  1 . 14  0 . 29  1 149  0 . 28 0.35  0.80  0.37  1 135  0.89 1 .62  0.55  0.46  1 130  0 . 10 1 .47  0.07  1 133  11.17 1 .92  5.81  0.02*  0.45  planner  Between g r o u p s Within groups Pub l i e  F Prob.  Importance to The R e s p o n d e n t s  administrator  Between g r o u p s Within groups Program  Perce i ved Importance to The i r C 1 i e n t e l e  groups  Between groups Within groups Program  Cont i n u e d  events  Between g r o u p s Within groups Organizer  30--  r e 1 at i ons  Between g r o u p s Within groups \  Sources of and ideas  information  Between groups W i t h i n groups Student Between groups W i t h i n groups  **Significant •Significant  at at  t h e 0.01 the 0.05  0.79  level level  -PUl  T a b l e 31 Comparison of the R e s p o n d e n t s ' Three R a t i n g s of E x t e n s i o n R o l e F u n c t i o n s : ANOVAR (F P r o b . ) 1)  Funct i ons Adult educator Adviser/Consultant Agricultural credit program administrator Agricultural regulations enforcement officer Emergency measures program administrator Fac i 1 i t a t o r or s e r v i c e agent Inspection acts enforcement officer O r g a n i z e r and s u p e r v i s o r of e v e n t s O r g a n i z e r of groups Program administrator Program p l a n n e r Publi c r e l a t ions Sources of information and ideas Student  **Significant •Significant AB=Alberta ID=Idaho 1)  Refer  British Columbi a  Alberta  to  at at  the the  0.01 0.05  ** **  41  for  Idaho  Wash i n g t o n  ** **  ** ** **  ** **  Uni ted States  ** **  ** **  ** **  ** **  level level  BC=British Columbia WA=Washington Table  Canada  the  complete  CA=Canada US=United ANOVAR  States  analysis.  ho  T a b l e 32 Comparison of the R e s p o n d e n t s ' R a t i n g s of the P e r c e i v e d Importance of E x t e n s i o n Role F u n c t i o n s to t h e i r O r g a n i z a t i o n : L e v e l o f S i g n i f i c a n c e 1) AB v s BC T Prob  F u n c t i ons  AB v s ID T Prob  AB v s WA T Prob  Adult educator Adviser/Consultant Agricultural credit program administrator Agricultural regulations enforcement officer Emergency measures program administrator Fac i 1 i t a t o r or s e r v i c e agent Inspection acts enforcement officer O r g a n i z e r and s u p e r v i s o r of e v e n t s O r g a n i z e r of groups Program administrator Program p l a n n e r Publ i c r e l a t ions S o u r c e s of information and i d e a s Student  **Significant •Significant AB=Alberta ID=Idaho 1)  Refer  to  at at  the the  0.01 0.05  level level  *  BC=British Columbia WA=Washington Tables  30  and 33  for  the  CA=Canada US=Un1ted complete  States  Oneway ANOVA a n a l y s i s .  BC v s ID T Prob  BC v s WA T Prob  ID v s WA T Prob  CA v s US F Prob  T a b l e 33 Comparison of the Respondents' R a t i n g s of the P e r c e i v e d Importance of E x t e n s i o n Role Functions to t h e i r O r g a n i z a t i o n : Oneway ANOVA  Funct i ons Adult Educator Between groups Within groups Contrast AB v s WA BC v s WA Adviser/consultant Between groups Within groups Agricultural credit program administrator Between g r o u p s Within groups Contrast AB v s WA BC v s WA Agricultural regulations enforcement officer Between groups Within groups Contrast AB v s ID AB v s WA BC v s ID BC v s WA Emergency measures program administrator Between g r o u p s Within groups  Degrees of Freedom  3 144  Mean Squares  1 .48 0.41  F Rat i o s  F Prob.  3 .65  0.01**  144 144  3 147  1.14 0.66  1 . 73  0.16  4 . 48 1.15  3.91  0.01*  146 146 146  3 146  3 . 32 0.79  4.20  0 . 58 1.31  0.44  T Prob.  -2.84 - 2 .63  0.01** 0.01**  2.75 2.86  0.01** 0.01**  2.69 2.49 2.46 2 . 32  0.01** 0.02* 0.02* 0.03*  0.01**  146 146 146 146  3 145  T Values  0.73  N3 00  Table  Funct i ons  Degrees of Freedom  Fac i 1 i t a t o r or s e r v i c e agent Between groups Within groups Contrast AB v s ID  3 145  Inspection acts enforcement officer Between groups Within groups Contrast AB v s WA  3 147  O r g a n i z e r and supervisor of events Between groups Within groups Contrast AB v s BC AB v s ID O r g a n i z e r of groups Between groups Within groups Contrast AB v s BC AB v s WA  3 3 - - Cont i nued  Mean Squares  1 .89 1 . 10  F Rat i o s  F Prob.  1 . 72  0.17  145  1 .66 0.61  2.71  2.11 0.93  2 . 63  2.56 0.63  4 .05  2 .03  0.04*  2 . 75  0.01*  -1 .98 2.39  0.05* 0.02*  -2 .44 - 3 . 10  0.02* 0.00*  0.08  144 144  3 147  T Prob.  0.05*  147  3 144  T Values  0.01**  147 147  Program administrator Between groups Within groups  3 145  30 1 1  1.18  0 . 32  Program p l a n n e r Between groups Within groups  3 144  80 85  0.95  0.42  Public relations Between groups Within groups  3 146  40 59  0.68  0.57  Table Degrees of Freedom  Funct i ons  3 3 - - C o n t i nued  Mean Squares  F Rat i o s  F Prob.  Sources of information and i d e a s Between g r o u p s Within groups  3 147  0 . 45 0.60  0.76  O. 52  Student Between g r o u p s Within groups  3 133  1 . 45 1.61  0.90  0.44  **Significant •Significant AB=Alberta ID=Idaho  at at  the the  0.01 0.05  T Values  T Prob.  level level  B C = B r i t i s h Columbia WA=Washington  CA=Canada US=United  States  ro  O  T a b l e 34 Comparison of the Respondents' R a t i n g s of the P e r c e i v e d Importance of E x t e n s i o n Role F u n c t i o n s to t h e i r C l i e n t e l e : L e v e l o f S i g n i f i c a n c e 1) AB v s ID T Prob  AB v s BC T Prob  Funct ions  AB v s WA T Prob  BC v s ID T Prob  BC v s WA T Prob  ID v s WA T Prob  CA v s US F Prob  Adult educator Adviser/Consul tant Agricultural credit program administrator Agricultural regulations enforcement officer Emergency measures . program administrator F a c i 1 i t a t o r or s e r v i c e agent Inspection acts enforcement officer O r g a n i z e r and s u p e r v i s o r of e v e n t s O r g a n i z e r of groups Program administrator Program p l a n n e r P u b l i c re 1 at i ons Sources of information and i d e a s Student  **Significant •Significant AB=Alberta ID=Idaho 1)  Refer  to  at at  the the  0.01 0.05  level level  BC=British Columbia WA=Washington Tables  30  and 35  for  the  CA=Canada US=United complete  States  Oneway ANOVA a n a l y s i s .  On  T a b l e 35 Comparison of the Respondents' R a t i n g s of the P e r c e i v e d Importance of E x t e n s i o n Role Functions to t h e i r Clientele: Oneway ANOVA  Funct ions Adult Educator Between g r o u p s Within groups Contrast AB v s BC BC v s ID BC v s WA Adviser/consultant Between g r o u p s Within groups Contrast AB v s WA BC v s WA Agricultural credit program administrator Between g r o u p s Within groups Contrast AB v s WA BC v s ID BC v s WA  Degrees of Freedom  3 144  Mean Squares  3.89 0.86  F Rat i o s  F Prob.  4 . 52  0.00**  21 52 1 1  144 144 144  3 144  1 .67 0 . 36  4 .64  6 . 18 1 . 32  4 .68  144 144 144 144  Emergency measures program administrator Between g r o u p s Within groups  3 143  3 144  3.12 0.82  1 . 30 1 . 72  3.80  0.75  0.00** 0.00** 0.00**  -3.61 -2 . 16  0.00** 0.03*  3 .08 1 .95 3 .00  0.00** 0.05* 0.00**  33 39 37 35  0.02** 0.02* 0.02* 0.02*  0.00**  142 142 142  Agricultural regulations enforcement officer Between g r o u p s Within groups Contrast AB v s ID AB v s WA BC v s ID BC v s WA  T Prob.  o.oo*<  144 144  3 142  T Values  0.01**  0.52  KJ N3  Table  Funct i ons  Degrees of Freedom  35-  Mean Squares  C o n t i nued  F Rat i o s  F Prob.  Fac i 1 i t a t o r or s e r v i c e agent Between groups Within groups  3 143  0 . 46 1 .08  0.42  0.74  Inspection acts enforcement officer Between groups Within groups  3 145  0 . 78 0.90  0.86  0.46  O r g a n i z e r and s u p e r v i s o r of events Between g r o u p s Within groups  3 143  71 85  0.84  0.47  3 144  81 73  6.57  0.00*  O r g a n i z e r of groups Between groups Within groups Contrast AB v s ID. AB v s WA BC v s ID BC v s WA ID v s WA Program administrator Between groups Within groups Contrast ID v s WA Program p l a n n e r Between groups Within groups P u b l i c re 1 at i ons Between groups Within groups Contrast AB v s WA  144 144 144 144 144  3 144  1 .85 1 . 22  1.51  T Prob.  -3.89 -2.13 -3.44 -2.11 1 .95  0.00* 0.04* 0.00* * 0.04* 0.05*  0.21  144  3 144  0.30 0.98  0.30  0.82  3 140  1 .64 0.97  1 .69  0.17  140  T Values  1 . 98  0.05*  2 . 19  0.03*  to  On OJ  Table  35--  Degrees of Freedom  Mean Squares  S o u r c e s of information and i d e a s Between g r o u p s Within groups  3 143  Student Between g r o u p s Within groups  3 128  Funct i ons  **Significant •Significant AB=A1berta ID=Idaho  at at  the the  0.01 0.05  Continued  F Rat i o s  F Prob.  0.G4 0.44  1 .47  0 . 23  1 .66 1 .46  1.14  0 . 34  T Values  T Prob.  level level  BC=British Columbia WA = Wash i n g t o n  CA=Canada US=United  States  Ul  T a b l e 36 Comparison of the R e s p o n d e n t s ' R a t i n g s of the Importance of E x t e n s i o n Role F u n c t i o n s to t h e m s e l v e s : L e v e l o f S i g n i f i c a n c e 1) AB v s ID T Prob  AB v s BC T Prob  Funct i ons  AB v s WA T Prob  BC v s ID T Prob  BC v s WA T Prob  ID v s WA T Prob  CA v s US F Prob  Adu1t e d u c a t o r Adviser/Consultant Agricultural credit program administrator Agricultural regulations enforcement officer Emergency measures program administrator Fac i 1 i t a t o r or s e r v i c e agent Inspection acts enforcement officer O r g a n i z e r and s u p e r v i s o r of events O r g a n i z e r of groups Program administrator Program p l a n n e r P u b l i c r e l a t i ons S o u r c e s of information and i d e a s Student  **Significant •Significant AB=Alberta ID=Idaho 1)  Refer  to  at at  the the  0.01 0.05  level level  >  BC=British Columbia WA=Washington Tables  30 and 37  for  the  CA=Canada US=United complete  States  Oneway ANOVA a n a l y s i s .  to On On  T a b l e 37 Comparison of t h e R e s p o n d e n t s ' R a t i n g s of the Importance of E x t e n s i o n Role F u n c t i o n s t o t h e m s e l v e s : Oneway ANOVA  Funct ions Adu1t Educator Between g r o u p s Within groups . Contrast BC v s ID BC v s WA Adv i s e r / c o n s u 1 t a n t Between g r o u p s Within groups Agricultural credit program administrator Between g r o u p s Within groups Contrast AB v s WA BC v s WA Agricultural regulations enforcement officer Between g r o u p s Within groups Contrast AB v s WA BC v s ID BC v s WA Emergency measures program administrator Between g r o u p s Within groups Contrast AB v s WA  Degrees of Freedom  3 146  Mean Squares  1 . 44 0 . 55  F Rat i os  F Prob.  2.61  0.05*  146 146  3 146  0 . 32 0.47  0.68  0 . 56  3 146  5. 19 0.95  5.49  0.00**  146 146  3 145  2 . 53 0 . 59  4 . 28  146  1 .87 1.13  1 .66  T Prob.  - 2 .04 - 2 . 78  0.04* 0.01**  3.65 2.96  O.OO** 0.00**  2 . 76 2 .06 3 .04  0.01** 0.04* 0.00**  2 . 18  0.03*  0.01**  145 145 145  3  T Values  0 . 18  146  t>j On ON  Table  Funct i ons Fac i 1i t a t o r o r s e r v i c e agent Between groups Within groups Inspection acts enforcement officer Between groups Within groups Contrast AB v s ID AB v s WA BC v s ID BC v s WA O r g a n i z e r and s u p e r v i s o r of events Between groups Within groups Contrast AB v s BC AB v s WA O r g a n i z e r of groups Between groups W i t h i n groups Contrast AB v s ID AB v s WA  Degrees of Freedom  37-  Mean Squares  C o n t i nued  F Rat i o s  F Prob.  3 144  0 . 55 1 .04  0.53  0.66  3 145  2 . 72 0 . 52  5. 19  0.00**  20 86 69 14  145 145 145 145  3 145  2.18 0.80  2.72  2.21 0.82  2 .69  T Prob.  0.03* 0.01** 0.01** 0.00**  0.05*  145 145  3 146  T Values  -1 .98 -2.23  0.05* 0.03*  -2.24 -2.52  0.03* 0.01*  0.05*  146 146  Program administrator Between g r o u p s Within groups  3 146  0.88 1.18  0 . 74  0 . 53  Program p l a n n e r Between groups Within groups  3 145  0.69 0.75  0.92  0.43  P u b l i c r e l a t i ons Between groups Within groups  3 145  0.39 0.63  0.63  0.60  N3  Table Degrees of Freedom  Funct i ons S o u r c e s of information and i d e a s Between g r o u p s Within groups Student Between g r o u p s Within groups Contrast AB v s ID  **Significant •Significant AB=Alberta ID=Idaho  at at  t h e 0.01 the 0.05  Mean Squares  F Rat i o s  F Prob.  1 147  0.13 0 . 36  0 . 35  0.79  3 131  3 . 98 1 .95  2.04  0.11  131  level level  BC=British Columbia WA=Washington  3 7 - - C o n t i nued  CA=Canada US=United  States  T Values  T Prob.  - 2 . 10  0.04*  259  Table 38 Comparison of D i s t r i c t A g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s With County E x t e n s i o n A g r i c u l t u r a l Agents on P r o f e s s i o n a l Development Ideas: T-Test  Statements  Degrees of T Means Freedom Values  T Prob,  1. ah agent who secures an advanced degree i s o f f e r e d a better p o s i t i o n . within the a g r i c u l t u r a l extension service: Canada  3.29  United States  3.31  148  -0.06  148  -5.19  143  0.23  146  -7.15  0.95  2. earning an advanced degree i s c o n s i d e r e d by the o r g a n i z a t i o n as the most important method an agent can use to improve h i s competence: Canada  3.06  United States  3.83  0.00**  3. an agent who r e t u r n s f o r an advanced degree i s p a i d w e l l enough through fellowships, s c h o l a r s h i p s , or sabbatical leave to almost equal h i s r e g u l a r annual s a l a r y : Canada  2.68  United States  2.64  0.82  4. an agent with an advanced degree i s p a i d a higher salary than an agent without an advanced degree if both have the same experience and job responsibi1 i t ies: Canada  2.85  United States  4.12  0.00**  260  Table 38 — Cont inued Degrees of T Means Freedom Values  Statements  T Prob.  5. an agent who r e t u r n s f o r an advanced degree w i l l continue to be e n t i t l e d to s a l a r y i n c r e a s e s d e s p i t e h i s absence: Canada .  2.06  United  2.46  States  146  -1.60  0.11  147  -3.34  0.00**  142  -0.10  0.92  148  -2.85  0.01**  6. an agent who earns an advanced degree gets a higher p o s i t i o n than an agent of s i m i l a r professional experience who does not have an advanced degree: 2.87  Canada United  States  3.49  7. when an agent's work begins to decrease in quantity and/or q u a l i t y , the o r g a n i z a t i o n w i l l suggest graduate study: Canada United  2.30 States  2.31  8. c o n s i d e r i n g both the c o s t s and benefits of o b t a i n i n g an advanced degree an agent makes a financial gain by g e t t i n g an advanced degree: Canada United  2.88 States  * * S i g n i f i c a n t at the 0.01  3.39  level.  261  Table 39 Comparison of D i s t r i c t A g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s With County Extension A g r i c u l t u r a l Agents on A t t i t u d e towards Regulatory F u n c t i o n s : T-Test Degrees of T Means Freedom Values  Statements 1.  An agent who has r e g u l a t o r y duties i s not as f r e e to examine a l l problems o b j e c t i v e l y as he would be without such d u t i e s : Canada United  2.  T Prob,  2.20 States  1 .64  145  3.60  0.00**  144  0.48  0.64  143  2.22  0.03*  143  0.57  0.57  Performing the e d u c a t i o n a l aspect of r e g u l a t o r y f u n c t i o n s for another o f f i c e or agency has a p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on the agent's a b i l i t y to c a r r y out h i s other extension d u t i e s : Canada United  3.20 States  3.11  Regulatory d u t i e s may discourage p a r t i c i p a t i o n of people i n a program which the agent o r g a n i z e s : Canada United 4.  2.20 States  1 .86  Regulatory d u t i e s which provide for specified c o n t r o l , of s t o c k i n g , or of land improvement and land use, or f o r the c o n t r o l of pests or weeds may f a c i l i t a t e an agent's e f f o r t to persuade his clientele to adopt the required information: Canada United  3.15 States  3.05  262  Table 3 9 —  Continued Degrees  Of T T Means F r e e d o m V a l u e s P r o b .  Statements R e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s may d e c r e a s e the agent's i n f l u e n c e on h i s clientele: Canada United  2.36 States  1 .99  1 43  2.50  0.01**  143  1.65  0.10  143  3.16  0.00**  142  2.88  0.01**  R e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s may i n c r e a s e the agent's s t a t u s i n h i s farm community, thus can f a c i l i t a t e his e f f o r t to influence h i s clientele to accept the appropriate innovations: Canada United  2.32 States  2.06  An a g e n t ' s r e g u l a t o r y d u t i e s may f a c i l i t a t e h i s e f f o r t t o perform the other duties associated with h i s position: Canada United  2.77 States  2.25  Regulatory duties which p r e s c r i b e s p e c i f i e d grades of c o m m o d i t i e s o r i n s p e c t i o n o f p r e m i s e s may f a c i l i t a t e an agent's educational p e r f o r m a n c e by p r o v i d i n g a teachable moment f o r h i s c l i e n t e l e to acquire a given informat ion: C