2...? -.

(3»:

v. .
z 1‘. 2:
.32, )9

‘2
. .fim:
l .

..nn.bhh.flv..\
2 . r . l. 1 91.131 .1. I ..:,
b I.?...-...:..sn¢1 . . , , . . ,... -_.f.,...2.....u-1... .u 23....
1: II. .21 it. . ,9. . . ,. . . . . , . .. . ......o.n.N€.flr32..I (mafia: H .
.- 1.2.42.3: . . ,. _ . . . . .. ,2:.2.M.W..fl,.. : .,

.
<
cl 2" .I t .t

, 2.! I...a2..!f.:.. $.12. u... 3

TO.
.»

.-:. .,
-.0 .3293. 2 ,
-A- .5
S .64 In“; “in .
2. a . ,
. .. u_.,uH.....w.. a..\r .n. .
Sf.‘ .b' I BRO.‘ n4
0).. '.n,’.‘.§a.i . .
. .L‘YIIHVP' ~ ‘
4%.}: a .um i}.
, 2 .. .
3: . . t...» .
1. ..nnxiflnfluflufl . .. nan“. ..:.

.ma

.
t
.2.-«fay . O .
‘ L in" \tulJ.

 

.. 1....
. ivy?»
1.5... ....u..).u..!
3%. . ..: as..-
..:... . .
. h . . V n K a
: “WK..\ \l:
hang rug
. 2 pgflfil.
. . -..z..!..
$21.3. plum.“

It“
r200.

 

 

 

 

ii...
1..
our.

 

 

 

103%}.

. 21‘
. r . . . . . Ill; ti {.6 l

P. to u .101. . .. . .. . . . . .. . , .IFI". 'QIVJ'I’WYII
’1’... O . . . . . . . . , . . . . l . . 1.,t 1.0.}. “0.|v.l

..Plr... I
4.1.1.0112“

 

 

 

 

 

.m. title...

 

 

 

 

 

Div :1]. .

 

IHIIHUIHHIIIHIHHHIUIIHIHHHUHIUHIHUIIHHHI

302050 9729

———~-

3 "' 2"? .
WEE-f- ”a: 12
run; I

hrs-3 H‘"“

:22—2 ~

Univers

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Michigan Extension Agents' Use of
Information Sources and Channels

presented by

Mehdi Momin—Khowaja

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.S. degree in Agricultural and

 

Extension Education

Major professor

 

Murari Suvedi

Date 57/8/2000

07839 MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE ’11 DATE DUE DATE DUE
U 1 U U
MAY 1 3200;21N132u0‘?

{02.1.3 102903

IEY 1 2 2004

NEW 1 3 2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

{1630 C‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

moo comm.“

MICHIGAN EXTENSION AGENTS’ USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES AND
CHANNELS

By

Mehdi Momin-Khowaja

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Education and Communication Systems

2000

ABSTRACT

MICHIGAN EXTENSION AGENTS’ USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES AND
CHANNELS

By

Mehdi Momin-Khowaja

MSU Extension agents are important players in the dissemination of diverse
materials to their clients on a technical, educational and organizational level. These
individuals not only provide educational programs and information to their clients, but
also assist in the implementation of a given program. However, what has been unclear is
how these agents identify their sources and the channels used to distribute this
information. Therefore, the purpose of this study was designed to identify the sources
from which extension agents receive their job-related information and the methods used
to delivery this information to their clients. A survey was designed and distributed to a
sample of 188 extension agents within Michigan State University Extension.

Analysis of the data showed that agents are generally interested in receiving and
delivering information through personal information sources, in addition to using the
electronic computer medium. To further determine agents’ preferred mode, results
revealed that more-experienced agents are less willing to use electronic and computer
information medium relative to their younger, less-experienced counterparts. Agents
were also queried on their willingness to receive computerized training. Of these
respondents, indicated a need to pursue more-contemporary avenues as part of their

everyday tasks.

I dedicate this work to my parents, Qasirn Ali Perji and Kulsoom Bai, for their

love, guidance, and continuous support throughout my personal and professional growth.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Murari Suvedi who served
as my major Professor. He provided encouragement and direction throughout my Masters
program. Additionally he provided the knowledge and motivation to conduct better
research.

Appreciation is extended to Dr. Kirk Heinze, Acting Chairperson of the
Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources Education and Communication
Systems (ANRECS), for providing departmental support and personal encouragement to
the author during the study.

Thanks are also extended to the other two members of my graduate committee:
Dr. Dave Kruger and Dr. Fayaz Hussain. Their insightful questions and comments
strengthened the study.

I My gratitude is extended to all respondents who took time out of their busy
schedules to participate in this study. I gratefully acknowledge the Michigan State
University Extension staff for their kind support. Sincere appreciation is given to
members of the ABE Research Class who critiqued various parts of the research.
Gratitude is extended to Amyn Amlani and Edward Roberts for helpful comments and
suggestions.

Finally, I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to Mary Pierce, Gloria
Bateman, and Diane Davis of the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Education and Communication Systems for their co-operation and outstanding

administrative work for this study.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................... ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................. x
CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................................ 1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
Statement of Problem ................................................................................... 3
Purpose of the Study .................................................................................... 3
Objectives .................................................................................................... 4
Research Questions ...................................................................................... 4
Definition of Terms ...................................................................................... 5
Limitations ................................................................................................... 6
Assumptions ................................................................................................. 6
CHAPTER 2 ............................................................................................................ 7
REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................................................................. 7
Introduction .................................................................................................. 7
Michigan State University Extension (MSUE) ............................................ 7
Extension Agents ......................................................................................... 8
Extension Methods ....................................................................................... 9
Sources and Channels of Information for Extension Agents ..................... 10
MSUE’s Involvement in Electronic Information Dissemination ............... 13
Changes in Agricultural Communication .................................................. 15
Agents’ Role in 2000 ................................................................................. 16
Summary of Literature Review .................................................................. 17
CHAPTER 3 .......................................................................................................... 19
METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 19
Research Design ......................................................................................... 19
Instrument Development ............................................................................ 19
Validity, Usability and Reliability ............................................................. 20
Reliability Cronbach's Alpha ..................................................................... 21
Data Collection .......................................................................................... 22
Data Analysis ............................................................................................. 22

CHAPTER 4 .......................................................................................................... 23

STUDY FINDINGS ............................................................................................... 23
Demographic Profile of Extension Agents ............................................................ 23
Print Information Sources and Channels ............................................................... 27
Electronic Information Sources and Channels ....................................................... 30
Computer Information Sources and Channels ....................................................... 31
Organizational Events Som'ces and Channels ........................................................ 33
Personal Sources and Channels ............................................................................. 36
Summary of Information Sources and Channels ................................................... 38
Age of an Extension Agent and the Use of Sources and Channels ....................... 39
Year of Work Experience of an Extension Agent and the Use
of Sources and Channels ........................................................................................ 39
Male Agents Differ From Female Agents in the Use
of Sources and Channels ........................................................................................ 42
Level of Education of an Extension Agent and the Use
of Sources and Channels ........................................................................................ 43
Primary Area of Program Responsibility of an Extension Agent and the Use
of Sources and Channels ........................................................................................ 43
Current Position of an Extension Agent and the Use
of Sources and Channels ........................................................................................ 46
Training Programs for Extension Agents to Upgrade Their Skills
in the Communication of Sources and Channels ................................................... 48
CHAPTER 5 .......................................................................................................... 50
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................... 50
Summary .................................................................................................... 50
Conclusions ................................................................................................ 51
Recommendations ............................................... ' ....................................... 5 5
Recommendations for Future Research ..................................................... 56
APPENDICES ....................................................................................................... 57
A. Advance E-mail Notification ................................................................ 59
B. Cover Letter ........................................................................................... 61
C. Follow up Card ...................................................................................... 63
D. Second Letter ........................................................................................ 65
E. Instrument .............................................................................................. 67
F. Tables ..................................................................................................... 75
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................. 84

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Distribution of Respondents by College Maj or Highest Degree ............. 25
Table 2. Distribution of Respondents by Primary Area of

Program Responsibility .......................................................................................... 26
Table 3. Distribution of Respondents by Current Position .................................... 26

Table 4. Print Information Sources and Channels to Receive and
Deliver Information by Extension Agents ............................................................ 29

Table 5. Electronic Sources and Channels to Receive and
Deliver Information by Extension Agents ............................................................. 31

Table 6. Computer Information Sources and Channels to Receive and
Deliver Information by Extension Agents ............................................................. 33

Table '7. Organizational Events to Receive and Deliver Information

by Extension Agents .............................................................................................. 35
Table 8. Personal Sources and Channels to Receive and Deliver information

by Extension Agents .............................................................................................. 37
Table 9. Summary of Mean Ratings of Information Sources and Channels ......... 38
Table 10. Relationship between Sources of Information and

Years of Work Experience ..................................................................................... 40
Table 11. Relationship between Channels/Methods of

Information and Years of Work Experience .......................................................... 41
Table 12. Differences in Channels/Methods to Deliver by Sex ............................. 42
Table 13. Differences 1n Sources of Information by Primary Area of Program
Responsibility ........................................................................................................ 44
Table 14. Differences in Channels/Methods of Information

by Primary Area of Program Responsibility .......................................................... 45
Table 15. Differences in Sources of Information by Agents’ Current Position ..... 46

Table 16. Differences in Channels/Methods of Information
by Current Position ................................................................................................ 47

vii

Table 17. Training Areas for Receiving and Delivery ........................................... 48

Appendix Table 1. Relationship between Sources of Information and Age .......... 75
Appendix Table 2. Relationship between Channels/Methods

of Information and Age .......................................................................................... 75
Appendix Table 3. Differences in Sources of Information by Sex ........................ 76

Appendix Table 4. Differences in Sources of Information by
Level of Education ................................................................................................. 76

Appendix Table 5. Differences in Channels/Methods of Information
by Level of Education ............................................................................................ 77

Appendix Table 6. Top Five Print Sources to Receive
Job-related Information .......................................................................................... 78

Appendix Table 7. Top Five Print Channels/Methods
to Deliver Information ........................................................................................... 78

Appendix Table 8. Top Five Electronic Information Sources
to Receive J ob—related Information ........................................................................ 79

Appendix Table 9. Top Five Electronic Channels/Methods
to Deliver Information ........................................................................................... 79

Appendix Table 10. Top Five Computer Information Sources
to Receive Job-related Information ........................................................................ 80

Appendix Table 11. Top Five Computer Channels/Methods
to Deliver Information ........................................................................................... 80

Appendix Table 12. Top Five Organizational Events
to Receive Job-related Information ........................................................................ 81

Appendix Table 13. Top Five Organizational Events
to Deliver Information ........................................................................................... 81

Appendix Table 14. T0p Five Personal Sources
to Receive J ob-related Information ........................................................................ 82

Appendix Table 15. Top Five Personal Channels/Methods
to Deliver Information ........................................................................................... 82

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Sex of Respondents ................................................................................ 24

Figure 2. Distribution of Respondents by Level of Education .............................. 24

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AEE: Agricultural and Extension Education

AN OVA: Analysis of variance

ANRECS: Agriculture and Natural Resources Education and Communication Systems
AOE: Area of Expertise

DTN: Data Transmission Network

DVC: Desktop Video Conference

MSU: Michigan State University

MSUE: Michigan State University Extension

RRIP: Rapid Response Information Program

SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Science

UCRIHS: University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

For over eight decades, Michigan State University Extension (MSUE) has
provided educational programs to pe0ple throughout Michigan. A diversity of
communication sources and channels have been utilized to meet this challenge. For
MSUE, this requires that each of the 83 affiliated counties maintain their own extension
agents, whose primary role is to provide information and educational programs to county
residents with the help of on-campus faculty members. For the extension agents, meeting
the information needs of the clientele can be challenging. It becomes imperative for
agents to look for information related to their field from different sources. According to
Radhakrishna and Thomson (1996), agents seek information to carry out their day-to-day
work. Agents always searched a variety of information from different sources not only
for their own knowledge, but also to meet the information needs of their clients.

Agents are the means for MSUE to diffuse useful and practical information to
their clients. Several studies have been conducted to assess the media used to disseminate
information by extension agents, e.g. Burns & Anderson (1973); Shi & Evans (1991).
These studies concluded that information provided to clients stems primarily from
agriculture journals, extension publications, farming magazines, and extension
specialists.

Unfortunately, rapid changes in electronic media technology have forced these
organizations to reassess their education efforts within the last ten years. This is partially

due to the fact that electronic media improve accuracy, speed, and information

availability. Today, many of the agents rely on this contemporary technology to upgrade

their own knowledge and skills. In fact, Agnew (1991, p. 34) predicted that
State Extension Directors perceived that program delivery approaches will
change in the next five years. These changes include increased use of
electronic communications and instructional devices. The electronic
changes most often mentioned were increased use of telecommunication
as a mode of delivery, access to electronic data sources, interactive
instructional video, and increased use of computer technology.

Different Cooperative Extension Services provide many electronic services all
over the United States. Their intention is to provide information in a timely manner to
their clients. In a recent study, Newman (1999) reported on the dissemination of material
through automated telephone message services in the United States. A survey was
conducted to determine which state Extension Services provide information services to
the public through English and Spanish automated audio messages. Newman states in her
research that information delivery through technology services has rapidly expanded and
changed during the past decade.

For MSUE, this change in communication strategy is of great importance.
Extension is a primary resource of information to agents; by understanding the agents’
needs, MSUE is better able to assist them in disseminating information to their clients,
which ultimately allows for a more efficient product delivery service to the citizens of
Michigan. Therefore, it is imperative that extension agents be surveyed to determine what

information sources they use to enhance their knowledge and the channels they use to

deliver information to their clients.

Statement of Problem

According to Bay (1980), extension agents rely heavily on two organizational
sources of information: (1) internal and (2) external. Internal sources include fact sheets,
research findings, pamphlets, and other source materials published by extension services.
External information sources are secondary alternatives because they are not always
available. Now it becomes imperative to see what sources and channels are most in use
by our agents in receiving job-related information and delivering information to clients.
Various sources and channels are available for our agents to upgrade their knowledge and
skills in terms of gaining information and delivering it to their clients. In this regard,
MSUE has not made an adequate effort to determine the agents’ sources from which they
receive job-related information and the channels/methods by which they deliver the
information to their clients. To ensure the effectiveness of disseminating information, it is
important to determine the sources and channels used for achieving long-term goals in

today’s high-tech information world.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to identify the sources from which extension agents
receive their job-related information and the channels/methods of its delivery to their
clients. Results of this study will be extremely valuable in evaluating the usage of various
sources and channels. It will also be helpful for MSUE to design new programs to
increase the effectiveness of the use of information sources and channels by their

extension agents.

Objectives
1. To ascertain what sources of information extension agents use to receive job-

related information.

2. To ascertain what channels or methods extension agents use to deliver
information to their clients.
3. To identify extension agents’ demographic characteristics that predict the use of

sources and channels of information.
4. To identify in what specific area they need training to upgrade their knowledge

and skills in communication methods.

Research Questions

Research question # 1. What are the selected sources that extension agents use to
receive job-related information?

Research question # 2. What are the selected channels or methods that extension
agents use to deliver information to their clients?

Research question # 3. Is the age of an extension agent associated with the use of
sources and channels?

Research question # 4. Do the years of work experience of an extension agent
influence the use of sources and channels?

Research question # 5. Do male agents differ fi'om female agents in the uses of
sources and channels?

Research question # 6. Does the level of education of an extension agent impact
the use of sources and channels?

Research question # 7. Does the primary area of program responsibility of an
extension agent impact the use of sources and channels?

Research question # 8. Does the current position of an extension agent impact the
use of sources and channels?

Research question # 9. What type of training programs do extension agents prefer
to upgrade their skills in the communication of sources and

channels?

Definition of Terms

The information in this section will help in understanding the research more
completely by defining key terms and explaining the context in which they are used.
Demographics: Characteristics of interest to this study are: age, sex, education level, and
primary area of program responsibility.
Clientele: Recipients of MSUE Educational Programs (e.g., Farmers, Livestock
Producers, Urban and Rural Citizens etc).
Source: “A source is an individual or an institution that originates a message.” (Rogers,
1995, p.194).
Channel: “A channel is the means by which a message gets from the source to the
receiver.” (Rogers, 1995, p.194).
Campus Extension Specialists: Extension specialists are members of the MSU campus
faculty. They serve in the departments that generate the basic knowledge that extension
programs transmit to the public (Michigan State University Extension).
Extension Agriculture and Natural Resources Agents: Extension agriculture agents
work with customers engaged in the production, processing and distribution of
agricultural products (Michigan State University Extension).
Extension Community and Economic Development Agents: Extension agents in
community and economic development plan, develop and conduct educational programs
and provide technical assistance to business, government, economic and community

organizations (Michigan State University Extension).

Extension Children, Youth and Family Agents: The Extension 4-H youth agent is an
educator-manager. Agents are responsible for providing Opportunities for young people
to develop leadership potential, citizenship responsibility and productive capacity under
the volunteer leadership of adults and older youths (Michigan State University
Extension).

Area of Expertise Teams: Area of Expertise (AOE) teams involve Extension specialists,
agents, researchers and/or stakeholders organized around a particular commodity, interest
area and/or issue. They are charged with listening to stakeholders, identifying priorities,
planning and providing educational programs, and evaluating program outcomes and

impacts.

Limitations
1. The systematic stratified random sample survey involved in the study was
confined to the Extension Agents of MSUE who were working in the field.

2. Conclusions for the study will only be applicable to MSUE Agents in Michigan.

Assumptions

The aim of this study was to identify the sources from which extension agents
receive their job—related information and their methods of delivery to their clients. An
assumption of this study is that extension agents will provide honest and accurate

feedback needed for this study.

Chapter 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

This chapter contains a review of literature related to the study. It is organized
into the following sections: Michigan State University Extension (MSUE), extension
agents, extension methods, sources and channels of information for extension agents,
MSUE’s involvement in electronic information dissemination, changes in agricultural

communication, agents’ role in 2000, and a summary of literature review.

Michigan State University Extension (MSUE)

According to Michigan State University Extension publications, MSUE provides
educational programs and services to the people of Michigan. MSUE’s aim is to extend
resources and research-based knowledge. That is, MSUE’s role includes solving
problems and identifying issues and concerns of individuals, families, businesses,
industry, organizations, agencies and communities throughout the state. Furthermore,
MSUE acts as a facilitator of general welfare to the state’s citizens for local, state,
national and international issues.

MSU Extension works primarily in three different program areas:

- Agriculture and Natural Resources
- Community and Economic Development

- Children, Youth and Family Programs

These three broad areas provide different services to Michigan residents (e.g.,
educational and technical assistance.) According to MSUE documentation, over one
million people are reached annually through direct educational contacts. This fact is
compelling, as it comprises a greater out-reach than the traditional modes or methods of
media, major events, and publications. In addition, current inventories of over 2000
publications are available to the public. What is more, over 2 million copies of extension
publications are printed annually. Such mass media services allow MSUE to reach all 83
counties throughout the state of Michigan, with the primary facet being fieldwork. The
Michigan staff consists of more than 450 professionally trained workers with more than
40,000 volunteers who assist in educational programs.

According to MSUE resource material, MSU Extension programs are supported
by the Federal Extension Service (CES-U(STDEV)A) in Washington, DC, Michigan
State University, and Michigan county governments. This partnership ensures broad
support and enhances responsibility for specialized needs, while capitalizing on shared

resources and expertise.

Extension Agents
Extension Agents work in three major areas: Agriculture and Natural Resources,
Community and Economic Development, and Children, Youth and Family Programs.
Agents in Agriculture and Natural Resources work with customers engaged in the
production, processing and distribution of agricultural products as well as the evaluation

of educational programs that assist in developing natural resources.

Agents in Community and Economic Development plan, develop, and conduct
educational programs that ultimately provide technical assistance for businesses, state
and local governments, economic and community organizations.

Agents in Children, Youth and Family Programs manage different resources for
improving health and nutrition practices, while supporting the development of human
potential.

The primary purpose of these agents is to provide educational programs and
information for their clients. In this regard, extension agents use difierent sources and
channels to receive job-related information and deliver information through different
media to their clients. According to Bay (1980), extension agents rely heavily on two
organizational sources of information: (1) internal and (2) external. Internal sources
include fact sheets, research findings, pamphlets, and other source materials published by
the extension service. External information sources are secondary alternatives because

they are not always available.

Extension Methods

There are different types of methods that extension agents commonly use to
deliver information. Mass media, group and individual or face-to-face extension methods
are most commonly used because of their ability to disseminate information at a more
personal and/or intimate level. On a larger scale, print and electronic media such as
newspapers, radio and television aid extension agents in reaching large numbers of
clients simultaneously. However, the method of choice varies from agent to agent relative

to their purpose. But in today’s fast-paced world, clients prefer to receive their

information in a quicker and more timely manner. According to Siegrist, Labarge, and
Prochaska, (1998) “the increasing use of communication technologies such as fax and E-
mail by Extension clientele has Opened a new avenue to meet client needs. These
communication technologies give Extension the opportunity to be more reactive,
efficient, and timely in meeting clientele needs.”

It has always been a duty of extension agents to provide information in a timely
manner that best fits the situation. In this regard Newman, (1999) talks about methods
that share information with clientele in today’s time. She states, “methods to share
information with the public have evolved throughout the 85-year history of the
Cooperative Extension Service. Information delivery through technology services has
rapidly expanded during the past decade.”

To reach all kinds of audiences our agents use different types of methods to
deliver information. In this regard, it has become imperative that extension agents be
surveyed to find out what sources and methods they use to receive job-related
information and through what channels/methods they deliver it to their clients, so that
extension can provide all kinds of training in communication methods to make their

agents efficient in their fieldwork.

Sources and Channels of Information for Extension Agents

Sources and channels play very important roles in any organization that receives
information and delivers it to their clients. Several studies have been made on
information use by extension agents, e. g. Burns & Anderson (1973); Shih & Evans

(1991). Any source of information for an extension agent is very important in improving

10

and upgrading his/her knowledge. In this regard, Shih and Evans (1991) describe where
field staff get information. They suggest three points for assessing the behavior of local
Extension professionals: (1) Varied communications channels: For field staff there are
many sources that are available, and they use various communication channels to acquire
information. Oral communication and personal contact provide a greater Opportunity for
discussion, clarification and interaction than does written information. (2) Major use of
extension sources: Field staff prefer short and easy-to-read research material which they
can read quickly and use. Extension staff prefer to read more publications from their
organization because it is related to their field and geographical area. (3) Little use of
external information sources: Among field staff, external information sources such as
libraries are not appreciated. Agents consider them less important for their information.

Many changes have been made over time to acquire different sources and
channels by extension agents. These changes are made because of need, innovations in
communication media, and availability. If we look at previous studies, agents relied more
on oral communications and personal contact, which provide opportunities for discussion,
clarification, and interaction. These channels are still effective and in use but information
technology and different innovations in communication media have brought great
change.

A study was conducted by Shih and Evans (1991) to examine the current
agricultural information-seeking behavior of field staff (called Extension advisers) in
Illinois, and their attitudes toward various information sources. The purpose of the study

was to examine the process by which agricultural Extension field staff members process

11

and use information to help them achieve their educational goals during a period of
rapidly changing information technologies.

In their findings, 235 reported information sources were categorized into three
types: oral, written and electronic. Written-only sources accounted for the largest single
share (45.9%), followed closely by written and oral combination (43%). Less than three
percent used electronic information sources.

Almost a decade has passed since this study. Information and communication
technology has brought remarkable changes in communication media. Now it has become
imperative to look at the needs and usage of these communication media.

In a similar study, Radhakrishna and Thomson (1996) stated, “what, when and
how information is gathered and used by extension agents is of critical importance in
meeting the information needs of such agents and the clientele they serve.” The purpose
of the study was to examine information sources used by extension agents. The first
objective was to ascertain the agents’ search for and use of information. The second
objective was to identify information sources that extension agents most frequently used.
The third objective was to ascertain differences, if any, between the frequency of a
relationship between information sources and agents’ demographic characteristics (age,
sex, education level, and primary area of program responsibility).

Radhakrishna and Thomson (1996) studied eight randomly selected states: Iowa,
Missouri, Maryland, West Virginia, Georgia, Texas, Colorado, and Oregon. A stratified
random sample of 305 agents was drawn from 1,515 extension agents.

The findings indicated that Agents prioritize clients to deliver information. Agents

use all sorts of information sources to upgrade their knowledge and deliver it to others.

12

Older agents communicated more frequently than younger agents with Extension
program advisory committees. Male agents differed from female agents by more
frequently communicating with Extension specialists, Extension workers in another state,
non-Extension university faculty, and state and federal agencies. Female agents are more
interested in communicating with community organizations. Regarding educational
level, agents with Bachelor degrees communicated more fiequently with their immediate
supervisors, county commissioners, local schoolteachers and administrators than agents

with Masters and Doctorate degrees.

Dike (1982) conducted research on persuasive strategies adopted by the
agricultural extension agents of Michigan State University to disseminate new farm
technologies, to Michigan farmers with research implications for developing countries. He
suggested that a network analysis to identify channels of communication among

agricultural institutions, agricultural extension agents and farmers be conducted.

MSUE’s Involvement in Electronic Information Dissemination

MSUE provides up-to-date research-based agriculture information to clients and
extension staff members through different electronic services. The following services are
provided by MSU, some with cooperation and collaborations.

In 1989, MSUE implemented an agricultural marketing program with the
cooperation of DTN to expand present needs of marketing to Extension staff and clients.
The program was first piloted in selected Extension offices throughout the state that
housed agents specializing in agricultural marketing. MSUE provided up—to-date

information to DTN/FarmDayta services.

13

In 1994, MSU developed a satellite communication system, called LeamNet. This
program is managed by MSUE and its Extension offices statewide. This system is very
useful for delivering MSUE’s own educational and administrative programs, as well as
for other MSU units and nonprofit organizations that are interested in reaching audiences
statewide.

In January 1995, MSUE developed another satellite communications program,
called Rapid Response Information Program (RRIP), in cooperation with an independent
firm, DT'N/FarmDayta DTN/FarmDayta provides weather, marketing, agricultural-based
news, and production information via satellite and radio communication. It had more than
158,800 subscribers throughout the US. and Canada in 1997.

The RRIP provides timely, high-quality, research-based information to farmers
and agribusiness firms. It also provides updated MSU information short, self-contained
educational programs, updated information on MSUE seminars and activities and
bulletins, and disseminates information to producers quickly and directly.

Siegrist, Labarge, and Prochaska (1998) noted that

“The increasing use of communication technologies such as fax and e-mail
by Extension clientele has opened a new avenue to meet client needs.
These communication technologies give Extension the opportunity to be
more reactive, efficient, and timely in meeting clientele needs. The Ohio
State University Extension Agronomic Crops Team has been reaching
crop producers, agronomic service personnel, and consultants with an
electronic newsletter via fax and E-mail since 1995.”

Harriman and Daugherty (1992) provided insights into the future of Extension
Envision Extension information centers that provide immediate access to national

subj cot-matter databases to answer both common and uncommon questions. Future

Extension staffmg patterns should reflect the difference between clients' needs for

14

information versus education and provide a staff with skills, facilities, and strategies to
meet those needs effectively.

There is a great need for upgrading the knowledge and uses of new technology to
receive and deliver information to the client; Shill (1992) noted that major changes are
occurring in agriculture information dissemination. Traditional institutions, such asthe
state agriculture extension, are forced to bring changes and adapt to the emergence of
electronic dissemination.

Lynda C. Harriman and Ranee A. Daugherty (1992 p. 27) define their theory for
Extension:

Extension must also identify and preserve what has made it strong and
viable for 75 years. It has always practiced a grassroots approach to
programming based on the clients' needs. People know, trust, and rely on
Extension professionals. These relationships have produced a strong
support base and need to be retained as new ones are fostered. Staff with

excellent communication, personal relations, and public relations skills
will continue to be critical.

Changes in Agricultural Communication

Communications media have also undergone rapid changes. William B. Ward,
Head of the Department of Extension Teaching and Information at Cornell University,
points out that newspapers and magazines have improved their coverage and content
through the development of faster methods of distribution, photo printing refinements,
and expanded news services. He also states that farm magazines have become

increasingly popular and their readability improved.

15

There have been many changes in Agricultural Communication. If we look at past
decades, these changes are made over time because of innovations in information

technology and their adoption.

Agents’ Role in 2000

Our key players are our extension agents who are the source and key informants
for our clients. It is important that we equip and prepare them to provide better services to
our clients. A study was conducted by Bonanno et al. (1988) to ascertain the major roles
of county agricultural extension agents in the agricultural technology delivery system in
' the year 2000. The target population for this study was state directors of c00perative
extension (N =67). They were asked to identify the five major roles that agricultural
extension agents would play. The scale ranged from 5 (essential) to I (not important).
Ten statements achieved overall mean ratings of 4.25 and above. Among these
statements, one statement with a 4.28 mean was to become proficient in the use of
technology, such as microcomputers, to deliver expert production and marketing systems
to innovators, larger producers and any other interested producers. Two main points fiom
this study are: "Extension should thoroughly investigate applications for electronic
technologies to ensure that implementation achieves the expected benefits," and,
"Extension must provide adequate in-service training to ensure proficient staff and the

development of new competencies."

16

Harriman and Daugherty (1992 p. 28) also explained how extension should look
towards the 21St century:

Future Extension staffing patterns should reflect the difference between
clients’ needs forinforrnation versus education, and provide for a staff
with skills, facilities, and strategies to meet those needs effectively.
Extension professionals must have or acquire expertise in communication
and computer technologies. Along with high-tech skills, “high-touch”
skills, interpersonal communication, and public relations will continue to

be critical.

Summary of Literature Review

We understand that face-to-face and interpersonal communication was
appreciated by clients. Research findings show that interpersonal communication
provides opportunities for discussion, clarification, and interaction.

Over time many changes have been made in communication media that have
affected every organization. Radhakrishna and Martin (1999) state that program delivery
will change to meet clientele needs. These changes will continue to occur because of
innovations in communication media and clientele needs. In this regard, Harriman and
Daugherty (1992) state that there will be challenges for extension agents to provide
specialized education to clients. In this regard, extension agents need to collaborate with
experts in various disciplines. It becomes imperative that extension agents adopt the

communication technology available to them.

17

This study will determine what sources extension agents use to receive job-related
information and the channels/methods of its delivery to their clients. MSUE has always
kept disseminating valuable information to its citizens through different methods as a
priority. It is imperative that extension agents be surveyed to determine what information
sources and channels they use to enhance their knowledge and methods of delivery to
their clients. Results of this study will be extremely valuable in evaluating the usage and
effectiveness of various sources and channels. It will also be helpful for MSUE to design
new programs to increase the usage of different source and channels by their Extension

agents.

18

Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

The primary purpose of this study is to identify the sources from which extension
agents receive their job-related information and methods of delivery to their clients.

This chapter includes a description of the sample and population, deveIOpment of
an instrument, procedures used for data collection and a discussion of validity and
reliability of data collected.

This study used a systematic stratified random sample methodology to gather
information on the research topic. The identification of the population is a critical step in
the research process. Two types of population are generally described in the research
literature: the "target" population and the " survey" population. According to Rossi et al.
(1983), the target population is the audience that the researcher would like to study. The
survey population is the population that is actually sampled and for which data may be
obtained.

A sample of 188 out of 365 extension agents in three major areas was selected.
Their areas of work include: Agriculture and Natural Resources, Community and

Economic Development, and Children, Youth and Family Programs.
Instrument Development

The mail questionnaire was designed after specific research questions were

developed when considering the objectives of the study. A Likert-type questionnaire was

19

I.

.'

t

\

(I Ii evil... I .1}.

designed to measure the frequency of use of information sources and channels. The
instrument also contained both closed and open-ended questions. The instrument was
based on three questions. The first set of questions asked extension agents to identify .
sources and channels they used to receive job-related information and the method of
delivery to their clients on a 5 point scale: 1 = Nothing at all, 2 = A little, 3 = Some, 4 =
A fair amount and 5 = A great deal. This question was modified from Suvedi (1996), who
measured sources and methods from Farmers' Perspectives in the Michigan State
University Extension Summary Report. The second set of questions was about agents’
demogaphic information, and the third set asked extension agents if they prefer training
programs to upgrade their knowledge and skills in communication of sources and

channels/methods.

Validity, Usability and Reliability

To determine the validity and usability of the instrument, a panel consisting of
extension educators and faculty members at Agricultural and Extension Education (ABE)
was formed. The panel members were selected based on academic background and their
experience in this field. A copy of the instrument was delivered to each panel member for
evaluation. Panel members were asked to evaluate each question of the instrument to
ascertain if it could be understood, and if the respondents could be expected to answer
appropriately.

For reliability, a pilot survey was conducted after getting approval from the

University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (U CRIHS). As a pre-test,

20

D‘. I

a survey was sent to fifteen former extension agents on campus. These fifteen agents

were not added into the sample. The reliability results are shown below:

Reliability Cronbach’s Alpha
Pre-test

Print Information

Electronic Information
Computer Information
Organizational Events

Personal Sources of Information

Post-test

Print Information
Electronic Information
Computer Information
Organizational Events

Personal Sources of Information

(Receiving Side .742)
(Receiving Side .581)
(Receiving Side .675)
(Receiving Side .841)

(Receiving Side .771)

(Receiving Side .738)
(Receiving Side .684)
(Receiving Side .650)
(Receiving Side .768)

(Receiving Side .817)

(Delivery Side .741)
(Delivery Side .729)
(Delivery Side .372)
(Delivery Side .725)

(Delivery Side .394)

(Delivery Side .756)
(Delivery Side .611)
(Delivery Side .754)
(Delivery Side .730)

(Delivery Side .824)

In the pre-test, reliability for Computer information and Personal sources of

information in delivery side was very low. But in the post-test it gained points.

21

Data Collection

An E-mail was sent to district agents, county/multi—county agents and county
Extension directors (Appendix A), who were selected using a systematic stratified
random sampling, informing them that a questionnaire was being mailed to them and
explaining the purpose and importance of the survey. One week later, a package
consisting of a cover letter (Appendix B), the questionnaire (Appendix E), with a code
number, and a pre-addressed, postage-paid envelope was mailed to selected respondents.
The cover letter emphasized the importance of the survey, their prompt response, and the
confidentiality of all the information.

One week after the first mailing a follow-up postcard (Appendix C) was mailed as
a reminder, and it thanked the respondents if they had already returned the questionnaire.
Three weeks after the first mailing, non-respondents were mailed a follow-up letter
(Appendix D) with a replacement questionnaire.

The returned questionnaires were coded by the date received. Late respondents
were compared to early respondents on selected demographic characteristics to determine
whether early respondents differ fiom late respondents. However, there was no difference

found between these two groups.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).
Descriptive and Inferential Statistics (e. g. frequency, mean, percentage, standard
deviation, T-test, AN OVA and correlation coefficient etc.) were used to analyze the data.

For all statistical tests, a confidence level of 95% was set.

22

Chapter 4

STUDY FINDINGS

The purpose of this study is to identify the sources from which extension agents
receive their job-related information and methods of delivery to their clients.
Furthermore, the study determined if selected personal and demographic characteristics
have an association or relationship with the sources and channels. This chapter will
describe the responses of the survey respondents using tables and narratives of use of
sources and channels selected by the respondents. As reported in Chapter 3, 188
questionnaires were mailed to a sample of extension agents in Michigan. Of these, 143

were returned, representing a return rate of 76 percent.

Demographic Profile of Extension Agents

The respondents of the survey were district agents, county/multicounty agents,
and county extension directors in Michigan. Selected demographics are displayed in
Figures and Tables. Of the survey respondents, 42 percent were male and 58 percent were

female (see Figure 1).

23

Male
60.00 / 42.0%

 

Female

  
 
    

83.00 / 58.0%

Figure 1. Sex of Respondents

As reported in Figure 2, more than two fifths (46 percent) of extension agents
held a bachelors level education while the other half (49 percent) of extension agents

indicated that they held a master’s degree. Five percent held a doctoral degree.

 

Percent

 

 

Bachelors degree Master’s degree Doctoral degree

Level of education

Figure 2. Distribution of Respondents by Level of Education

24

A distribution of respondents by college at degree commencement is reported in

Table 1. About one third (36 percent) of the agents indicated that their highest degree is

in Agriculture and Natural Resources with Human Ecology ranking second. Sequentially

the colleges reported included Education (10 percent), Business (9 percent) and others

(27 percent). Twenty-three respondents did not answer this question.

Table 1. Distribution of Respondents by College Major Highest Degree (N=120)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Characteristics N Percent
Agriculture and Natural Resources 43 36
Human Ecology 21 18
Education 12 10
Business 1 l 9
Other 33 27
Total 120 100

 

Information on respondents’ program areas was collected (Table 2). Results

revealed that the majority of respondents was from Children, Youth and Family

(including Nutrition Education) and Agriculture and Natural Resources (including Sea

Grant) areas.

25

 

Table 2. Distribution of Respondents by Primary Areas of Program Responsibility

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(N=135)

Characteristics N Percent
Children, Youth and Family (including Nutrition Education) 60 44.4
Agriculture and Natural Resources (including Sea Grant) 53 39.3
Community and Economic Development 14 10.4
Other 8 5.9
Total 135 100

 

 

 

Table 3 reveals that the majority of respondents were county/multicounty agents

(59.6 percent). This was followed by county extension directors (23.5 percent) and

district agents (14.7 percent).

Table 3. Distribution of Respondents by Current Position (N=136)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Characteristics N Percent
County/multicounty agent 81 59.6
County Extension Director 32 23.5
District Agent 20 14.7
MSU Specialist and double position 3 2.1
Total 136 100

 

 

 

Agents on average were 43 years old and had 11 years of work experience. When

asked to indicate their area of expertise, respondents mentioned 33 different areas of

expertise. Most frequently mentioned areas included Field Crops, Food Nutrition and

26

 

 

Health, Family Resource Management, Youth Development, Community Development

and Leadership (LeadNet).

Print Information Sources and Channels

The types of information sources and channels used by the respondents were
categorized as print information, electronic information, computer information,
organizational events, and personal sources. Various sources and channels were included
in each of these categories.

MSU Extension produces many print materials for extension agents and their
clients, which include newspapers, bulletins, and publications. This source provides
information for both ends. As shown in Table 4, extension agents were asked to indicate
print sources and channels that they use to receive job-related information and delivery to
their clients. Findings showed that the most important print source and channel for agents
was extension bulletin/publications. On a scale of 1 (nothing at all) to 5 (a great deal), the
mean of extension bulletin/publications to receive information was 3.95 (St.Dev.=.96)
and to deliver information was 3.68 (St.Dev.=1.22). The second print information source
and channel that agents appreciated most was books related to their fieldwork. The mean
of books related to fieldwork to receive information was 3.40 (St.Dev.=l .03) and to
deliver information was 2.21 (St.Dev.=1.33). All other sources and channels received low
mean scores (see Table 4). The scale mean for print information to receive information
was 2.80 (St.Dev.=.53) and to deliver information was 2.31 (St.Dev.=0.59).

Over half of the respondents indicated that they use only a little or none of the general

magazines, experiment station publications, and printed material from commercial firms

27

to receive their job-related information. On the other hand, more than three quarters of
the respondents indicated that they deliver little or none of the general magazines,
specialized magazines, experiment station publications, and printed materials fi'om
commercial firms to their clients.

The t0p five print sources and channels are also ranked in Appendix Table 6 and
7. The most appreciated print source for receiving job-related information was Extension
bulletins/publications (Appendix Table 6). The methods/channels through which agents
deliver information to their clients were also ranked. Once again, agents appreciated
Extension bulletins/publication as their method of delivery to their clients (Appendix

Table 7).

28

Table 4 Print Information Sources and Channels to Receive and Deliver Information by Extension Agents

 

Sources and Channels of ’

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nothing A Some A fair A Mean
Information . little ' amount great (StDev)
. At all . d
. eal
Print Information N w % % % % %
General daily/weekly Receive 143 7.0 38.5 32.9 16.8 4.0 2.74 (.98)
"WSW?“ Deliver 142 5.6 32.9 30.1 18.9 11.9 2.99 (1.11)
General magazines (such Receive 143 24.5 37.8 32.9 4.2 0.7 2.19 (.88)
as Successful Farming,
Family-Living, Good
Housekeeping, etc.) Deliver 142 64.3 28.0 5.6 1.4 0.0 1.44 (.67)
Specialized magazines Receive 142 11.5 25.2 34.3 21.0 7.7 2.89 (1.11)
(such as Hoard’s
Dairyman, Parenting,
Youth Today, American Deliver 141 55.2 20.3 14.7 6.3 2.1 1.78 (1.06)
Demogjphic, etc.)
Extension Receive 143 2.1 4.9 21.0 39.9 32.2 3.95 (.96)
bunemgpubl‘mm Deliver 142 6.3 12.6 18.9 30.8 30.8 3.68 (1.22)
Experiment Station Receive 142 30.1 28.0 23.1 14.0 4.2 2.34 (1.17)
pubh‘mm Deliver 140 53.8 23.8 10.5 8.4 1.4 1.77 (1.04)
Newsletters Receive 141 4.2 30.1 40.6 21.0 2.8 2.88 (.89)
from organizations (such
as Farm- Bureau, .
Children’s Defense- Deliver 140 34.3 33.6 18.9 8.4 2.8 2.10 (1.07)
Fund, etc.)
Printed materials from Receive 143 20.3 45.5 25.9 7.7 0.7 2.23 (.89)
commercial firms (such .
as seed companies, etc.) Deliver 141 60.8 23.8 10.5 3.5 0.0 1.56 (.82)
MSUE/ACE Team Receive 139 18.2 18.9 28.0 20.3 11.9 2.88 (1.28)
“"51““ Deliver 138 35.0 21.7 18.9 13.3 7.7 2.35 (1.31)
Books related to your Receive 143 3.5 16.1 31.5 35.0 14.0 3.40 (1.03)
fi°ldw°rk Deliver 140 42.7 19.6 16.1 11.9 7.7 2.21 (1.33)
Press release articles Receive 141 10.5 26.6 29.4 25.9 6.3 2.91 (1.10)
(mm MSUE mum’s) Deliver 141 18.2 21.7 30.1 18.2 10.5 2.81 (1.24)
Special mailings to Receive 138 8.4 33.6 37.1 14.0 3.5 2.70 (.95)
organizations (such as
' farm organizations,

youth-serving
organizations, human .
service organizations, Dellver 141 16.1 28.0 27.3 20.3 7.0 2.74 (1.17)
etc.)
Scale Mean Receive 2.80 (0.53)

Deliver 2.31 (0.59)

 

The mean can range from

 

29

l (nothing at all) to 5 (a great deal); R=Receive, and D=Deliver

 

Electronic Information Sources and Channels

In the last few years, agents were presented with new electronic media to receive
information and deliver it to their clients, which included produced videotapes, satellite
etc. As shown in Table 5, the most important electronic sources and channels for agents
were Extension-produced videotapes. On a scale of 1 (nothing at all) to 5 (a great deal),
the mean of extension-produced videotapes to receive information was 2.61
(St.Dev.=.94) and to deliver information was 2.50 (St.Dev.=l.11). All other sources and
channels such as general TV or radio news, specific TV programs (such as farm, family,
youth and community programs, etc.), Satellite LeamNet or other satellite conferences,
specific radio programs (such as farm, family, youth and community programs, etc.)
received a low mean score (see Table 5). The scale mean for the electronic source to
receive information was 2.24 (St.Dev.=.68) and to deliver information was 1.98
(St.Dev.=.62).

The top five Electronic sources and channels are also ranked in Appendix Table 8
and 9. Agents have appreciated Extension-produced videotapes as the most important
source through which they receive their job-related information (Appendix Table 8).
Once again on the delivery side they have chosen the same source as their

method/channel of delivery to their clients (Appendix Table 9).

30

Table 5 Electronic Sources and Channels to Receive and Deliver Information by Extension Agents

 

 

 

 

 

Sources and Channels Nothing A little Some A fair A Mean
of Information amount great (St.Dev)

At all ,

deal

Electronic Information N % % % % %
General TV or radio Receive 142 19.6 37.1 28.7 12.6 1.4 2.39 (.99)
news Deliver 140 25.2 45.5 19.6 5.6 2.1 2.12 (.93)
Specific TV programs Receive 142 37.8 32.2 22.4 5.6 0.7 2.05 (1.27)

(such as farm, family,

 

youth and community

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

programs, etc.) Deliver 141 59.4 25.2 11.9 1.4 0.7 1.57 (.81)
Satellite LeamNet or Receive 142 18.2 37.1 29.4 14.0 0.7 2.42 (.97)
231:3:2? Deliver 140 44.1 23.8 18.2 10.5 1.4 1.99 (1.10)
Specific radio programs Receive 142 45.5 34.3 15.4 2.8 1.4 1.80 (.90)
$1“; 23:43:13); Deliver 141 47.6 30.1 14.0 4.9 2.1 1.82 (.99)
programs, etc.)
Extension-produced Receive 140 10.5 36.4 34.3 14.7 2.1 2.61 (.94)
Vidempes Deliver 138 22.4 25.2 30.1 16.1 2.8 2.50 (1.11)
Scale Mean Receive 2.24 (0.68)
Deliver 1.98 (0.62)

 

The mean can range from 1 (nothing at all) to 5 (a great deal)

Computer Information Sources and Channels

The computer is another source and channel that provides a variety of
information. This source and channel is in use by our agents. They use electronic mail
and the Internet to receive and deliver information to their clients. As shown in Table 6,
the most important computer information source and channel for agents was electronic
mail (E-mail). On a scale of 1 (nothing at all) to 5 (a great deal), the mean of electronic
mail to receive information was 4.02 (St.Dev.=l .00) and to deliver information was 3.41
(St.Dev.=1.20). The second highest sources and channels were the Intemet/World Wide
Web and Listservers (such as Crop Observation Reporting Network-CORN, CYF News,

Clover Corner News Listserve, etc. All other sources and channels such as

31

 

DTN/FarmDayta Services, Extension-developed software packages and commercially
produced software packages received low mean scores (see Table 6). The scale mean for
the computer to receive information was 2.79 (St.Dev.=.65) and to deliver information
was 2.30 (St.Dev.=O.75).

Top five computer information sources and channels are ranked in Appendix
Tables 10 and 11. Agents believe that Electronic mail (E-mail) is the most frequent
source through which they receive their job—related information. E-mail was ranked #1 in
receiving job-related information for agents (Appendix Table 10). Once again in the
delivery side agents chose the same source for delivery to the clients as for the receiving

side (Appendix Table 11).

32

 

Table 6 Computer Information Sources and Channels to Receive and Deliver Information by Extension

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_A_gents
Sources and Channels of Nothing A Some A fair A Mean
Information . At all little amount great (St.Dev)
. - deal .
Computer Information N % ‘ % % % %
Intemet/World Wide Web Receive 143 4.2 7.7 28.7 37.8 21.7 3.65 (1.04)
Deliver 143 18.2 25.2 22.4 23.1 11.2 2.84 (1.28)
DTN/FarmDayta Services Receive 139 74.1 12.6 7.7 1.4 1.4 1.39 (.81)
Deliver 138 78.3 13.3 3.5 0.7 0.7 1.26 (.68)
Electronic mail (E-mail) Receive 143 0.7 8.4 18.9 32.2 39.9 4.02 (1.00)
Deliver 143 6.3 18.9 23.8 29.4 21.7 3.41 (1.20)
Listservers (such as Crop Receive 140 14.7 16.1 28.7 25.2 13.3 3.06 (1.25)
ngagfiggfiwgmyf Deliver 138 32.2 23.8 22.4 12.6 5.6 2.33 (1.23)
News, Clover Comer
News Listserve, etc.)
Extension-developed Receive 141 23.8 32.2 25.9 9.8 7.0 2.43 (1.17)
”mm ”Rages Deliver 139 44.1 23.8 15.4 10.5 3.5 2.03 (1.17)
Commercially produced Receive 138 32.2 25.2 25.2 9.1 4.9 2.27 (1.17)
”awn" packages Deliver 137 49.7 22.4 14.7 6.3 2.8 1.85 (1.09)
Scale Mean Receive 2.79 (0.65)
Deliver 2.30 (0.75)

 

The mean can range from 1 (nothing at all) to 5 (a great deal)

Organizational Events Sources and Channels

Extension professionals participate in a variety of organizational events every

year. These events could serve as sources of information as well as channels that

extension agents use to deliver information. Respondents 'were provided with a list of

organizational events and were asked to rate the extent to which they are useful for

receiving and/or delivering information. As shown in Table 7, the most important

 

organizational events for agents were Extension meetings, workshops, courses, etc. On a

scale of 1 (nothing at all) to 5 (a great deal), the mean for Extension meetings,

33

workshops, and courses to receive information was 3.87 (St.Dev.=.94) and to deliver
information was 3.77 (St.Dev.=1.10) indicating that these were the most frequently used
source and channel by extension agents. The second highest sources and channels were
events such as AOE training seminars, Statewide events (i.e., ANR Week, Ag Expo, 4-H
Exploration Days, CYF-SERIES), Extension/applied research demonstrations (such as
field days, family days, festivals), and Community groups, local schools, clubs,
associations. The scale mean for the organizational events to receive information was
2.74 (St.Dev.=.63) and to deliver information was 2.60 (St.Dev.=0.62).

In organizational events, extension meetings, workshops, courses etc. were ranked
#1 (Appendix Table 12) as a source of information for job-related information. In
delivery, once again agents appreciated and considered the same source as their method

of delivery to the clients (Appendix Table 13).

Table 7 Organizational Events to Receive and Deliver Information by Extension Agents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sources and Channels of Nothing A little Some A fair A Mean
Information At all amount great (StDev)
deal

Organizational events N % % % % %

Extension meetings, Receive 143 1.4 5.6 25.9 39.2 28.0 3.87 (.94)

w°rk5h°Ps’ wmes’ “c‘ Deliver 140 4.2 7.7 24.5 31.5 30.1 3.77 (1 . 10)

Extension/applied Receive 142 12.6 25.2 26.6 21.7 13.3 2.98 (1 .23)

research demonstrations

(such as field days,

family days, festivals, Deliver 139 15.4 17.5 23.1 25.9 15.4 3.09 (1.31)

etc.)

Private companies’ field Receive 142 51.0 28.0 14.7 4.9 0.7 1.75 (.93)

days’ “c' Deliver 141 57.3 29.4 7.7 2.8 1.4 1.60 (.86)

Organization/association Receive 139 14.0 33.6 32.9 15.4 1.4 2.55 (.97)

meetings (such as Farm .

Bureau, Organic Fare, Dellver 137 16.8 37.1 28.7 11.9 1.4 2.42 (.97)

Day Care Provider, etc.)

Statewide events (such as Receive 143 7.7 22.4 34.3 20.3 15.4 3.13 (1.16)

ANR Week, Ag Expo, 4- .

H Exploration Days, Dellver 141 14.7 30.8 26.6 16.8 9.8 2.76 (1.19)

CYF-SERIES, etc.)

Professional society Receive 142 18.9 26.6 23.1 19.6 11.2 2.77 (1.28)

mxtmgs Deliver 139 35.7 30.1 17.5 10.5 3.5 2.14 (1.14)

AOE naining seminars Receive 143 16.1 14.7 23.1 25.9 20.3 3.20 (1.35)
Deliver 140 28.7 23.8 23.1 12.6 9.8 2.50 (1.31)

Human service Receive 142 19.6 23.8 26.6 18.9 10.5 2.77 (1.26)

collaborative bodies and .

regional planning and Deliver 140 23.8 25.9 24.5 15.4 8.4 2.58 (1.25)

coordinating councils

Community groups, local Receive 137 10.5 34.3 30.1 17.5 3.5 2.68 (1.01)

schools, clubs, .

associations, etc. Dellver 136 4.2 28.0 32.9 19.6 10.5 3.04 (1.06)

State/county fairs Receive 140 41.3 30.1 16.8 7.7 2.1 1.97 (1.05)
Deliver 140 26.6 28.0 21.7 15.4 6.3 2.46 (1.23)

Scale Mean Receive 2.74 (0.63)
Deliver 2.60 (0.62)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The mean can range from

 

(nothing at all) to 5 (a great deal)

35

 

Personal Sources and Channels

For extension agents, personal sources and channels are an old information
medium. These sources provide an opportunity to talk face-to-face and build strong and
personal relationships with clients. This source and channel will always remain in use
because it has been appreciated so long. According to findings in Table 8, the most
important personal source and channel was other county agents or MSU Extension
specialists. On a scale of 1 (nothing at all) to 5 (a great deal), the mean of other county
agents or MSU Extension specialists to receive information was 4.01 (St.Dev.=.85) and
to deliver information was 3.51 (St.Dev.=1.1 1). The second highest source and channel
were phone, MSU faculty members, letters/memos, fax etc. All other sources and
channels such as supply dealers, salespeople, family fiiends or neighbors, business
consultants, immediate supervisor, representatives of local business organization, state
and federal agencies personnel, faculty members at other universities and home visits
received a low mean score. The scale mean for the personal source to receive information
was 2.84 (St.Dev.=.60) and to deliver information was 2.72 (St.Dev.=0.62).

Personal sources were also ranked. Agents have shown an interest in receiving
their job-related information through other county agents or MSU extension specialists.
This source was considered #1 in ranking (Appendix Table 14). On the other hand, on the

delivery side agents preferred the phone as their method/channel (Appendix Table 15).

36

Table 8 Personal Sources and Channels to Receive and Deliver Information by Extension Agents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sources and Channels of Nothing A little Some A fair A Mean
Information At all amount great (St.Dev)
deal
Personal Sources N % % % % %
Supply dealers, Receive 138 37.8 25.9 25.2 5.6 2.1 2.05 (1.04)
”'es”°p'°’ etc' Deliver 137 47.6 24.5 14.7 6.3 2.8 1.88 (1.08)
Other county agents or Receive 142 0.0 4.9 20.3 43.4 30.8 4.01 (.85)
MSU Extension
specialists
Deliver 140 3.5 16.1 26.6 30.8 21.0 3.51 (1.11)
Family, friend or Receive 142 14.0 44.8 24.5 10.5 5.6 2.49 (1.04)
“eighbm Deliver 139 17.5 32.2 29.4 11.2 7.0 2.57 (1.13)
Business consultants Receive 141 25.9 39.2 21.0 8.4 4.2 2.25 (1.07)
Deliver 139 33.6 32.9 21.0 5.6 4.2 2.12 (1.08)
Your immediate Receive 142 10.5 27.3 29.4 18.2 14.0 2.98 (1.21)
“mi” Deliver 140 13.3 28.0 35.7 13.3 7.7 2.74 (1 . 10)
Representatives of local Receive 139 16.1 40.6 27.3 10.5 2.8 2.42 (.98)
mm“ °’gm"°"s Deliver 138 19.6 35.7 27.3 10.5 3.5 2.41 (1.04)
State and federal Receive 142 12.6 32.9 30.1 18.9 4.9 2.70 (1.07)
agenci” “mm“ Deliver 139 16.8 30.8 29.4 16.1 4.2 2.59 (1.09)
MSU faculty members Receive 142 7.0 18.2 34.3 24.5 15.4 3.23 (1.13)
Deliver 140 17.5 32.2 25.9 16.1 6.3 2.61 (1.15)
Faculty members at other Receive 142 18.9 44.1 19.6 13.3 3.5 2.38 (1.05)
“vanities Deliver 139 36.4 37.1 16.8 5.6 1.4 1.96 (.95)
Letters/memos Receive 141 5.6 27.3 32.2 27.3 6.3 3.01 (1.02)
Deliver 141 4.2 27.3 32.2 23.1 11.9 3.11 (1.08)
Fax Receive 142 7.7 25.2 30.1 30.1 6.3 3.02 (1.06)
Deliver 142 7.0 27.3 29.4 27.3 8.4 3.03 (1.08)
Phone Receive 142 2.8 13.3 17.5 30.1 35.7 3.83 (1.14)
Deliver 141 1.4 9.8 19.6 29.4 38.5 3.95 (1.06)
Home visits Receive 141 29.4 29.4 16.1 17.5 6.3 2.41 (1.26)
Deliver 141 22.4 16.1 25.2 21.7 13.3 2.87 (1.35)
Scale Mean Receive 2.84 (0.60)
Deliver 2.72 (0.62)

 

 

 

 

 

The mean can range from

 

(nothing at all) to 5 (a great deal)

37

 

 

Summary of Information Sources and Channels
Table 9 provides the summary of mean ratings of information sources and
channels that extension agents used to receive their job-related information and methods

of delivery to their clients.

Table 9. Summary of Mean Ratings of Information Sources and Channels.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scale Receive Job-related Deliver to the Clients

Information
Mean (St.Dev.)
Mean (St.Dev.)
Print Information 2.80 (.53) 2.31 (.59)
Electronic Information 2.24 (.68) 1.98 (.62)
Computer Information 2.79 (.65) 2.30 (.75)
Organizational Events 2.74 (.63) 2.60 (.62)
Personal Sources of 2.84 (.60) 2.72 (.62)
Information

 

As shown in Table 9, on the receiving side, personal sources of information
received the highest (mean 2.84, St.Dev.=.60). The second most appreciated source for
agents to receive their job-related information was print information sources (mean 2.80,
St.Dev.=.53). In delivery, once again personal sources of information received the highest
(mean 2.72, St.Dev.=.62), more than any other delivery method. The second highest
delivery method was organizational events (mean 2.60, StDev.=.62). These findings
indicate that agents prefer to use personal sources of information for receiving and

delivering information to their clients.

38

Age of an Extension Agent and the Use of Sources and Channels.

To examine the relationships between the agents’ sources of information for
receiving job-related information and age, bivariate correlation analyses were performed
and Pearson correlation coefficients were computed. The results are shown in Appendix
Table 1. The results indicated that the relationship between the agent’s use of computer
information sources and age was low, but statistically significant. It was found that as age
increases the use of computer information decreases. The relationship between age and
the use of print information, electronic information, organizational events, and personal
sources of information showed no significant linear relationship.

In the delivery of information, the relationships between the agents’ age and
channels or methods for information delivery were determined using Pearson Correlation
Coefficient. The results (Appendix Table 2) do not indicate any relationship between

agent’s delivery of information and age.

Years of Work Experience of an Extension Agent and the Use of Sources and
Channels.

To examine the relationships between the agents’ sources for receiving job-related
information and their work experience, bivariate correlation analyses were performed and

Pearson correlation coefficients were computed. The results are shown in Table 10.

39

Table 10. Relationship between Sources of Information and Years of Work Experience.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scale N Pearson P-value
correlation
Print Information 125 .017 .849
Electronic Information 133 -.018 .836
Computer Information 130 -. 135 .125
Organizational Events 127 -.006 .950
Personal Sources of Information 130 -.057 .520

 

 

 

 

As shown in Table 10, the Pearson correlation coefficient value for all the

variables under study was very low. However, although non-significant, the correlation

coefficient of computer information indicated that as work experience increases, use of

computer information decreases.

To examine the relationships between the agents’ channels or methods of

information delivery and years of work experience, bivariate correlation analyses were

performed and Pearson correlation coefficients were computed. The results are shown in

Table 11.

40

 

Table 11. Relationship between Channels/Methods of Information and Years of Work
Experience.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scale N Pearson P-value
correlation
Print Information 124 .234 .009
Electronic Information 130 .223 .011
Computer Information 128 -.030 .737
Organizational Events 123 .044 .632
Personal Sources of Information 126 .022 .807

 

As shown in Table l 1, the relationship between agents’ use of print information
for delivery and years of work experience was statistically significant. It was found that
as years of work experience increases, uses of print information increases. The obtained
Pearson correlation coefficient of .234 denotes a low relationship between print
information and years of work experience, but it was significant.

Table 11 also indicatesthe relationship between agents’ use of electronic
information for delivery and years of work experience was statistically significant. It was
found that as years of work experience increase, the use of electronic information
increases. The Obtained Pearson correlation coefficient of .223 denotes that the

relationship between electronic information and years of work experience was positive.

41

 

Male Agents Differ From Female Agents in the Use of Sources and Channels.
To examine the differences by sex of agents’ use of sources for receiving job-

related information, t-tests were performed. The results are shown in Appendix Table 3.

Appendix Table 3 indicates that there were no significant differences between
male and female agents in terms of receiving their job-related information.
On the other hand, in the delivery of information by sex, t-tests were performed.

The results are shown in Table 12.

Table 12. Differences in Channels/Methods to Deliver Information by Sex.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scale Group N Mean (sd) t-value P-value

Print information Male 57 2.36 (0.60) -.920 .359
Female 72 2.27 (0.58)

Electronic information Male 59 1.98 (0.63) .004 .997
Female 76 1.98 (0.61)

Computer information Male 58 2.43 (0.76) -1.67 .096
Female 74 2.20 (0.74)

Organizational events Male 55 2.64 (0.57) -.587 .558
Female 72 2.57 (0.65)

Personal sources of Male 57 2.88 (0.57) -2.64 .009

“mm” Female 73 2.59 (0.64)

The mean can range from 1 (nothing at all) to 5 (a great deal)

 

As shown in Table 12, male agents tend to use personal sources to deliver
information more than female agents. The difference in use of personal sources of

information by sex was statistically significant (p—value .009). There were no other

42

significant differences found between male and female agents and their methods of

information delivery.

Level Of Education of an Extension Agent and the Use of Sources and Channels.

To examine the differences by level of education of agents’ sources for receiving
job-related information, an AN OVA and post-hoe Tukey procedure was performed. The
results are shown in Appendix Table 4.

Findings in Appendix Table 4 indicate that there were no significant
differences in receiving job-related information according to agents’ level of education.

To examine the differences by level of education of agents’ channels or methods
for information delivery, an AN OVA and post-hoe Tukey procedure was performed. The
results are shown in Appendix Table 5.

Appendix Table 5 indicates that there were no significant differences in the

delivery of information to clients according to agents’ level of education.

Primary Area of Program Responsibility of an Extension Agent and the Use of
Sources and Channels.

To examine the differences by primary area of program responsibility of agents’
sources for receiving job-related information, an AN OVA and post-hoc Tukey procedure

was performed. The results are shown in Table 13.

43

Table 13. Differences 1n Sources of Information by Primary Area of Program
Responsibility.

 

Scale Group N Mean (sd) F-ratio F -Prob

 

Print information Ag&Nat 48 2.94 (0.50)
CYF 55 2.72 (0.48) 5.265 0.007
CEDev 12 2.46 (0.55)

 

 

 

Electronic information Ag&Nat 53 2.10 (0.60)
CYF 56 2.40 (0.68) 3.912 0.023
CEDev 14 2.00 (0.59)

 

 

 

Computer information Ag&Nat 52 2.88 (0.68)
CYF 56 2.73 (0.62) 1.210 0.302
CEDev 13 2.62 (0.49)

 

 

 

Organizational events Ag&Nat 50 2.69 (0.68)
CYF 56 2.82 (0.52) 1.298 0.277
CEDev 13 2.53 (0.72)

 

 

 

 

Personal sources of Ag&Nat 52 2.91(0.60)
“‘f°’ma“°“ CYF 55 2.78 (0.50) 1.611 0.204

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CEDev 14 2.64 (0.56)

 

Ag&Nat = Agriculture and Natural Resources (including Sea Grant); CYF = Children, Y

outh and

Family (including Nutrition Education); CEDev = Community and Economic Development; The

mean can range from 1 (nothing at all) to S (a great deal)

As shown in Table 13, significant differences were found in agents’ use of print

information sources according to their primary area of program responsibility. It was

found that Agriculture and Natural Resource Agents differed from Children, Youth and

Family and Community Economic Development Agents by receiving more information

from print sources.

Table 13 also indicates the significant difference between agents’ uses of

electronic information and their primary area of program responsibility. It was found that

44

children, youth and family agents differed from agriculture and natural resource, and
community economic development agents by receiving more information from electronic
information sources.

TO examine the differences by primary area of program responsibility of agents’
channels or methods for information delivery, an AN OVA and post-hoc Tukey procedure

was performed. The results are shown in Table 14.

Table 14. Differences in Channels/Methods of Information by Primary Area of Program
Responsibility.

 

Scale Group N Mean (sd) F-ratio F -Prob

 

Print information Ag&Nat 49 2.31 (0.61)
CYF 53 2.31 (0.54) 2.214 0.114
CEDev 12 1.94 (0.52)

 

 

 

Electronic information Ag&Nat 52 1.92 (0.56)
CYF 54 2.04 (0.61) 1.480 0.232
CEDev 14 1.75 (0.41)

 

 

 

Computer information Ag&Nat 52 2.40 (0.79)
CYF 56 2.18 (0.67) 1.165 0.316
CEDev 11 2.31 (0.76)

 

 

 

Organizational events Ag&Nat 48 2.62 (0.60)
CYF 54 2.65 (0.59) 1.658 0.195
CEDev 13 2.31 (0.68)

 

 

 

 

Personal sources of Ag&Nat 51 2.84 (0.67)
‘nf0mat‘0n CYF 52 2.63 (0.50) 2.210 0.114
CEDev 13 2.55 (0.49)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ag&Nat = Agriculture and Natural Resources (including Sea Grant); CYF = Children, Youth and
Family (including Nutrition Education); CEDev = Community and Economic Development; The
' mean can range from 1 (nothing at all) to 5 (a great deal)

45

As shown in Table 14, there were no significant differences in delivery methods

according to agents’ primary area of program responsibility.

Current Position of an Extension Agent and the Use of Sources and Channels.
' To examine the differences by current position of agents’ sources for receiving
job-related information, an AN OVA and post-hoe Tukey procedure was performed. The

results are shown in Table 15.

Table 15. Differences in Sources of Information by Agents Current Position.

 

Scale Group N Mean (sd) F-ratio F -Prob

 

Print District Agent 18 2.93 (.45)
mf°rmau°n County/multicounty Agent 74 2.75 (.55) 1.896 0.155
County Extension Director 28 2.94 (.45)

 

 

 

Electronic District Agent 20 2.17 (.63)
mf°ma“°“ County/multicounty Agent 77 2.20 (.67) 0.578 0.562
County Extension Director 32 2.34 (.67)

 

 

 

Computer District Agent 19 2.95 (.65)
“0min“ County/multicounty Agent 76 2.69 (.62) 2.116 0.125
County Extension Director 30 2.92 (.66)

 

 

 

Organizational District Agent 19 2.75 (.66)

 

 

 

 

 

"ems County/multicounty Agent 74 2.70 (.65) 0.698 0.500
County Extension Director 30 2.87 (.61)

Personal District Agent 18 3.01 (.67)

sources of .

information County/multlcounty Agent 78 2.77 (.54) 1.796 0.170

 

County Extension Director 30 2.95 (.69)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The mean can range from 1 (nothing at all) to 5 (a great deal)

46

As shown in Table 15, there were no significant differences in agents’ sources for

receiving job-related information according to their current position.

To examine the differences by current position of agents’ channels or methods of
information delivery, an AN OVA and post-hoc Tukey procedure was performed. The

results are shown in Table 16.

Table 16. Differences in Channels/Methods of Information by Current Position.

 

Scale Group N Mean (sd) F-ratio F-Prob

 

Print District Agent 18 2.36 (.66)
1mm” County/multicounty Agent 73 2.28 (.57) 0.681 0.508
County Extension Director 29 2.42 (.54)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Electronic District Agent 20 2.02 (.55)

imbm‘a‘i” County/multicounty Agent 76 1.92 (.61) 1.240 0.293
County Extension Director 30 2.12 (.62)

Computer District Agent 19 2.53 (.86)

information

County/multicounty Agent 76 2.19 (.67) 2.043 0.134
County Extension Director 28 2.41 (.82)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Organizational District Agent 19 2.71 (.68)

events County/multicounty Agent 72 2.55 (.60) 0.969 0.383
County Extension Director 28 2.72 (.60)

Personal District Agent 17 3.06 (.78)

sources of

County/multicounty Agent 74 2.61 (.54) 4.10 0.019
Cormty Extension Director 31 2.81 (.67)

 

information

 

 

 

 

 

 

The mean can range from 1 (nothing at all) to 5 (a great deal)

47

 

As shown in Table 16, significant statistical differences were found according to
an agents’ current position and personal sources of information for delivering information
to their clients. It was found that district agents deliver more information through
personal sources of information than county/multicounty agents and county extension
directors. There were no other statistically significant differences reported in any other

methods.

Training Programs for Extension Agents to Upgrade Their Skills in the
Communication of Sources and Channels.

Agents were asked what training programs they prefer for upgrading their skills in
the communication of sources and channels. They were asked to give three choices for
receiving and delivery by giving first, second and third priorities. Out of 143 respondents,

only 42 respondents responded to this query shown in Table 17.

Table 17. Training Areas for Receiving and Delivery

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Training Areas Source Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3
Intemet/WWW Receive 15 6 0
Deliver 12 4 1
Electronic information Receive 3 3 1
Deliver 3 3 1

 

In ranking, the first choice for receiving training was the Internet or World Wide
Web. Fifteen respondents asked for training in this area. They considered this item as

their first priority.

48

 

The second choice for receiving training was electronic information including
Desktop Video Conferencing (DVC). Only three respondents asked for training in this
area.

When considering delivery, respondents gave high priority to the above two

items.

49

Chapter 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

MSU extension agents are important players in the dissemination of diverse
materials to their clients on a technical, educational and organizational level. These
individuals not only provide educational programs and information for their clients, but
also assist in the implementation of any given program. However, what has been unclear
is how these agents identify their sources and the channels used to receive and deliver
information. Therefore, this study was designed to identify the sources from which
extension agents receive their job-related information and the channels/methods of its
delivery to their clients. A systematic stratified random sample of 188 extension agents
was drawn and had a response rate of 76 percent. A closed and Open-ended questionnaire
was designed to measure the frequency of use of information sources and channels.
Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the data.

The statement of a major study conclusion is presented under each research
question. A brief discussion is also presented along with recommendations. At the end of

this chapter, recommendations for future research are also made.

50

Conclusions

Research Question 1. What are the selected sources that extension agents use to
receive job-related information?

Five major source categories were queried in the questionnaire (1) Print Sources,
(2) Electronic Sources, (3) Computer Sources, (4) Organizational Events, and (5)
Personal Sources. Of these, the two most preferred sources found were other county
agents or MSUE specialists and Extension bulletins/publications, found under the
categories of Personal Sources and Print Information Sources. These findings are quite
similar to Shih and Evans (1991), who divided information sources into three types: Oral,
Written and Electronic. Written-only sources accounted for the largest single share
(45.9%), followed closely by a written and oral combination (43%). Less than three
percent used electronic information sources. It was expected that the trend of receiving
job-related information would have been changed, but results revealed that agents still
prefer to receive job-related information through Print and Personal Sources of

Information.

Research Question 2. What are the selected channels or methods that extension
agents use to deliver information to their clients?

Using the same major source categories as in research question 1, respondents
were asked which delivery method they preferred to deliver information to their clients.
The two most preferred methods were found to be telephone and Extension meetings,

workshops, and courses. These findings were different from those of Burns & Anderson

51

(1973) and Shi & Evans (1991), Who indicated that information provided to clients stems
primarily from agriculture journals, extension publications, farming magazines, and

extension specialists.

Research Question 3. Is the age of an extension agent related to the use of sources
and channels?

There was a low association found between agents’ age and use of computer
information in receiving job-related information. Although the association was low, it
was found that as the age of extension agents increases, use of computer information
decreases. In other words, older agents tend to use computer information less than the

younger agents.

Research Question 4. Do the years of work experience of an extension agent
influence the use of sources and channels to receive and deliver information?

For sources of information, a low association was found between computer
information and agents’ years of work experience. That is, it was found that as years of
work experience increases, use of computer information decreases.

For delivery, it was found that as years of work experience increases, use of print
information and electronic information increases. In other words, more experienced

agents tend to utilize bulletins and newsletters more than less experienced agents.

Research Question 5. Do male agents differ from female agents in the use of

sources and channels?

52

Gender was found not to be a factor in the use of sources to receive job-related
information. However, it was determined that on the delivery side male agents use
personal sources such as supply dealers, salespeople, faculty members at other
universities, telephone and home visits more to deliver information to their clients than
female agents. These findings are quite similar to Radhakrishna and Thomson (1996),
who reported that male agents differed from female agents by more frequently
communicating with Extension specialists, Extension workers in another state, non-

Extension university faculty, and state and federal agencies.

Research Question 6. Does the level of education of an extension agent impact the
use of sources and channels?

It would seem that different levels of education would result in differences in
sources and channels. However, the results did not show any significant differences. The
level of education of extension agents was found not to have an influence in the use of
sources and channels. Agents with a bachelors degree or a graduate degree would utilize
the same sources of information to receive job-related information and to deliver

information.

Research Question 7. Does the primary area of program responsibility of an
extension agent impact the use of sources and channels?

The primary area of program responsibility of an extension agent was found to be
associated with the use of information sources. Agents working in the area of Agriculture

and Natural Resource were found to differ from Children, Youth and Family and

53

Community Economic DeveIOpment agents in receiving more information through Print
Sources.

Conversely, children, youth and family agents were found to differ from
agriculture and natural resource and community economic development agents in

receiving more information through electronic sources.

Research Question 8. Does the current position of an extension agent impact the
use of sources and channels?

In response to this question, District Agents were found to deliver more
information through Personal Sources of Information than County/multicounty Agents

and the County Extension Director.

Research Question 9. What type of training program do extension agents require
to upgrade their skills in the communication of sources and channels?

Of the 143 respondents, only 42 responses were submitted. These respondents
revealed that they were interested in receiving training in World Wide Web, Electronic
mail (e-mail) and Desktop Video Conferencing. Agnew (1991) predicted that program
delivery approaches would change in the next five years. These changes include
increased use of electronic communication and instructional devices. The electronic
changes most often mentioned were increased use of telecommunication as a mode of
delivery, access to electronic data sources, interactive instructional video, and increased

use of computer technology.

Recommendations

Listed below are recommendations that arise from this study.

- With the recent advances in technology, agents should be encouraged to
use computer and electronic sources to receive job-related information and to deliver
information to their clients.

- Younger agents have shown a higher interest in using computer
information sources. Older agents should be encouraged to use this technology, and
related computer training should be provided.

- In gender, female agents should be trained and encouraged to deliver more
information through personal sources of information.

- In primary area of program responsibility, community economic
development agents appear to be trailing their counterparts in use of print information,
electronic information, computer information, organizational events, and personal
sources of information, both in receiving and delivery of information. Getting them up-
to-speed should be a priority.

- In the area of current position, a study needs to be conducted to understand
which channel of information source results in greatest use by clients.

- In the area of providing training, respondents indicated that they should be
trained in using the World Wide Web, Electronic mail (e-mail) and Desktop Video

Conference.

55

1.

Recommendations for Future Research

A replication of this study should be conducted on a national level to determine
which sources and channels agents prefer in the United States. This would help to
design and implement new programs for extension agents in the use Of sources
and channels.

A follow-up study should be designed and conducted to address how much
knowledge agents have in electronic and computer information sources and
channels/methods.

A follow-up of this study should be conducted within five to ten years to
determine if differences between uses of sources and channels by agents in the
state of Michigan have changed. There is a strong possibility that agents’ attitudes
towards using sources and channels will change in years ahead. This follow-up

study would help in designing new programs.

56

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

ADVANCE E-MAIL NOTIFICATION

Dear MSUE County Extension Director, District Agent, and County/multicounty Agent:

We are conducting the following study, “Michigan Extension Agents’ Use of Sources
and Channels” to determine the sources from which Extension agents receive their job-
related information and the methods of delivery to their clients. A stratified syStematic
random sample of Extension agents in Michigan has been drawn to identify the
participants of the study. You have been selected as a participant. The input we receive
will be extremely valuable in evaluating the effectiveness of various sources and
channels. With your feedback, we hope to make appropriate recommendations to
improve our Extension Service.

Next week you will receive a package consisting of a cover letter, questionnaire, and a
pre-addressed, postage paid envelope.

Your participation is crucial to the results of this study, which are very important to
current and future Extension agents. We appreciate your involvement and urge you to fill
out the questionnaire and return it immediately.

Thank you for your cOOperation.

Sincerely,

Murari Suvedi, Ph.D. Mehdi Momin-Khowaja
Associate Professor Graduate Student

59

 

APPENDIX B

COVER LETTER

 

‘llia I

Date

Extension Agent Name
Address

Dear (Extension Agent):

We are conducting a study, “Michigan Extension Agents’ Use of Sources and Channels”
to determine the sources from which Extension agents receive their job-related
information and methods of delivery to their clients. A stratified systematic random
sample of Extension agents in Michigan has been identified to participate in this study,
and you are one of them. The input we receive from you will be extremely valuable in
evaluating the effectiveness of various sources and channels. With your feedback, we
hope to make appropriate recommendations to improve an Extension Service.

 

Enclosed you will find a survey; for you to fill out and return in the self addressed i
stamped envelope, we have provided. Please complete the questionnaire and return by
(date). Your participation in this survey is completely voluntary, you may choose to
answer all of the questions, to answer some of the questions or not to participate.

Your response will remain completely confidential. The questionnaire has an
identification number that will enable us to check your name off the mailing list when the
questionnaire is returned. The mailing list will then be discarded. Your name will never
be placed on the answer sheet or the questionnaire. To maintain your confidentiality,
please do not write your name or return address on the survey. If you have any questions
about the confidentiality or voluntary nature of this survey, you may contact Dr. David
Wright at Michigan State University’s Office of Research and Graduate Studies at (517)
3 5 5-21 80.

Your participation is crucial for the success of this study. We hope that the results of this
study could greatly benefit all Extension professionals. We appreciate your involvement
in this study and urge you to fill out the questionnaire and return it immediately.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,
Murari Suvedi, Ph.D. Mehdi Momin-Khowaja
Associate Professor Graduate Student

61

 

APPENDIX C

FOLLOW UP CARD

Dear Survey Participant:

Last week, a questionnaire seeking your opinions about Michigan Extension Agents’ Use
of Information Sources and Channels was mailed to you.

If you have already completed and returned the questionnaire, please accept our sincere
thanks. If not, please do so today. We are especially grateful for your help because we
believe your response will be very important to this study.

If you did not receive a questionnaire or if it was misplaced, you will receive another one
next week.

Sincerely,

Mehdi Momin-Khowaja
Graduate Student

63

APPENDIX D

SECOND LETTER

DATE

MSU Extension Agent
Address

Dear (Agent):

About three weeks ago, we wrote you seeking your opinions about sources for job-related
information and channels for delivery to your clients. As of today, we have not received
your completed questionnaire. We realize you may not have had time to complete it, but
we would genuinely appreciate hearing from you.

In the event that your questionnaire has been misplaced, a replacement is enclosed. We
request that you complete the questionnaire and return it by (date). Your participation in
this survey is completely voluntary, you may choose to answer all of the questions, to
answer some of the questions or not to participate. But for information from the study to
be truly representative, it is essential that each person in the sample return his/her
questionnaire.

Your response will remain completely confidential. Please note that the questionnaire has
an identification number that will enable us to check your name off the mailing list when
the questionnaire is returned. The mailing list will then be discarded. Your name will
never be placed on the answer sheet or the questionnaire. To maintain your
confidentiality, please do not write your name or return address on the survey. If you
have any questions about the confidentiality or voluntary nature of this survey, you may
contact Dr. David Wright at Michigan State University’s Office of Research and
Graduate Studies at (517) 355-2180.

Your participation is crucial to the results of this study, which are very important to
current and future Extension agents. We appreciate your involvement in this study and
urge you to fill out the questionnaire and return it immediately.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,
Murari Suvedi, Ph.D. Mehdi Momin-Khowaja
Associate Professor Graduate Student

65

 

APPENDIX E

INSTRUMENT

 

Michigan Extension Agents’
Use of Information Sources and
Channels

The purpose of this study is to identify the sources from which Extension agents receive their
job—related information and methods of delivery to their clients. Please read all questions thor-
oughly before you give an answer.

All answers will be kept completely confidential. Please feel free to include comments if you
wish.

This survey is being conducted by:
Mehdi Momin-Khowaja
Graduate Student
Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources Education and
Communication Systems
409 Agriculture Hall
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1039

Winn
Please check the circle that shows how much you receive and deliver information from the
following source:

RECEIVE INFORMATION DELIVER INFORMATION

\\ \\ \ Q‘ \\ \
s S s '5 \ \
\ \ \ \ \ v.
‘ i. s” \\ ~ ‘ \\
Q“ -\\\\ 1. \‘ C.” \‘\ \\\‘ ‘ .\\\ x”
\\ \ \7 Q “ é‘ \ c Q ‘2
\ \ S \ \ \ \ s \ \

1.The Lansing State Journal 0 Q O O 6’ O 9’ O O 0

By checking the circle, the respondent indicated that slhe BEQEJMES ‘a great deal” of informa-
tion from the Lansing State Journal and slhe QELBLEBSJa little” information through the
Lansing State Journal.

67

 

1 . We would like to learn how and where you BEGENE your job-related infor-
mation and how you QELJMEB it to your clients. Please check the circle that
shows how much you receive and deliver information from each of the following

sources.

RECEIVE INFORMATION

A. Print information:

1. General daily/weekly O
newsnaper

2. General magazines (such as 0
Successful Farming, Family-
Living, Good Housekeeping, etc.)

3. Specialized magazines
(such as Hoard’s Dairyman,
Parenting, Youth Today,
American Demographic, etc.)

4.Extension bulletins! O
publications
5. Experiment Station 0
publications
6. Newsletters from O

organizations (such as Farm-
Bureau, Children’s Defense-
Fund, etc.)

7. Printed materials from
commercial firms (such as
seed companies, etc.)

8. MSUE/AOE Team newsletter Q
9. Books related to your fieldworko

10. Press release articles 0
(from MSUE sources)

1 1. Special mailings to Q
organizations (such as farm
organizations, youth-serving
organizations, human service
organizations, etc.)

12. Other (specify) 0

O

0 000
0 000
0 000
0 000

O
O

68

O

DELIVER INFORMATION

0
O
O

0 000
0 000
0 000
0 000

O
O

 

0 OOO

RECEIVE INFORMATION DELIVERY INFORMATION

3 3 .\ S o‘
\ \ \ \ \ V.
o . . -\\ \\‘ .\‘ ‘\ ~\\ \\‘ ~ \\
B. Electronic Information: 8 -\\\ J: \t‘ ,9 \x‘ s c 5‘ e

\ \ \ s \ \
x \ s \ \ x \ s \ \

1. General TV or radio news 0 O Q Q O O O O O O

2. Specific TV programs (such 0 O O O O O O O O O

as fann, family, youth and
community programs, etc.)

3. Satellite LeamNet or other 0 Q O O 0
satellite conferences

4. Specific rad' 09 s
(such as fann,l(f)arr’r:ily,r:onum O O O O O O O O O O

and community programs, etc.)

0
O
O
O
O

 

5. Extension-produced videotapeso O O O O O O O O O
6. Other (specify) 0 O O O O O O O O O
C. Computer information:

1. lntemethorld vwae Web 0 Q o o o O O O O O
2. DTN/FarrnDayta Services 0 O O Q O O O O O O
3. Electronic mail (E-mail) 0 O O O Q Q Q Q O O
4. Listservers (such as Crop Q Q O O O O O O O 0
Observation Reporting Network-

CORN, CYF News, Clover Comer

News Listserve, etc.)

5. Extension-developed software 0 Q O O O O O O O 0

packages
6. Commercially produced 0 O O O Q O O O O 0

software packages

7. Other(specify) Q O O O O O O O O O

 

69

 

RECEIVE INFORMATION DELIVERY INFORMATION

\
\\ \
s ‘ ‘\ \\

s ‘ \
\ \ x \ \ x‘
D. Organizational events: ,9? \\- ‘3‘ 3‘ “C S ‘3‘ ‘0
.~‘ \‘ .~‘ \“ ~> 3‘ \“ .~ c S
x \ s \ \ x x s x \
1. Extension meetings, 0 O O O O O O O O 0
workshops, courses, etc.
2. Extension/applied research 0 O O O O O O O O O

demonstrations (such as
field days, family days,
festivals, etc.)

3. Private companies’ 0 O O O 0
field days, etc.

4. Organization/association O O O O O O O O O 0
meetings (such as Farm Bureau,

Organic Fare, Day Care

Provider, etc.)

5.Statewideevents(suchas O O O O O 0 0‘0 0 O
ANR Week, Ag Expo, 4-H

Exploration Days,

CYF-SERIES, etc.)

6. Professional society meetingso Q Q Q O O O O O O
7. AOE training seminars O

O
O
O
O

O
00
00
00
00
OO
00
OO
00

8. Human service collaborative O O
bodies and regional planning
and coordinating councils

9. Community groups, local 0 O O O O O O O O 0

schools, clubs, associations, etc.

0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

10. State/county fairs O

1 1. Other (specify) 0

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

70

 

RECEIVE INFORMATION DELIVERY INFORMATION

I
/
’4
I
x
I”
’/
I
/
’//
I
/
f’/

E. Personal sources
of information:

I
/
//’
I
//
///’
o
4
I
I,
/
I0
I
//
’4-
’o
I
I
’I

\‘ \

I
I
.r
4
I
II
4
.r

O

1. Supply dealers,
salespeople, etc.

2. Other county agents or MSU
Extension specialists

O

3. Family, friend or neighbors
4. Business consultants

5. Your immediate supervisor

 

6. Representatives of local
business organizations

O 0000 O O
O 0000 O O
O 0000

O 0000 O O
O 0000 O O
O- 0000 O O
O 0000 O O
O 0000 O O’

7. State and federal agencies
personnel

8. MSU faculty members

9. Faculty members at other
universities

10. Letters/memos
1 1. Fax
12. Phone

13. Home visits

00000000000000

00000000000000

00000 00
00000 00
00000 00
00000 00
00000 00
00000 00
00000 CO
00000 00

14. Other (specify)

 

71

Would you like training on how to receive information and/or
deliver information?

1 . Yes No

 

If yes, on which topics you would like to receive information and/or deliver information?
Please list

 

 

 

 

 

 

Receive lnfonnation a. b. c.
Deliver lnfonnation a. b. c.
Demographics
1. What year were you born?
2. Sex: _ Male _ Female
3. How long have you been working in Extension? Years
4. Highest level of education:
__ Bachelor’s degree _ Master's degree
_ Doctoral degree _ Other (specify)
5. Major of highest degree
6. What islare your primary area/s of emphasis? Please check:

Agriculture and Natural Resources (including Sea Grant)
Children, Youth and Families (including Nutrition Education)
Community and Economic Development

7. What islare your current Extension AOE team/s, if any?

 

 

8. What is your current position? District agent
County/multicounty agent

County Extension director

72

Thank you very much for taking time to complete and return this survey.
Please remember that all responses are kept confidential.

Is there anything else you’d like to share with us?

Concerns? Suggestions?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please mail the completed questionnaire in the enclosed return envelope.
Thank you for completing this questionnaire!

Please return the completed questionnaire to:

Mehdi Momin-Khowaja

Graduate Student

Department of ANR Education and Communication Systems
409 Agriculture Hall

Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824-1039

73

APPENDIX F

TABLES

 

Appendix Table 1. Relationship between Sources of lnfonnation with Age.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scale N Pearson P-value
correlation
Print Information 115 -.009 .925
Electronic Information 123 -.004 .962
Computer Information 122 -.209* .021
Organizational Events 118 -.069 .458
Personal Sources of Information 121 -.O91 .323

 

Appendix Table 2. Relationship between Channels/Methods of Information with Age.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scale N Pearson P-value
correlation
Pn'nt Information 1 16 .065 .491
Electronic Information 121 .121 .185
Computer lnfonnation 1 19 -.1 14 .215
Organizational Events 1 16 -.053 .574
Personal Sources of lnfonnation 118 .000 .999

 

 

75

 

 

 

Appendix Table 3. Differences in Sources of Information by Sex.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scale Group N Mean (sd) t-value P-value

Print information Male 55 2.90 (0.48) -1.82 .070
Female 75 2.73 (0.56)

Electronic information Male 60 2.17 (0.74) 1.16 .246
' Female 79 2.30 (0.63)

Computer information Male 59 2.86 (0.62) -1 . 12 .262
Female 76 2.73 (0.68)

Organizational events Male 56 2.74 (0.65) -.113 .910
Female 76 2.73 (0.63)

Personal sources of Male 57 2.92 (0.57) -1.39 .165
“mum” Female 77 2.78 (0.61)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The mean can range from 1 (nothing at all) to 5 (a great deal)

Appendix Table 4. Difierences in Sources of Information by Level of Education.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scale Group N Mean (sd) F-ratio F-Prob

Print information Bachelor 59 2.89 (0.56)
Master 61 2.72 (0.52) 1.68 0.189
PhD 6 2.71 (0.13)

Electronic information Bachelor 62 2.35 (0.70)
Master 66 2.17 (0.64) 2.53 0.083
PhD 7 1.82 (0.54)

Computer information Bachelor 58 2.71 (0.70)
Master 66 2.83 (0.54) 0.812 0.446
PhD 7 2.97 (0.99)

Organizational events Bachelor 60 2.81 (0.68)
Master 62 2.67 (0.60) 0.728 0.485
PhD 7 2.75 (0.55)

Personal sources of Bachelor 61 2.87 (0.61)

“Emma” Master 64 2.81 (0.57) 0.195 0.823
PhD 7 2.91 (0.77)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The mean can range from 1 (nothing at all) to 5 (a great deal

76

 

)

 

 

 

Appendix Table 5. Differences in Channels/Methods of lnfonnation by Level of
Education.

 

Scale Group N Mean (sd) F-ratio F-Prob

 

Print information Bachelor 57 2.31 (0.61)
Master 62 2.30 (0.55) .017 0.984
PhD 7 2.33 (0.69)

 

 

 

Electronic information Bachelor 59 2.07 (0.63)
Master 66 1.91 (0.55) 1.058 0.350
PhD ’ 7 1.94 (0.78)

 

 

 

Computer information Bachelor 57 2.23 (0.71)
Master 65 2.31 (0.71) 1.338 0.266
PhD 7 2.71 (1.16)

 

 

 

 

Organizational events Bachelor 57 2.60 (0.64)
Master 61 2.59 (0.58) 0.210 0.811
PhD 7 2.75 (0.81)

 

 

 

Personal sources of Bachelor 58 2.66 (0.55)
mfmnamn Master 63 2.73 (0.62) 2.161 0.119
PhD 7 3.18 (1.05)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The mean can range from 1 (nothing at all) to 5 (a great deal)

77

Appendix Table 6. Top Five Print Sources to Receive Job-related Information

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sources Ranking Mean (St.Dev)

Extension bulletins/publications 1 3.95 (.96)
Books related to your fieldwork 2 3.40 (1.03)
Press release articles (from MSUE sources) 3 2.91 (1 . 10)
Specialized magazines (such as Hoard’s Dairyman, 4 2.89 (1.11)
Parenting, Youth Today, American Demographic, etc.)

MSUE/AOE Team newsletter 5 2.88 (1.28)
Newsletters from organizations (such as Farm- Bureau, 5 2.88 (.89)

Children’s Defense- Fund, etc.)

 

 

 

Appendix Table 7. Top Five Print Channels/Methods to Deliver Information

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Channels/Methods Ranking Mean (St.Dev)

Extension bulletins/publications 1 3.68 (1.22)
General daily/weekly newspaper 2 2.99 (1.11)
Press release articles (fiom MSUE sources) 3 2.81 (1.24)
Special mailings to organizations (such as farm 4 2.74 (1.17)
organizations, youth-serving organizations, human

service organizations, etc.)

MSUE/AOE Team newsletter ‘ 5 2.35 (1.31)

 

 

 

78

 

 

 

Appendix Table 8. Top Five Electronic lnfonnation Sources to Receive Job-related
Information

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sources Ranking Mean (St.Dev)
Extension-produced videotapes 1 2.61 (.94)
Satellite LeamNet or other satellite conferences 2 2.42 (.97)
General TV or radio news 3 2.39 (.99)
Specific TV programs (such as farm, family, youth and 4 2.05 (1.27)
community programs, etc.)
Specific radio programs (such as farm, family, youth 5 1.80 (.90)
and community programs, etc.)

 

 

Appendix Table 9. Top Five Electronic Channels/Methods to Deliver Information

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Channels/Methods Ranking Mean (St.Dev)
Extension-produced videotapes l 2.50 (1.11)
General TV or radio news 2 2.12 (.93)
Satellite LeamNet or other satellite conferences 3 1.99 (1.10)
Specific radio programs (such as farm, family, youth 4 1.82 (.99)
and community programs, etc.)

Specific TV programs (such as farm, family, youth and 5 1.57 (.81)
community proglams, etc.)

 

 

 

 

79

Appendix Table 10. Top Five Computer Information Sources to Receive Job-related
Information

 

 

 

 

Sources Ranking Mean (St.Dev)
Electronic mail (E-mail) 1 4.02 (1 .00)
Intemet/World Wide Web 2 3.65 (1.04)
Listservers (such as Crop Observation Reporting 3 3.06 (1.25)

Network-CORN, CYF News, Clover Corner News
Listserve, etc.)

 

Extension-developed software packages 4 2.43 (1.17)

 

 

 

 

Commercially produced software packages 5 2.27 (1 .17)

 

Appendix Table 11. Top Five Computer Channels/Methods to Deliver Information

 

 

 

 

Channels/Methods Ranking Mean (St.Dev)
Electronic mail (E-mail) 1 3.41 (1.20)
Internet/World Wide Web 2 2.84 (1.28)
Listservers (such as Crop Observation Reporting 3 2.33 (1 .23)

Network-CORN, CYF News, Clover Corner News
Listserve, etc.)

 

Extension-developed software packages 4 2.03 (1.17)

 

 

Commercially produced software packages 5 1.85 (1 .09)

 

 

 

80

 

 

Appendix Table 12. Top Five Organizational Events to Receive Job-related lnfonnation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sources Ranking Mean (St.Dev)
Extension meetings, workshOps, courses, etc. 1 3.87 (.94)
ACE training seminars 2 3.20 (1.35)
Statewide events (such as ANR Week, Ag Expo, 4-H 3 3.13 (1.16)
Exploration Days, CYF-SERIES, etc.)
Extension/applied research demonstrations (such as 4 2.98 (1.23)
field days, family days, festivals, etc.)
Human service collaborative bodies and regional 5 2.77 (1.26)
planning and coordinating councils
Professional society meetings 5 2.77 (1 .28)

 

Appendix Table 13. Top Five Organizational Events to Deliver Information

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Channels/Methods Ranking Mean (St.Dev)

Extension meetings, workshops, courses, etc. 1 3.77 (1.10)
Extension/applied research demonstrations (such as 2 3.09 (1.31)

field days, family days, festivals, etc.)

Community groups, local schools, clubs, associations, 3 3.04 (1.06)

etc.

Statewide events (such as ANR Week, Ag Expo, 4-H 4 2.76 (1 . 19)
Exploration Days, CYF-SERIES, etc.)

Human service collaborative bodies and regional 5 2.58 (1.25)

planning and coordinating councils

 

 

 

81

 

 

 

Appendix Table 14. Top Five Personal Sources of Information to Receive Job-related

Information

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sources Ranking Mean (St.Dev)
Other county agents or MSU Extension specialists l 4.01 (.85)
Phone 2 3.83 (1.14)
MSU faculty members 3 3.23 (1.13)
Fax 4 3.02 (1.06)
Letters/memos 5 3.01 (1.02)

 

 

 

Appendix Table 15. Top Five Personal Channels/Methods to Deliver Information

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Channels/Methods Ranking Mean (St.Dev)
Phone 1 3.95 (1.06)
Other county agents or MSU Extension specialists 2 3.51 (1.11)
Letters/memos 3 3.11 (1.08)
Fax 4 3.03 ( 1.08)
Home visits 5 2.87 (1.35)

 

 

 

82

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bibliography

Michigan State University Extension. A Career with Michigan State University
Extension. P. 7-8.

Agnew, D. M. (1991). Extension program delively trends. J. Ext., 29: 34.

Bay, 0. (1980). The Cooperative Extension Service information delivery system
and how SEA’s agriculture research results reach farmers (Washington, DC: US.
Department of Agriculture, SEA-Extension).

Bonanno, Steven C.; and others (1988). Major Roles of Agricultural Extension
Agents in the Agricultural Technology Delivery System in the Year 2000. 8p.; Paper
presented at the National Agricultural Education Research Meeting at St. Louis, MO,
December 1988.

Burns, R. W., & Anderson, L. W. (1973). The elements of access to ggg'cultulal
sciences information within Colorado, Montana, New Mexico and Wyoming. Fort
Collins: Colorado State University Libraries.

 

Newman, D. (1999). Land Grant University Information Delivery through
Automated Telephone Message Services in the United States. J. Ext, 37: 5.

 

Dike, Hyacinth Ibe. (1982). A study of persuasive stratggigs adomed by the
agricultural extension agents of Michigan state university to disseminate new farm
technologies to Michigan farmers with research implications for developing countries.
Thesis. Page i.

 

Journal of Extension. (1998). Using Electronic Media to Convey Timegly
information. Howard Siegrist, Greg Labarge, and Steven Prochaska. Retrived December
1, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.joe.org/joe/l9980ctober/iwl .htrnl

 

Lynda C. Harriman and Rance A. Daugherty, (1992). Staffing Extension for the
21St Century. J Ext. 30: 26.

 

Journal of Extension. (1996). Extension Agents’ Use of lnfonnation Sources.
Rama B. Radhakrishna and Joan S. Thomson. Retrieved December 1, 1998 from the
World Wide Web: http://www.joe.org/joe/1996february/rb2.html

Journal of Extension. (1999). Program Evaluation and Accountability Training
Needs of Extension Agents. Rama B. Radhakrishna and Mary Martin. Retrieved July 21,
1999 from the World Wide Web: http://www.joe.org/joe/1999june/rb1.html

 

Rossi, P. et al. (1983). Handbook of SurvggResearch. New York and London:
Academic Press.

 

Shih, W. Y., & Evans, J. F. (1991). Where field staff get lnfonnation—
approaching the electronic times. J Ext, 29: 16-19.

 

Shill, H. B. (1992). Information 'publics' and equitable access to electronic
government information: The case of ggriculture. Government lnfonnation Quarterly,
9(3), 305-322.

Suvedi, Murari. (1996). Farmers’ Peregctives on Michigan State University
Extension, Summary Report.

William B. Ward, (1952). Reporting Agriculture. Comstock, Ithaca, N.Y., p. 1-4.

 

Win-Yuan Shih and James F. Evans. (1991). Where Field Staff Get lnfonnation. J
Ext 29: 3.

85

"7'1111111'1111111is