1‘: .r. THFC‘ $3509 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled THE IMAGE OF MICHIGANSTATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION AS PERCEIVED BY CAMPUS BASED EXTENSION FACULTY AND STAFF presented by Brima Fatorma Ngombi has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Agricultural and Extension Education l Major professor Date—2”! ’0‘ MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity lnsn'mtion 0- 12771 LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. To AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE was. 2, =1 w 6/01 c:/ClFiC/DataDue.p65-p. 15 A _._ , THE IMAGE OF MICHIGAN STATE. UNIVERSITY EXTENSION AS PERCEIVED BY CAMPUS BASED EXTENSION FACULTY AND STAFF Brima Fatorma Ngombi A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University ' in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements . forthe Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Agricultural and Extensitm‘Education 2001 fi#_._.__a #_ ABSTRACT THE IMAGE OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION AS PERCEIVED BY CAMPUS BASED FACULTY AND STAFF OF MICHIGAN STATE EXTENSION. ' By« Brima Fatonna Ngombi , Image is impertant. Responsive organizations are and will always be interested in knowing and understanding how their public views them and their services. .In this study, the image of the organizational structure, mission, personnel,- services, issues programing, and delivery methods of Michigan State University, as perceived by campus based faculty and staff of Michigan State University Extension are addressed . The study attempted to investigate whether demographic variables (gender, college, age, title, years of service, educational level, and income) have influenced. on the way MSUE campus based faculty and staff view the organization. A survey method using a self administered questionnaire was used. Questionnaires with cover letters were mailed to a randomly drawn sample of 165 participants from a population of 290. A total of 139 (84.24%) responses were received. The data were analyzed using basic descriptive statistics such as mean, median, and mode. Null hypotheses were tested using the t-test and the analysis of variance (AVONA). The research question was answered through the use of multiple linear regression analysis. Findings revealed that there were statistically significant differences in the perceptions of MSU campus based faculty and staff within the categories; organizational structure, mission, personnel, services, issues programming, and delivery methods. There were no significant differences found regarding the overall image of Michigan State University Extension based on demographic variables. MSUE campus based faculty and staff were selected for the study because of the important role they play in the execution of MSUE programs. In general, even though there were no Significant differences observed regarding the overall image of Michigan State University Extension, the mean scores showed that respondents had positive perceptions of the organizational structure and personnel of Michigan State University Extension. On the other hand, respondents had. negative perceptions of the mission, services, issues programming and delivery methods. Findings revealed that there was not one particular predictor of image of Michigan State University Extension. by campus based faculty and staff that stand as being most important. DEDICATION I dedicate this work to my father, Nya Kee Joe Bakar Ngombi and mother, Nya Jea Yea Emma Kamara Ngombi, who since my childhood constantly made it clear that their best inheritance/estate they can leave behind for their children is education backed with excellent manners. . May their souls rest in perfect peace. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENT My academic pursuit has been a long one. A lot of people made tremendous contributions. I would, therefore, like to seize this opportunity to express my most sincere appreciation and gratitude to allé- who helped make my dreams come true. Whether your name appears in these acknowledgments or not, I want you to know that you are all in my heart. I know who you are and how much you are capable of doing, and you know who you are. I am particularly indebted to Dr. John Frank Bobbitt, my academic advisor and chairman of the dissertation committee. He went above and beyond the call of duty to ensure my successful completion of this degree. ' At any time or place he made himself available. He has advised, assisted, guided, and taught me throughout the years that I have been his student at Michigan State University. I would also like to note my highest appreciation for Dr. Fred Whims who stepped into the shoes of Dr. Bobbitt. retire from ’ Michigan State University. It was a responsibility he consented to shoulder ina very short but critical point in time in my program. He manifested his strengths indirecting the research. My sincere appreciation goes to the rest of . my committee members: Dr. Frank Brewer, and Dr. George Axinn. Your constructive suggestions, criticisms and advice have provided insight and have elevated the quality of this study. A special thanks is extended to Dr. Kurk Heinze, Acting Chairperson of the Department of Agricultural and‘Extension Education, for providing stationery during the process of my data collection. 'I thank all the staff ‘of the Department of Agricultural and Extension Education who have consistently offered services in a professional and friendly manner. I should like to recognize the statistical expertise rendered by Dr. Ira Washington of the Office of the Vice President and Provost of Student of Affairs and Services for running statistical tests and data analyses. The Author also wishes to express his sincere appreciation and heartfelt thanks to Dr. Kandeh K Yumkella, Professor of Agricultural Economics, and Dr. Lee June, Vice President and Provost of Student Affairs and Services for providing me with graduate assistantships. I My special appreciation is extended to Dr. Brain Coyle, a Research fellow who advised and encouraged me to come to the United States of America to pursue my PhD program at Michigan State University. My sincere appreciation and heartfelt thanks is also extended to our families and friends here in the United States and where else in the world and at home (Sierra Leone). for their support and understanding during this long period of time. Special thanks goes to my host family Dr. Button Fink and wife, Nancy Fink, for all their support. Last but not least, I am indebted to my wife, Jenneh Margret Ngombi, for her love, patient endurance, support, prayers, and understanding during these difficult years of her in the US, while pursuing my higher education, to our daughters Nya Nye Emma _ Ngombi, Maheteh Sao Ngombi, Nyaheteh Jina Ngombi, and Nyallah Gbessay Ngombi, for their endurance and understanding while we have been thousand of miles away from Sien'a Leone. You have made a tremendous sacrifice, and may the Lord be with you and grant you great rewards. Amen. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... ix LIST OF FIGURES ........ xiii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION.......................... ................................................................................ 1 Theoretical Foundations of the Study ........................................................ 6 Statement of the Problem. ........................................................................ 9 Purpose and Objective Ofthe Study..................-. ..................................... 11 Research Hypothesis ............................................................................... '1 1 Research Questions ............................................. A .................................... 13 Importance of the Study .......................................................................... l3 Assumption and Lumtatrons .............................. 14 - Definition of Terms Used .......................... ". ............................................ 14 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................. 18 Section 1: Application of the System Theory to the MSU Extension Model ......... 18 Section 11: Innovation and Change ............................ '. ........................................ '...22 Section 111: Organizational Transformation and Renewal ............................ 31 Section IV - Image: Definition, Theory, and Concept .................................. 35 Past Studies on Extension Image ............................................. 43 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 52 Research Design .......................... . ........................................................... 52 POpulation. ............................................................................................. 52 Sample & Sampling Technique ............................................................... .52 Instrument Development ......................................................................... 5 3 Validity and Reliability ............................................................................ 54 Data Collection. ...................................................................................... 56 vii Data Analysis ...................... , .................................................................... 5 7 CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS .................................................................................................................... 61 (a) Demographic Characteristics of Respondents ..................................... 61 (b) Findings Relevant to the Hypothesis.................; ................................ 70 Findings Relevant to the HypOthesis 1 ............................................ 71 Findings Relevant to the Hypothesis 2 ........................................... 79. Findings Relevant to the Hypothesis 3 .............................. 83 Findings Relevant to the Hypothesis 4 .............................. 92 Findings Relevant to the Hypothesis 5 ............................ 103 Findings Relevant to the Hypothesis 6 ............................ 113 Findings Relevant to the Hypothesis 7 ............................ 127 Findings Relevant to Research Questions ....................... 136 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY Summary...... ......................................................................................... 146 Method and Design .............................................................................. 146 Findings ............................................................................................... 148 Discussion and Conclusions .................................................................. 157 Suggestions for Future Study ............................................................... 159 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. 160 A Approval Letter from UCRIHS ............................................................. 161 B Notification Letter to Respondents ........................................................ 162 C Cover Letter ......................................................................................... 163 D - Questionnaire ..................................................... ' ................................... 164 E First Follow-Up Letter .......................................................................... 172 F Second Follow-Up Letter ...................................................................... 173 G Tables 10 through 51 of Statistical Results ............................................ 174 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................... 143 viii 2.1 3.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 . 4.8 ’ 4.9 LIST OF TABLES Example of an Open System Model .................................................................... 20 Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability ............................................................................... 55 The gender distribution of a random sample of Michigan state University Extension (MSUE) campus faculty and staff, either partially or fully funded ................................................................................................................ 61 The race distribution of a random sample of campus based faculty and staff of Michigan state University Extension, either partially or fully funded ................................................................................................................ 62 The age distribution of a random campus based and staff of Michigan State University Extension, either partially or fully fimded ................................................................................................................ 63 The college of affiliation distribution of a random sample of campus based faculty and staff of Michigan state University Extension, either partially or fully , frmded ................................................................................................................ 64 The department/unit of affiliation distribution of a random sample of campus based faculty and staff of Michigan State University Extension, either partially or fully funded ................................................................................................................ 65 The title distribution of a random sample of campus based faculty and staff of Michigan State University Extension, either partially or fully funded ................................................................................................................ 66 The years of service distribution of a random sample of campus based faculty and staff of Michigan State University Extension, either partially or fully funded ................................................................................................................ 67 The educational level distribution of a random sample. of campus based faculty and staff of Michigan State University Extension, either partially or fully *- fimded ................................................................................................................ 68 The income per year distribution ofa random sample of campus based faculty and staff of Michigan State University Extension, either partially or fully funded ................................................................................................................ 69 ix 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19' 4.20 t-test results for the statement(s) with differences comparing MSUE campus based faulty/staff image perception of organizational structure based on gender ................................................................................................................ 73 t-test results for the statement(s) with differences comparing MSUE campus based faulty/staff image perception of personnel based on gender ................................. 75 t—test results for the statement(s) with differences comparing MSUE campus based faulty/staff 1mage perception of effectiveness of delivery methods based on gender ................................................................................................................ 78 Analysis of Variance results for the statement(s) with differences comparing MSUE campus based faulty/staff image perception of personnel based on age ................................................................................................ 85 Analysis of Variance results for the statement(s) with differences comparing MSUE campus based faulty/staff irmge perception of services based on age .......................................................................... 87 Analysis of Variance results for the statement(s) with differences comparing MSUE campus based faulty/staff image perception of rssues programming based on age ................................................................................................................ 89 Analysis of Variance results for the statement(s) with differences comparing MSUE campus based faulty/staff image perception of effectiveness of delivery methods based on age ......................................................................................... 91 Analysis of Variance results for the statement(s) with differences comparing MSUE campus based faulty/staff unage perception of organizational structure based on title............: ...... ..... .............................................................................. 94 Analysis of Variance results for the statement(s) with differences comparing MSUE campus based faulty/staff image perception of mission based on title .................................................................................................................... 96 Analysis of Variance results for the statement(s) with differences comparing MSUE campus based faulty/staff unage perception of personnel based on title ....................................................................... . ............................................ 97 Analysis of Variance results for the statement(s) with differences comparing MSUE campus based faulty/staff image perception of services based on title ..................................................................................................................... 99 4.21 4.22 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.26 ‘ 4.27 4.28 4.29 4.30 Analysis of Variance results for the statement(s) with differences comparing MSUE campus based faulty/staff image perception of issues programming based on title .............................................................................................................. 100 . Analysis of Variance results for the statement(s) with differences comparing MSUE campus based faulty/ staff image perception of effectiveness of delivery methods based on title ...................................................................................... 102 Analysis of Variance results for the statement(s) with differences comparing MSUE campus based faulty/staff image perception of organizational structure based on years of service with MSUE .............................................................................................................. 105 Analysis of Variance results for the statement(s) with differences comparing MSUE campus based faulty/staff image perception of personnel based on years of Analysis of Variance results for the statement(s) with differences comparing ’ MSUE campus based faulty/staff image perception of services based on years of service with MSUE .......................................................................................... 110 Analysis of Variance results for the statement(s) with differences comparing MSUE campus based faulty/staff image perception of issues programming based on years of service with MSUE ......................................................................... 1 1 1 Analysis of Variance results for the statement(s) with differences comparing MSUE campus based faulty/staff image perception of organizational structure based on educational level ................................................................................. 1 15 Analysis of Variance results for the statement(s) with differences comparing MSUE campus based faulty/staff image perception of mission based on educational - level .................................................................................................................. 1 18 Analysis of Variance results for the statement(s) with differences comparing MSUE campus based faulty/staff image perception of services based on educational level. .............................................................................................. 129 Analysis of Variance results for the statement(s) with differences comparing MSUE campus based faulty/staff image perception of issues programming based on educational level. ......................................................................................... 123 4.31 4.32 4.33 4.34 4.35 4.36 4.37 4.38 4.39 Analysis of Variance results for the statement(s) with differences comparing MSUE campus based faulty/staff image perception of effectiveness of delivery methods based on educational leveL ................................................................................................................ 126 Analysis of Variance results for the statement(s) with differences comparing MSUE campus based faulty/staff inmge perception of organizational structure based on income per year .................................................................................................................. 129 Analysis of Variance results for the statement(s) with differences comparing MSUE campus based faulty/staff image perception of personnel based on income per year ............................................................................................................ 131 Analysis of Variance results for the statement(s) with differences comparing MSUE campus based faulty/staff image perception of issues programming based on income per year .................................................................................................................. 133 Analysis of Variance results for the statement(s) with differences comparing MSUE campus based faulty/staff image perception of effectiveness of delivery methods based on income per year ................................................................... 135 Analysis of statements that had significant differences at 0.05% level (X= significant statements for demographic variables) .............................................. 13 7 Analysis of statements that had significant differences at 0.05% level for demographic variable, Title ............................................................................... 141 Analysis of statements that had significant differences at 0.05% level for demographic variable, Years of Service with MSUE ......................................... 143 Analysis of statements that had significant differences at 0.05% level for demographic variable, Educational Level .......................................................... 144 xii LIST OF FIGURES 2.1 Michigan State University Extension as a set of dependent subsystems ................ 19 2.2 ' Michigan State University Extension ................................................................... 21 4.1 Scale of Image Measurement .............................................................................. 70 xiii CHAPTER] '— INTRODUCTION A 8 ' All living organisms are Subject to a phenomenon called life cycles (Adizes, 1988, p.1). They are born, they grow, age and die. Organizations also undergo similar life cycles. With leadership and visionary action, an organization can be changed, transformed, renewed, or repositioned to continue the growth, maturity, and regeneration cycle (Strategic Planning Council Report, 1991, p. V, Goens & Clover, 1991, p.79, Adizes, 1988, p.4, Kimberly et al. 1980, pp.6-7, & Lippitt, 1969, p.5). The concept of life cycles of living organisms, which basically consists of four sequential stages, birth, growth, age and death, can be equated to Daft's entrepreneurial, collectivity, fomralization and elaboration stages of organizational life cycles (Goens&Clover, 1991, p 79) . . . , . The entrepreneurial stage (equivalent to birth or the infant stage) rs an exciting time for the staff of an organization. At that time, the organization is relatively non- bureaucratic and informal. Also, there are very few established policies and procedures. Employees spend considerable amounts of their time and efforts in productive activities relative to clients' needs. The organization moves forWard without actually knowing its strengths and weaknesses. The staff are generally enthusiastic and vigorous which because of their the belief in the organization and its potential success. The Cooperative Extension Service may have been, at this stage when it 'was first established in 1914 by the Smith-Lever Act. if I i h The collectivity stage (equivalent to adolescence, or the growth stage) is a critical 1 transition point for any organization, partially due to the lack of sufficiently trained people. As the organization moves from infancy to adolescence, rapid grth occurs and the need for delegation of leadership and goal displacement becomes eminent. .At this stage, departments and other important units are established, along with some standard policies and procedures. Jobs are defined and fully described. New formal systems with a hierarchy of authority appear. Clear goals and directives are formulated through strong leadership. Also at this point, all employees identify with the mission statement of the - organization and commit their time and talents to its cause. Extension was probably at this stage when a committee was set up to review its programs, policies, and goals in 1946. The formalization stage (equivalent to aging. or the stable stage) is one in which all rules and procedures are formally established. The structure and climate of the organization becomes more formal, including communication procedures. A significant increase, or development, of mid-level managers occurs as top level management becomes increasingly involved with development of strategy and planning instead of the day to day running of the organization. At this juncture, the organization will start to lose its strengths and flexibility. The spirit of creativity, innovation and encouragement to change that made the organization successful, will start to disappear. The final stage, elaboration, leads to the recognition that the organization needs revitalization and renewal. Rule-driven behavior is questioned and a call for teamwork emerges. Managers review the bureaucracy and try to avoid adding to it, but begin to solve problems and get people to work together again (Goens & Clover, 1991, p.79-80; Daft, 1992, p.163-168). The Cooperative Extension Service appears to be approaching the elaboration stage, if not already there, a level which requires a fundamental organizational change. Change is a constant factor, and therefore, inevitable in human and organizational existence. Change occurs within an organization, or it should occur, if it is to survive. The organization’s human resources need to engage in problem solving tasks to promote positive change (Lippitt, 1966, p.6). Evidence exists which suggests that every organizational system has, within it, the potential for either bringing about its own death, maintaining the status quo, or growing into maturity (Lippitt, l966,‘p. 12). For any organization (private or public, profit or non-profit) to survive, flourish and grow into maturity, the people within that organization must face each other openly while targeting and dealing with its problem(s). The Cooperative Extension Service has been criticized by the general public (Extension in the 80's: 1983). As a result of these criticism, the image of the organization has most likely been affected negatively. At all levels (national, state, and local), the organization started to experience political, budgetary, and institutional pressure. In the mid 1980's, various committees and groups called for changes to occur within the Cooperative Extension Service. These changes, according to Dr. Myron Johnsrud (Former Extension Service Administrator), "are a positive sign of a dynamic organization experiencing transition and rebirth". The recent generation of changes,- terrned transformational changes, are Characterized by three factors:- (1) they are initiated by leaders of the organization, (2) are closely linked to strategic business issues, rather than questions of organizational - process and style only, and (3) can be traced back rather directly ,to certain external events such as new sources of competition, new technology, changes in fundamental market structure, etc. (Kilman & Covin, 1988, p.66). As pressure from both internal and external groups continued to increase, theileaders of the Cooperative Extension Service initiated a change proCess. The Secretary of Agriculture for the United States Department of Agriculture, and the President of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (N ASULGC) formed a joint committee to scrutinize Extension. The Cooperative Extension's highest policy making body, E. C. O. P. (Extension. Committee on Organization and Policy), also formed two national committees or task forces, to evaluate Extension. The EC. 0. P. channeled the problems cited by administrators of the Federal Extension Service, or by national farm organizations and commodity groups, to. the regional groups and states for consideration, study and action (Axinn, 1972, p.92). These two national committees were: (1) the Future Task Force, and (2) the National Program Initiatives Task Force. The Future Task Force was charged with the responsibility of examining the need for organizational and structural change within the Extension system. The National Program Initiatives Task Force was asked to review the direction of Extension programs. The parallel efforts clearly reflected a system pro-actively concerned with effectively working toward a positive future (Future Task Force Report, 1987). In 1983, the Joint Study Committee, set up by the Secretary of Agriculture and the President of the National Association of State University and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULOC), issued a report entitled, "Extension in the 80's: A Perspective for the Future," The report reiterated the value and need for the land-grant system, including the Cooperative Extension Service ( p. 4). However, Extension was criticized for its inadequate . job of reporting to or relating with the general public, or the state, county and national decision makers. In 1987, the Future Task Force issued its report entitled, "Extension in Transition: Bridging the Gap Between“ Vision and Reality.” The 32 . recommendations report called for a system; wide change beginning with the mission of the organization to its program planning and deIiVery. The prefound and fundamental change called for were similar to what author Kuhn refers to as 'a paradigm shift. According to Lawler, in Kihnann & Covin (1988), a paradigmis basically a set of . assumptions about how the world works. In the context of an organization, these assumptions. These assrlmptions produce a congruent and often tightly interconnected system of policies and practices. And usually, when new paradigms arise, they have to compete with the older, more established ones for acceptance. Typically, for a new paradigm to succeed, there must be a fundamental restructuring of people's thought processes and the way they operate (Kihnaun & Covin, 1988, p.46-47). Getting an organization to change, or shift its paradigm, is a very difficult, challenging and time consuming task. Theoretical Foundation of the Study . Extension embodies interdisciplinary fields whose fundamental concepts, theories, and principles are drawn from the social sciences, including sociology, anthropology, human psychology, economics, education, community development, political science, organizational development, management, etc. (Blackbum, 1989, p. vii-viii). It also has linkages and relationships with other disciplines. The theoretical foundations of this study are derived primarily from the field of General System Theory. The idea of extension was first introduced by a theoretical biologist named Ludwing von Bertalanffy in 1937 at the University of Chicago (Bertalanffy, 1968, p.32, 38, & 90). Bertalanffy's statement of the late 1920's forms the-foundation of the discipline, as well as the concept. The underlying notion of the concept of extension and its disciplines is the Aristotelian principle of the whole being made of its parts. In order to understand an organized whole, we must know both the parts and the relationships between them (Bertalanfy, 1975, p. 152- 153). General System Theory is a general science of wholeness which states that: 1. There is a general, tendency towards integration in the various sciences, natural and social. 2. Such integration seems to be centered, in a general theory of systems. 3. Such a theory may be an important means for aiming at exact theory in the non-physical fields of science. 4. Developing unifying principles running "vertically" through the universe of the . ' individual sciences,‘this theory brings us nearer tothe goal of unity of science. 5. This can lead to a much needed integration in scientific education (Bertalanffy, 1968, , p.38). The concept of General Systems has found its use and application in various fields, including - engineering, education, economics and management. In both general and organizational management, the concept, called “System”, has been used to look broadly at organizations. The need for and the importance of the concept in organizational management becomes apparent as the complexities of our society, organizations, and technology increase. The . management of today’ s organizations requires the coordination and management of ~ technical, physical, and financial resources to produce and deliver products and services suitable to the needs of their customers. Lippitt (1982) describes the concept of General Systems as a necessary idea for understanding and renewing, complex organizations. It is an interdisciplinary concept identifying developments in other areas, and showing how these developments can be used in other fields. For example, Extension uses concepts from sociology, management, education and economics. Management utilizes concepts from mathematics, statistics and engineering. The concept does not prescribe concrete techniques for resolving problems, but rather, it provides conceptual suggestions or ideas through the multi- disciplinary approach, which might be useful for solving today's organizational. problems. General System Theory’s possible contribution to the solution of multi- variable, socio—econorrric ‘ problems facing many organizations today is attracting a great deal of attention. The overall concept and philosophy of the General Systerrrs is built on the broader traditional view of the management process, management science, and behavioral science, so as to provide an integrated approach to managing the basic elements of people, techniques, information, structure, and purpose (Lippitt, 1982, p.32-48). The theoretical foundation for this study of Michigan State University Cooperative EXtension Service (hereafter, MSUE’s) organizational image is based on -“Systems” approach. This approach looks at the organization as a whole with its parts, or sub-sectors. This implies that in the execution of MSUE activities, different colleges, departments and sub-sectors are involved. Statement of the Problem Today, the entire Cooperative Extension Service at the national, state, and local levels is at a crossroads, and so is the image of the organization. Its reasons for continuing to exist at all levels (federal, state, and local) have been seriously challenged by its clients and customers, including farm organizations, the Congress, the White House, the Office of Management and Budget, and Land Grant Colleges. Nationwide, the cohorts of Extension are questioning the validity of the organization's mission and objectives. The organization also sees the nwd for redefining itself. As the organization redefines its proper function and purpose in a rapidly changing society, the issues of defining appropriate target audiences, delivery of quality programs in the most efficient manner, projecting a positive organizational image, and maintaining an adequate support base, are being discussed openly (Warner & Christenson, 19984, p.1). . t .- Over time, the Michigan State University Cooperative Extension Services (MSUE), has gone under many changes. The most recent of these changes was influenced by an endeavor known as issues programming, which involved issues identification and priorization. It became very important for the management of the MSUE to know how people perceived these proposed changes. Their views concerning the image of MSUE offered vital information and thus gave direction to the Extension Director for mapping out its future. RCSponsive organizations, institutions, or agencies have a strong interest in their reputation, or "image", as it is now popularly called. They are always making concerted efforts through various means to know how the public (both internal and external) views the organization, its products and its services. If their image is negative, the effects could be devastating, and the value of the organization diminished. The Cooperative Extension Service has an image which evolved over time through contact and familiarity by the public with the organization and its programs (Warner & Christenson, 1984, p.43). As a publicly funded organization, the future of Extension is very much dependent upon how the public (both internal and external) perceives the organization. Warner & Christenson (1984), also stress that "the Extension's vitality in the future will rest with its ability to develop, maintain, and enhance a positive and viable public image." As Extension organizations throughout the country are reorganizing and restructuring themselves to adjust to the challenges of the letcentury, it is also necessary for MSUE to study its image as it continues with various processes of change through its programming. There are indications from Extension staff surveys conducted in , many states where organizational changes were implemented, which show that changes actually, occurred especially in the roles and responsibilities of staff members. But do these organizational changes and restructuring have any impact on. the image of the organization, its mission, programs, and services? This is the main question of this study. Michigan State University (MSU) has three major objectives: .1. to generate knowledge, 2. to convey knowledge to students through conferring degrees, and 3. to put knowledge to work with the public. MSU fulfills the first and second objectives through faculty and staff who are engaged 10 in research and teaching. In the educational institution approach, the assumption is that faculties in Colleges of Agriculture have technical knowledge which is relevant and useful for farmers. (Axinn, 1988, p.7). The third objective of MSU is achieved through MSU Extension. However, with changes like issues programming, and area of expertise in MSU Extension, it is important to know how people perceive MSU Extension’s image. Purpose and Objective of the Study The purpose of this study is to assess the image perception of Michigan State University Extension as perceived by campus based faculty and staff with MSUE appointments. The categories to be assessed include: 1) organizational structure, 2) rrrission, 3) personnel, 4) service, 5) delivery methods, and,.6) issues programming. The specific objectives of the study are to: 1. Determine the perception of campus: based faculty and staff with Extension appointments regarding the six categories relating to Michigan State University Extension. 2. Identify selected demographic variables that may influence perception and may be predictor(s). of, perception, based on these six categories relating to Michigan State" University Extension. Research Hypotheses and Research Question This research will be guided by the following seven hypotheses and one research question. The alpha level is set at .05 percent. H1: There are significant differences in the perceptions of MSUE campus based 11 faculty and staff regarding six categories: 1) organizational structure, 2) mission, 3) personnel, 4) services, 5) issues programnring, and ‘6) delivery methods, within Michigan - State University Extension when influenced by demographic variable, Gender. ‘ 11;, There are significant differences in the perceptions of MSUE campus based faculty and staff regarding six categories: 1) organizational structure, 2)mission, 3) personnel, 4) services, 5) issues programming, and 6) delivery methods, within Michigan State University Extension when influenced by demographic variable, Age. H3:There are significant differences in the perceptions of MSUE campus based faculty and staff regarding six categories: 1) organizational structure, 2) mission, 3) personnel, 4) services, 5) issues programming, and 6) delivery methods, within Michigan State University Extension when influenced by demographic variable, College of affiliation. H4: There are significant differences in the perceptions of MSUE campus based faculty and: staff regarding six categories: 1) organizational structure, 2) mission, 3) personnel, 4) services, 5) issues programming, and 6) delivery methods, within Michigan State University Extension when influenced by demographic variable, Title. H5: There are significant differences in the perceptions of MSUE campus based faculty and staff regarding 'six categories: 1) organizational structure, 3) mission, 3) personnel, 4) services, 5) issues programming, and 6) delivery methods, within Michigan State University Extension when influenced by demographic variable, Years of Service with , MSUE. IL: There. are significant differences in the perceptions of MSUE camws based faculty and staff regarding six categories: 1) organizational structure, 2) mission, 3) personnel, 4) services, 5) issuesprograrnming, and 6) delivery methods, within Michigan 1’) H State University Extension when influenced by demographic variable, Educational level. H7: There are significant differences in the perceptions of MSUE campus based faculty and staff regarding six categories: 1) organizational structure, 2) mission, 3) personnel, 4) services, 5) issues programming, and 6) delivery methods, within Michigan State University Extension when influenced by demographic variable, Income Level. In the fourth and final part of the analysis, a multiple linear regression analysis was performed to answer the research question: Research Question What demographic variables among campus based faculty and staff influence the perception of, and are important predictors of, the image of Michigan State University Extension? Importance of the Study This study’will focus on the image of MSU Extension. As Kohler (1985) observes, "any responsive organization has a strong interest in how its public sees the organization, its services and programs. And in most cases, the organization's leaders have a different view of the image of their organizations from that of their own public." This study will investigate and report the responses related to the organizational structure, mission, personnel, services, delivery methods and programming of Michigan State University Extension as perceived by campus based faculty and staff with Extension appointments. The identification of the perceptions of these people is particularly important considering the fact that they all contribute toward MSU Extension's success. 13 Assumptions and Limitations This study is based on the following assumptions and limitations: Assumptions (1) Respondents have knowledge of MSUE in order to make meaningful responses. (2) Respondents will respond subjectively to the questionnaires. (3) Respondents perceptions will yield useful and valid information. (4) Data collection methods and statistical techniques intended for use will be appropriate and valid for the data. Limitations (1) The findings of this study are limited to Michigan State University Extension. (2) The study will be limited to the information requested in the questionnaires. Definition of Terms Used For. the purpose of this study, definitions of key words and concepts used throughout the study include: Life Cycle A series of changes in form undergone by an organism in development from its earliest stage to the recurrence of the same stage in the next generation (Webster, ' 197 6, 1957). Organization The pattern of ways in which large numbers of people, too many to have immediate face to-face contact with all others, and engaged in a complexity of tasks, relate themselves to web other in the conscious, systematic establishment and accomplishment of mutually agreed purpose (Pfiflher & Sherwood, 1960). 14 (Runny: Any planned or-unplanned alteration of the-status quo in an organism, situation, or process (Lippitt, 1969). ihuage The sum of beliefs, ideas, and impressions that the Extension Advisory Members, Extension Directors, and Agents have on the Cooperative Extension Service. Cooperative Extension Service A unique publicly funded, informal adult education and development organization which is part of the Land Grant System. Michigan State University ExtenSiou . The Body representing the State of Michigan in the Cooperative Extension Service at Michigan State University. Ithhc A distinct group of people and/or organizations that has an actual or potential interest in and/or effect on an institution (Kohler & Fox, 1985). . Perception The mental grasp of objects, qualities, etc. by means of the senses; awareness; comprehension Fumes Matters of wide public concern arising out of complex human problems (Dalgard et al, 1988). 15 Programming The development of a plan forimplementing and evaluating educational programs directed toward a particular clientele of the Cooperative Extension Service. . Image ' A general or public perception of a company especially when achieved by circulation aimed at creating goodwill (Webster’s, 1991). Campus Based Staff Staff employed to work most of the time on campus as their main work location Faculty The faculty of the university is defined in the Bylaws of . Academic Governance as follows: The "regular faculty" of Michigan State University shall consist of all persons appointed under the rules of tenure and holding the rank of professor, associate professor, assistant professor, instructor; and persons appointed as librarians. In addition, the principal administrative officer of each major educational and research unit of the . university shall be a member of the "regular-faculty" ( MSUE Job Title Definition). Specialist The person who is responsible for a segment of a total program within a state. He/she normally has ‘specific responsibilities in agronomy, computer specializations, 4-H, dairy, nutrition, clothing, or other segments of program or subject-matter (MSUE Job Title Definition, 050). 16 Program/U nit Leader The person who is a leader .or supervisor of a State program. He /she is responsible for directing and supervising the assigned program within'the State. This includes section leaders and assistant State Program leaders who have responsibility for the program (MSUE Job Title Definition, 040). Administrator The person who has administrative or overall management for the State. This category includes, Directors, Assistant Directors and Heads of Departments (MSUE Job Title Definition , 020 ). Secretary g ‘ Those who provide secretarial support for administrative-and functional aspects of a departmental office and compile information in order to produce departmental reports (MSUEJob Title Definitions, 2/88). ‘ 17 .4 ‘IUV.II.I . Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The literature review is divided into three major sections. Each section covers specific literature on the theories and concepts that are relevant to this study of Extension image. The four major sections are: (1) Application of the. System Theory to the MSU Extension Model (2) innovation and change, (3) organizational transformation and renewal, (4) image: definitions, theories and concepts. Section 1: Application of the System Theory to the MSU Extension Model In this study the application of the System Theory can be seen by' looking at MSU Ex tension as one main system supported by many sub—systems. The sub-systems are represented by colleges, program areas and units that execute Extension programs or Extension related activities. Each of these colleges, program areas and units represent a component of the task environment (faculty and staff with MSU Extension ' appointments). As stated'by Morgan ( 1996), “An Open Systems approach defines an organization in ' teI'IITIS of interrelated systems. The systems are like Chinese boxes in that they always Contain wholes within wholes.” It is, therefore, important to know in this case (study) how the subsystem feel about MSU Extension. Regarding to the “Requisite Variety” concept‘ , it becomes important to incorporate requiredvariety into internal control, thus \ ell; The internal regulatory. mechanisms of a system must be as diverse as the vll‘onment in which they are implemented. Only by incorporating required variety into 18 allowing each system to deal with the variety and challenge posed by its environment. Morgan also introduced the “required variety” concept whereby it becomes important. This implies that any system that keeps itself from the diversity of its environment tends to lose its complexity and distinctive nature. Requisite variety is an important feature of living systems of all kinds ( Morgan, 1996). The diagram below adapted from Morgan’s “LuanngencilhmofflrgamzanonaLManagemenL, shows the various components of the subsystems and their relationship to the main MSU Extension system. The main feature of this model is that MSU Extension, like organisms, can be conceived of as sets of interacting subsysrems. These subsystems can be defined in many ways, and Extension programs can be addressedfrom different perSpectives by various colleges, program areas and units. See Figure 1.1 below. MSU Extension MSU Extension MSU Extension MSU Extension F i811 re 1,1 How Michigan State University Extension can be seen as a dependent :u?ystem, Source: Morgan, Contingency Views of Organization and Management \ :ntépial controls can a system deal with the variety and challenge posed by its 11V’ll‘onment. (Morgan, 1996, p.47) 19 Drawing from the work of the Colleges, program areas, units, and from information theory, the system views the organization as a system that procures and transforms inputs into outputs, which are subsequently discharged into their external environment in the form of goods and services, (Buford, Bedeian, and Linder, 1995). Inputs may take the form of people, materials, money, or information. For example Michigan State University transforms students of lower level of education into educated graduates ( as illustrated in TABLE 2 .2) below. TABLE 2.2 Example of an Open System ORGANIZATION INPUTS .TRANSFORMATTON OUTPUT PROCESS Mchigan State Students Teaching Graduates University" ' > Faculty Research Articles & Publications Staff Extension Informed citizens Tuition Contacts Appropriated & , Funds In this cycle, inputs, transformations and outputs are continuous. The goods and Se"Vices provided by an organization are exchanged for energy (Feedback) necessary to 20 secure required inputs. A11 Extension service can survive if it is capable of producing some output that can be exchanged for resources necessary to obtain new inputs and maintain itself in operating order. If an organization cannot maintain a favorable ratio of inputs, it must receive outside funds to exist. Extension Services do not sell their goods or services and as result they must rely on external funding (for example, legislative appropriations, contacts and grants), to endure. An example of this model can be seen in r‘l/Iichigan State University Extension, See Figure 2.2 below. External Environment l i l l l F1. culty and Staff Goods wi th MSU Extension input -> Transformation Process -I Output + and A p pointmcnt I Services Feedback Figu re 2-2 Basic Open System Models iou RC E: Adapted from MANAGEMENT IN EXTENSION by James A. Buford, Jr., Pin.- .3 I" G. Bedeian, James R. Lindner 1995 Third Edition, The Ohio State University’s L e to“ Research Extension Center. Mlclli gan State University Extension can be analyzed as basic components of an ope ~ . . . . . . rElnora, workrng together With a new toward the orgamzatrons 1mprovemem. 53's tem theorists have pointed out that the performance of an organization is not the sum 21 of the independent performances of its parts, but rather the products of their interactions. Thus, effective management of an organization requires management of interactions of its parts, not their independent actions. The System approach also asserts that most organizations are OPEN SYSTEMS, as opposed to closed systems. That is, the system depends on other systems for its inputs. An Extension Service cannot solve a staffing problem involving a joint research appointment fora specialist without the experiment station agreeing. A County Agent cannot plan a forestry demonstration on private land without first considering the willingness of the land owner to cooperate. In addition, an Extension Service (System) markets its outputs (educational services) to other systems (Clientele). If it wishes to survive, the organization must respond to systems that supply it and, in turn, those that it supplies. Most organizations depend on exchange with their external environment. They exi 81 only as long as they are capable of producing an output that can be exchanged in the larger marketplace. In addition to being influenced by market forces, organizations are . influenced by environmental factors, such as societal values, government legislation, and commiunity expectation. These make it very important for an organization to maintain an excellent image for its survival in the future, as the case with Extension Services. Section I 1: Innovation and Change The Cooperative Extension Service was established in 1914 during the formative era for the traditional indusuial corporation. Kanter (1983), describes the traditional industrial-age organization as any organization that was established in the 1890's through the 1920's. According to Rowe and Boise (1973), most of these organizations were segmentally structured and designed to be innovation and change resistant. The traditional industrial-age organizations such as CES, IBM, General Motors, the US. Department of Treasury and the US. Department of Defense, were large and successful organizations (Stanley, 1989, p.76). Most of these types of organizations (large, old, and successful) have been the most difficult to change (Lippitt, 1982, p.7). Today, the environment within which these types of organizations exist or operate has been rapidly changing as a‘result of numerous economic, social, and technological factors. The change these organizations have been facing is more extensive, more far-reaching in its implications, and more fundamental in its transforming quality than anything since the "modern" industrial system took shape (Kanter 1983, p 37). ’The environmental change has caused a change in what these organizations must do to be successful in the tasks they must perform to survive and prosper. Society, in general, is non-static. “Much of the sucCessful achievement 0f the Cooperative Extension Service in tile United States may be attributed to its willingness and ability to change as the needs 311d interests of its clientele change. The goal and objectives of the entire system have been restated almost every decade and have shifted dramatically” (Axinn, 1972, p. 103). It is Constantly changing and being rejuvenated. Organizations designed to provide goods and services in yesterday's world are discovering that what made them successful in the 23 ‘¥A past no longer applies. The most important question now and in the future is, what do these constant changes mean to organizations in general, and Extension in particular? Can the Cooperative Extension Service (a 1914 industrial-aged organization) make the adjustments necessary to survive the rapid and pervasive changes occurring in American society? According to Margulies and Wallace, the lesson is clear for any modern organization. Given the facts of rapid, unplannedchange, a static organization cannot - survive. Yesterday's success mean very little in a world of rapidly changing markets, customers, products, values, life-styles and so fOrth (Margulies & Wallace .1973, p 1). Today's organizations must be prepared to regularly evaluate themselves in relation to their present environment. They must change, renew, and transform themselves by examining where they are, what they are, what they need to be, and how to make the I-equired changes. Dillman (1985) noted that within this century, the American society has gone-through two eras of significant social change, and is now entering a third era that has profound ' implications for how society is organized and the social arrangements that govern the use of available technology. The first era, Called "community control", started in 1900 and remained dominant I until the 19405. Within this period, the Cooperative Extension Service was established by the SInith-Lever Act of 1914. The second era, called the "mass society", started around the 1920s and continued tlil‘Qllgh the late 19805. This was a period of unprecedented economic and social growth 24 as a result of the impact of the Industrial Revolution of the early 18005. In this period, emphasis was placed on building larger organizations and corporations such as IBM, General Motors, etc. And finally, the new era called the "information age", just started in the early 19805. This era is expected to dominate and overshadow the two previous, eras as well as the social and technological organization of society at the turn of the century. Clearly, society is gradually Shifting from a traditionally industrialized society to one many authors sometimes label as either the‘post-industrial era, post-modem era, information age, new age or simply the next age. Each one of these terms describes a Society which de- emphasizes agriculture and manufacturing, although these sectors eXiSt, and emphasizes information processing instead.- For a society to achieve post- ill(illstrialism, Quilling refer, it must go through various stages of development with a C:llz‘lltlge in emphasis from one stage to another. The five stages with their predominant 'emphases are identified by Quilling as: Stage 1: Mining, forestry, agriculture, foodstuffs and raw materials Stage 2: Manufactured goods Stage 3: Transportation, communication, and public utilities Stage 4: Banking, finance, and commerce StageS: Abstract activities, which include education Clurrently, the American society seems to be approaching Stage 3, a stage in which Q Qlitlmunication and information are among the major emphases. In 1950, Harvard QCiologist Daniel Bell predicted that the most important products of the post-industrial SQQiety would be information, knowledge, and service. His prediction proved to be 25 accurate. Drucker (1988) states we have moved away from the "command and control" phase that was prevalent in the 19205 through the 19505 and are moving toward an "information bond" in organizations. Information sharing and availability can alter the structure and responsiveness of institutions in profound ways (Goens & Clover l99l,p.5). As the society gradually moved into the well predicted information age, the traditional industrial-age organizations, such as the Cooperative Extension Service, often found their structures, approaches, and practices incompatible with the information-age era of the ' 2 1 st century. Their organizational. structures, and their old approaches and practices were becoming obsolete and therefore no longer as effective in solving today's problems as they could be. For most of these organizations, the challenge was not only that of their S‘ll'Vi val, but also their relevancy to the age or period in which they now lived (Lippitt 1 9 82, p. ix). Many organizations were now simply overwhelmed. They were adrift, unable to adj last and respond to change and the challenge of the information age era. However, what each organization needed-to adjust and respond appropriately to the changing environment, of course, varied from one organization to another, with the exception of Que thing - innovation. This point is perhaps captured best by Kanter R. Moss, who S‘:£.~lies: "The total scope of what needs to be done is, of course, highly variable, in large part bQQause it depends on the particular organization and industry. What is clear, however, is t 1% need for innovation at every level--innovation not merely in the traditional sense of new products and services, but in the very ways that organizations operate, in their view 26 of themselves, and in the mechanisms that can develop and engage their resources to the maximum extent possible. Most important, organizations need innovation to shift from the present tendency to deal with their tasks in a relatively single-minded, top-directed way and to a capacity to respond innovatively, locally, and promptly to a whole variety of organizational contingencies--to change shape, so to speak" (Kanter 1983, p 41). The term "innovation” has been defined and used widely and ambiguously. It is important at this juncture to review some of its definitions to see how it relates to the entire scope of organizational changes of the Cooperative Extension Service. In Rowe and Boise's Organizational and Managerial Innovation (1973), Thompson defines innovation as "the generation, acceptance, and implementation of new ideas, Processes, products, and services". This definition suggested an organization with a S‘-1<:<:essful process of invention, proposal, review, decision, and utilization. In arguing mat innovation implies a capacity to change or to adapt, Thompson states: "an adaptive orgamization may not be innovative (because it does not generate many new ideas), but atl innovative organization will be adaptive (because it is able to implement many new i qeas)". Generally, innovations are not safe, bound, or easy. They involve extreme a~trlounts of resources, risk,” time, commitments and challenges. In a comparative study of innovative accomplishments versus basic non- §ntrepreneurial ones, Kanterfound that people involved with innovative ac‘Complishments perceive them as being riskier and more controversial - they generate S‘:K‘<)rrger feelings around the organization both pro and con (Kanter 1983, p 214). L'\Jndstedt and Colglazier (1982), give the operational definition of a technical innovation 27 as a complex activity which proceeds from the conception of a new idea (as a means of solving a problem) to the solution of a problem, and then to the actual utilization of a new item of economic or social value. These authors stress the importance of distinguishing the difference between innovation, scientific discovery, invention, and diffusion of technology. A scientific discovery, according to Lundstedt and Colglazier, involves the observation of a previously unknown or unobserved phenomenon, or the acquisition of new knowledge; although relevant discoveries may be incorporated into an . innovation. An invention is the creation of a novel product or process, or the concept of a means of satisfying a need. And finally, diffusion of technology which is the :' evolutionary process of replacement of an old technology by a newer one (Lundsted and Colgiazier 1982, p. xxi). In their definition of organizational and managerial innovation, Rowe and Boise (1973), refer to organizational innovation as the successful utilization of processes, - programs, or products which are new to an organization and which are introduced as a result of decisions made within that organization. “Rowe and Boise define managerial innovation as those decisions and tasks which are new to an organization which result in the successful solution of one or more problems related to management's responsibilities. In describing the word innovation and how people think of its meaning, Kanter concluded that, typically, the innovation" creates an image of an invention a new piece of technical apparatus, or perhaps something of a conventionally scientific character. In fact, very few people could imagine or consider the new tax laws, enterprise zones, quality circle, and the proposed empowerment zones as innovations. Kanter refers to 28 'B‘t' iv. . 11a- b's ... innovation as the'process of bringing any new, problemrsolving idea into use. Ideas for reorganizing, cutting costs, putting in new budgeting systems, improving communications, or assembling products in learns (Kanter 1983, p.20). Innovation, no matter what type it is, whether in products, market strategies, technological processes, or work practices, is designed not by machines but by people. Thus, the human resources of an organization working together collaboratively are responsible for the thinking, generation, and developing new ideas and responses. Together, they push for change before the opportunity disappears and disappears for good ~ From all sides, come reminders about the rapidity of change, the nwd to adapt to new conditions and the exhortations to try new things (Pattom 1985, p.4). Organizations simply must poise themselves to innovate, to change, or they risk decline and death. Resources are finite not infinite. The extent to which organizational structures and policies encourage people within the organization to participate in solving problems, to seek new ideas, to challenge established wisdom, to experiment, and to innovate is crucial to the survival of today's organizations, more especially, the publicly funded organization like Extension. Studies have shown that during the past decade, interest in organizational and managerial innovation has increased rapidly. Organizational scholars are actively engaged in developing concepts, building models, formulating hypotheses, and conducting empirical studies for the purpose of identifying the correlates of innovation in formal organizations (Rowe and Boise 1973, p 2). In‘their book entitledJnflrrsniLof 29 Excellence, Peters and Waterman assert that excellent organizations are characterized by ' the ability to change. They are "continually innovative", geared to "quick action and regular experimentation": "Innovative companies (organizations) are especially adroit at continually responding to change of any sort in their environments...A5 the needs of their customers shift, the skills of their competitors improve, the mood of the public perturbates, these companies tack, revamp, adjust, transform, and adapt. In short, as a whole culture, they innovate" (Peters and Waterman 1982, p12).1n discussing the general characteristics of an organization with a high capacity to innoVate (innovative organization), Thompson, in Rowe and Boise(l973), states that. the innovative organization will be or must be characterized by structural looseness, with less emphasis on narrow, non-duplication, non-overlapping definitions of duties and responsibilities, freer communication, and less stratification. Group processes will be highly encouraged and openly practiced leading to freer communication within the organization. The freer communication system, broader work assignments, lack of preoccupation with overlap and duplication, and lessened emphasis on authority will all work toward a greater amount of interpersonal ' ~ communication, team work and multiple group membership. Multiple group membership will facilitate innovation by increasing the amount and diversity of input of ideas and stimulation (Thompson, in Rowe & Boise, 1973,pp.23-28). An organizational environment which permits, encourages, and legitirnizes multiple- group membership will reduce the risk of innovation by a single individual. The credit for generating new ideas will then be or should be shared by all the people involved, and 30 likewise the burden of promoting them (new ideas) will be shared as well. The more people are involved in the process, the wider the acceptance, participation, and implementation of the new ideas will be. Section III: Organizational Transformation and Renewal The academicians and practitioners view transformation as a system wide change in an organization that‘demands new ways of perceiving, drinking, and behaving by all its members (Kilman & Covin, 1988, p.2). This new concept of transformation was actually based on ten areas perceived or envisioned by the scholars, consultants, and executives who study, facilitate, and direct corporate transformation (Kihnan & Covin, 1988, p. xiv-13). These ten agreed upon areas: (1)Transformation is a respon'se'to environmental and technological change by . different types of organizations. (2)Transformation is a new model of the organization for the future. (3)Transformation is based on dissatisfaction with the old and belief in the new. (4)Transformation is a qualitatively different way. of perceiving, thinking, and behaving. (5)Transformation is expected to spread throughout the organization at different rates of absorption. . (6) Transformation is driven by line management 31 (7)Transformation is on going, endless, and forever. (8)Transformation is orchestrated by inside and outside experts. (9)Transformation represents the leading edge of knowledge about organizational change. (10)Transformation . generates more open communication and feedback throughout the organization. As a large scale system wide process, organizational transformation requires a new perspective. And to embark on it, organizations must examine themselves in relation to their environment, -thus evaluating critically where they were, what they are, what they need to be and how they will make all the required changes (Goens & Clover, 1991, p. 10). These changes are not just in one section or unit of a section of the organization. They involve all the elements-or pieces of the organizational system (strategy, work, pedple, formal and informal processes and structures) over a long period of time. One of the major assumptions underlying the concept of transformation was that "transformation is expected tospread throughout the organization at different rates of absorption". The best,.and probably most preferred approach is to start the process in all partsof the organization at the same time. However, it: can also be approached through a pilot project as well, to test the chosen strategies and methods, and later, to transfer the results of the pilot project to the remaining units of the organization. The difference in the rate of absorption each unit may require must be recognized. Some units within the organization may have capable individuals who can learn andchange quickly, and others who may not. Failure to recognize and understand these differences can lead to unhappy results 32 —‘ (Kilman & Covin, 1988, p.5). According to Belgard et al. (1988), transformation occurs in two phases: (1) the formal phase, and (2) the informal phase. The formal phase of transformation consists of a sequential process that is managed in a top-down manner and requires a clear understanding of three unique states of transformation: the current state, the desired future state, and the transition state. Needed along with the defined states are clear strategic plans that outline major steps in the transition. The plans must reflect necessary steps which will lead to the creation of the future state. This is the most effective and efficient process when implemented rightly because of the support from top leadership it usually receives in addition to the strategic planning nature of the process which ensures its sequentiality. The informal phase of transformation is unlike the systematic, sequential planning process associated with top-down change. It is an approach often used by change influence people with limited hierarchical power e. g. lower level staff). Their goals are: First, to get their change initiative into the agendas and discussions of the leaders of the organization; second, to make sure, to the greatest extent possible, that there is at least a change of direction or some movement toward the desired future state that they envision (Kilman & Covin, 1988, p.131-134). 4 Renewal on the other hand is the process of initiating, creating, and confronting needed changes so as to make it possible for organizations to become or to remain viable, to adapt to new conditions, to solve problems, to learn from experiences, and to move toward greater organizational maturity (Lippitt, 1982, p. xiv). In a similar definition. Goens & Clover (1991) define renewal as a process designed to restore, reestablish, 33 recreate, or rebuild p.10 The focus of the process is the renewing of vigor through reorganization and renovation of the human, financial, and technical resources of the organization. It is a process most suitable for those organizations that have been viable, creative, and relevant, and who intend to, or want to remain as such. The Cooperative Extension Service has been a viable, creative, and relevant organization. It is, without any doubts, an organization that intends to remain viable and relevant to people whom it has served diligently for over eight decades. . Renewal is similar to transformation in that its process is also holistic involving three levels (individual, group, and total organizational levels) of human systems. The process does not occur by chance. It has to be initiated, planned and carried out by the organization itself, due to the commitment, energy, time, money, skill, feedback, practice, competence, and professionalism required (Lippitt, 1982, p. ix- x). Organizational renewal cannot be achieved at any level without achieving an opened- system orientation and practice. A closed-system oriented organization cannot successfully implement a renewal process. According to Lippitt (1969), the expected results of renewal are: (1)Continuous examination of the growth of the organization, together with a diagnosis of the multiple internal and external influences affecting its state of being. (2) Improvement in the manner in which problems are solved at all levels of the organization. (3) Development within the organization of formal and informal 34 groups that are effective and communicative. (4) Development of leadership that is appropriate to the situation facing the organization at any given time. (5)Maturity of individuals and groups within the organization, as well as maturity of the organization itself. (6) A way for people within the organization to learn from their experiences of success and failure. - (7) Development of a climate that encourages and channels creativity by people throughout the organization. (8) Development of a system to which all employees of the organization feel committed, thereby securing their motivation (p.6). Section IV: Image: Definitions, Theory, and Concept An image is an artificial imitation or representation of the external form of any object, especially of a person (Boorstin, 1962, p. 197). The image, according to the ancient Romans, is an imitation, copy, likeness, picture, conception, thought, or idea. More abstractly, they defined it as "a mental representation of something not by direct perception, but by memory or imagination; a mental picture: or impression; an idea, conception". The Greeks defined "image" as a "phantom",:or a "likeness" (Stuart, Jones, and McKenzie, 1951, p.51). Boorstin (1962), views image as a pseudo-ideal. An image, according to Boorstin's theory, is composed of six dimensions: synthetic, believable, passive, vivid, simplified, 35 and ambiguous (Boorstin, 1962‘, p. 185 - 197). (1.)_An_image_is_synthetic. It is planned and created to serve a purpose, or to make a certain kind of impression. For example, trademarks and brand names have both become very important in the twentieth century. As the use .and importance of image continue to increase with time, more and more abstract images are becoming commonly accepted. An abstract image, in this sense, is not simply a trademark, a design, a slogan, or an easily remembered picture. It is a studiously crafted personality profile of an individual, institution, corporation, product, or service. It is . shaped in three dimensions of synthetic materials; it is fabricated and reinforced by new techniques in the graphic revolution. When one uses the term "image" in this new sense, one admits a distinction between what is seen and what is really there,‘and one expresses a preferred interest in what is to be seen. Thus, an image is a visible public "personality" distinguished from an inward private "character". By using the term, it is implied that something can be done to it. Thus it can be more or less successfully synthesiled, doctored, repaired, refurbished, and improved, quite apart from (though not entirely independent of) the spontaneous original of which the image is a public portrait. (2)_An_image_is_heliertahle An image serves no purpose if pe0ple do not believe it. In . their own minds, they must make it stand for the institution, organization, agency. Yet, if an image is to bevivid and to succeed popularly in overshadowing its original, it must not outrage the ordinary rules of common sense. The most effective images are usually those that are simply designed for believability. (3)_An.image_is passirte. An image is supposed to be congruent with reality. Both the 36 producer of the image (organizations and institutions) and the consumer of the image (clients and customers) are expected to fit into the image. These relations are basically passive. The "projection" of an image is itself a way of touting reputed virtues. Both the subject (organization) and the object (customer) will assume that a portrait so persuasive and so popular must be taken from real life. In the beginning, the image is a likeness of the organization, and then the organization becomes a likeness of the image. It is the kind of ideal which becomes real only when it becomes public. Traditionally, the ideal image of an organization is very much dependent on the inward convictions and decisions of the inner executives of the organization. But now this is not sufficient. Because of its passive nature, the image has very little to do with the activities of the organization itself. In old-fashioned language, image building is the ~ building of reputations, not character. It can represent the organization by itself, as was the case for the Brunswick Corporation, or it can represent the chief executive, like Charles Luckman, President of Lever Brothers. (4)_An.image_isatirtid_and_concrete. An image serves its purpose best by appealing to the senses. The key point to understand here is thatimage is limited. An institution, organization, or an individual may have many qualities, but only one, or a few, of those qualities should be selected for vivid portrayal. It must be more graspable titan any specific lists of objectives. Today's commercials are filled with appeals to the senses, e. g. "Meijer the store built on comriron sense", "KFC wedo chicken right", etc. ' 5)_An_image_is.simplifral. An image must exclude undesired and undesirable aspects, and therefore must be simpler than the object it represents. An effective image design 37 1 must be simple, distinctive and have the capacity to become hackneyed. In other words, it must be a strong, vigorous symbol that can be easily remembered. _6).An.image.isamhiguous An image floats somewhere between the imagination and the senses, between expectation and reality. It is ambiguous, for it must not offend. It must suit unpredictable future purposes, unpredictable changes in taste, and be receptacle to different wishes of people. Boulding (1961), uses different analogies. (analogies of location in space, location in time, location in a field of personal relations, location in the world of nature, location in the world of how things operate, etc.) to abstract the concept of image. Each of these . analogies describes the process of image formation - the mental pictures in the minds of people which govern their behavior. This process of creating mental pictures (image) is found in all human activity. It is based on someone's knowledge and beliefs. In other words, the image that people have of an object, be it an institution, person, or organization, is developed through knowledge and experience. Accordingto Boulding (1961), image is what we believe to be true. -It is subjective knowledge that largely governs our behavior. In describing the concept of image and the process of building it, Boulding states: "The image is built up as a result of all past experiences of the possessor of the image. Part of the image, I suppose, consists of little else than an undifferentiated blur and movement. From the moment of birth if not before, there is a constant stream of messages entering the organism from the senses. At first, these may merely be undifferentiated lights and noises. As the child grows, however, they gradually became distinguished into pe0ple and 09.1608. He begins to perceive himself as an object in the . midst of a world of objects. The conscious image begun...p. 6)" 38 In discussing image causation, Kohler asserts that there are two opposite theories of image formation. The first theory holds that image is largely object-determined, and the second theory holds that images are largely person-detemrined. In the first theory (object- determined), the persons are simply perceiving the reality of the object. Their view of images assumes that: -People tend to have first-hand experience with the object. - People get reliable sensory data from the object. - People tend to process the sensory data in a similar way in spite of having - different backgrounds and personalities. Their assumptions, therefore, suggest that organizations cannot easily create false images of themselves. In other words, they cannot hide their true images. They cannot create images that are different from their real images. People usually form their image of an organization on the basis of the actual behavior of that organization. If an organization is responsive, it will be seen as responsive. Conversely, if it is non- responsive and inefficient, it will be perceived as such. In the second theory (person-determined), Kostler holds the view or opinion that: - People have different degrees of contact with the object. . -People placed in front of the object will selectively perceive different aspects of the object. —People have individual ways of processing sensory data leading to selective distortion. ' The assumptions here are that people are likely to hold different images of the same 39 . object. Therefore, due to the variances in experience and ways of processing sensory data - by people, organizations have little control over the image that people hold. This indicates further that there is a weak relationship between the image and the actual object. Both theories are extreme, the truth therefore lies in the middle. 80, an image is influenced by both the objective characteristics of the object and the subjective characteristics of the perceiver. When the object is frequently and directly experienced, fairly stable in its characteristics, and simple, one might expect people to hold similar images of the object. On the other hand, when the object is complex, infrequently and indirectly experienced, and its characteristics keep changing with time, one might expect people to hold different images of the object (Kohler, 1975, p. 137 - 138; Kohler & Fox, 1985, p.41 - 42). The concept of image has been introduced and well defined in the business world. Its meaning is basically the same. It is merely the picture which an organization has created ' in the minds of its public (Bristol, 1960, p. xiii). 'The word 'image", according Kohler, came into popular use in the 19505. Presently, it is used in a variety of contexts: organization or corporate image, national image, brand image, public image, self image, etc. It has also been used to describe products (Ford Mustang, Macintosh Computer), institutions (Harvard, McDonalds, the United Way, IBM), individuals (Donald Trump, George Bush), and places (San Francisco, Thailand, Brooklyn)... (Kohler, I 975, p. 130; Kohler & Fox, 1985, p.38; Kohler & ‘Andreasen, 1989, p.202). 40 The concept of organizational image, corporate image, institutional image, corporate personalityrand public image are important because, image is the main subject of this study. Organizational image, or what is sometimes labeled as corporate image, or corporate personality, is defined by Marquis (1970, p2), as the sum of all impressions of the organization in the public consciousness. It is formed by the combined opinions of the general public, employees, customers, competitors, etc. Marketing experts have persistently emphasized the importance of an organization's public. What or how this group of people thinks about their organization has numerous effects. In fact, what they think may even have more effect than what they realize. ' I The concept of corporate image is not new. It has been around for some time. It is recognized as one of the most powerful and effective concepts that can be used as a tool in clarifying relations with others. It allows one to view these relationships in a much larger perspective than what one is used to - the more limited, departmental point of view. It also helps us to understand or pick up other unrelated pieces of our operation and put them together in a more meaningful and effective manner (Bristol, 1960, p. xiii). In defining the meaning of the concept of corporate personality (corporate image, I organizational image), Bristol defines it in terms of an analogue with individual personality. It sounds complex, diverse, and abstract. Bristol writes: "Basically, most people like or dislike other persons for the same kinds of reasons they are attracted to, or repelled by, a corporation. And just as most people judge other individuals on the basis of the clothes they wear, the car they drive, their home, their personal appearance, diction, manners, and various physical attributes, so does the public form opinions of stores based on their window displays, size, location, credit personality, friendliness of clerks, counter 41 displays, and the physical appearance of their advertising. Most people are likely to judge a book by its cover, a product by its packaging, and a corporation by their personal knowledge of its employees, products, services, profit-and—loss statements, or of the content and appearance of its advertising, public relations, and other communications. The most important point to keep in mind when . considering individual or collective attitudes is that most of these judgments are formed on the basis of symbols rather than facts. People do not react with reality. ~ Rather, they react withtheir subjective knowledge of reality". (p. 5) This abstract definition is incongruent with Kohler's object-determined theory and Boulding's image theory and definition. In general, all the theories and definitions seem to indicate that every organization, institution or corporation has an image. And that image, consists of many facets. For large organizations and corporations that have multiple divisions, programs, services, and public, it is almost impossible for them to have a single image. As Pierre Martineau points out in Bristol (1960), there cannot be a single corporate image, because every corporation has a different public. However, Marquis believes the opposite. He describes a single image of a corporation or an organization as the sum ‘of all impressions of the firm in the public consciousness (Marquis, 1970, p.2). It is a conglomerate of attitudes the various public have toward , the organization. These attitudes and impressions are based upon the functional meanings that some aspect of the organization has for individuals who make up the various publics the organization makes contact with - as well as the emotional overtones carried by the messages the organization communicates to these persons (Bristol, 1960, p.6). 42 Past Studies on Extension Image The Cooperative Extension Service has always been concerned about its image. As a publicly funded organization, its continuing success depends very much on its image. Since its establishment, various studies have been conducted to assess the image of the organization and the awareness level people have with the Extension programs. However, the scope of these studies has been narrow, focusing mostly on a particular state or county, or on a particular program of Extension such as 4—H, Home Econorrrics, Agriculture, Community Development, or the Extended Food and Nutrition Program. The first, and probably only, comprehensive national research that extensively assessed Extension, including its image and program areas, was the Warner and Christenson study of 1984 entitled, "The Cooperative Extension Service: A National Assessment." The study addressed some of the most fundamental questions important to Extension such as: What ought to be the role of Extension in the 215tcentury?; How should the Extension . mission be redefined? (narrow or broad); What is Extension's public -image?; Who should be the primary audience of Extension? (rural, urban, farm or non-farm people); - What should be the primary means of communicating Extension programs?; and, Who - will lead Extension in securing solid support for the future? Obviously, all these questions were important to the organization as it approached the new information age. Their overall study is also important to this study, particularly the findings from the question about image and awareness of Extension and its programs. Regarding image and awareness, the Warner and Christenson study revealed that Extension, like any other 43 large complex organization, has a diverse public. Its public includes clients and customers (users), non-users, and cost-bearers. The clientele and customers of Extension, according to that study, were the individuals being served directly by the organization. These groups of people know and make use of the organization, its programs and services. The non-users include individuals who are aware of the Extension Service, but who do not use it, as well as individuals who may be completely unaware of the organization. The cost-bearers are all the taxpayers who contribute to Extension through taxes. The organization has a very high visibility. Approximately 87% of the US. population, or 9 out of 10 adults in the US, are aware of, or recognize, Extension and its programs. Even though the level of awareness varies from one region to another and ‘ from one person to another, there seems to be a uniform level of awareness across the country. The organization is known by about 47% of the population. This group of people (47%) recognize Extension by the name of either the Cooperative Extension Service or the Agricultural Extension Service. However, there are a few other individuals who identify the organization by descriptors such as: - Agricultural Agents - - The county Extension office - The 4-H agent - Name of the county Extension staff These indicate that Extension is known by many different names. One of the most surprising findings of the Warner and Christenson study was that people were more cognizant of the core program areas (agriculture, 4-H, home economics, and community development) of Extension than the organizational name (the Cooperative Extension Service). Among the core program areas, the study showed that the 4-H program had the highest recognition, with 77% of the population indicating that they had heard of the name. They associated the high level of recognition‘of 4-H with the consistency of the name and its shortness which makes it easy to remember. It is then followed by agriculture with 52%-recognition, and home econorrrics and community development with 45% and 46%, respectively. Through a well developed profile of the individuals who were knowledgeable of Extension, the researchers found that half of the people who were aware of the Extension Service had a family income between $10,000 and $30,000, with a small percentage having lower or higher incomes. Approximately 8% of the knowledgeable people had a grade school education, 50% had a high school education, one-third had some college, and 9% had advanced college degrees. About 86% were white, 9% black, and 5% were from other racial groups. These findings suggest that the Cooperative Extension Service does not have a single image. It has multiple images which provide a base that is not dependent on a single client group. The organization has been communicated to the public as , "The Cooperative Extension-Service", "Extension Service", "4-H", or locally "Ingham County Cooperative ExtensionService", and "Michigan Sate University Extension". These 45 different names have contributed to some misunderstandings about the name of the organization. The Cooperative Extension Service has the'potential to improve upon its existing image and the public’s awareness of it since the findings indicate that most segments of the US. population are at least aware of the organization and its programs. The most important task at hand is to consolidate the identity of the organization. This effort to consolidate Extension's image can only be achieved with the support and commitment of the organizational leadership of the Extension Service. In the private sector, consolidating image has been successful. Various corporations consolidated and built single images for their organizations. A statewide survey conducted by the marketing committee of the Cornell Cooperative Extension Service showed that the organization was projecting numerous images, a similar finding to Warner and Christenson's nationwide study. In an effort to address this problem, the marketing committee recommended that the new statewide name become Cornell Cooperative Extension, followed by the county name. Cornell was included in the new name to represent or identify the state land. grant college (Cornell University), Cooperative Extension was included to identify with. the national system (the Cooperative Extension Service), and the name of the county was included to identify the 10cal funding partner. The program areas (4-H, Agriculture, Home Economics, and Community Development) were asked to- display the new name prominently along with their own name on all outreach materials. Cornett ( 1958) conducted a study in Michigan 46 to assess the public understanding of .the Cooperative Extension Service. The objectives of the study were to determine: (1) how wellExtension is known and used by urban leaders and farm people; (2) some of the things people think the Extension Service should be doing; (3) the attitude of the available public: on- how well they appreciate and support Extension work; and (4) some pointers for improving Extension program planning. ~ Comett's studies consisted of general groups (farmers, social clubs, businesses and professional clubs) in Jackson County and non-agricultural faculty at Michigan State University. Comett's findings revealed that most people were aware of some sort of program in agricultural Extension. Approximately all farmers, 82% of the city clribs, and 78% of the non-agricultural faculty were aware of Extension programs. 4-H and Home Economics were the most popular programs. Despite these high statistics, there were some indications of misunderstanding 'of Extension‘and its programs among people. In other words, there Were people who did not know what Extension did or what services ' were available to people through Extension. Both rural and urban people seem to feel that Extension work is basically a rural program and any other‘usage is secondary. Approximately one fourth of the questionnaires returned in comett’s study showed a feeling of approval for Extension work in'the city, and about the same number“ Opposed city service. In terms of support, the study showed that 65% of the respondents felt that Extension was definitely helpful, 47 19% considered it probably helpful, 8% considered it doubtful, and 8% had no opinion. The strongest support came from those who actually participated in Extension programs, and the support increased as awareness and use of Extension programs increased. Another study, whose findings have direct implications for this study, was the 1986 Hanenburg study which assessed the public awareness, perception and use of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service. The overall purpose of the Hanenburg study was to determine the image of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service by assessing the awareness and perception of residents in two Michigan counties (Kent and Ottawa). Based on the completed telephone interviews of a random sample of 388 residents of Kent and Ottawa counties, Hanenburg found that 98.5% of the respondents were aware of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service and its programs. The organization and its programs were highly visible. The most widely recognized name was the 4-H program, which was identified by 96.1% of the reSpondents. The Cooperative Extension . Service was the second most widely recognized name with 39.9% recognition, followed by Home Economics with 38.4%, then Agriculture with 21%, and Natural Resources- Public Policy at the bottom with 13.7% , Hanenbury,xl986, p. 81 - 83). Hanenburg found out that, similar to the national systém, the organization in Michigan was also struggling with the problem of multiple images. The findings revealed that more respondents recognized the 4-H program area name (96.1% of the respondents) than the organizational name (Michigan Cooperative Extension Service). More individuals (39.9% ' of the re5pondents) recognized the organization .name "Michigan Cooperative Extension 48 I ‘4’“ F liar-Am nun...- ‘. Service" than the other three program areas (agriculture 21.9%, Home Economics 38.4%, Natural Resources 13. 7%). These findings suggest that ties between the programs and the organization do exist. The respondents who had contacted or used Extension Services, according to Hanenburg' 5 study, indicated their awareness of the mission of Extension. More than 65 % of these individuals agreed, or strongly agreed ,that the Cooperative Extension Service should ranked agriculture and marketing programs as first priority. The most frequently used program area was Home Economics, followed by Agriculture and marketing, then 4—H, and finally, Natural Resources. The largest group of respondents (47.8%) agrwd, or strongly agreed, that Extension is an agricultural agency for farmers ,_ and rural people, while 42% disagreed with that statement. Over 94% of the same group of individuals agreed to the following two statements: 1 . (1)The job of Extension is to get practical, university-tested information into the hands of people who need it; and (2)The Cooperative Extension Service provides educational programs to bring research findings to the people of the United States. . Hanenburg's study also revealed that respondents Were satisfied With the educational services and programs offered by the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service. Approximately 51.5% of the respondents agreed that they were satisfied, 36.8% did not know enough about Extension to respond to this question, and 11.8% were dissatisfied. Both rural and urban respondents viewed the organization as a primarily agricultural agency designed to help farmers and rural residents. ' 1 In general, most of the findings of Hanenburg's study are closely related with the 49 findings of Warner and Christenson (1984). In both studies, respondents had a very high level of awareness of the organization and its programs. Among the four program areas, the 4—H program was recognized as the most visible program. People from rural areas, farrrrs, and small towns were the most loyal and supportive customers of Extension. The recommendations from these previous studies, specifically Hanenburg‘s which suggests that a more comprehensive study he conducted, provided the impetus for this study. According to Hanenburg, a second study should be statewide in scope, with a sample population consisting of residents from each Michigan county. A survey of Extension staff members should also be conducted to assess their image of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service. The data should then be compared for similarities and differences between how the public views Extension and how its members view the organization. In a study conducted by Adarnu, Usman 1996, he examined the image of the extension organization as perceived by county ExtenSion Advisory Committee members and Extension field staff in Michigan. The findings revealed that the most important predictors of image of Michigan State University Extension among Advisory members were: environment raised in, duration of occupations income and place of living. For Extension staff, the predictors were duration in occupation and educational level. The studies did not exarrrine the MSUE. campus based faculty and staff. A gap of knowledge exist in the literature concerning the image perception. of those who are MSUE campus based staff. In Adamu’s study, he found that years of service 50 with MSUE, and educational level were important predictor variables. It is, therefore, important to include the two variables he found important in order to conduct this research to solicitate the views if MSUE campus based faculty and staff view MSUE organization regarding six categories, organizational structure, mission, personnel, services, issues programming an delivery methods. 51 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY This chapter contains a description of the methods and procedures that were used in conducting this study. Research Design The research design is descriptive, employing sample survey methodology. According to Ary, et al. (1972, p.295), descriptive research studies are designed to obtain information concerning the current status of phenomena. The main purpose of descriptive research is to describe systematically the facts and characteriStics of a given population or area of interest, factually and accumme (Isaac & Michael, 1971, p.46). Descriptive research both describes and interprets what is, ( Long and Heiss, (1975; p.81). Population For this study, the population consisted of MSUE campus based faculty and staff . According to the MSU Extension 1997-98 Staff Directory, the total population, including MSUE campus based faculty and staff categories was 290 persons. Sample A sample size of 165 was determined to be adequate when‘seeking a +5 % precision level where the confidence level is 95% (Smith, ME, 1983). A systematic random sampling technique was used to guarantee‘representation of 52 campus based faculty and staff with MSUE appointments. Instrument Development The instrument for the study was developed based on the review of literature and the purpose and objectives of the study. Some of the questions are newly deve10ped, and someare adopted from the studies of Crunkilton, et al. (1986); Hanenburg (1986); and Warner and Christenson (1984). The questionnaire consisted of structured Likert scale questions comprised of statements about Michigan State University Extension, its organization, mission, personnel, services, issues programming and delivery methods. The Likert-scale is one of the most commonly used rating scale formats that provide respondents with an Opportunity to pinpoint their opinion or perception within a range of possible responses. Thus, a researcher can derive the intensity of the respondent's perception, view, opinion, or practice, (Andrews, 1978 ). It has also been shown to assess image adequately, (Crwalton et al., 1986). The questionnaire was chosen not only because it is widely used in social science research, but it is also the most efficient and practical means of collecting data for research purposes, (Ary et al., 1972, p.174). The questionnaire and the cover letter that accompanied each of the questionnaires was reviewed and approved by the University Comrrrittee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) prior to data collection. 53 Validity and Reliability Research is always dependent upon measurement (Ary et al., 1972, p.196). It is generally agreed that "good" measures must be both reliable and valid. According to Ary et al., every measuring instrument, (test, questionnaire, interview guide, etc.) should possess these two important characteristics: reliability and validity. Reliability Reliability is the extent to which a questionnaire, or any other measuring tool, is consistent in measuring whatever it measures. The instrument for this study was adopted from previous studies. There were no major changes made in the adopted instrument since the reliability was determined in the previous studies. The study used the Cronbach Alpha Reliability Test on each section of the instrument and the alpha coefficients were established and reported in Table 3.1. The reliability of the instrument was statistically assessed using Cronbach's Alpha, one of the intemal-consistency measures of reliability. This procedure measures the inter-item, or homogeneity, of the items. The more heterogeneous the domain, the lower the inter-item consistency, and conversely, the more homogeneous the domain, the higher the inter-item consistency. For this study, Cronbach's Alpha was the most suitable because it is used when measures have multiple scored items, such as attitude scales or ‘ essay tests (Ary et al., 1990). 54 ' ' Table 3.1 : Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Results Section * ' ' Construct Measured Reliability 1 Organizational Structure 0.79 2 _ Mission 0.79 3 Personnel 0.85 4 Services 0.88 5 Delivery Methods 057 0 Issues Programming . 0.97 Validity: . Validity is the extent to which a questionnaire measures what it is intended to measure. In other words, reliability is concerned with consistency and stability of response, while validity is concerned with whether or not the information elicited through the response is what was intended. A researcher must investigate the reliability and validity of his or her questionnaires and report the results in a research report, (Ary et al., 1972,.p.l96). The questionnaire was distributed to a panel of professors in the Department of Agricultural and Extension Education at Michigan State University to ensure the validity content and construct of the instrument, and to evaluate and verify its content and face validity. Appropriate suggestions were incorporated into» the final draft of the questionnaire before disuibuting it to the study subjects. 55 Data Collection A self-administered mailed questionnaire comprised of a series of statements describing the organizational structure of Michigan State University Extension, its mission, personnel, services, issues programming and delivery method, was be used to collect the data. On a five point, Likert-type scale, respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement or disagreement with the statements. The five point scale used was: 5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 "= disagree, 2 = strongly disagree, and 1 = don’t know, for Sections One to Five; and a five point scale of 1 to 5 (highly ineffective to highly effective) was used for Section Six. Maximizing the quantity and quality of the responses was accomplished by using Dillman's‘ Total Design Method (TDM). The Total Design Method has a specific set of mailing/contact procedures which, if followed correctly, should increase the number of responses. In summary, Dillman's procedure involves: (1) Sending a pre-card or telephoning the individuals in the systematic sample informing them of being selected to participate in the study. (2) Making the initial mailing of the questionnaire. (3) Sending a follow-up postcard or telephoning the non-respondents after the deadline in the cover letter. (4) Sending a second mailing of the questionnaire to all non-respondents. (5) Sending anOther follow-up postcard at the second deadline. ' (6)Using all means of communication possible to remind non-respondents. 56 After the sample was drawn, a memo was sent to all using their addresses in the 1997/98 faculty and staff directory. The notification letter was mailed to all participants notifying them of being selected to participate in the study. This first letter substituted for the pre card or telephone call suggested in Dillman's Total Design Method (TDM). The initial mailing of the questionnaires was done two weeks after the notification letter. Approximately two weeks after the first mailing, a follow-up letter with a replacement questionnaire was mailed out to all-non-respondents. The letter reminded non-respondents of the absence of their response, and an appeal was made to fill out and return the questionnaires. Non-responses were controlled in a two-fold manner. First, a careful and well designed process of getting as many responses as possible was followed according to the Total Design Method (TDM). Secondly, early and late respondents were compared on twelve selected demographic variables using a t-test. ' Data Analysis: The data collected was analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Science Research. First, the assumption that the data was from a normal population was tested using explorative procedures to visually examine the distribution of values for various . groups, and to test for normality and homogeneity of variance. This basic preliminary procedure in data analysis is important because of the fact that normal distribution is 57 central to statistical inferences , and many statistical procedures require that all groups come from normal populations with equal variance (Norusis, Marija J ., 1993). In the second part of the analysis, basic descriptive statistic analyses, using frequency and cross tabulation tests, were performed to describe the demographic characteristics of the respondents. The mean, median, mode, variance and standard deviation were generated. These analyses also helped in identifying and locating mis- - coded data. The demographic characteristics—of gender, age, college, duration in occupation with Michigan State University Extension, title, education and income were used to describe the respondents. 1n the third part of the analysis, t-tests and One-Way Analyses of Variance were used to test nine null hypotheses. This research will be guided by the following nine hypotheses and one research question. The alpha level is set at .05 percent. - Ho: (.1) There are no significant differences in the perceptions of MSUE campus based faculty and staff regarding six categories: organizational structure, mission, personnel, services, issues programming, and delivery methods, within Michigan State University Extension when influenced by demographic variable, Gender. Ho: (2) There are no significant differences in the perceptions of MSUE campus based faculty and staff with regarding six categories: organizational structure, mission, personnel, services, issues programming, and delivery methods, within Michigan State University Extension when influenced by demographic variable, Age. Ho: (3) There are no significant differences in the perceptions of MSUE campus 58 based faculty and staff regarding six categories: organizational structure, mission, personnel, services, issues programming, and-delivery methods, within MichiganState University Extension when influenced by demographic variable,- College. Ho: (4) There are no significant differences in the perceptions of MSUE campus based faculty and staff with regarding six categories: organizational structure, mission, personnel, services, issues programnring, and delivery methods, within Michigan State University Extension when influenced by demographic variable, Title. Ho: (5) There are no significant differences in the perceptions of MSUE campus based faculty and staff regarding six categories: organizational structure, mission, personnel, services, issues programming, and delivery methods, within Michigan State University Extension when influenced by demographic variable, Years of service with MSUE. Ho: (6) There are no significant differences in the perceptions of MSUE campus based faculty and staff regarding six categories: organizational structure, mission, personnel, services, issues programming, and delivery methods, within Michigan State University Extension when influenced by demographic variable, Educational Level. Ho: (7) There are no significant differences in the perceptions of MSUE campus based faculty and staff regarding six categories: organizational structure, mission, personnel, services, issues prograrnnring, and delivery methods, within Michigan State University Extension when influenced by demographic variable, Income Level. In the fourth and final part of the analysis, a multiple linear regression analysis was 59 performed to answer the research question: What demographic variables among campus based faculty and staff may influence the perception of image and are important predictors of Michigan State University Extension? CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS Chapter 4 presents and discusses the findings of the data collected from a random sample of Michigan State University Extension campus based faculty and staff. The study was designed to obtain their perceptions of MSUE’s image based on organizational structure, mission, personnel, services, issues programming, and delivery methods. The findings" are arranged. according to a) "demographic characteristics of respondents, b) seven major hypotheses, and c) one research question. . Demographic Characteristics of Respondents Gender Respondents were asked to identify their gender. Table 4:1 below revealed that the majority of the respondents were males, seventy four (74), or (53.2%), and sixty one females (61), or (43.9%). ’ Table 4:1 The gender distribution of a random sample of Michigan State University Extension (MSU-E) campus based faculty! staff. Gender MSU-E faculty/ staff (n=139) _ , , . Frequency Percent Male 74 53.2 Female ' 61 43.9 No respOnse ' ‘4' 2.9 ' « Total ' , 139 " 100.0 . 61 . Race Data in Table (4.2 confirmed that 128 (92.1 %) of the respondents were white. The difference between Whites and Non-whites was 122. This difference between the groups was too great to run a reliable test for these two groups. Therefore race was thrown out of the analysis. Table 4.2: The race distribution of a random sample of Michigan State University Extension(MSU-E) campus based faculty] staff. Race V MSUE faculty/staff (n=l39) Frequency Percent White '- 128 92.1 Non-White: Black 3 2.2 Oriental 1 0.7 Hispanic 1 0.7 Native American 1 0.7 No response 5 3.6 Total 139 ' 100 Age The respondents were placed into six age groups: younger than 25 years; 26 to 34 years; 35 to 44 years; 45 to 54 years;55 to 64 years; and 65 years and older. Table 4.3 presents a breakdown of the distribution highlighting the modal age of respondents clustered in two groups; 35 to 44 and 45 to 54 years. There is a similar representation in numbers of younger faculty/staff who are 24 to 34 years of age and 65 year old and older retired faculty and staff . 62 Table 4.3: The age distribution of a random sample of Michigan State UniVersity Extension (MSU-E) campus based faculty/staff. . Age . ‘ MSUE faculty/staff (n=l39) Frequency Percent Younger than 25 7 5.0 25 to 34 ' f 12 8.6 35 to 44 38 27.3 45 to 54 38 ‘ 27.3 A 55 to 64 27_ _ 19.4 65 years and older 14 10.1 No response , 3 2.2 Total 139 100 C 11 I ! ffil' I' The data in Table 4:4 below identifies the "Home" college of the respondents. The importance of distribution of respondents in the various colleges present the emphasis on the variety of programs. The findings reveal that an overwhelming number of . respondents were from the MSUE College of {Agriculture and Natural Resources. The smallest group of respondents were from the College of Human Ecology. Eleven or 7.9 % of those responding to the questionnaire did not answer this question. 63 Table 4.4: The college of affiliation distribution of a random. sample of Michigan State University Extension(MSU-E) campus based faculty/staff. ~ Respondent's Home College _ MSUE faculty/staff (n=l 39) . Frequency Percent Agriculture and Natural Resources 96 75.0 Veterinary Medicine 8 7.0 Social Sciences 9 7.0 Natural Science 8 6.3 Human Ecology 6 4.7 No response 11 ~ 7.9 Total 139 100.0 I] | llll 'l ! HEY I‘ Table 4.5 below identifies the departments/units of the'respondents. The highest number of respondents were from: Children, Youth and Family Programs with seventeen, or (14.2%), followed by Crop and Soil Sciences with (14), or (11.7%); Extension Administration, ten (10), or (8.3%); Fisheries and Wildlife, Large Animal Clinical Science, and Outreach Communication each with six (6) ,or (5.0%);while all ”others had less than three (3), or (2.5%) respondents. There are 28 departments and units where MSUE campus based faculty and staff are affiliated. Table 4.5: The department/unit affiliation distribution of a random sample of Michigan Departments MSUE Department/Unit affiliation (n=l 39) Frequency Percent Agricultural Extension Education 2 1.4 Agricultural Economics 4 2.9 __Agricultural Engineering 1 .7 A 'cultural Experiment Station ‘2 1.4 Animal Health Diagnostic Lab , l , .7 Animal Science 8 5.8 Botany and Plant Pathology 1 .7 CANR Dean’s Office 2 1.4 Cmpand Soil Science .14 10.1 Entomology 4 2.9 Extension Administration 10 7.2 . Extension Children, Youth & Family Program 17 12.2 Family and Child Ecology 4 2.9 Fisheries and Wildlife 6 4.3 Food Industry Institute 1.4 Food Science and Human Nutrition 3 2.2 ‘ Forestry 2 1.4 Geography 5 3.6 Horticulture 3 2.2 Human Environmental and Design 1 .7 Institute of Water Research 2 1.4 __l£ge Animal clinical science 6 43 Museum 5 4.3 Outreach Communication 6 3.61 Parks and Recreation Resources 1 .7 Pesticide Research Center 2 f 1.4 Resources Development 4 2 Travel, Tourism, and Recreation Resources 2 1.4 No Response 19 13.7 Total 139 100 65 .~ Clitle Table 4.6 presents the title of the respondents: forty ( 40) or- (28.8%) of the respondents were designated as faculty, followed by Specialists, thirty (30) or ( 21.6%); Administrators, nineteen (19), or (13.7 %), Program/Unit Leaders, eighteen (18), or (12.9%) Secretaries; ten (10) or (7.2%); and Others, (22), or (15.8%). In addition to field activities, MSU-E faculty and Specialists are involved in university teaching programs. Table 4.6 : Tillie title distribution of a random sample of Michigan State University Title of Faculty and Staff MSUE Title of faculty/staff (n=l39) . Frequency ‘ Percent Faculty 40 28.8 Specialists 30 21.6 Administrators 19 13.7 Program/Unit Leaders 18 12.9 Secretaries 10 - 7.2 Others 22 15.8 ' Total 139 100 ,3: [S . 'Il MSII-E | . Table 4.7 presents the years of service of the respondents with MSU-El The highest number of respondents, thirty four (34), or (24.5%) were employed by MSU-E for O to 5 years. The number of respondents decreased as the years of service increased. This ‘ implies that people within more years of service will make room for new comers to enter the organization. Four (4), or (2.9 %) of those responding to the questionnaire did not answer this question. 66 Table 4.7: The years of service distribution of a random sample of Michigan State University Extension (MSU-E) campus based faculty/ staff. Yearsof Service ‘ MSUE faculty/staff (n=l39) Frequency Percent 0 to 5 years ‘ - 34 24.5 6 to 11 years 24 17.3 '12 to 17 years A 25 18.0 18 to 23 years 29 20.9 ' 24 to 29 years 11 7.9 Over 30 years b 12 ' 8.6 No response 4 2.9 Total ’ 139 100.0 .EdncafinnaLlexeL . The level of education of the respondents is presented in Table 4.8. The majority of the respondents, sixty five (65), or (46.8%), were highly educated, holding PhDs; and thirty three (33), or (23.7%) held MS/MA degrees. The data portrays that educational levels ranged from the completion of a high school diploma to four years of college work. There was no response from one (1) person,(.8%). 67 Table 4.8: The educational level distribution of a random sample of Michigan State University Extension(MSU-E) campus based faculty/ staff . Educational Level of Respondents MSUE faculty/staff (n=l39) Frequency Percent High School Diploma Equivalent 8 5 .8 Some College 2 1.4 Technical or Trade School 3 2.2 Certification 2— Years of College 2 1.4 4» Years of College w/degree 18 12.9 Some Graduate Work 7 5.0 MS/MA Degree 33 23.7 Ph.D. Degree 65 46.8 No response 1 0.8 Total 139 100 InmmeBenXear Table 4.9 presents a summary of the income of the respondents. The largest salary group was making $ 69, 000.00 to $ 79, 000.00, twenty three (19), or (13.7%). The . smallest group was earning less than $25,000, one (1), or (1.4% .) The group with the ' highest salary of over $99,000, included eleven (1 I) responded, or (7.9%). 68 Table 4.9: The income per year distribution of a random sample of (MSU-E) campus based faculty/ staff . _ Income Level of Respondent . Faculty/Staff (n=l39) Frequency Percent Less than $ 25,000.00 ‘ . 1 1.4 $ 25,001.00 to $ 36,000.00 14 14.5 $36,001.00 1034100000 ' 17 18.0 $ 47,001.00 to $ 58,000.00 ‘ 15 12.9 $ 58,001.00 to $ 69,000.00 _ 12 10.1 $69,001.00 to $ 79, 000.00 19 13.7 $79.001.0010$89.ooo.oo I 4 ' 2.9 $ 89,001 to $ 99,000.00 7 ' 5.0 $ Over 99,001 _ l 1 7.9 No response 15 10.8 Total ‘ ' ' ' 139 100 69 Findings Relevant to the Hypotheses ' The findings presented in this section are the results of statistical tests performed on the data collected. The hypotheses were tested through the use of t-tests and One-Way . Analyses of variance with Tukey-b test procedures set at a 0.05 level of significance to , determine where differences exist. . A five-point Likert-type scale.( Figure 4.1) was used and coded as follows: 1 = Don’t Know, 2 = Strongly Disagree, 3 = Disagree, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree, for sections 1 to 5. A five point scale from 1 (highly ineffective) to 5 (highly effective) was used for section 6 (delivery methods). Four value scales were used in computing mean scores and analyzing the data. All scores to negative questions were converted to positive while entering the data The mean scores between the six sections and the composite were , computed and used to measure and interpret the perception: 1.) Organizational Structure, 2.) Mission, 3.) Personnel, .4.) Services, 5..) Issues Programming, and 6.) Delivery methods. A score of one (1) would indicate a strong negative perception while a high mean score of fOur (4) would indicate a strong positive perception. A mean score of 2.5 would be considered neutral. Figure 4.1 Scale of Measurement 1 2 3 4 5 Don’t Know Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 70 The seven ( 7) selected of affiliation demographic variables used in testing the null hypothesis were: gender, age, college, title, years of service with Michigan State University Extension (MSU-E), educational level and income per year. The analysis of the mean scores for each of the six sections (organizational structure, mission, services, personnel, issues programming, and delivery methods), and the composite mean of the six sections, gives adescription of the perception of image of the Michigan State University Extension organization. Studies using a similar method of analysis with regards to institutional image wereconducted by Huddleson and Karr (1982), Struckman-Johnson and Kinsely (1985) and Cnmkiton, Miller, and Lee (1986). The reported findings of this study represent only the perceptions of those who participated in this study. Sixty-four (64) statements for the six sections were used in testing the seven (7) null hypotheses in this study (see Appendix D). Findings Relevant to Hypothesis 1 _ Hypothesis I sought to determine if there were significant differences between the image perceptions of MSUE campus based faculty and staff, by gender, as to how they viewed the six categories: 1) organizational struCture; 2) mission; 3) personnel; 4) services; 5) issues programming; and, 6) delivery methods. For statistical analysis, Hypothesis 1 was converted to a null hypothesis which stated that "there are no significant differences in the image perceptions of MSUE campus 71 based faculty and staff regarding the six categories: organizational structure, mission, personnel, services, issues programming, and delivery methods, of Michigan State University Extension when influenced by demographic variable, gender.” 1 a.) Perception of the organizational structure by gender A t—test was performed to determine the differences in perceptions between males and females regarding organizational structure. The group’s mean score’s for the following two statements were significant, “MSUE is more of a research organization,” (2.28 indicated a negative perception), and “MSUE is an organization committed to serving farmers as its primary mission/audience”, (2.48 indicated a neutral perception). , Appendix G/ Table 4. 10 presents the composite data pertaining to the respondents’ image perceptions toward the organizational structure of Michigan State University Extension based on gender. Statistically significant differences were detected at the 5% level of significance for the two statements, “ Michigan State University Extension is more of a Research Organization” (.003): males mean score , 2.08; and, females mean score, 2.53; and,“ Michigan State University Extension is an organization committed to serving farmers as its primary mission/audience” (.001): males mean score 2.20; and females mean score 2.21. No other statements were considered significant. 72 Table 4.10: t-test results comparing MSUE campus based faculty/staff image perception s of organizational structure based on gender. 1: . fl Category “ Gender organizational ‘ Group # of # of _ 7 _ so for SD tor t- 2.ta11 Structure Mean Male Female X for X for Male Female value sig. Male female MSUEismore of a N=l32 73 59 2.08 2.53 .82 .86 3.338 .003" research organization . - ~ X=2.28 MSUEisanorganization N=131 73 . 58 2.70 2.21 .84 .86 -l.323 .001" committed to serving farmers as it primary - mission/audience X=2.48 Sealeofl-4(1=StronglyD'sagree2:Disagree,3=Agree,and4=StronglyAgree) r=numbet,ir=mn,sn=staodattldevlatioo n Slgamtantatset level(p=.05) The data indicated that both males and females who participated in the survey held relatively positive image perceptions between the thirteen statements and the composite of the thirteen, with males having a mean score of 2.59, and females has a mean score of 2.82. Both males and females were in agreement with the statements, with females having a slightly in greater agreement than males. The null hypothesis was rejected for the statements, “Michigan State University Extension is more of a research organization”, and, “Michigan State University Extension is an organization committed to serving farmers as primary mission/audience”. The alternative hypothesis was accepted which is that there would be differences in the image perceptions of males and females regarding these same statements. “Michigan State University Extension 15 more of a research organization’ and, “Michigan State University Extension is an organization committed to serving farmers as primary . mission/audience.” I I The null hypothesis failed to be rejected 1n all the remaining statements regarding 73 the image of the organizational structure of Michigan State University Extension. 1b) Image perception of the mission by gender A t-test was performed to determine the differences between the perceptions males and females. ' Appendix G - Table 11 presents the data pertaining to the respondents’ image perceptions about the mission of Michigan State University Extension. No statistically significant differences based on gender were detected at the 5% level of significance in any of the statements. The data indicated that both males and females who participated in the survey held relatively negative perceptions judging from their answers to the ten statements and the - composite of the ten; males having a mean score of 1.27, and females 1.43. Both males and females were in disagreement about the statements, with males being in greater disagreement than females. The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in: all the statements about the image of the mission of Michigan State University Extension. 1c). Image perceptions of personnel by gender A t-test was performed to determine the differences of image perceptions between males and females regarding personnel. The group’s mean score for two statements were significant: “MSUE personnel are professional in-dealing with problems”, 2.15 indicated a negative perception, and “MSUE personnel are profesSional in dealing with their clientele”, 2.26 indicated a negative perception. Appendix G - Table 12 presents the composite data pertaining to the respondents’ image perceptions of personnel. Statistically significant differences were detected at the 5% level of significance in the 74 two statements shown in Table 4.11: Statement 1: “Michigan State University Extension personnel are professional in dealing with problems "(.050): the males’ mean score was 2.21; and, the females’ mean score was 2.07. Statement 2: “ MichiganState University Extension personnel are professional in dealing with their clientele" (.007): the males’ mean score was 2.36; and, the females; mean score was 2.15. No other statements were considered significant. Table 4.11: t-test results comparing MSUE campus based faculty and staff image Category Gender Personnel . Group I of if of _ _ SD for SD for t- 2-tail Mean Males Females Xfor Xfor ' Male Female value sig. Male Female MSUE personnelare N=129 70 59 2.36 2.15 ' .48 .37 h i 1.970 .050" professional in dealing _ with problems - . X=2.15 MSUE personnelare N=129 70 59 2.36 2.15 .48 .36 2.745 .007" professional in dealing _ - with their clientele X=2.26 Sealeofl-4(1=Strongly Disagree,2=Disagree,3=Agree,and4=StronglyAgree) #:number,X=meen,SD=standard deviation “ Significant at 5% level (p =.05) . The data indicated that both males and females who participated in the survey held relatively negative image perceptions about the eleven statements and the composite of the eleven, with males having a mean‘score of 2.20, and females 1.97. Both males and females were in disagreement with the statements, with females in greater disagreement than males. ‘ F e e ' The null hypothesis was rejected for the statements, "Michigan State University Extension personnel are professional in dealing with problems”, and, “Michigan State University Extension personnel are professional in dealing with their clientele”. 75 The alternative hypothesis was accepted which is that there would be a difference between males and females regarding the image perception of personnel, gathered from , the statments, "Michigan State University Extension personnel are professional in dealing with problems", and “ Michigan State University Extension personnel are professional in dealing with their clientele”. The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all the remaining statements regarding the image of personnel of Michigan State University Extension. 1 d) Image perceptions of the services by gender A t-test was performed to determine the differences of perceptions between males and females regarding services. Appendix G - Table 13 presents the data pertaining to the respondents’ image perceptions of services. . No statistical significant differences were detected at the 5% level of significance in any of the statements. - The data indicated that both males and females who participated in the survey held relatively negative perceptions about the ten statements and the composite of the ten, with males having a mean score of 1.59, and Females having a mean score of 1.57. Both males and females were in disagreement with the statements, with females being in greater disagreement than males. The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all of the statements about the image of the services of Michigan State University Extension. 76 1e) Perceptions of issues programming by gender A t-test was performed to determine the differences of perceptions between males and females regarding issues programming. {Appendix G - Table 14 presents the data pertaining to the respondents’ image perceptions towards i5sues programming- No ’ statistical significant differences were detected at the 5% level of significance in any statement. The data indicated that both males and females who participated in the survey held relatively negative perceptions about the 10 statements and the composite of the ten, with males having a mean score of 1.86, and females, had a mean score of 1.73. Both males and females were in disagreement with the statements, with females being in greater disagreement than males. ‘ I The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all the. remaining statements about the image of issues programming of Michigan state University Extension. 1 1') Image perceptions of effectiveness of delivery methods by gender A t-test was performed to determine the differences of perceptions between male and females regarding the effectiveness of delivery methods. For the statement that was significant, “ Effectiveness of programs using television/satellite”, the group‘mean score (1.87) indicated a negative perception. Appendix G - Table 15 presents the l ‘ datapertaining to the respondents’ image perceptions toward the effectiveness of delivery methods. Statistically significant differences were detected at the 5% level of significance in one statement, as shown in Table 4.12: “Effectiveness of programs using television/satellites "(.039): males’ mean score 1.97; and females mean score, 2.24. No other statements were considered significant. 77 Table 4.12: t-test results comparing MSUE campus based ‘faculty/ staff image perceptions Effectiveness of Group 11 of # of _ _ SD for SD for. t-value 2-tai1 Delivery Methods Mean Males Females X for. X for Male Female sig. Male . female Effectiveness of N=130 71 59 1.57 2.24 .79 .63 ' -2.089 .039" Program using _ television/satellite =l.87 Sealeofl-4(l =StronglyDisagree,2=Disagree,3=Agree,and4=Str-ongly Agree) #:number,X=mean,SD=standarddeviation ” Significant at 5% level (p =.05) The data indicated that both males and females who participated in the survey held relatively positive perceptions between the six statements and the composite of the six, with males having a mean score of 2.62, and females 2.7. Both males andfemales were in agreement with the statements, with females being in greater agreement than males. The null hypothesis was rejected for the statement ," Effectiveness of programs using television/satellite.” The alternative hypothesis was accepted that there would be differences in the image perceptions between males and females regarding this statement. The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all of the remaining statements about the image of the effectiveness of delivery methods of Michigan State University Extension. 78 Findings Relevant to Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 2 sought to determine if there were significant differences between the image perceptions of MSUE campus based faculty. and staff, by age, as to how they viewed the six categories: 1) organizational structure; 2) mission; 3) personnel; 4) services; 5) issues programming; and, 6) delivery methods. For statistical analysis, Hypothesis 2 was converted to a null hypothesis which stated that "there are no significant differences in the image perceptions of MSUE campus based faculty and staff regarding the six categories: organizational structure, mission, personnel, services, issues programming, and delivery methods, of Michigan State University 1 Extension when influenced by demographic variable, age.” 2 a) Perceptions of organizational structure by college of affiliation A t-test was performed to determine the differences of perceptions between colleges regarding organizational structure . Appendix G - Table 16 presents the data pertaining to the respondents’ image perceptions of organizational structure. N o statistically significant differences were detected at the 5% levelof significance in any of the statements. The data indicated that various Colleges faculty/staff who participated in the survey held positive perceptions about the thirteen statements and the composite of the thirteen, with the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources (CANR) having a mean score of 2.58, and Other Colleges having a mean score of 2.81. Both groups, the CANR and 79 Other Colleges, were in agreement with the statements, with Other colleges being in greater agreement than the CANR. The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all of the statements regarding the image of organizational structure of Michigan State University Extension. 2 b) Image perceptions of mission by college affiliation. A t-test was performed to determine the differences of the perceptions of faculty/staff between the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources and Other Colleges regarding the mission of Michigan State University Extension. . Appendix G -Table 17 presents the data pertaining to the respondents’ image perceptions about the mission. Statistically significant differences were not detected at the 5% level of significance in any of the statements. The data indicated that both the CANR and Other colleges who participated in the ' survey held negative perceptions about the ten statements and the composite of the ten, with the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources having a mean score of 1.24, and Other Colleges having one of 1.30. Both the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Other Colleges were in disagreement with the statements, with CANR in greater disagreement than the Other Colleges. The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all of the statements about the image of the mission of Michigan State University Extension. 2 c)Image perceptions of personnel by college A t-test was performed to determine the differences of faculty/staff perceptions between the College of ANR and Other Colleges regarding personnel. Appendix G - 80 Table 18 presents the data pertaining to the respondents’ image perception of the MSUE personnel. No statistically significant differences were detected at the 5% level of significance in any of the statements. ' > The data indicated that both the CANR and Other Colleges who participated in the survey held relatively negative perceptions about the eleven statements and the composite of the eleven, with the CANR having a mean score of 2.19, and Other colleges having a mean of score 1.96. Both the CANR and Other Colleges were in disagreement with the statements, with Other Colleges being in greater disagreement than the CANR. The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all of the statements about the image of the personnel of Michigan State University Extension. I 2 d) Image Perceptions of Services by college I A t-test was performed to determine the differences of faculty/staff perceptions between the CANR and Other Colleges regarding services. Appendix G - Table 19 presents the data pertaining to the respondents’ image perceptions regarding the services. No statistically significant differences were detected at the 5% level of significance in any of the statements. . = h . The data indicated that both the CANR and Other Colleges who participated in the survey held relatively negative perceptions about the ten statements and the composite of the ten, with the CANR having a mean score of 1.62, and Other Colleges, one of 1.65. Both the CANR and Other Colleges were in disagreement with the statements, With the CANR being in greater disagreement than the Other Colleges. ’ l The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all of the statements about the image of services of Michigan State University Extension. 1 81 2e) Image perceptions of issues programming by college. , A t-test was performed to determine the differences of faculty/staff perceptions of the CANR and Other Colleges regarding issues programming. Appendix - Table 20 presents the data pertaining to the respondents’ image perception of issues programming. Statistically significant differences were not detected at the 5% level of significance in any statement. The data indicated that both the CANR and Other Colleges who participated in the survey held negative perceptions about the fourteen statements and the composite of the fourteen, with the CANR having a mean score of 1.13, and Other Colleges one of 1.15. Both the CANR and Other Colleges were in disagreement with the statements, with the CANR being in greater disagreement than the Other colleges. The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all of the statements about the-image of issues programming of Michigan State University Extension. 2 f) Image perceptions of the effectiveness of the delivery methods by college A t-test was performed to determine the differences of faculty/staff perceptions between the CANR and Other Colleges regarding the effectiveness of delivery methods used by MSU-E. Appendix G - Table 21 presents the datapertaining to the respondents’ imageperceptions of the effectiveness of delivery methods. Statistically significant differences were not detected at the 5% level of significance in any of the statements. The data indicated that both the CANR and Other Colleges who participated in the survey held relatively negative perceptions about the six statements and the composite of the six, with the CANR having a mean score of 1.80, and Other Colleges, one of 1.91. 82 Both the CANR and the Other Colleges were in disagreement with the statements, with the CANR in greater disagreement than the Other Colleges. The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all of the statements about the image of the effectiveness of delivery methods of Michigan State University Extension. Findings Relevant to Hypothesis 3 Hypothesis 3 sought to determine if there were significant differences between the image perceptions of MSUE campus based faculty and staff, by college, as to how they viewed the six categories: 1) organizational structure; 2) mission; 3) personnel; 4) services; 5) issues programming; and, 6) delivery methods. For statistical analysis, Hypothesis 3 was converted to a null hypothesis which stated that "there are no significant differences in the image perceptions of MSUE campus based faculty and staff regarding the six categories: organizational structure, mission, personnel, services, issues programming, and delivery methods, of Michigan State University Extension when influenced by demographic variable, college.” 3 a) Image perceptions of organizational structure by age. An analysis of variance using the tukey-b post hoc procedure at a 0.05 level of significance was used to determine the differences of perceptions among age groups regarding organizational structure. Appendix G - Table 22 presents the data pertaining to the respondents’ image perceptions of organizational structure. No statistically significant differences were detected at a 5% level of significance in any of the 83 statements. The data indicated that all the age group who participated in the survey held positive perceptions about the thirteen statements and the composite of the thirteen, with the group younger than34 years having a mean score of 2.87, 35 to 44 years, 2.59, 45 to 54 years 2.78, 55 to 65 years mean score of 2.71, and older than 65 years a mean score of 2.71. All of the age groups were in agreement with the statements, with the group that was younger than 34 years in greatest agreement. The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all of the statements about the image of organizational structure of Michigan State University Extension. 3 b) Image perceptions of mission by age. . An analysis of variance using the mkey-b post hoc procedure at a 0.05 level of significance was used to determine the differences of perceptions among age groups regarding mission. Appendix G - Table 23 presents the data pertaining to the respondents’ image perception about mission. No statistically significant differences were detected at a 5% level of significance in any of the statements. The data indicated that all of the age groups who participated in the survey held negative perceptions abOut the ten statements and the composite of the ten, with the . group younger than 34 years, having amean score of 1.14, 35 to 44 years 1.56, 45 to 54 years, 1.28, 55 to 65 years, 1.17, and older than 65 years, a mean score of 1.29. All of the age groups were in disagreement with the statements, with the group younger than 34 years in greatest disagreement. The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all of the statements regarding the image 84 of the mission of Michigan State University Extension. 3 c) Image perceptions of personnel by age. An analysis of variance using the tukey-b post hoc procedure at a 0. 05 level of significance was used to determine the differences of perceptions among age groups regarding personnel. For the statement that was significant, “MSUE personnel do really care about their clientele”, the group mean score (2.29), indicated a negative perception. Appendix G - Table 24 presents the data pertaining to the respondents’ image perception about MSUE personnel. Statistically significant differences were detected at a 5% level of significance in one statement, as shown in Table 4.13: Statement "Personnel do really care about their clientele" (.050). The group younger than 34 years had a mean score of 2.16; 35 to 44 years, 2.24; 45 to 54 years 2.59; 55 to 64 years, 2.38; and older than 65 years a mean score of 2.43. The group younger than 34 years of age was significantly different from the rest of the groups. No other statements were considered significant. Table 4.13: Analysis of Variance results comparing MSUE campus based faarlty/ staff image perception of Personnel bamd on age. Section Group Younger than 35-44 45-54 55-65 65 years and F-Ratio F- Pro Personnel 34 years years years years older N: 1.31 19 37 ‘ 37 24 14 MSUE personnel do _ 2.445 .050" really care about their X: 2.29 2.11 2.24 . 2.59 2.38 2.43 clientele ' ' ' 1 SD .46 y .68 .50 .65 .51 Scaleofl-4(l =Stronglylh’sagree,2=Disagree,3=Agree,and4=Stmngly Agree) # = number, X = mean, SD = standard deviation ** significant at 5% level(p=.05) The data indicated that all the age groups who participated in the survey held 85 relatiVely negative perceptions about the eleven statements and the composite of the . eleven, with the group younger than 34 years having a mean score of 12.05, 35 to 44 years, one of 2.15, 45 to 54 years, 2.27, 55 to 65 years, 2.22, and the group older than 65 years had a mean score of 2.32. All the age groups were in disagreement with the . statements, with the group younger than 34 years being in greatest disagreement. The null hypothesis was rejected for the statement, " personnel .do really care about their clientele". The alternative hypothesis was accepted Which was that there would be differences in the image perception of age groups regarding, the statement " personnel do really care about their clientele". The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all of the remaining statements about the image of the personnel of Michigan State University Extension. 3d) Image perceptions of services by age. An analysis of variance using the tukey-b post hoc procedure at a 0.05 level of significance was used to determine the differences of perceptions among age groups regarding services. For the two statement that were significant, “MSUE services concentrated more on urban problems”, the group mean score (1.24) indicated a negative perception. Appendix G -Table 25 presents the data pertaining to the respondents’ image perceptions about the services. Statistically significance differences were detected at 5% ' level of significance in one statement, as shown in Table 14: Statement "Services concentrated more on urban problems" (.002): the age group younger than 34 years had a mean score of 1.63; 35 to 44 years, 1.13; 45to 54 years, 1.28; 55 to 64 years, 1.05; 86 and, Older than 65 years, 1.17. The younger than 34 years of age group was significantly different from 35 to 44 years, the 55 to 64 years, and older than 65 years age groups. No other statements were considered significant. Table 4.14: Analysis of Variance results comparing MSUE campus based faculty/ staff image perceptions of Services based on age. Section Group Younger than 35-44 . 45-54 55-65 65 years F- F- Serviees Mean 34 years years years years and Ratio Prob older MSUE “services ‘ N: ~ 98 16 32 25 19 6 concentrated more _ on urban problems X: 1.24 1.63 1.13 1.28 1.05 1.17 4.543 .002" SD .62 .42 .46 .23 .41 Scaleof1-4(l=StronglyDisagree,2=D'eagree,3=Agree,and4=StronglyAgree) #:nnmber,X =mean,SD=standarddeviation “ signficant at5% level(p=.05) The data indicated that allof the age groups who participated in the survey held negative perceptions about the ten statements and the composite of the ten, with the group younger than 34 years having a mean score of 1. 62, 35 to 44 years, one of 1.50, 45 to 54 years, 1. 63, 55 to 65 years, 1. 63, and older than 65 years, a mean score of 1. 56. All of the age groups were the 1n disagreement with the statements, with the 35 to 44 year age group being in greatest disagreement. The null hypothesis was rejected for the statement, " services concentrated more on urban problems." The alternative hypothesis was accepted which was that there would be differences in the image perceptions of the various age groups regarding "services concentrated more on urban problems. " ’ The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all of the remaining statements about the image of the services of Michigan State University Extension. 87 3e) Image Perceptions of issues programming by age. ‘ An analysis of variance using the .tukey-b post hoc procedure at a 0.05 level of significance was used to determine the differences of perceptions among age groups regarding issues programming. For the two statements that were significant, “ Participants felt that the concept of issues programming is appropriate for Extension,” the group mean score (1.04), indicated a negative perception, as well as, “ Adoption of issues programming is a sign of withdrawal from traditional audience,” with a group mean score of 1.26. Appendix G - Table 26 presents the data pertaining to the respondents’ image perceptions about issues programming. Statistically significance differences were detected at a 5% level of significant in two statements, as shown in Table 4.15: Statement " Participants felt that the concept of issues programming is appropriate for MSU-E" (.044). The age group younger than 34 years mean score of 1.00; 35 to 44 years mean score of 1.06; 45 to 54 years mean score of 1.00; 55 to 64 years, 1.30; and the group older than 65 years had a mean score of 1.00. The 55 to 64 years age group was significantly different from the rest of the groups. Statement 2, "Issues programming adoption is a sign of withdrawal from its traditional audience" (.007). The group younger than 34 years had a mean score of 2.00; 35 to 44 years, 1.22; 45 to 54 years,l.00; 55 to 64 years, 1.13; and older than 65 years, a mean score of 2.00. The groups of younger than 34 years and older than 65 years of age were significantly different from the rest of the groups. No other statements were considered significant. 88 Table 4.15: Analysis of Variance results comparing MSUE campus based staff image perception of Issues Programming based on age. Categories Group Younger 35-44 , 45-54 _ 55- 65 years F- F-Prob ' ‘ Mean than 34 years years ‘64 and older Ratio years year . . 5 Participants felt that the N: 54 6 18 15 10 5 concept is appropriate __ t _ for Extension X 1.04 1.00 1.06 1.00 1.30 1.00 2.653 .044“ SD .00 .42 .00 .48 .00 Adoption of issues N: 27 2 9 6 8 2 programming is a sign _ of withdrawal from X 1.26 2.00 ' 1.22 1.00 1.13 2.00 4.719 .007" traditional audience SD .00 .44 .00 .35 00 Scaleof1-4(1=StronglyD'magree,2=Disagree,3=Agree,and4=StronglyAgree) #=number,X =mean, SD=standand deviation ** Significantat5% 1evel(p=.05) The data indicated that all of the age groups who participated in the survey held negative perceptions about the fourteen statements and the composite of the fourteen, with the younger than 34 years group havinga mean score 0f 120,135 to 44 years, 1.15, 45 to 54 years, 1.12, 55 to 64 years, 1.17, and older than 65 years, a mean score of 1.17. All of the age groups were in disagreement with the statements, with the 35 to 44 years age group in greatest disagreement. H The null hypothesis was rejected for the statements, " issues prtigrarnming adoption is a sign of withdrawal from its traditional audience," and " participants felt that the concept of issues programming is appropriate for MSU-E." The altemative hypothesis was accepted, that there would be differences in the image perceptions of age groups regarding " issues programming adoption is a sign of withdrawal from its traditional audience," and " participants felt'that the concept of issues programmingis appropriate for MSUE." 89 The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all of the remaining statements about the image of issues programing of Michigan State University Extension. 3f)_Image Perceptions of effectiveness of- delivery methods by age. An analysis of variance using the turkey-b post hoc procedure at a 0.05 level of significance was used to determine the differences of perceptions among age groups regarding effectiveness of delivery methods. For the two statements that were significant, “Effectiveness of using radio”, (1.43), the group mean score indicated a negative perception, and “Effectiveness programs using rfi. computers”, at 1.50, indicated a negative perception also. Appendix G - Table 27 presents the data pertaining to the respondents’ image perceptions about the effectiveness of delivery methods. Statistically significant differences were detected at a 5% level of significance in two statements, as shown in Table 4.16: Statement 1, " Effectiveness of program using demonstration delivery methods" (.012). The younger than 34 years group mean score was 1.94; 35 to 44 years,1.29; 45 to 54 years, 1.35; 55 to 64 years, 1.33; and the group older than 65 years had a mean score of 1.50. The group of younger than 34 years of age was significantly different from the age groups 45 t054 years, 55 to 64 years, and older than 65 years. Statement 2, "Effectiveness of programs using computers as delivery methods. " (.017): the group younger than 34 years had a mean score of 1.29; 35 to 44 years, 1.56; 45 to 54 years, 1.39; 55 to 64 years, 1.48; and the group older than 65 years had a mean score of 2.00. The older than 65 years age group was significantly different from the rest of the age groups. No other statements were considered significant. 90 Table 4.16: Analysis of Variance results comparing MSUE campus based faculty/ staff image Categories Group Younger, 35-44 45-54 55- 65 F - . F- Effectiveness Mean than 34 years years ' years 65 years Ratio Prob of Delivery year and Methods s older Effectiveness N: 109 16 34 26 21 12 of delivery ‘ methods using __ radio X 1.43 1.94 1.29 1.35 1.33 1.50 3.410 .012* * SD .85 .58 .63 .48 .52 Effectiveness N: 114 17 32 33 21 11 of delivery _ methods using X 1.50 3.141 .017* computers , 1.29 1.56 1.39 1.48 2.00 * SD ' 59 50 56 51 .77 Scale of 140 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, and 4 = Strongly Agree) # = number, X = mean, SD = standard deviation ** Significant at 5% level (p =.05) The data indicated that all of the age groups which participated in the survey held negative perceptions about the six statements and the composite of the six, with the younger than 34 years group having a mean score of 1.96, the 35 to 44 years group, 1.79, 45 to 54 years, a mean score of 1.87, 55 to 65 years mean score of 1.72, and older than 65 years mean score of 1.88. All of the age groups were in disagreement with the statements, with the 55 to 65 years age group being'in greatest disagreement. The null hypotheses were rejected for the statements, " Effectiveness of programs using demonstrations as delivery method" , and, " Effectiveness of programs using computers as delivery method." The altemative hypothesis was accepted which is that there would be differences in the perceptions between the age groups regarding, " 91 Effectiveness of programs using demonstrations as delivery method" , and, " Effectiveness of programs using computers as delivery method. " The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all of the remaining statements about the image of the effectiveness of delivery methods of Michigan State University Extension. Findings Relevant to Hypothesis 4 Hypothesis 4 sought to determine if there were significant differences between the image perceptions of MSUE campus based faculty and staff, by title, as to how they viewed the six categories: 1) organizational structure; 2) mission; 3) personnel; 4) services; 5) issues programming; and, 6) delivery. methods. For statistical analysis, Hypothesis 4 was converted to a null hypothesis which stated that "there are no significant differences in the image perceptions of MSUE campus based faculty and staff regarding the six categories: organizational structure, mission, personnel, services, issues programming, and delivery methods, of Michigan State University Extension when influenced by demographic variable, title.” 4a) Image Perceptions of Organizational Structure by Title. An analysis of variance using the tukey-b post hoc'procedure at a 0.05 level of significance was used to determine the differences of perceptions among groups holding different titles regarding organizational structure. For the three statements that were significant, “MSUE is more of a service organization”, the group mean score of 2.63 indicated'a positive perception; “MSUE is more of a research organization ”, 2.31 indicated a negative perception, and, “MSUE is an organization committed to serving all 92 people equally,” 2.65 indicated a positive perception. Appendix G - Table 28 presents the data pertaining to the respondents’ image perceptions about organizational structure. Statistically significant differences were detected at a 5% level of significance in three statements, as shown in Table 4.17: Statement”, "Michigan State University Extension is more of a service organization" (.037): Administrators/Program Leaders had a mean score of 2.47; Faculty, 2.7; Secretaries and Others, 2.90; and Specialists a mean score of 2.40 Faculty, Secretaries and Others were significantly different from Administrators/Program Leaders, and Specialists. Statement 2) "Michigan State University Extension is a research organization" (.040): Administrators/Program Leaders had a mean score of 2.21; Faculty, 2.03; Secretaries and Others, 2.63; and Specialists, a mean score of 2.41. Secretaries and Others were significantly different from Administrators and Faculty. Statement 3)"Michigan State University Extension is an organization committed to serving all people equally " (.003): Administrators/Program Leaders had a mean score of 2.61; Faculty, 2.26; Secretaries and Others, 3.11; and Specialists, a mean score of 2.72. Secretaries and Others was significantly different from Faculty. Nocther statements were considered significant. 93 Table 4.17: Analysis of Variance results comparing MSUE campus based staff image perceptions of organizational structure based on Title. Categories Group Admin's Faculty Secretary Specialists F-Ratio F- Organimtional Mean trators/ and Others Prob Structure P703111 m Leaders MSUE is more of N: 120 ‘ 30 36 29 25 a service _ ' organization X 2.63 2.47 2.72 2.90 2.40 2.499 .063“ # SD .68 .49 .49 .87 ' MSUE is a N: 112 29 29 27 27 research _ organization X 2.31 2.21 2.03 2.63 2.41 2.861 040* 3 SD .98 .91 .79 MSUE is an . N: 119 31 ‘ 35 28 25 organization _ committed to X 2.65 2.61 2.26 3.11 2.72 4.876 003* serving all people * equally SD .84 .95 .88 .84 Scaleof1-4(l=StronglyDisagree,2= ' DmslmkAmanthMngly Agree) 11 = number, X = mean, SD = standard deviation ** Significant at 5% level (p =.05) The data indicated that all of the age groups who participated in the survey held positive perceptions about the fourteen statements and the composite of the fourteen, with Administrators/Program Leaders having a. mean score of 2.81, Faculty, a mean score of 2.68, Secretaries and Others, a mean score of 2.90, and Specialists mean score of 2.85 . All of the title groups were in- agreement with the statements, with secretary groups in greatest agreement. The null hypothesis was rejected for the statements, " Michigan State University Extension is more of service organization", " Michigan State University Extension is a research organization, "and, " Michigan State University Extension is an organization 94 wnmvif Zimmmeneahw-um committed to serving all people equally." The alternative hypothesis was accepted, that there would be differences in the image perceptions between the various title groups . regarding " Michigan State University Extension is more of service organization", " Michigan State University Extension is a research organization."and,r" Michigan State University Extension is an organization committed to serving all people equally." The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all of the remaining statements about the image of organizational structure of Michigan State University Extension. 4 b) Image Perceptions of mission by title. An analysis of variance using the tukey-‘btpost h0c procedure at 0.05 level of significance was used to determine the differences of perceptions among title groups regarding mission. For the statement that was significant, “MSUE extends MSU research information to rural people in Michigan”, the group mean score of 1.11 indicated a negative perception. Appendix G - Table 29 presents the data pertaining to the respondents’ image perceptions about MSUE’s mission. Statistically significant differences were detected at a 5% level of significance in one statement, as shown in Table 4.18: "Michigan State University Extension extends research information of MSU to rural people in Michigan," (.046): Administrators/Program Leaders showed a mean score of 1.18; Faculty, a mean score of 1.20; Secretaries and Others,1.00; and Specialists, 1.04. Secretaries and Others were significantly different from Administrators/Program Leaders and Faculty. No other statements were considered significant. 95 Table 4.18: Analysis of variance. results comparing MSUE campus based staff image perceptions of Categories Group Administrato Facult Secreta Speciali F- F-Prob Mission Mean rs/Program y ry and sts Ratio Leaders Others MSUE extend N: 103 28 25 26 24 MSU research _ information to X 1.11 1.18 1.20 1.00 1.04 2.766 . .046“ rural people in Michigan SD .39 .41 .00 .20 Scale of 1-4(1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, and 4 = Strongly Agree) # = number, X = mean, SD = standard deviation ** Significant at 5% level (p =.05) The data indicated that all of the title groups which participated in the survey held negative perceptions about the ten statements and the composite of the ten, with ‘ Administrators/Program Leaders having mean score of 1.31, Faculty, a mean score of 1.28, Secretaries and Others, a mean score of 1.14, and Specialists, a mean score of 1.27. All of the title groups were in disagreement with the statements, with Secretaries and Others in greatest disagreement The null hypothesis was rejected for the statement, "Michigan State University Extension extends research information of MSU to nrral people in Michigan." The alternative hypothesis was accepted, that there would be differences in the image - perceptions of title groups regarding ,"Michigan State University Extension extends research information of MSU to rural people in Michigan." The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all of the remaining statements about the image of the mission of Michigan State University Extension. 96 4 c) Image Perceptions of Personnel by title. An analysis of variance using the tukey-b post hoc procedure at a 0.05 level of significance was used to determine the differences of perception among title group regarding personnel. For the statement that was significant, “MSUE personnel are effective teachers, the group mean score of 2.07 indicated a negative perception. Appendix G - Table 30 presents the data pertaining to the respondents’ image perception towards personnel. Statistically significant differences were detected at a 5% level of significance in one statement as shown in Table 4.19: ~ "Personnel are effective teachers" (.050). Administrators/Program Leaders had a mean score of 2.23; Faculty, a mean score of 1.94; Secretaries and Others mean a score of 2.07; and, Specialists a mean score of 2.04. Secretaries andOthers were significantly different from Faculty. No other statements were considered significant. Table 4.19: Analysis of variance results comparing MSUE campus based faculty/ staff image perceptions of personnel based on title. Categories Grou Admin'stratord Faculty Secretary Specialists F- F-Prob Personnel p Program and Others Ratio ' Mean Leaders MSUE personnel N: 118 31 33 27 27 are effective _ ' teachers X: 2.07 2.23 1.94 2.07 2.04 2.541 .050" so: .50 5o .27 .34 Sarleofl-4(1=StronglyDisagree,2=Disagree,3:Agree,and4:StronglyAgr-ee) #:number, X :mean, SD: standard deviation " Significant at5% level (p:.05) The data indicated that the age groups which participated in the survey held relatively negative perceptions about the eleven statements and the composite of the eleven, with Administrators/Program Leaders having a mean score of 2.26, Faculty, a mean score of 97 2.02, Secretaries and Others, a mean score of 2.19, and Specialists a mean score of 2.60. The title groups, Administrators/Program Leaders, Faculty and Secretaries were in disagreement with the statements, Secretaries in greatest disagreement. Only Specialists held positive perceptions between the statements. The null hypothesis was rejected for the statement, " Michigan State University personnel are effective teachers." The alternative hypothesis was accepted, that there would differences in the image perceptions between the title groups regarding "Michigan State University Extension personnel are effective teachers ." ~ The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all of the remaining statements about the image of the personnel of Michigan State University Extension. 4d) Image Perceptions of Services by title. An analysis of variance using the tukey-b post hoc procedure at a 0.05 level of significance was used to determine the differences of perceptions among title groups regarding services. The group mean score for the statement that was significant, “MSUE services concentrated more on urban problems , at 1.40, indicated a negative perception. Appendix G - Table 31 presents the data pertaining to the respondents’ image perceptions towards services. Statistically significant differences were detected at a 5% level of significance in one statement. See Table 4.20: "Services concentrated more on urban problems," (.024) Administrators/Program Leaders mean score of 1.04; Faculty, a mean score of 1.36; Secretaries and Others a mean score of 1.43; and Specialists, a mean score of 1.21. Administrators/Program Leaders had a group were significantly , different from Faculty and Secretaries and Others. No other statements were considered 98 significant Table 4. 20: Analysis of variance results comparing MSUE campus based faculty/ staff image ‘ perception of services based on Title. Categories Group Administratorsl Faculty Secretary Specialists F-Ratio F-Prob Services Mean Program and Others . - Leaders , MSUE N: 89 25 22 23 19 services 1 . _ . concentrated X 1.26 1.04 1.36 1.43 1.21 3.298 .024“ more on urban roblems ' SD .20 .58 .59 .42 Scaleof1-4(1=StronglyDisagree,2=Disagree,3:Agree,an4=Strongly #=number,X:mean, SD=standard deviation ‘1‘ Significant at5% level(p=.05) The data indicated that all of the title groups which participated in. the survey held negative perceptions about the ten statements and the composite of the ten, with Administrators/Program Leaders having a mean score of 1.55, Faculty, a mean score of 1.68, Secretaries and Others, a mean score of 1.57, and Specialists, 1.51. All of the title groups were in disagreement with the statements, with Specialists in greatest disagreement. The null hypothesis was rejected for the statement, " Michigan State University services concentrated more on urban problems." The alternative hypothesis was accepted that there would be differences in the image perceptions between the various age groups regarding "services concentrated more on urban problems". The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all of the remaining statements about the image of the services of Michigan State University Extension. 4e) Image Perceptions of Issues Programming by title. An analysis of variance using the tukey-b post hoc procedure at a 0.05 level of 99 - significance was used to determine the differences of perceptions among title groups regarding issues programming. The group mean score for the statement that was significant, “MSUE is better under issues programming than the current extension approach,” at 1.31, indicated a negative perception. Appendix G - Table 32 presents the data pertaining to the respondents’ image perceptions toward issues programming. Statistically significant differences were detected at a 5% level of significance in one statement. See Table 4.21: Statement, Participants felt Michigan State University Extension is better under issues programming " (.011). Administrators/Program Leaders had a mean score of 1.36; Faculty, a mean 1.71; Secretaries and Others, a F“;- M n «new . means—“mm mean score of 1.00; and Specialists, 1.00 . Administrators and Faculty were significantly different from Secretaries and Others, and Specialists. No other statements were considered significant. Table 4.21: Analysis of variance reallts comparing MSUE campus based staff image perceptions of issues Programming ’ based on title. P Categories Group Administr Faculty Secretary Specialists F- F-Prob M'ssion Mean ators/Prog and Ratio ram Others Leaders MSUE is better under N: 32 14 7 5 6 issues programming than __ current extension X 1.31 1.36 1.71 1.00 1.00 4.487 .01 I" approach . SD .50 .49 .00 .00 ’ Saloon-4a=suonglynisagrot,2=oisagree,3=Agree,and4=StronglyAgroe) #:nnmber,X=mean,SD=standard deviation " Significantat5% level (p =.05) The data indicated that all the title groups which participated in the survey held negative perceptions about the fourteen statements and the composite of the fourteen, with Administrators/Program Leaders having a mean score 1.12, Faculty, 1.21, 100 Secretaries and Others, 1.10, and Specialists, 1.04. All of the age groups were in disagreement with the statements, with Specialists in greatest disagreement. The null hypothesis was rejected for the statement, " Michigan State University Extension is better under issues programming." The alternative hypothesis was accepted, that there would be differences in the image perception of title groups regarding, " Michigan State University Extension is better under issues programming”. The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all of the remaining statements about the image of the issues programming of Michigan State University Extension. 4f) Image Perceptions of Effectiveness of Delivery Methods by title. An analysis of variance using the tukey-b post hoc procedure at a 0.05 level of significance was used to determine the differences of perception among title groups regarding effectiveness of delivery methods. The group mean scores for the three statements that were significant, “Effectiveness of programs using television/satellite", 1.32 the group mean score of indicated a negative perception; " Effectiveness of programs using demonstration methods, 2.32, indicated a negative perception, an , " Effectiveness of programs using bulletins, 1.74 indicated a negative perception. Appendix G ,- Table 33 presents the data pertaining to the respondents’ image perception towards effectiveness of delivery methods. Statistically significant differences were detected at 5% level of significance in three statements shown in Table 4.22. Statement 1) " Effectiveness of programs using television/satellite as delivery method," (.001): Administrators/Program Leaders had a mean score of 1.44; Faculty, 1.17; Secretaries and Others, 1.58; and, Specialists 1.00. Specialists were significantly different from 101 a._ll ... .35! WW: 1;. Administrators, and Secretaries and Others. Statement 2) “Effectiveness of programs using radio as delivery methods (.028): Administrators/Program Leaders had a mean score of 1.30; Faculty ,1.28; Secretaries and Others,1.77, and Specialists, 1.33. Secretaries and Others, were significantly different from the rest of the groups. Statement 3) “Effectiveness of programs using bulletins as delivery methods” (.006): Administrators/Program Leaders had a mean score of 1.32; Faculty, of 1.80, Secretaries and Others, 1.92; and, Specialists, 1.91. Administrators were significantly different from the rest of the groups. No other statements were considered significan Table 4.22: Analysis of Variance results comparing MSUE campus based faculty/staff image perception of Effectiveness of Delivery Methods based on Title. Categories Group Administ Faculty Secretary Specialists F- F- Effectiveness of Mean ratorslPr and Ratio Prob delivery methods ogram Others Leaders Effectiveness of N = 90 25 24 24 17 programs using _ television/satellite X 1.32 1.44 1.17 1.58 1.00 6.421 .001 ** SD .51 .38 .65 .64 Effectiveness of N: 113 27 34 26 26 programs using _ demonstration X 2.32 2.26 2.18 2.46 2.42 1.139 .028" methods ' . SD .81 .63 .65 .59 Effectiveness of N: 104 25 30 26 23 programs using __ bulletins . X 1.74 1.32 1.80 1.92 1.91 4.413 .006“ SD , .48 .71 .80 .67 Scale of 140 = Strongly Disagree, 2 : Disagree, 3 : Agree, and 4 = Strongly Agree) 11 : number, X = mean, SD : standard deviation ** Significant at 5% level (p =.05) The data indicated that all of the title groups who participated in the survey held negative perceptions about the six statements and the composite of the six, with 102 ..I’t 3.6-.9 I s Administrators/Program Leaders having a mean score of 1.73, Faculty, 1.79, Secretaries and Others, 1.99, and Specialists, 1.78, in greatest disagreement. The null hypothesis was rejected for the three statements, " Effectiveness of programs using television/satellite delivery methods" ," effectiveness of programs using radio as delivery method", and "effectiveness of programs using bulletins as delivery methods." The alternative hypothesis was accepted which was that there would be o',Th—l'}_‘.am~ ML! ‘11 differences in the image perceptions between the various title groups regarding", these three statements. "WLIFT- E‘fiufilr The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all of the remaining statements about the image of the effectiveness delivery of methods of Michigan State University Extension. Findings Relevant to Hypothesis 5 Hypothesis 5 sought to determine if there were significant differences between the image perceptions of MSUE campus based faculty and staff, by years of service with MSUE, as to how they viewed the six categories: 1) organizational structure; 2) mission; 3) personnel; 4) services; 5) issues programming; and, 6) delivery methods. For statistical analysis, Hypothesis 5 was converted to a null hypothesis which stated that "there are no significant differences in the image perceptions of MSUE campus based faculty and staff regarding the six categories: organizational structure, mission, personnel, services, issues programming, and delivery methods, of Michigan State University Extension when influenced by demographic variable, years of service with MSUE.” 103 Sa ) Image Perceptions of Organizational Structure by years of service with Michigan State University Extension. An analysis of variance using the tukey-b post hoc procedure at a 0.05 level of significance was used to determine the differences of perceptions among years of duration with MSUE regarding organizational structure. The group mean scores for the three statements that were significant,“MS-UE is more of a service organization”, at 2.64 indicated a positive perception, and “MSUE is more of a research organization ”, 2.29 indicated a negative perception, and, “MSUE organization is highly stratified, at 2.79, also indicated a positive perception. For the three statements that were significant, “MSUE is more of a service organization” 2.63 indicated a group mean score positive perception, and“MSUE is more of a research organization ” 2.31 indicated a negative perception; and, “MSUE organization is highly stratified, 2.79, indicated a positive perception. Appendix G- Table 34 presents the data pertaining to the respondents image perception about organizational structure. Statistically significance differences were detected at a 5% level of significance in the three statements as shown in Table 4.23 Statement 1) "Michigan State University Extension is more of service organization" (.039): 0 to 11 years had a mean score of 2.70; 12 to 17 years, a mean score of 2.69; 18 to 23 years, a mean score of 2.00; and, 24 years and over, a mean score of 2.67. The 18 to 23 years of service group was significantly different from the rest of the groups. Statement 2) "Michigan State University Extension is a research organization" (.049): the 0 to 11 years mean score was 2.37; 12 to 17 years, 2.37; 18 to 23 years 1.64; and, 24 years and over, 2.09. 18 to 23 years of service group was significantly different from the 0 to 11 years and 12 to 17 years groups. 104 ' ‘ Hr“!!! Statement 3) "Michigan State University Extension is an organization highly stratified"(.030): the 0 to 11 years mean score was 2.83; 12 to 17 years, 2.64; 18 to 23 years, 2.40; and, 24 years and ,over, 2.30. 24 years and over years of service group were significantly different from 0 to 11 years and 12 to 17 years groups. No other statements were considered significant. Table 4.23: Analysis of Variance results comparing MSUE campus based staff image perceptions of organizational structure based on years of service with MSUE. Categories Group 0 to 11 12 to 17 18 to 23 24 years F- F-Prob Organizational Structure Mean years years years and Ratio over MSUE is more of a service N: 133 82 29 10 12 organization _ X 2.64 2.70 2.69 2.00 2.67 2.872 .039" SD .75 .60 .67 .78 MSUE is more of a research N: 131 82 27 l 1 11 organization ._ 2.29 X 2.37 2.37 1.64 2.09 2.693 .049" SD .82 .88 .67 1.04 MSUE organization is highly N: 116 71 25 10 10 stratified _ 2.79 X 2.83 2.64 2.40 3.30 3.079 .030" SD .63 .86 84 .82 Scaleofl-4(1=Strongly D’mgree,2=Disagree,3=Agree,and4=StronglyAgree) #:number,X=mean,SD=standard deviation " Significantat5% level(p:.05) The data indicated that all of the years of service groups who participated in the survey held positive perceptions about the fifteen statements and the composite of the fifteen; 0 to 11 years had a mean score of 2.77, 12 to 17 years, 2.79, 18 to 23 years, 2.69, and 24 years and over a mean score of the 2.71. All of the years of service groups were in agreement with the statements, with 12 to 17 years group having the greatest agreement. 105 The null hypothesis was rejected three statements, " Michigan State University Extension a is more of service organization," " Michigan State University Extension is a research organization.”and, " Michigan State University Extension is a highly stratified organization.” The alternative hypothesis was accepted which was that there could be differences in the image perceptions of years of service with MSUE regarding these three statements . The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all of the remaining statements about the image of organizational structure of Michigan State University Extension. 5 b) Image Perceptions of mission by years of service with Michigan State University. An analysis of variance using the tukey—b post hoc procedure at a 0.05 level of significance was used to determine the differences of perception among years of service with Michigan State University Extension regarding mission. Appendix G - Table 35 presents the data pertaining to the respondents’ perceptions towards the mission. Statistically significant differences were not detected at a 5% level of significance in any of the statements. The data indicated that all of the years of service groups who participated in the survey held negative perceptions about the ten statements and the composite of the ten: 0 to 11 years had a mean score of 1.38 , 12 to 17 years, 1.34 , 18 to 23 years, 1.24, and 24 years and over a mean score of 1.13. All of the years of service with MSUE groups were in disagreement with the statements, with 24 years and over being in greatest disagreement. 106 The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all of the statements about the image of the mission of Michigan State University Extension. 5 c) Perceptions of personnel by years of service with Michigan State University. An analysis of variance using the tukey-b post hoc procedure at a 0.05 level of significance was used to determine the differences of perception among years of service g. with Michigan State University regarding personnel. For the two statements that were u significant, “MSUE personnel are professional in their appearance,”the group mean score of 2.08 indicated a negative perception and ,“MSUE personnel are effective teachers,” the score 2.03 also indicated a negative perception. Appendix G - Table 36 presents the data pertaining to the respondents’ image perception towards the personnel. Statistically significant differences were detected at a 5% level of significance in two statements as shown in Table 4.24: Statement 1) "Personnel are professional in their appearance, " (.0 23). The 0 to 11 years of service group had a mean score of 2.06; 12 to 17 years, 2.29; 18 to 23 years, 1.80; and 24 years and over a mean score of 2.00. The 12 to 17 years of service group was significantly different from the 0 to 11 years and 24 years and over groups Statement 2)"Personnel are effective teachers" (.012): 0 to 11 years had a score mean score of 2.10; 12 to 17 years, 2.00; 18 to 23 years, 2.00; and, 24 years and over 1.64. The 24 years and over years of service group was significantly different from the O to 11 years and 12 to 17 years of service. No other statements were considered significant. 107 Table 4.24: Analysis of Variance results comparing MSUE campus based faculty/ staff image perceptiom of personnel based on years of service with MSUE. Categories Group 0 to 11 12 to 17 18 to 23 24 years F- F-Prob Personnel Mean years years years and Ratio over MSUE personnel are N: 128 78 28 10 12 f . . . _ Pm “"0"“ m the" appeamcc x 2.08 2.06 2.29 1.30 2.00 3.277 .023" SD .47 .46 .42 .43 MSUE personnel are effective N: 130 79 29 ll 11 teachers _ X 2.03 2.10 2.00 2.00 1.64 3.790 .012" SD .44 46 .00 .50 Scaleof1-4(1=Stronglthagree,2=Disagree,3:Agree,and4=Strongly Agree) 11 : number, X : mean, SD = standard deviation “ Significant at 5% level (p =.05) The data indicated that all of the years of service groups with Michigan State University who participated in the survey held relatively negative perceptions about the eleven statements and the composite of the eleven; 0 to 11 years, 2.21 and 12 to 17 years, 2.23, 18 to 23 years ,2.10 , 24 years and over, 1.98 . All of the years of service groups were in disagreement with the statements, with the 24 years and over years group having the greatest disagreement. The null hypothesis was rejected for the statement "Michigan State University Extension personnel are professional in their appearance", and "Michigan State University Extension personnel are effective teachers". The alternative hypothesis was accepted which was that there would be differences in the perception of years of service with Michigan State University Extension regarding these statement. The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all of the remaining statements about the image of personnel of Michigan State University Extension. 108 5d) Image Perceptions of services by year of service with Michigan State University Extension. An analysis of variance using the tukey-b post hoc procedure at a 0.05 level of significance was used to determine the differences of perception among year of service group with Michigan State University Extension regarding services. The group mean scores for the three statements that were significant, “MSUE services focused more on I“ 1 home economics”, 1.43 indicated negative perception, and “MSUE services focused E more on 4-H Youth problems ”, 1.66 indicated a negative perception, and, “MSUE services focused more on community development, 1.43, indicated a negative L percesption. Appendix G - Table 37 presents the data pertaining to the respondents’ image perceptions towards the services. Statistically significant differences were detected at a 5% level of significance in three statements Table 4.25: Statement "Services concentrated more on home economics" (.048): 0 to 11 years ,1.44; 12 to 17 years,1.33; 18 to 23 years, 1.00; and , 24 years,1.78. 24 years and over of years of service group was significantly different from 12 to 1.7 years and 18 to 23 years of service. Statement "Services focused on community development" (.001): 0 to 11 years, 1.45; 12 to 17 years mean score of 1.15; 18 to 23 years,1.17; and, 24 years and over, 2.11. 24 years and over of years of duration was significantly different from the rest of the groups. ’ H Statement "Services focused more on 4 - H Youth"(.012): 0 to 11 years mean score of 1.61; 12 to 17 years,1.68; 18 to 23 years mean of 1.20; and, 24 years and over, 2.20. 24 years and over of years of duration was significantly different from the rest of the groups. No other statement was considered significant. 109 Table 4.25: Analysis of Variance results comparing MSUE campus based faculty /staff image Categones‘ Grou 0 to 11 12 to 17 18 to 23 24 cars F- F-Prob Services Meanp years years years an} Ratio over MSUE services focused more on N: 107 72 21 5 9 home economics X 1.43 1.44 1.33 1.00 1.78 2.727 .048" SD .53 .48 .00 .67 MSUE services focused more on 4- N: 112 75 22 5 10 H Youth problems _ X 1.66 1.61 1.68 1.20 2.20 3.896 .012" SD .57 .57 .45 .92 MSUE services focused more on N: 106 71 20 6 9 community development X 1.43 1.45 1.15 1.17 2.11 5.869 .001" SD .58 .37 .41 1.05 Scaleof1-4(1= Strongly 2=Disagree,3=Agree,and4=S Agree) #=an, X: -mean, SD: arddeviation ” significant at5%( pang?) The data indicated that all the years of service groups who participated in the survey held negative perceptions about the ten statements and the composite of the ten; 0 to 11 years had a mean score of 1.48 , 12 to 17 years,1.55, 18 to 23 years, 1.40, 24 years and over , 1.40. All the year of service groups were in disagreement with the statements, with 12 to 17 years of service having the greatest disagreement. The null hypothesis was rejected for the three statements " Michigan State University services concentrated more on home economics", " services focused more on community development", and “services focused more on community development”. The alternative hypothesis was accepted which was that there could be differences in the image perceptions of years of service with Michigan State University regarding these three statements. The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all of the remaining statements about image of the services of Michigan State University Extension. 110 5e)Image Perceptions of issues programming by years of service with Michigan State University Extension. An analysis of variance using the tukey-b post hoc procedure at a 0.05 level of significance was used to determine the differences of perceptions among of years of duration with Michigan State University Extension regarding issues programming. The group mean score for the statement that was significant, “MSUE issues programming adoption is an indication of continuing commitment of the organization to the public at 1.22, indicated a negative perception. Appendix G -Table 38 presents the data pertaining to the respondents image perceptions about issues programming. Statistically significant differences were detected at a 5% level of significance in one statement as . shown in, Table 4.26. Statement " Participants felt issues programming adoption is an indication of continuing commitment of the organization to the public (.000): 0 to 11 years had a mean score of 1.20; 12 to 17 years,1.17; 18 to 23 years, 1.00; and, 24 years and over, 2.00. 24 years and over of years of service was significantly different from the rest of the groups. N 0 other statements were considered significant. Table 4.26: Analysis of Variance results comparing MSUE campus based staff image perceptions of issues programming based on years of service with MSUE. Categories Group 0 to 11 12 to 17 18 to 23 24 years F- F-Prob I Wing Mean years years years and over Ratio MSUE issues programming N: 64 35 18 7 4 adoption is an indication of __ I continuing commitment of the X 1.22 1.20 1.17 1.00 2.00 7.00 .001" organization to the public SD j .41 .38 00 .00 Scale of 1-4(1 : Strongly Disagree, 2 : Disagree, 3 : Agree, and 4 : Strongly Agree) # : number, X = mean, SD : standard deviation ** Significant at 5% level (p =.05) The data indicated that all the years of service groups who participated in the survey 111 held negative perceptions about the fourteen statements and the composite of the fourteen; with 0 to 11 years had a mean score of 1.15 , 12 to 17 years, 1.15, 18 to 23 years, 1.00, 24 years and over, 1.00 All of the years service of groups with Michigan State University Extension were in disagreement with the statements, with 18 to 23 years and 24 years and over having the greatest disagreement. The null hypothesis was rejected for the statements, " Michigan State University Extension issues programrrring is an indication of continuing commitment of the organization to the public". The alternative hypothesis was accepted which was that there could be differences in the image perceptions of the years of service groups with Michigan State University Extension regarding "Michigan State University Extension issues programming is an indication of continuing commitment of the organization to the public". The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all of the remaining statements about image of the issues programming of Michigan State University Extension. 51') Image Perceptions of Effectiveness of Delivery Methods by years service with Michigan State University Extension. An analysis of variance using the tukey-b post hoc procedure at a 0.05 level of significance was used to determine the differences of perception among years of duration with Michigan State University Extension regarding effectiveness of delivery methods. Appendix G - Table 39 presents the data pertaining to the respondents image perceptions’ towards the effectiveness of delivery methods. Statistically significant differences were not detected at a 5% level of significance in any of the statements. The data indicated that all of the year of service groups who participated in the 112 survey held negative perceptions about the six statements and the composite of the six; 0 to 11 years had a mean score of 1.87 , 12 to 17 years, 1.70, 18 to 23 years,1.62, 24 years and over ,1.92 with 12 to 17 years of service being in greatest disagreement. The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all of the statements about the image of the effectiveness of delivery methods of Michigan State University Extension. Findings Relevant to Hypothesis 6 Hypothesis 6 sought to determine if there were significant differences between the image perceptions of MSUE campus based faculty and staff, by educational level, as to how they viewed the six categories: 1) organizational structure; 2) mission; 3) personnel; 4) services; 5) issues programming; and, 6) delivery methods. For statistical analysis, Hypothesis 6 was converted to a null hypothesis which stated that "there are no significant differences in the image perceptions of MSUE campus based faculty and staff regarding the six categories: organizational structure, mission, personnel, services, issues programming, and delivery methods, of Michigan State University Extension when influenced by demographic variable, educational level.” 6 a ) hage Perceptions of Organizational Structure by Educational Level. An analysis of variance using the tukey-b post hoc procedure at 0.05 level of significance was used to determine the differences of perceptions among educational level groups regarding organizational structure. The group mean scores for the four statements that were significant, “MSUE is more of a educational organization”, at 2.40 indicated a neutral, at 2.89 indicated a positive perception, and, “MSUE organization is 113 highly stratified", at 2.22, also indicated a negative; and MSUE organization environment pemlit team work, 2.50, indicated a positive perception. Appendix G - Table 40 presents the data-pertaining to the respondents image perceptions about organizational structure. Statistically significant differences were detected at a 5% level of significance in the four statements shown in Table 4.27. Statement "Michigan State University Extension environment permit team wor " (.046): two years of college degree and under had a mean score of 3.27; four years of college degree, 2.76; Some graduate work, 2.86; MS/MA. degree, 2.78; and, PhD degree, 2.51. Four years of college degree was significantly different from PhD degree. Statement "Michigan State University Extension is more of an educational organization" (.043): two years of college degree and under had a mean score of 2.71; Four years of college degree, 2.22; Some graduate work, 2.14; MS/MA. degree, 2.71; and, PhD degree, 2.83. PhD degree group was significantly different from four years of college degree and some graduate work. Statement "Michigan State University Extension organization committed to serving people equally. "(.000): Two years of college degree and under had a mean score of 3.07; Four years of college degree, 2.22; Some graduate work, 3.14; MS/MA. degree, 2.88; and, PhD degree, 2.90. Four years of college group was significantly different from the rest of the groups. Statement " Michigan State University Extension organization highlystratified" (.018): Two years of college degree and under had a mean score of 2.53; Four years of college degree, 2.72; Some graduate work , 2.00; MS/MA. degree, 2.12; and, PhD 114 degree, 2.66. of MS/MA degree was significantly different from four years of college degree and PhD degree groups. No other statements were considered significant. Table 4.27: Analysis of Variance results comparing MSUE campus based faculty] staff image rce tions of omizational structure based on educational level. Categories Group Two years Four years Some MS/MA PhD F- F-Prob Organintioual Mean of college of college graduate degree degree Ratio Structure and under work MSUE is more N: 88 14 18 7 31 18 of an _ educational X 2.40 2.71 2.22 2.14 2.17 2.83 2.543 .043" organization SD .47 .73 1.21 .90 .84 MSUE is an N: 134 15 18 7 32 62 organizational _ committed to X 2.89 3.07 2.22 3.14 2.88 3.03 5.639 .000" serving all people equally SD .46 .65 .69 .61 .75 MSUE N: 138 15 18 7 33 65 organization is _ highly stratified X 2.22 2.53 2.72 2.00 2.12 2.66 3.099 .018" SD .74 .75 .58 .89 .91 MSUE N: 138 15 17 7 32 . 63 organization _ environment X 2.50 3.27 . 2.76 2.86 2.51 2.56 2.496 .046“ permit team work SD .96 .75 1.07 .86 .86 Scaleof1-4(1:Strouglkaagree,2=D’mgree,3=Agree,and4:StrouglyAgree) #:number,X :mean, SD=standard deviation ** Significant at 5% level (p =.05) The data indicated that all of the educational level groups who participated in the survey held positive perceptions about the fifteen statements and the composite of the fifteen; Two years of college degree and under had a mean score of 2.88, Four Years of college degree, 2.60, Some graduate work, 2.79, MS/MA. degree, 2.72, PhD 115 degree, 2.80. ‘ All the educational level groups were in agreement with the statements, with Two years of college and under group having the greatest agreement. The null hypothesis was rejected for the four statements;" Michigan State University Extension organization is more of a educational organization", " organization is committed serving all people equally," " organization is highly stratified", and "organization permit team work". The alternative hypothesis was accepted which was that there could be differences in the image perceptions of educational level regarding the four statements. The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all of remaining statements about the image of the organizational structure of Michigan State University Extension. 6 b) Image Perceptions of mission by Education level. An analysis of variance using the tukey-b post hoc procedure at a 0.05 level of significance was used to determine the differences of perceptions among educational level groups regarding mission. The group mean score for the four statements that were significant, “MSUE extends MSU resources to people through agricultural programs”, at 1.83 indicated a negative. perception, and “MSUE extends MSU research information to farmers in Michigan ”, at 1.18 indicated a negative perception, “MSUE extends MSU research information to rural people in Michigan, at 1.27, indicated a negative perception; and MSUE extends MSU research information to urban people in Michigan, at 1.15, also indicated a negative perception. Appendix G - Table 41 presents the data pertaining to the respondents’ image perceptions about the mission. Statistically 116 significant differences were detected at 5% level of significant in four statements as shown in Table 4.28. Statement " Michigan State University extend resources of MSU to the people through agricultural programs" (.016): Two years of college degree and under had a mean score of 1.13; four years of college degree ,l.67; Some graduate, 1.29; MS. degree, 1.27; and, PhD degree, 1.37. Four years of college degree was significantly different from two years of college degree and under, MS/MA degree and PhD degree. Statement "Michigan State University Extension extend research information of MSU to farmers in Michigan" (.000): , two years of college degree and under had a mean score of 1.13; four years of college degree, 1.72; Some graduate work, 1.14; MS. degree, 1.21; and, PhD degree ,1.43. Two years of college degree and under group was significantly different from PhD, and four years of college degree group was significantly different from the rest of the groups. Statement "Michigan State University Extension extend research information of MSU to nrral people in Michigan" (.005): two years of college degree and under mean score of 1.13; four years of college degree had a 1.61; Some graduate work, 1.20; MS/MA. degree, 1.14; and, PhD degree, 1.27. Four years of college degree was significantly different from the rest of the groups. Statement "Michigan State University Extension extend research information of MSU to urban in Michigan" (.012): two years of college degree and under had a mean score of 1.00; four years of college degree mean score of 1.41; Some graduate work of 1.20; MS/MA. degree,1.12; and, PhD degree of 1.12. Four years of college was 117 significantly different from two years of college degree and under, MS/MA’and PhD degrees groups. N 0 other statements were considered significant. Table 4.28: Analysis of Variance results comparing MSUE campus based faculty/ staff image perceptions of mission based on educational level. Fugories Group Two Four Some MS PhD F-Ratio F-Prob Mission Mean years years graduate degree degree of of work college college and 11 under MSUE N: 133 15 18 7 33 60 extends MSU _ resources to = 1.18 1.13 1.67 1.29 1.27 1.37 3.148 .016** people . through SD .35 .49 .49 .45 .49 agricultural Irprogram MSUE N: 134 15 18 7 33 61 extends MSU _ ‘ _ - research X 1.81 1.13 1.72 1.14 1.21 1.43 5.385 .000** information to farmers in SD .35 .46 .38 .42 .50 Michigan MSUE N: 125 15 18 5 28 59 extends MSU _ research X 1.27 1.13 1.61 1.20 1.14 1.27 3.900 .005“ information ‘ to rural SD .35 .50 .45 .36 .45 people in ' ' ' Michigan , MSUE N: 114 15 17 5 26 extends _ research X 1.15 1.00 1.41 1.20 1.12 SD .00 .5 .45 .33 Scale of 1-4(1 : # = number, X = mean, SD = standard deviation ** Significant at 5% level (p =.05) a Strongly Distal-em= Disagree. 118 3 = Agree, and 4 = Strongly Agree) The data indicated that all of the educational level groups who participated in the survey held negative perceptions about the ten statements and the composite of the ten; two years of college degree and under had a mean score of 1.10, four years of college degree ,1.45, Some graduate work, 1.18, MS. degree, 1.24, PhD degree, 1.46. All of the educational level groups were in disagreement with the statements, with two years of college degree and under having the greatest disagreement. The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all statements on the image of the mission of Michigan State University Extension. 6 c) Image Perceptions of personnel by Educational level. An analysis of variance using the tukey-b post hoc procedure at a 0.05 level of significance was used to determine the differences of perception among educational level groups regrading personnel. Appendix G - Table 44 presents the data pertaining to the respondents’ image perceptions towards the personnel. Statistically significant differences were not detected at a 5% level of significance in any the statements: The data indicated that all of the educational level groups who participated in the survey held relatively a negative perceptions about the eleven statements and the composite of the eleven, with two Years of college degree and under had a mean score of 2.19, four years of college degree, 2.10, Some graduate work, 2.10, MS. degree, 1.18, PhD degree, 1.19. All the level of education groups were in disagreement with the statements, with Some graduate work having the greatest disagreement. The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all statements on the image of the personnel of Michigan State University Extension. 119 6d) Image Perceptions of Services by Education level. An analysis of variance using the tukey-b post hoc procedure at a 0.05 level of significance was used to determinethe differences of perceptions among educational level groups regarding services. The group mean score for the statement that was significant, “MSUE is more of a service organization”, 2.63 indicated a positive perception, and “MSUE services concentrated on urban problems, 1.24, indicated a negative percesption. Appendix G - Table 43 presents the data pertaining to the respondents image perceptions about the services. Statistically significant differences were detected at a 5% level of significant in one statement as shown in Table 4.29: Statement "Services concentrated more on urban problems" (.003): two years of college degree and under had a mean score of 1.69; four years of college degree, 1.13; Some graduate werk, 1.00; MS. degree, 1.13; and, PhD degree, 1.23. Two years of college degree and under group was significantly different from the rest of the groups. N 0 other statements were considered significant. 120 Table 4.29: Analysis of Variance results comparing MSUE campus based staff im'age perception of services based on educational level. Categories Group Two Four Some MS PhD 'F- F-Prob Services years of years of graduat degree degree Ratio college college e work and under MSUE services N: 100 l3 l6 4 23 44 Concentrated more on urban problems _ 1.24 X 1.69 l.l3 LOO 1.13 1.23 4.263 .003" SD .63 .34 .00 .34 .48 Salem-40=SmnglyDimm2=mmgrea3=AmaM4=SmwyAm) #=number,X=mean,SD=standard deviation ** Significantat5% level(p=.05) The data indicated that all of the level of education groups who participated in the survey held negative perceptions between the ten statements and the composite of the ten; two years of college degree and under had a mean score of 1.74, four years of college degree mean score of 1.38, Some graduate work, 1.48, MS/MA. degree, 1.53, PhD degree, 1.63. All the age groups were in disagreement with the statements, with four years of college degree having the greatest disagreement. The null hypothesis was rejected for the statement " Michigan State University services concentrated more on urban problems". The alternative hypothesis was accepted which was that there could be a differenCes in the image perception of educational level categories regarding "Michigan State University Extension services concentrated more on urban problems. 121 The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all of the remaining statements on the image of the services of Michigan State University Extension. 6e) Image Perceptions of Issues Programming by Educational level. An analysis of variance using the tukey-b post hoc procedure at a 0.05 level of significance was used to determine the differences of perceptions among educational level groups regarding issues programming. The group mean score for the two statements that were significant, “MSUE issues programming adoption is sign of withdrawal from I traditional audience”, 1.17 indicated a negative perception, and “MSUE issues programming provided growth experience to participants ”, 1.10 indicated a negative perception. Appendix G - Table 44 presents the data pertaining to the respondents image perceptions about the issues programming. Statistically significant differences were detected at a 5% level of significance in two statements as shown in Table 4.30: " Issues programming provided growth experience to all who participa " (.004): 2 two years of college degree and under had a mean score of 1.00; four years of college degree, 1.00; Some graduate work , 2.00; MS/MA. degree mean, 1.17; and, PhD degree, 1.04. Four years of college degree group was significantly different from two years of college degree, four years of college degree and PhD. Statement " Issues programming is a sign of withdrawal from its traditional audience" (.000): two years of college degree and under had a mean score of 1.00; four years of college degree ,2.00; Some graduate work,1.00; MS/MA. degree, 1.00; and, PhD degree, 1.07. Four years of college degree was significantly different from two 122 years of college degree and under, some graduate work and MS/MA degree. No other statements were considered significant. Table 4.30: Analysis of Variance results comparing MSUE campus based staff image perceptions of issues programming based on educational level. Categories Group Two years Four Some MS PhD F- F-Prob Issues ‘ of college years of graduate degree degree Ratio Programming and under college work Issues N: 29 2 5 2 6 r4 jl programming - adoption is a sign X 1.17 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.07 of withdrawal from 5.141 .000” traditional SD .00 .00 .00 .00 .27 audience Issues N: 40 6 2 2 g 6 24 programming ._ provided growth X 1.10 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.17 1.04 4.638 .004" experiences to participants SD .00 _ .00 .00 .41 .20 Scaleof1-4(l =Strong1yDisagree,2=Dimgree,3=Agree,and4=StronglyAgree) # = number, X = mean, SD = standard deviation “ Significant at 5% level (p =.05) The data indicated that all of the educational level groups who participated in the survey held a negative perceptions about the fourteen statements and the composite of the fourteen; with two years of college degree and under had a mean score of 1.00, four years of college degree, 1.10, Some graduate work, 1.10, MS/MA degree, 1.13, PhD degree, 1.16 All the educational level groups were in disagreement with the statements, with two years of college and under having the greatest disagreement. The null hypothesis was rejected for thetwo statements " Michigan State University Extension issues programming provided growth experience to all who participated", and 123 " issues programming is a sign of withdrawal from its traditional audience". The alternative hypothesis was accepted which was that there were differences in the perception of educational level groups regarding" Michigan State University Extension issues programming provided growth experience to all who participated", and " issues programming is a sign of withdrawal from its traditional audience". The null hypothesis is failed to be rejected in all of remaining statements on the image of issues programming of Michigan State University Extension. 61') Image Perceptions of Effectiveness Delivery Methods by educational level. An analysis of variance using the tukey-b post hoc procedure at a 0.05 level of significance was used to determine the differences of perception among educational level groups regarding effectiveness of delivery methods. The group mean score for the four statements that were significant, ““ Effectiveness of programs using television/satellite”, 2.36 indicated negative perception, “Effectiveness of programs using demonstrations ”, 1.43 indicated a negative perception, “Effectiveness of programs using computers", 1.66, indicated a negative perception, and" Effectiveness of programs using bulletins, 1.74, indicated a negative perception. Appendix G - Table 45 presents the data pertaining to the respondents image perceptions towards effectiveness of delivery methods. Statistically significant differences were detected at a 5% level of significant in four statements as shown in Table 4.31. Statement "Effectiveness of program using television/satellite delivery methods" (.000): two years of college degree and under had a mean score of 1.62; four years of college degree, 1.86; Some graduate work, 1.40; MS/MA. degree, 1.40; and, PhD degree, 1.14. PhD degree was significantly different 124 from four years of college degree , some graduate work. and MS degree groups. Statement "Effectiveness of programs using radio as delivery methods" (.005): two years of college degree and under had a mean score of 2.09; four years of college degree, 1.21; Some graduate work, 1.20; MS. degree, 1.44; and PhD degree, 1.37. Two years of college degree was significantly different from the rest of the groups. Four years of college degree was significantly different from two years of college degree, and MS/MA degree, and MS/MA degree group was significantly different from PhD. Statement "Effectiveness of programs using radio as delivery methods" (.034): two years of college degree and under had a mean score of 1.25; four years of college degree, 1.80; Some , graduate work , 1.40; MS/MA. degree, 1.33, and, PhD degree , 1.59. Statement "Effectiveness of program using bulletins as delivery methods" (.002): two years of college degree and under had a mean of 2.00; 4 Years of college degree, 2.07; Some graduate work, 1.33; MS/MA. degree, 1.37; and, PhD degree, 1.84. Four years of college degree was significantly different from some graduate work and MS/MA degree, and MS/MA degree was significantly from two years of college and under and four years of college degree groups. No other statements were considered significant. 125 Table 4.31: Analysis of Variance results comparing MSUE campus based staff image perception of effectiveness of delivery methods based on educational level. = Categories Group Two years Four Some MS PhD F- F-Prob Effectiveness Mean of college years of graduate degree degree Ratio of delivery and under college work methods Effectiveness N: 128 13 17 6 30 62 of programs _ using X 2.36 2.46 2.59 2.17 2.37 2.29 7.166 .000" television/sate] SD .78 .62 .75 .61 .66 lite Effectiveness N: 111 11 14 5 27 54 of programs _ using X 1.43 - 2.09 1.21 1.20 1.44 1.37 3.988 .005“ demonstration SD .43 .58 .45 .64 .56 methods Effectiveness N: 116 12 15 5 33 51 of programs _ using X 1.66 1.25 1.80 1.40 1.33 1.59 2.705 .034" computers SD .45 .41 .55 .60 .61 Effectiveness N: 119 13 15 6 30 55 of programs _ , using bulletins X 1.74 2.00 2.07 1.33 1.37 1.84 4.584 .002“ SD .91 .59 .52 .61 .66 Sealeofl-4(l =Stronglyl)isagree,2=Disagree,3=Agree,and4=Strongly Agree) #:number,X=mean,SD=standard deviation " Significantat5% level(p=.05) The data indicated that all the educational level groups who participated in the survey held relative negative perceptions between the six statements and the composite of the six, two years of college degree and under mean score of 2.36, four years of college degree mean score of 2.15, Some graduate work mean score of 1.67, MS. degree mean score of 1.56, PhD degree mean score of 1.78 with MS degree in greatest disagreement, _ The null hypothesis was rejected for the four statements " Michigan State University Extension effectiveness of programs using televisions/satellites as delivery methods", 126 fl " “effectiveness of programs using radio as delivery methods , effectiveness of programs using computers as delivery methods", and "effectiveness of program using bulletins as delivery methods". The alternative hypothesis was accepted which was hat there were differences in the image perceptions of educational level groups regarding" Michigan State University Extension effectiveness of programs using televisions/satellites as delivery methods", effectiveness of programs using radio as delivery methods", "effectiveness of programs using computers as delivery meth ", and "effectiveness of program using bulletins as delivery methods". The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all of the remaining statements on the image of the effectiveness of delivery methods of Michigan State University Extension. Findings Relevant to Hypothesis 7 Hypothesis 7 sought to determine if there were significant differences between the image perceptions of MSUE campus based faculty and staff, by income level, as to how they viewed the six categories: 1) organizational structure; 2) mission; 3) personnel; 4) services; 5) issues programming; and, 6) delivery methods. For statistical analysis, Hypothesis 7 was converted to a null hypothesis which stated that "there are no significant differences in the image perceptions of MSUE campus based faculty and staff regarding the six categories: organizational structure, mission, personnel, services, issues programming, and delivery methods, of Michigan State University Extension when influenced by demographic variable, income level.” 127 7a ) Image Perceptions of organizational structure by Income per year An analysis of variance using the tukey-b post hoc procedure at a 0.05 level of significance was used to determine the differences of perception of income per year groups regarding organizational structure. The group mean scores for the two statements that were significant, “MSUE organization is committed to serving all people equally”, 2.73 indicated a positive perception, and “MSUE organizations’ environment permits team work ”, 2.90 indicated a positive perception. Appendix G - Table 46 presents the data pertaining to the respondents image perceptions about organizational structure. Statistically significant differences were detected at a 5% level of significance in two statements as shown in Table 4.32: "Michigan State University Extension is committed serving all people equally" (.004): Less than S 47,009 had a mean score of 3.04; $ 48,000- $79,001, 2.50; and $ over 80,000, 2.48. Less than $47,009 was significantly different from the rest from the group . Statement " Michigan State University organization environment permits team wor " (.007): Less than 8 47,009 had a mean score of 2.83; $48,000- 8 79,001, 2.55, and $ 80,000 and over, 2.92. $ 80,000 and over was significantly different from the rest of the group. N 0 other statements were considered significant. 128 Table 4.32 Analysis of Variance results comparing MSUE campus based staff image perception of organizational structure based on Income. Categories - _ , Group Less than $48,000- Over F- F -Prob Organm' tional structure Mean $ 47,009 $79,000 $80,000 Ratio MSUE organization is committed to ' N: 119 45 53 21 serving all people equally _ i X 2.73 3.04 > 2.57 2.48 5.773 .004" SD .73 .93 .60 MSUE organization environment N: 120 47 52 21 permits team work _ ' X 2.90 2.83 2.79 3.33 5.226 .007" SD ' .56 .82 .48 Sakof14(l=SuonglyDisagree,2=Disagree,3=Agr-ee,md4=SUonglyAgr-ee) #:number,X=mean,SD=standarddeviation ‘* Significant at 5% level(p:05) The data indicated that all of the incOme per year groups who participated in the survey held positive perceptions about the fifteen statements and the composite of the fifteen, Less than $47,009 had a mean score of 2.83, $48,000- 8 79,001, 2.55, $ 80,000 and over, 2.92. All of the income per year groups were in agreement with the statements, with S over 80,000 group having the greatest agreement. The null hypothesis was rejected for the two statements " Michigan State University Extension organization committed to serving all people equally", and " Michigan State University Extension organization environment permit steam work". The alternative hypothesis was accepted which was that there were differences in the image perception of level of income regarding": Michigan State University Extension organization committed to serving all people equally", and " Michigan State University Extension organization environment permit team wor ". The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all of the remaining statements on the 129 image of organizational structure of Michigan State University Extension. 7b) Image Perceptions of Mission by Income. An analysis of variance using the tukey-b post hoc procedure at a 0.05 level of significance was used to determine the differences of perception of income per year groups regarding mission. Appendix G - Table 47 presents the data pertaining to the respondents image perceptions about the mission. Statistically significant differences was not detected at a 5% level of significance in any statement. The data indicated that all of the income groups who participated in the survey held a negative perceptions between the ten statements and the composite of the ten; Less than s 47,009 had a mean score of 1.22, s 43,000 s 79,001, 1.53, s over $80,000 , 1.14, All the income per year groups were in disagreement with the statements, with over $ 80,000 having the greatest disagreement. The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all of the statements about the image of the mission of Michigan State University Extension. 7c) Image Perceptions of Personnel Income. An analysis of variance using the tukey-b post hoc procedure at a 0.05 level of significant was used to determine the differences of perception of income per year groups regarding personnel. The group mean score for the three statements that were significant, “MSUE personnel are responsive to the problems of their clientele”, 2.99 indicated a positive perception. Appendix G - Table 48 presents the data pertaining to the 130 respondents’ image perceptions about the personnel. Statistically significant differences was detected at a 5% level of significance in one statement as shown in Table 33. " Michigan State University Extension personnel are responsive to the problems of their clientele" (.032): Less than $47,009 had a mean score of 3.07; $48,000- 8 79,009, 2.80; and, $ 80,000 and over , 3.33. $ 48,000 to $ 79,009 is significantly different from ‘ the rest of the group. No other statements were considered significant. Table 4.33: Analysis of Variance results comparing MSUE campus based staff image perceptions of personnel based on Income. Categories Group Less than . $48,000- Over F- F-Prob Personnel Mean $47,009 $79,009 S 80,000 Ratio MSUE personnelare N: 112 45 49 18 ' responsive to the problems _ of their clientele X: 2.99 3.07 2.80 3.33 5.773 .032" SD: .72 .84 .69 Scaleof1-4(l=StronglyDisagree,2=Disagree,3=Agree,and4=StronglyAgree) # = number, X = mean, SD = standard deviation ” Significant at 5% level (p =.05) The data indicated that all the income per year groups who participated in the survey held relatively a negative perceptions between the eleven statements and the composite of the eleven; Less than $ 47,009 mean score of 2.15, $48,000- $ 79,001 mean score of 2.19, $ 80,000 and over mean score of 2.29,. All the income per year groups were in disagreement with the statements, with Less than 47,009 having the greatest disagreement. V i I The null hypothesis was rejected for the statement " Michigan State University EXtension personnel are responsive to the problems of their clientele". The alternative 131 hypothesis was accepted which Was that were significant differences in the image percepti0n of the level of income regarding " Michigan State University Extension personnel are responsive to the problems of their clientele". The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all of the statements on the image of the personnel of Michigan State University Extension. 7d) Perceptions of Services by Income. An analysis of variance using the tukey-b post hoc procedure at a 0.05 level of significance wasused to determine the differences income per year regarding services. 1 Appendix G - Table 49 presents the data pertaining to the respondents image perceptions 6 about the services. Statistically significant differences were not detected at a 5% level of significance in any statement. The data indicated that all the income per year groups who participated in the survey held a negative perceptions between the ten statements and the composite of the ten; Less than $ 47,009 mean score of 1.61, $48,000- $ 79,001 mean score of 1.56, $ 80,000 and over mean score of 1.58, All the level of income were in disagreement with the statements, with 8 48,000 -$79,009 having the greatest disagreement. The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all of the remaining statements on the image of the services of the image of Michigan State University Extension. 7e) Perceptions of Issues Programming by level of income. An analysis of variance rising the tukey-b post hoc procedure at a 0.05 level of significance was used to determine the differences income per year regarding issues programming. The group mean 'score for the three statements that were significant, 132 “MSUE issues programming will definitelt increase extension linkages with other agencies”, 1.18, indicated a negative perception. Appendix G - Table 50 presents the data pertaining to the respondents image perceptions about the issues programming. Statistically significant differences was detected at a 5% level of significance in one statement as shown in Table 4.34 " Issues programing will definitely increase will increase public support " (.003); Less than $47,009 had a mean Score of 1.27, $ 48,000- $ 79,001, 1.00, 8 80,000 and over , 1.18. $48,000 to $ 79,009 is significantly different from the rest of the group. N 0 other statements were considered significant. Table 4.34: Analysk of Variance results comparing MSUE campus based staff inmge perceptions issues programming based on Income. Categories Group Less than $48,000- Over F- F-Prob Issues programming Mean $47,009 $79,009 $80,000 Ratio Issues programming will N: 51 15 24 12 defrnitely increase extension _ linkages with other agencies X: 1.18 1.27 1.00 1.42 6.407 .003" SD: .46 .00 .51 Sakof14(l=Su'onglyDisagne,2=Disagree3=Agree,and4=StronglyAgree) #:number,X=mean,SD=standarddeviation ‘9 Significantat5% level(p=.05) The data indicated that all of the income per year groups who participated in the survey held a negative perceptions between the fourteen statements and the composite of the fourteen; with Less than $47,009 had a mean score of 1.06, 8 48,000- $ 79,001, 1.12, $ 80,000 and over, 1.22. All the level of income groups were in disagreement with the statements, with Less than $47,009 in greatest disagreement. The null hypothesis was rejected for the statements " Michigan State University 133 Extension issues programming will definitely increase extension linkages with other agencies". The alternative hypothesis was accepted which was that there could be differences in the image perceptions level of income groups regarding " Michigan State University Extension issues programming will definitely increase extension linkages with other agencies". 1 The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all of the remaining statements on the image of the issues programming of Michigan State University Extension. 71') Image Perceptions of Effectiveness of Delivery Methods Income. An analysis of variance using the tukey-b post hoc procedure at a 0.05 level of significant‘was used to determine the differences of perception of income per year groups regarding effectiveness‘of delivery methods. The group mean score for the three statements that were significant, “Effectiveness of programs using demonstration method”, 2. 36, indicated a negative perception. Appendix G - Table 51 presents the data pertaining to the respondents image perceptions about the effectiveness of delivery methods. Statistically significant differences were detected at a 5% level of significance in one statement as shown in Table 4. 35. statement "Effectiveness of program using demonstration as delivery method (.045): Less than $ 47,009 had a mean score of 2.56; 8 48,000- 8 79,00, 2.22; and $ 80,000 and over, 2.29. Less than $47,009 was significantly different from $ 48,000 to 79,009. No other statements were considered significant. 134 Table 4.35: Analysis of Variance results comparing MSUE campus based staff image perceptions of , Methods based on lncofi_n_re. Scaleof1-4(1=StronglyDisagree,2=Disagree,3=Agree,and4=Strongly # = number, X = mean, SD = standard deviation “ Significant at 5% level (p =.0S Agree) Categories Group Less than $48,000-S Over F -Ratio F-Prob Effectiveness of delivery methods Mean 5 47 ,009 79,009 $80,000 1 Effectiveness of programs using N: 116 45 , 50 21 ] demonstration method _ X: 2.36 2.56 2.22 2.29 3.184 .045" SD: .62 .65 .78 ' h The data indicated that all of the level of income groups who participated in the survey held a negative perceptions between the six statements and the composite of the six, Less than 8 47,009 had mean score of 1.98, $48,000 8 79,001, 1.79, $ 80,000 and over ,1.71. All the level of income groups were in" disagreement with the statements, with Over $ 80,000 having the greatest disagreement. The null hypothesis was rejected for the statement " Michigan State University Extension effectiveness using demonstration delivery method". The alternative hypothesis was accepted which was that there were differences in the image perception of income per year regarding " Michigan State University Extension effectiveness using demonstration delivery meth ". The null hypothesis failed to be rejected in all of the remaining statements on the image of the effectiveness of delivery methods of Michigan State University Extension. 135 Research Question What demographic variables among Michigan State University Extension campus based faculty and staff may influence image perception and are important predictor(s) of the image Michigan State University Extension? The purpose of this research question was to identify demographic variables that could predict whether or not an individual held a positive or negative perception of Michigan State University Extension. In responding to this question, multiple linear regression analyses using backward methods were performed on the dependent variable. The dependent variable was created by computing the composite mean scores of the entire 64 questions in the study (seeAppendix D). The Multiple linear regression test was selected because of its capability to makes predictions by investigating the dependence of dependent variable (Y) on the independent variables (X1X2X3....Xp). Prior to running the regression analyses, a dummy variables coding-technique was employed so that each category of the independent variable could be entered in the regression as independent variable. The results of the regression analyses for Michigan State University Extension campus based faculty and staff showed that none of the demographic variables were important predictor. 136 Summary 4.36 Analysis of statements that had significant differences at .05% ( X = significant statements for demographic variable) 1) Gender; 2) Age; 3) College; 4) Title; 5) Years of service; 6); Education] level; , and 7) Income Category "Demographic variable 1234567 1. Organizational structure la) MSUE is more of an educational organization X 1b) MSUE is more of a service organization X X 2) MSUE is an information organization 3) MSUE is a research organimtion X X X 4) MSUE is committed to serving farmers as primary audience X 5a) MSUE is as committed to serving urban audience as nrral audience 5b) MSUE is committed to serving rural audience as urban audience 6) MSUE is committed to serving all people equally X X X 7) MSUE organization structure inhibits innovation 8) MSUE org. structure prohibits freer communication within staff 9a) MSUE encourages administrative participation by staff 9b)MSUE encourages participation by clientele 10) MSUE is highly stratified x x 11)MSU is an organization whose duties are narrowly defined 12)MSUE organization permits team work X X 13)Overall, MSUE is an organization open to new ideas. 2. Mission 14) MSUE extends MSU resources to people of MI through Comm. Dev. 15)MSUE extends MSU resources to people of M1 through Home Econ. 137 Category “Demographic variable 16) MSUE extends MSU resources to people of MI through 411 program l7)MSUE extends MSU resources to people of MI through agric. X Program 18)MSUE extends colleges of affiliation through educational programs 19)MSUE extends MSU research information to farmers in Michigan X 20)MSUE extends MSU research information to nrral people of Michigan X 21MSUE extends MSU research information to urban people of X X Michigan 22) MSUE helps people help themselves through education 23)MSUE helps people improve their lives through education 3. Personnel 24)MSUE personnel are professional in their appearance 25) MSUE personnel are professional in dealing with problems 26)MSUE personnel are professional in dealing with their clientele 27) MSUE personnel do really care about their clientele 28) MSUE personnel are effective problems solvers 29) MSUE personnel are effective teachers 30)MSUE personnel are effective communicators 31)MSUE personnel are good “team players” 32)MSUE personnel are responsive to the problems of their customer 33) MSUE personnel lack knowledge in subject matter areas 34) MSUE personnel lack skills in subject matter areas 35) MSUE services are of good quality 138 [Jr-I'- i ."!n J! Category "Demographic variable 2 3 4 5 6 4. Services 36) MSUE services are well designed to fit the needs of clientele 37) MSUE services focus more on agriculture 38) MSUE services focus more on home economics 39) MSUE services focus more on community development 40) MSUE services focus more on 4—H Youth 41) MSUE services focus more on social problems 42) MSUE services focus more on farmers problems 43) MSUE services focus more on urban problems 44) MSUE services focus more on nrral problems 5. Issues Programming Identification 45) The process provides growth experience to all who participate 46) The process provides for diverse group of participants 47) The process identifies the most important issues in the local counties 48) The process prioritize the most important issues in the local counties 49) The process identifies the most important issues in the region 50) The process prioritize the most important issues in the region 51) The process identifiestlle most important issues in the state 52) The process prioritize the most important issues in the state 53) Participants feel that issues programming is appropriate for Extension 54) Issues programming will definitely increase extension linkages with other agencies. 55)Issues programming will definitely increase public support for MSUE 139 81.. Java" nun-cm m (fir-firmer. Category _ - ”Demographic variable 1234567 56) The adoption of issues programming is an indication of continuing X commitment to the public 57) The adoption of issues programming is a sign of withdrawal from its X X traditional audience 58) MSUE is better under issues programming X 6. Effectiveness of Delivery Methods 59) Effectiveness of programs using personal contact 60) Effectiveness of programs using televison and satellite X X X 61)Effectiveness of programs using demonstration methods X X 62) Effectiveness of programs using radio X X 63)Effectiveness of program using computers X X 64) Effectiveness of programs using bulletins X X TOTAL 5 6 0 10 9 15 5 " Demographic variables From the above table, the highest level of significant differences is found under section 1, organizational structure, followed by effectiveness of delivery methods, personnel services, mission and issues programming. For the demographic variables, educational level had the highest significant differences, followed by title, years of service with MSUE, age, gender and income per year. The level of significance for all the individual statements ranges from 1 through 3. From the above results it can be further analyzed by looking at the three variables that had significant differences as shown in tables 37 through 39. 140 Table 4.37: Statements with significant differences at .05 % level for demographic variable Title Statements Demographic variable categories Group Admin/Prog Faculty Secretary] Specialists Mean . Leaders Others MSUE is a service organization 2.63" 2.47 2.72" 2.90” 2.40 MSUE is a research organization 2.31 2.21 2.03 2.63** 2.41 MSUE is committed to serving all people 2.65" 2.61" 2.26 3.1 1** 2.72" equally MSUE extends MSU research 1.11 1.18 1.20 1.00 1.04 information to rural people in Michigan MSUE personnel are effective teachers 2.07 2.23 1.94 2.07 2.04 MSUE services concentrate more on 1.40 1.04 1.36 1.43 1.21 urban problems MSUE is better under issues 1.31 1.36 1.71 1.00 1.00 programming than current approach Effectiveness of programs using 1.32 1.44 1.17 1.58 1.00 television/satellite Effectiveness of program using 2.32 2.26 2.18 2.46 2.42 demonstration Effectiveness of programs using bulletins 1.74 1.32 1.80 1.92 1.91 ** positive image perception The statement with the highest means scores are MSUE is a service organization and MSUE is committed to serving a1 people equally,2.63 and 2.65 respectively. For MSUE 141 is a service organization the category, Secretary and other had the highest mean score, followed by faculty. The highest means MSUE is committed to serving all people equally is again found under category, Secretary and other, followed by specialist. 142 Table 4.38: Statements with significant differences at .05% level for demhic variable years of service with MSUE Statements . Demograch variable categories Group 0 to 11 12 to-17 18 to 23 24 years years years years and over MSUE is a service organization 2.64" 2.70“ 2.69" 2.00 2.67** MSUE is a research organization 1.31 2.37 2.37 1.67 2.09 MSUE organization is highly stratified 2.79“ - 2.83" 2.64“ 2.40 3.00" MSUE personnel are professional in their 2.08 2.06 2.29 1.80 2.00 appearance MSUE personnel are effective teachers 2.03 2.10 2.00 2.00 1.64 MSUE services are focused on home 1.43 1.44 1.33 1.00 1.78 economics MSUE services are focused on community 1.43 1.45 1.15 1.17 1.78 development ‘ MSUE services focus more on 4—H Youth 1.66 1.61 1.08 1.20 2.20 Adoption of issues programming , continuing 1.22 1.20 1.17 1.00 2.00 commitment to the public . ‘ ** 'tive ‘ ti posr image percep on ‘ From the above table, the statements with the highest group mean score are MSUE is a service Organization and MSUE organization is highly stratified, 2.64 and 2.79 respectively. For MSUE is a service organization the category, 0 to 11 years of service with MSU-E had the highest mean score, followed by 12 to 17 years, and 24 years and over. The highest means score for MSUE organization is highly stratified is found under category 24 years and over of service with MSUE, followed by 0 to 11 years and 18 to 23 years of service withMSUE. 143 Wt . ~ ‘im- . ruI—r‘l‘ue-‘IIL haw-r" Table 4.39: Statements with significant differences at .05 % level for demoggrrpllic variable. educational level Statements Demographic variable categories Group 2 yrs 4 yrs of Some MS/MA PhD Mean of college graduate Degree Degree college Work MSUE is more of an educational organization 2.40 2.71M 2.22 2.14 2.17 2.83" MSUE is committed to serving people 2.89" 3.07 2.22 3.14" 2.88” 3.03” equally MSUE is a highly stratified organization 2.22 2.53“ 2.72" 2.00 2.12 2.66" MSUE organization permits team work 2.50" 3.27 2.72" 2.86" 2.51“ 2.56" MSUE extends resources through Ag. Prog. 1.81 1.13 1.67 1.29 1.27 1.37 MSUE extends resources to farmers 1.18 1.13 1.72 1.14 1.21 1.43 MSUE extends resources to rural people 1.27 1.13 1.61 1.20 1.14 1.27 MSUE extends resources to urban people 1.15 1.00 1.41 1.20 1.12 1.12 MSUE services more urban problems 1.24 1.69 1.13 1.00 1.13 1.23 Issues prog. provide growth experience 1.10 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.17 1.04 Withdrawal from traditional audience 1.17 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.07 Effectiveness of programs using 2.36 2.46 2.59" 2.17 2.37 2.29 television/satellite Effectiveness using demonstration 1.43 2.09 1.21 1.20 1.44 1.37 Effectiveness using computers 1.66 1.25 1.80 1.40 1.33 1.59 Effectiveness of programs using bulletins 1.74 2.00 2.07 1.33 1.33 1.8 ** Positive image perception From the above table, the statements with the highest group mean score are MSUE is committed to serving people equally, 2,89 and MSUE organization permit team work, 2.50 respectively, For MSUE is committed to serving people equally, the highest mean score is the category with PhD degree, followed by 2 years of college and some graduate 144 work For MSUE organizatidn permits team work, the highest mean score are 2 years of college followed by some graduate work, 4 years of College , PhD degree and MS/MA. 145 . CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary The Cooperative Extension Service throughout the United States is undergoing tremendous change. The main purpose of this study was to assess various aspects of Michigan State University Extension as perceived by MSUE campus based faculty and staff. There were sixty-four statements pertaining to the organization that were included in six categories: (1) organizational structure; (2) mission; (3) personnel; (4) services; (5) issues programming and; ( 6) delivery methods. Seven demographic variables characteristic of the MSUE campus based faculty and staff were tested against the sixty- four statements to determine the perceptions(image) of MSUE. The perceptions were determined by utilizing a four point scale: (1) Strongly disagree; (2) Disagree; (3) Agree; (4) Strongly agree. Method and Design A mailed survey using the Total Design Method (TDM) was used to collect data from a randomly drawn sample of 165 respondents from a population of 290. The sampling error was 10 percent with a 95% confidence interval. The instrument was adopted from previously related studies and from the literature review. The content validity was checked by a panel of experts from the Department of Agricultural and Extension Education at Michigan State University. To ensure that the instrument was 146 over 50% (.5) acceptable reliability, the Cronbach alpha reliability test was performed on each section of the instrument and the following alpha coefficients were established: Section 1 (organizational structure) .79; Section 2 (mission ) .79; Section 3 (personnel) .85 ; Section 4 (services) .88 ; Section 5 (delivery methods) .57, and Section 6 (issues programming) .97. Respondents were mailed a notification letter, followed by questionnaires two weeks later. Respondents were mailed a reminder letter two weeks after the questionnaire was mailed. A total of 139 (84.24%) responses were received. All responses were checked for error before being compiled for final analysis. N on-responses were handled statistically by comparing early and late respondent demographic characteristics. No statistically significant differences were found between early and late respondents, except in the category of educational level. This permitted generalization of the study findings. Further analyses were conducted on the data to check for error, normality, and homogeneity of variance. Basic descriptive statistics were used to describe the demographic characteristics of the respondents of the study. The nine null hypotheses proposed were tested through the use of t-tests and one-way analyses of variance. The final research question of the study was answered through the use of multiple linear regression analyses. The purpose of using multiple linear regression was to determine which of the demographic variables 147 were important predictor(s) of campus based faculty and staff perceptions about the organizational structure, mission, personnel, services, issues programming and, delivery methods. In summary, of the 448 items tested ( categorical/statement sixty-four (64) X demographic variables seven (7)), there were sixty-two (62) results with significant differences at the .05% level. I When the sum of the categorical statements for the six categories were tested against the demographic variables, there were no significant differences found at the .05% level. When individual categories were tested against the seven (7) demographic variables there were no significant differences found at the .05% level. There were, however, significant differences at the .05% level when the nine demographic variables were tested against the sixty-four (64) individual statements within the categories. NullHypothesis: Hypothesis #1 (Gender) H0 r.-.- .-.-.. °.' .. ..-.-. - '. .-..-.-... . t. l .... .. -... .... ,. ..., ....mym, ”...“... .. ....-. JV"... "II‘O'.I . er. I II‘ It er shseelr‘ ‘a .' ' IIO‘JHIIIII‘ As a composite of the six categories there was no significant difference at .05% when tested against the demographic variable, gender. 148 There were no significant differences when individual categories were tested against the demographic variable, gender. There were, however, statements within the categories organizational structure, personnel and delivery methods, significant at the .05% level. Within the category of organizational structure, two statements, “ MSUE is a research organization”, and " MSUE is committed to serving farmers as their primary rnission”were significant at the .05% level when tested against gender. Within the category of personnel, two statements, " personnel are professional in dealing with problems" and " personnel are professional in dealing with their clientele" were significant at the .05% level when tested against the demographic variable, gender. Within the category, delivery methods, one statement "effectiveness of programs using satellite/television" was significant at the .05% level when tested against gender. Hypothesis # 2 (Age) HO Il'r‘ .‘ 'le .11. .10. ‘r'l ‘ .r t‘e.‘r‘ser e U I All s. ‘t a .rt .I .l‘l l‘r‘lleynrl .I.s‘." .. ‘ 'J .~.t ' err-rel. “II‘.I ‘al a II. I I ‘ II II I.'I\.III‘ 'Il ‘. ', IIIUNIIII I‘ As a composite of the six categories there Was no significant difference at .05% when tested against the demographic variable, age. There were no significant differences when individual categories were tested against the demographic variable, age. 149 There were, however, statements within the categories, personnel, services, issues programming and, delivery methods, that were significant at the .05% level. Within the category personnel, one statement, " personnel do really care about their clientele," was significant at the .05% level when tested against age. Within the category, service, one statement had a significant result: " services concentrated more on urban problems". It was significant at the .05% level when tested against age. Within the category, of issues programming, two statements, "participant felt that the concept is appropriate for Extension", and "adoption of issues programming is a sign of withdrawal from traditional audience,” were significant at the .05% level when tested against age. Within the category, delivery methods, two statements " effectiveness of programs using radio", and "effectiveness of programs using computers" were significant at the .05% level when tested against age. Hypothesis # 3 ( College) H0 Ir' ‘ .‘ ‘ re ..u. .t t. ‘ ‘I .l r‘ et'relsosr e H I .rrs s. ‘l jester. er. .‘ree‘e ‘el . or. II II‘ II or s.‘s..ell‘ .‘a As a composite of the six categories there was no significant difference at .05% when tested against the demographic variable, college of affiliation 150 There were no significant differences when individual categories were tested against the demographic variable, college of affiliation. There were no significant differences for the statements within categories: personnel, services, issues prograrnnring and, delivery methods, at the .05% level. Hypothesis # 4 (Title) H0: h. _ ._ . H .. d . .r' . . r ..-. m .H . U I "I. h ... Isl. e .l‘l I‘C‘IIOEHIO tlel‘ ‘.a ‘ ifio‘el 3.03” 0|. "0|". Mr . er. sell I' ll er I.‘l..0|l' .‘a ‘. ‘ srelntrlr I; As a composite of the six categories, there was no significant difference at .05% when tested against the demographic variable, title. There was no significant difference when individual categories were tested against the demographic variable, title. There were, however, statements within the categories: organizational structure, mission, personnel, services, issues programming, and, delivery methods that were significant at the .05% level. Within the category of organizational structure, four statements " MSUE is more of a service organization", " MSUE is a research organization", " MSUE is committed to farmers as its primary audience”, and “MSUE is committed to serving all people equally" were significant at the .05% level when tested against title. Within the category of mission, onestatement, " MSUE extends MSU research information to urban people of Michigan," was significant at the .05% level when tested 151 against title. Within the category personnel, one statement, " MSUE personnel are effective teachers" was significant at the .05% level when tested against title. Within the category, service, one statement " MSUE services concentrate more on urban problems", was significant at the .05% level when tested against title. Within the category of issues programming one statement "MSUE is better under issues programming ", was significant at the .05% level when tested against title. Within the category, delivery methods, three statements " effectiveness of programs using satellite/television", "effectiveness of programs using demonstration meth ” and, “effectiveness of programs using bulletins, were significant at the .05% level when tested against title. Hypothesis # 5 (Years of service with MSUE) H0: It“ .‘I‘II urul .r t. "l ‘.I r‘s.‘ ...“ e U I All 0.6.. a .lt . .l‘l l‘t‘lreyuet .e.s' mete fa.’ Jill I .. ‘ ‘vt 'el 5003': ..e o"0l'0 ‘tl e'.'e II II‘ II 0| It'lebll‘ .‘ll ' . . 111' 11 As a composite of the six categories, there was no significant difference at .05% when tested against the demographic variable, years of service with MSUE. There was no significant difference when individual categories were tested against the 152 demographic variable, years of service with MSUE There were, however, statements within the categories: organizational structure, personnel, services and, issues programming, that were significant at the .05% level. Within the category of organizational structure, three statements, " MSUE is more of a service organization," " MSUE is a research organization" and, " MSUE organization is highly stratified" were sigrrificantat the .05% level when tested against years of service with MSUE. Within the category, personnel, two statements, " MSUE personnel are professional in dealing with their clientele” and “ MSUE personnel are effective teachers" were significant at the .05% level when tested against years of service with MSUE. Within the category, service, three statements, " MSUE services focus more on home economics",” MSUE services focus more on 4-H Youth problems" and , MSUE services focus more on community development" were significant at the .05% level when tested against years of service with MSUE. Within the category, of issues programming, one statement "MSUE adoption of issues programming is an indication of continuing commitment of the organization to the public ", was significant at the .05% level when tested against years of service with MSUE. Within the category, delivery methods, three statements," effectiveness of programs using satellite/television", "effectiveness of programs using demonstration methods and, “effectiveness of programs using bulletins were significant at the .05% level when tested against years of service with MSUE. 153 Hypothesis # 6 (Educational level) HO: Ir‘ ‘ .‘ ' II .J. .l t. ‘ ‘l ‘ .I re: 'l.010U I .III I. ‘t ‘0'. I. a'.' '...".yn.' 0"..-.. I .l‘ . ‘ l‘ .. .....6' ester er. .‘reI"e ‘tl . er. I I ‘ It It I.‘I.elr‘ 'a As a composite of the six categories, there was no significant difference at .05% when L‘I %fq tested against the demographic variable, educational level. There was no significant difference when individual categories were tested against the 'Wot; .. demographic variable, educational level. There were, however, statements within the categories: organizational structure, mission, services, issues programming and delivery methods, that were significant at the .05% level. Within the category of organizational structure, four statements, " MSUE is more of an educational organization", " MSUE is an organization serving all people equally", " MSUE organization is highly stratified" and, " MSUE organization environment permits team work," were significant at the .05% level when tested against educational level. Within the category, mission, three statements "MSUE extends MSU resources to people through agricultural prograrns"," MSUE extends MSU research information to farmers in Michigan" and, "MSUE extends MSU research information to rural people in Michigan" were significant at the .05% level when tested against educational level. Within the category, service, one statement " MSUE services focus more on urban 154 problems", was significant at the .05% level when tested against educational level. Within the category of issues programming, two statements, "MSUE adoption of issues programming is a withdrawal from traditional audience and, ” MSUE issues programming provides growth experiences to participants, " were significant at the .05% level when tested against educational level. Within the category, delivery methods, four statements " effectiveness of programs using satellite/television", "effectiveness of programs using demonstration methods"," effectiveness of programs using computers and, “effectiveness of programs using bulletins,” were significant at the .05% level when tested against educational level. Hypothesis # 7 ( Income per year) HO: Ir‘ ' .‘ ‘ re .1. .l t. ‘I'r ‘ .r r‘ I.‘ ‘III e u I .llI I. '.0 III. II .I‘l I‘O‘IIOLJHII IIID'IIII'I.' '. .e ' ’Ot'rl ester er. .‘reI‘e r.l . er. I I ' It or I.'I.erl‘ ‘u ' . l l l' l I As a composite of the six categories there was no significant difference at .05% when tested against the demographic variable, income per year. There was no significant difference when individual categories were tested against the demographic variable, income per year. There were, however, statements within the categories: organizational structure, personnel, issues programming and delivery methods, that were significant at the .05% level when tested against income per year. 155 Within the category of organizational structure, two statements, " MSUE is an organization committed to serving all people equally" and , " MSUE organization’s environment permits team work," were significant at the .05% level when tested against income per year. Within the category, personnel, one statement, "MSUE personnel are responsive to the problems of their clientele," was significant at the .05% level when tested against am 3‘. 31.72.“ 'I m1 income per year. Within the category of issues programming, one statement " MSUE issues 'm.".-1’.fi .. rum; II"‘ programming will definitely increase extension linkages with other agencies," was significant at the .05% level when tested against income per year. Within the category, delivery methods, one statement, "effectiveness of programs using demonstration methods," was significant at the .05% level when tested against income per year. Research Question. The results of the regression analyses showed that none of the seven variables were important predictor(s) of image perception of Michigan State University Extension. Because none of the variables were important predictor(s) of image there was table created for the multiple regression analysis. 156 Conclusion The conclusions of this study will be based on three variables, where over nine statements had significant differences at the .05% level. These variable are title, years of service and educational level. In addition statements in which the majority of the g respondents agreed, and disagreed are listed with the mean scores. C 1.Title. . 1. In the frndings based upon title, only three of the groupings were in agreement with E one of the ten statements that was considered to be significant at a .05%level of significance. “ MSUE is committed to serving all people equally.” 2. In one other instance ,two of the groupings within the title category were in agreement at the .05% level of significance, “ MSUE is more of a service organization”. 3. The remainder of the ten statements that were deemed to be significant at a .05% level of significance, at least two or more of the groups were in disagreement with the statements determined to be significant at a05% level of significance. 2. Years of service with MSUE 1. Regarding findings based upon title, three of the groupings were in agreement with two of the nine statements that were considered to be significant at a .05% level of significance: “ MSUE is more of a service organization.” and ,“ MSUE organization is highly stratified.” 157 2. for the remainder of the nine statements that were deemed to be significant a .05 %level of significance, at least two or more of the groups were in disagreement with the statements detemrined to be significant at a .05% level of significance. 3. Educational level 1. In the findings based upon educational level, in only one instance did all the five groups agree with one of the fifteen statements that was determined to be significant at a .05% level of significance, “ MSUE organization permits team work.” 2. In the findings based upon educational level, in only one instance did four of the groups agree with one of the fifteen statements that was determined to be significant at the .05% level : “ MSUE is committed to serving all people equally.” 3. In only one instance did three of the groups within educational level agree at the .05% level of significance: “ MSUE organization is highly stratified.” 4. For the remainder of the fifteen statements that were deemed to be significant at the .05% level of significance, at least three or more of the groups were in disagreement with the statements determined to be significant at a .05% level of significance. Summaqucnnclusinns From this study, one may conclude that the majority of campus based faculty and staff are in agreement with the following statements: ' 1. MSUE is a service organization. 2. MSUE is an educational organization. 158 '1! a T's} hi ti Fla-mate a" -C_‘. . 1.» M In 'J 3. MSUE is committed to serving all people equally. 4. MSUE is an informational organization. 5. MSUE is comrrritted to serving farmers as their primary audience. 6.MSUE organization permits team work. 7.MSUE organization is open to new ideas. 8. MSUE organization is highly stratified. Furthermore, one may conclude that the majority of MSUE campus based faculty and staff are in disagreement with the following: 1.MSUE extends research information to urban people in Michigan. 2. MSUE services concentrated more on urban problems. 3.MSUE extend resources through community development. 4. Issues programming provided for a diverse group. 5. Issues programming adoption is a sign of withdrawal from traditional audiences. Suggestions for Future Study At the end of a study, it is always important to reflect on the entire study - how it was planned and concluded, how it could be improved, and what specifics recommendations for future research could be made. For this study, the liken-type scale used to assess the perceptions may not, in any way, be the measure of perception. Nevertheless, it has been tested and proved through studies to be reliable and adequate assessor of perception, including that in Kunkel and Barry, 1968; Crunkilton el al., 1968, etc.,. These findings are, therefore, believed to be a reflection of the perceptions by campus based faculty/staff 159 either partially or fully funded of the organizational structure, mission, personnel, services, issues programming and delivery methods of Michigan State University Extension. For those who may be interested in conducting a similar study or replicating this study, it would be rewarding to: (1) Conduct a similar study of the four categories (mission, services, issues programming, and delivery methods) that had high disagreement mean scores in order to determine the factors responsible for the low perception. (2) Conduct a similar study comparing three or four colleges, such as the College of Agriculture, and the College of Veterinary Medicine on the perception of MSUE Staff on other subjects. (3) Ask field staff of MSUE their perceptions. (4) Ask selected clientele their perceptions. 160 APPENDIX A, UCRIHS APPROVAL 161 - . APPENDIX B NOTIFICATION LETTER TO RESPONDENTS DATE: TO: (Respondent’s name and Address) Dear (Last name of respondent): I would like to inform you in advance that your name has been selected randomly to participate in an image study of Michigan State University Extension. You are among randomly selected individuals from across the state whose responses are considered to be important, if not critical, to this study. In a few weeks, you will receive a questionnaire through the mail from the Department of Agricultural and Extension Education at Michigan State University. The questionnaire is designed to solicit your perceptions on six different aspects of the organization including its mission, personnel, services etc. Please find time to complete the questionnaire and return it as soon as you possibly can. Findings from this study will help us in our efforts to continue to improve the structure and services of the Michigan State University Extension to best serve the people of Michigan. Thank you very much in advance for your cooperation and support. Sincerely, Brima Fatorma N gombi (Ph.D. Candidate) Dept. of Agricultural and Extension Education Michigan State University Dr. Frederick Whims Dept. of Agricultural and Extension Education, Michigan State University Dr. Arlene G. Leholrn Director Michigan State University Extension Agriculture Hall, Michigan State University 162 APPENDIX C SURVEY OF THE IMAGE OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION (MSU-E) Date: Respondent’s name and address Dear ( First name of respondent) For the past few years, the Cooperative Extension Services at national, state and local levels have undergone a tremendous amount of change. Opinions about Extension and Extension programs have been openly expressed by both clients and customers of the organization. This promoted the organization to change. In an effort to continue to understand what is happening to Extension, the Department of Agricultural and Extension Education at Michigan State University is conducting an image study of the Michigan State University Extension (MSU-E). The study is designed to assess the current image of Michigan State University Extension as perceived by campus based faculty and staff with MSU-E appointments. You were selected randomly to participate in this study from a list provided by the Michigan State University Extension office. Because of the random selection process, your response is very critical to the smaller sample of participants drawn from this study. So please complete the questionnaire and return it on or before February 27, 1998. It should take you approximately 30 minutes to complete the questionnaire, and your early response will be very much be appreciated. Please be assured that no one will see the answers expect the researcher. Your responses will be treated with complete confidentiality and you will remain anonymous in any report of research findings. Only aggregate reports will be made, so no report will enable anyone to identify an individual’s response(s). Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. And you indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire. Please return the postcard to indicate that you have completed and returned the questionnaire. Upon request, the findings will be made available to you. If you are interested, please contact the department after the study is completed. If you have any questions about this study, please call the department at 355- 6080. Thanks you very much for your cooperation. Sincerely, Dr. Fred Whims Brima Fatorma Ngombi Dept of Agricultural & Extension Education Dept. of Agricultural & Extension Education Michigan State University Michigan State University Dr. Arlene G. Leholm Director Michigan State University Extension Agriculture Hall, Michigan State University 163 APPENDIX D SURVEY OF THE IMAGE OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION (MSU-E) DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL AND EXTENSION EDUCATION 410 AGRICULTURE HALL MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING, MI 48823 (517) 355 6080 1998 164 DIRECTIONS: The following statements in categories 1-6 describe the Michigan State University Extension (MSU-E) organizaffim its mission, ersonnel, servrces, . delive methods and Issues programmrn . You are aske to relate your lpierce tron or leve of a reement/disagreement wrth t ese statements wrth factors re ted 0 your curren image of the organization currently. ForOeach statement, please Indicate your leve of agreement/disagreement by circling the appropriate category: DK =Don’t Know = 1 SD = Strongly Disagree = 2 D = Disagree = 3 A = A rec = 4 SA = S rongly Agree = 5 NB: All responses will be kept confidential. It is guaranteed that no respondent will be identified. Cat 0 1: Your perception ‘of the organization (Michigan State University Extension) Statements Response cart-cor).- 1a Michigan St te Univqrsirty Emetnsion (MSU-E) DK SD D A SA fo co gall Etc? n‘iiefs'“a.‘léi§’e"ns}ion (MSU-E) DK SD D A SA rs mo 0 a servrce org Ion. 2) Michigan State University Extension (MSU-E) DK SD D A SA rs arr mformatronprganlzatlon. _ 3)Mlchrgan State Unrversrty Extensron (MSU-E) DK SD D A SA 18 a research orgalllzatlon. 4)Mjchigan State University Extension (MSU-E) DK SD D A SA IS an organization comrrutted to servrng farmers as Its primary rnrssron/audrence. 5a) .Michigan State University Extension (MSU-E) DK SD D A SA IS an organization as committed to servrng urban audiences as rural audiences. 5b) Michigan State University Extension(MSU-E) DK SD D A SA IS an organization as cornrnrtted to servrng rural au iences as urban audiences. 6) Michigan State University Extension (MSU-E) DK SD D A SA is an organization committed to serving all people equally. arlizational structure of Michigan DK SD D A SA 7) The rag . . . . . State nrversrty Extensron (MSU-E) Inhlbrts Innovation. 165 8) The or anizatjonal structure of Michigan . . , State mversrty Extensron (MSU-51% prohibits DK SD D A SA freer communication among the st . 9a) Michigan State University Extension(MSU-E) DK SD D A SA encourages administrative participation by staff. 9b) Michigan State University Extension (MSU-E) DK SD D A SA Encourages participation by clientele. 10) Michigan State University Extension (MSU-E) DK SD D A SA is a highly stratified organization. 1]) Organizational duties in MSU-E . . DK SD D A SA are narrowly defined. 12) The or anizatjonal environment of Michigan DK SD D A SA State mversrty Extensron permits team work. 13) Overall, Michigan State University Extension DK SD D A SA IS an orgaruzatron open to new Ideas. _. Cat 0 2: Your perception of the mission of Michigan State University Efiensr'on. 14) MSI'E extends the resources of Michigan State DK SD D A SA Unrversrty to the peo le of Mrchrgan through commumty evelopment programs. 15) Extends. the resources of Michi an State DK SD D A SA Umversrty to the people of Mrc gan through home econornrcs programs. 16) Extends. the resources of Michi err State DK SD D A SA Umversrt to the people of Mrc gan through -H programs. 17) Extends the resources of Michi an State DK SD D A SA Umversrty to the people of Mrc gan through agricultural programs. 18) Extends the resources of the Colleges of DK SD D A SA Agrrculture and Natural Resources, Natural . Scrences, Human Ecology, Vete Medrcme, and Socral Scernces tot e people of chlgan through educational programs. 19) Extends the research information of DK SD D A SA Mrchr an State Umversrty to farmers In Mrc gan. 20) Extends the research information of DK SD D A SA Mrclugan State. Umversrty to rural people In Michigan. 21) Extends the researeh information of DK SD D A SA Michigan State .Umversrty to urban people of Michigan. 166 Statement Response Category 22) Helps people help themselves through DK SD D A SA education. 23 ) it?8fiffi’ri’éirif’ffé’éfsiii‘it"3538358888ledge DK SD D A SA to critlca Issues. Catggogy 3: Your perception of the personnel of Michigan State University Extension 24) Are professional in their appearance. DK SD D A SA 25) Are professional in dealing with problems. DK SD D A SA 26) Are professional in dealing with their DK SD D A SA clientele. 27) Do really care about their DK SD D A SA clientele 28) Are efl‘ective problem solVCl's. DK SD D A SA 29) Are effective teachers. DK SD D A SA 30) Are effective communicators. DK SD D A SA 31) Are good "let—rm players". DK SD D A SA 32) Are responsive to the problems of their DK SD D A SA customers. 33) Lack knowledge in subject matter areas, DK SD D A SA (e.g., computers, forestry, animal science, crop science, etc.) 34) Lack skills in sub'ect matter areas (e.g., DK SD D A SA computers, foresfi'y, annual science, etc.) 167 Catggogy 4: Your perception of the services of Michigan State University Extension 35) Arc of good quality. DK SD D A SA 36) 2 Are well designed to fit the needs of the clientele. DK SD D A SA 37) Focus more on Agriculture. DK SD D A SA 38) Focus more on Home Economics. DK SD D A SA F 39) Focus more on Community Development. DK SD D A SA E 40) Focus more on 4-H Youth. DK SD D A SA 9: 41) Focus more on social problems. DK SD D A SA i 42) Concentrate more on farmers problems. DK SD D A SA i‘ 43) Concentratedmore on urban problems. DK SD D A SA 44) Concentrate more on rural problems. DK SD D A SA Category 5: Your Perception of “Issues Programming Identification” efforts. 45) The process provides growth experiences to all DK SD D A SA who participate. 46) The process provides for diverse groups of participants. DK SD D A SA 47) The process identifies the most Important issues in the local DK SD D A SA communities (counties). 48) The process prioritizes the most important DK SD D A SA issues in the local cormnrmities/(counties). 49) The process identifies the most important issues DK SD D A SA in the region. 50) The process prioritized the most DK SD D A SA important issues in the region. 51) The process identifies the most DK SD D A SA important issues in the state. 168 52) The process prioritizes the most important issues in the state. 53) Most of the participants feel that the concept of issues prograrn- rning is appropriate for extension. 54) Issues programming will definitely increase extension linkages with other agencies. 55) Issues programming will definitely increase public support for MSU-Extension 56) The ado tion of issues programming is an in ication of continuing commitment of the organization to the public. 57) The adoption of issues programming by MSU-Extension is a sign of withdrawal from its traditional audiences. 58) MSU-Extension is better under issues programming than the current Extension approach. DK DK DK DK DK DK DK SD SD SD SD SD SD SD D A SA D A SA D A SA D A SA D A SA D A SA D A SA Section 6: Your perception of the effectiveness of the following delivery methods used by Michigan State University Extension (MSU-E). Please indicate the level of effectiveness by circling one category (highly ineffective =1 to highly effective = 5) '1‘ '. I annc; Statements 59) Effectiveness of programs using personal contact. 60) Effectiveness of programs using television/ satellites 61) Effectiveness of programs using demonstration methods. 169 1 Highly ineffective - Highly effective Response Category 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 “TH".‘II a " n I. Statements Response Category Highly ineffective - Highly effective 62) Effectiveness of programs using 1 2 3 4 5 radio. 63) Effectiveness of programs using 1 2 3 4 5 computers. 64) Effectiveness of methods using 1 2 3 4 5 bulletins. Category 7: General background and demographic information. .' . IT .- I. ‘.§-"'.n.'¢|.-11 65) What is your gender? ('1 )\’lalc i. (2)Female 66) What is your age? (l)Younger than 25 years (2)25 to 34 years (3)35 to 44 years (4)45 to 54 years (5)55 to 64 years (6) 65 years and older 67) Which college are you currently employed/working for? 68) Which department/unit are you currently employed/ working for? 69) What is your Title? (1) Administrator (2) Faculty (3) Secretary (4) Specialists (5) Program/Unit Leaders (6) Other. 170 70) How long have you been involved in Extension? (1) 0 to 5 years (2) 6 to 11 years (3) 12 to 17 years (4) 18 to 23 years (5) 24 to 29 years (6) over 30 years 71) What is the highest level of formal education you have completed? (1) Some high school (2) High school diploma or equivalent (3) Some college (4) Technical or trade school certification (5) 2- year college degree (6) 4- year college degree (7) Some graduate work (8) MS. degree (9) Ph.D degree 72) What is your estimated gross income per year? (1) Less than 25,000 (2) 26,000 to 36,000 (3) 37,000 to 47,000 (4) 48,000 to 58,000 (5) 59,000 to 69,000 (6) 70,000 to 79,000 (7) 80,000 t0 89,000 (8) 90,000 to 99,000 (9) Over 100,000 73) Please use the space provided below to write any additional comments regarding MSU-E. ' Once again, thank you very much for taking your time to complete this questionnaire. 171 APPENDIX E FIRST FOLLOW-UP LETTER Date: Respondent’s name and address Dear ( First name of respondent) A questionnaire on the survey of the Image of Michigan State University Extension (MSU-E) was sent to you. Your name was randomly drawn from a list of selected individuals from the MSU-E staff list of 1998. If you have already completed the questionnaire and returned it to us, please accept our sincere appreciation. If not , please disregard the earlier deadline of February 28, 1998 stated in your cover letter and complete the questionnaire today. Because you are among the few and carefully selected individuals in the sample, your response is extremely important if the results of the study are to accurately reflect the perception of people fiom MSU-E. If for some reason you did not receive the questionnaire. or it got misplaced, enclosed is an other copy. Sincerely, Dr. Fred Whims Brima Fatorma Ngombi Dept. of Agricultural & Extension Education Dept. of Agricultural & Extension Education, Michigan State University Michigan State University Dr. Arlene G. Leholm Director Michigan State University Extension Agriculture Hall ,Michigan State University 172 APPENDIX F SECOND FOLLOW-UP LETTER Date: Respondent’s name and address Dear ( First name of respondent) A questionnaire on the survey of the Image of Michigan State University Extension (MSU-E) was sent to you. Your name was randomly drawn from a list of selected individuals from the MSU-E stafi‘ list of 1998. If you have already completed the questionnaire and returned it to us, please accept our sincere appreciation. If not , please disregard the earlier deadline of February 28, 1998 stated in your cover letter and complete the questionnaire today. Because you are among the few and carefully selected individual in the sample, your response is extremely important if the results of the study are to accurately reflect the perception of people fi'om MSU-Er. If for some reason you did not receive the questionnaire, or it got misplaced, enclosed is another copy. Sincerely, Dr. Fred Whims - . Brima Fatorma Ngombi Dept. of Agricultural & Extension Education Dept. of Agricultural & Extension Ed Michigan State University" . Michigan State University Dr. Arlene G. Leholm Director Michigan State University Extension Agriculture Hall,Michigan State University 173 APPENDIX G TABLES - Table] - test results foréhe differenc f es [If ’ rce 'o bout t e gage. $3.02: em. massalllelgé: 9mg, aging): is“ Section # of # of _ _ SD for SD for t-value 2-tail 8uestion on ‘ Males Female X for X for Male Female Sig. rganimtional Male Female . Structure Educational 72 61 3.17 3.33 .73 .54 -1.460 .147 g" organization “’5 Service . 73 60 2.63 2.65 .74 .73 -.155 .877 ‘ organization Informational 74 61 3.20 3.26 .62 .48 -.615 .540 organization Research 72 59 2.08 ‘ 2.53 .82 .86 3.010 .003" l: organization ;, Committed to 74 61 2.70 2.21 .84 .86 3.338 .001" servrng farmers Committed to 73 59 2.60 2.80 .88 .78 -1.323 .188 ‘ servrng urban Committed to 73 58 2.55 2.91 .91 .82 -2.209 .183 serving people Inhibits innovation 67 58 2.69 2.66 .71 .94 .209 .834 Prohibits. free 61 54 2.98 2.74 .94 .73 1.532 .128 communication " Participation by 58 46 2.59 2.56 .82 .72 .420 .675 staff Partici ation by 70 59 2.97 3.05 .56 .47 -.859 .392 chente e Highly stratified 59 57 2.71 2.88 .81 .66 -l.209 .229 Duties narrowly 62 55 2.85 3.09 .74 1.36 -1.180 .241 defined Permits team work 71 60 2.96 2.87 .82 .54 .764 .446 Open to new ideas 70 59 2.93 2.81 .73 .63 .950 .344 Total 74 61 2.59 2.82 .778 .741 1.297 .304 # = number, X = mean, SD = standard deviation ** Significant at 5% level (p = .05) 174 %able 11 t- 3:65:61: tsr0 for0 :(E‘gerenges befiveeggswt dents’lpg ons a an a gscfieolt ree, gEa-tfhsagi-ee, Wgrgiifiihdrfe ron en er Section # of # of _ _ SD for SD for t-value 2;tail Questions Males Female X for X for Male Female mg. on Mission Male Female Communit 56 56 1.07 1.16 .26 .37 -l.496 .143 developme nt Home , 57 58 1.11 1.17 .31 .38 -l.038 .302 economic programs Eihrough 4- 67 60 1.27 1.30 .45 .46 -l.388 .698 rograms Through 62 45 1.24 1.18 .43 .39 .747 .456 pglgrams Iguough 62 45 1.24 1.18 .43 .39 .792 .430 e u. programs. Research 69 61 1.43 1.30 .50 .46 1.660 .099 to farmers ‘ ' g . Research 65 57 1.29 1.25 .46 .43 .575 .566 to rural ople Research 57 54 1.14 1.17 .35 .38 -.382 .704 to an . people Helpl 69 55 1.38 1.42 .50 .49 -.465 .643 mligh Educ. 63 56 1.38 3.02 .49 13.07 -.994 .322 applied » . ‘ . knowledge Total 63 51 1.27 1.43 .423 1.691 .954 .436 #- — r,—X- — ea,n SD: standard deviation ** Significant at 5% level (p: .05) 175 176 {title er120 t- t‘s’caf ts for thd estabgeete: 2gresponde’ rceqti about him" ““3350 scale )0 tro {iggreemn Section # of # of _ _ SD for SD for t- 2;tail uestion on Male Female X for X for Male Female value srg. ersonnel Male Female Professional in 71 57 2.11 2.05 .49 .44 .717 .475 appearance * Professional in 70 59 2.21 2.07 .48 .37 1.970 .051** dealing wrth - roblems Do care about their 70 59 2.36 2.15 .48 .36 2.745 .007** clientele ' ' Effective problem 71 59 2.37 2.37 .62 .58 -.063 .950 solvers Effective teachers 70 57 2.07 2.07 .62 .49 .014 .989 Effective 71 59 2.00 2.07 .41 .49 -.858 .392 commumcators Good team player 71 60 2.07 2.03 .35 .45 .530 .597 Res nsive to the 69 60 2.01 1.93 .58 .48 .855 .394 pro lem of their - ~ - . customers Lack knowledge in 68 59 2.13 2.10 .54 .52 .325 .746 subject matter areas; computer etc. Lack skills in 66 56 2.92 3.04 .85 .69 -.789 .432 subjects matter F,orestry Total 63 58 2.20 1.97 .55 .51 .808 .510 = ,X- — m viation L Sim want at 08133211.): iii [A Elable 13 t- resultstero for0 ggerengesbe nents’ etions a egg Uvmversfl; ensmlgfiggflmn en ert an a egeo ol-(si Section # of # of _ _ SD for SD for t- 2-tail Male Female X for X for Male Female value sig. Male Female Services Services are of 64 54 1.19 1.15 .39 .41 .532 .596 good quality Well defined to fit 66 58 2.00 1.90 .61 .55 .987 .326 the needs of clientele Focus more on 67 56 1.99 1.91 .77 .72 .550 .584 agriculture Focus more on, 55 52 1.36 1.50 .52 .54 -1.325 .188 Home econom1cs Focus more on 55 51 1.44 1.43 .66 .61 .968 .040** community development Focus more on 4—H 60 52 1.68 1.63 .65 .60 .411 .682 Youth Focus more on 56 51 1.39 1.37 .59 .49 .192 .848 soc1al problems Concentrate more 62 54 1.87 1.85 .76 .74 .137 .891 on farmers oblems Concentrate more 52 46 1.21 1.26 .46 .49 -.514 .608 on urban problems Concentrated more 64 54 1.73 1.70 .57 .63 .277 .783 on rural problems TOTAL 60 53 1.59 1.57 .598 .497 .647 .656 #- - r,X= ** Significaiit at 5%:I level (p - 11,:SD —sta0ndard deviation 177 Table 14 t- test results for the d' r nges bgtt‘wee respondents’ perce tion about e an aim 5181mm ears, 1?.- ...g... =1gst§alizaamgasn er W a Section Issues PrOgramming # of Male # of Female X-for Male X—for Female SD for Male SD for Female 1- value 2;tail Slg. Growth experiences to all who partiCipate 46 21 1.63 1.57 .57 .60 .386 .701 Provides for diverse groups of partic1pants 42 33 1.83 1.73 .54 .52 .863 .391 Identifies the most important issues in the local, . communities (counties) 28 1.83 1.79 .55 .57 .286 .776 Priontizes the most important issues in local communities (counties) 38 24 1.87 1.67 .53 1.295 .188 Identifies the most important issues in the region 36 28 1.86 1.57 .59 .57 1.968 .054 Prioritizes the most important . issues in the region 36 26 1.64 1.54 .54 .51 .738 .463 Identifies the most important issues in the state 40 23 1.70 1.65 .56 .57 .322 .748 Prioritizes the most important issues in the state 36 25 1.50 1.52 .56 .51 -.142 .887 PartiCipants feel . that the concept is ap ropnate for ex enSion 38 25 1.89 2.00 .39 .50 .938 .352 Will definitely, increase extenSion inkages With other a enCies 40 30 1.83 2.00 .55 1.225 .225 Will definitely increase public support 35 26 1.71 1.96 .79 .72 1.256 .214 178 ' fihfi 11.243 1' {‘l. Emmi 1. Adoption of issues 44 31 2.00 2.10 .65 .47 -.709 .480 pro ramming con inuing commitment to the ublic Adoption of issues 36 27 1.64 1.37 .68 .63 1.597 .115 programmin isa Sign of wtth rawal from traditional audiences . Better under issues 31 26 1.74 1.81 .77 .75 -.324 .747 programming than current extenSion approach ~ .5 I" I. TOTAL 41 25 1.86 ' 1.73 .572 .653 .906 .435 fi== # = numbeer = mean, SD : standard deviation ** Signlflcant at 5% level (p = .05) 179 Table 5 tt- testiiesuttis for the 111133; picesof r Mtg. {inflate ggtioifi about the $0911 iveness 05%; mfiflffigl YCI'SI Xi§§51011 Met??? nyer OI] rongi Section # of # of _ _ SD for SD for t- 2.-tail Male Female X X for Male Female value Sig. for Female Effectiveness of Male delivery methods Effectiveness of 70 59 3.27 3.61 .87 1.59 -1.536 .127 programs using Dersonal contacts Effectiveness of 71 59 1.97 2.24 .79 .63. -2.089 **.039 mg rams usin elevision/sate ites Effectiveness of 70 59 3.27 3.29 .76 .81 -.149 .882 programs using demonstration methods Effectiveness of 70 57 2.24 2.23 .71 .85 .107 .915 programs usrng radio Effectiveness of 72 58 2.32 2.33 .80 .63 -.065 .948 programs using computers Effectiveness of 71 59 2.66 2.51 .81 .88 1.028 .306 £10 ams using etins TOTAL 71 59 2.62 2.70 .790 .898 .829 .879 #- — r,-X —a11,=SD standard deviation ** Significaiit at 5%an level (p. - 05) 180 .r . Tmmfip_ r“. I". . ‘ . . 1 “F i .4.- abl 6 t-t results or he ' erences res nd- ts,’ rce 'ons about i“ 0 '1”er “r";étirii‘ rs” (Wig an 9322199?" W" onf [lee a co '1“: tro y égree, - isagree, - gree,aud - trong y ee . Section # of # of _ _ SD for SD for t- 2-tail Organizational CANR Other X for X for CANR Other value sig. Structure Colleges CANR Other Colleges Colleges Educational 72 61 3.17 3.33 .73 .54 -1.460 .147 orgamzation Service , 73 60 2.63 2.65 .74 .73 -.155 .877 organization Informational 74 61 3.20 3.26 .62 .48 -.615 .540 organization Research 72 59 2.08 2.53 .72 .76 -.l45 .766 organization Committed to 74 61 2.70 2.21 .64 .56 -.535 .450 servrng farmers Committed to 73 59 2.60 2.80 .88 .78 -1.323 .188 servmg urban Committed to 73 58 2.55 2.91 .91 .82 -2.209 .183 servmg people inhibits. 67 58 2.69 2.66 .71 .94 .209 .834 innovation Prohibitsfree 61 54 2.98 2.74 .94 .73 1.532 .128 communication lgffrticipation by 58 46 2.59 2.56 .82 .72 .420 .675 5 Participation by 70 59 2.97 3.05 .56 .47 -.859 .392 cliente e Highly stratified 59 57 2.71 2.88 .81 .66 -l.209 .229 Duties narrowly 62 55 2.85 3.09 .74 1.36 -l.180 .241 defined Permits team 71 60 2.96 2.87 .82 .54 .764 .446 work . nto new 70 59 2.93 2.81 .73 .63 .950 .344 ideas Total 73 60 2.58 2.81 .777 .740 1.297 .303 # = number,—X = mean, SD = standard deviation ** Significant at 5% level (p = .05) 181 {IiY-ipf ‘.- “ . .- Us _li J m S'Vmufi Pfiflll'ml.» “1 a ' 7 0 J 3.313.17g'gfi'3'mamdgmagsnigismpam scale 01% 4’ rong‘ly gii-lifisagreem3 eelt=1=Agree, Wrong qggee. Section # of it of _' _ SD for SD for t-value 2-tail guestions on CANR Other X for X for CANR Other sig. SQ-E . College CANR Other Colleges MlSSlOll s Colleges Community 84 15 1.12 1.13 .33 .35 —. 155 .877 development . ‘ Home , 83 19 1.14 1.16 .35 .37 -.146 .884 economic programs Through 4-H 88 24 1.26 1.29 .44 .46 -.295 .769 programs ' ‘ Through agric. 93 22 1.33 1.36 .47 .49 -.268 .789 programs Through edu. 78 19 1.22 1.21 .42 .42 -.070 .945 rograms - Research to - 92 23 ' 1.34 1.48 .48 .51 -l.257 .212 farmers Research to 89 20 1.21 1.30 .41 .47 -.827 .410 rural people Research to 79 20 1.09 1.25 .29 .44 ~1.546 .136 urban people Help mgp‘eggue 90 21 1.37 1.38 .48 .50 -.121 .904 Educ. implies 83 23 1.30 1.43 .46 .51 -l.202 .232 knowled e Total 86 21 1.24 1.30 .413 .452 .589 .616 # =n be,r X- - mean, SD- - standard deviation "S Significaiit at 5% level (p: .05) 182 222.2. " .2222..." “i 222...... MW .2... .22: ...”:a . Section # of it of Other _ _ SD for SD for ‘ t- 2-tail Personnel CANR Colleges X for X for CANR (C)tber value sig. CANR Other olleges Professional 71 57 2.11 2.05 .49 .44 .717 .475 in appearance Professional 70 59 2.21 2.07 .48 .38 .470 .510 111. dealing With problems Docare , 70 59 2.36 2.15 .36 .41 .523 .635 about their clientele Effective 71 59 2.37 2.37 .62 .58 -.063 .950 problem solvers Effective 70 57 2.07 2.07 .62 .49 .014 .989 teachers Effective 71 59 2.00 2.07 .41 .49 -.858 .392 communicato rs Good team 71 60 2.07 2.03 .35 .45 .530 .597 players Res nsive 69 60 2.01 1.93 .58 .48 .855 .394 o e roblems of en customers Lack 68 59 2.13 2.10 .54 .52 .325 .746 knowledge in sub ect ma er areas; computer etc. Lagk stlgills in 66 56 2.92 3.04 .85 .69 -.789 .432 cc ma er areas; ‘ Forestry, etc. Total 62 57 2.19 1.96 .55 .50 .801 .450 if glgn'firgl‘nia mmSfivemdprdgsviafion 183 Eigaléztgiestg)? my? mjgfigéme ficwmbgwgwpondygsfiicfpfiions about Section # of # of _ _. SD for SD for t- 2-tail CANR Other X for X for CANR Other value sig. Colleges CANR Other Colleges Services Collegg Services are of 90 17 1.16 1.29 .36 .59 - .200 goodu (La 1in 1.289 Well defined 87 22 1.94 2.09 .58 .61 - .290 to fit the needs 1.064 of clientele Focus more on 88 22 2.05 1.77 .73 .75 1.566 .120 agriculture Focus more on 76 19 1.43 1.42 .55 .51 .095 .925 Home , economics Focus more 75 18 1.37 1.56 .59 .70 - .259 on commumty . 1.136 development Focus more 83 18 1.64 1.78 .60 .65 -.885 .378 on 4-H Youth Focus more on 78 17 1.35 1.47 .55 .51 -.849 .398 50cm] problems Concentrate 84 20 1.96 1.75 .72 .75 1.177 .242 more on farmers oblems Concentrate 72 14 1.25 1.29 .50 .47 -.248 .804 more on urban oblems Concentrate 86 20 1.80 1.60 .57 .60 1.416 .160 more on rural problems TOTAL 82 19 1.60 1.60 .575 .618 .972 .378 #= umbe r,"x= =standard deviation " ’Slilgnit‘icaiit at 5% level (p= .05) 184 Section Issues Prpgrammipg # of CANR nces b tw Table 20 t- test results for ,the d3 E image pf gipgg g o c_ een responde ts’ W gan tats iverSIt X—for CANR X-l’or Other College s SD for CANR perce tions abou Sion aim." college on a t- value 2-tail sig. Growth experiences to all who partiCipate 29 1.10 1.00 .31 .737 .467 Provides for diverse groups of particmants 37 1.08 1.00 .28 1.782 .083 Identifies the most important issues in the local communities (counties) 33 1.12 1.13 .33 .35 -.029 .977 Prioritizes the most important issues in local commumties (counties) 30 1.13 1.13 .35 .35 .952 Identifies the most important issues in the region 27 l .07 1.22 .27 -.95 .364 Prioritizes the most important . issues in the region 21 1.05 1.00 .28 .610 .547 Identifies the most important issues in the state 25 1.08 1.00 .31 .808 .425 Prioritizes the most important issues in the state 19 1.05 1.00 .554 .587 Participants feel that the concept is cpperopriate for nsron 37 10 1.11 1.00 .31 1.077 .287 Will definitely, increase extensmn linkages With other ll3&6116188 37 1.22 1.11 .42 .33 .701 .487 Will definitely increase public support 24 1.25 1.50 .55 1.183 .247 185 Adoption of issues programmtng Sign of continuin comm1tmen to the public 41 .. 1.12 1.36 .33 .50 .158 Adoption of issues programmin is a Sign of wtth awal from traditional audiences 17 1.06 1.50 .24 .55 1.908 .107 Better under issues programming than current extenSion approach 24 1.33 1.17 .48 .41 .778 .443 TOTAL 29 8 1.13 1.15 .321 .249 .906 .438 = number X = mean, SD = standard deviatibn ** Significant at 5% level (p = .05) 186 Fm mmmc ‘; ‘1 I“ in in” able 21 t-H tsjor the? (i’gev nfielsndegts’ptiijce ltions about ens n fiftirgml ii co Liflleeipefioa #2,??? M1=§tror§wwwmgegfifiigwa xAgree, an Strocng Agree) . ’ Section #1 of # of _ _ SD for SD for t-value 2-tail CANR Other X for X for CANR Other si.g Colleges CANR Other College Effectiveness of College s delivery methods s Effectiveness of 89 22 2.54 2.68 1.39 .57 -.470 .639 programs usmg personal contact Effectiveness of 68 21 1.31 1.43 .53 .51 -.920 .360 ro grams usin elevision/sate ites Effectiveness of 90 23 2.31 2.43 .70 .51 -.797 .427 programs using demonstration methods Effectiveness of 78 20 1.37 1.65 .63 .67 -l.747 .084 programs using radio Effectiveness of 79 22 1.47 1.59 .57 .67 -.855 .395 programs using computers Effectiveness of 82 23 1.77 1.65 .71 .71 .694 .489 progeram s using ul tins TOTAL 81 . 26 1.80 1.91 .755 .914 .399 L p = #- .. r-,X — ean,=SD standard deviation ** Significaiit at 5% level (p= .05) 187 Table 22 A sis ot‘t Vari wardstéi 222172."? 22. 22:. 22.0 2252222.} 935:3, ”25.2%: 22.221.29.222 X22223. 0" Section Youn er 35-44 45-54 55- 65 65 F- Or anizatio than 4 years years years years Ratio Prob na years and Structure older Educational = 14 18 7 31 18 .567 .768 organization _ , = 2.71 2.22 2.14 2.17 2.83 SD ' S“ .47 .73 1.21 .90 .84 g Services = 14 17 7 26 53 .618 .651 3 organization _ . X: 2.93 2.88 2.57 2.73 2.98 ' SD: .47 .78 .98 .92 .91 Informational N: 9 16 6 27 49 2.028 .096 Organization _ ~ _ X: 3.00 2.69 2.33 2.30 2.65 SD: , .50 .79 .82 .82 .72 organization = 14 18 7 32 61 2.072 .088 331;: 3.29 2.89 3.29 2.91 3.02 .47 .47 .49 .53 .53 Committed to N: l4 l7 6 31 51 2.069 .089 servmg _ farmers Sig: 2.71 3.06 2.33 2.97 2.67 .61 .43 .52 i .75 .82 Committed to N: 13 16. 5 30 56 .363 .835 servrn urban _ as rura X: 3.08 2.69 3.00 2.83 3.00 audiences SD: .95 .70 .71 .70 1.40 Committed to N: 15 18 7 32 62 .639 .679 serving all _ people X: 3.07 2.22 3.14 2.88 3.03 equally SD: .46 .65 .69 .61 .75 Organization = 14 17 7 33 64 .479 .751 tnhibits, __ innovation Sig: 3.21 3.12 3.43 3.33 3.22 .43 .60 .53 .74 .68 188 Or anization' = 15 17 7 33 63 .996 .412 cture _ prohibits free X: 2.80 2.71 2.57 2.42 2.68 commumcati SD: on among .68 .59 .53 .79 .76 staff ‘ Section Youn er 35—44 45-54 55-65 65 F—. F- Or anizatio than 4 years years years years Ratio Prob ii years and Structure older Organization = 15 18 7 33 65 .509 .729 encoura es _ adminis ativ 8%: 3.33 3.22 3.43 3.27 3.18 participation .49 .55 .53 .45 .61 among staff * Organization N: 14 17 7 32 64 2.227 .070 encourages _ participation X: 2.29 2.76 2.43 2.28 2.09 yclientele SD: , .73 .75 .79 .99 .81 grlgianizyation N: 15 18 7 33 65 .984 .401 sirau .66 8715': 2.53 2.72 2.00 2.12 2.66 ' .74 .75 .58 .89 .91 Duties N: 15 18 6 33 63 1.170 .327 narrowly _ defined Sig: 2.93 2.72 3.17 2.67 2.56 ' .88 .75 .75 .75 .86 Organization N: 15 17 7 32 63 .976 .432 envuonment _ permits team X: 3.27 2.76 2.86 2.51 2.51 work SD: .96 .75 1.07 .86 .86 Organization N: 15 17 7 31 62 1.488 .210 is open to _ new ideas SE: 3.00 3.00 3.14 2.65 2.92 ' .53 .35 .38 .75 .75 TOTAL N: 14 17 7 32 60 1.719 .289 8%: 2.87 2.59 2.78 2.71 2.79 ' .624 .642 .704 .772 .813 # = number, X: mean, SD = standard deviation, ** Significant at 5% level (p. = .05) 189 8.280: 208...: .2100 0.226% 000.20. 2'2. :31 1'12 2102.22.01.02. -alisagree,l§l= gree, an‘dn4= tro Section Youn er 35-44 45-54 55-65 65 cars F-Ratio F- Prob Mission than 4 years years years an older years MSU = 17 30 31 23 12 1.013 .404 resources to _ Baopl eh = 1.06 1.10 1.19 1.13 1.00 ...— ou - ‘ community SD: .24 .31 40 .34 .00 3 development MSU N: 16 31 32 23 14 .731 .572 resources to __ 0plehof M1 = 1.06 1.10 1.22 1.13 1.14 on Homeg so: .25 .30 .42 .34 .36 Economics MSU N: 19 35 35 25 14 .469 .758 resources to _ fifmple X: 1.16 1.31 1.31 1.32 1.29 ugh 4-H programs SD: .37 .47 .47 .48 .47 MSU N: 19 37 37 26 12 .824 .512 resources to _ ople of M1 = 1.21 1.35 1.35 1.42 1.50 ough Ag program SD: .42 .48 1.42 .50 .52 College N: 14 31 29 22 13 .515 .725 resources to epeope _ 1.14 1.23 1.17 1.32 1.23 through edu. X: 43 38 48 44 0 am . . . . pr gr so: .36 MSU = 19 36 38 25 14 2.409 .053** research __ information = 1.1 l 1.39 1.34 1.52 1.50 to farmers in M1 SD: .32 .49 .48 .51 .52 MSU N: 17 33 35 25 13 1.359 .252 research. _ , information X: 1.12 1.36 1.20 1.32 1.38 to rural, SD: .33 .49 .41 .48 .51 mwkmMI MSU = 16 32 32 20 12 1.054 .383 research _ infgrrénation = 1.06 1.25 1.09 1.15 1.17 people in MI SD: .25 .44 .30 .37 .39 190 Llellp people = 14 33 38 26 13 .279 .891 e . theihselves ‘1. 1.29 1.39 1.45 1.38 1.38 throu h educa ion SD: .47 .50 .50 51 .49 = 16 34 38 20 12 .587 .673 Help peo le_ X: 1.19 2.12 1.42 1.40 1.33 improve eir ' ‘ ' ' life throu h SD: .40 .59 .59 .50 .49 edu./im ies knowle ge TOTAL N= 17 33 33 24 13 .916 .433 X: 1.14 1.56 1.28 1.17 1.29 SD: .340 .070 .430 .450 .420 i“- h=m __ — # = number, X= mean, SD = standard deviation, ** Significant at 5% level (p = .05) 191 E In“- ..-- 201. 22228322020222.2322; . 2025.1012‘0'023 8112 ...-.20 2 Isagree, = gree, an ong 3' Section Youn er 35-44 45-54 55-65 65 ears F-Ratio F- Prob Personnel than 4 years years years an older years Personnel are N: 19 35 37 24 14 1.474 .214 rofessronal in _ ‘ eir : 1.84 2.14 2.14 2.08 2.07 appearance SD: .50 .55 .42 .41 .47 Personnel are : 19 38 36 23 14 .544 .704 professmnal in _ dealing With : 2.00 2.16 2.17 2.17 2.14 problems - SD: .33 .55 .45 .39 .43 Personnel are : 19 38 36 23 14 1.122 .349 professmnal in _ dealin With : 2.11 2.26 2.36 2.30 2.21 theirc1entele SD: .32 .45 .47 .49 .43 Personnel do N: 19 37 37 24 14 2.445 .050” care _ aboui their = 2.16 2.24 2.59 2.38 2.43 clientele SD: .50 .68 .50 .65 .51 Personnel are N: 19 37 36 25 14 .545 .703 effective problem solvers _ = 2.11 2.12 2.11 2.00 1.93 SD: .46 .59 .40 .50 .62 Personnel are N: 19 37 36 25 14 1.319 .266 effective _ teachers : 1.89 2.08 2.14 1.96 2.00 SD: .32 .60 .35 .45 .00 Personnel are N: 19 38 37 24 14 .663 .619 effective. _ commumcators : 2.00 2.00 2.14 2.04 2.00 SD: .47 .52 .35 .36 .00 Personnel are N: 19 36 36 25 14 1.590 .181 good team .... players : 1.79 1.89 2.03 2.00 2.21 SD: .54 .62 .45 .58 .43 Personnel are : 18 35 37 24 14 .390 .816 responsrve to _ theproblems of : 2.00 2.11 2.11 2.17 2.21 their chentele SD: .49 .47 .52 .64 .58 192 Personnel lack N: 17 37 31 23 14 1.493 .209 knowledge in ... subject matter X: 2.82 2.81 2.97 3.22 2.21 areas SD: .64 .78 .84 .74 .80 Personnel lack N: 17 34 32 23 13 1.315 .269 skills in subject _ matter areas X: 1.71 1.82 1.97 2.13 2.15 SD: .69 .67 .74 .76 .90 TOTAL N: 19 36 32 22 14 1.164 .398 X: 2.05 2.15 2.27 2.22 2.32 SD: .478 .588 .501 .541 .464 ‘=E =3=i it : number, X: mean, SD : standard deviation, ** Significant at 5% level (p : .05) 193 :1... b 25 * ' fVaria' of rc ' wards theim eo ' eslpgfl 21.1.: .. .;¥‘1in‘1v..§..x 10.2.22. 82283130.. . .. . .22. .1102 8222.. y isaee,- ,:gree,an4=troyglig). Section Youn er 3544 45-54 55-65 65 , F-Ratio F- Prob Services than 4 years years years years years and older Services are of N: 18 31 35 24 11 .703 .591 good quality __ X: 1.06 1.19 1.20 1.13 1.27 SD: .24 .48 .41 .34 .47 Services are well N: 19 37 33 24 13 .732 .572 desroned to fitthe _ neecfs of the = 1.84 1.89 1.94 2.08 2.08 clientele SD: .50 .52 .66 .65 .49 Services focus N: 19 36 35 24 10 1.056 .382 more on _ : agnculture SD- 1.79 1.81 2.00 2.13 2.10 7 .63 .71 .84 .74 .57 Services focus on N: 19 33 28 19 9 .643 .633 home economics _ X: 1.58 1.39 1.46 1.32 1.44 SD: .51 .56 .58 .58 .53 Services focus N: 17 32 3O 18 9 1.166 .330 more on community _ 1.59 1.44 1.47 1.17 1.56 development : .62 .72 .63 .51 .53 SD: Services focus N: 19 36 32 19 7 .484 .748 more on 4-H _ Youth problems : 1.79 1.64 1.59 1.63 1.86 SD: .54 .64 .67 .60 .69 Services : 17 34 32 17 7 .979 .422 concentrate more _ on soc181 problems : 1.53 1.32 1.47 1.24 1.24 SD: .51 .53 .57 .56 .49 Services N: 19 34 34 22 8 1.741 .146 concentrate more _ on farmers : 1.74 1.65 2.00 2.09 2.00 problems SD: .65 .75 .82 .68 .76 194 Services N: 16 , 32 25 19 6 . 4.543 “.002 concentrate more _ - on urban problems X: 1.63 1.13 1.28 1.05 1.17 SD: .62 .42 .46 .23 .41 Services N: 19 35 35 22 8 1.305 .273 concentrate more _ on rural problems X: 1.63 1.57 1.86 1.77 1.88 SD: .50 .61 .65 .53 .64 TOTAL N: 18 34 32 21 9 1.335 .410 X: 1.62 1.50 1.63 1.56 1.66 SD: .533 .592 .629 1.66 .558 # : number, X: mean, SD : standard deviation, ’* Significant at 5% level (p : .05) 195 . .e.. In .. Table 26 nal V a tow dst f issues 1221:0002 ’ 22181131101111.01221102“1121100000020 trony re isagree, Agree, an tron Section Youn er 3544 45- 54 55 65 F- Ratio F- Prob Issues than 4 years years years years programming years and older provides growth : 5 5 ll 14 3 .393 .812 experiences to _ panicrpants : 1.00 1.20 1.09 1.07 1.00 SD .00 .45 .30 .27 .00 provides for N: 7 15 14 14 6 .492 .741 diverse group of _ partiCipants = 1.00 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.00 SD: .00 .26 .27 .27 .00 identifies the most N: 6 15 11 13 . 4 .227 .922 important issues in _ the local. : 1.17 1.13 1.09 1.08 1.00 community(county ) SD: .41 .35 .30 .28 .00 prioritizes the most : 5 14 11 9 4 .602 .663 important issues in _ the local : 1.00 1.21 1.09 1.11 1.00 community(county ) SD: .00 .43 .30 .33 .00 identifies the most N: 3 19 9 8 3 .929 .458 important issues in the region _ 1.33 1.05 1.11 1.25 1.00 ’ .23 .33 .46 .00 SD: .58 prioritizes the most : 5 16 9 3 3 .727 .581 important issues in ... the region : 1.00 1.00 1.11 1.00 1.00 SD: .00 .00 .33 .00 .00 identifies the most : 3 15 9 10 4 1.054 .393 important issues in _ the state X: 1.00 1.00 1.11 1.20 1.00 SD: .00 .00 .33 .42 .00 prioritizes the mqst : 3 11 8 5 3 .655 .629 important issues in _ the state : 1.00 1.00 1.13 1.00 1.00 SD: .00 .00 .35 .00 .00 Participants feel : 6 18 15 10 5 2.653 .0414 that the concept is _ Eppropriate for X: 1.00 1.06 1.00 1.30 1.00 xtenSion SD: .00 .42 .00 .48 .00 196 will definitely , = 4 17 . 12 15 6 .141 .966 increase extensron __ mkages wrth other : 1.25 1.12 1.17 1.20 1.17 agenCies SD: .50 .33 .39 .41 .41 Will definitely : 4 10 10 9 3 1.295 .546 increase public _ support : 1.75 1.20 1.30 1.33 1.67 SD: .50 .42 .48 .50 .58 Adoption of issues N: 7 19 18 14 6 .776 .546 ro in is a ... Eigng'oarncmo‘mriuin = 1.29 1.32 1.17 1.21 1.00 comnutment to e public SD: .49 .48 .38 .43 .00 Adontion of issues : 2 9 6 8 2 4.719 .007 10 n is a _ Eigng’oa'rmwiumcirawai = 2.00 1.22 1.00 1.13 2.00 from traditional audiences SD: .00 .44 .00 .35 .00 Better under istiges : 3 7 10 11 2 1.072 .389 rogrammin n __ gurrent exterision : 1.00 1.57 1.36 1.50 approach 1.20 SD: .00 .53 .50 .71 .42 TOTAL : 4 14 11 10 4 1.124 .532 197 ‘T e 7 °0fV ‘ of cetionstow ' ofthede've .2222 0.22.22.92.21... 1.2.2.4481. Section Youn er 35-44 45-54 .55-65 65 cars F-Ratio F- Prob Delivgg than £4 years years years an older Meth years Effectiveness : 18 35 34 23 12 1.483 .212 of programs _ usrng personal : 2.67 2.43 2.97 2.35 2.25 contacts - SD .59 .70 2.02 .65 .62 Effectiveness : 17 33 26 17 10 2.108 .0886 of programs _ usrng , : 1.47 1.52 1.38 1.12 1.20 teleViSion/sate llites SD: .51 .57 .57 . .33 .42 EFectiveness : 19 36 33 26 12 .871 .484 o r grams _. usixi’go _ = 2.53 2.31 2.42 2.19 2.42 demonstration methods SD: .70 .58 .61 .80 .67 Effectiveness : 16 34 26 21 12 3.410 ”.012 0 grams _ usii’i? radio = 1.94 1.29 1.35 1.33 1.50 SD: .85 .58 .63 .48 .52 Effectiveness N: 17 32 33 21 11 3.141 ".017 o 10 usiig grams _ 1.29 1.56 1.39 1.48 2.00 computers : .59 .50 .56 .51 .77 SD: Effectiveness : 16 37 31 22 1 1 .732 .572 of pro , _ . usrng ulletins : 1.88 1.62 1.71 1.86 1.91 SD: .96 59 .64 .77 .71 TOTAL : 17 35 31 22 1 1 1.958 .231 —= 1.96 1.79 1.87 1.72 1.88 5, # : number, X: mean, SD : standard deviation, 5* Significant at 5% level (p : .05) 198 Table 8tlo sisoch t wardst beim e 000 2. 2W1... 0102., ...... 1111-1222 "“0 Administrat Faculty Secretary Specialists F-Ratio F- Prob » Organizational oors/Pr ogram Stru tructure Leaders Educational : 30 36 28 26 1.285 .285 organization _ X: 3.30 3.17 3.36 3.46 SD: .70 .61 .49 .58 Service : 30 36 29 25 2.923 .037" organization _ : 2.47 2.72 2.90 2.40 SD: .68 .78 .49 .87 Informational N: 31 36 29 27 2.499 .063 organization _ X: 3.19 3.08 3.45 3.30 SD: .40 .73 .51 .47 Research : 29 36 27 27 2.861 .040** organization _ X: 2.21 2.03 2.63 2.41 SD- .98 .91 .79 .64 Committed to = 31 36 29 27 .445 .721 serving farmers _ ‘ ‘ ‘ . X: 2.35 , 2.61 2.48 2.44 SD: 1.02 .96 .78 .89 As Committed to : 29 35 29 27 1.863 .140 servrng urban as __ rural audiences : 2.72 2.34 2.83 2.59 SD: .92 .97 .80 .75 Committed to : 31 35 28 25 4.876 .003“ serving all people _ equ ually X: 2.61 2.26 3.11 2.72 SD: .84 .95 .88 .84 Organization , : 30 32 , 27 26 .637 .592 inhibits innovation __ X: 2.80 2.72 2.52 2.81 SD: .71 .99 .89 .90 Organization's . : 25 29 27 23 .659 .579 structure prohibits _ free , , X: 2.92 2.93 2.70 3.04 commumcatron SD: among staff .70 .96 .78 1.07 Organization : 29 24 20 21 .910 .440 encoumgrgs _ dminis tive : 2.69 2.42 2.70 2.70 participation SD: .60 .83 .73 .81 among 5 199 Organization : 30 32 , 28 27 1.167 .326 encourages _ . _ part1cr ation by : 3.03 2.91 3.14 3.07 cliente e SD: .49 .53 .45 .55 Or anization is : 27 27 27 25 1.199 .314 hi y stratified ... X: 2.56 .274 2.85 , 2.88 SD: .75 .81 .58 .78 Duties narrowly : 28 30 27 20 .933 .428 defined _ : 3.29 2.83 2.89 3.00 SD: 1.86 .59 .80 .46 Organization’s N: 30 33 29 27 .435 .728 envrrpnment _ permrts team work = 2.97 2.85 3.03 3.00 SD: .67 .76 .68 .62 Organization is : 31 32 28 26 2.353 .076 Open to new ideas _ * : 2.97 2.63 2.93 3.08 SD: .55 .75 .66 .80 TOTAL : 31 33 27 25 1.670 .318 _: 2.81 2.68 2.90 2.85 SD: .791 .809 .687 .735 it : number, X: mean, SD = standard deviation, ** Significant at 5% level (p : .05) 200 “we %quMfl‘figogtgly 2w! 022212.120 eth)0118 m, isagree,: tAgree, an - t Section ' Administrators Faculty Secretary Specialist F-Ratio F- Prob Mission Program and Lea ers Others MSU resources to : 30 23 28 25 .743 .529 people throu _ community : 1.17 1.04 1.11 1.16 development SD: .38 .21 .31 .37 MSU resources to : 29 27 27 24 .1308 .276 ople of MI _ ough Home : 1.21 1.11 1.04 1.17 Economics SD: .41 .32 .19 .38 MSU resources to : 31 31 28 25 1.255 .294 ople through 4- _ programs : 1.35 1.26 1.14 1.32 SD: .49 .44 .36 .48 MSU resources to N: 31 33 29 27 1.160 .328 ople of _ ough Ag = 1.32 1.42 1.21 1.37 s 1mm" so: .48 .50 .41 .49 College resources N: 23 27 27 22 .820 .486 to people throu edu. program _ 1.22 1.30 1.15 1.32 ’ .42 .47 .36 .48 SD: MSU research N: 31 31 29 27 .618 .605 information to _ farmers in MI : 1.42 1.39 1.28 1.30 SD: .50 .50 .45 .47 MSU research N: 30 32 27 25 .722 .541 1 information to _ rural people in MI X: 1.23 1.22 1.15 1.32 SD: .43 .42 .36 .48 MSU research : 28 25 26 24 2.766 .046" information to _ urban people in MI : 1.18 1.20 1.00 1.04 SD: .39 .41 .00 .20 Help people help : 30 33 26 26 1.590 .196 themselves _ _ through education : 1.47 1.36 1.19 1.38 SD .51 .49 .40 .50 201 ~_._.-\TW.1 # = number, X: mean, SD = standard deviation, 9* Significant at 5% level (p = .05) 202 Help peo le, , = 28 28 26 25 3930 .429 improve err life .. 1 through . : 1.57 1.52 1.12 1.28 edu./1m lies ' - knowl ge SD: .50 .50 ..33 .46 . TOTAL : 29 29 27 25 1.191 .373 - g'nn-fi' n m!".- .' ..1 I. filing: myritxxt nuance 0f anggcfiggwjamree “312% )on a or ooi'til-4lfigsgtrongiy Administrators] Faculty Secretary Specialist F-Ratio F— Prob Personnel Proéram 1 ' Lea ers Others Personnel are : 13 32 27 26 .366 .799 professronal __ in their : 2.03 2.09 2.00 2.12 app mm SD: .48 .47 .39 .59 Personnel are N: 29 34 29 25 .191 .902 professional _ midealing ‘ = 2.10 2.18 2.10 2.21 prbblems SD: .41 .52 .41 .44 Personnel are : 29 34 29 25 .619 .604 professional _ indealrng : 2.24 2.29 2.17 2.32 with their clientele SD: .44 .46 .38 .48 Personnel do : 31 33 27 27 1.376 .254 ly care ... about their : 2.48 2.33 2.30 2.56 clientele SD: .57 .60 .54 .51 Personnel are N: 31 32 27 25 .457 .717 effective problem _ 2.10 1.97 2.11 2.04 solvers = .60 .54 .58 .35 SD: rsonnel are : 31 33 27 27 2.541 .050" eective _ teachers : 2.23 1.94 2.07 2.04 SD: .50 .50 .27 .34 Personnel are = 31 34 27 27 .650 .585 effective __ communicato : 2.13 2.00 2.00 2.07 rs SD: .43 .43 .48 .38 Personnel are = 30 33 27 27 .805 .493 good team __ players : 1.97 1.88 2.04 2.07 SD: .41 .60 .52 .55 Personnel are = 31 33 28 27 .985 .403 respo nsbive to _ e mgro lems X: 2.10 1.97 2.54 2.19 clientele SD: .54 .35 .45 .56 ““5""... .1; 203 Personnel N: 25 31 w ' 27 26 2.035 .113 ac _. knowledge in X: 3.20 2.74 3.1 1 2.92 sub ect matlter areas SD: .65 .89 .70 .74 » Personnel , N: 24 30 26 26 .540 .656 1‘ lack slulls 1n _ subgect x: 2.08 1.83 2.00 1.92 ma ter areas SD: .88 .75 .75 .63 TOTAL N: 29 33 27 .960 .508 7:.- 2.26 2.02 2.19 2.60 so: 537 .572 .497 .506 : number, X: mean, SD : standard deviation, ** Significant at 5% level (p : .05) 204 Pi urn 51.7mm 1.2-.21.... ...—..., n . - k 11 . Table 31 Anal sis of Variance'of perceptions towards the irna e of the services of Michigan State University Ex ension MSU-E) by title on a scale of 1-4 ( 1=Str§ngly Disagree, 2:Disagree, 3:Agree, and 4=Strongly Agree . Section Administrators/ Faculty Secretary Specialists F—Ratio F— Prob Services Pro am / Others Lea ers Services are of = 29 27 29 26 .973 .409 good qual1ty _ ‘ ' = 1.24 1.11 1.17 1.08 SD: .51 ‘ .32 .38 .27 Services are N: 30 30 26 26 .140 .936 well desrgned to _ fit the needs of : 1.90 1.93 1.92 2.00 the cl1entele SD: .61 .69 .56 .49 Services focus = 30 33 26 24 1.400 .247 more on _ agriculture : 2.07 2.18 2.00 1.79 SD: .69 .77 .63 .78 Services focus : 28 24 26 19 .767 .516 on home _ economrcs : 1.32 1.46 1.54 1.47 SD: .48 .51 .51 .70 Services focus N: 24 24 26 21 1.878 .139 more on community _ 1.54 1.38 1.43 development : 1.17 .66 .50 .68 SD: .38 Services focus : 27 29 26 22 1.303 .278 more on 4-H _ Youth problems = 1.67 1.69 1.77 1.45 SD: .55 .60 .51 .60 Services : 26 26 26 20 .592 .622 concentrates. _ more on socral : 1.31 1.50 1.35 1.40 problems SD: .47 .65 .49 .60 Services : 28 31 26 23 1.689 .174 concentrates _ more on farmers : 2.04 2.31 1.92 1.70 problems SD: .79 .81 .56 .70 Services N: 25 22 23 19 3.298 .024M concentrates __ more on urban : 1.04 1.36 1.43 1.21 problems SD: .20 .58 .59 .42 205 Services 24 it = number, X: mean, SD : standard deviation, ** Significant at 5% level (p : .05) 206 concentrates _ 1.760 .159 more on rural = 1.76 1.87 1.92 1.58 problems .56 .48 SD: .64 .58 TOTAL : 28 29 26 22 ' 1.380 .368 Table 32 Analysis 01' variance of rce tions towards theim oi' issues-_grogrammingof Michi an State Unlversi SU-E b title on a e of 1-4 1- tro Disa , 2=D ggree, 3=Agree,n a n34=Strongly Agree) ) y ( ugly gree Section Administrators Faculty Secretary / Specialist F- Ratio F— Prob [sues ‘ [Program Others ' programminL provides : 10 1 l 9 9 .358 .784 growth _ expenences to : 1.00 1.09 1.1 1 1.11 parucrpants SD .00 .30 .33 .33 rovides for : 14 12 10 14 2.419 .078 gr. ifverse grou _. a of partimpan : 1.00 1.25 1.00 1.07 SD: .00 .45 .00 .27 identifies the = 12 13 10 9 1.665 .190 most important __ issrfis 1n the : 1.08 1.08 1.30 1.00 oc community(cou SD: .29 .28 .48 .00 L my) V prioritizes the : 11 10 10 ' 7 .643 .593 most important ... {881158 in the = 1.09 1.20 1.20 1.00 oc crtiyrr)1munity(cou SD: .30 .42 .42 .00 n identifies the N: 8 9 8 8 ' 1.269 .303 most important issues 1n the _ 1.13 1.33 1.13 1.00 region : .35 .50 .35 .00 SD: prioritizes the = 7 6 8 5 1.128 .359 most 1mportant _ lssues 1n the : 1.00 1.17 1.00 1.00 region ~ SD: .00 .41 .00 .00 identifies the : 9 11 4 7 .657 .585 most important _ 1ssues 1n the : 1.111 1.18 1.00 1.00 state SD: .33 .40 .00 .00 prioritizes the = 8 6 5 5 1.000 .413 most important _ issttrgs 1n the : 1.00 1.17 1.00 1.00 s SD: .00 .41 .00 .00 Part1 = 13 13 10 9 .035 .991 feel tchgtai‘he _ concept is : 1.08 1.08 1.10 1.11 Eppropriate for ' xtensron SD: .28 .28 .32 .33 207 # : number, X: mean, SD = standard deviation, *‘1‘ Significant at 5% level (p = .05 Will definitely = 17 14 8 10 , 2.462 .075 increase _ extensmn . = 1.35 1.07 1.25 1.00 linkages With other agenc1es SD: .49 .27 .46 .00 Will definitely N: 12 7 6 6 .271 .846 increase public _ support : 1.33 1.29 1.17 1.17 SD: .49 .49 .41 .41 Adoption of : 16 15 9 15 .790 .505 issues , , _ programmmg is X: 1.19 1.27 1.11 1.07 a S] n of con inning SD: .40 .46 .33 .26 comnutment to the public Adoption of : 3 12 2 5 .248 .862 issues . _ programming is : 1.00 1.08 1.00 1.00 a _si 11 of WI drawal SD: .00 .29 .00 .00 from traditional aud1ences Better under = 14 7 5 6 4.487 .011" issues . _ , mogrammmg : 1.36 1.71 1.00 1.00 an cnrrent extensron SD: .50 .49 .00 .00 approach . TOTAL = 11 10 7 8 1.245 .471 Tfiw OMfiEMfig:Z&%W)Tfiflfifimfi 1.4 Section Administrators Faculty Secretary/ Specialists VF—Ratio F- Prob Delive [Program Others Meth Lea ers Efffectivenes N: 27 33 26 27 .531 .731 s o _ programs : 2.59 2,36 2.73 2.59 usm persgnal so .57 .70 2.41 .50 contacts 9' Efffectivenes N: 25 24 24 17 6.421 .001“ of . s o _ programs : 1.44 l. 17 1.58 1.00 1 usmg . I telemsron/sa SD: .51 .38 .65 .00 ‘j tellites : Efffectivenes N: 27 34 26 26 1.139 .337 s o _ programs : 2.26 2.18 2.46 2.42 L usmg , - demonstrati SD: .81 .63 .65 .64 on methods Efffectivenes N: 27 29 22 18 3.183 .028" s o _ programs, X: 1.30 1.28 1.77 1.33 usmg radio SD: .54 .59 .81 .59 Efi}ectivenes N: 27 25 24 25 .130 .942 s 0 programs _ 1.44 1.40 1.50 1.44 usmg : computers .58 .50 .59 .58 SD: . : 25 30 26 23 4.413 .006** Effecuvenes _ s of : 1.32 1.80 1.92 1.91 rograms Bsing, so: .43 .71 .80 .67 bulletins TOTAL = 26 29 25 23 2.620 .341 “’: 1.73 1.79 1.99 1.78 SD: .582 .585 .983 .497 # : number, X: mean, SD : standard deviation, '1‘" Significant at 5% level (p = .05) Table sis of V ’ 1% gar tio t war e imag e o o aniza‘Mtii) We %ate ofiflsfi‘flxfi 1. n it]? b _ mcewr eo - if: trongl;l ee, - isagree, - gra'ana Section V 0 to 11 12 18 to 23 24 Years F-Ratio F- Prob Organizational Structure Years tol7 Years and over L Years Ed ti al ‘ ti = 83 29 10 11 uca on orgamza on _ .500 .683 = 3.27 3.14 3.40 3.18 SD: .56 .74 .70 .98 Services organization = 82 29 10 12 _ . 2.872 .039“ = 2.70 2.69 2.00 2.67 ' SD: .75 .60 .67 .78 informational organization : 83 29 11 12 _ .362 .780 X: 3.23 3.24 3.09 3.33 SD: .61 .51 .30 .49 Research organization = 82 27 11 11 _ 2.693 .049** X: 2.37 2.37 1.64 2.09 SD: .82 .88 .67 1.04 Committed serving = 83 29 11 12 farmers _ 1.063 .367 : 2.42 2.45 2.91 2.58 SD: .89 .91 .94 .67 As Committed to serving : 81 28 ll 12 urban as rural aud1ences _ 1.057 .370 = 2.70 2.79 2.27 2.75 SD: .83 .83 1.01 .75 Committed to serving all : 79 29 11 12 pe0ple equally _ .355 .786 X: 2.75 2.69 2.45 2.75 SD: .88 .93 .93 .87 Organization inhibits N: 78 25 l 1 11 innovation _ .646 .587 X: 2.65 2.64 3.00 2.55 SD: .78 .70 .77 1.13 Or anization's structure : 71 24 8 l2 bitsfree _ 1.178 .321 commumcation among SD: 2.93 2.79 3.13 2.50 s .. .78 1.06 .64 .90 Organization encourages : 57 27 9 11 , , trative _ 1.986 .121 partic1pation among staff S26: 2.65 2.63 2.33 2.09 " .69 .79 .71 1.04 210 Or anization encoura es N: 78 29 11 11 ’p Cipation by Chen ele _ 1.158 .329 X: 3.08 2.90 2.91 2.91 SD: .50 .56 .54 .54 Organization is highly N: 71 25 10 10 stratified _ 3.079 .030** X: 2.83 2.64 2.40 3.30 SD: .63 .86 .84 .82 Duties narrowly defined N: 71 27 7 12 _ 1.035 .380 X: 2.93 3.22 3.00 2.58 SD: .64 .1.91 .82 .67 Organization environment N: 80 29 10 12 perm1ts team work _ .928 .430 X: 2.99 2.86 2.80 2.67 SD: .65 ‘ .79 .63 .89 Organization is open to N: 77 29 11 12 new ideas _ .597 .618 X: 2.91 2.83 3.00 2.67 SD: .63 .66 .89 .89 TOTAL N: 83 28 10 12 _ 1.354 .393 X: 2.77 2.79 2.69 2.71 SD: .715 .847 .737 .831 it = number, X: mean, SD : standard deviation, ** Significant at 5% level (p = .05) 211 51.1.21 LiffiigryTE-m lamibimifiih iiiéym Section 0 to 11 12 to 17 17 to 23 24 Years F-Ratio F- Prob Mission Years Years Years and over MSU resources to : 70 25 9 8 .686 .563 people through _. community : 1.09 1.16 1.22 1.13 development SD: .28 .37 .44 .35 MSU resources to : 71 28 9 7 .928 .430 ople of MI through _ ome Economics : 1.10 1.21 1.22 1.14 SD: .30 .42 .44 .38 MSU resources to : 77 28 10 12 1.305 .276 people through 4-H _ programs = 1.23 1.43 1.30 1.21 SD: .43 .50 .48 .45 MSU resources to = 81 26 11 12 .351 .788 ople of M1 through _ g program : 1.36 1.42 1.36 1.25 SD: .48 .50 .50 .45 College resources to the N: 68 24 8 7 .197 .898 people through edu. program __ 1.22 1.17 1.25 1.29 " .42 .33 .46 .49 SD: MSU research N: 79 28 11 12 .546 .652 information to farmers _ in M1 = 1.35 1.46 1.27 1.33 SD: .48 .51 .47 .49 MSU research : 78 28 10 6 .627 .599 information to rural _ people in MI X: 1.27 1.25 1.20 1.50 SD: .45 .44 .42 .55 MSU research N: 70 26 9 6 1.654 .202 information to urban _ people in M1 : 1.13 1.27 1.00 1.17 SD: .34 .45 .00 .41 Hel 0 1e hel = 76 29 11 8 .340 .796 theriisgfivgs throiigh _ education : 1.39 1.45 1.27 1.38 SD .49 .51 .47 .52 212 213 tat Ham level (p = .05) Help Fecal; 'mp‘rove N: 74 26 10 9 .171 .916 111611.110 . oug _ edu./implies knowledge X: 2.61 1.54 1.30 1.11 SD= 11.37 .51 .48 .33 TOTAL N: 75 27 10 9 .672 .612 X: 1.38 1.34 1.24 1.13 SD= . _ 1.510 .459 .416 .442 77 : number, X: mum—ST) : standard deviation, ‘ “b11136 of Van MW Wwards the ltmzli'ge of th e1 of sea? gnifl 32%;? glimve gy'lB xte W13) Wigs tWEEE) ona e isagreej: isagree, gree, an #4: rongy gr)ee. Section 0 to 11 12 to 17 18 to 23 24 Years F-Ratio F- Prob Personnel Years years Years and over Personnel are professional = 78 28 10 12 3.277 .023** in their appearance _ : 2.06 2.29 1.80 2.00 SD: .47 .46 .42 .43 Personnel are Llprofessional : 80 28 9 12 .964. .412 in dealing wr problems _ : 2.26 2.32 2.00 2.08 SD: .44 .48 .50 .29 Personnel are rofessional : 80 28 9 12 .514 .673 in dealing wi their _ clientele : 2.26 2.32 2.11 2.25 SD: .44 .48 .33 .45 Personnel do real] care : 80 28 11 11 2.171 .095 about their cliente e _ : 2.44 2.39 2.18 2.00 SD: .57 .57 .40 .89 Personnel are effective = 73 28 ll 12 .966 .411 problem solvers _ : 2.12 2.07 1.91 1.92 SD: .52 .60 .30 .29 Personnel are effective : 79 29 11 11 3.790 .012** teachers _ = 2.10 2.00 2.00 1.64 SD: .44 .46 .00 .50 Personnel are effective N: 81 29 11 10 .276 .842 commumcators _ X: 2.05 2.10 2.10 2.00 SD: .44 .41 .00 .00 Personnel are good team : 78 29 11 11 1.639 .184 players _ : 2.01 2.00 2.00 1.64 SD: .55 .53 .00 .67 Personnel are re ftHgnsive to : 80 29 11 7 1.877 .137 the problems of _ clientele X: 2.19 2.07 1.82 2.00 SD: .51 .59 .40 .58 214 it = number, X: mean, SD : standard deviation, ** Significant at 5% level (p : .05) 215 Personnel lack knowledge = 74 27 ll 10 .681 .566 in subject matter areas _ . X: 2.99 2.96 3.18 2.70 SD: .73 .90 .60 .95 Personnel lack skills in : 71 27 11 10 1.390 .249 subject matter areas _ X: 1.92 2.11 2.09 1.60 SD: .69 .80 .7 .84 TOTAL : 78 28 11 11 1.559 .328 X: 2.21 2.23 2.10 1.98 SD= .527 .567 .332 .535 grimy of eVariant: e of re wards thetim {%fio of thtfiWon a lB’isagree,- (aggree, an? frontg Section 0 to 11 12 to 17 18 to 23 24 Years F-Ratio F— Prob Services Years Years Years and over Services are of good : 74 25 11 8 .880 .454 ual i _. q ty = 1.15 1.28 1.09 1.13 SD: :39 ' .46 .30 .35 Services are well : 77 26 11 10 .765 .516 designed to fit the needs _ of the clientele : 1.96 1.96 1.73 2.10 SD: .57 .72 .47 .32 Services focus more on N: 78 25 10 10 1.700 .171 agnculture _ = 1.96 2.12 1.90 1.50 SD: .71 .78 .88 .71 Services focus on home N: 72 21 5 9 2.727 .048“ economics _ = 1.44 1.33 1.00 1.78 SD: .53 .48 .00 .67 Services focus more on : 71 20 6 9 5.869 .001** community development ... : 1.45 1.15 1.17 2.11 SD: .58 .37 .41 1.05 Services focus more on : 75 22 5 10 3.896 .012** 4-H Youth problems _ X: 1.61 1.68 1.20 2.20 SD: .57 .57 .45 .92 Services concentrates : 70 21 7 9 1.896 .135 more somal problems _ = 1.41 1.24 1.14 1.67 SD: .55 .44 .38 .71 Services goncentrates : 73 24 10 9 .603 .614 morel on armers _ problems : 1.89 1.92 1.80 1.56 SD: .74 .78 .79 .73 Services concentrates : 64 21 6 7 1.858 .142 more on urban problems _ - : 1.31 1.10 1.17 1.00 SD: .53 .30 .41 .00 216 my: TAR ... Pl. Services concentrates : 75 24 10 9 .297 .827 more on rural problems _ - X: 1.73 1.71 1.80 1.56 SD: .55 .69 .63 .73 TOTAL = 74 20 17 9 2.049 .292 —: 1.48 1.55 1.40 1.66 SD: .572 .559 .472 .619 # = number, X: mean, SD : standard deviation, ** Significant at 5% level (p : .05) 217 .. ..\".d.1 Table 38 Analysis arian4§ ns tow tzfi hm f the issu ‘1" gain W021”? “Shagensargo: ‘by earsoels rvice $122111? e 0 egg) ,3:A ree,an 4-trong yin Section 0 to 11 12 to 17 18 to 23 24 Years F- Ratio F- Prob Issues Egramming Years Years Years and over provides growth : 22 10 4 2 .188 .904 experiences to _ part1c1pants. : 1.09 1.10 1.00 1.00 SD .29 .32 .00 .00 provides for diverse : 36 15 3 1 .119 .949 group of paruc1pants _ : 1.08 1.07 1.00 1.00 SD: .28 .26 .00 .00 identifies the most : 28 18 3 1 .445 .722 important issues in the _ local = 1.14 1.06 1.00 1.00 community(county) SD: .36 .24 .00 .00 prioritizes the most : 26 13 4 1 .384 .765 important issues in the __ local : 1.15 1.08 1.00 1.00 community(county) SD: .37 .28 .00 .00 identifies the most N: 25 11 3 3 .403 .752 important issues in the region _ 1.16 1.09 1.00 1.00 ' .37 .30 .00 .00 SD: prioritizes the most : 21 8 3 4 .222 .880 important issues in the _ region : 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 SD: .22 .00 .00 .00 identifies the most = 22 11 3 4 .210 .889 rtant issues in the _ stae : 1.09 1.09 1.00 1.00 SD: .29 .30 .00 .00 prioritizes the most : 19 9 2 1 .177 .911 rtant issues in the _ stae : 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 SD: .23 .00 .00 .00 Participants feel that N: 30 16 5 4 .434 .729 the conce t fiosr _ Eppropriafo = 1.07 1.13 1.00 1.00 xtensmn SD: .25 .34 .00 .00 218 Will definitely increase : 32 . 16 5 l .649 .587 extens1on linkages With _ . other agenc1es : l. 16 1.25 1.00 1.00 SD: .37 .45 .00 .00 ‘ Willdefinitelly increase = 18 17 2 l .367 .777 public suppo _ : 1.39 1.35 1.00 1.00 SD: .50 .49 .00 .00 Adoption of issues . = 35 18 7 4 7.00 .000** pro ramming is a Sign _ con inoing X: 1.20 1.17 1.00 2.00 comoutment to the public SD: .41 .38 .00 .00 Adoption of issues , N: 14 10 2 1 .360 .782 progtammin is a Sign _ of withdrawa from X: 1.21 1.30 1.00 1.00 traditional aud1ences SD: .43 .48 .00 .00 Better under issues N: 17 13 3 l .820 .494 programming . _ current extensron X: 1.29 1.46 1.00 1.00 approach SD: .47 .52 .00 .00 TOTAL N: 25 13 4 2 .842 .724 7: 1.15 1.15 1.00 1.00 SD: .346 .311 .000 .000 # = number, X: mean, SD = standard deviation, ** Significant at 5% level (p = .05 219 Ta e of V rce tion &mwm&g e of th delivery Wu a scfifififl $51 £365.32 y£th tensr ”$53,”; sdmggtyrongly Section 0 to 11 12 to 17 18 to 23 24 F—Ratio F- Prob Delivery Methods Years Years Years Years - and over Effectiveness of N: - 79 26 10 7 .307 .820 programs using __ ‘ personal contacts : 2.65 2.38 2.50 2.57 SD 1.45 .64 .53 .53 Effectiveness of N: 68 21 4 10 .261 .853 g" rograms usm , _ ' : leViSion/sate ites : 1.37 1.38 1.25 1.50 SD: .54 .50 .50 .53 Effectiveness = 79 ‘ 27 9 1 1 2.027 .1 14 . programs using _ ,- demonstration = 2.43 2.07 2.33 2.45 . methods 1. SD: .61 .83 .71 .52 1a» Effectiveness : 68 23 9 10 2.594 .056 r0 5 mm _ iodigo g : 1.47 1.17 1.33 1.80 SD: .72 .39 .50 .42 Effectiveness of = 70 24 10 11 .447 .720 10 S usin _ gomgputers g : 1.50 1.54 1.30 1.55 SD: .56 .66 .48 .69 : 74 23 10 11 .679 .567 Effectiveness of _ program 3 using : .1.77 1.65 2.00 1.64 tins SD: .71 .65 .67 .81 TOTAL N: 73 24 9 10 1.053 .522 —= 1.87 1.70 1.62 1.92 SD= .765 .612 .580 .583 # = number, X: mean, SD : standard deviation, *‘1‘ Significant at 5% level (p = .05) 220 Elite??? tf6): :mfflmififigno: fimveerzstiie $3138, efifigfiég’hPa'dlevel tron Section 2 Years of 4 Years Some M.S Ph.D F-Ratio F— Prob Organizational college of graduate degree degree Structure and under college work Educational : 14 18 7 31 18 2.543 .043“ organization __ SD: 2.71 2.22 2.14 2.17 2.83 .47 .73 1.21 .90 .84 Service N: 14 17 7 ‘ 26 53 .618 .651 organization _ SD= 2.93 2.88 2.57 2.73 2.98 ' .47 .78 .98 .92 .91 Informational : 9 16 6 27 49 2.028 .096 Organization __ X: 3.00 2.69 2.33 2.30 2.65 SD= .50 .79 .82 .82 .72 organization : 14 18 7 32 61 2.072 .088 SD=: 3.29 2.89 3.29 2.91 3.02 ’ .47 .47 .49 .53 .53 Committed to : 14 17 6 31 51 2.069 .089 servmg farmers _ X: 2.71 3.06 2.33 2.97 2.67 SD: .61 .43 .52 .75 .82 Committed to : 13 16 5 30 56 .363 .835 servrn urban _ as rur : 3.08 ‘ 2.69 3.00 2.83 3.00 audiences SD: .95 .70 .71 .70 1.40 Committed to = 15 18 7 32 62 5.639 .000** servmg all _ people equally S26: 3.07 2.22 3.14 2.88 3.03 .46 .65 .69 .61 .75 Organization : 14 17 7 33 64 .479 .751 inhibits _ innovation 826: 3.21 3.12 3.43 3.33 3.22 .43 .60 .53 .74 .68 Organization' s = 15 17 7 33 63 .996 .412 stiucture _ prohibits free X: 2.80 2.71 2.57 2.42 2.68 communrcahon SD: among staff .68 .59 .53 .79 .76 221 Organization N: 15 18 7 33 65 .509 .729 encoura es, __ adminis ative X: 3.33 3.22 3.43 3.27 3.18 part1c1pation SD: among staff .49 .55 .53 .45 .61 Organization N: 14 17 7 32 64 2.227 .070 encourages _ part1c1 ation by X: 2.29 2.76 2.43 2.28 2.09 cliente e SD: .73 .75 .79 .99 .81 Or anization is N: 15 18 7 33 65 3.099 .018** hi ly stratified _ X: 2.53 2.72 2.00 2.12 2.66 SD= .74 .75 .58 .89 .91 Duties N: 15 18 6 33 63 1.170 .327 narrowly _ defined 826: 2.93 2.72 3.17 2.67 2.56 ' .88 .75 .75 .75 .86 Organization N: 15 17 7 32 63 2.496 .046“ envrronment _ permns team X: 3.27 2.76 2.86 2.51 2.51 work SD: .96 .75 1.07 .86 .86 Organization is N: 15 17 7 31 62 1.488 .210 o n to new _ ieas X: 3.00 3.00 3.14 2.65 2.92 SD: .53 .35 .38 .75 .75 2 TOTAL N: 14 17 7 32 60 1.720 .291 831;: 2.88 2.60 2.79 2.72 2.80 ' .625 .643 .705 .773 .814 it : number, X: mean, SD : standard deviation, ** Significant at 5% level (p : .05) 222 ,T‘ 171'. :1 5' #figétflmgggvfiin ww,qflwfiw1fil!z% Iatfinigfaltgfi a 8.211“ 0111.4 Section 2 Years 4tyears Some MS Ph.D. F-Ratio F- Prob Mission of o graduate degree degree college college work degree degree 11113 under MSU resources to : 15 17 7 27 479 2.254 .068 people through _. community X: 1.00 1.06 1.14 1.26 1.08 development SD: .00 .24 .38 .45 .28 MSU resources to : 14 17 7 27 53 1.221 .306 ople of M1 _ ugh Home : 1.00 1.06 1.14 1.22 1.15 Economics SD: .00 .24 .38 .42 .36 MSU resources to N: 15 17 7 33 58 1.753 .430 ople through 4- _ programs : 1.13 1.53 1.29 1.27 1.26 SD: .35 .51 .49 .45 .44 MSU resources to : 15 18 7 33 60 3.148 .016” ople of MI _ ough Ag : 1.13 1.67 1.29 1.27 1.37 program SD: .35 .49 .49 .45 .49 tCollegeosf resources N: 13 18 5 24 51 1.475 .215 o the throug _ 1.08 1.22 1.00 1.17 1.31 10 : p g‘ “m .28 .43 .00 .38 .47 SD: MSU research : 15 18 7 33 61 5.385 .000** information to _ farmers in MI : 1.13 1.72 1.14 1.21 1.43 SD: .35 .46 .38 .42 .50 MSU research N: 15 18 5 28 59 3.900 .005“ information to _ rural people in MI S16: 1.13 1.61 1.20 1.14 1.27 .35 .50 .45 .36 .45 MSU research : 15 17 5 26 51 3.387 .012” information to _ urban people in MI : 1.00 1.41 1.20 1.12 1.12 SD= .00 .5 .45 .33 .33 223 Help people help : l4 l7 7 27 62 1.575 .185 themselves . __ through education X: 1.14 2.76 1.29 1.44 1.40 SD .36 .75 .49 .51 .49 Help people . N: 14 17 7 30 54 .335 .854 improve heir life _ through . : 1.00 3.00 1.14 1.30 3.17 edu./1m lies knowle ge SD: .00 .35 .38 .47 13.30 TOTAL : 15 17 7 32 60 1.720 .291 —: 1.10 g 2.60 2.79 2.72 2.80 SD: .204 .643 .705 .773 .814 # : number, X: mean, SD : standard deviation, ** Significant at 5% level (p : .05) 224 31313.; 33.3331133131.%m.3..02~2231333 ._.. 1133-1333211 111.118.3111 .1111. Section Zryears Marsfy Some Ph. D F- . Personnel 0 graduate degree degree Ratio college college work 1” and degree - under 1' Personnel are . : 15 16 6 33 61 profeSSional in their _ .777 appearance = 2.00 2.19 1.83 2.03 2.10 5 so: .38 .54 .75 .39 .51 Personnel are : ‘15 18 6 32 61 g profeSSional in _ .690 dealing With : 2.07 2.17 2.33 2.06 2.16 problems SD:- .26 3.62 .52 .25 .49 Personnel are : 15 18 6 32 16 professional in , __ . 1.692 dealin with their X: 2.13 2.44 2.33 2.16 2.30 cliente e .35 .51 .52 .37 .46 SD: Personnel do really N: 14 18 6 33 62 care about their _ .717 clientele X: 2.36 2.17 2.33 2. 39 2.44 .50 .51 .52 .70 .59 SD: Personnel are N: 15 16 7 32 60 effective problem _ .382 solvers X: 2.13 2.06 1.86 2.06 2.08 SD: .52 .44 .69 .44 .53 Personnel are : 14 17 7 32 63 effective teachers _ .367 : 1.93 2.06 2.14 2.06 2.02 .27 .24 .38 .62 .42 SD: Personnel are N: 14 18 6 33 63 effective, _ .938 commumcators : 2.14 1.89 2.00 2.06 2.06 SD: .36 .32 .63 .43 .40 225 # : number, X: mean, SD : standard deviation, ** Significant at 5% level (p : .05) 226 Personnel are good : 14 18 6 33 61 team players _ 1.023 .398 X: 2.07 1.89 1.83 1.85 2.05 SD: .47 .47 .75 .51 .59 Personnel are : 15 18 6 29 62 res nsnve to the _ .106 .980 pro lems of their : 2.07 2.11 2.00 2.14 2.11 clientele SD: .59 .47 .63 .44 .58 Personnel lack , : 14 17 6 29 58 knowledge in subject _ .768 .548 matter areas X: 3.14 2.94 2.83 3.14 2.88 SD: .77 .66 .75 .74 .82 Personnel lack skills : 14 16 6 28 57 in subject matter _ .642 .634 areas : 2.07 1.94 1.67 2.07 1.88 SD: .83 .25 .82 .77 .78 TOTAL = 14 17 6 31 61 1.111111111111114 3333331333] ng, vm rwig) anEwadsthe'y gree . Section 231cmd of 4 tyears Some MS Ph.D F-Ratio F— Prob Services co lege and graduate degree degree under college work 3 degree Services are of : 51 17 7 28 54 good quality _ .279 .891 : 1.07 1.18 1.14 1.18 1.19 SD: .26 .39 .38 .48 .39 Services are : 14 18 ‘ 6 _ 31 59 well deSign _ .757 .555 to fit the. needs : 2.07 1.89 1.83 1.84 2.02 of the clientele SD .47 .47 .41 .52 .66 Services focus : 14 18 5 31 58 more on _ 1.502 .206 agriculture : 1.93 1.61 2.00 1.84 2.07 SD: .62 .70 .71 .69 .79 Services focus : 14 17 4 30 45 on home _ 1.758 .143 economics : 1.71 1.24 1.25 1.40 1.44 SD: .47 .44 .50 .56 .55 Services focus N: 14 16 4 28 46 more on . _ 1.530 .199 commumty : 1.64 1.19 1.00 1.46 1.46 development SD: .50 .40 .00 .74 .66 Services focus N: 13 17 4 29 52 more on 4-H _ .696 .596 Youth : 1.85 1.47 1.75 1.66 1.65 problems SD: .55 .51 .50 .72 .62 Services : 13 15 5 29 47 concentrates, _ 1.608 .178 more on soc1al : 1.62 1.13 1.20 1.41 1.40 problems SD: .51 .35 .45 .50 .61 227 # : number, X: mean, SD : standard deviation, ** Significant at 5% level (p : .05) 228 Services : 13 17 - 5 30 54 concentrates ._ 2.219 .071 more on : 1.92 1.53 1.80 1.70 2.06 farmers .84 problems SD: .49 .80 .65 .79 Services : 13 16 4 23 44 concentrates _ 4.263 .003** more on urban : 1.69 - 1.13 1.00 1.13 1.23 problems SD: .63 .34 .00 .34 .48 Services N: 13 17 5 30 56 1.153 concentrates _ 3 .335 more on rural X: 1.85 1.47 1.80 1.67 1.79 problems SD: .55 .62 .84 .55 .59 TOTAL : 14 17 5 29 52 _ 1.574 .318 : 1.74 1.38 1.48 1.53 1.63 SD= .505 .102 .463 .575 .614 11111 11.1 11.11.11 11.11.111.11. 1,11 grongy Section 2 fyears 4 tyears Some MS Ph.D F— _ F- Issues 0 graduate degree degree Ratio Prob programming college college work and degree under provides N: 6 2 1 6 24 growth _ expenences to : 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.17 1.04 4.638 .004“ paniCipants SD: .00 .00 .00 .41 .20 provided for : 7 9 1 13 28 diverse grou _ .451 .1771 of partiCipan s = 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.08 1.11 SD: .00 .00 .00 .28 .3] identifies the : 6 9 2 9 24 most _ 1.233 .310 important X: 1.17 - 1.00 1.50 1.11 1.08 issues in the local SD: .41 .000 .71 .33 .28 community(co unty) prioritizes the : 5 9 3 7 20 most _ .857 .498 rmportant X: 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.14 1.15 issues in the local SD: .00 .00 .58 .38 .37 community(co unty) identifies the N: 6 8 2 9 19 most 1.076 .381 important _ 1.17 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.21 issues in the : region .41 .00 .00 .00 .42 SD= prioritizes the : 4 9 3 7 14 most _ ' .383 .819 important : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.07 lssues in the region SD: .00 .00 .00 .00 .27 identifies the = 4 8 1 9 20 most _ .894 .477 important : 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.15 issues in the state SD: .50 .00 .00 .00 .37 prioritizes the : 4 8 2 2 15 most _ .240 .913 important : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.07 issues in the state SD: .00 .00 .00 .00 .26 229 Participants : 4 ' 9 3 15 24 ’ feel that the _ .499 .736 concept is : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.31 1.08 Eppropriate for xtenSion SD: .00 .00 .00 .35 .28 Will definitely N: 4 10 1 15 25 increase _ .331 .856 extenSion . X: 1.00 1.20 1.00 1.31 1.20 linkages wrth ‘ other agenCies SD: .00 .42 .00 .35 .41 Will definitely N: 4 9 1 8 15 increase _ 1.636 .189 public support : 1.25 1.67 1.00 1.13 1.40 SD: .50 .50 .00 .35 .51 Adoption of N: 5 10 2 20 29 issues _ .312 .869 programming : 1.20 1.20 1.00 1.30 1.21 is a sign continuing SD: .45 .42 .00 .47 .41 commument to th e public Adoption of : 2 5 1 6 14 issues . _ 22.141 .000** programmrng : 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.07 isa Sign of Withdrawal SD: .00 .00 .00 .00 .27 from . *- trathional ’ audiences Better under : 3 3 2 8 18 issues . _ 1.287 .298 rogrammrng : 1.00 1.67 1.50 1.13 1.39 an current extenSion SD: .00 .58 .71 .35 .50 approach TOTAL : 5 8 2 10 21 __ 2.570 .509 = 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.13 1.16 SD: .162 .137 .143 .234 .347 # : number, X: mean, SD = standard deviation, ** Significant at 5% level (p : .0 SW of V rceltionsto WW 333% live metiie fifagta Sal-it nébwvefing iifirjnsmn )Ey ieoe limit), trongCI isagr 2— Section 2fyears 4fyears Some Ph. D F— Prob Delive o o graduate degree Ratio Meth college college work and degree ’ under Effectiveness N: 13 17 6 28 60 ofprograms _ . 2.134 .081 usmg : 2.38 3.35 2.50 2.46 2.45 personal contact SD .65 2.80 .84 .58 .65 Effectiveness N: 13 14 5 30 43 ofprograms _ ‘ ‘ 7.166 .000“ usrng . : 1.62 1.46 1.40 1.40 1.14 teleViSion/sat ellites SD: .65 .53 .55 1.50 .35 Effectiveness : 13 17 6 30 62 of programs _ .882 .477 usmg . : 2.46 2.59 2.17 2.37 2.29 demonstratio n methods SD: .78 .62 .75 .61 .66 Efffectiveness : 11 14 5 27 54 3 988 005 o s _ . . usixi’gmrg'adiom = 2.09 1.21 1.20 1.44 1.37 SD: .43 .58 .45 .64 .56 Effectiveness : 12 15 5 33 51 of programs _ 2.705 .034“ uSing : 1.25 1.80 1.40 1.33 1.59 computers SD: .45 .41 .55 .60 .61 . : 13 15 6 30 55 Effectiveness _ 4.584 .002** ofprograms : 2.00 2.07 1.33 1.37 1.84 s n gulllegtins so: .91 .59 .52 .61 .66 TOTAL N: 13 15 6 30 54 _ 3.577 .100 X: 2.36 2.15 1.67 1.56 1.78 SD: .712 .922 .610 .590 .582 # : number, X: mean, SD : standard deviation, ** Significant at 5% level (p = .05) 231 Table. 46 Alrliaallysis of Varififi towards 19“ im e WI) anizatio structuree erSItze 9131- ....3. 3.3).... 1111111.. .11.... 1 $111... 12.2.: .... ton Less than 48 00 $ Over F- F- Prob Organizational $ 47,009 $9,009 80,003 Ratio Structure Educational : 46 ' 54 22 organization __ g .l 16 .890 X: 3.22 3.26 3.18 SD: .59 .73 .66 S ' ' t' = 46 54 22 erVices orgamza ion _ .832 .438 X: 2.70 2.56 2.77 SD: .73 .82 .53 . Informational : 47 55 22 organizational _ .444 .643 X: 3.30 3.20 3. 27 SD: .51 .59 .46 Research, : 44 55 21 organization _ .175 .840 X: 2.36 2.29 2.24 SD: .81 .88 .89 Committed to : 47 55 22 servrng farmers _ .030 .971 X: 2.49 2.45 2.50 SD: .80 .88 1.06 As Committed to : 47 53 21 serving urban as _ 1.443 .240 rural audiences : 2.83 2.57 2.57 SD: .73 .93 .75 Committed to : 45 54 21 serving all people _ 5.773 .004 equally : 3.04 2.50 2.48 SD: .74 1.02 .60 Organization inhibits N: 44 49 21 innovation 1.624 .202 X: 2.55 2.65 2.95 SD: .73 .97 .80 Organization's , : 42 44 18 structure prohibits _ 3.036 .053 free communication X: 2.83 2.73 3.22 among staff SD: .73 .92 .88 Organization : 32 44 17 encoura es _ 2.230 .113 adminis tive X: 2.56 2.36 2. 88 partfficipation among SD: .80 81.33 Organization : 46 52 21 encourages _ 3.036 .053 pammpation by X: 3.04 2.88 3.14 c liente SD: .47 .58 .48 232 Or anizationjs N: 46 42 17 hig 1y stratified _ 2.188 .117 X: 2.96 2.76 2.71 SD: .70 .76 .77 Duties narrowly N: 42 46 18 defined _ 1.920 .152 X: 2.83 2.98 3.44 SD: .76 .65 2.23 Organization . N: 47 52 21 enVironmentpermns _ 5.226 .007** team work X: 2.83 2.79 3.33 SD: .56 .82 .48 Organization is open N: 45 51 22 to new ideas _ 2.595 .079 X: 2.84 2.76 3.14 SD: .47 .79 .56 TOTAL N= 44 51 19 _ 1.915 .339 X: 2.83 2.55 2.92 SD: .675 .810 .765 # : number, X: mean, SD = standard deviation, ** Significant at 5% level (p : .05) 233 ,.~ warns-.5. fig]: 497%E ' , 1'11 1111.11.11 1111.1 1:. WWW... '. .‘hu DIVE l Section ess than 8 48,000 -79,009 (”803 F-Ratio F- Prob Mission 47,009 80, MSU resources to : 41 42 20 people through _ * .115 .891 community : 1.12 1.14 1.10 development SD: .33 .35 .31 MSU resources to N: 41 45 19 ople of MI through _ .864 .425 ome Economics : 1.10 1.20 1.16 SD: .30 .40 .37 MSU resources to : 45 51 21 people through 4-H _ .844 .433 programs : 1.24 1.35 1.24 SD: .43 .48 .44 MSUl resources to N: 47 50 22 Reopl e of MI through _ 1.578 .211 g program : 1.32 1.46 1.27 SD: .47 .50 .46 College resources to N: 35 46 17 the people through 1.504 .211 edu. program _ = 1.14 1.24 1.35 SD: .36 .43 .49 MSU research : 47 50 22 information to ... .522 .595 farmers in MI : 1.32 1.42 1.36 SD: .47 .50 .49 MSU research N: 42 48 22 information to rural _ 1.761 .177 people in MI X: 1.24 1.38 1.18 SD: .43 .49 .39 MSU research : 40 44 18 information to urban _ .863 .425 people in MI X: 1.10 1.20 1.17 SD: .30 .41 .38 He] 0 1e hel : 40 52 22 mexgs‘éivgs 111.05g}. ._. .108 .898 education X: 1.38 1.42 1.41 SD .49 .50 .50 Hel eim rove : 43 46 21 theigiifg 111mm gi. _ .753 .473 ed.u/1m lies : 1.19 3.50 1.52 knowle ge SD: .39 14.40 .51 TOTAL : 42 47 20 _ .891 .474 : 1.22 1.53 1.14 SD: .397 l .846 .434 # = number, X: mean, SD : standard deviation, ** Significant at 5% level (p : .05) 235 ' -‘$»".‘Ih 1948 n - prari ceof rmtfiw rdsth jm eofthe elof 11:11 “1‘. 1%112‘1311‘1111 g...; .1. 1.1 1.1.“ .3111 1 111.111.. Section Less 348 00-$ Over F—Ratio F- Prob Personnel than $ 9,009 80,000 ‘ 47,009 Personnel are professional in : 45 51 21 their appearance _ .693 .502 : 2.02 2.21 2.14 , SD: .40 .55 .36 Personnelare professional in : 46 51 21 dealing wrth problems _ .814 .445 : 2.09 2.20. 2.19 SD: .35 .53 .40 Personnelare rofessional in : 46 51 21 dealing With err clientele __ 2.873 .061 : 2.17 2.37 2.19 .38 .49 .40 SD: Personnel do really care about : 46 52 21 their clientele _ 2.174 .118 = 2.22 2.46 2.43 .66 .54 .60 SD: Personnel are effective N: 43 52 21 problem solvers _ .022 .798 X: 2.12 2.10 2.10 SD: .45 .57 .44 Personnel are effective : 45 53 21 teachers _ .499 .609 X: 15.38 2.04 2.10 SD: ' .44 44 Personnel are effective N: 46 53 21 commumcators _ .243 .785 : 2.09 2.04 2.10 SD: .41 .44 .30 Personnel are good team : 46 52 20 players _ 1.085 .341 X: 1.89 1.98 2.10 SD: .53 .58 .45 Personnel are res nsive to N: 43 52 22 the problems of en clientele _ .312 .732 X: 2.12 2.08 2.18 SD: .50 .55 .50 # = number, X: mean, SD = standard deviation, " Significant at 5% level (p : .05) 237 Personnel lack knowledge in N: 45 49 18 . subject matter areas _ 3.561 .032** X: 3.07 2.80 3.33 SD: .72 .84 .69 Personnel lack skills in N: 43 49 17 1 subject matter areas _ 2.053 .133 X: 1.88 1.92 2.29 SD= .70 .73 .85 1| TOTAL N: 45 51 20 _ 1.303 .368 X: 2.15 2.19 2.29 __ SD: .509 .569 .494 age of thmfij lcn 49 gynalyéisg ofV Fee of c mvc cl?!— Emmi" w_c§co ‘i'ric aificoii a isagree, isagree, gree an04= trotng y gree Section Less $ Over F-Ratio F- Prob Services than 48 000‘ $80,000 47,009 $79009 S ‘ f od 1' = 14 47 20 erVices are 0 go qua ity _ .137 .872 X: 1.17 1.13 1.15 SD= .44 .34 .37 Services are well designed to fit : 45 49 20 the needs of the cliente _ .344 .710 : 1.93 1.94 2.05 SD: .50 .59 .60 Services focus more on : 44 48 21 agriculture _ X: .359 .699 1.86 1.98 2.00 SD: .67 .79 .84 Services focus on home : 44 36 19 economics _ 2.445 .092 : 1.57 1.31 1.42 SD: .55 .52 .51 Services focus more on = 43 36 18 community development __ 2.226 .114 : 1.58 1.39 1.22 SD: .70 .64 .43 Services focus more on 4-H : 43 41 18 Youth problems __ .599 .551 : 1.77 1.63 1.63 SD: .61 .62 .60 Services concentrates more on N: 42 39 18 soc1al problems _ 1.89 .828 : 1.43 1.41 1.33 SD: .50 .64 .49 Services concentrates more on N: 42 45 19 farmers problems _ 1.889 .156 X: 1.76 1.82 2.16 SD: .66 .81 .83 Services concentrates more on : 37 36 17 urban problems _ 1.826 .167 : 1.32 1.28 1.06 SD: .53 .51 .24 238 Services concentrates more on N: 43 46 19 ‘ rural problems _ .246 .782 X: 1.67 1.70 1.79 SD: .57 .66 .54 TOTAL N: 42 42 19 ._. 1.026 .497 X: 1.61 1.56 1.58 SD: .573 .617 .545 , # : number, X: mean, SD : standard deviation, ** Significant at 5% level (p : .05) 239 Table 50 Analysis of Variance of perce tions towards the image of the issues iiogramming of Michigan State Universi Extensmn ( SU-E b level of income on a scale 0 (l:Strongly Disagree, 2:Disagree, 3: gree, and 4=Strong y gree). Section Less $48 000- Over F— Ratio F— Prob Issues programming than 79,009 $80,000 $47,009 provides rowth experiences to : 10 14 ll part1c1pan s. _ .729 .490 : 1.00 1.14 1.09 SD .00 .36 .30 provided for diverse groups of ' : 18 19 14 part1c1pants _ 1.607 .21 l : 1.00 l. 16 1.07 SD: .00 .37 .27 identifies the most important : 16 21 11 issues in ,the local __ .728 .488 community(county) : 1.13 1.05 1.18 SD: .34 .22 .40 prioritized the most important : 12 20 10 issues in the local __ .398 .674 community(county) X: 1.08 1.10 1.20 SD: .29 .31 .42 identifies the most important N: l4 16 10 issues in the region .417 .662 _= 1.07 1.13 1.20 SD: .27 .34 .42 prioritizes the most important : 14 14 7 issues in the region _ 2.133 .135 X: 1.00 1.00 1.14 SD: .00 .00 .38 identifies the most important : 11 16 10 issues in the state _ 1.469 .244 : 1.00 1.06 1.20 SD: .00 .25 .42 prioritizes the most important N: 7 15 6 issues in the state _ 1.964 .161 = 1.00 . 1.00 1.17 SD: .00 .00 .41 Participants feel that the concept : 18 22 11 is appropriate for _ 1.025 .367 ExtenSion : 1.06 1.05 1.18 SD: .24 .21 .40 Will definitely increase extension : 15 24 - 12 linkages With other agenc1es _ 6.407 .003** : 1.27 1.00 1.42 SD: .46 .00 .51 Will definitely increase public N: 11 16 9 support _ .202 .818 : 1.36 1.31 1.44 SD: .50 .48 .53 Adoption if issues programmin is : 24 26 10 a Sign continumg comm1tment o _ .792 .458 the public . = 1.29 1.15 1.30 SD: .46 .37 .48 Adoption of issues pro ramming = 4 20 3 is a sign of Withdrawa rom _ 1.333 .282 traditional audiences = 1.50 1.20 1080 SD= .58 .41 ' Better under issuesprogramming : 8 ll 11 than current extensron approach __ 1.798 .185 : 1.13 1.36 1.55 SD: .35 .50 .52 TOTAL : 13 18 10 __ 1.500 .322 : 1.06 1.12 1.22 SD: .249 .273 .390 # : number, X: mean, SD : standard deviation, “ Significant at 5% level (p = .05 241 Tae £33 is ofV pip; etions tow ot e delivery me mvegi thenm yiiegeo lfl “Eli” afiisagree,- tDuf—isagree, gree, ail? 4-ytrong Less Over F-Ratio F— Prob Delivery Methods than S 48 000 $80, 000 47,009 3 79 009 Effectiveness of programs using N: 41 51 20 personal Contact _ 1.478 .233 = 2.88 2.49 2.40 SD 1.87 .64 .60 Effectiveness of rograms using N: 41 38 16 television/satelli es _ 1.259 .289 : 1.49 1.37 1.25 SD: .55 .54 .54 Effectiveness of programs using = 45 50 21 demonstration methods _ 3.184 .045" : 2.56 2.22 2.29 SD: .62 .65 .78 Effectiveness of programs using : 40 42 20 radio _ . 1.216 .301 : 1.58 1.36 1.40 SD: .75 .62 .50 Effectiveness of programs using = 41 47 18 computers _ .086 .918 : 1.49 1.51 1.44 SD: .55 .62 .51 N: 44 46 19 Effectiveness of programs using _ .137 bulletins : 1.86 1.78 1.47 2.025 SD: .82 .66 .51 TOTAL : 42 46 19 # = number, X: mean, SD = standard deviation, *5 Significant at 5% level (p : .05) 242 BIBLIOGRAPHY “. Asadizes, I. ,(1988) . Corporative Life cycles: rHow and why corporation_s_grow and die and what to do about it. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. : Prentice Hall Busmess & Professional Division. Axinn, G.H.,. (1988). Guide on Alternative Extension Approaches. Agricultural Education and Extension Service (ESAE) Human Resources Institute and Agrarian Reform Division Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome 1988 Axinn, G.H., Thorat. S., (1972). Modernizin World A 'culture A com arative study of agg'cultural extension education systefl. Paper %blishers, 111 Forth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10003, USA, 5, Cromwell Place, London SW. 7, England. Published in the United States of America by Praeger Publishers, Inc. Blackburn, D. J ., (1989). Foundation and Changm g Practices in Extension. Media distribution, Umversity of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, NIG, 2W1 . Bertanl , L, v., (1969). General system theory: foundation; developmena, app ications. New York, G. Braziller. Boorstin, D. J., (1962). America and the image of Europe: reelections on American thought. New York, World Pub. Co. Boulding, K. E., (1961). The US. and revolution; an occasional paper on the free society. Center for the study of Democratic Institutions. Occasional papers. Santa Barbara, California. . Burford, J.A., Bedeian, A. G., Lindner, J.R., (1995). Maaagement in Extension. Third Edition, The Ohio State Universi ’s Piketon Researc1h& Extension Center, (1864) Shyville Road, Ohio 4566 -9749 Bristol, L. H. ,(1960). Developm' g the cogpgrate image; a mement glide to public relation. New York, Scribner. Caffiey, John., Isaac, H. L., (1971 ). Estimatiag the E12. act of colleges or universities on the local economy. Washington, American Council on Education. Cornett, E. M..,(1958). A study of public concepts related to the role of coogegtive extension service. Thesis (M.S.) - Michigan State University, Agricultural extensron. Daft, R L.(1992). Organization theog and desigr_i. St. Paul: West Pub. Co. Dillmann, R., Blume , C., (1985). Computer-integrated manufacturing technology and ystems. New York: M. Dekker. Drucker, M., Laikin P. (1988) The Ronald Reagan color_iri_' g book. Kansas City, Mo. : Andrews and Mcmeel. 243 Finch, C. R., Crunkilton, J. R. ,(1984). Curriculum develgment in vocational and teghpical education: planning, content, and implementation. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Hanenbury, D.K., (1986). An assessment of the public's awareness, perception and use of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Service. Thesis (M.S.) - Michigan State University. Department of Agricultural EXICIISIOIL. Isaacson, R. L., (1971)Psychology: the science of behavior. New York, Harper and Row. Kanter, R. M. ,( 1983 ). The change masters: innovation for productivity in the American corporation. New York: Simon and Schuster. Kilman, (1988 ) Comrate trapsforrnation: revitalizing organization for a comxtitive world. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass. Kimberly, J., Miles, R. H., (1980). The organization life cycleissm in creation. transformation. and decline of organizations. Jossey-Bass Social and Behavioral Science series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Kimberly, J .,(1980). The organizational life cycle : issues in the creatiora transformation, and decline of orgaruzations. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass Publishers. Kotler, P., Fox, K. F. A., (1944). Strategic marketing for echational institutions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. : Prentice-Hall. Kotler, P., Armstrong, G. ,(1989). Principles of marketipg. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Prentice Hall. Lippitt, G. L. ,(1969). Qrganiaation rengval: achieving viabilig in a changmg' world'. New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts. Lippitt, G. L. ,(1982 ). Or anization renewal: a holistic a roach to organization development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hal. Lundstedt, S, B., Colgzier, W. ,(1982). Managing innovation: the social dimensions of creativity. inleatrion, a_ng technology. New York: Pregamon Press. Margulies, N., Wallace, J. ,(1973), Organization change: techniques & application. Glenview, 111., Scott, Foresman. Marquis, H. ,(1970). The changing comprate mag' e. New York Management Association. Mayhew, 8., Anne P., (1992). fie Concise Oxford Dictiopm of Geogaaphy-Oxford. New York ,Oxford University Press, 1992. Morgan, G. ,(1986). The Image of Organization. Sage Publications, Inc. 2455 Teller Road Newbury Park, California 913.. . Norussis, M .J.,(1993). SPSS for Windows: base astems user's guide, release 6.0. Chicago, 111,: SPSS Inc,. Peters, T. J. Waterman, R. H., (1982). In search of excellence: lessgs from America’s 244 best-run companies. New York: Harper & Row. . Rndom House. ,(1991). Webster CollggaDictionfl Random House. New York. Rowe, L. A. ,(1973). Organizational and mapagerial innovation; a reader. Pacific Palisades, California, Goodyear Publisher. Co. Smith, M.F. ,(1989 ). Evaluability assessment: practical approach. Boston: Kluwer Academic. Adamu, U. ,(1996). Image of Michigan state University Extension as perceived lax County Extensiop Advisory Comfltee Members and Extension staff in Michigan. Dissertation (Ph.D.) Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural and Extension. Education Warner, P. D.,.1984. The cooperative Extension Services: a national assessment. Boulder: West View Press. 245 0iii10min(11131171011001