as.»

tip

a I.
r :r

V 5
um“...
I :Q U;
. a.

n

1..

a J...

. mac
1:3..th .
m5

.‘
. w .
Kg;
u

5!.‘lx . .
m}:
. ‘7 “Wald
.
9
man
3.th

1 Au.

m. éméam
fig“.

3

a
..

fl. ,
3m mun“

‘ E...) .
I « a .
3v. 5.5;»."31.

. La .03.

at!
nzfim a

 

In.‘

$5.23.. ,

_
.

2‘.

32%”.

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

USEFULNESS AND TIMELINESS"‘OF INFORMATION
RESOURCES USED BY EXTENSION AGENTS

presented by

Jari Sanae Sugano

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Mega in _Ag_._&_ExL_ Education

QM] 5, MW

Major professor

Date 05:07 ’ 0/

 

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
Unlverolty

 

 

 

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

 

DATE DUE I DATE DUE DATE DUE

“0214100084

MAY 1 3 2003
000v 1 1 2003

‘20
_Mmf( 11 7mm
(9

'- hvvv

 

 

 

 

 

ii

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRC/DatoDuo.pB§-p.15

 

 

 

USEFULNESS AND TIMELINESS OF INFORMATION RESOURCES USED BY
EXTENSION AGENTS
By

Jari Sanae Sugano

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 Resource Education and Communication

Systems

2001

ABSTRACT

USEFULNESS AND TIMELINESS OF INFORMATION RESOURCES USED BY
EXTENSION AGENTS

BY

Jari Sanae Sugano

With a wide distribution of information and persistent need for timely, relevant
information, this study evaluated the current usefulness and timeliness of
sources and channels of information utilized by extension agents. This study also
has implications for increasing the speed in information delivering and improving
promptness of service by Cooperative Extension Service. Descriptive survey
research was utilized to evaluate a census of all extension agents from the

University of Hawaii.

Results of this study identify the land grant university system as the most useful,
timely and preferred source of extension related information. Further, data from
this study indicate the usefulness, timeliness and preference of electronic
information delivery. Recommendations were made to increase access to
research-based information through strengthening network, collaboration and in-
service training infrastructures and re—evaluating the role of extension specialists

in the Cooperative Extension Service.

DEDICATION

To my parents, Richard and Jane Sugano,

Without your love, support and confidence, I would not have the courage to
follow my dreams full heartedly. You have instilled in me your passion for
learning and desire to always strive for excellence. Know that I think the world of
you both and will always be thankful for all the sacrifices you have made on my
behalf. Everything I accomplish in this lifetime is founded upon your faith and
belief in me.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Along life’s highway, I have had the privilege to cross paths with many important
and influential peeple. The journey began with a gentle but necessary push from
my family and friends. It took several journeys away from home, to realize the
importance of family and true friendship. To my family and friends, new and old,
your words of encouragement and confidence in me have become stepping-
stones towards new and brighter horizons. You have all touched my life in more

ways that I can possibly express.

Reid, through your example, I have learned the true meaning of unconditional
love. You have shown me that some things are well worth the wait. Your faith
and unconditional support has strengthened and sustained me through many

rough and difficult endeavors.

I would like to extend my sincerest gratitude to my advisor, Dave Krueger. Dave,
you have been a pillar of support and guidance throughout my master’s program
at MSU. I arrived at MSU, lost without any direction. Your guidance and support

enabled me to advance confidently and successfully towards fulfilling my

professional and personal goals.

iv

To my mentor and good friend, Joe Levine. Joe, your words of wisdom and
sincere compassion has empowered me to advance enthusiastically towards
bluer waters. Your love for life long learning and passion for empowering others
to conceptualize their fullest potential has been an inspiration. Thank you for

always believing in me and taking time out your busy schedule to stop and listen.

To Ronald Mau and the staff at the University of Hawaii, Department of Plant and
Environmental Protection Sciences, and the University of Hawaii, Cooperative
Extension Service, thank you for your continued support, encouragement and
assistance in helping me complete my thesis research. I look forward to

increased opportunities to working with all of you.

A special note of appreciation goes out to the entire faculty and staff at Michigan
State University, Department of Agriculture and Natural Resource Education and

Communication Systems for their support, assistance and friendship.

In the book, the Alchemist, Paulo Coelho wrote, "And, when you want something,
all the universe conspires in helping you to achieve it." I consider myself very
blessed to have journeyed down this path along side of all of you. May our lives

continue to cross along life’s highways.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................. x
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER ONE ...................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION
Statement of Problem .................................................................................. 5
Purpose of Study ......................................................................................... 5
Objectives .................................................................................................... 6
Definition of terms ........................................................................................ 7
Assumptions ................................................................................................ 8
Limitations .................................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER TWO ..................................................................................................... 10

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Cooperative Extension Service .................................................................... 10
Cooperative Extension Service in Hawaii ..................................................... 13
Evaluation of CES Programs ....................................................................... 15
Sources of lnforrnation ................................................................................. 19
Channels of Information ............................................................................... 21
Evaluation of Sources and Channels of Information Used by Extension

Agents .......................................................................................................... 26
Summary of Literature Review ..................................................................... 31

vi

CHAPTER THREE ................................................................................................. 33
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Design of Study ............................................................................................ 33
Population and Sample ................................................................................ 33
Instrumentation ............................................................................................ 34
Data Collection ............................................................................................. 37
Analysis of Data ........................................................................................... 37
CHAPTER FOUR .................................................................................................... 39
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Respondents ................................................................................................ 39
Usefulness of lnforrnation Sources .............................................................. 41
Timeliness of lnforrnation Sources ............................................................... 46
Usefulness of Information Channels ............................................................ 51
Timeliness of Information Channels ............................................................. 55
Preferred Sources and Channels of Information .......................................... 59
Preferred Sources and Channels of Information Based on Demographic
Characteristics ............................................................................................. 61
Evaluation of Extension Specialists ............................................................. 69
Suggestions for Improving the Flow of Information ...................................... 75
CHAPTER FIVE ...................................................................................................... 77

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary ...................................................................................................... 77
Conclusions .................................................................................................. 79
Recommendations ....................................................................................... 79
Recommendations for Future Research ...................................................... 89
APPENDICES ......................................................................................................... 90
A. Cover Letter ............................................................................................. 92
B. Mail Questionnaire ................................................................................... 94
BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................... 105

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Usefulness of Personal Sources of Information ........................................ 43
Table 2. Usefulness of Information Sources .......................................................... 45
Table 3. Timeliness of Personal lnforrnation Sources ............................................ 47
Table 4. Timeliness of lnforrnation Sources ........................................................... 50
Table 5. Usefulness of Information Channels ......................................................... 53
Table 6. Timeliness of Information Channels ......................................................... 56
Table 7. Cross Tabulation of Agents’ Area of Specialty and Gender ...................... 62

Table 8. Ranked order of Information Source Preferences compared with Agents’
Age ......................................................................................................................... 63

Table 9. Ranked order of Information Channel Preferences compared with
Agents’ Age ............................................................................................................ 63

Table 10. Ranked order of Information Source Preferences compared with
Agents’ Area of Specialty ........................................................................................ 64

Table 11. Ranked order of Information Channel Preferences compared with
Agents’ Area of Specialty ........................................................................................ 64

viii

Table 12. Ranked order of Information Source Preferences compared with
Agents’ Island of Residence ................................................................................... 65

Table 13. Ranked order of Information Channel Preferences compared with
Agents’ Island of Residence ................................................................................... 66

Table 14. Ranked order of Information Source Preferences compared with
Agents’ Highest Level of Education ........................................................................ 67

Table 15. Ranked order of Information Channel Preferences compared with
Agents’ Highest Level of Education ........................................................................ 67

Table 16. Ranked order of Information Source Preferences compared with
Agents’ Years of Service ......................................................................................... 68

Table 17. Ranked order of Information Channel Preferences compared with
Agents’ Years of Service ......................................................................................... 68

Table 18. Summary of Respondents’ Feedback on Extension Specialists’ Ability
to Meet the Needs of Extension Agents .................................................................. 72

Table 19. Summary of Respondents’ Feedback on the Extent to Which Extension
Specialists Meet the Needs of Extension Agents ................................................... 74

Table 20. Respondents’ Summarized Suggestions on Improving the Flow of
lnforrnation in CTAHR ............................................ 76

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Extension Agents’ Island of Residence ................................................... 39

Figure 2. Respondents’ Years of Service with the Cooperative Extension Service 40

Figure 3. Usefulness of UH Extension .................................................................... 44
Figure 4. Timeliness of USDA ................................................................................. 49
Figure 5. Timeliness of lntemet or Web Based Information ................................... 58

Figure 6. Respondents’ Perception on the Percent of Extension Specialists Who
Meet the Needs of Extension Agents ...................................................................... 71

Figure 7. Respondents’ Perception on the Extent to Which Extension Specialists
Meet the Needs of Extension Agents ...................................................................... 73

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CES - Cooperative Extension Service

CTAHR - College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of
Hawaii

ECOP - Extension Committee on Organization and Policy

LGU - Land grant universities

MSU - Michigan State University

MSUE - Michigan State University Extension

SIH - State of Hawaii

SPSS - Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

UH-CES - University of Hawaii, Cooperative Extension Service

xi

INTRODUCTION

Public demands for information are increasing with rapid agricultural, cultural,
social, economical and environmental advancements (Richardson, Stephenson,
Riddick, Caldwell, & McAlister, 1996; Albright, 2000). Historically, individuals,
organizations, and communities have turned to the Cooperative Extension
Service (CES) for assistance in developing solutions to solve their critical and
emerging problems (Albright, 2000). The Cooperative Extension Service is an
agency created through the Smith Lever Act of 1914 that was founded on a
cooperative involvement of federal, state and local levels of government (Warner
& Christenson, 1984). It is a public funded, non-formal educational system that
connects research, science and technology resources of the United States
Department of Agriculture, Land Grant Universities and county administrative

units (Seevers, Graham, Gamon, & Conklin, 1997).

The Cooperative Extension Service has historically strived, “...to aid in diffusing
among the people of the United States useful and practical information on
subjects relating to agriculture and home economics, and to encourage the
application of the same...” CES obtains research-based information needed by
individuals, organizations, and communities and works to assist them in

developing the competencies necessary to solve problems connected with

agriculture and home economics (Sanders, 1966). Extension’s ability to
represent locally defined needs and strong connections with the land grant
university differentiates it from other government agencies (Warner and

Christenson, 1 984).

Extension utilizes a variety of delivery methods or channels to bring the latest
research-based information to the attention of clients. This includes the utilization
of extension agents. Extension agents transfer information, knowledge and skills
that help clients correctly choose and utilize specific technology and practices
best suited to meet their needs (Bennett, 1990). This information enables clients
to make informed decisions. The speed in which extension agents diagnose,
analyze and make recommendations has always been a pressing concern
(Young, 1998). Extension agents are expected to possess a broad background of
working knowledge in dealing with diverse subject matters. Warner and
Christenson (1984) agree that it is impossible for extension agents to be
knowledgeable in all areas. However, it is essential that they know where they

can turn to obtain information and assistance (Warner & Christenson, 1984).

Young (1998) wrote that county extension agents have always been associated
with delivering information at the moment it is needed. According to
Radhakrishna and Thomson (1996) 94 percent of all information searches
performed by extension agents are due to client inquiry and 77 percent of agents

indicated that information is needed the same day it is requested. Extension

agents utilize a variety of sources and channels to gather information in order to
meet their informational needs and the needs of the clients they serve. Vergot
(1991) defines a source of information to be a person or institution that provides
information based on research or first hand experience and differentiates sources
from channels of information. Channels of information are defined as the

methods of delivery such as oral, written or electronic media (Vergot, 1991).

Due to their ability in gathering information from a knowledge base of sources
and channels, extension agents' serve as a vital link that connects and brings
together resources of knowledge relevant to the needs of clients they serve
(Gallaher and Santopolu, 1967). Sanders (1966) states that extension agents
require the support of state, federal and local subject matter specialists,
supervisors, and administrators to assist them in obtaining the information they
need. Over the years, Extension has broadened its role in serving existing
clients, while concurrently meeting the critical needs of new clients and
audiences (Warner and Christensen, 1984). Further, rapid technological
advancements have changed the delivery methods utilized by extension agents
in the gathering of information. Dillman (1986) stated that it is time Extension
rethinks its internal organization and networks in order to reshape it along the

lines of functional networks.

The speed by which information is transferred to extension agents affects the

timeliness of information delivery to clients. As Extension shifts from a community

control era to the information era, clients’ are now capable of accessing cutting
edge-research discoveries from sources beyond county extension agents (Ford
& Babb, 1991; Vergot, 1991 ;Trede & Whitaker, 1998; Suvedi, Lapinski 8 Campo,
2000). Dillman (1986) articulated Extension’s need to reexamine its structure,
activities and services if Extension intends to serve as an important service

agency in the next century.

Preskill and Torres (1999) defines evaluation or evaluative inquiry as a process
which enables organizations to investigate and understand critical organizational
issues. As a result of evaluation, organizations bring about changes and
improvements in their “practices, processes, products, and services" (p.41).
Application of evaluation outcomes and lessons over time can maximize
organizational infrastructure and empower individuals, teams and groups within
these organizations towards learning and growth (Preskill 8 Torres, 1999).
Extension must develop a strategic approach towards accessing a broad range
of knowledge and information (Geasler, 1989). With a wide distribution of
information and a persistent need for timely, responsive information, this study
intends to evaluate the current usefulness and timeliness of sources and
channels of information utilized by extension agents and implications for
increasing the speed in information delivering and heightening organizational

Ieaming.

Statement of the Problem
Cooperative extension agents are key to the process of bringing new research-
based information to individuals, organizations and communities. They are
expected to transfer scientifically tested information and provide educational
support to statewide communities to fulfill their mission of diffusing useful and
practical information on subjects relating to agriculture and home economics
(Kelsey & Heame, 1963). Extension agents require information relevant to the
needs of clientele in a timely manner in order to meet their educational mission
(Weigel, 1994). Extension agents are experiencing difficulty in providing relevant,
research-based information in a timely fashion due to increased public demand
for information, diversity of subject matters, wide distribution of information,
reduction in extension staff, and limited availability of resources (Sattar &
Lancaster, 1984; Richardson, Stephenson, Riddick, Caldwell, & McAIiSter, 1996;
Geasler, 1989).

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study is to understand the perceived usefulness and
timeliness of current sources and channels of information used and preferred by
extension agents in the State of Hawaii. Improving the timeliness in the gathering
of information by extension agents can increase the flow of research-based
information within the land grant university system, improve promptness of
service by CES, and therefore, may enhance clients’ satisfaction with Extension.
Results of this study can assist Extension in identifying areas that need

improvement and increase Extension’s ability to provide front-line extension

agents with the information they need to meet their needs and the educational

needs of Hawaii’s diverse communities.

Research Objectives

1. To determine the usefulness of information received through various sources
as perceived by extension agents of the University of Hawaii Cooperative
Extension Service (UH-CES).

2. To determine the timeliness of information received through various sources
as perceived by extension agents.

3. To determine the usefulness of information received through various channels
of information as perceived by extension agents.

4. To determine the timeliness of information received through various channels
of information as perceived by extension agents.

5. To determine which sources and channels of information are most preferred
as perceived by extension agents.

6. To compare information sources and channels used by extension agents
based on demographic characteristics.

7. To understand the role of extension specialists in meeting the needs of

extension agents.

Definition of Terms

Channels of lnforrnation - The methods used to deliver information such as
personal, print, and electronic communications (Vergot, 1991). Channels or
communication methods are grouped into 4 categories: 1) print, 2) electronic, 3)

organizational, and 4) personal.

Cooperative Extension Service - A public funded, non-formal educational system
that diffuses and encourages the application of useful and relevant information
relating to agriculture, home economics, and other related subjects (Smith Lever

Act, 1914).

Clients- Individuals, organizations or communities that engage in services offered

by the Cooperative Extension Service.

Extension Committee on Organization and Policy - Committee committed to
developing policies and programs that addresses critical and significant national

issues relating to Extension (Johnsrud & Rauschkolb, 1989).

Extension Agents - Adult educators, who develop, implement and deliver non-
forrnal educational programs responsive to the needs of communities on a

county level (Suvedi, 1991).

Research-based information - Scientifically tested information and discoveries
that provides new knowledge and technology and ensures the continuation of

agricultural communities.

Sources of Information - A person or institution that provides information based
on research or first hand experience (Vergot, 1991). lnforrnation sources are
grouped into 5 categories: 1) land—grant universities (LGU), 2) community
organizations, 3) private organizations, 4) state agencies, excluding land grant

universities, and 5) federal agencies.

Assumptions
This study focuses on the usefulness and timeliness of sources and channels of
information used by extension agents. Assumptions are made that extension
agents who complete the mail questionnaire are truthful in their responses and
are active seekers of information. This study also assumes that the extension
agents who complete the mail questionnaire will understand all questions asked.
A final assumption is that the responses will accurately portray the population

studied.

Limitations
The population of this study is limited to extension agents from the University of

Hawaii Cooperative Extension Service. The conclusions from this study can only

be applicable to this population. A current list of all extension agents was

obtained from the University of Hawaii, Cooperative Extension Service.

The mail questionnaire could not list all sources and channels of information
utilized by extension agents due to space limitations. A summarized list of
sources and channels was identified based on an extensive literature review and

with the approval of a panel of experts.

A final limitation to the study was a statewide strike that disabled the university

system and the entire population during the survey collection period.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter consists of a review of literature related to the field of study. The
chapter includes background information on the Cooperative Extension Service,
Cooperative Extension Service in Hawaii, evaluation of Cooperative Extension,
sources of information, channels of information, evaluation of sources and

channels of information used by extension agents.

Cooperative Extension Service
The Cooperative Extension Service is an agency created through the Smith
Lever Act of 1914, that strives “...to aid in diffusing among the people of the
United States useful and practical information on subjects relating to agriculture
and heme economics, and to encourage the application of the same..." It is a
public funded, non-formal educational system that connects research, science
and technology resources of the United States Department of Agriculture, Land
Grant Universities and county administrative units (Seevers, Graham, Gamon, &
Conklin, 1997). Extension is a unique organization that has strong connections
with the Land Grant University. This connection provides Extension with an
advantage in delivering sound research-based information to local communities

(Warner, Hinrichs, Schneyer, & Joyce, 1998).

To differentiate the changes taking place in society, Dillman (1986) divided

Extension's efforts into three separate eras. They are: 1) community control era,

10

2) mass society, and 3) information age. Extension resides in these three eras

concurrently (Dillman, 1986).

Community Control Era: The community control era began when the Smith
Lever Act of 1914 created Cooperative Extension in America. County extension
agents assisted the community in understanding the problems and helped them
to bring about appropriate changes. Extension agents were the principal source
of information within the community and served to bring university outreach to
small rural communities through educational programs and services such as farm
visitations and books. Community members utilized local resources to develop

solutions to their local problems.

Mass Society Era: The mass society era expanded Extension’s scope to involve
new program areas and new audiences beyond individuals and communities,
such as organizations and agencies. Greater emphasis was placed on
specialization and mass education delivery methods such as bulletins, radio, TV,
overheads, and newsletters. Community members utilized internal and external
linkages beyond the county extension agents to develop solutions to their
existing and emerging problems. In the mass society era, Extension agents' role

shifted to become interpreters of information.

Information Age: The information age has changed Extension’s ability to

organize, store, retrieve and transmit information. Information delivery methods

11

have expanded to include, video, satellite information, greater telephone
capabilities, interactive videoconferencing, and computer based information.
Geographic barriers are no longer a constraint. Through the information age,
clients and extension agents can transmits information request directly to the
source of information, eliminating the hierarchical system. A challenge in the
information era is to assist clients and extension agents in accessing and

obtaining data from a broad range of information sources when they need it.

Recommendations originating from the Extension Committee on Organization
and Policy (ECOP) Future’s Task Force report, Extension in Transition: Bridging
the Gap Between \fision and Reality (1987) indicate changes are necessary if
Extension is to continue to be responsive to the challenges ahead. In his
commentary, “Cooperative Extension at the Beginning of the 21"t Century,”
Dillman (1986) wrote that extension needs to reexamine its structure and
activities if it intends to serve as an important service agency in the next century.
“Extension's challenge is to capitalize on our structure and capabilities, in
educating a changing slate of decision makers who are themselves adjusting to

rapid change” (Holt, p. 871).

The Cooperative Extension Service has a long history of providing educational
support to individuals, organizations, and communities since the Smith Lever Act
of 1914. As Extension embarks into the information age, a conceptual

framework needs to be developed in order to meet the needs of clients within all

12

three eras. However, in order to continue its effort in strengthening American
agriculture and improving the lives of individuals, families and communities,
Extension must reassess its organizational structure and goals if it intends to
continue meeting the expectations of the communities it serves and ensure its

organizational survival (Dillman, 1986).

Cooperative Extension Service in Hawaii

The University of Hawaii Cooperative Extension Service (UH-CES) was founded
in 1928. Its organizational purpose is consistent with the Smith Lever Act of
1914. UH-CES serves 4 counties in Hawaii, which are located on 5 islands within
the Hawaiian island chain. Consistent with ECOP recommendations, UH-CES is
currently undergoing extensive reorganization. A slump in the State’s economy
resulted in severe budget restrictions that prompted UH-CES to reassess its
mission, vision and direction within Hawaii’s Land Grant University, the University
of Hawaii at Manoa (UHM). To meet the most critical and emerging issues, UH-
CES developed a five-year strategic plan with strategic initiatives, goals and
objectives (UH CTAHR Strategic Plan, 1999). The UHM College of Tropical
Agriculture and Human Resources (CTAHR) Strategic Plan (1999) consist of
three strategic initiatives. They are:

1. Provide an excellent and relevant student centered Ieaming environment.

2. Create new economic opportunities through research.

3. Transfer useful knowledge responsively to the community at large.

13

Extension has developed a strong track record in extending university-based
knowledge to industry (particularly agriculture) stakeholders (Warner, M. et al.
1998). “Thus, improving communication between the College and its clients in
the community is a Iinchpin of this strategic plan and is essential to fulfilling the
University’s and College’s Land Grant mission. CTAHR is setting a new agenda,
one in which the entire CTAHR faculty has a responsibility to reach out into
communities to further development of diversified agriculture, to protect the
environment, and to assist families and communities in meeting their goals” (UH

CTAHR Strategic Plan, 1999, p. 13).

Obtaining information by Extension staff is becoming increasingly challenging
due to greater public demand for information (Shin & Evans, 1991, Sattar &
Lancaster, 1984; Richardson, Stephenson, Riddick, Caldwell, McAlister, 1996).
Extension agents are challenged with creating new programs while maintaining
of existing programs (Warner & Christenson, 1984). Evaluations obtained at the
1999 UH-CES Extension Agents’ Conference depict agents’ desire for an
increase in group-gathering opportunities and time for open discussions among
extension and research faculty to exchange and share research based
information. More accurately, participants stress collaboration and integration
needs to be increased and re-established between the college, industry, external

organizations, corporations and state and federal agencies.

14

Strategic initiatives developed by the UH CTAHR, have defined a need for
increased knowledge-based programs and services to be extended to the
community at large (UH CTAHR Strategic Plan, 1999). In order to carry out these
initiatives, extension agents are requesting increased communication and
collaboration opportunities to increase their abilities in delivering useful
knowledge responsively to the community at large (Extension Agents’
Conference on IPM, 1999). Collaboration with key sources of information was
identified as a necessary step towards improving communications by UH-CES

extension staff (Extension Agents’ Conference on IPM, 1999).

Evaluation of Cooperative Extension
Extension programs across the nation have begun to evaluate and refocus its
efforts to address critical and emerging issues relevant to the needs of
individuals, organizations and communities in their respective areas. Federally
funded programs such as Cooperative Extension, universities and industries are
under greater scrutiny to increase accountability within programs in order to
ensure progress is measured, achieved and compared against the measurable
standards (Suvedi, Lapinski & Campo, 2000; Braund, 1995). The Joint USDA-
NASULGC Committee on the Future of Cooperative Extension articulated,
“Because evaluation is important to Extension’s effectiveness, we encourage all
states to allocate adequate resources for developing improved evaluation

methods” (p. 28).

15

Evaluation of extension programs has enabled extension organizations to make
judgments about the merit, value or worth of educational programs (Borg et
al.,1996). Warner and Christensen (1984) conducted the first nationwide
assessment of the Cooperative Extension Service. A nationwide random sample
of the entire population was calculated and surveyed through a telephone
interview. The findings demonstrate that 87 percent of the United States (US)
population was aware of Extension programs, with one quarter of households
users of Extension. Extension was found to service middle-class Americans.
Ninety percent of Extension users receive printed material, or were exposed to
radio or television programs delivered by Extension staff. Nine out of ten users of
Extension indicated satisfaction with Extension services. Staff reported over 100
million contacts a year and indicated half of their time is devoted to individual

client contact.

Additional external evaluations of extension programs have indicated clients’ are
generally satisfied with extension programs (Wamock, 1992; Meadowbrrok &
Fletcher, 1988). North Dakota State University (NDSU) conducted an external
and internal evaluation of the organization. The study found that agricultural
producers, the general population and local businesses were satisfied and
familiar with services sponsored by NDSU extension (NDSU, 1996). Wamock
(1992) conducted a study to assess Florida Cooperative Extension Service
clients’ satisfaction with extension educational information. The study found that

clients were generally satisfied with the quality of information received.

16

Noteworthy, it was recommended that improvements be made in strengthening

internal organizational communication to enhance information transfer to clients.

Oregon State University Extension conducted a similar study. This study found
that 99 percent of respondents were satisfied with extension educational
programs and information. Implications from this study suggested Extension's
need to focus on maintaining quality programs that are prompt, accurate, and
research-based (Medowbrrok & Fletcher, 1988). Studies conducted at North
Dakota, Florida, Oregon Cooperative Extension Service reflect clients‘
satisfaction with extension programs and request for timely, research-based
information. However, Habeeb et al. (1987) found that innovative farmers were
less satisfied with extension programs, extension specialists and extension
education programs. Johnsrud and Rauschkolb (1989) interviewed Keith Bjerke,
a farmer from North Dakota who stated, “I’m afraid that they time has already
arrived when the innovative farmer no longer depends on his county extension

agent for timely information.”

According to Dillman (1986), there is much variability between extension
programs across the nation as well as variations between extension agents who
service clients in the same state. Internal evaluations of extension programs are
necessary to assess whether programs are properly adapted or structured to
meet local needs. lntemal evaluations enable organization to determine its

strengths and weakness and develop solutions to bring about educational

17

improvement (Flores, 1995). Rapid societal and technological changes will
require organizations to reinvent, reorganize, reshape and evaluate cross
communications between government agencies, education institutions, and
business organizations in order to restructure its priorities and transform the way
it conducts business (Fredericks, 1994). Holt wrote, “managing change, that is,
capitalizing on today's strengths while building tomorrow's niches, requires first

an assessment of some forces of change” (p. 869).

A national Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP) Task Force
on Evaluation was appointed to increase emphasis on evaluation in Extension.
The ECOP recommendations include the establishment of a national
accountability and evaluation system that focuses on three major issues. They
are: 1) evaluation of high priority programs, 2) system-wide accomplishment data
on a sampling basis, and 3) comprehensive information on participants’ served
and the resources utilized (Task Force Report, 1981). ECOP recommendations
suggests Extension develop a strategic approach towards accessing university
wide knowledge and research-based information (Geasler, 1989). In addition to
national evaluation efforts, the ECOP also recommends the implementation of
evaluation programs on a state and county level (Wamer and Christensen,

1984).

To meet the challenges ahead, extension programs across the nation are

examining external and internal program components. External examination of

18

individuals who utilize extension programs and services suggest a general
satisfaction with extension. Innovative farmers were less satisfied with extension
programs and service. However, external evaluations reflect a consistent need
for timely and useful information by clients of extension. lntemal evaluations will
assist the Cooperative Extension Service in prioritizing its program thrusts and
strengthening its current and emerging programs and services. Evaluation of
critical issues within organizations can bring about organizational changes in

practices, processes and services (Preskill & Torres, 1999).

Sources of Information
Extension agents are key to the process of bringing new research-based
information to clients. According to Suvedi (1991), extension staff, primarily
extension field agents play a vital role in assisting CES in accomplishing its
educational goals. A function of extension agents is to develop, implement and
deliver educational programs responsive to the needs of clients on a county level
(Suvedi, 1991). Seevers et al. (1997) explains that extension agents must
possess a comprehensive understanding of the situation, so that they are in a

sound position to provide clients with alternative solutions to their problems.

Extension agents are expected to possess detailed technical expertise, beyond
what they are capable of providing (Warner and Christenson, 1984). To meet
these needs, extension agents require support and information from state,

federal and local subject matter specialists, agricultural research, agricultural

l9

policy decision-makers and social and psychological research (Seevers et al.,
1997; Sanders, 1966). Vergot (1991) defines a source of information to be a
person or institution that provides information based on research or first hand

experience.

Extension programs have historically focused on local needs, identified by
clients’ demands. In the community control era, extension agents’ main
information sources included agricultural research, agricultural policy and social
and psychological research (Seevers et al., 1997). Historically, information was
extended to extension organizations and forwarded to clients to bring about the
necessary changes through the aid of extension agents (Van den Ban &
Hawkins, 1996). Adult education programs in the CES have changed with
increased client and community involvement. Client’s knowledge and
experiences add to the knowledgebase of research-based information.
Radhakrishna and Thomson (1996) evaluated extension agents’ use of various
sources and channels'of information. They found that in addition to extension
staff, extension agents rely on clients, local business organization and state and
federal agencies. As a result, clients, organizations and communities have
become important sources of information within the CES organization (Bardsley,
1982). Clients will sometimes know more about a problem or solution than an
extension agents or specialists (Dillman, 1986). The traditional extension model
or community-based model that involved the transfer of extension research to

county extension agents who then developed community-based programs has

20

transformed into an integrated and participatory education model (Suvedi, et al.,
2000)

Advancements in CES and adult education have resulted in changes in
extension agents’ knowledgebase. As CES moves from a community control or
mass society era to the information age, the geographic barriers that once
constrained extension agents’ knowledgebase have been expanded (Dillman,
1986). With new technological developments and increased request for timely
information, extension agents as well as other organizations are now
contemplating the utilizing of alternative channels of information to obtain and
disseminate relevant information, beyond traditional methods such as field

visitations, group meetings and newsletters (Hiel & Herrington, 1997).

Channels of lnforrnation
In the community control and mass society era, the traditional delivery methods
of extension education occurred throUgh print material, group meetings and field
visitations (Hiel 8 Herrington, 1997). Field visitations enable extension agents to
clearly see the situation first hand and work with clients in developing practical
solutions. Petrzelka, Padgitt, and Wintersteen (1999) add that direct or personal
communication with clients provide extension agents with on the job training,
opportunities to build personal experience and knowledge and enables them to

establish credibility by conducting meetings in a face-to-face setting.

21

As we enter the information age, new delivery methods or channels have
provided organizations such as Extension, with alternative methods in obtaining
information (Tavemier, Adelaja, Hartley, & Schilling, 1996). Channels of
information are defined as the methods of delivery such as oral, written or
electronic media (Vergot, 1991). According to Tavemier et al. (1996), research-
based information can now be delivered through direct communication (extension
agents/specialists, organizational programs, etc.), equipment and machines
(computers, VCR, telephones, facsimile machines, etc), print media
(newspapers, journals, newsletters, etc.), and broadcast media (radio, satellite,
television, lntemet, etc.). Suvedi (1996) categorized information delivery into four
channels, 1) print information, 2) electronic information, 3) organizational events,

and 4) personal sources of information.

Organizations are transforming with the rapid advancements in technology.
These technologies are providing increased opportunities for individuals to leam,
discuss, create, collaborate and explore a synergy of resources beyond the
traditional boundaries (Burbules & Callister, 2000). Colleges and universities
across the nation are contemplating the integration of information and
communication technologies into instruction. Expansion in distance education
technologies has allowed Ieaming to take place at the convenience of the
learner, regardless of time and distance barriers. lntemet or computer based
education enables individuals who are not capable of attending campus activities

or full time courses access to educational information, consistent with the mission

22

 

 

of the land grant university. Non interactive technologies such as printed
material, videotapes, television and computer based programs, allows
technology to facilitate the Ieaming process at the pace and convenience
identified by the Ieamer (T hach & Murphy, 1995). A case study of a distance
education graduate course on information system analysis and design revealed
that electronic mail or email was the most popular communication method among
class participations. Electronic communication methods such as email, facsimiles
and the lntemet were identified as an efficient method of communication in this

distance education environment.

In 1996 and 1997, Taylor and Curtis (1999) asked Family and Consumer Science
county extension agents to evaluate a computer-based system that addressed
food safety questions developed by North Carolina State University. The system
is accessible through the Internet and aims to provide extension educators with
dependable and readily available educational resources. The system is equipped
with over 580 external links to publications and informational fact sheets, and
over 125 links to relevant informational web sites. Seventy-five percent of the
respondents identified using the system and 68 percent rated the information
retrieved from the system excellent. Tufts University’s rating system for nutrition-
related web sites, called Nutrition Navigator rated the food safety information
“among the best" and assigned perfect scores for timeliness, accuracy, and

depth of information provided.

23

Distance education technologies have enabled information to be distributed
beyond the range of traditional methods such as mail, telephone and fax
(Wheeler, Batchelder & Hampshire, 1997). Without compensating personal or
face-to—face interaction, interactive technologies has provided organizations with
two way communications through technologies such as videoconferencing,
satellite programming, computer based information and electronic mailing
systems (Thach & Murphy, 1995). Extension staffs around the county are now
utilizing video conferencing technologies to transfer and obtain information,

including Texas A&M University.

Hiel and Herrington (1997) evaluated the uses and limitations of
videoconferencing technology at a Texas Agricultural Research and
Experimental Station in South Texas. Their study found that video conferencing
was used for university courses, continuing education and staff development,
administration activities, public special interest group, outreach, and scientific
collaboration. Scientific collaboration through video conferencing enabled
researchers to exchange current research information. Participants stressed the
timeliness of information exchange and found videoconferencing to be an
excellent tool for information exchange to off campus centers. Implications of this
study suggest integrating communications among all Texas A&M University’s
agricultural systems, with emphasis on improving links between research and

extension.

24

Further, a Rapid Response Center was developed at Kansas State University to
assist specialists in providing timely answers to extension agents. With fifteen
extension specialists servicing one hundred and twenty extension agents,
extension specialists found it challenging to keep up with the information
demands of extension agents. The intent of the Rapid Response Center was to
provide Kansas State University extension agents with timely information to
answer their day-to-day inquiries in the area of foods and nutrition. Brannan and
Gray (1998) found that 85 percent of inquiries were generated from extension
staff. Four out of five inquiries were made by telephone, with email accounting for
the. remainder of inquiries. In addition, 90 percent of responses to inquiries were
made within twenty-four hours upon receipt. Evaluation of the effectiveness of
the Rapid Response Center by extension agents generated a response rate of
55 percent of all counties in Kansas. The findings Show that 99 percent of
respondents stated that the Center usually or always provided usable answers to
their inquiries. In addition, 79 percent of respondents stated that the Center

enabled them to provide their clients with quicker information.

Intel, a leader in the area of technology, has changed the way businesses
conduct training and hold conferences. Through satellite television broadcast,
individuals, businesses and organizations are now equipped to offer scheduled,
live, interactive face-to—face meetings with individuals around the globe (Sonntag,
1998). Home economists from the Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service

participated in an in service/graduate training credit course via satellite

25

programming (Hermann, 1991). Participants found the diet and health program
delivered via satellite convenient, valuable and participants indicated an increase
in knowledge at the conclusion of the program (Hermann, 1991). Broadcast
information via satellite is transforming the way Cornell University’s extension
specialists deliver programs and services. To minimize travel cost and staff time,
Cornell University's extension specialists are now capable of delivering
educational presentations to producers and extension agents with the aid of

satellite technology (Staats, 1995).

With the rapid changes in communication and information technology, the speed
in which information is transferred has increased dramatically (Young, 1998). The
integration of distance education technologies into Extension has changed the
way in which CES staff access and disseminates information. Extension’s '
potential to increase its effectiveness in serving exiting clients and reaching new
ones has elevated (Suvedi, Campo, and Lapinski, 1999). However, with the rapid
advancements in technology, extension agents are challenged with greater
diversity in subject matters and a wide distribution of information (Sattar 8.

Lancaster, 1984).

Evaluation of Sources and Channels of Information Used by Extension Agents
In 2000, Momin-Khowaja published his Master’s thesis entitled, “Michigan
Extension Agents’ Use of lnfonnation Sources and Channels.” Momin-Khowaja

(2000) studied extension agents’ utilization of various sources and channels in an

26

effort to understand the frequency of use behind utilized sources and channels.
He also evaluated the effects of demographic characteristics on the sources and

channels of inforrnaticn used in receiving and delivering information.

An open and closed-ended questionnaire was distributed to a systematic
stratified random sample of 188 extension agents at Michigan State University.
The study obtained a response rate of 67 percent. Descriptive and inferential
statistics were utilized to analyze data. The questionnaire categorized information
sources into five areas: 1) print sources, 2) electronic sources, 3) computer
sources, 4) organizational events, and 5) personal sources. Extension agents
reported a preference in utilizing print and personal sources of information such
as county agents, specialists, extension publications and extension bulletins to
receive job related information. Momin-Khowaja found that there were low
associations between extension agents’ age, work experience, educational
background and gender compared with information sources and channels
utilized. However, findings show that extension agents’ area of specialty is
associated with the information sources and channels used. Extension agents in
the area of agriculture and natural resources obtained information from print
material. In comparison, extension agents in the area of children, youth and
family services received more information through electronic sources than

agriculture and natural resource agents.

27

Murphy, Coleman, Hammerschmidt, Majewski, & Slonim (1999) conducted a
study on the resource and training needs of home economic agents at Michigan
State University. Personal telephone interviews were utilized, followed by a follow
up written questionnaire. The study evaluated a broad range of issues relating to
home economy agents, including their preferred delivery methods for receiving
information and resources. At the conclusion of the phone interview, 73 percent
of extension agents returned the follow up questionnaire. Home economy agents
utilized various sources to develop Expanded Food and Nutrition Education
Programs (EFNEP), Family Nutrition Programs (FNP), and programs outside of
EFNEP and FNP.

Participants indicated that they utilized books to assist them in introductory
nutrition and utilized newsletters to aid them in answering clients’ questions.
Agents specified their need to depend on campus staff, telephone and email
hotlines on an average of 2.2 times a month to assist them in answering difficult
questions relating to food safety, food preservatives and current topics.
Participants also indicated utilization of Michigan State University’s databases,
other home economists, USDA guidelines, their personal files, toll free telephone
numbers, and bulletins to assist them in obtaining information. Agents indicated a
need within Extension to continue producing current extension bulletins. Bulletins
were identified as an information source utilized as a tool for creating
presentation material, reference guide that helped home economists respond to

clients’ inquiry, and served as an update to increase agents’ own knowledge.

28

A study on “Extension Agents’ Use of Information Sources” was conducted by
Radhakrishna and Thomson (1996). A mail questionnaire was distributed to a
stratified random sample of 305 extension agents from Iowa, Missouri, Maryland,
West Virginia, Georgia, Texas, Colorado, and Oregon. Findings show that 77
percent of extension agents search for information on the same day they need
the information. The most frequent reason why extension agents search for
information was due to clients’ inquiry (94%), followed by preparation for training
program (63%), report preparation (56%), collecting research-based information
(36%), preparation for a presentation (35%), and preparing for a radio Show
(33%). From a list of twenty-one information sources, agents were asked to rank
the frequency of use of information sources. A five-point scale was used,
(1=none, and 5=once a day). The most frequent sources of information used by
extension agents were clientele (4.85), followed by another extension agent in
office (4.62), extension agents in another county (3.95), extension specialists
(3.72), immediate supervisor (3.66), local news agencies (3.04), local business
organizations (3.20), state and federal agencies (3.04), and local school teachers

and administrators (3.00).

Demographic characteristics from this study indicated that male agents
communicated with extension specialists, extension workers in another state,
non-extension university faculty, state and federal agencies more than female

agents. Female agents communicated with community organizations more than

29

male agents. Findings showed that agricultural agents communicated more
frequently with extension specialists, extension workers and non—extension
university faculty more than extension agents involved with 4-H and family living.
However, these agents communicated more frequently with school teachers,

administrators, and youth organizations than agricultural agents.

Shih and Evans (1991) conducted a study that examined the sources and
channels used by extension agents to gather information. A twenty-eight-item
mail questionnaire was distributed to all one hundred and eighteen Illinois
agriculture and horticulture extension field staff. The study reported that 86
percent of searches were performed as a result of client inquires. Additional
reasons included report preparation (4.6%), preparation of a teaching program
(1.8%), and searches for pricing information (1.8%). On an average, extension
field staff utilized an average of 2.06 sources of information for each inquiry. Top
rated search topics included, pest control (13.2%), horticulture (7.5%), livestock

(6.6%), farm management (5.7%), and leasing information (5.7%).

Two hundred and thirty five items were categorized into three major categories of
information channels: 1) oral, 2) written, and 3) electronic. Field staff reported
utilizing written material (45.9%), followed by a combination of written and oral
communication (43%). The type of written information most utilized by
respondents was extension publications (43.3%), followed by non-extension

publications (19.5%) and personal notes (11.6). Shih and Evans (1991) found

30

that extension specialists were the most utilized oral source of information to field
staff. Of the total 109 respondents, only three reported utilizing electronic media
such as satellite programming and web-based databases to obtain information.
Information utilized by field staff originated from internal sources more than

external sources.

Summary of Literature Review
Dillman (1986) articulated Extension’s need to reexamine its structure, activities
and services if Extension intends to serve as an important service agency in the
next century. Related studies demonstrate extension agents’ utilization of various
sources and channels information to meet their educational mission (Momin-
Khowaja, 2000; Murphy, Coleman, Hammerschmidt, Majewski, & Slonim, 1999;
Radhakrishnaand Thomson, 1996; Shih and Evans, 1991). The literature depicts
higher use of information from extension specialists and agents and a higher use
in information obtained through print and personal channels. However, later
studies indicate an increase in use of information obtained from clients and other

sources of information delivered through electronic media.

Vergot (1991) defines a source of information to be a person or institution that
provides information based on research or first hand experience. Earlier studies
have not explored information sources grouped as an agency, organization or
institution, entirely. As a result, previous studies compare the frequency of use of

an individual to an entire agency. Additional investigation is needed to

31

understand the internal sources within each agency to increase communication

and network connections.

Studies conducted on related areas have focused on identifying sources and
channels utilized by extension agents and the frequency associated with its use.
An extensive review of literature has not uncovered research that evaluates the
extent of usefulness and timeliness of these identified sources and channels.
There is a need to “help overcome information overload through devising means
to get precisely the needed information to a client when that perSon needs it”
(Dillman, 1986, 112). Extension must develop a strategic approach towards
accessing a broad range of knowledge and information (Geasler, 1989).
Extension is challenged in providing timely information relevant to the
communities needs due to the rapid technological advancements. Evaluation of
sources and channels of information based on their level of usefulness,
timeliness and preferences may provide essential information to bring about

organizational change.

32

.l‘i

.Il

CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the research methodology that was used to explore the
sources and channels of information used by extension agents. The chapter
includes a description of the design of the study, population and sample,

instrumentation, and procedures used to collect and analyze data.

Design of Study
This study follows a descriptive survey design. Due to the geographic separation
of the population, data was collected through a mail questionnaire survey and the
information was analyzed using the computer software program, Statistical

Package for the Social Science (SPSS).

Population and Sample
The target population of this study included all extension agents from the
University of Hawaii. A list obtained from the University of Hawaii Cooperative
Extension Service indicated a total of thirty-eight extension agents in 2001. This
study utilized a census of the entire population (Ary, Jacobs and Razavieh,
1996). A mail questionnaire was developed and delivered to all members of the

population.

33

Instrumentation
The instrumentation used to gather information regarding the usefulness and
timeliness of sources and channels of information used by extension agents was
composed of a mail questionnaire that respondents completed and returned on a

voluntary basis.

The mail questionnaire was developed after a complete review of related
literature and with the assistance of extension agents’ informal feedback from a
focus group session held at the University of Hawaii, Cooperative Extension
Service’s Extension Agents’ Conference held in June 2000. The mail

questionnaire included both open and closed-ended questions.

Survey research must address the issue of validity and reliability of measuring
instruments in order to provide credible research information. Therefore, the
validity of this research was achieved with the assistance of a multi-disciplinary
panel of experts from Michigan State University and the University of Hawaii. The
panel of experts reviewed the mail questionnaire for validity based on content,
format and audience appropriateness. Panel members were also asked to review
the mail questionnaire and identify areas that needed additional clarification or
were inconsistent with the objectives of the study. Suggestions and feedback
provided by reviewers were taken into consideration and revisions were made to

the mail questionnaire. A field test of the instrument was conducted on a group of

34

content area specialists, in areas outside of the University of Hawaii, Cooperative

Extension Service.

Extension agents were asked to assess the usefulness and timeliness of sources
and channels of information used in gathering information to meet their ever-
changing needs and the information needs of the individuals they serve. They
were asked to rate the usefulness of various information sources and channels
based on a 5-point scale, with 1 representing “never useful” and 5 representing
“always useful”. Extension agents were also questioned about the timeliness of
the information delivery. They were asked to rate the timeliness of sources and
channels on a 5-point scale, with 1 representing “never timely" and 5

representing “always timely.”

This study also evaluated the role of extension specialists in meeting the
information needs of extension agents. Agents were first asked to indicate the
percent of extension specialists (in their area) who meet their information needs.
Next, agents were asked to rate the extent to which extension specialists meet
their needs, based on a percentage of time. Finally, open-ended questions were
used to solicit suggestions for increasing the timeliness in the delivery of
information and inquire about extension specialists role in meeting the needs of

extension agents

35

 

 

 

III-

. f

1’,-

‘ ‘[ III--II1.‘ i. a! I‘I.

Lastly, extension agents were asked to rank in order each information source
and channel, based on usefulness, timeliness and individual preferences.
Demographic information on extension agents was also collected to compare

individuals and the sources and channels utilized.

Scales that utilized Likert type scales were assessed for reliability based on
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and were compared against the scales defined by
Borg and Gall (1983). An alpha coefficient of 0.95 was computed for the scales
pertaining to the usefulness of information sources, 0.89 for timeliness of
information sources, 0.96 for usefulness of information channels, 0.96 for the
timeliness of channels of information, and 0.66 for scales relating to the role of
extension specialists. Respondents were also asked to rank, in order, sources
and channels of information based on their perception of usefulness, timeliness,
and preference. These questions did not utilize Likert-type scales. The
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients obtained from this study were found to be

acceptable to establish reliability for the Likert-type scales utilized.

Utilization of information from only those who respond can produce non-response
error (Ary, Jacobs, 8 Raszavieh, 1996). Early and late respondents were
compared to determine differences between the two groups. Evaluation of early
to late respondents’ responses on key variables showed no differences.
Therefore, the findings were generalized to the entire population (Miller 8 Smith,

1 983).

36

Data Collection
The data collection method utilized to collect mail questionnaires followed the
design method developed by Don A. Dillman (1978). The first mailing package
included a personalized cover letter, the mail questionnaire, and a pre-
addressed, stamped return envelope. A week after the deadline, a follow up
phone call reminder was delivered to extension agents explaining the purpose of
the mail questionnaire. After a three-week period, a second complete package

with a new cover letter was mailed to those who had not responded.

Analysis of Data
The data obtained through this study were analyzed with the computer software
package, SPSS. Descriptive statistics such as frequencies, percentages, and
means, and standard deviations were used to analyze data. Incomplete items

were treated as missing values and were not calculated as part of the population.

Information resources were evaluated for usefulness and timeliness based on a
four-point scale with 1=never useful/timely, 2=seldom useful/timely, 3=usually
useful/timely, and 4=always useful/timely. Neutral or no opinion responses were
excluded while calculating the mean scores. Mean values were calculated based
on the four-point scale. Rankings utilized in this study were computed based on

mean values.

An operational criterion for the concept of "importance" was defined for this study

for the purpose of drawing meaning from those data collected using Likert-type

37

scales. This criterion, though arbitrary, provided the basis for establishing a
sense of the meaning of the data and also for comparing between different data
sets. Likert-type scales that yielded a mean score of 3.0 or higher were defined
as “Important” while mean values below 3.0 were defined as “Not Important.”
Consequently an information source or channel was considered useful or timely if

the mean score was 3.0 or higher.

38

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Of the thirty-eight mail questionnaires sent out to extension agents statewide, a

total of 27 were returned (71%). Responses were analyzed and are summarized

below in aggregate format.

Respondents
Respondents represented all four counties in the State of Hawaii, with the island
of Hawaii responding with the highest rate (33%). As is shown in Figure 1, Oahu,
Maui, Kauai, and Molokai followed in responses. Sixty-three percent of the

respondents were male with the remaining 37 percent female.

40

 

 

Percent

 

 

Hawaii Oahu Maui Molokai Kauai

Island of Residence

Figure1. Extension Agents’ Island of Residence

39

Seventy-four percent of the respondents were. in the age group of 45—64 years of
age, with the remaining respondents in the age bracket of 25-44. Sixty-seven
percent of those responding classified themselves as extension agents in the
area of Agriculture and Natural Resources (ANR) and 33 percent in the area of

Children, Youth and Families (CYF).

60

 

50"

404

304

20-

10-

 

 

 

Percent

1-10 years 21 -30 years
11-20 years 31 years and beyond

Years of Service

Figure 2. Respondents’ Years of Service with the Cooperative Extension Service

Seventy-eight percent of the respondents hold a Master of Science (MS)

degree. Fifteen percent of those responded have a Bachelor of Science (BS)

40

degree plus thirty university credits. Seven percent of respondents hold either a
PhD or a BS. Extension agents were also asked about their years of service
with the Cooperative Extension Service. Forty-eight percentof respondents
served 11-20 years with the University of Hawaii, Cooperative Extension Service.
As is shown in Figure 2 above, 33 percent served 21-30 years and beyond while

19 percent worked in Extension for 1-10 years.

Respondents were asked to identify the main reasons behind information
searches. Responses obtained indicate extension agents search for information
in order to fulfill clients’ inquiry (100%), prepare for training programs, (96%),
prepare for presentations (92.6%), increase one’s own knowledge (88.9%),
collect research-based information (85.2%), carry out day to day work (77.8%),

report preparation (70.4%), and to prepare for applied science projects (4%).

Usefulness of Information Sources
The respondents were asked to rank in order each information source from most
useful source to least useful. Means were tabulated and ranked based on a five-
point scale with 1 being “most useful source”, and 5 being “least useful source.”
lnforrnation sources were broken down into five main agencies. They were: 1)
land grant universities (LGU), 2) community organizations, 3) private
organizations, 4) state agencies excluding land grant universities, and 5) federal
agencies. Based on frequency analysis, 96 percent of the respondents ranked

the Land Grant University as the most useful source (1.04) while community

41

agencies were found to be the least useful source (4.23). The second most
useful source identified was federal agencies (3.00), with state agencies
excluding Land Grant Universities, selected as the third most useful source
(3.07). F urtherrnore, private agencies were selected as the forth most useful
source of information (3.54) with community organizations identified as the least

useful.

Respondents were asked to provide rationale behind their selections. One
extension agents articulated that LGU were ranked the most useful source of
information because “most research and extension information result from LGU.”
Others stated that, “LGU generate own research information,“ and “LGU have
much of the synthesized extension information.” Feedback also showed that
LGU were ranked higher due to its ability to provide reliable, local, research-

based, and non-biased information.

Vergot (1991) defined a source of information to be a person or institution that
provides information based on research or first hand experience. Therefore,
personal sources of information such as extension agents, researchers,
specialists, etc. were also evaluated on their usefulness to extension agents.
Personal sources were separately from the 5 main information sources to avoid
the comparison of individuals and agencies. As is shown in Table 1, those who
responded rated eight personal sources of information as important. The
important sources of information were extension agents (3.46), respondents’

immediate supervisor (3.21), clientele (3.17), experiment station managers

42

(3.07), researchers (3.06), extension specialists (3.05), university faculty (3.05),
and product company representatives (3.00). Extension agents were considered
the most useful source of personal information with a mean of 3.46. A split
decision by respondents showed that forty-two percent reported extension
agents to be always useful while the remaining 58 percent of respondents

indicated information provided by extension agents to be usually useful.

Table 1. Usefulness of Personal Sources of lnforrnation

Sources of Information RANK MEAN
3.4
3.21
3.1
3.0

mmediate Su
or Stakeholders
Station
rchers

9°

F
uct
Gardeners
uate Students
Teachers
and Friends
Consultants
Consultants
Workers 14
Mean scores of 3.0 or higher were defined as "Important" while mean values

below 3.0 were defined as "Not Important". Information sources were considered
useful if the mean score was 3.0 or higher.

firsjgcoooximmmhww—s
.NNNNNNSRP.“

N

 

To obtain a greater understanding of the usefulness of information within the five
main agencies, these agencies were broken down into thirty-six subdivisions of
lntemal and external information sources. Respondents were asked to indicate
the usefulness of information received through the thirty-six sources. Means were

calculated and ranked based on a four-point scale with 1 being “never useful”

43

and 4 being “always useful.” As is shown in Table 2, five sources were rated as
important. The important sources of information were University of Hawaii (UH)
Extension (3.35), UH Research (3.13), Mainland Extension (3.00), Pacific
Extension (3.00), and the State of Hawaii, Department of Agriculture (SIH DOA)
(3.00).

Findings indicate that respondents found the UH Extension to be the top ranked
source of information based on usefulness (3.35). As shown in Figure 3, 35
percent of respondents reported information received from the UH Extension as

always useful, whereas 65 percent found information usually useful.

 

70

60‘

50‘

40-1

30«

20-

 

Percent

 

   

Usually Useful Always Useful

Usefulness

Figure 3. Usefulness of UH Extension

44

A majority of 87 percent found UH research to be usually timely, while 13 percent

considered information to be always timely. Mainland extension was found to be

always useful by 9 percent of respondents, while 82 percent found information to

be usually useful. Only nine percent considered mainland extension to be seldom

useful. lnforrnation obtained through the SIH DOA was identified as useful with a

mean score of 3.00. Seventy-nine percent of respondents considered the SIH

DOA to be usually useful while 10.5 percent of respondents found information

always useful. However, information obtained from the SIH DOA was reported to

be seldom useful to 10.5 percent of respondents.

Table 2. Usefulness of lnforrnation Sources

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RANK MEAN
H Extension 1 3.35 0.4
UH Research 2 3.13 0.
ainland Extension 3 3.00 0.
Pacific Extension 3 3.00 0.6
/H DOA 3 3.00 0.4
[USDA 4 2.9 0.4
flVlainland Research 5 2.95 0.3
Private Companies 6 2.94 0.57]
Ecific Research 7 2.93| 0.59]
H Instruction 8 2.92[ 0.
/H Department of Land and Natural J
Eesources 9 2.8 ~ 0.5
/H Department of Health 10 2.78I 0.5
[H Public Library System 11 2.75 0.5
US Environmental Protection Agency 11 2.75 0.5
ES Department of Education 12 2.71 0.7
ommunity Organization 13 2.681 0.5
[Pacific Instruction 14 2.60 1.1
Private Consultants 15 2.57 0.5
[State Public Schools 16 2.56] 0.81
ishop Museum 16 2.56] 0.7
US Department of Health 16 2.56l 0.8
Flawaii Agricultural Resource Center 17 2.50 0.5
/H Department of Business and Economic 6|
Eevelop. _ 17 2.50 0.7

 

 

45

Table 2 cont’

of Education 17

of Hawaiian Homes 18

Farm Bureau 19
of Public 20

of Commerce 21

land Instruction 22
of 23

of Commerce 24

of Human Resources 25

of Human Services 26

of Customs 26

of Labor 27

of Courts 28

Mean scores of 3.0 or higher were defined as "Important" while mean values

below 3.0 were defined as "Not Important". Information sources were considered
useful if the mean score was 3.0 or higher.

‘1
—l

pppeppppppppp.
N . .
d .

 

eeNNNNNNNNNNN

Timeliness of Information Sources
Respondents were asked rank in order each information source from “most
timely source“ to “least timely source.” Means were calculated and ranked based
on a five-point scale with 1 being “most timely source”, and 5 being “least timely
source.” lnfon'nation sources were again broken down into five main agencies.
They were: 1) LGU, 2) community organizations, 3) private organizations, 4)
state agencies excluding LGU, and 5) federal agencies. Sixty-two percent of
respondents ranked the Land Grant University as the timeliest source for
obtaining information (1.54), with 48 percent of respondents ranking community
organizations as the least timely source (3.88). Based on a mean rank, private
organizations were found to be the second timeliest source of information (3.00),

higher than state (3.23) and federal agencies (3.39).

46

Personal sources of information were again evaluated separately from the 5 main
information sources to avoid the comparison of individuals to agencies. As is
shown in Table 3, eight personal sources of information were rated by extension
agents as important. The important sources of information were identified as
extension agents (3.40), clientele (3.14), university faculty (3.12), master
gardeners (3.09), respondents’ immediate supervisor (3.05), experiment station
managers (3.00), product company representatives (3.00), and school teachers
(3.00). Information obtained from extension agents were identified as the

timeliest source of information with a mean of 3.40.

Forty percent of respondents felt that information obtained through another
extension agents was always timely while 60 percent felt information to be
usually timely. Clientele were always considered to deliver timely information by
twenty four percent of respondents while 67 percent indicated information to be
usually timely in delivery. On the other hand, nine percent of respondents seldom
considered information from clientele to be timely.

Table 3. Timeliness of Personal lnforrnation Sources

Sources of lnfonnation RANK MEAN
3.
or Stakeholders 3.1
Facu
Gardeners
mmediate
Station
uct Com

Teachers

 

QNQOJODO'I-wa-Is

ami and Friends

47

Table 3

Students
Workers
Consultants
scores or were as mean
below 3.0 were defined as "Not Important". lnforrnation sources were considered
timely if the mean score was 3.0 or higher.

       

The five main internal and external sources of information were broken down into
thirty-six categories. Respondents were asked to indicate the timeliness of
information received through the thirty-six sources of information. Means were
calculated and ranked based on a four-point scale, with 1 being “never timely"
and 4 being “always timely.” As is shown in Table 4, three sources were rated as
important. The important sources were the United States Department of

Agriculture (USDA) (3.05), UH Extension (3.00), and private companies (3.00).

Findings indicate that respondents found the USDA to be the top ranked source
of information, based on timeliness (3.05). Seventy-six percent of respondents
indicated that information provided by the USDA was usually timely, whereas 15
percent indicated information to be always timely (Figure 4). In contrast, ten
percent of respondents seldom reported information provided by the USDA to be

timely in delivery.

48

 

 

 

     

100

80 -

60 -

40 .

20 -
E
is
D. 0 -

Seldom Timely Usually Timely Always Timely
Timeliness

Figure 4. Timeliness of USDA

Ninety-two percent of those surveyed found UH Extension information to be
usually timely, while four percent of respondents considered information
generated from UH Extension to be always timely. Only four percent of
respondents seldom considered information timely. Similarly, private companies
were found to be usually timely by 87 percent of respondents, while seven
percent of respondents indicated information to be always timely. Six percent of

respondents seldom considered information timely from private organizations.

49

Table 4. Timeliness of Information Sources

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RANK MEAN SD

IUSDA 1 3.05 0.50]
UH Extension 2 3.00 0.29]
[Private Companies 2 3.00r 0.1%]
[Mainland Extension 3 2.95 0.49]
IS/H Department of Land and Natural 7'
Resources 4 2.90I 0.5

[SIH Department of Agriculture 5 2.88 0.5]
[US Department of Education 5 2.88 0.83]
EH Research 6 2.86 0.48]
[Pacific Extension 7 2.80] 0.42]
kommunity Organization 7 2.80] 0.41]
Private Consultants 7 2.80] 0.45]
ES Environmental Protection Agncy 8 2.77 0.44]
Wainland Research 9 2.76 0.54]
[Pacific Research 10 2.75 0.45]
PM Department of Business and 5I
Economic Development 11 2.73 0.6

IS/H Public Library Systems 12 2.67 0.49]
[Hawaii Agricultural Resource Center 13 2.64 0.67]
IS/H Department of Commerce 13 2.64 0.81]
[US Department of Housing 14 2.501 0.84]
IS/H Department of Health 15 2.47 0.64]
IState Public Schools 16 2.45 0.69]
kJH Instruction 17 2.44 0.53]
[Bishop Museum 18 2.43 , 0.79]
[SIH Department of Education 19 2.38 0.71]
[US Department of Commerce 20 2.33 0.52]
hawaii Farm Bureau 21 2.29] 0.76]
[Mainland Instruction 22 2.25 0.71]
NS Customs 23 2.17 0.75
[SIH Department of Human Resources 24 2.14 0.9d
[SIH Department of Public Safety 24 2.14 0.90l
[Pacific Instruction 25 2.001 0.71]
[SIH Department of Hawaiian Homes 25 2.00] 0.93]
[US Department of Health 26 1.30] 0.84]
[US Department of Labor 26 1.80 0.84.]

50

Table 4 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SIH Department of Courts 27 1.60] .
[SIH Department of Human Services 27 1.60] ‘ 0.8d

 

Mean scores of 3.0 or higher were defined as "Important" while mean values
below 3.0 were defined as "Not Important". lnforrnation sources were considered
timely if the mean score was 3.0 or higher.

Usefulness of Information Channels
Information channels or delivery methods were grouped into 4 categories: 1)
print, 2) electronic, 3) organizational, and 4) personal. Respondents were asked
to indicate the usefulness of information received through the four main
channels. Means were calculated and ranked based on a five-point scale, with 1
being “most useful channel” and 4 being “least uSeful channel.” Overall, results
demonstrated that 44 percent of extension agents found electronic information to
be the most useful channel of information with a mean of 2.07. Personal
information was ranked the second most useful channel of information (2.22),
followed by print information (2.52). Organizational information was ranked least

useful when compared against other channels of information (3.22).

Rationale for respondents’ rankings of the four channels of information was
solicited. Respondents found electronic information to be easily accessible, up-
to—date, and capable of providing the quickest and greatest amount of
information. Others commented on community information, “I find it useful to
attend training workshops, to interact with colleagues and specialists in the field”
Suggestion revealed respondents desire for face-to-face interaction with

colleagues and obtaining information directly from the expert. Another stated,

51

“While I rely heavily on print and electronic information, my most useful
information is gained and shared (through) give and take, trial and error, and

Ieaming through on-farm experiments.”

Respondents were then asked to rate the usefulness of thirty-seven channels of
information. Means were calculated and ranked based on a four-point scale, with
1 being “never useful” and 4 being “always useful.” As is shown in Table 5, 21
information channels were rated important. Important information channels were
Agricultural Diagnostic Service Center's (ADSC) reports (3.50), face-to-face
meetings (3.42), extension and research field days (3.40), extension workshops
(3.38), field trips and visitations (3.35), CTAHR publications (3.29), office visits
(3.27), extension publications (3.26), in service training opportunities (3.25),
extension meetings (3.21), lntemet or web based information (3.19), phone calls
(3.17), email messages (3.16), fax messages (3.15), experiment station bulletins
(3.12), CTAHR web based information (3.11), professional society meetings
(3.11), books (3.08), general and specialized magazines (3.00), interactive

televised video conferencing (3.00), and community association meetings (3.00).
Printed diagnostic reports from the ADSC were ranked the most useful channel

of information with a mean of 3.50. One hundred percent of respondents found

ADSC reports to be either always or usually useful.

52

Table 5. Usefulness of lnforrnation Channels

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RANK MEAN SD j

DSC Reports 1 3.50 0.51
ace-to-Face Meetiggs 2 3.42 0.5d
[Extension and Research Field Days 3 3.401 0.50]
Extension Workshops 4 3.38 0.57]
Field Trips and Visitations 5 3.35 0.75]
TAHR Publication 6 3.291 0.46
bffrce Visits 7 3.27 0.55]
[Extension Publications 8 3.26 0.45]
In Service Training Opportunities 9 3.25 0.72]
Extension Meetings 10 3.21 0.51]
nternet or Wed Based Information 11 3.19I 0.68]
Phone Calls 12 3.17 0.65]
Email Messages 13 3.16 0.62]
Eax Information 14 3.15 0.67]
[Experiment Station Bulletins 15 3.12 0.49]
[CTAHR Web Based Information 16 3.11 0.64]
Professional Society Meetings 8 3I

onferences 16 3.1 1 0.8

Books 17 3.08 0.48]
[General and Specialized Magazines 18 3.00 0.63]
Ilcgteractive Televised Video Conferencing 18 3.00] 0E
ommunity Association Meetings 18 3.00I 0.67]
[etters and Memos 19 2.95 0.79]
[Journal Articles and Publications 19 2.95 0.5T]
ideo Tape Programs 19 2.95 0.22]
tatewide Outreach Events 20 2.94 0.94]
on Extension Publications 21 2.901 0.54]
D ROM lnforrnation 22 2.88 0.50]
irect Mailing 23 2.86 0.79]
[State and Federal Agency Meetings 24 2.83 0.51]
[State and Federal Agency Workshops 25 2.80 0.56]
[General and Specialized Newspapers 26 2.72 0.54]
[Newsletters from Communig Organizations 27 2.71 0.77]
[Public Access Television 27 2.71 0.47]
Eatellite Programs 28 2.70: 0.48]
elevised Programs 29 2.68 0.75]
Phone Recordings 30 2.67 0.71]
adio Programs 31 2.44 0.88]

 

 

53

Mean scores of 3.0 or higher were defined as ”Important" while mean values
below 3.0 were defined as "Not Important". lnfonnation Channels were
considered useful if the mean score was 3.0 or higher.

ADSC reports, CTAHR publications, extension publications, experiment station
bulletins, books and general and specialized magazines were found to be useful
channels of printed material to respondents. Analysis showed that 26 percent of
respondents found extension publications to be always useful while 74 percent
found these publications to be usually useful. lntemet or web based information,
phone calls, email messages, fax lnfonnation, CTAHR web based information,
and interactive video conferencing (ITV) were considered useful channels of
electronic information. lntemet or web based information was found to be always
useful to 29 percent of respondents, while a majority of respondents (63%)
considered lntemet or web based information to be usually useful. Four percent
of respondents seldom felt lntemet information was useful while fOur percent
indicated lntemet or web based information to be never useful. Similarly, email
messages were considered to be always useful to 28 percent of those surveyed

while 60 percent of respondents reported email to be usually useful. Only 12

percent considered email to be seldom useful.

Extension and research field demonstrations were considered to be the most
useful channel of organizational information, with a mean of 3.40. Field
demonstrations were found to be always useful by 40 percent of respondents
while the remaining number of respondents felt information Obtained through field

days were usually useful. Face-to-face meetings and office visits were identified

54

as useful channels of personal information with mean scores of 3.46 and 3.27,
respectively. Analysis showed that 42 percent of those surveyed reported
lnfonnation attained through face-to-face meetings as always useful while the

remaining 58 percent found face-to—face meetings usually useful.

Timeliness of Information Channels
Respondents were asked to indicate the timeliness of information received
through 4 main information channels: 1) print, 2) electronic, 3) organizational,
and 4) personal. Means were calculated and ranked based on a four-point scale,
with 1 being “most timely Channel” and 4 being “least timely Channel.” Overall,
results based on the timeliness of lnfonnation were consistent with results
reported on usefulness. Fifty-nine percent of those surveyed indicated eleCtroniC
information to be the timeliest method Of information delivery (1.63). Personal
information was identified as the second timeliest method (2.19), followed by
print information (2.89). The least timely channel of lnfonnation was identified as

organizational information (3.26).

Respondents’ feedback revealed electronic information as the timeliest channel
of lnfonnation due to its ability to provide fast and instant lnfonnation.
Noteworthy, based on comments, electronic information was noted to be current
and easily accessible. An agent who perceived personal information as the
timeliest channel emphasized, one’s ability to go personally to the source for

information, increases timeliness of information.

55

Respondents were asked to rate the timeliness of thirty-seven channels of
information. Means were calculated and ranked based on a four-point scale, with
1 being “never useful” and 4 being “always useful.” As is shown in Table 6, 16
information Channels were rated important. The important information channels
were face-tO-face meetings (3.35), lntemet or web based information (3.25),
phone calls (3.24), Office visits (3.23), ITV (3.21), extension and research field
days (3.18), email messages (3.17), fax information (3.16), field trips and
visitations (3.15), extension workshops (3.10), CTAHR web based information
(3.08), general and specialized newspapers (3.00), general and specialized
magazines (3.00), books (3.00), letters and memos (3.00), and state and federal

agency workshops (3.00).

Rankings revealed face-to—face meetings as the timeliest channel Of lnfonnation
with a mean score of 3.35. Thirty-eight percent of respondents considered
information obtained through face-to-face meetings to be always timely. Fifty
eight percent of respondents found face-tO-face meetings usually timely while
only four percent found this Channel Of delivery to be seldom timely.

Table 6. Timeliness Of Information Channels
| RANK MEAN SD

 

 

 

 

[Face-to-Face Meetings 3.35 0.56]
[Internet or Web Based Information 3.25 0.61]
Ehone Calls 3.24 0.54]
[Office Visits 3.23 0.53]

 

[Interactive Televised Video Conferencing
[Extension and Research Field Days

 

3.21 053'
3.18 0.3

 

 

 

VODUI-hODN-t

mail Messa es

 

3.17 0.33

56

Table 6

Memos

AHR Publication

Society Meetings 8

Outreach Events

ROM Information
Extension Publications
T

Association
Publications
Articles and Publications
T

22
22
elevised 23
Station
Access Television 25
scores or were as mean values
below 3.0 were defined as "Not Important". lnfonnation Channels were
considered timely if the mean score was 3.0 or higher.

        

General and specialized newspapers and magazines, books, letters and memos

were found to be timely channels of printed information. General and specialized

magazines were always considered to deliver information that was timely by 22
percent of respondents while 56 percent of those surveyed found these
publications to be usually timely in delivery. However, 22 percent of respondents

seldom felt general and specialized magazines were timely in delivering

extension related information.

70

 

60‘

50‘

40‘

30-

20-

10-

Percent

 

 

   

Seldom Timely Usually Timely Always Timely

Timeliness

Figure 5. Timeliness Of lntemet or Web Based Information

lntemet or web based lnfonnation were considered the timeliest channel of
electronic lnfonnation with a mean of 3.25. As is shown in Figure 5 above, 33

percent of extension agents felt information received through lntemet or web

58

based resources was always timely in delivery while a 58 percent of respondents
considered information obtained from the Internet or web to be usually timely in
delivery. Conversely, nine percent of respondents felt information was seldom

timely.

Extension and research field days were Identified as the timeliest channels Of
organizational information with a mean score of 3.18. A split decision between
respondents indicated 82 percent considered field days to be usually timely,
while 17 percent reported field days to be always timely in delivering information.
The timeliest method in obtaining personal information was identified as face-to-

face meetings which had a mean Of 3.35.

Preferred Sources and Channels of Information
Extension agents are utilizing lnfonnation sources beyond traditional sources and
channels due to changes in technology and greater public demands for
information (Dillman, 1986; Richardson, Stephenson, Riddick, Caldwell,
McAlister, 1996). It is important to look beyond usefulness and timeliness of
lnfonnation sources and channels. Patricia Cross (1981) proposed the CAL
model or Characteristics Of Adult Learners model that suggests taking into
consideration the characteristics of the Ieamer when developing programs and
Ieaming designs. As a result, this study evaluated the information gathering

preferences identified by extension agents.

59

The study asked respondents to rank in order the source of information most
preferred in Obtaining information from 1 “most preferred source” to 5 “least
preferred source.” lnfonnation sources were broken down into five main
agencies. They were: 1) LGU, 2) community organizations, 3) private
organizations, 4) state agencies excluding LGU, and 5) federal agencies. Means
were calculated and ranked based on the five-point scale. Eighty-nine percent Of
respondents ranked the LGU as the most preferred sources for Obtaining
information (1.15). State agencies were identified as the second most preferred
source (2.77), followed by federal agencies (3.22). Forty-two percent of
respondents ranked private organizations as the forth most preferred source
(3.88). Lastly, findings revealed 42 percent Of extension agents least preferred to
seek out information from community organizations when given other sources of

information (3.92).

Feedback was encouraged to provide rationale behind respondents’ preference
selection. One respondent wrote, “lnfonnation needs to be relevant to local
needs, LGU tend to focus more on local needs.” Another stated, “My most
preferred source are land grant universities because of relevance, unbiased,
science-based lnfonnation. This applies to many state and federal agencies also,
but not necessarily with commercial companies.” A respondent who ranked
community organizations as the most useful source wrote, “Information is not

inanimate-it is a dynamic and lnfonnation from people from the community is

60

always most relevant and pertinent and most meaningful to me. I always take

information from outside sources in context to the Clientele of the community.“

TO increase the speed in delivering research based information to extension
agents, this study also pursued information about extension agents’ information
gathering preferences with regard to information channels. Respondents were
asked to rank in order the Channels of lnfonnation or delivery methods most
preferred in obtaining information, from 1 “most preferred Channel”, to 4 “least
preferred channel." lnfonnation Channels were grouped into 4 categories: 1) print,
2) electronic, 3) organizational, and 4) personal. Means were calculated and
ranked based on the four-point scale. Findings showed 41 percent of
respondents preferred to receive information through electronic means.
Electronic information was the most preferred method of Obtaining information
with a mean Of 1.89. Personal information was considered to be the second most
preferred channel of lnfonnation (2.42), followed by print information (2.56).
Forty-three percent of respondents indicated organizational lnfonnation to be the
least preferred Channel of lnfonnation, less preferred than print, personal and
electronic lnfonnation. Through evaluation of mean values, organizational

lnfonnation was identified as the least preferred Channel of information (3.08).

Preferred Sources and Channels of lnfonnation Based on Demographic
Characteristics

Previous studies have shown significant differences between the sources and

Channels Of information used and respondents’ area of specialization (Momin-

61

Khowaja, 2000; Radhadkrishna 8 Thomson, 1996, and Shin 8 Evans, 1991).
Through cross tabulations and a comparison of means, respondents’
demographic Characteristics, such as age, area of specialty, island of residence,

highest level of education and years of service were compared against the

aggregate ranking of preferred sources and Channels of lnfonnation.

 

 

 

 

   

 

5.6% 100%
100% 100% 100%

 

   

 

 

 

Respondents’ highest level of education and years of service were shown to
have significant differences. However, differences may be a result of limited
number of respondents in each category. Further, gender characteristics were
not cross tabulated due to the similarity of information generated when cross
tabulating agents' preferences with their area of specialty. As is shown in Table
7, 100 percent of CYF agents were female. Ninety-four percent of ANR agents

were male. with six percent female.

Findings revealed that younger agents, between the ages of 25-44 (25.9%)

preferred to Obtain information through the LGU, federal agencies, state

62

agencies, community organizations followed last by private organizations. As is
shown in Table 8, agents within the ages of 45-64 (74.1%) preferred to obtain
information from private organizations before community organizations. Younger
agents preferred obtaining information through electronic means, followed by
organizational events, and lastly through personal and print material (Table 9).
However, older agents preferred to obtain lnfonnation first through electronic

means, then personal, print and lastly through organizational events.

Table 8. Ranked order of Information Source Preferences compared with Agents’
A

       

 

 

 

 

 

,g, ,., . 1 5 4 2 3 ]
Ranked in order of 1=most preferred source, 2= second most preferred source,

3=third most preferred source, 4=forth most preferred source and 5=least
preferred source.

 

Table 9. Ranked order of Information Channel Preferences compared with
A ents’ Ae

    

 

 

I ,. g, .
Ranked in order of 1=most preferred channel, 2: second most preferred channel,
3=third most preferred channel, 4=least preferred channel.

ANR extension agents and agents in the area of CYF ranked LGU as the most
preferred source of information, followed by state agencies, federal agencies,
private organizations and community organizations. Both groups of agents

preferred state agencies to federal agencies. As demonstrated in Table 10, CYF

63

agents preferred to obtain lnfonnation from community organizations to private
organizations, while ANR agents differed in ranking.

Table 10. Ranked order of lnfonnation Source Preferences compared with
A ents' Area of S ecial

9901mm ans - . 4.‘ '
- -. Or'anizat‘on , r '

      

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ranked in-order of 1: most preferred source, 2: second most preferred source,
3=third most preferred source, 4=forth most preferred source and 5=least
preferred source.

Both groups of agents ranked electronic lnfonnation as the most preferred
method in obtaining information. CYF agents preferred organizational and
personal information to ANR agents (Table 11). Agents in CYF areas ranked
printed material as the least preferred method in obtaining information. ANR
agents had opposing views and preferred printed material to personal and
organizational information.

Table 11. Ranked order of Information Channel Preferences compared with

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ranked inorder of 1: most preferred channel, 2: second most preferred Channel,
3=third most preferred channel, 4= least preferred channel.

Respondents represented five islands within the Hawaiian Island chain. Overall,
findings demonstrate that both groups ranked LGU as the most preferred source
of information followed by state agencies, federal agencies, private organizations

and community organizations. Little differences were seen between Hawaii,

Oahu, and Maui respondents. As demonstrated in Table 12, Hawaii respondents

preferred information from community organizations to private organizations, but
preferred lnfonnation from LGU, state and federal agencies more. However,
Molokai agents preferred private organizations to community organizations, state
and federal agencies. Generally, Kauai extension agents preferred lnfonnation
through community organizations and state agencies over private organizations
and federal agencies. Kauai extension agents ranked federal agencies as the
least preferred source for obtaining information.

Table 12. Ranked order of Information Source Preferences compared with
Island of Residence

   
 

1 3
1 2
1 2
1

1 3 2

=most source, most source,
3=third most preferred source, 4=forth most preferred source and 5=least
preferred source.

    

All islands ranked electronic lnfonnation as the most preferred channel of
lnfonnation, with the exception of Maui. As is shown in Table 13, Maui extension
agents preferred personal and print information to electronic lnfonnation. Oahu
and Molokai participants rated personal lnfonnation as the second most preferred
method, followed by print information and organizational information. In contrast,
Kauai extension agents preferred printed material to personal information and
organizational information. Hawaii extension agents preferred organizational
information to print information, but ranked electronic and personal lnfonnation as

the most preferred methods.

65

Table 13. Ranked order of Information Channel Preferences compared with
Island of Residence

   
   

4 1

1
1 2
3 1

2 1
of 1=most preferred most channel,

3=third most preferred channel, 4=least preferred channel.

A majority of respondents (77.8%) hold a Master of Science degree. Slight
differences were noticed between extension agents with 8.8. 8 MS. degrees
and those with a PhD or a 8.8. plus 30 credits. Respondents with either a BS. or
a MS. degree preferred community organizations to private organizations (Table
14). Agents with a PhD or a BS. degree preferred to obtain lnfonnation from
private organizations to community organizations. Electronic information was
most preferred followed by personal, print and organizational lnfonnation by
agents with a MS. degree. Extension agents with a 3.8. +30 credits or 3.3.
degree indicated their preference for print material over personal information.
However, the most preferred channel was determined to be electronic
information. Respondents with a PHD found personal information to be the most
preferred method of delivery followed by print, organizational and electronic
information. As is shown in Table 15, this group preferred electronic lnfonnation
least. Noteworthy, due to the small number of extension agents with either a BS.

or a PhD degree and the degree of differences in responses there was found to

66

be significant differences between extension agent's preferences and their

highest level of education.

Table 14. Ranked order of lnfonnation Source Preferences compared with
Level Education

     
   

1

1
1
1 5

=most source, most source,
3=third most preferred source, 4=forth most preferred source and 5=least
preferred source.

Table 15. Ranked order of Information Channel Preferences compared with
Aoents’ Hihest Level of Education

     
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

Ranked in order of 1=most preferred Channel, 2= second most preferred channel,

3=third most preferred channel, 4=least preferred Channel.

LGU was found to be the most preferred source followed by state agencies,
federal agencies, private organizations and community organizations.
Respondents who served in the Cooperative Extension service for a duration of
1-20 years maintained equivalent rankings with the overall findings. As
demonstrated in Table 16, agents serving in Extension for a period beyond 21
years indicated their preference of community over private organizations.

Respondents with more than 31 years of service preferred community

67

organization to federal agencies and private organizations. Furthermore,
extension agents as a collective group ranked electronic information to be the
most preferred method in obtaining information, followed by personal information,
print information and organizational lnfonnation. Agents with 1-10 years of
service ranked print material to be the most preferred source, followed by
electronic lnfonnation. Agents with over 21 years of service ranked personal
lnfonnation as the most preferred channel of information, followed by electronic

information.

Table 16. Ranked order of Information Source Preferences compared with
Years of Service

1 4

1 3 5 2 4
=most source, most source,
3=third most preferred source, 4=forth most preferred source and 5=least
preferred source.

     

Table 17. Ranked order of Information Channel Preferences compared with
A Years of Sice

   
     

 

 

 

 

 

 

L . ....g.;!._. 4 2 3 1
Ranked in o d r of 1=most preferred channel, 2= second most preferred Channel,
3=third most preferred Channel, 4=least preferred channel.

A

 

68

Evaluation of Extension Specialists
Extension specialists have historically been contributors of research-based
lnfonnation and subject matter support to extension agents. Their responsibilities
include assisting agents in organizing and developing educational programs and
delivering up—to—date, science-based lnfonnation that can be applied to resolve
problems in the community (Kelsey 8 Heame, 1963). Related studies have
indicated extension specialists to be a frequently used source of lnfonnation.
Radhadkrishna and Thomson (1996) explored beyond Shin and Evan’s (1991)
research that revealed extension specialists to be the most utilized source of
information to field staff. Radhadkrishna and Thomson’s (1996) stratified random
sample of extension agents across the nation identified extension specialists to
be one of the most frequently used information sources. In 2000, Momin-
Khowaja evaluated extension agents’ preferences for obtaining lnfonnation
through various sources and channels. Momin-Khowaja (2000) found extension
agents’ preferred Obtaining personal information from county extension agents

and extension specialists.

Objective number one and two of this study discovered extension agents’
perception on the usefulness and timeliness Of extension specialists in providing
extension related information. As is shown in Table 1, extension specialists were
identified as useful sources of lnfonnation. A split decision by respondents
indicated 15 percent considered extension specialists as always useful while 75

percent of respondents considered information provided by extension specialists

69

to be usually useful. However, extension specialists were seldom found to
provide information that was timely in delivery (2.73). Twenty percent of
respondents found information Obtained from extension specialists always timely,
while 47 percent indicated lnfonnation to be usually timely. Furthermore, 20
percent of respondents seldom felt lnfonnation obtained through extension
specialists was timely and 13 percent indicated information to be never timely in

delivery.

Thus, to better understand the role of extension specialists in meeting the needs
of UH CES extension agents, this study asked extension agents to estimate the
percent of UH CES extension specialists (in their area) who provide information
that meets their information needs. As is shown in Figure 6, 59 percent of
respondents indicated that less than 25 percent of UH CES extension specialists
meet their information needs. Twenty-two percent of respondents indicated 26-50
percent of extension specialists meet their needs, while only 15 percent indicated
51-75 percent of specialists meet their needs. Four percent Of respondents felt

100 percent of extension specialists in their area meet their needs.

70

70

 

 

Percent

 

 

 

Less than 25% 26-50% 51-75% 100%

Extension specialists

Figure 6. Respondents’ Perception of the Percent Of Extension Specialists Who
Meet the Needs of Extension Agents

Respondents expressed a wide array of supporting arguments in response to the
extension specialists’ role in meeting agents’ lnfonnation needs. Open-ended
comments were summarized and analyzes (T able 18). Fifteen percent of
respondents indicated a lack or reduction Of UH CES extension specialists, while
12 percent of those surveyed indicated non-existence of extension specialists in
their areas. Extension agents expressed the need to fill extension specialists
positions and would like to see more joint projects between specialists and

agents. “We don’t work on too many joint projects of mutual interest, (extension

7]

specialists) seldom visit the island to see what problems exist, (extension
specialists) conduct research only where the monies are available, not necessary
on Clientele/agents’ needs.” Eighteen percent stated that extension specialists
are not keeping abreast with the ever-changing needs of their clientele. One
respondent stated, “ Some specialists are able to meet all of our needs while
others do very little in addressing our grower’s needs.” In addition, 24 percent of
respondents noted that few specialists are productive, while others are not. Due
to the lack of specialists support, three percent of those surveyed have taken the
initiative to gather lnfonnation and advance towards specialization on their own.

Table 18. Summary of Respondents’ Feedback on Extension Specialists’ Ability
toMeet the Needs Extension A ents

. '5‘, :11" f“ 5 ‘44.: fgfx-j
. 330101301.- ~.

 

. ._ ~ ._ . ‘ k:
1 I l." . “r if." ' “.vv’JEfi'IV' ‘2". "'1'. ‘i .1
_ 1.". u 5. g - 2 , ,. .4 1 g
’r -: firmware:- ..
. _'l:4...'£t.'_..t ‘1. . .: "vL- -. ’- ..‘ u

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l ew specialists meet my needs, the others do
at 23.5 23.5
pecialists are not current with clients' needs 17.6 41.2
* ew specialists in area 14.7 55.9
i O specialists in my field 11.8 67.6
. imited specialists appointment in extension 5.9 73.5
s pecialists are not active 5.9 79.4
~ ost specialists meet my needs 2.9 82.4
1" rovides new lnfonnation to meet my needs 2.9 85.3
., 0 not know what they do 2.9 88.2
pecialists and agents work on joint projects 2.9 91.2
pecialists and agents do not work on may joint
. rojects 2.9 94.1 1
. nfilled positions 2.9 97.1
= ind own information 2.9 100
otal 100

 

 

 

Extension agents were also asked to specify the extent to which UH CES

extension specialists meet their lnfonnation needs or request for information. As

72

is shown in Figure 7, 59 percent of the respondents reported that UH CES
extension specialists meet their needs less than 25 percent of the time. Thirty
percent of respondents stated that UH CES extension specialists meet their
needs 26-50 percent of the time and only 11 percent reported extension

specialists meeting their needs 51-75 percent of the time.

70

 

60‘

50"

40‘

30-

20-

10-

 

 

 

Percent

 

Less than 25% of the 26-50% 51-75%

Extent (Percent of Time Needs are Met)

Figure 7. Respondents’ Perception on the Extent to Which Extension Specialists
Meet the Needs of Extension Agents

Extension agents elaborated with rationale supporting their position on extension
specialists’ ability to meet the information needs of agents. Open-ended remarks

were summarized and analyzed (Table 19). Approximately six percent of

73

respondents attribute the lack of extension specialists support on the reduction
and cutbacks in operating budgets. Thirteen percent of statements suggest that
extension specialists are not working closely with extension agents. One
respondent summarized, “As a general rule, agents in the fields are more
knowledgeable regarding particular commodities, than specialists. However,
specialists often have very useful specific knowledge in their specific areas. The
agents, Specialists, and researcher need to work more Closely on projects.” One
respondent indicated advancing towards other sources of information. The
extension agents stated, “ I work Closely with people from state and federal
agencies quite closely for much of my information-only a little information comes
from the specialist." Some respondents had no problem working with extension
specialists, while others express a need for proactive extension specialists.
However, 19 percent of respondents felt that “specialists are not active in
research and extension activities, which serve clientele needs.”

Table 19. Summary of Respondents' Feedback on the Extent to Which Extension
Meet the Needs of Extension

    

have other interest, not related to client

few around
seldom visit the islands to see
work with
use

me with useful lnfonnation
are others are not

funds

74

Table 19

 

Suggestions for Improving the Flow of Information

The study also asked respondents to provide suggestions on improving the flow
of research-base lnfonnation within the UH, College of Tropical Agriculture and
Human Resources. Open ended questions were summarized and analyzed
(Table 20). Fifteen percent of respondents indicated a need to provide and build
training programs that can deliver cutting edge technologies on a regular basis.
Also, 13 percent of respondents felt improvements should be made in updating
the information on the college’s website. Respondents indicated a need for
increased access to cutting edge research discoveries and requested positions
dealing with extension be filled. Some respondents requested additional funding
for equipment upgrade, travel, and collaborative projects. Overall, suggestions
revealed a need for increased access to research based information through
Channels such as training programs, Internet, database of resources, fact sheets,

video productions, annual meetings, applied projects. etc.

75

Table 20. Respondents’ Summarized Suggestions on Improving the Flow of
in CT

 

on and where
or fill
more
a database with current information 8 contact

of new information before
more available to
more fact sheets and newsletters
video based capabilities to provide

technical
in Pacific
more
more collaborative
for

the flow of Specialists to agent information

76

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SUMMARY

The Cooperative Extension Service utilizes a variety of delivery methods or
channels to bring the latest research-based lnfonnation to the attention of clients,
including the utilization of extension agents. Extension agents transfer
information, knowledge and skills that help clients correctly choose and utilize
specific technology and practices best suited to meet their needs (Bennett,
1990). This lnfonnation enables clients to make informed decisions. Extension
agents are expected to transfer scientifically tested information and provide
educational support to statewide communities to fulfill its mission Of diffusing
useful and practical information on subjects relating to agriculture and home

' economics (Kelsey 8 Heame, 1963). Extension agents need relevant lnfonnation

in a timely manner in order to meet their educational mission (Weigel, 1994).

Extension must develop a strategic approach towards accessing a broad range
of knowledge and lnfonnation (Geasler, 1989). With a wide distribution of
information and persistent need for timely, responsive information, this study
evaluated the current usefulness and timeliness of sources and channels of
information utilized by extension agents. The implications for increasing the

speed in information delivering and heightening organizational Ieaming were also

77

evaluated. This study utilized a census of the all extension agents from the

University of Hawaii (Ary, Jacobs and Razavieh, 1996).

The University Of Hawaii, Cooperative Extension Service serves 4 counties in
Hawaii, which are located on 5 islands within the Hawaiian Island Chain. Agents
are geographically separated and must deal with diverse conditions unique to
each location. Further, research and lnfonnation that applies to the continental
United States is not always applicable to Hawaii’s diverse conditions. Due to
geographic constraints, extension agents have limited opportunities to assemble
face-tO-face to exchange ideas and discuss problems on localized conditions.
lnnovated approaches need to be explored beyond the traditional face-tO-face
system to provide agents with timely networking and in service training
opportunities to meet the Challenges ahead. Creation of functional networks will
assist UH-CES in developing sustainable solutions to existing and emerging

localized problems, while minimizing time away from the workplace.
Based on the conclusions drawn from this study, recommendations were made

to the University of Hawaii Cooperative Extension Service to improve and

enhance the transfer Of information to extension agents statewide.

78

CONCLUSIONS
Objective #1: To determine the usefulness of information received through
various sources as perceived by extension agents Of the University of Hawaii

Cooperative Extension Service (UH-CES).

CONCLUSION #1: Extension agents consider the land grant university (LGU) to
be a key provider of research based, extension related information. The most
pertinent land grant university information is found at the local level. Extension
agents rely on the usefulness of information provided to them by other extension

agents and their immediate supervisors.

Recommendation #1: Improve networking opportunities with all five major

sources of lnfonnation, with emphasis on internal LGU sources.

Evaluate internal networks within the land grant university system, more
specifically the University of Hawaii, College Of Tropical Agriculture and Human
Resources. An extension agent wrote, “The best source of information on very
specialized and localized type of information on tropical agriculture especially for

Hawaii should be available at CTAHR.”
Heighten communication in extension services by maximizing the exchange of

information among land grant universities, industry stakeholders, state, and

federal agencies through direct communication and utilization of distance

79

education resources. Through a solid communication network, UH-CES can
begin to bridge the lnfonnation gap and transfer research-based lnfonnation tO

individuals, families and communities more responsively.

Objective #2: TO determine the timeliness of information received through various

sources as perceived by extension agents.

CONCLUSION #2: Extension agents recognize the need for increased timeliness
in the delivery of extension and research information. Timely sources of
. information as perceived by extension agents were not always useful sources of

information when rated on a scale of importance.

Recommendation #2: Promote and fund more collaborative team projects that

involve researchers, specialists, agents and clientele.

Research advancements must be transferred to extension agents in an efficient
and responsive manner. Research based information that is generated in one
location can be relevant to extension agents and UH staff across the state.
Collaborative multi-disciplinary projects on a statewide basis would enable
extension agents to work more closely with researchers, extension specialists,
other extension agents and clientele. Build Clientele into the planning of
extension programs to ensure lnfonnation generated by extension agents is

effectively meeting the ever-Changing lnfonnation demands Of end users.

80

Develop statewide or area wide teams that are categories into key extension
related areas. Recruit clientele and industry stakeholders to build a core of
knowledge and experience. Seek involvement of sources outside of the LGU
system. Support opportunities for networking and problem solving through a
collaborative multi-disciplinary, multi-agency approach. We can promote
collaborative communication and increase our responsiveness to our clientele by
creating a functional networking system, which involves agencies beyond
CTAHR such as the State of Hawaii Department of Agriculture and the United

States Department of Agriculture.

Objective #3 8 4: TO determine the usefulness and timeliness of lnfonnation
received through various channels of information as perceived by extension

agents.

CONCLUSION #3: Print and personal information has always been a frequently
used and preferred method in Obtaining research-based information. However,
as advancement in technology occurs, findings show a shift is taking place.
Electronic lnfonnation is becoming a more useful and timely way to obtain
extension related information. While personal and on-site educational
opportunities persist as useful and timely, electronic information delivery
overcomes the obstacles associated with face-to-face meetings. Utilizing
electronic lnfonnation can improve the timeliness of relevant research-based

information.

81

Recommendation #3: Provide quicker access to research based information, by
improving the UH-CES website and strengthening UH-CES’ publications and

technology infrastructure.

One agent wrote, “ The resources within CTAHR are phenomenal. However, like
a huge, disjointed filling cabinet, it is only useful if you know where to find it...The
public overburdens us because our electronic delivery system needs to be

improved and information made available not only through PCs but through DOE

8 libraries. “

Strengthen the infrastructure and staffing of CTAHR’s Publication and
Information Office (PIO) and Technology department to change computed
research information intoeasily accessible extension related information. Solicit
researchers, specialists, and agents on a regular basis to Obtain project updates,
and preliminary findings. Generate summarized, easy to read printed material
that addresses issues relevant to client and extension agent needs on a regular

basis.

Work on improving the timeliness of ADSC diagnostic reports. Make lnfonnation
available through printed and electronic channels, i.e. list serve, email, website.
Develop UH-CES web site to take full advantage of distance education

technology that provide current and cutting edge technology to extension agents

82

in a timely manner. Create a centralized information database system to host
applicable, research-based information that is easily accessible and available to
extension faculty and other interested end users. Ensure that electronic
information is updated on a regular basis and essential contact information is

provided for easy accessibility.

Encourage researchers and extension specialists to deliver research—based

information to extension agents before Clientele and prior to publication.

Objective #5: To determine which sources and channels of information are most .

preferred as perceived by extension agents.

CONCLUSION #4: Extension agents prefer useful and timely lnfonnation that
originates from the LGU system. Moreover, perhaps due to the geographic
constraints, extension agents prefer to Obtain information through electronic

means, followed by personal or direct communication.

Recommendation #4: Conduct regularly scheduled workshops and conferences

that provide LGU based lnfonnation through electronic delivery.

Recommendations solicited from the sample population revealed extension

agents requests for increased training and information transfer opportunities. An

extension agent commented, “NO doubt extension agents have a responsibility to

83

educate themselves and most of us do. However, UH-CES also has that
responsibility. In-service trainings need to be a systemic part of the UH-CES
system. Agents are continuously faced with a Changing teaching environment in

the field and public perception.”

To better prepare extension agents for the challenges ahead, in-service training
Opportunities, workshops and conferences should be conducted on a regular
basis. Video conferencing and teleconference capabilities allow specialists,
researchers, agents, industry members, state and federal agency representatives
to convene and address local concerns and emerging issues. Through utilization
of these technologies, critical questions and concerns that are relevant to
Hawaii’s communities can be properly addressed in a synchronous environment
while concurrently minimizing traveling expenses and time spent away from the
workplace. Capture presentation clips on video and presentation notes for

placement on UH-CES web site.

Recruit specialists locally, nationally and from the Pacific to deliver timely,
relevant, and accurate lnfonnation in a cost efficient manner. Utilize video
conferencing technologies and satellite programs to engage in out of state

professional training seminars and educational programs.

84

Avoid the development of workshops and in-service trainings exercises on video
or broadcasted training sessions through public access cable companies, when

possible.

Recommendation #5: Increase in-service training Opportunities and technical

support for electronic information transfer

With the constant changes in technology, it is important to maintain, enhance and
develop the necessary competencies within extension staff to access pertinent
information. Lack of skills, confidence and competencies can disconnect
extension agents from timely information and enriching collaboration with internal
and external agencies. Assess extension agents’ level of competency in
electronic information retrieval and dissemination. Provide video conferencing
and computer training sessions statewide to demonstrate the skills necessary to

operate, access and deliver extension related resource materials.

Conduct a needs assessment, formal or informal, to assess issues and areas
that need to be addressed in developing competencies in extension staff. Work
with the UH, Department of Information and Technology Services (ITS) Distance
Learning, or UH Outreach college in developing distance education courses and

in-service training program for extension staff.

85

Provide on-line tutorials, presentation notes, help lines, and specify a trainer in

each county to assist extension staff with technical questions.

Objective #6: To compare information sources and channels used by extension

agents based on demographic Characteristics.

CONCLUSION #5: Extension agents’ age, area Of specialty, island of residence,
highest level of education and years of service affects their information gathering

preferences.

Recommendation #6: Consideration of extension agents’ age, area of specialty,
island of residence, highest level of education and years of service needs to be
taken into account when developing extension education or research material for
extension staff (Radhakrishna 8 Thomson, 1996). One size does not fit all.
Agents’ Ieaming preferences and information needs should be evaluated on a
individual basis, rather than in aggregate form. Integrate extension agents into
the development and implementation Of educational materials and information

delivery infrastructures.

Objective #7: To understand the role of extension specialists in meeting the

needs of extension agents.

86

CONCLUSION #6: Extension specialists are not effectively in meeting the needs
of extension agents in UH-CES. While extension specialists continue to serve as
a useful source of information, specialists are seldom timely in delivering
extension related information. As a result, extension agents are challenged to
generate and obtain information that would have been developed by the

extension specialists.

Recommendation #7: Consider filling vacant extension specialists positions.

Statewide budget restrictions, reduction in extension and research staff, and a
rapid shift in the information needs of clientele have resulted in a reduced
number of extension agents accepting greater responsibilities with reduced
operational budgets and resources. Reduction in extension specialists has
produced gaps in the coverage area and reduced the speed of information
delivery. In order to fill the gaps in knowledge, vacant positions need to be filled

or services in those areas need to be re-prioritized.

Recommendation #8: Re-evaluate the role of extension specialists in Extension

Extension specialists have historically been contributors of research-based

lnfonnation and subject matter support to extension agents. Their responsibilities

include assisting agents in organizing and developing educatiOnal programs and

87

delivering up-to—date, science-based information that can be applied to resolve

problems in the community (Kelsey, Heame, 1963).

Related studies have indicated extension specialists to be a frequently used
source of lnfonnation. Radhadkrisna and Thomson (1996) identified extension
specialists to be one of the most frequently used information source. Shin and
Evans (1991) discovered extension specialists to be the most utilized source of
information to field staff. In 2000, Momin-Khowaja reported extension agents’
preference in obtaining personal information from county extension agents and

extension specialists.

Additional studies could be performed to evaluate the effectiveness of extension
specialists in meeting the needs of extension agents needs. Obstacles such as
limited extension appointments and positions may need to be re-configured to
meet the demands of UH-CES extension agents and Hawaii’s diverse
communities. Contemplate the addition of researchers and creation of

information specialists in place of future extension specialists positions.

88

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

. Evaluate the lnfonnation gathering preferences of extension agents in
comparison to their competency in locating and obtaining timely
information.

. Evaluate extension specialists’ perceptions on improving the transfer of
information within Extension.

. Compare the timeliness of disseminating information through the four
main channels Of information.

. Evaluate the internal networks of the land grant university systems with
specific emphasis on identifying major information transfer obstacles.

. Understand the information delivery preferences of key lnfonnation
providers in external agencies.

. Understanding the Ieaming styles and motivating factors behind extension

agents’ self-directed projects.

89

APPENDICES

90

APPENDIX A

Cover Letter

91

Education and

Communication
Systems

06PM (I

ANII EDUCATION 8
COMMUNICATION
SYSTENS

can If m
at m M
Moll Sta may

41! Aorm Hal

East M H

melons

517m

FAX; 517M

unit Muslim
all: mm.“

MICHIGAN STATE

 

UNIVERSITY April1.2001

University of Hawaii
Cooperative Extension Service
3050 Maile Way Gilmore 2038
Honolulu, HI 96822

Dear Extension Agent,

My name is Jari S. Sugano and I am currently a Master's of Science
candidate at Michigan State University pursuing my degree in
Extension Education with a specialization in Distance Educafion
Technologies. To complete my Master’s Program, I will be conducting
my research on extension agents’ within UH—CES. More specifically,
my research aims to understand the information sources as well as the
communication methods most useful and timely in responding to
extension agents’ immediate and ever—changing lnfonnation needs.

Your involvement in this study will increase the usefulness of research
findings. Results of this study can assist UH-CES in identifying areas
that need improvement and increase Extension’s ability to provide
front-line extension agents with timely lnfonnation relevant to their
needs and the educational needs of Hawaii’s diverse communities.

Be assured that all answers will be kept strictly confidential. Research
lnfonnation collected from subjects will be used only in aggregate
reports. Individual responses will not be disclosed in order to ensure
complete confidentiality. Please return your completed survey in the
pro-addressed, postage paid envelope provided. All completed surveys
must be received by April 15, 2001.

You indicate your voluntary consent to participate in this study by
completing the questionnaire and returning it. If you have any
questions or concerns regarding human subject issues, please contact
Dr. David Wright, Chair for the University Committee on Research
Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) at Michigan State University, 248
Administration Building, East Lansing, MI 48824-1044 (Phone: (517)
355-2180). ,

Thank you in advance for your participating in this important survey. If
you would like to obtain a copy of the results. please contact me at
(808) 956-4720.

Sincerely.

Jari S. Sugano
Michigan State University, Graduate Student

92

l ‘V .; .Q Tau-35w
|

APPENDIX B

Mail Questionnaire

 

93

Sources and Channels of Information Used by Extension Agents:
A Study of Usefulness and Timeliness

ii.
1“”). .‘

(5,.

r
{2‘

 

  
 
  
  
 
 

l-r.
1'”..- < .4

iii
1

"it
’1

 

t

{0
{--L."

'2, f

t
4. {Am
.3-

  

Survey conducted by Michigan State University
in cooperation with the
University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Cooperative Extension Service.

You indicate your voluntary consent to participate In this study by completing the
questionnaire and returning it. If you have any questions regarding this study, please
contact Jeri S. Sugano at (808) 956-4720.

94

5‘
.3]
.1
1

”games and Channels of lnfonnation Used by Extension Agents:

.. r.~n

A Study of Usefulness and Tlmellness

 

The purpose of this research is to understand the lnfonnation sources most useful
and timely in responding to extension agents' immediate information needs. Further,
this research aims to identify the channels of information or communication methods
that provide the most useful and timeliest lnfonnation. Results of this study can
assist the University of Hawaii, Cooperative Extension Service (UH-CES) in
identifying areas that need improvement and increase Extension's ability to provide
front-line extension agents with timely lnfonnation relevant to their needs and the
educational needs of Hawaii's diverse communities.

Please answer each question as accurately as possible. All answers will be kept
strictly confidential. To insure confidentiality and protection of subjects' rights during
the gathering and storage of data, the subjects’ identities will only be known to
principal investigators. Research information collected from subjects will be used
only In aggregate moons. Individual responses will not be disclosed in order to
ensure complete confidentiality.

Improving the timeliness in the gathering of information by extension agents can
increase the flow of research-based information, improve promptness of service by
CES, and therefore, may enhance clients' satisfaction with Extension.

Please return your completed survey in the pro-addressed, postage paid envelope
provided. All completed surveys must be received by March 30, 2001. Thank you in
advance for your participation.

Jari S. Sugano

University of Hawaii at Manoa
Cooperative Extension Service
3050 Maile Way Gilmore 310
Honolulu, HI 96822

95

 

 

mmmmmummmmmmumm
immewmmmmwwwnmwumm

 

 

confidentlsl.
EXAIPLE QUESTION
Pbmespedflfiememkessaumlmssdmmmnmwedmmsemdhbmammmm
number that best describes your answer.
ltyouMutilizelhesources listedbeloworareunfamiliarwilhtheilem, pleasedonotlespondmlhat
respective question.
USEFULNESS TIMELINESS
EXAMPLE #1 A A
F N F fl
NeverSeIdomN/AUsuallyAlwaysNeverSeldornN/AUsualyAlways
Useful Useful Useful 0 ‘1 Timely Timely Timely
Unlverslty Bookstore 1 2 3 4 1 2 4

Bymcfimtnam'AManUsemrflemspuuemmnglyWMMUnwmwaksuebs
usefilsourceofhtonnafionlorobtahingextensionrelatedhtonnafim. Additionally. byselectingthealsvrer
'MTWMWWWMMWWWMW
relatedinlonnation.

 

SECTION ONE: BACKGROUND WORMTION

HemmvflemfihmbackgmuMhbmafimaboMyowseflfiheckflnbobeefldescfibesfle
correctalswer.

1. lslmd
UHM DOahu DMau' DMoIokd DKaua'

2. Age
DLeaIl'laI‘IZS 025-44 D4564 D658oldet

3. Sex
DMae DFernale
4. YearsofemploymentwilhtheCooperativeExtensionServbe

Years

96

5. l'ligheflleveloleducalion

D 3mm of Science (8.8)

Doom

DPh.D.Degree
6. Areaolspeclalty

DAgrlcultueandNatmalRemurces

D 8.5. + 30 Credits

:1 Masters or Science 04.3.)

Degree

DChfldren.Ymfl1mdFaniles(wwesLeaduslfip&FoodmdNubifionprogm)

7. Rembelindhlonnationsearcheflcheckdlttumply)

DToanswer

|i|"'

DTocarryout
daybdaywork

 

 

SECTION TWO: SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Wmmwmsmz1)wmmmmnemmmmmm,

3)pnvaawmfiom.4)smm,exchldinLGU.md5)ledadagerm.

8. Pbasespedlydnmmmdhbrmafionpmvidedbymmdhbmafim

istedbelow.ClmlethenmIberthatbestdeecribesyouranswer.

ummmrmumwmammwmmm.mmmmnm

WW

UriversityolHawaiReeeadI
UriversltyotHawdlnstrmtion

 

97

 

USEFULNESS TIMELINESS
A A

r \ F
Never Seldom Un- Usudy Always Never Seldom Un- Usudy
Uselul Uselu sure Use“ Use“ Tlrmly Tinely sue finely

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4

t 3 4 5 1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4 1 2 4

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4

1 3 4 1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4 5 t 2 3 4

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4

ii}

TIMELINESS
<4)\¥

USEFULNESS
A

fl

 

\ r

 

r

UsuallyAlways

NeverSeldomUn-

NeverSeldomUn-Usualylllways
TIM

Uselu

Timely sure Tmely Timely

Usefll Useftl

Uselu sure

 

 

 

wet-em
SmolHawaiPwlicSchools-
HawaiiFamBu'eau

Comrrnn’dyorAgriclm
PrlvdeOrwhtlm

Departmentolericulbn
DepatmentolConlneroe

FodenlAgendee
DepartmntolEducatlon
Customs

Uriversityoll-lm

5555

98

 

 

USEFULNESS TIMELINESS
A A
F \ F j
Never Seldom Un- Ueualy Always Never Seldom Un- Usually Always
Uselu Uselu sure Useful Useful Turnely Timely sure

E
E

2 3 4 5 1

WNW 1 2 3 4 5 1
Other: 1 2 3 4 5 1

9. PbaemkmadudumetUSEFULsammuwldmmmafimMMmeumwm

(1belv19mstuseMSbeingleaumeM).Pleaseexplahyowanswer.
Lard-GrantUnlversltleMLGU)
CommityOrganizatlone

Private

:2 . r
StateAgenclee.excl.LGU
FederalAgenciee

2

NM

3
3

3

Tmely Timely

 

 

10.Pbaserathoduflnm£UESTmhddvuhghbrmfioanstfimlybbaafimly

(1beinnnettimly.5behgleastfinely).?leaeeexpla‘nyoum.

 

 

11.mmhmmmmmhmmmmmem

prelormd(1behgmetprebmd.5beiubeeluehned).Pbueexpldnmm.

Lmd-GrantUriversitleeflGU)
ComnmltyOrgaizatlone

PrivateOrganizations
StateAgemies,exel.LGU
Federquencies

 

 

99

SECTION THREE: COMMUNICATION HETHODS

Wngmm4m1)Pm2)m.a)ommm4)
Persona.

12.mmmmmmdmmmmm
www.mmmmmwmmm.

«mmmmmmwmummmmm.mmm

 

 

 

W”“WW~ USEFULNESS TIMELINESS
A A
F \ F" \
Never Seldom Un- Usudly Always Never Seldom Un- Usualy Always
Uselu Uselu sure Use“ Use“ Timely T'mely sure Timely Timely
Prlrlthordeon
W’W 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
W’W 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
ExpertnentStatlonBulefins 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
ExtensuonPublbetlom 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
CTAHRPubficetiom 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Non-Extemlonpublicatlone
lmmprivateoompafleestate 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
alederdagenciee
WOW
ServiceCenter(ADSC) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Reports
Journalarticlee 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Newsletterslmm
commodity/comm 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Booksrelevantbyotearee 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
01mm 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Lethe/Memos 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1
Otter: 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Electrodehlonnllon
Televleed(TV)Pmne 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
PrbcheceeeTVPrograne
(M.CTAHRSI10V.etc) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Vldeotmedproorans 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Saeliteprograme 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
‘Wfilim'fim 1 2 3 4 s 1 2 3 4 s
RadIonoorarm 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
leerecordingflsucbafl
500 I ) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
WorWeb-Baeed
II I' 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
CTAl-RWeb-Based
II II 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

100

TIMELINESS

USEFULNESS

A

A
NeverSeIdomUn-Usudly

Un-

U508”
may sure Trmely Timely

 

/'

\
Always Never Seldom
Uselu Uselrl Tmely

 

UseltIUsettlsue

 

 

 

serve bulletins/publications)

CD ROM Information

PhoneCals

Fax

Statewideoutreacheventflex
HawaiiFarmFair,AgDey.eh:)
In-ServiceTraining
CountyExtensionAgents
ExpertmentStatioanepere
Maserardeners
PrivateConsultants
ProductCompeny
Representatives

CienteleorSldteholders

Inmediate Supervbor

Uriversityl-‘acdty

EmailrrtessageusuchasList-

Electronlc lnfonnatlon
meetingslconlerenoee

Other:

Prolesslond society
Face-blaoe meetings
Office Vrsits
Researchers

Social Workers
Business Camus
School Teachers
Famly and Friends

Other.

101

13.PbasemthadudewmflcaflonmflndmmdnnndUSEflkflommfiemmd
usefubleastmefulu beingmostusehl.4beiigleastusefu).Pleaseexplainyouanswer.

Print Information
Electronic Infomiation
Organizational Events
Persond Information

 

 

14.PbaemikhudaflnwmmmbafimmdndmamovbeshflMEUESThbmufion.Mnnst
bmerbastfimeM1beimmstfindy.4behgbaflfimly).Pbmeexplahmm.

Print lnfonnation
Electronic Information
Organizationd Events
Persona Information

 

 

15.?basemnkhmdammstPREFEREDmflndbrmrgemmbnrudedmm
(1bei19mostpreferred.4beingleastprefened).maeeexplaiiywanswer

Print lnfonnation
Electronic Information
Orgmizationd Events
Personal lnfonnation

 

 

16.thpuceMdUHCESexbreionspwiaHs(hmm)mmmdonbMymrmeds2
Circleoneanswer.

Less 111m
25%

Pleaseexpiainyowaiswer.

26-50 96 51-75% 76-99% 100%

 

 

102

17.PleasespecifylheEXTENwahich UH—CESextensionspeclfitstinyourarea) aremeetingyour

Lesslhm

25% zeso 14 51.75% 759911. d $2”
of the time
Please explain your ansver.

 

 

 

 

18. How can CTAHR improve the flow of research-based information within the UH-CES system? Please
Ist specific ways.

 

 

 

 

19.Pbasefeelfreetoprovideuswithadditionalconvnents.

 

 

 

 

Myoulortakingthefimebparticipateinmisinportmtmy. Pleaseretumyourcompletedsmreyinthe
W.poshpepaflmwbmpmvfled.flmrmbbdamysmstbemeiwdbym30.2m1.

JaIS.Sugano
Universityofl-lawiatManoe
CooperativeExtensionService
aosomwwsnnmam
WHI96822

103

BIBLIOGRAPHY

104

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agnew, 0M. (1991). Extension program delivery trends. Journal of Extension, 23
(2).

Alston, D.G., 8. Reding, ME. (1998). Factors influencing adoption and
educational outreach of integrated pest management. Journal of Extension, 3_6

(3).

Albright, BB. (2000). Cooperative extension and the information technology era:
An assessment of current competencies and future training needs of Cooperative
Extension Agents. 0135. Texas A&M University.

Ary, 0., Jacobs, L.C., & Razavieh, A. (1996). Introduction to rese_a_rch in
education (5"1 ed.). Texas: Harcourt Brace College.

Bardsley, J.B. (1982). Farmers” assessment of information and its sources.
Melbourne: University of Melbourne, School of Agriculture and Forestry
Research Report. p. 12

Bennett, C. (1990). Cooperative extension roles and relationships for a new era.
Washington, DC: Untied States Department of Agriculture.

Borg, W., & Gall, MD. (1983). Education research: an introduction. New York:
Longman.

Borg, W., Gall, M.D., & Gall, JP. (1996). Education research: an introduction.
New York: Longman.

Brannan, R., & Gray MM. (1998). Providing support to extension agents: The
rapid Response Center in Kansas. Journal of Extension, fl (3).

105

Braund, D.G. (1995). Changing paradigms in animal agriculture: The role of
Academia and industry in technology transfer. Journal of Animal Science,
7_3:3173-3177.

Burbules, N.C., & Callister, TA (2000). Universities in transition: the promise
and the challenge of new technologies. Teachers College Record, 102 (2): 271-
93.

Calderwood, L.H. (1997). Survey dollar value and importance of farm visits to
Eastern Vermont dairy farmers. Journal of Extension, g (2).

Cookson, P. (1998). Program planning for the training and continuing education
of adults: North American perspectives. Florida: Krieger Publishing Company

 

Cross, K. P. (1981). Adults as Ieamers: Increasing participation and facilitating
learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Deshler, D. (1996). Improving agricultural extension: A reference manual. Rome:
United Nations Food and Agricultural Organizations

Dillman, D. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New
York: John Wiley 8. Sons.

Dillman, DA. (1986). Cooperative Extension at the beginning of the 21st century.
The Rural Sociologist, § (2) 102-119.

Dillman, D.A., & Salant, P. (1994). How to conduct your own survey. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.

Extension Committee on Organization and Policy. (1987). Extension in transition:
Bridging the gap between vision and reality. Report of the ECOP Futures task
force.

Flores, MO. (1995). Using graduates and their employers to help assess
agricultural programs: the Centro Universitario de Orience (CUNORI) case. Diss.
Michigan State University.

106

Ford, 8 ..A, & Babb, E. M., (1989) Farmers sources and uses of information.
Agribusiness, _5 (5): 465-476.

Fredericks, BE. (1994). The technological future is now...The key is
“transformation”...The result is access. Journal of Agricultural and Food
Information; (1).

Gallaher, A., & Santopolo, F .A. (1967). Perspective on agents’ roles. Journal of
Extension, _5_ (4).

Geasler, M. (1989). Futures task forces recommendations today. Journal of
Extension, 21(3).

Habeeb, M., Birkenhoz, R.J., & Weston, CR. (1987). Clientele group and
extension council officer perceptions of the Cooperative Agricultural Extension
Service. Journal of the American Association of Teacher Educators in
Agriculture, ;§_ (4): 15-20.

Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service. 1998. Statistics of Hawaii Agriculture. State
of Hawaii Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Development Division. [On-line]

Available: ht_tp:llwww.nass.usdagovlhilstatslt of c.htm, March 2000.

Hermann, JR. (1991). Satellite videoconferences for training. Journal of
Extension, ;9_ (4).

Hiel, E.R., & Herrington, D. (1997). Plausible uses and limitations of
videoconferencing as a tool for achieving technology transfer. Journal of
Extension, _3_5_ (4).

Holt, J. (1989). Managing change in Extension. American Agricultural Economics
Association,fl:869-82.

ldding, R.K, & Apps, J.W. (1992). Learning preferences and farm computer use.
Journal of Extension, fl (3).

107

Johnsrud, M.D., & Rauschkolb, RS. (1989). Extension in transition: Review and
renewal. Journal of Extension, _2_7_ (1).

Joint USDA-NASULGC Committee on the future of cooperative extension.
(1983). Extension in the 80’s. Madison University of Wisconsin-Extension.

Kelsey, L.D., Heame, CC. (1963). Coogrative Extension Work; (3"d Edition).
New York: Comstock Publishing Associates.

Meadowbrook, A., & Fletcher, R.L. (1988). It’s worth the effort: Understanding
our clients. Journal of Extension 26:18-19

 

Miller, LE. & Smith, KL. (1983). Handling non-response error issues. Journal of
Extension 21: 45-50.

 

Momin-Khowaja, M. (2000). Michigan extension agents' use or information
sources and channels. Thesis. Michigan State University.

Murphy, A., Coleman, G., Hammerschmidt, P., Majewski, K., Slonim, A. (1999).
Taking the time to ask: An assessment of home economic agents' resource and
training needs. Journal of Extension, ;fl (6).

Petrzelka, P., Padgitt, S. & Wintersteen W. (1999). Extension’s portfolio for the
21“ century: A place for one on one consultations. Journal of Extension, fl (6).

Preskill, H. (1991) Organizations in transition: Opportunities and challenges for
evaluation. New Directions for Prpgram Evaluation, 49. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Radhakrishna, R.B., 8: Thomson, J.S. (1996). Extension agents’ use of
information sources. Journal of Extension, g (1).

Richardson, J.G., Stephenson, J., Riddick, G., Caldwell, A., & McAlister, M.
(1996). A comparison of extension program delivery strategies for small and part
time farmers in North Carolina. HortTech, § (2): 138-140.

108

 

Sanders, H.C. (1966). The coomrative extension s_ervice_. New Jersey: Prentice-
Hall, Inc.

Sattar, A., & Lancaster, F. W. (1980). The role of the information specialist in the
dissemination of agricultural information. Urbana, University of Illinois, Office of
lntemational Agriculture.

Seevers, 3., Graham, 0., Gamon, J., & Conklin, N. (1997). Education through
cooperative extension. New York: Delmar Publishing.

Shin, W., & Evans, J.F. (1991). Where field staff get lnfonnation. Journal of
Extension, A (3).

Siegrist, H., Labarge, G. & Prochaska, S. (1998). Using electronic media to
convey timely information. Journal of Extension, 9p (5).

Sonntag, E. (1998). The competitive edge of satellite-based education. Satellite
Communications, Q (9): 38-40.

 

Staats, L.J. (1995). Using satellite technology in traditional programs. Journal of
Extension, 33 (4).

Summers, J.C. (1977). Dimensions of prpgram effectiveness and accountabilig.
Morgantown: West Virginia University, Office of Research and Development.

Suvedi, MP. (1991). Educational orientation and iob satisfaction: a study of
extension agents and their sugrvisors. Diss. Michigan State University.

Suvedi, MP. (1996). Farrners’ persgctives of Michigan State Univers'py
Extension: Summargy report. Michigan State University Extension Program

Support Systems. East Lansing: Michigan State University Extension.

Suvedi, M., Lapinski, M.K., & Campo, S. (2000). Farmers’ perspectives of
Michigan State University Extension: Trends and Lessons from 1996-1999.
Journal of Extension, 38 (1).

109

Suvedi, M., Campo, S., & Lapinski, MK. (1999). Trends in Michigan fanner’s
information seeking behaviors and perspectives on the delivery of information.

Journal of Applied Communications, _8_3 (3), 33-50.

Tavemier, E.M., Adelaja.A.O., Hartley, M.P., & Schilling, B. (1996). Information
technologies and the delivery of extension programs. Journal of Agricultural &
Food lnfonnation; (4), 75-85.

Taylor, M.C., & Curtis, PA (1999). Development and design of a “gateway" to
food safety information on the Internet for extension educators. Journal of
Extension, fie).

Thach, E.C., & Murphy, K.L.(1995). Training via distance. Training and
Development, 519: 44-46

Thompson, O.E., & Gwynn, D. (1989). Improving extension: views from
agricultural deans. Journal of Extension, 21 (1).

Trede, L.D., & Whitaker, S. (1998). Perceptions of Iowa beginning farmers
toward the delivery of education. Journal of Applied Communications, _8; (4), 22-
33.

United States, Department of Census, Bureau of Census. 1997 Census of
Agriculture [On-line] Available:

http:llwww.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/highlights/hi/hist.txt, March 2000.

University of Hawaii, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources
1999-2004 Strategic Plan. [On-line] Available:
http://www2.ctahr.hawaiiedu/adm/admin.asp, March 2000.

Wheeler, C., Batchelder, A., & Hampshire, M. (1997). The instructional practices
of televised distance education at Northern Arizona University. Education, 117
(2): 172-179.

Van den Ban, AW. (1996). Agricultural extension. (2"d Edition). London:
Cambridge, Mass.

110

Vergot III, P. (1991). Southwest Michigan fruit and vegetable farmers’ use of

sources and channels to gain information in rpgard to new agricultural practices.
Diss. Michigan State University

Warner, M.E., Hinrichs, C., Scheyer, J., & Joyce, L. (1998). From knowledge
extended to knowledge created: Challenges for a new extension paradigm,
Journal of Extension, _§§ (4).

Weigel, DJ. (1994) Communication needs in extension. Journal of Extension, Q

(4)-

Wamer, P., & Christenson, J. (1984). The cooperative extension grviceik
national assessment. Boulder, Colo. Westview Press.

Wamock, P. (1992). Surveying client satisfaction. Journal of Extension, 11 (9): 9-
1 1.

Young, JR. (1998). Digital cameras are latest tool for university extension
agents. The Chronicle for Higher Education, _4§ (13): A21-A22.

 

Zhang, P. (1998). A case study on technology use in distance Ieaming. Journal
of Rese_a_rch on Computing in Education, _3Q (4): 398-419.

111