1 ".414... 4 ‘a‘at‘ . _ '5»? V ‘ ‘ .. .v I a \u ‘3 4v '3 ‘7. x 1‘ IJfif .s “x- w‘ffi’x ‘. < ”:14: “m . ~32. ,4: 7‘! .- I. g . :vmv1‘(r ~ - yaxqu¢ . .32.. .....:i' v ' " . 9;, 9'. ~ 4’!» ‘ ' 2‘4 311‘} .r... w 1:3“ ' ,5 w: a??? M -. ‘44:. w 4 ‘ Q' ,‘h 1?"!!8 This is to certify that the thesis entitled Participatory Learning of Sustainable Agricultural Practices Between Extension Agents and Farmers presented by Natalie Bement Rector has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Masters Wdegree in Resource Development ,’@€c Major professor Date March 21, 1994 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution ||||lllli|llll|||lllMlllllllllllillhllillilll\Iililllllll 3 1293 01022 445 LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to romovo this chookout from your rooord. TO AVOID FINES Mum on or Moro dd. duo. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE MSU lo An Affirmottvo ActioNEquol Opportunity Instituton 4 Wows-m PARTICIPATORY LEARNING OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES BETWEEN EXTENSION AGENTS AND FARMERS BY Natalie Bement Rector A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTERS OF SCIENCE Department of Resource Development 1993 Abstract . Alternative methods of learning were examined in a study of agricultural agents and their local constituents at Michigan State University. The suitability and adoptability of sustainable agricultural practices was explored through a self-directed, two year, Ieaming approach. A pre- and post-questionnaire was utilized to measure attitudinal changes. It was hypothesized that participatory involvement would change the participants attitudes and circumvent the barriers to adoption of sustainable agriculture. No significant change was noted in the participants attitudes after being involved in the project. The Ieaming plan approach did provided a framework for the agent's activities, causing people to take action and increase their county programming in sustainable agriculture. Farmer-to-farmer networks were highly valued as a credible source of information. The participants indicated the importance of farmers knowing how agriculture impacts the environment; they also very strongly stressed the importance of profitability. The participatory approach appears to be a valid method to help Extension agents view their roles differently. Dedicated to my parents, Ben and Frances Bement and my boys, Andy and Frank. Acknowledgements It is ironic that a project on participatory learning methods must conform to the academic climate that it seeks to reform. None the less, the journey was worth the climb. Special thanks to my husband Don, who not only fully supported this endeavor but swept the floor under my feet as l studied; thanks also for the computer graphics! To Bill Plummer, who got me into this and left; it has been a real cub-bear project! To Christine Stephens who said “get your masters" as she turned me down for a promotion. You were right! My sincere appreciation goes to Dr; Tom Edens for his time and prompt responses but mostly for his candor while allowing a little indigenous knowledge to slip into the system. Thank you to the rest of my committee: Dr. Frank Fear for his inspiration to join the Resource Development department, and Dr. Harvey Liss for his undying respect for Extension agents. Academic appreciation goes to Judy Pfafi for her kind patience on statistics and Joel Lichty for expertise is designing the questionnaire. Thanks to Amy Blair and other MSU library employees for congenial assistance. A special thanks to my sister, Jane Poe, for her time eliminating my vernacular and poorly constructed sentences. if your writing advice becomes incorporated into my daily life this process will have been worthwhile! Table of Contents List of Tables ....................................... List of Figures ...................................... Chapter 1 introduction Background ...................................... Problem Statement and Approach ...................... Structure of the Study ............................... Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Literature Review ........................... Methodology, Approach and Limitations ........... Results and Discussion ....................... Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations Summary ........................................ Conclusions ...................................... Recommendations ................................. Appendix A Cover letter mailed with the questionnaire ......... Appendix B Reminder letter sent to encourage questionnaire responses ....................................... Appendix C Replica of questionnaire sent to participants in the Ieaming plan projects ............................... List of References .................................... vii \I-b-L 40 48 7O 71 74 78 79 80 87 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5 List of Tables Questionnaire response rates ................. 49 Repeated measures analysis of variance for the environmental threat scale .............. 63 Mean scores, paired Meet and respondents by group for the environmental threat scale ................... 63 Mean responses to the question: There is no point in adopting new practices unless they are profitable ............. 64 Responses to the question: Do you like the term sustainable agriculture? ............ 65 vi Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 3.1 Figure 4.1 Figure 4.2 Figure 4.3 Figure 4.4 Figure 4.5 Figure 4.6 Figure 4.7 Figure 4.8 Figure 4.9 Figure 4.10 List of Figures Reductionist model ........................... Farmer-back-to-farmer model ................... Five approaches to farmer participatory research Questionnaire respondents by group .............. Mean ages of all questionnaire respondents ........ Highest level of education completed by experimental participants and agents .............. Participants primary source of income ............. Experimental participants' gross farm income .............................. Experimental participants' responses to where they find reliable information ....................... Experimental agents' response to where they find reliable information .................... Control agents' response to where they find reliable information ........................... Experimental participants' reasons for involvement in ieaming plans ................... Experimental agents' reasons for involvement in Ieaming plans ............................. Experimental participants' level of involvement 13 16 18 42 50 51 52 55 56 58 Chapter 1. introduction Baekgmund The historically slow rate of adoption of new technology and knowledge pales beside the rapid change of the rest of the world. The traditional towers of knowledge do not have crystal clear answers anymore. Available answers may not fit the real world situations. Farmers are better educated than ever before and possess a wealth of practical experiences. Today's agricultural goals are interwoven in the fabric of a much larger matrix than the maximum yield mentality of the past. Participatory methods may be the approach to facilitate inclusion of the many facets of modern agriculture evolving in a concerned society. Change agents have traditionally been vital in ushering new technologies into society. Extension agents have been the lead change agents in the agricultural sector of America. When agricultural agents set new priorities, it will be reflected in their local programming. This leads to changes in farmers' perceptions and ultimately it leads to improved farming practices. But who or what changes the attitudes and perceptions of the change agents? Attention needs to be given to this step in the adoption of new ideas. 2 In sustainable agricultural circles, the Extension agent's lack of priority toward sustainable agriculture is often mentioned as a barrier of adoption by farmers (Gardner 1990 and Lockeretz 1988). Others (Christensen and Norris 1983, Lasley and Bultena 1986, Lynn, Shonkwiler, and Role 1988) look at the traditional models of adoption lacking major components of attitudes and values that are pivotal in behavior in today's complex society and heightened awareness of environmental stewardship. Abundant research exists on the adoption of new technology by the end users. Although the research literature lauds the importance of change agents, scant references address increasing the adoption of new technologies by the change agents. “it is accepted that changing the farming system involves changing the attitude of the producers, but insufficient attention is often given to the share of responsibility the Extension worker needs to accept to bring this about“ (Ballantyne 1987). Change agents function as a link in the diffusion process. if participatory approaches increase adoption of sustainable agricultural practices in the change agents it should be reflected in their local programming efforts; this may then achieve dissemination of new ideas to their clientele. The sustainable agricultural literature consistently calls for a participatory approach among farmers, Extension agents, researchers and communities to increase the adoption of sustainable practices on farms (Francis et al. 1988, Bunch 1990, Miller 1990, Francis et al. 1990, Chambers, Pacey and Thrupp 3 1989, Thornley 1990, Lockeretz and Anderson 1990, Gerber 1992). The literature states that Extension is an important force in the evolution of agricultural practices (Rogers 1983). Sustainable agriculture proponents call for a participatory approach to fully investigate sustainable agriculture. This study will examine participatory relationships between Extension agricultural agents and farmers involved in a self-directed learning plan of activities. This type of self-directed learning seeks to examine if participatory methods will be more influential at circumventing the barriers to changing attitudes about sustainable agriculture than traditional in-service training. Extension agents continuously receive opportunities for technical training in diverse areas ranging from soil fertility to newsletter composition. Although generally accomplished via the traditional channels of in-service training (classroom sessions), more creative types of training, such as on-site case studies and hands-on activities, are becoming common. Unfortunately, such activities often focus on the transfer of technical knowledge while they ignore the key role played by attitudinal change. Participatory research resonates as the buzz word of sustainable agriculture. As with any approach, participatory methods possess both positive and negative characteristics. The positive side may reflect a new type of in- service training that not only teaches field production practices but also provides an avenue for incubating new ideas. In a constantly changing world, some agree that participatory methods will enable the change agents to alter 4 their roles and responsibilities to meet the needs of their clientele. in 1991, a grant proposal funded by The Kellogg Foundation called for Extension agricultural agents and constituents to jointly develop a "learning plan”. The learning plan was to combine a method of in-service training for the agent and exploration for the constituents. This learning plan called for the participants to identify what they would like to explore about sustainable agriculture over a two-year period. Joint development and ownership by Extension agents and their local constituents (farmers, agribusiness people, and other change agents) were incorporated as key elements of the plans. With a strong emphasis on learning, the grant funds facilitated attendance at meetings, helped defray the cost of subscriptions to periodicals, and subsidized visits to farms or research stations. Behind this program lies the belief that self-directed learning can increase the adoption of new ideas, and this might ultimately be reflected in Extension programming and agricultural practices on the farms. The Extension agent will cease being merely a teacher; as a co-leamer and facilitator in the groups, the agent's influence will transcend the old pedagogical approach. When the farmers share the ownership, their commitment and belief in the ideas will undergird their agricultural effectiveness. EmblemfiatemeniandAnpmach Researchable questions to be addressed in this thesis will include: 0 Does the inclusion of participatory interactions in the learning process cause the participants to change their perceptions and attitudes about sustainable agriculture? 0 Does participatory learning between the participants in the learning process change Extension agents' effectiveness at circumventing barriers to adoption of sustainable agricultural practices? The grant proposal targets Extension agents in the southwest region of Michigan (the counties include St. Joseph, Berrien, Jackson and lngham). It also includes one proposal from each of the five other Extension regions in the state. This will create diversity of projects, expose key agents in outlying areas, transfer participatory methods to a broader audience of agents and train agents to be local resource people on sustainable agricultural practices. Eleven learning plans were accepted involving fourteen Extension agents and forty-six non-agents. Areas of interest ranged from vegetables, to potato insect control, to rotational grazing, to nitrogen management on seed corn, and to large scale cash crops. Evaluating the participants over the development of their two year learning plan will prove valuable to both the Extension and the granting agency. Is this an effective method of learning? After their experience, will the agents and group participants be stronger spokespersons for sustainable agriculture? 6 One major flaw exists from the beginning: this is a biased group to evaluate. Agents were asked to submit learning plans on a voluntary basis. Although some agents were “encouraged“ to be involved by Extension administration, anti-sustainable advocates would not have submitted proposals. Thus, the sample chosen for inclusion in the project is likely to be biased in favor of sustainable agriculture. The method of evaluation chosen for this project is a pre- and post- questionnaire to measure perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors toward sustainable agriculture. A group of randomly selected Extension agents who are not involved in the learning plans will also receive the pre- and post- questionnaire and will serve as a control group for the study. In addressing the researchable questions mentioned already, it is expected that this will also show how the participants change their perceptions and attitudes about sustainable agriculture; how they choose to learn; and how technology was transferred to the change agents and to the other participants. Other engaging questions will ask what relationships evolved between the change agents and participants, what approaches overcame the barriers to change and what ways were discovered to circumvent the barriers. C. Francis (1990) sees today's farmers faced with a climate of unprecedented change; "..we are entering an unknown, poorly understood, and complex stage on which the players can assume several roles and where the lighting and sound systems may be controlled offstage by persons or organizations unknown." Beyond the philosophical concerns, practical considerations abound. Learning is expensive. Both the Extension system and the funding agency share a commitment to training activities that are productive and cost effective. Learning asks participants to pay with their time. Both farmers and Extension agents share this overhead expense. Traditionally, training occurs when the agents travel to the university, spend the day in a classroom, obediently listen to a specialist holding a PhD and take home a notebook of materials. This is an expensive, placid, time-consuming activity that too often focuses on extraneous issues. New participatory learning methods might reveal the relevancy of the university's wisdom to the farmer since the reciprocal relevancy of the farmer's wisdom will be acknowledged. Double-loop learning will be discussed in Chapter 2 as an approach to this concept. Evaluating this process is imperative. Successful projects will impact future funding. The Extension system, heavily involved in the training of its employees, will view the process as a possible model for future training dollars. Evaluating the outcome of attitudinal change in agents and how this reflects in Extension programming changes will be important to the adoption of sustainable agricultural methods by farmers. Wild! In Chapter 1, a participatory approach for farmers and change agents to circumvent barriers to adoption of sustainable agricultural practices has been presented. In Chapter 2 the literature will show a strong advocacy for participatory approaches from the sustainable agriculture proponents. A look at traditional Extension methods reviews participatory methods as an option. The adoption literature reveals an understanding of the slow pace of adoption, especially of sustainable agriculture. A look beyond adoption models to values, beliefs and attitudes points the way for a new arena of positive, voluntary change for Extension agents and farmers. Chapter 3 summarizes the questionnaire utilized as a pre and post device to measure attitudinal changes of the participants of the two year learning plan and of a control group of Extension agents. Limitations of the study are also discussed. Chapter 4 presents the results and discussion of the questionnaire. Chapter 5 presents the summary, conclusions and recommendations for further study. Chapter 2 Literature Review The current Dean of Michigan State University's College of Agriculture and Natural Resources looked back on Extension agents saying, 'The old-time county agent was a real intellectual---college educated in a sea of rural people whose education often stopped before high school ended.‘ The article continues, 'The county agent of the 1930's and '40's knew a little something about everything---a great trait when farmers were diversified and had limited education. Today, most agents have the same broad knowledge, plus a lot of specialized knowledge. But to today's farmers, who are more educated and better informed with larger, high-tech, specialized farms, the county agent doesn't seem so smart anymore. . . The real challenge to county agents today comes from the change in information they have to dispense.‘ He adds, 'ln the old days, agents taught fundamental things like how to build a bam'. This service model doesn't work well in attacking community problems. He sees tremendous change in store for Extension. 'It has been an institution for change in society, now it needs to change itself to continue to do that' (Successful Farming 1992) A tenured Extension agent may breath a sigh of relief after reading this. Traditional Extension methods seem less effective addressing today's agriculture. Are farmers outgrowing Extension? Are their queries becoming alternatives for choice rather than questions with generic answers? Might closer, more participatory relationships between Extension agents and clientele help bridge the gaps created in a modern society? 9 10 A common discussion between an Extension agent and a farmer investigating the construction of a new hog barn used to begin with how much the facility will cost and how much profit it will generate. Today it begins with questions of land base for manure applications, caution for neighborhood complaints of odor and concerns for animal welfare. it seems trite to even mention how rapidly times change. Environmental pressures, animal welfare, food safety and sustainability echo from non-farmers and farmers alike. There is a new awakening not seen since Rachel Carson (1962) sounded the alarm with W. Technology has and will continue to markedly transform agriculture. Productivity has increased causing efficiency to mean bigger, more specialized farms, resulting in fewer farms. The Michigan State University Extension I system has watched, and propelled, many of the technological agricultural changes in its eighty year history. Considered a leader in information dissemination, Extension no longer finds itself alone in the information era. Some might say we are literally "drowning in information yet stewed for wisdom" (Francis 1990). The information overload causes Extension to realize it cannot do all things for all people. It is at the crossroads of trying to meet the needs of its clients, yet it tries desperately to determine who those clients will be and what their needs reflect. The concept of land grant universities became established by the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890. The Hatch Act followed in 1887 establishing the 11 Agricultural Experiment Stations. In 1914, with the passage of the Smith-Lever Act, Extension became an adult education system. Extension's mission is to extend practical, research-based information from the land-grant University to the citizens of the states (Rogers 1991). Since most citizens were agriculturally orientated at the inception of Extension, the majority of the clientele were farmers and rural homemakers. Extension later added 4-H youth programs as another avenue to reach parents. Extension exists today in virtually every county in the United States and prides itself on being a local, grassroots organization. "By far the government agency that has been most successful in securing users' adoption of its research results is the agricultural Extension services. . .in fact, it is probably the oldest diffusion system in the United States. Certainly, by reputation it is the most successful" (Rogers 1983). Adoption and diffusion of innovations encompasses a body of knowledge on scientific inquiry. The classical standard of adoption and diffusion began with Evert Rogers' W in 1962 and still stands today as a measure for other theories. The adoption and diffusion of innovations (new practices or technologies) includes two major processes. The first, the adoption process, is a social psychological process in which the individual decides whether or not to use a new practice or technology on the basis of personal needs and resources, the nature of the technology itself, and the support received from relatives, friends, neighbors, organizations, agencies, and others. It is referred to as a process because adoption of new practice or technology is not a simple unit act, but rather a series of thoughts and actions. The second, the diffusion process, is the process by 12 which a new technology is communicated from one individual to another and thus its use spreads throughout the community. The rate and extent of diffusion depends on the nature of the technology; the population; the values, norm, and attitudes prevalent in the community; and the institutional support for using the new technology (Korsching and Hoban 1990). in looking at the adoption and diffusion model relative to the Extension system, it is important to observe the structure of the Extension organization and the information it disseminates. Extension became a relatively centralized organization. Key decisions about which innovations to diffuse, how to diffuse them, and to whom, are made by a small number of technically expert officials near the top of a diffusion system (Rogers 1983). Being a top-down system is inherent, expected, and often the reason people seek information from Extension. The allure of hearing from "the experts“ appeals to many people. A top-down philosophy may be seen as Extension's greatest asset by some; its greatest hinderance by others. This criticism is especially prevalent in the diffusion of sustainable agricultural information. The criticism stems from the traditional form of scientific research which distances the researcher from the real world. The reductionist strives to delineate a small area of science to his view point for intensive study. The reductionist model of inquiry using herbicide resistance as an example is illustrated in Figure 2.1. 13 K‘— FOCUS ON HYPOTH SIS MECHANISM GENE express: ‘ gal-:15 g3 neoucnomsr pu SCIENCE HERBICIDE RESISTANCE ex ERIMENT PUBLIS w "Puzzled by herbicide resistance, the scientist reflects and focuses on parts or mechanisms that can be studied in isolation to explain this phenomenon. A hypothesis about the mechanism is conceptualized and related to models of GEHR (genetically-engineered-herbicide resistance) in the literature. Experiments are conducted to test the hypothesis and the results are interpreted and submitted for peer review and publication. Unexplained results from experiments create the motivation to repeat the process' (Vietor, Cralle and Chandler 1992). Figure 2.1 Reductionist model Funneling issues down to discrete components has been and will be important to isolate items for future technical study. Yet some will accuse basic research of "being narrowly focused, emphasizing science and ignoring practice" (Vietor, Cralle and Chandler 1992). The traditional Extension system characteristically accepts the reductionist's findings and then conveys this wisdom in a very linear flow to the Extension specialist then to county agents and finally to clientele. Agents in turn model this behavior of dissemination to their farm clientele. The traditional role places the agent in a specialist/teacher 14 role of providing information while the farmer acts as recipient/leamer. This hierarchical model has also dictated what technology is developed and how it is disseminated creating the concemsvoiced by the sustainable agriculture proponents. Extension has been plagued with a “one size fits all" (Doll and Francis 1992) mentality in developing research that is supposedly "transplanted" (Axinn 1988b) from the research station to the area in need. Then Extension agents work with community leaders as the neighbors watch and imitate creating a "trickle-down" (Muth and Hendee, 1980) method of adopfion. Some say agriculture, as in many other areas, traditionally seeks a "technical fix" for problems (Ehrenfeld 1987 and Batie 1989). Easily excited over new technology, researchers may lose sight of information that is accessible to the farmers (Ehrenfeld 1987). Some go farther accusing agricultural scientists of being "social sleepwalkers" (Rogers 1983). In "the conventional research-extension system, the roles of the participants have been relatively clearly defined and interaction is often limited, at best. In the complexity of today's agriculture, we challenge the rationality of a paradigm that insists on this strict specialization of activities" (Doll and Francis 1992). Researchers have sought to bridge these obstacles within their own communities. Many attempt to broaden their scope via multidisciplinary projects where diverse scientists work together in pursuit of greater enlightenment, but they are not merged within a new administrative structure. More aggressive 15 researchers have moved toward interdisciplinary (Rhodes and Booth 1982) methods that might include biological, social and environmental scientists working closely together as a unified team. Whether multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary, the teams encompass scientists, and the circle generally remains distant or closed to whomever the recipients of the knowledge may be. Other researchers call for agriculturalists to move "beyond interdisciplinary research". Even when acting cooperatively, the scientists construct systems based on their expert world views and goals. Schoorl and Holt advocate that agricultural research and its management should be concerned with regulating multiple relationships rather than setting isolated goals. They further argue that resource development and management, rather than the single aim of expanded productivity, should be encouraged (Vietor, Cralle and Chandler 1992). The literature unfolds numerous strategies and models to address this concern. Rhodes and Booth (1982) talk of a "farrner—backeto-farrner" model shown in Figure 2.2. They stress farmers involvement in helping researchers formulate the "problems to be solved" rather than researchers "doing research about problems". "The definition and identification of the farmer's perceived problem is fundamental. . .and the spring board of research". They continue that the "social and biological scientists are equal partners in the design, generation and transfer of technology"; but it must be noted that the farmers do not reappear until the end, when they evaluate the appropriateness of the plan. 16 POTENTIAL sownou to was man ‘Farmer-Back4o-Farmer’—a model generating acceptable technology. Figure 2.2 Farmer-back-to-farmer model (Rhodes and Booth 1982) 17 Farming systems research (FSR) emphasizes farmer participation while looking at the total system where farming occurs. Designed mostly for developing countries, (Doll and Francis 1992) many American researchers overlook its potential at home. Proponents of FSR envision farmer participation as not only important, but as invaluable, from problem identification, to development, to technology testing and evaluation (Harwood 1992, Posner, Crawford and Kamuanga 1991, Lagemann 1982, Rhodes and Booth 1982, Doll and Francis 1992). There are different variations on FSR, as shown in Figure 2.3, (Farrington and Martin 1988) but all place the farmer in a prominent role. 18 ul.l d 1. a 1 u 8me 5.8.2 98 865.8“: 5880. E08928: BE... 0. 8.88.3.0. o2“. md 9:9“. A . . .1.I a - hu‘ 68.. .88.... .o 3.1.858 8. 5.8.2.8.... 8E8. 2...... .8....oo...o .o .8: u .839... o. 8...: e. .82....8. v..- u.-.8.-E 9....3Eou E woe-E828. 10.5.8. . ..-... x... .o .85.... iii 1 ll 0 33...... .oz 8...... so: .. S... 83 .8. x. 2.88: :8 3.32 5.0 .e... .o 258. 5.0 8.. 8a. 3.5.... 3:0... .. .-... cos-0...... oz «.0. 1.8.8. .222. u 2.... 3:0... £9.88. 850. 856.52.: ....8.-..E< 80... £0.88. .8 2.0.8.8.. ..- 0.....Eou o. 858.. 83.3.8 .. 92.39.. 3888.. Jen—3...... 5.5.8.825. goo.- 8.E-. v..- x... 86...... 8...... v2.38. .. 8.8.88. E9... 52.... o>..u..=Eoo e... 8...... 3.8.8.... 898:3...8 8:5... 6... 8:21.88... 35:8... o. 4.59... E 20...... EoEa 30.0.28. 9.68.... c. 38.88 50.88.. 59.8.2... 83?... «no .8Eu_..Eou 2:0... 30.88.. 8.3.5.85 8.830... 835.888. 9:58.. .o .800... .2580 3.82.2.3. :. =8..an3 0:0 8- .8... 025... c. 29.88.. 850. 8...:- - 88.8.. .8E.8..8 .8 8:33 o. .38: R. :2 5.388... 98...: 5.8.. .98.... v..- 880... £9.88. .35.... 8...... .338 698.. 9.5.8... .85.... .38 8.8.88. v..- 858.. Rees-toes..- co 29.5.8.2... .2... 2:. 8.93.. 3...... 8.8.88. v..- 8.5-... €507 3.8.8 .500- v..- .o....80.. 98...... 3.88.8.8 4.30.0580. .85.... 8.35.88... 33...}. o. 4.38.. :— 8:0 .388... E0... E8. .0... .u... 888- o. E 29.0... R. 8.2 62.2. .5. a. 2... o. 88.8.88. .38.... v.8. o. 8.95—8.95 89.2.0.2... 2......5 o. 8.88. 8...o I 38.8.. 0...! u... .u .83.. 2.12:0... .68. 1.0 80.8...» u..-E..o 89.8.... 5.59.... .8. o. .eutan. .3... 3......3 o. 8....) 2. .50.. .5... :528...’ 99.8.. o. 8...... ”88°... =38..._:E 25-8.. 3 to .38 8......88. .2.- 8.28... :3: «LE... .o ...u.. u... E .85.... a...- 8:288... 3.50.. 8.8.88. v..- 8E8... 2.50.. 8.8.88. v..- 8.5... 3.5.2.88... 35...}. o. 4.89.. =. 228.388.. 8.83 2.3.8.8 SE 8...... an... E: 3.0.. o. .8... $.82 3.»... Eu... 2 .03 v8. 2 3.58. 1.... v..- ...u.88. .o 3.8.5.50... 8...o E0... 8.. a. 8:83.. “x. o. .58. 5.0 .o. .8... .8... .o :8... a... v... :38. .u... Eo... 9i...- 88...o...£ 8.. .8. v..- .uocuvccou 858.. Eu. 0. .882. on... .889... con-8......E 2.88.. 8 .EO E2888. 3 5.8....» .88.... 8.8.2.. .02 8.2..uEu. o... 8......E 8...... 48.8. 9...! 83...: o... 83...... 8:28.. 2.8.89 .8 28... 98...... mes-.088... 8.8.88: 8.2.18.8 30.0.28. 0... 3.3.8:... o. .8... u a...» £255.78 0.8.88 6.8- .x.- .8338 .9..- 2. 8:5... £20.88. 1.0 3:93 8. to... ...¢...O :. £3.33 5.228 .0 0.... u... .. .23 $0.88. 8.8.3 .o.oa.\....v0EEou .0 0.8... 9.0.: v..- ¢...O 83.2. 5.8.8.... o... 8. 2:0... .23 8:8. .o..o..:.:3. $800... 8.88. o... 8.8.88.8 2:0... .23 8:28.». Eat-08:858.. 8.8.88.8 3:0... .23 1...... v... 8.2.1.8 2.3 2:... o... nun-.EE 9.3 .....8..._oo\..n8.. .-.:. ..o 8.3.8.. 2.3 8.5... 8:381:58: .38... a 23.5.8 {3.3.6 0 23.5.6 350.5 G 818.2 . .EE:... is... .8888. E23838. 8E8... o. 8..uao.n...< .385... .o 8.38.. 3:68:00 19 Bawden (1989) speaks to soft systems methodologies as critical to action researching systems. He defines action researching as "learning with the special intentions of achieving social action whilst concomitantly adding to public knowledge". Regarding the big picture he calls "weltanschauung", action learning is both seeking knowledge and taking action. Learning is dynamic and the "aim of systemic action research is to create action researching systems which will endure“. "Participatory Research (PR) can be simultaneously characterized as an approach to social research, as an educational process, and as a means to problem solving and action. The research is conducted through a partnership or dialogical relationship between researchers and/or change agents from outside the social setting and people from within the setting." (Vandenberg and Fear 1983) Soft systems and participatory research add new insight: this involves action. It traditionally has mt been the researchers role to consider human implications (Argyris, Putnam and Smith 1985); "the technology of rigorous research works best when it does not deal with real-time issues" (Argyris and Schon 1974). Some scholars might challenge researchers and practitioners to do more than add to scholarly knowledge. "Integrating thought with action effectively has plagued philosophers, frustrated social scientists, and eluded professional practitioners for years. It is one of the most prevalent and least understood problems of our age. Universities have shunned it on the grounds 20 that effective action was too practical or----the best kiss of death----vocational" (Argyris and Schon 1974). Vandenberg and Fear (1983) also call for a closer link between research and action. It is time to "rethink 'how' research is conducted and 'who' participates“. They seek a balance between contributing to science and affecting community change. Focusing on sustainable agricultural practices and concepts, the call sounds clearly that science must cover a large complex of issues, be important to the needs of the farmers and strongly involve the recipients of the information. Sustainable agricultural literature highly praises participatory methods of research and Extension as critical for addressing the needs of tomorrow's farmers (Francis et al. 1988, Bunch 1990, Miller 1990, Francis et al. 1990, Chambers, Pacey and Thrupp 1989, Thornley 1990, Lockeretz and Anderson 1990, Gerber 1992). The basic assumption of the Participatory Approach is that farming people have mu’ch wisdom regarding production of food from their land, but their levels of living and productivity could be improved by Ieaming more of what is known outside. It is assumed that there is an 'indigenous knowledge system,‘ and while it is different from the 'scientific knowledge system', there is much to be gained by interaction of the two. It further assumes that effective extension relies on the active participation of the farmers themselves, but also values research and related services; that there is a reinforcing effect in group Ieaming and group action; and that extension efficiency is gained by focusing on important points based on the expressed needs of farmers and by reaching more small farmers through their groups and organizations instead of through individualized approaches. When research personnel do not participate with farmers and extension staff in setting priorities, there may be a lack of feedback to the research agenda, and sometimes the generation of inappropriate technology (Axinn 1988a) 21 Sustainable agriculture is not alone in its call for participatory ideology; business and industry also embrace participatory approaches. Business calls it the "Japanese influence", and agriculture may call it "farmer first" (Chambers 1989); they both resemble what Gerber (1992) compares to the megatrends described by Naisbitt as major directions for societal change. These trends include: change from an industrial to an information-based society; shift from centralized to decentralized political power bases; more reliance on self-help rather than institutional help; shift from a representative to a participatory democracy; organization by networks instead of by hierarchies. Varying viewpoints of participatory research for sustainable agriculture abound; no one totally agrees on the fine points. The common thread throughout the literature argues the necessity for the involvement of the recipients of knowledge/technology from beginning to end. ,This perceived link is in part caused by the ovenNhelming complexity of modern issues converging in the environment, on the farm and in society. Many issues of today involve choices rather than text book answers. The people affected by the technology remain the most competent to decide the appropriateness of the choices for their future and their community's future. "Sustainable agriculture is seen as encompassing unique biological and human complexities and interactions requiring new, innovative, interdisciplinary and much more participatory research and education programs and approaches“ (Youngberg and Sauer 1990). 22 In participatory research, farmers are expected and encouraged to be involved in all phases of the Ieaming process from goal setting to implementation to evaluation. They both generate and use information (Francis 1990). Designed to support a shared vision of research and education, "the participatory model employs a Ieaming process among partners working in community" (Gerber 1992). The participatory model is lauded as a way to achieve better communications and enhance cooperation among farmers, researchers and Extension educators. "Learning occurs when people become immersed in a meaningful experience based on a real problem" (Gerber 1992). It appears this will be an avenue to achieve relevant answers to relevant questions. The "ideal of a working relationship between research and practice has yet to be realized" (Argyris and Schon 1974). "Conventional 'technology transfer' strategies. . . work poorly in complex and highly variable environments" prompting Farrington and Martin (1988) to turn to participatory approaches in their resource and development studies. Because sustainable agriculture is complex and the world is part of a highly variable environment, many aspects of sustainable agriculture necessitate the call for participatory approaches. As previously mentioned, a "systems" approach is often embraced to encompass the many facets of sustainability on a farm. There is no "one" sustainable item to select. Participatory methods are expected to ably intertwine the breadth and depth of these complex issues. The participatory approach has many advantages. The process 23 empowers the participants; it empowers people to think, to continually learn how to learn, to be seekers and reinventors, (Ehrenfeld 1987 and Watkins 1990) to take leadership, (Axinn 1988a) and to question. These skills become necessary to the adult learner where today's decisions are less involved with the right answer and more involved with tradeoffs. Tradeoffs of values, profits, environmental concerns and community priorities all collide. Technology transfer is interwoven in a complex mosaic of policy, economic, environmental and other issues which impact agriculture. Runge et al. (1988) goes on to state that ”We can also agree that agricultural policy must support an agriculture that is enabled by science and in harmony with environmental and human values" but he fails to mention whose values. A major void in the traditional adoption literature is the lack of attention to values (Lasley and Bultena 1986). Pampel and van Es (1977) note that the traditional adoption and diffusion theory fails when the technology fails to generate private profit but relates to public benefit. Christensen and Norris (1983) cite past studies showing profit maximization as the farmer's primary motivation to adopt soil conservation practices. They suggest looking deeper into ”personal values and beliefs, neighborhood and social pressures, and traditions" to learn more about the roots of adoption. Lasley and Bultena (1986) did not confirm previous adoption and diffusion literature on how personal and farm characteristics relate to the support of new technology. "Acceptance or rejection of new technology must 24 be dependent on yet unidentified factors“; they suspect moral and ethical standards play a major role. It is hard to discuss attitudes or to look at issues of sustainability without looking at values. Peoples values most generally lead to their behaviors (Lynn, Shonkwiler and Rola 1988). Seeking the roots of attitudes will be beneficial in increasing sustainable agricultural practices that hinge on peoples belief systems rather than follow the traditional route of adoption and diffusion. In terms of sustainability, it becomes a question of what or whom do we sustain? At what level do we sustain? How will we know when we have reached our sustained level? Even in measuring financial and physical variables it is important to include value/attitude influences or measurements may not be accurate. The study of agricultural adoption cannot be based solely on profit maximization. "Research in the social and behavioral sciences has documented that fundamental human values and the resulting set of situational attitudes affect behavior. . . overall, our results suggest an especially important role of the attitude variables and a somewhat lesser role of the economic variables" toward conservation behavior (Lynn, Shonkwiler and Rola 1988). They note that both household utility (personal preferences) and profit maximization (farm profits) are significant, and the weight that each is given determines behavior. They also find that the adoption model is inconclusive due to its economic premiss. Sustainable agriculture proponents have been critical of the lack of 25 information provided by Extension on the benefits of sustainable practices. Yet, as noted above, this lack of information or the ability to show profitable results may not be as large a factor in the lack of adoption as once thought. In studying high school students attitudes and knowledge toward environmental issues Ramsey and Flickson (1976) found the basic assumption that ”increased knowledge leads to favorable attitudes toward pollution abatement which in turn leads to action promoting better environmental quality" is not always true. Increased knowledge did seem to lead to “moderation“ in the students attitudes. Borden and Schettino (1979) researched attitudes, knowledge and the commitment to action by viewing attitudes as a trichotomy of components consisting of cognitive (ideas, thoughts, .or knowledge of individual), affective (feelings or emotions) and connotative (actions or behavioral tendencies of an individual regarding the object). They found that in terms of actual commitment, the level of affect appears more important than the knowledge level. This leads to the assumption that changing attitudes is more important than increasing knowledge. They claim that altering human behavior is more prudent for environmental solutions than traditional technical fixes. The participatory approach appears to fit sustainable agriculture due to the complexity of the subject and the call for farmer involvement. But the issues involved in agriculture today go beyond the farm bounds for solutions. Society approaches technology much more cautiously today and with a priority 26 on environmental quality. “Technologically possible no longer equates with ethically desirable“ (Batie 1989). Today's issues revolve around selecting the most desirable options and dismissing the least desirable. There is a strong resurgence in many facets of society that it is the people in local communities who are best suited and must be the ones to solve society's problems and bear the consequences of the chosen solutions (Siegel, Attkisson, and Carson 1978, Whyte, Greenwood, and Lazes 1991, Summers 1987, Martin and Prather 1991, Francis et al. 1988). Technological development and growth has led to rapid growth and caused demands on natural resources and communities that even the information technologies of today cannot adequately address. A new attitude encourages dissatisfied people to take part in identifying problems, working together to seek solutions and creating an environment for the community itself to actively change. Outsiders, researchers and specialists cannot dictate the answers any more; rather they must work in a participatory mode to facilitate change based on educated decisions. Researchers will be challenged to develop technical systems and agricultural policies encouraging viable communities and infrastructure while abandoning short term profits from continuous monocropping (Francis 1990). It is disappointing to learn how many sustainable agricultural proponents feel governmental intervention of incentives and disincentives to be the only way to change farming practices (van Es 1982, Halstead, Padgitt and Batie 27 1990, van Lenteren 1988, Fleming 1987, Batie and Taylor 1989). This seems to contradict the participatory philosophy stressing continual Ieaming as a tool for creating a greater impetus for changing perceptions and attitudes. van Es (1982), a strong proponent of mandatory regulations to encourage sustainable agriculture, is disappointed there is little research to evaluate the relationship between mandatory programs and behavioral change. For voluntary approaches to work, there needs to be a much greater active involvement of farmers, but van Es is concerned that this process rarely works in the ideal sense due to circumstances which stagnate in the quagmire of politics. There are those who are concerned about mandatory controls. Korsching and Nowak (1982) point out that larger farmers are often the last needing the incentives but the first to benefit. Mandatory controls may also cause “unanticipated and undesirable effects on the structure of agriculture". This again raises the question of who and what to sustain. Traditional training for Extension agents has been an offshoot of the reductionist model as mentioned previously: it is orientated in a top-down mode and lacks the participation of the recipients. If agents were trained via participatory methods, might they model the same behavior when they work with farmers? Richardson (1986) studied the actual and preferred Ieaming activities of Extension home economists and drew several conclusions for future research. 28 Extension agents attend many training activities; but often due to availability of the training rather than the applicability to their profession. She argues that, given the opportunity, they would choose self-directed Ieaming activities over formalized sessions. Since Extension agents are teachers, it seems relevant to examine a survey on teacher in-service. One study (Byrd 1980) revealed 44% poorly planned in-service education sessions. Thirty-one percent said most in-service was useless; 73% agreed that in-service activities do not appear relevant to any felt needs of the teacher participants. This survey further stresses the need for participant involvement in the development and planning stages of program planning. This seems applicable to both the way Extension trains agents and the way agents reach farmers. Participatory methods seem to have may fans both in and out of the sustainable agriculture arena. Ehrenfeld addresses the issue of responsive, self-directed in-service when he states in Byrd's thesis: "the most important element in continuing education is what the individual does for his own self-improvement. . . One of the main criteria for adequacy. . . of a teacher education program should be whether it trains people to be self-educative” (Byrd 1980). The concept of teaching people to keep Ieaming is very important. New information will constantly be generated, and individuals must learn to assimilate it for their particular situations. Learning systems in Extension resemble what Argyris and Schon (1974) 29 call "single-loop learning" (maintaining constancy within governing variables). Moving toward their "double-loop Ieaming" (changing the existing governing variables) would "enable the organization's members to inquire more effectively into the organization's strategy, structure, information systems and the like". A person "engages in single-loop Ieaming, for example, when he learns new techniques for suppressing conflict. He engages in double-loop Ieaming when he learns to be concerned with the surfacing and resolution of conflict rather than with its suppression". Double-loop Ieaming keeps agents from becoming "prisoners" of their own programs and allows continual examination and "changes in the governing variables" which results in "ripples of change". While both single and double-loop Ieaming are needed, the double-loop approach challenges the foundations of an organization and allows for change as conditions in society change. There are several adult educators important to the topic of Ieaming. "An early proponent of self-directed Ieaming was Malcom Knowles who promoted the concept of the Ieaming contract, and in the early 1960's he developed the concept of self-directed Ieaming. Knowles proposed that adults are proactive learners and undertake numerous Ieaming projects each year" (Thorbum 1987). Tough's extensive studies of adult Ieaming activities showed that adults spent a sizeable amount of time on major Ieaming efforts, some averaging 500 hours per year. Learning involved formal activities but over 70% were self- planned (Richardson 1986). Tough has noted that participatory programs are 30 based on the adult education theory that most adult Ieaming occurs because of a person's desire to solve problems, i.e. adults learn what they perceive they need to know (Gerber 1992). "Miller and Botsman's independent learning study of New York Cooperative Extension showed agents averaged only 12 yearly projects each. Unlike most populations, they turned to workshops and experts for over half of their Ieaming and planned only 40 percent of their projects themselves" (Richardson 1986). This may lead one to suggest that agents are kept busy rather than planning time for meaningful purpose. Extension continues to be the obvious link keeping research relevant to farmers' needs and restoring dialogue between farmers and researchers (Schaller 1992), but Extension agents' roles will change. They must possess the skills to empower agricultural producers by instilling the ability and importance of continuous Ieaming and evaluation. As Chambers et al. (1989) notes, the agent should be a facilitator; he should empower farmers to pick the pieces that fit their situation. Changing to participatory methods and adjusting Extension agents' roles may still not hasten the adoption of sustainable agriculture. Agriculture always has been, and always will be, an inherently risky business; farmers have continuously adopted new technology to survive. Adoption has actually been a response to risk and complexity (Ehrenfeld 1987), and Extension has been the lead agency in change technology. While others have been quick to fault 31 Extension for the slow adoption of sustainable technology, it is time to reflect on other menacing barriers. Some say that Extension cannot work in sustainable agriculture because sustainability is too poorly defined (Schaller 1992); others note that Extension has and will be involved in such ill-defined areas as community economic development, resource conservation and youth at risk (Hoag and Pasour 1992). Many agents accustomed to addressing straightforward production agricultural topics may find themselves lost or ovenlvhelmed in the arena of public policy issues. Mainstream farmers see several major factors directly deterring the adoption of sustainable agriculture. First, it should be noted that the adoption diffusion model has previously been utilized on simplistic technology and may not explain the rigors of the complexity of sustainable agriculture. Reinvention of sustainable practices transpires on every farm and has not been given due recognition. Profit margins of sustainable practices still leave much to be desired (Hoag and Pasour 1992). Lastly, the adoption of sustainable agriculture may require farmers to acquire a renewed environmental conscience (Ehrenfeld 1987). Each of these points deserves individual attention. Many of the early adoption studies involved single items of adoption; it is simpler to delineate the advantages and disadvantages and this often encourages quicker adoption and ease of documentation. Sustainable agriculture lacks a tool, a machine, a single concept to grasp. A farmer should 32 not be expected to grasp and employ the entire matrix of sustainable practices in one occurrence. Neither the sustainable agricultural proponents nor the researchers give credit for small increments of success. It appears that researchers discredit a new technology when only portions are selected. Yet often only fragments of a process are adopted. Chambers et al. (1989) and Francis (1988) both stress the importance of picking relevant pieces of an innovation, even if other excellent concepts sit on the shelf. Shockingly, reinvention did not gain acknowledgement in the diffusion research literature until 1972 (Rogers 1983). Previously, researchers appeared to believe that new ideas were adopted as prescribed by the "experts". Studies conducted in school systems found that 56% of the adopters implemented only selected aspects of an innovation. Researchers also found that when an educational innovation was re-invented by a school, its adoption was more likely to be continued and less likely to be discontinued (Rogers 1983). Rogers further states that innovations may be somewhat like a toothbrush because people do not like to borrow them from one another. He concludes that there is a strong psychological need to re-invent. In participatory research, the idea of reinvention should find a comfortable home as researchers, Extension agents and farmers freely share at all levels; thus they may make mid-course corrections rather than wait until the end for major revisions. Lack of profitability--not lack of information (Hoag and Pasour 1992) explains another major component stalling sustainable agricultural adoption. 33 Axinn (1988a) points out that agricultural Extension systems will not see unprofitable production practices adopted. Profitability has been and will continue to be a major, if not the major, factor in many new technologies. Despite farmers' desire for intrinsic goodness, current debt loads remain foremost on their minds. Many definitions of sustainable agriculture acknowledge profitability as a priority. On the other extreme, some stress that sustainability is paramount to family financial security. Profitability will also be noted in the following chapters as the most prominent and common thread noted in the evaluations of participants in the sustainable agriculture Ieaming plans. A survey conducted in Michigan in 1991 indicated that Extension agents are concerned with the macro-forces affecting the rural sector, most notably, environmental concerns. On the other hand, farmers rated taxes, equipment costs and day to day financial burdens as the most critical concerns. This underlies the primacy of the farmer's needs to support themselves and their families. The survey criticizes Extension for not meeting the needs of the farmers (immediate financial concerns) in lieu of concerns for larger, environmental issues. From this survey, one might surmise that Extension agents are farther along on the "sustainable road' than critics concede. It is noted that those actively engaged in farming worry about immediate conditions while Extension agents have the more distant vantage point to consider macro- forces and "more importantly, are professionally obligated to take into account 34 the needs of the whole community" (Schwarzweller and Roach 1993). This survey also beckons the necessity to place sustainable agricultural concepts into a bigger picture of the world before agents will begin to alter ideas and priorities. This same concept was mentioned earlier when referencing Bawden (1989) In reviewing the adoption research of rural sociologists, more insight can be found for the slow trend toward sustainable agriculture. Wake (1988) takes a view of Ieaming that in essence mirrors participatory approaches. He terms it "Ieaming by doing" and states that technological performance improves through experience. He views learning in three types: informational, observational and experiential. Complexity of the technology and cost of Ieaming affect the rate of Ieaming. Sustainable agriculture is very complex; its rate of Ieaming will be slow. Hoping people will adopt even unprofitable practices, Rahm and Huffman (1984) emphasize the importance of investing in human capital. Following their human capital theory, allocative skills are assumed to be acquired or learned rather than innate. In particular, farmers' investments in schooling, experience, information and health are undertaken with the expectation of enhancing allocative skills and increasing the efficiency of adoption decisions. If true, farm operators investing in these activities will be better informed about the existence and general performance of different technologies, will make more accurate assessments of differences in farm-level performance, and will make 35 more efficient adoption decisions. When not economically feasible, the results of Rahm and Huffman show that human capital variables enhance the efficiency of adoption decisions. Sustainable agriculture may find hope in the human capital theory. Evert Rogers' classic diffusion model states diffusion to be the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system. If an idea seems new to the individual, it is an innovation. Rogers stresses the importance of how innovations will be perceived and if people perceive they need the innovation. He conceptualizes the diffusion and adoption of innovations in a framework based on information and uncertainty. The newness implies that some degree of uncertainty exists; information may be the avenue to reduce the uncertainty (Rogers 1983). ~ Studying Rogers' model will expose many obstacles which must be overcome before sustainable agriculture becomes common practice. Many farmers do not perceive sustainable agriculture technology as "new"; many see the ideas as unprogressive. Uncertainty remains very high, and profitability remains too low for many sustainable practices. The way individuals perceive the characteristics of innovations explains the different rates of adoption and non-adoption. Rogers (1983) lists and describes these characteristics: 1.) Relative advantage is the degree to which an innovation is 36 perceived as better than the idea it supersedes. This may be measured in economic terms, social prestige, convenience and satisfaction. 2.) Compatibility is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being consistent with the existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters. New value systems may need to be adopted to accommodate the innovation. 3.) Complexity is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as difficult to understand and use. 4.) Trialability is the degree to which an innovation may be experimented on a limited basis. 5.) Observability is the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others. In general, innovations perceived by receivers as having greater relative advantage, compatibility, trialability, observability, and less complexity will be adopted more rapidly than other innovations. ln viewing sustainable agriculture technologies, the relative advantage is high for society and low for the implementors. Compatibility with the existing value system notes problems pertaining to cost/benefit of the here and now. Sustainable agriculture practices, being highly integrated, increase the complexity of adoption. Many sustainable practices are trialable, but begin as pieces, not as composite measures. The long held Extension philosophy of farmer demonstration sites and the trickle down theory relate the importance of 37 obsen/ing a neighboring farmer; practices that look good are modeled. If a sustainable practitioner's fields 'look' bad, they tend to not invite adoption of the practices by others. The early adopters have traditionally been the ones who could afford the risk. In today's agriculture, this is the well educated, larger farm generating a higher income. This has not been the audience demanding sustainable farming practices; they have been young, well educated, smaller farmers having less involvement with Extension and traditionally lower farm incomes and with less tenure on the farm (Anderson 1990 and Brendlinger 1984). Korsching et al. (1983) recognized that Rogers' diffusion model was conceived for innovations that conventionally have positive financial impact and are less suited for environmental and conservation practices which results in low immediate profits. Even though the diffusion model will stand for many years, the world haschanged. There are many more forces impacting the new ideas and uncertainty than Rogers included in his model. For farmers to respond to increasing public pressure to reduce environmental degradation, they will need information about the economic and environmental consequences of their production practices. They need clear signals from society about how to evaluate tradeoffs between production goals, such as inexpensive, pest-free food, and sometimes conflicting environmental goals, such as soil conservation and reduced pesticide use. Usually, these signals express themselves through the open market or government 38 intervention in the form of regulations and financial incentives. Farmers have little to guide them in balancing these decisions, yet they intuitively must select the environmentally correct practice. It is the farmer who bears the financial burden if the systems are adopted, but society bears the environmental costs if they are not adopted (Rogers 1983). "Sustainable agriculture provides no guidance in determining socially optimal production and marketing practices since consensus is lacking concerning the social values of the laudable but conflicting goals" (Hoag and Pasour 1992). When talking about the obstacles to adoption it is easy in agriculture to quickly look at the material factors: cost of production, soil types, lack of credit, policies; or characteristics of the farmers such as risk taking characteristics, gross income, age and educational level. Sustainable agriculture proponents also point to lack of information and failure of Extension (Gardner 1990). But some look beyond the easily measurable and easily manipulated items and look to the root of people's behaviors: beliefs, attitudes and perceptions (Lynn, Shonkwiler and Rola 1988, Lasley and Bultena 1986, Ramsey and Rickson 1976) Deeply rooted in tradition, the Extension model has evolved over generations and proven extremely successful. Moving toward participatory Ieaming methods challenges traditional Extension channels of information flow. Sustainable agriculture proponents also challenge Extension's priorities of who is reached, how they are reached, and with what information. 39 A deeper understanding of the participatory methods will benefit all parties involved. If the process ultimately is more successful than traditional methods of Extension in changing attitudes and behaviors of people on major issues in our society it may not only improve adoption of new ideas but increase the adoption and maintain the adoption. Chapter 3 Methodology, Approach and Limitations A grant provided by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation allowed Extension agricultural agents, farmers and agri-business persons to join together in a participatory approach exploring sustainable agricultural practices and concepts. Each group developed a "learning plan". The Ieaming plans were self-directed, with the participants developing and conducting the activities. Opportunities might include visiting farms, research stations, and demonstration plots. Any Ieaming activity, such as purchasing study materials, magazine subscriptions, and providing for quest speakers to come to the counties was encouraged. Each group received $2500 for their stated purposes. "The motivation to assemble the various study groups together is based on the perceived need to create an open forum of farmers and agents about the issues, concepts and themes in sustainable agriculture which cut across commodities and production areas" (Liss and Rector 1991). A participatory approach was chosen in part since the sustainable perspective "places agricultural production in a broader context affecting environmental, social and economic concerns of the wider community" (Liss and Rector 1991). The Extension agents would also gain a greater ability to 40 41 Ieam and educate within this broader context via the Ieaming plan concept. Participatory methods have been highly exhorted for the advancement of sustainable agricultural practices. Will a participatory approach, between Extension agents and farmers, be effective in positively changing the attitudes and perceptions of those involved? Will participatory Ieaming aid Extension agents in their programming to mitigate the barriers to sustainable agriculture thereby increasing the adoption of sustainable practices on farms? The proposed hypotheses were examined using information gained from a questionnaire administered to the people involved in the two-year sustainable agriculture learning plans. These people were divided into two groups: 1.) those who are Extension agricultural agents (referred to as the experimental agents) and 2.) all other participants (referred to as the experimental participant group). The experimental agent group is the target of this study. Consequently, a control group of Extension agents not in the Ieaming plans were also asked to respond to a questionnaire. Figure 3.1 illustrates the three groups in the study. 42 Experimental Control Groups Group ii [:1 14 WNW“ hthfletnhgm mammm 3‘ hthohlnhgm El 14 mmwmnor mummmm Figure 3.1 Questionnaire respondents by groups "In the simplest experimental design, subjects are measured in terms of a dependent variable (pre-tested), exposed to a stimulus representing an independent variable, and then remeasured in terms of the dependent variable (post-tested). Differences noted between the first and last measurements on the dependent variable are then attributed to the influence of the independent variable" (Babble 1989). In this experiment, the independent variable is the two year interaction of Extension agents in the participatory learning activity with farmers revolving around the practices and concepts of sustainable agriculture. 43 The assumption is made that differences between pre-tests and post-tests are due to the participant's involvement in the Ieaming plan activities. The act of administering a post-test may in itself cause change; the experimental effect occurs when the respondents may answer questions the way they think the researcher wants them answered. The control group was established to mitigate the experimental effects and increase the validity of the study. To achieve the greatest match between the control and experimental groups of Extension agents, the control group was selected by randomly choosing every seventh agricultural agent listed in the 1991 Michigan State University Extension Staff directory; thus, a similar number of agents in the control group was generated. Participants in the sustainable agricultural Ieaming plans and the control group of agents were asked to respond to questions regarding their opinions and attitudes about the environment, pesticide usage, farm profits, personal health and sustainable taming practices. Responses to these questions represent the respondents" perceptions and attitudes with no attempt to validate the truthfulness. The questionnaire instrument was designed using methods from Babbie (1989), obtaining professional assistance in the wording,1 and adapting many 1Joel Lichty, specialist in the Michigan State University Resource Development department assisted in the wording and design of the survey. 44 questions from an Australian survey.2 The questionnaire began with 30 ordinal measures of attitude where respondents rated their level of agreement on a five point Likert-type scale. These questions allowed respondents to show the direction and intensity toward the statements by responding 1 to "strongly disagree", 2 to "mostly disagree", 3 "neutral", 4 to "mostly agree", and 5 to "strongly agree". Several questions were included as external checks on the validity of questions and responses. Since using any buzz word such as "sustainable agriculture" can generate preconceived notions in the respondents, a question specifically asked: '"Do you like the term 'sustainable agriculture”? Respondents could check either a yes or no response and were invited to briefly discuss how they feel about the concepts and practices of sustainable agriculture in an open ended question. ’ The next section provided a listing of eight common sources of agricultural information and asked participants to rate if they "never", "seldom", "occasionally", or "often", utilized each source for reliable information. A ninth option allowed them to write in any information source not mentioned. Participants' motivation to become involved in a two year Ieaming project is important. A set of close-ended questions listed five possible motivations 2The questions were adapted from a survey that has since been completed and the results published by: Ian J. Reeve and Alan W. Black in June 1993 titled "Australian Farmers" Attitudes to Rural Environmental Issues", published by The Rural Development Centre, Department of Sociology, University of New England, Arrnidale, NSW. 45 followed by an open-ended question for participants to express what they hoped to gain through their involvement in the project. The last section of eight questions sought respondents" demographic information. The pre-questionnaires were mailed on April 3, 1992 to a total of 49 people in the experimental group (14 agents and 35 farmers and agri-business people) with a cover letter (Appendix A) and self addressed, stamped return envelope. A reminder letter (Appendix B) was sent to anyone who had not responded. This generated an overall response rate of 88%. A response rate of over 70% is considered "'very good'" (Babble 1989). The questionnaire sent to the experimental agents and experimental participants was identical. The questionnaire sent to the control group of Extension agents excluded the questions asking why they were involved in the program and what they hope to gain from the program. i The post-questionnaire closely resembled the initial questionnaire in format and content. The 30 attitudinal questions were identical in the pre and post and to all three groups. The post-questionnaire allowed the occasion to ask about specific changes in the participants' activities over the time span of the Ieaming plans. Assuming the control group of Extension agents had been afforded opportunities to Ieam more about sustainable agriculture through their daily lives and training channels, they were asked: 1.) if they had attended any seminars or meeting on sustainable agriculture in the last two years and 2.) if they had conducted any Extension programs or projects on sustainable 46 agricultural topics, and, if so to briefly mention what types of programs. The post-questionnaire sent to the experimental groups also asked additional questions compared to the pre-questionnaire. The experimental agent group was asked to rate their involvement in the Ieaming plans and regardless of involvement, asked to list what changes would improve future activities. They were also queried as to changes in their local county programming: had they conducted any Extension programs or projects on sustainable agriculture? They were also invited to list any "spin-off" effects from their involvement. The experimental participant groups also rated their involvement and were encouraged to make comments for improving future projects. They were then asked if they had made any changes in their farming practices relevant to involvement in the program. Reminder letters were mailed on January 3, 1994 to anyone who had not returned the post-questionnaire. By January 21, 1994, 51 of the participants, representing 83%, returned their questionnaires. There were minimal changes in participants over the two year period of time. In the control group, one agent retired and three changed jobs within the state, but all were still in Extension, in similar roles. In the experimental groups, sadly, one farmer died in a farm accident, three new farm members were added, one agent replaced another agent, and one new agent was added to a group. It is not felt that these changes significantly altered the results. 47 The initial limitation to this study is obvious; the participants in the sustainable Ieaming plan were self-selected. In 1991, after the grant was received from The W. K. Kellogg Foundation, a notice sent to all agricultural agents in Michigan solicited their voluntary participation. Other limitations revolve around the concept of a questionnaire itself; the tool was self-administered, allowing alternative interpretations. The issues of environmental concern carries the excess baggage of respondents answering the "right" answer trying to please the researcher and/or not wanting to look anti-environmental, masking their true feelings. It is difficult to be certain that the treatment was responsible for the changes measured by the post-test. All three of the groups would have experiences beyond the Ieaming plans activities affecting their attitudes toward sustainable agriculture. There is also a chance of the agents, in the experimental group influencing those in the control group; this is a positive for Extension but a negative for the sake of a controlled study. The small sample size is a major limitation. One person, having a bad (or good) day, potentially could significantly alter the data. The high response rate partially mitigates this concern. Chapter 4 Results and Discussion The measurement of peoples' attitudes is an inexact science. The questionnaire discussed in Chapter 3 attempted to detect changes in participant's attitudes and measure other items resulting from their involvement in the Ieaming plans. The participatory nature of the activities, between Extension agents, farmers and agri-business people, was hoped to be documented as responsible for the resulting changes. The formal questionnaire attempted to operationalize the theoretical concepts relating to changing peoples' attitudes toward, or against, sustainable agriculture. There were several open-ended questions for respondents to comment on their view points to help gain greater insights on participant's feelings and attitudes toward the project and toward sustainable agriculture. More importantly, personal interviews were conducted at the closure of the Ieaming plans that provided additional insight into changes.‘ The returned questionnaires were compiled and analyzed utilizing 1Dr. Harvey Liss, primary author of the Sustainable Ag Learning Plan grant conducted on- site, personal interviews with participants as part of his administrative evaluation. His personal notes were utilized for gaining more insight into the evaluation of the project. 48 49 SPSS/PC+ computer software. The small sample sizes, especially in the two Extension agent groups, makes detailed analysis impractical. The response rates were high, increasing the reliability and validity. Table 4.1 lists the pre- and post-questionnaire response rates. Table 4.1. Questionnaire response rates 'I Pre-Questlonnaire ll Post-Questionnaire ll Percent Group Sent Returned Returned Response Control Agents 14 13 12 92 Experimental Agents 1 4 1 2 1 2 80 Experimental Participants 35 3O 27 77 Totals 63 55 51 Average % Response 33 Utilizing an F test, the demographic information shows very little variance between the three groups or from pre to post. The participant's ages ranged from 26 to 68 years, with 40.64 years being the average age of the three groups combined. The control agents, the experiment agents and the experimental participants mean ages were 42, 41 and 40, respectively. The experimental agent group was expected to be younger, but personal observation notes recent budgetary concerns are responsible for fewer "younger'" agents in Extension. Figure 4.1 shows the ages of the participants. 50 Number Of 15 Respondents 10 41 31-40 41-60 51-” >01 Years Of Age Figure 4.1 Mean ages of all questionnaire respondents Ninety-three percent of the total participants were male, meaning only 4 participants were female. There was little difference between the control agent's and the experimental agent's educational level. There were differences between the agent's and the experimental participant's educational level. The two agent groups included more people with advanced degrees, yet the overwhelming majority of experimental participants received some formal training beyond high school as shown in Figure 4.2. Of the experimental participant group, 84% had training beyond high school (either some college, technical training, or an associates degree). Twenty percent of the experimental participant group 51 obtained Bachelor's degrees and 17% held advanced degrees. 70 6" Percentage 0 0! Respondent- ” _ 10 II! or Agentfl I or participant] Figure 4.2 Highest level of education completed by experimental participants and agents Sixty-seven percent of the experimental participant group listed farming as their main occupation, 7% were agricultural consultants, 13% were involved in agricultural related services and 13% wrote in comments such as "educator" or "health inspector". Extension agents and industry people are often part-time farmers; 66% of the people in all three groups did receive some farm income. Those in the experimental groups indicating they received farm income listed their primary farm income source as graphed in Figure 4.3. Many participants listed more than one farm enterprise, although 72% indicated some field crops as part of their farming operation. 52 MM) mums) mom) DOW (14*) Vow-Nu (20*) Figure 4.3 Participants primary source of income. Figure 4.4 shows the gross farm income the experimental participants (who said they had farm income) received in the previous year. Percentage t 0 Respondents <10 10-1“) 1m 500-1000 >11!!! Gross Farm Income ($1,000) Figure 4.4 Experimental participants' gross farm income. 53 Participants were asked the question: "Where do you usually find reliable information about farming practices?" They rated eight different sources (and could add their own) either as being reliable: '"never", "seldom'", "occasionally", or "often". Figures 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7 list the tabulated responses of each group. The experimental participants rated neighbors and university/extension as the top two sources of reliable information. Criticism of the "'trickle down" theory was noted in Chapter 2 for being too slow and old-fashioned. Here the trickle down theory still maintains status as a primary method of information dissemination. Attending seminars was listed third for a source of reliable information. Least reliable sources included technical journals and farmer or commodity associations, although both of these increased in importance from pre to post. It may be assumed that grant money was utilized to purchase subscriptions to technical journals. The increased reliability in farmer or commodity associations for information could be two-fold. Some crops (truck crops and grazing) may not have previously afforded producers the opportunity to have commodity associations similar to the more mainstream commodities of corn, soybeans, and dairy. A second rationale may have emerged from an increased awareness of sustainable groups such as the Michigan Association of Sustainable Agriculture (MASA) and the grazing groups in other states. Individual comments noted there were several new-found network opportunities. 54 coszLEE 28:2 cc: >9: 90:3 9 mcmcoawc. .3592th fiEmEtoaxm m4. 9:9”. 09/». 09% 5:0 I 2.22880 I EoEcm E 552 D mcezow c2658.: . JV .0, v ON ov 00 cm 00—. ON_. siuapuodsea jo abeiuaored Information Sources I El Never El Seldom fl Occasionally I Often I 120 55 O w 00 (D? 100 asuodsaa jo afietueorad Figure 4.6 Experimental agents' responses to where they find reliable information 56 coszLoE 223.2 ucc >9: Soc; 2 98:88.. .953. 6:50 N... 939". coco I 2.22380 I EoEow i Lo>mz D wooSow coszLoE. 9» oo ow cor ONF stuepuodsaa jo afietueorad 57 The experimental agent group participants, not surprisingly, rated university/extension as the most reliable source of information and seminars second. Farming magazines and travel were the next most reliable categories. The experimental agents showed a significant increase from pre to post in rating travel as a source of seeking information. Conjecture might lead one to assume that given the opportunity, agents learned to value travel experiences. They, like the experimental group, also valued farmer or commodity associations more in the post-questionnaire. Two respondents wrote in their idea of credible sources of farming information including farmer networks and veterinarians. Admittedly, the groups were self-selected (except the control agent group), but the motivation for involvement in a voluntary program is important. Figures 4.8 and 4.9 summarize the information that participants indicated when asked the question: "How important was each of these in your decision to get involved with the Sustainable Agriculture Learning Project?" Following this question were five options that the participants could respond: "not important", "somewhat important", "important", and "very important". The opportunity to Ieam new farming practices ranked very high for both the experimental agents and the experimental participants, and it was relatively consistent from pre to post, as a reason for becoming involved in the project. Reasons For Involvement l D Not Important 3 Somewhat Important E] Important I Very Important I 120 58 OOOO ”(DVN 100 asuodseg jo afietuecued O ‘(IS°d) IGABJL (eJd) |9ABJ_|_ isod) eurnsea aAOJdurj (31d) ewnsea eAOJdurj 130d) seAlrueOUI U!:l (91d) aAnueOUI Ulzl 030d) M 6v18ns (91d) IUI 6v13ns (isod) oeJd uued meN (91d) card uued meN Figure 4.8 Experimental participants' reasons for involvement in learning plans Reasons For Involvement LU Not Important El Somewhat Important I Important I Very Important l 59 (180d) IeAeu (eJd) IGABJl jsod) eurnseu eAOJdurI (eJd) eurnsea GAOJdUJ| 180d) semueow UH (91d) eAnuaOUI UH (130d) IUI 5v1sns (91d) IUI 6v13ns (isod) 091d uued meN (91d) card UJJB:| MeN O 0000 QCOVN 120 100 asuodsea jo afieiuemad Figure 4.9 Experimental agents' reasons for involvement in learning plans 60 The participants' interest in sustainable agriculture also ranked as a very high priority for involvement in the project. This might indicate the group is predisposed to sustainable agriculture; some might say this reflects preaching to the converted, or it possibly reflects a curiosity about a topic that is very popular. It is interesting to note the change, in both the agents and the participants, from pre to post. Their interest in sustainable agriculture actually became less important as a reason to be involved toward the end of the time frame. Might this suggest the newness of the buzz word has waned? Did they find they are less interested in sustainable agriculture? Probably not, as reflected by very strong responses on the importance of sustainability in the attitudinal scales mentioned later. Both experimental groups were split nearly in half on the importance the grant money played in their involvement, yet the funds were mentioned several times in written and verbal feedback as important. The opportunity to improve participants' resumes or assist job advancement was very unimportant for the experimental participants. For agents, it merited some importance, and it increased in the post-questionnaire. (It should be noted there has been a strong move toward "specialized agents" in the Michigan State University Extension service in the last two years.) The chance to travel was rated fairly unimportant by the experimental participants. The written comments indicated the lack of time as a major hinderance to involvement in general, and presumably even more so for travel 61 opportunities. The opportunity to travel was slightly more important for the experimental agents, and there was a small increase from "important" to "very important" from the pre- to the post-questionnaire. .One agent wrote that an important reason for involvement was, '"to overcome my inertia to provide answers to some particular questions". A series of 30 ordinal measured questions allowed respondents to rate their level of agreement or disagreement on a Likert-type scale. The respondents ranked these questions on a five point scale, with 1 being "strongly disagree", 2 being "mostly disagree", 3 being "neutral", 4 being "mostly agree" and 5 being "strongly agree". All of these questions were designed to measure attitudes and perceptions toward sustainable agriculture, traditional agriculture and its interface with the environment and human health. A factor analysis was utilized to find items that were correlated together for useable scales. The computer generated seven scales. Five had a Cronbach's alpha of >6 on the pre-questionnaire and four on the post- questionnaire indicating that the scales had a high level of reliability from the person's internal consistency in responding. Two questions were looked at individually and will be discussed later. 62 One scale, referred to as "environmental threat" showed interesting results. There was no difference between groups but a consistent change occurred in all three groups from pre to post. The questions comprised in the scale are listed below. Items in the environmental threat scale Consumers would not be better off if American farmers cut down on the use of pesticides. As they are currently used, agricultural pesticides are not a serious threat to public health. There is too much talk about the harmful environmental effects of pesticides and not enough about their benefits. Environmentalists seldom take into account the economic implications of their policies. Governments these days pay too much attention to environmentalists. Repeated measures were run to look at any detectable variance between groups and/or from pre to post. Table 4.2 shows the repeated measures analysis of variance for the environmental threat scale. There was no interaction between groups pre to post. There was a difference from pre to post in all three groups. The mean scores on the scaled items listed in Table 4.3 consistently moved more positively to these questions in all three groups studied. A paired t-test on the scale indicated a significance of <05. Realistically, this is a .2 movement on a five point scale with a very small number of participants, i.e. one person can move the scale significantly. Table 4.2 Repeated measures analysis of variancefor environmental threat 63 scale Source Of Variance F Test Significance of F ll 3 Groups .54 .584 Pre To Post 36.05 .000 3 Groups X Pre To Post .04 .962 Table 4.3 Mean values, paired t-test and number of respondents for the environmental threat scale Group Pre-Mean Post-Mean # In Group Paired t-test Control Agents 3.3 4.0 1 2 .001 Experimental Agents 3.1 4.0 9 .001 Experimental Participants 3.1 3.9 25 .001 One question in the attitudinal scales showed significance in the paired t- test standing alone rather than in a scale. The question asked: There is no point in adopting new practices unless they are more profitable. The post-questionnaire responses, listed in Table 4.4, showed the total participants changed more positive to this question, is. they feel even stronger that profitability is important in adopting sustainable practices. The control agents were the most positively changed in this direction, with paired t-test showing a significance of <05 (.001 actual). Both experimental groups were 54 slightly more positive, but not significantly. Table 4.4 Mean responses to the question: "There is no point is adopting new practices unless they are more profitable." Pre Post Paired Group Mean Mean t-Test Control 2.25 3.08 .01 Experimental Agents 2.78 2.89 .76 Experimental Participants 2.56 2.96 .125 Only one question in the attitudinal measures generated a unanimously positive response of 4.7 on a 5 point scale, 5 being "strongly agree". The question stated: To be a good farmer, it is important to know how agriculture affects the environment. There was no significant movement from pre to post, but this question remained highly positive in all three groups. Following the thirty attitudinal questions, participants were asked, "Do you like the term sustainable agriculture"? There was little movement pre to post on the way participants responded to this question, but there was a distinction between the groups as indicated in Table 4.5. Nineteen people out of 27 respondents in the experimental participant group took the time to write a comment on the term "sustainable agriculture". Six people commented that the term is ambiguous and needs definition. Two felt that the term is used against farmers by special interest groups. One commented that it has been "twisted" 65 by traditional agriculture to convince themselves that they fit into an agriculture with longevity. Two people commented it is an important public relations concept with the non-farm audience and two noted conflict between sustainability and the current cheap food policy of America. One commented that sustainable agriculture was not much different from what they were currently doing and offered the term "responsible ag" as an alternative. Table 4.5 Responses to the question: "Do you like the term sustainable agriculture?" Pre Post Group No Yes No Yes Control 67% 33% 54% 46% Experimental Agents 33% 67% 36% 64% Experimental Participants 35% 65% 29% 71% Five people commented that profitability is important. Many participants seem to be seeking a balance between environmentally sound and economically viable farming practices. One comment was more adamant concerning profit, "If it's not profitable, than it can't be sustainable". One participant took another viewpoint on profits stating that sustainable practices had helped his farm profitability. This reinforces the strong response on the attitudinal question mentioned previously regarding the importance of profitability in adopting new practices. The experimental agent group also mentioned profitability and the lack of 66 a suitable definition of sustainability as a concern. Two people mentioned the positive nature of sustainability causing them to look at the long term nature of agriculture. The control group agents mentioned that sustainable agriculture is good but were quicker to note several drawbacks: requiring more planning and management, association with non-progressive and organic farmers, being used largely as a public relations term, and that government policy has forced farmers to be intensive. In the post-questionnaire, several additional questions were asked of all three participant groups. For those in the experimental participant and experimental agent group, they were asked to rate their level of involvement, listed in Figure 4.10. A repeated measures test was run to see if those who were more involved in the Ieaming plans changed on the attitudinal scales more than the ones indicating they were less involved. This test did not show any significant difference from pre to post in the participant's responses. 67 Percentage 01' Respondents lawman-mm] Figure 4.10 Experimental participants' level of involvement On the post-questionnaire, the experimental participants were asked if they made any changes in their farming operations. Fifty percent (13 out of 26) said "yes" and eleven people wrote of specific changes they had made on their farm. Utilizing cover crops was mentioned by five people. Decreasing pesticides was mentioned four times, followed by comments on scouting, rotations, grazing, and decreasing fertilizer and tillage. The experimental agents were asked if they had conducted any programs in the county on sustainable agriculture; 90% said "yes". Eight respondents mentioned specific programming changes; six noted plot tours or demonstrations. The control agents were asked the same question, and only 68 50% indicated they had conducted any sustainable agricultural programming. The four respondents who listed their activities reflected the more traditional programming of soil fertility, integrated pest management and herbicide banding than the experimental agents who listed more hands-on type activities. The control agents were asked if they had personally attended any meetings or seminars on sustainable agriculture; 83% said "yes". This question may indicate why there were not greater differences between the control agents and the experimental agents. The experimental agents were asked if they saw any "spin-off" effects from the project; 80% said '"yes" on the questionnaires but failed to reflect the true implications of this question. Personal interviews were conducted with many of the agents and participants in the experimental groups providing additional insight into the impact of the program. An overwhelming number of people mentioned the importance of interaction between the various Ieaming groups. One person commented on the "chance to listen to a variety of opinions from a variety of people from a variety of occupations" as a highlight of the program. Numerous comments stressed the desire for farmers to learn from each other. There were other interesting findings when participants were probed via personal interviews. Dr. Liss's interviews reflected significant growth in several Extension agents involved in the Ieaming plans. One agent was observed as really making changes to his programming efforts. Another agent is about to 69 take a sabbatical leave for further study, and one is pursuing a PhD. Several agents commented that the Ieaming plans provided a framework creating a "vehicle to involve people", and empowered them to use their authority and money to create new networks, increased their enthusiasm and basically to '"get stuff done". Their subject, grazing, was a cross-disciplinary topic spanning crops, dairy and economics. The agents brought the various skills together from their diverse academic backgrounds. The Ieaming plans also impacted the agent's role. They see themselves more as a "catalyst of education", and they help "empower people to teach themselves". Chapter 5 Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations Summam A participatory learning approach between Extension agricultural agents, farmers and agri-business people was initiated upon receiving a financial grant. The grant called for the participants to develop self-directed Ieaming plans revolving around sustainable agricultural practices. This approach was designed to facilitate inclusion of the many facets of modern agriculture evolving in a concerned society. Intentionally, no attempt has been made to define "sustainability" in this thesis. "It is human beings that either create, or do not, create sustainability" (Agroecology Program 1990). The study questions have involved two concepts converging to create a synergistic effect: sustainable agriculture and participatory Ieaming methods. Will participatory interactions in the Ieaming process change the participant's attitudes about sustainable agriculture? Will participatory Ieaming between farmers and Extension agents circumvent the barriers to adoption of sustainable agricultural practices? The research questions were studied via a pre- and post-questionnaire. The questionnaires were mailed to all of the participants plus a control group of 70 71 randomly selected Extension agents who were not in the project. Interviews and written comments provided additional insight into the effectiveness of the project. n I i n Attitudes were studied via a pre- and post-questionnaire method. No significant change in the attitudes of participants In the sustainable agricultural learning plans was evidenced. One obvious reason is reflected in the questionnaire responses; 83% of the control agents had sought or experienced other sources of sustainable agricultural information. Another reason for the lack of positive results may be that two years is not a long enough period of time to elicit measurable changes. Also, a formalized questionnaire has not proven to be the best tool to measure behavioral and attitudinal changes. Personal interviews elicited several major findings that the questionnaire was not capable of ascertaining. A positive outcome appears to have surfaced from forrnalizing the participatory approach between Extension agents and participants in the Ieaming plan concept. Personal interviews demonstrated that the learning plans provided a framework to legitimize agents activities in an area that has been thought heresy in the past by traditional production agriculture. Agents reflecting on their experiences in the Ieaming plans used phrases such as: "increased enthusiasm", "vehicle to involve people", "'fostered credibility", 72 "provided license and authority", and basically provided motivation to "get something done". The participatory approach seemed to mobilize people into action. An increase in county Extension programming in the experimental agents compared to the control agents was measured: 90% of the experimental agent group conducted local programs on sustainable agriculture whereas only 50% of the control group did so. Farming practices of the participants also exhibited specific changes. Whether or not these changes can be credited to the Ieaming plan or not is uncertain; the experimental groups may have had a predisposed acceptance of sustainable agricultural concepts. Perhaps the participatory approach is better at mobilizing the person who is already motivated toward sustainable agriculture than creating motivation from the less interested person. The farmer participants were less inclined to talk about the structure of the project but were quick to mention the farmer to farmer networking that was created. Some would say the traditional "trickle down" theory of Extension working with the top producers while their neighbors watch and follow suit is too slow and discriminates in favor of the early adopters. Clearly, the farmer's perception of credible information is that which comes from others experiencing similar problems and generating workable solutions; farmers greatly value other farmer's knowledge and experience. Dr. Liss noted in his interviews that the participants could not remember the speakers or topics at the initial 73 conference held for all of the groups, but they all had a positive imprint of the meeting due to the interaction with other farmers. Obviously, hearing from academic specialists left little impression. Farmers are concerned about finding a balance between environmental threats and profitability. The participants did rate highly the concept of "to be a good farmer, it is important to know how agriculture affects the environment". They also highly rated the ability to make a profitable living for themselves and their families. A survey of 133 Midwestern organic farmers conducted in 1977 found that 12 of the farmers no longer used organic methods. Also, the farmers studied were more tolerant, in principle, of some chemicals not generally accepted in organic farming (Lockeretz and Madden 1987). Sustainable agriculture proponents who demand purist views, and demand them quickly, may be as guilty as traditionalist farmers and researchers for not being cognizant of the ramifications of the demands on people, families and communities. The environmental threat scale reflected an increased acceptance of farm pesticides by all three groups studied. The interaction between this scale and the high level of concern for profitability may reflect the opinion that some pesticides are necessary for financial sustainability. Since there have been major changes concerning pesticides in recent years, including increased regulations, increased restrictions on product uses, and increased awareness on the part of the users, there may be a perception that pesticide use is 74 becoming safer. The impact the financial incentive contributed to the Ieaming plans is interesting. The money offered was not of great significance; many people would have paid for the activities themselves or been able to generate sufficient funds from other sources. Money does draw on a persons "waste-not-want-not" mentality causing them to use the money, and that motivation creates action. Financial incentives are more important for the motivation they create than for the dollar value they provide. R comme ti n Changes in actions and thoughts were evident in written comments on the questionnaires and by personal interviews. It was assumed that attitudes must be noticeably changed to reflect behavioral changes. This may be too strong of an assumption to be accurately measured via the survey tool. This study greatly benefitted by utilizing both a formal survey and personal interviews. The literature review in Chapter 2 points the direction for a paradigm shift in the role of county Extension agents. The Extension agent of the future has been described as everything from a "village catalyst" (Farrington and Martin 1988) to a "'lexicon of local solutions" by Wendell Berry (Ehrenfeld 1987). Several of the agents reflected this change when referring to themselves as a 75 "catalyst of education" and having the ability to "empower people to teach themselves". The participatory approach did appear to make significant strides in changing the way Extension agents viewed their professional roles. A better hypothesis for this thesis might have been: Will participatory methods between farmers and agents create a new prototype for Extension agents? Extension administration views its future as issue based, not discipline regimented. Participatory methods may be the conduit to bring agents to view their roles differently so they can begin effective community based facilitation. The classic adoption and diffusion model set forth by Evert Rogers has begun to recognize reinvention. In participatory methods, reinvention will be a steadfast pillar for future developments and adoptions. Communicating these reinventions will be vastly important, and primarily accomplished through farmer to farmer networks. Extension and research could greatly benefit by becoming a part of these networks and helping facilitate them rather than being expected to deliver all the answers. Profitability emerges in the literature frequently as a primary motivation in creating change. The traditional adoption and diffusion literature has been chided for better suiting profitable innovations. It is also better suited for innovations that are generally seen as being of positive value. Today, the table is set with many more normative concerns. These concerns evolve in communities, and they must be solved in those communities; outside specialists 76 can facilitate, but they cannot dictate. A new, or revised, adoption and diffusion model needs to be created for the inclusion of innovations that carry normative ramifications, especially those impacting the longevity of the environment and human health. This new model must be able to define the various players, their priorities and balance the trade-offs involved. These normative concerns of today's issues will benefit from less "specialists" and more participation of the parties involved. Sustainability creates more questions than answers. The whole issue of '"sustainability" itself dredges up a wealth of notions. Sustain what and whom? At what level should it be sustained? Do we sustain small farmers or large, a way of life, and/or farming communities? Who benefits, who pays the costs? These are questions for which no one person or institution can deliver the "right answers". There will be many trade-offs involved, and those who are most impacted by the decisions must assume responsibility for the choices. If the goal is to achieve more sustainable agriculture practices, Charles Francis et al. (1988) offers six recommendations (several closely mirror the findings of this project) for Extension to focus on: -> participatory systems for developing information, —9 diversity of enterprises and products, —> information as a key production input, —> community as well as on farming, —> systems rather than components, —> process rather than product, —> value-based decisions, and -—> internal resources. 77 This study would obviously have been improved with a larger group in the sample. It would also be interesting to see how participatory methods perform with regard to other areas of study beyond sustainable agriculture. The process leading to involvement in a participatory relationship needed reinforcement in the Ieaming groups. The agents in this project were given minimal direction or training. Participatory activities have never been praised for quick development. Time is necessary to build relationships, understanding and compromises. For some, the groups are just beginning to take root. The slowness of participatory approaches is valued for the longevity of the results. This study is certainly not conducted in a test-tube environment. Both the experimental groups and the control group live and work in an informed society. Crediting changes in attitudes totally to involvement in the program is ludicrous. The issues facing modern agriculture are frequently featured on the six o'clock news and on the evening prime time news programs. Such news stories many times center on the concerns mentioned earlier that "technologically possible no longer equates with ethically desirable". These issues will be discussed and debated in the public arena. APPENDICES MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY W. K. KELLOGG BIOLOGICAL STATION HICKORY CORNERS - MICHIGAN - M9516 Appendix A Cover letter mailed with the April 3, 1992 quesfionnake. Dear Sustainable Ag Learning Group, All participants in the Cooperative Extension Service Sustainable Agriculture Learning Project are being asked to complete the enclosed questionnaire. The Sustainable Ag project is a new approach to learning and self development. Due to its uniqueness, we felt it is important to pursue an evaluation to be used to support similar projects in the future. Since the entire group is not very large, it is important for the credibility of the survey, that everyone help by returning this by April 17. We have made a sincere attempt to keep the survey short in hopes that it will take just 10 to 15 minutes of your time. All information will be kept confidential. The number on the front of the questionnaire is to keep track of returns and make sure only official questionnaires are counted. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire in the enclosed, self addressed stamped envelope for your convenience. We hope that you will be able to respond by April 17. If you have concerns or questions, please contact myself at (616) 781-0784. Thank you very much for you interest in the Sustainable Ag Learning Project, and especially for completing this questionnaire. ‘ Sincerely, -' .l‘! ’fl l / I’RJ/(‘rl/Jj/ Natalie Rector 78 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Instr-arias MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY W. K. KELLOGG BIOLOCII .\L STATION HICKORY CORNERS - MICHIGAN - 49000-95“) Appendix B Reminder letter sent to encourage questionnaire responses. April 24, 1992 Dear Sustainable Ag Learning Group: If you have already returned the questionnaire on sustainable agriculture, thank you very much. If you have not, enclosed is another copy that I hope you can find just a few minutes to complete and return. As I mentioned earlier, since only a small number are in the survey group, the results really depend on everyone returning the questionnaires. It should only take about 15 minutes to complete. Please return by May 5 in the enclosed, postage paid envelope. . . Sincerely, 57/). _ C Natalie Bement Rector Extension Field Crops Agent 79 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution Appendix C Replica of the questionnaire sent to participants in the learning Sustainable Agriculture Survey plan projects April 2, 1992 This questionnaire has been developed for the participants of the Kellogg Funded, Cooperative Extension Service Sustainable Ag Learning Project. In the following pages you will find questions about your farming or farm related activities. Please choose the answers to each question that most fit your slnration. Your answers will assist in not only fine tuning this project but will be of great help in planning similar projects in the future mmnwmumhmmmuuwpomumm hardseeltheenvdope. Donetwrbentheenvelope. PleuecerrplmandrutnbyApril 17. 0—1. MWWWUWWNMW. Environmentally-friendly farming practices will not generally reduce profitability ........... It is worth putting up with a small decrease in farm profits to protect the environment .......... Agriculture today is too dependent on the use of agricultural chemicals . . Consumers would be better off if American farmers cut down on the useoipesticides ...... As they are currently used, agricultural pesticides are a serious threat to public health . . There is too much talk about the herrntul environmental effects of pesticides and not enough about their benefits ............. Strongly Disagree 80 ' (circle one number for each) Mostly Mostly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Agree 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. It pesticides were used less, there would be less profit in agriculture ..... Farmers do not use more chemicals than they have to simply because it costs too much ............ To be sustainable, , agriculture will probably always require extensive use of agricultural chemicals ........... Environmentalists seldom take into account the economic implications of their policies ......... To be a good farmer, it is important to know how agriculture affects the environment ...... ' . . . ; Governments these days pay too much attention to environmentalists ...... Farmers have a responsibility to help. maintain natural populations of native animals and birds ..... Some of'the things conservationists are trying to protect are not worth worrying about. ....... The land used for agriculture in Michigan is in better condition now than it has ever been . . . Sustainable agriculture is a good description of how farming should be done Strongly 81 (circle one number for each) Mostly ' Mostly Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 17. 18. 19. 21. 23. 24. 25. Most modern agriculture is not sustainable agriculture ........... Sustainable agriculture is just the latest term for what farmers have been doing all along ........ It is important to me to use sustainable farming practices ........... Most farmers in this area practice agriculture that is sustainable .......... Most American farmers feel it is important to use sustainable farming practices ............ Farmers across the country welcome the idea of sustainable agriculture Sustainable agriculture is being promoted mainly by people who do not understand farming . . . . The country would be better off it all farmers practiced sustainable agriculture ........... Sustainable agriculture is more a way of thinking about farming than any particular set of farm practices ............ Sustainable agriculture is more about good public relations than about good farming practices ...... Strongly Disagree 82 (circle one number for each) ' Mostly Disagree Neutral 2 3 2 3 2 a ‘ 2 a 2 3 2 a 2 3 2 a 2 a 2 a ' Mostly Strongly Agree - Agree (circle one number for each) Strongly Mostly Mostly Strongly' Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree 27. Farming practices are an important factor in the health of people who live - . nearby .............. ' 1 2 3 4 5 28. Making agriculture more ' sustainable will result in _ lower levels of production 1 2 3 4 5 29. There is no point in' adopting new practices unless they are more ‘ profitable ............ 1 2 3 4 5 30. I am more likely to believe what other farmers show . or tell me than what I read 1 2 3 4 5 0-2. Doyoulikelheterm'suflinableagricdhrre’? (circle one number) 1 No 2 Yes Pleasediswssbrleflthwyoufedwommeconceptandpracficeofslmahabb agriculture. . 83 0-3. Wedsyoumualyfindrel‘filsirfonnmionmwmingpractices? Never Seldom Occasionally Often 1. Farming magazines ... 1 ' 2 3 4 2. Technicaljoumals 1 2 3 4 3. University or Extension - . sources ............ 1 2 3 4 4. Seminars ........... 1 2 . ' 3 5. Travel to see new - equipment or practices . 1 2 3 4 6. Sales reps and suppliers ........... 1 2 3 ~ 4 7. Discussions with neighbors ........... 1 2 3 4 8. Farmer or commodity associations .' ........ 1 2 3 4 9. Othef (please specify) ..... 1 2 3 4 O—4. Howirnportaruwasead'rotmeseinyomdedsiontogetinvowedwilhme Sustainmle Agriculture Learning Project? Not Somewhat ‘ Very Important Important Important Important 1. Chance to learn new 1 term practices ....... 1 2 ‘ 3 4 2. Interest in sustainable agriculture .......... 1 2 Financial incentive . . . . 1 2 4. Improve resume or opportunities for job advancement ........ 1 2 3 5. Chance to travel ...... 1 2 6. Other 1 2 4 5 84 W. In order to find our how different kinds of people feel abour different issues, your answers to some background quesa‘ons are very important. As with all information in this survey, your answers to the following questions will be kept confidential. 0-6. 0-7. Whatisyourege? years old Are you: (circle one number) 1 Male 2 Female Whatislnehimestlevelofeducationyouhaveconplsted? ensure-r Did not complete high school High school. graduate Some college, technical training. or associates degree Bachelor's degree Advanced degree Whichcltegorybestdeecrlbeeyourprinaryoccupation? (circle one number) 1 (nature Farmer Extension agent Ag related services Ag consultant Other (please specify) 85 0-1 0. 0-11. If yes: 0-12. 0-13. Howmanyyeushweyoubeenimolvedhtheabweocwpation? years lastyear.didanyotyoulnoomecomelromlumhg? 1 No 2 Yes ' What was the range ot you goes term booms lea year? 1 Less than $10,000 2 $10,000 to $100,000 3 $100,000 to $500,000 4 $500,000 to $1,000,000 5 Over $1 million Wtotmsolcormterclsllumingareyouitwolvedh? (circle number for all that eppy) 1 Livestock Dairy Vegetables Fruit Field crops Other Wottheseflhvouytmisyouprinuyamostinputamsouoeoliarm measure mus? Number: ‘ Whmyouuelridndmmdwquesbamehmmnpedaddrasedumpemdemem itandsealtheenvelope. Donotwriteontheemelope. Thank you lor taking the time to share your opinions. it you have any final comments. please use the space below or the next page. 86 LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES "Sustainability in the balance: Raising fundamental issues,“ Agroecology Program, University of California, Santa Cruz, November 1990. Anderson, Molly. 1990. Farming with reduced synthetic chemicals in North Carolina. ' l fA ' ' l 5 (2): 60-67. Argyris, Chris, Robert Putnam, and Diana McLain Smith. 1985. Aging Olaf 0:0,mznn Ht -:=—. nor-Lac. San Francisco, California: Jossey—Bass Inc. Argyris, Chris and Donald A. Schdn. 1974. W W. San Francisco, California. Jossey-Bass Inc. Axinn. George H- (19888). W. Home: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Axinn, George H. (1988b). lntemational technical interventions in agriculture and rural development: Some basic trends, issues, and questions. W5 (1 and 2) 6-15 Ballantyne, A. O. 1987. Extension work In the small farm sector. Agfl'guflgLe Administraflmfixtansimfl (January) 141- 147 Babbie, Earl. 1989. W. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc. Batie, Sandra S. Sustainable Development: Challenges to the Profession of Agricultural Economics, Presidential Address, AAEA Summer Meetings, held in Baton Rouge, Louisiana July 30-August 2, 1989. Batie, Sandra S. and Daniel B. Taylor. 1989. Widespread adoption of non- conventional agriculture: Profitability and impacts. W W 4 (3 & 4) 128-134 87 88 Bawden, Richard. Towards action researching systems: A Post Conference Submission, draft version for the r e din s 1 Pi Int m i A In E: ‘o. 90 -u-. :, 0.011 I.-::n -. {.0- u: Bloome, Peter D. 1992. The role of extension: Seeking a mature relationship with agriculture. We (September): 21-23. Borden, Richard J. and Andrew P. Schettino. 1979. Determinants of environmentally responsible behavior. WW Egyeetiee 10 (4): 35-39. Bunch, Roland. 1990. The meaning and benefits of partnership in agriclutural research: Past successes--future potentials. WM Altemetive Agrieletere 5 (4)" 147-150. Brendlinger, Nancy. 1984. A Study of 11 Wisconsin organic farmers' characteristics, production methods and information-seeking behavior. (Masters thesis, University of Winconsin-Madison). Byrd, David Martin. 1980. A Survey of teachers', administrators' and professors' perceptions of the need for teacher inservice education. (PhD. diss., Michigan State University). Carson, Rachel. 1962. Silent Sering. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. Chambers, Robert, Arnold Pacey and Lori Ann Thrupp.1989.EaLmeLflLs_t:_ WW Southampton Row London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Christensen, Lee A. and Patricia E. Norris. 1983. Soil conservation and water quality improvement: What farmers think. MW MM 38 (1): 15-20. "The county Extension agent is not dumber; you're smarter," fiueeeeetut Farming, October 1992, p. 27. Doll, Jerry D. and Charles A. Francis. 1992. Participatory research and extension strategies for sustainable agricultural systems. V_V_e_e_d Ieehnetegy 6 (April-June): 473-482. Ehrenfeld, David. 1987. Sustainable agriculture and the challenge of place. Ameticen Jeumel e1 Altemetive Agrieulture 2 (4): 184-187. 89 Farrington, John, and Adrienne M. Martin. 1988. Farmer participatory research: A review of concepts and recent fieldwork. Agfleuttetat Administzatimndjxtansjoh 29 (4): 247-264- Fleming, Malcolm H. 1987. Agricultural chemicals In ground water: Preventing contamination by removing barriers against low-input farm management. WM 2 (3) 124-130 Francis, Charles A., James W. King, Darrell W. Nelson, and Leo E. Lucas. 1988. Research and extension agenda for sustainable agriculture. A ri m Iof l ' ' I 3 (2 & 3): 123-126. Francis, Charles, James King, Jerry DeWitt, James Bushnell, and Leo Lucas. 1990. Participatory strategies for information exchange. Ameu'eee mmnomwmm 5 (4)'153'150- Gardner, John C. 1990. Responding to farmers' needs: An evolving land grant perspective Americamleumanarnmmamflcmm 5(4)=170- 175. Gerber, John M. 1992. Farmer participation in research: A model for adaptive research and education WW 7 (3):118-121. Halstead, John M., Steven Padgitt and Sandra S. Batie. 1990. Ground water contamination from agricultural sources: Implications for voluntary policy adherence from Iowa and Virginia Fanners' attitudes. Anew WW 5 (3)1 126-132- Harvvood, Richard R. 1992. The structure of biological diversity at the agricultural, environmental and social interface (an agricultural perspective), Keynote address, Diversity in Food, Agriculture, Environmental and Health, held in East Lansing, Michigan June 4-7, 1992. Hoag, Dana L. and E. C. Pasour, Jr. 1992. A Queieee dialogue on mandated training in sustainable agriculture: It's a dilemma. Qbeieee 1 (1): 32-34. Korsching, Peter F. and Peter J. Nowak. 1982. Farmer acceptance of aItemative conservation policies. WW 7 (March): 1-13. 90 Korsching, Peter F., Curtis W. Stofferahn, Peter J. Nowak, and Donald J. Wagener. 1983. Adopter characteristics and adoption patterns of minimum tillage: Implication for soil conservation programs. Jeemel ef Seil end Weter Ceneematiee 38 (5): 428-431. Korsching, Peter F. and Thomas J. Hoban, IV. 1990. Relationships between information sources and farmers' conservation perceptions and behavior. W3 (1): 1-10- Lagemann, J. 1982. Farming systems research as a tool for identifying and conducting research and development projects. Agfleeltmat Adminiettetien 2 (2): 139-153. Lasley, Paul and Gordon Bultena. 1986. Farmers' opinions about third-wave technologies. WW1 (3): 122-126- Liss, Harvey and Natalie Rector. 1991. Ag agent-farmer Ieaming plan: Sustainable agriculture, proposal submitted to the W. K. Kellogg Foundaflon. Lockeretz, William. 1988. Open questions in sustainable agriculture. ri mal fA ' ' I r 3(4): 174-181. Lockeretz, William and Molly D. Anderson. 1990. Farmers' role in sustainable agriculture research WW 5 (4): 178-183. Lockeretz, William and Patrick Madden. 1987. Midwestern organic farming: A ten-year follow-Up WW 2 (2): 57- 63. Lynn, Gary D., J. S. Shonkwiler, and Leandro R. Rola. 1988. Attitudes and farmer conservation behavior. A ri I fA r' gcenefles 70(1): 12-19. Martin, Paul B. and Peggy Prather. 1991. Sustainable agriculture: A process at the community level WW 6 (1): 2 and 48. McDowell, George R. 1992. The role of extension: Mature relationship requires shifting resources. AgliceltgLeLEggjeeeflng 2 (September): 22- 23. 91 Miller, Robert H. 1990. Learning from each other: A look at how we do research. WW 5 (4): 151-152- Muth, Robert M. and John C. Hendee. 1980. Technology transfer and human behavior. Jeememtfioteetg 78 (3): 141-144. Pampel, Fred Jr. and J. C. van Es. 1977. Environmental Quality and Issues of Adoption Research. HeteLSfiielegy 42 (1): 57-70. Posner, J. L., E. W. Crawford, and Malumba Kamuanga. 1991. Farmer participation in on-fanh trials: The case of lowland rice in southern Senegal. WW 2: 125-134. Rahm, Michael R. and Wallace E. Huffman. 1984. The adoption of reduced tillage: The role of human capital and other variables. Amen‘een A ri l lEc n m' i ' n (November): 405-412. Ramsey, Charles E. and Roy E. Rickson. 1976. Environmental knowledge and attitudes. The Jeemel et Enyimnmentel Edueetion 8 (1): 10-18. Rhoades, Robert E., and Robert H. Booth. 1982. Farmer-back-to-fanher: A model for generating acceptable agricultural technology. Agriefllutel W11: 127-137. Richardson, Doris Brickman. 1986. The actual and preferred Ieaming activities of extension home economists and their relationship to the acquisition of professional skills. (Ph.D. diss., Michigan State University). Rogers, Evertt M. 1983. Djflyeieuflnmetjene. New York: The Free Press. Rogers, Monica M. 1991. A study of the relationship between values and the family community leadership project of the cooperative Extension service at Michigan State University. (Masters thesis, Michigan State University). Runge, E. C. A., Steve Murdock, J. B. Penson, D. I. Padberg, and B. A. Stout, "Do Southern Farmers Gain or Lose From Technology Transfer?," in uthem A ricul n ' Tr n Y i f R i Tr f r n in Wil' r Vir 'ni 1 19.88.. 3-20. Schaller, Neill. 1992. A thjees dialogue on mandated training in sustainable agriculture: It's an opportunity. thtces 7 (1): 33-34. 92 Schwarzweller, Harry K. and Elizabeth M. Roach. 1993. Issues and problems confronting rural Michigan in the '90's. Research report 530, Michigan State University: East Lansing. Siegel, Larry M., C. Clifford Attkisson, and Linda G. Carson. 1978. Need identification and program planning in the community context. In Evelgatien ef Hemen Semiee Erogteme, ed. C. Clifford Attkisson, William A. Hargreaves, Mardi J. Horowitz, and James E. Sorensen, 215-252. New York: Academic Press. Summers, Gene F. 1987. Democratic governance. In W Theoty ene methede, ed. Donald E. Johnson, Larry R. Meiller, Lorna Clancy Miller, and Gene F. Summers, 3-19. Ames: Iowa State University Press. Smith, Orrin E. 1992. The role of Extension: The challenge within. MW (September): 23- Thorbum, Thomas Lyle. 1987. A Study of Actual and Preferred Learning Activities and Microcomputer Usage in a Selected Group of Michigan Farmers. (Ph.D. diss., Michigan State University). Thornley, Kay. 1990. Involving farmers in agricultural research: A farmers's per8pective. WWW 5 (4): 174-177- van Es, J. C., "Dilemmas in the soil and water conservation behavior of farmers,“ in Future Agrieulturel Tmhnology end Resource Ceneemetien; Pr ce din R A m o i m Fu ur A ricul r ITechnolo n in Am r - , ed. B. C. English. 238-253. Vandenberg, Lela, and Frank Fear. 1983. Participatory Research: A Comparative Analysis of Two Approaches. JeumejeflelememAetjeu fieseateh. 12(4): 11-28. van Lenteren, Joop C. 1988. Implementation of biological control. Ametieen WW 3 (2 and 3): 102-109- Vietor, Donald M., Harry T. Cralle, and Michael Chandler. 1992. Science, technology, and systems: A hierarchy of inquiry. Weedleetlmtegy 6 (April-June): 452-461. 93 Youngberg, Garth and Richard J. Sauer. 1990. Learning from each other: New models for sustainable agriculture research and information. WW 5 (4): 146 and 169- Wake, John L. 1988. Systematic Ieaming of agricultural technologies. Agriegltgrel Syeteme 27: 179-193. Watkins, Gordon. 1990. Participatory research: A farmer's perspective. Amerieen Jegmel ot Altemetive Agriegltgre 5 (4): 161-162. Whyte, William Foote, David J. Greenwood, and Peter Lazes.1991. Participatory action research: Through practice to science in social research. In W, ed. William Foote Whyte,19- 84. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBReRIEs llIIIWIN"IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIIWIIIIHII 31293010224453