v31dillnl~ 1:7... ..I .. .1. . I. . . ‘ C. .. H.032. ......... u.;.2:. . .......... ...:.......,...... .5.‘ :.».7:.:.. v.7 ..J... (H \uo-r .35. . ‘. I V .I..........'.... o‘ ‘ . 4.. .........r , ‘ .P-h..-..4.....1,.7.V....Y. .‘ : ...c:............._o.. T . . ‘ ’».A...............a:...; ~ .‘ . ...1.‘...1. ..‘.,......‘....;.. . . . . . ........‘...«,...:.. :I.Ir«....u..v..... .\»,.‘ 3.14.3”; ... £1. ‘1‘?! 5...... z 4....i:.,....qf , .. . .... 0.44.. Er . til...vzv.1 THESIS llllfllflflllllflfllllflimljljfllllflllfllfllflllilll This is to certify that the thesis entitled FARMER ATTITUDES TOWARD THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE IN ILLINOIS: A BASIS FOR COMMUNICATION STRATEGY presented by Robert Allison Jarnagin has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for _Eh__D,J- degree in Communicat ion I)V\,QK¢«O '3 xw'hu Xvi/4 Major professor I" Date Ma 2 142 1964 0—169 I LIBRAR Michigan St: University @é'é? 027R .‘ 4/ 4 ,’33/ WNW‘I/ l 095' l EARMER.ATTITUDES TOWARD THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE IN ILLINOIS: AA BASIS FOR COMMUNICATION STRATEGY By Robert.Allison Jarnagin A,THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Communication 1964 ‘1‘.':./7 'f J/J 7 2’7 /"(¢C:J’ .ABSTRACT FARMER ATTITUDES TOWARD THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE IN ILLINOIS: A BASIS FOR COMMUNICATION STRATEGY by Robert.A11ison Jarnagin Administrators of the Cooperative Extension Service in Illinois have been concerned that this highly successful educational system is being regarded as obsolete by too many of its most important clientele group—-the commercial farmers of the state, They want to know what these farmers think of Extension people and programs. This study was designed to provide evidence Upon which Exten- sion administrators could plan communication strategies with this commercial farmer audience. We assume that people can communicate more effectively with others the more they know what attitudes these others have toward what they want to communicate about. In this study, we assessed attitudes of Illinois commercial farmers toward (1) the impersonal, institutional aSpects of the COOperative Exten- sion Service, (2) the more personal attitudes toward county farm advisers and state Extension Specialists, and (3) the place of Extension as a source of agricultural information. We used.Stephenson's Q-technique with a structured sample of 60 Illinois commercial farmers scattered throughout 10 counties of the state. We chose six farmers in each of the sample counties, two under 35, two middle-aged, and two over 55. Two were located close to the county seat, two at medium distance and two farther away. We tried to choose two in each county who we thought had favorable attitudes toward Extension, two with unfavorable attitudes .l Robert.Allison Jarnagin and two with neutral attitudes. Q-technique is particularly useful in this study, because it pro- vides us with relatively few basic patterns of Illinois commercial farmers' attitudes. These patterns describe to us well enough the different attitude patterns of farmers whom Extension administra- tion must communicate with. We also used the same technique to have the farmers tell us which sources of agricultural information they consider most reliable. We believe that such knowledge of source will also help administrators plan their communication strat~ egies for this particular audience. Focused interviews with 25 selected commercial farmers resulted in a set of attitude statements about the Extension Service that we edited and printed on IBM cards. The first set of attitudes toward Cooperative Extension contained 44 statements, the second toward advisers and Specialists 40 statements, and the third toward reliable sources 45 statements. The 60 reapondents were asked to sort each set of attitude state- ments in a quasi—normal distribution pattern ranging from the state- ments with which they most disagreed on the left to those with which they most agreed on the right. These sorted cards then were submitted -to correlation and factor analysis by a high-speed electronic computer. Weighted rankings were used to produce individual item arrays of the statements in each sort. Sample farmers were assigned to types accord! ing to these weighted rankings. Results of the analysis showed three distinct types of Illinois commercial farmers on the basis of their attitudes toward both the Robert Allison Jarnagin Cooperative Extension Service and their sources of agricultural information. Factor analySis showed only one major type of farmer attitudes toward the county farm advisers and state SpeCialists, plus scattered individual divergent patterns. The important attiu tude statements described the characteristics of each type. In general, the study showed a very favorable pattern of attitudes toward COOperative Extension and its personnel, and its place as a reliable source of agricultural information. Farm advisers in the 10 sample counties were asked to sort the statements as they thought the "typical" farmer in their county would sort them, and again as they would want the "ideal" farmer to sort them. Seven administrators and five district agricultural supervisors also were asked to sort the cards on the basis of what they would like the "ideal" farmer to think of Extension and its aSpects. Results show that the sample farmers are much more like the "ideal" sort of advisers, administrators and supervisors than they are like the "typical" farmers. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Deepest appreciation is expressed to Dr. Malcolm S. MacLean, Jr., Associate Director, Communications Research Center, Michigan State University, who supervised this study in addition to directing the author's graduate program, and who provided many hours of good advice and consultation. Special thanks are also due to Dr. George H. Axdnn whose interest and encouragement throughout the entire graduate prOgram and Special help with the production of this thesis is greatly appreciated. Others who have been especially helpful in the design and produc~ tion of the study upon which this thesis is based, and who deserve Special thanks are Professor'Hadley Read, Extension Editor; Dr. M. S. Williams and Dr. J. B. C1aar,.Assistant Director and Associate Direc- tor, reSpectively, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Illinois. Professor Read graciously helped in the planning stages of the study and provided much extra working opportunity for the thesis production. Dr. Williams and Dr. Claar provided the interest and financial assistance under which the field work was conducted. Thanks are also due to Drs. Hideya Kumata, Jehn Useem and Fred S. Siebert, professors at Michigan State University and members of the author's graduate committee, who helped steer the tortuous course which led finally to the program's successful conclusion. Finally, the writer is indebted beyond words to his wife, Gay, and two children, Susan and Steven, for their patience, forbearance, encouragement, sacrifice and understanding during the endless hours of time Spent on this graduate pregram and away from the family hearth. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................... ii TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................... iii LIST OF TABLES............................................. iv LIST OF FIGURES............................................ viii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCI‘IONOOOOOOO_O090009000000000090.0000000000. 1 II. THEORETICAL MCKGROUNDQOI0...........OVOOOQOOOOOOO 5 III. WTHODQOOQOOODOOOO‘OOOOOOCOOOOOOJO0000000090..0.000 18 IV. ATTITUDES TOWARD THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICEOOCOOOOOOCOO‘OOOIOOOOC00.0.0... 35 V. ATTITUDES TOWARD EXTENSION PERSONNEL.............. 95 VI. ATTITUDES TOWARD SOURCES OF FARM INFORMTIONOOCOOOOIOOOOCOOQ00.0.0UQOO¢CCOIIOOOOO 113 VII. A'r'rrrunas or FARM ADVISERS AND AWINISTMTORS...O.'OOC..........O.'...'O.O.O.O.. 162 VIII. SUMMARY.AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................... 209 BIBLIOGMPHYO.OOOOQOOIOOQOOOOOOOOI000.00.09.00000.00.00.00. 216 APPENDICESCOCOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOO00......OCOOOQOIOOOOOCOO... 222 iii Table 1. 10. 11. 12. , 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. LIST OF TABLES Matrix of Intercorrelations.......................... CES one CBS CBS cas CES CES CES CBS CBS CBS CBS Type Type Type Type Type Type Type Type Type Type Type Type Type Type Type Type Type Farmer 3 Farmer 3 "1 1 2 2 ,Type 1 Item Arrays,,MoSt Agree................... ‘Item Arrays, Mest Disagree................ .AdvisernArrays, Most Agree................ .Adviser.Arrays, Most Disagree............. Source.Arrays, Mbst Agree................. Source.Arrays, Mbst Disagree.............. Item.Arrays, Most Agree................... Item Arrays, Mbst Disagree................ .Adviser'Arrays, Most Agree................ .Adviser.Arrays, Mbst Disagree............. Source Arrays, nest Agree................. Source.Arrays, Mest Disagree.............. (mixed) Item Arrays, nest Agree........... (mixed) Item Arrays, Most Disagree........ (mixed) Adviser.Arrays, Most Agree........ (mixed).Adviser.Arrays, Most Disagree..... (mixed) Source Arrays, Most Agree......... (mixed) Source. Arrays , Most Disagree. . . . . . . CES Item.Arrays, Most Agree................. CES Item.Arrays, Most Disagree.............. Farmer 3, All Other.Adviser.Arrays, Most Agree....... Farmer 3 , All Other Adviser Arrays, Most Disagree. . . . Farmer 3 , All Other Source Arrays , Most Agree. . . . . . . . iv Page 34 41 42 45 46 49 50 55 56 57 58 61 61 65 67 69 7O 72 73 77 79 83 85 88 Table 25. 26. 27. 28. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. Farmer 3 , All Other Source Arrays, Most Disagreefil0....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI000.00.00.00... Adviser Type Adviser Type Adviser Type Adviser Type Adviser Type Adviser Type 1 Item Arrays, Most Agree............... 1 Item Arrays, Most Disagree. . .... ... .. . 1 CES Arrays, Most Agree................ 1 CES Arrays, Most Disagree............. 1 Source Arrays, Most Agree............. 1 Source Arrays , Most Disagree. . . . . . . . . . Adviser Types 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 Item Arrays, moat AgreeOOoooeooeoooc0.9000000.ooeonooooooooaacooo Adviser Types 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 Item Arrays, most DisagreeOO00.00.000.009.00000COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Sources Type Sources Type Sources Type Sources Type Sources Type Sources Type Sources Type Sources Type Sources Type Sources Type Sources Type Sources Type Sources Type Sources Type Sources Type 1 1 1 Item Arrays, Most Agree............... Item Arrays, Most Disagree............ CES Arrays, Most Agree................ CES Arrays, Most Disagree............. Adviser Arrays, Most Agree. ... . . . .. ... Adviser Arrays, Most Disagree.......... Item Arrays, Most Agree............... Item Arrays, Most Disagree............ CES Arrays, Most Agree................ CES Arrays, Most Disagree.............. Adviser Arrays, Most Agree............ Adviser Arrays, Most Disagree.......... Item Arrays, Most Agree............... Item Arrays, Most Disagree ........... CES Arrays, Most Agree-cocoooaoooooooo Page 88 99 100 104 105 107 107 109 110 120 121 124 126 129 13 1 136 136 I38 139 142 143 146 147 149 Table 53. 55. 5t}. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. vi Sources Type 2 CES Arrays , Most Disagree. . . . . . . . . . . . . Sources Type 2 Adviser Arrays , Most Agree. . . . . . . . . . . . Sources Type 2 Adviser Arrays , Most Disagree. . . . . . . . . CES Type 1 Farm Advisers (Typical) Item Arrays, Most AgreeCOOOOCOCOOOOOODUI0.000000COOOOO§QOOOOOQOOOO CES Type 1 Farm Advisers (Typical) Item Arrays, Most Disagree........I...O...I.O...0.0.0.0...0.0.1... CES Type 2 Farm Advisers (Typical) Item Arrays, MOSt Agreeooooo0.00000000000000000000000.40.11.00.1000 CES Type 2 Farm Advisers (Typical) Item Arrays, Most Disagree- "00000900000C...’.0.0.0.0.000..O‘..‘" Adviser Type 1 Farm Advisers (Typical) Item Arrays, MOSt Agme...........OOOIOOOOOOOQOOCO0......OOQCQQOO. Adviser Type 1 Farm Advisers (Typical) Item Arrays, IJOSt Disagree......‘OOCIOOCIQCOOOCOOOOOODOOOOODOOUCCO Adviser Type 2 Farm Advisers (Typical) Item Arrays, most AgreeCOOOQOOQOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOCCCCOOOOO...0 Adviser Type 2 Farm Advisers (Typical) Item Arrays, mat Disagreeoo....OCOOCCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOQOO Sources Type 1 Farm Advisers (Typical) Item Arrays, most AgreeOIOOOO.........OODOOCOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.000... Sources Type 1 Farm Advisers (Typical) Item Arrays, most DisagreeOOCOOO‘OQOCOOOOO......OOOOCUQIOOOOOOOOQO Sources Type 2 Farm Advisers (Typical) Item Arrays, mst AgreeOOOOOOOQOOO......OOOOOOOGOOOO00.00.000.000. Sources Type 2 Farm Advisers (Typical) Item Arrays, nQOSt DisagreeOOOOOOO0.0.00.0...O.00.9.0.0...0.0.00.0... CES (Ideal) Advisers and Administrators Item Arrays, most AgreeOOOOO0......0...........‘OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCO CES (Ideal) Advisers and Administrators Item Arrays, MOSt DisagreeOOOOOOOOOIOOOOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Adviser (Ideal) Advisers and Administrators Item Arrays, Most Agree................................ 165 167 170 171 1'77 178 179 183 184 186 187 190 191 193 Table 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. vii Advisers (Ideal) Advisers and Administrators Item Arrays, Most Disagree................................ Sources (Ideal) Advisers, Administrators Item Arrays, MOSt AgreeOOOOOOO......0.00............OOOQUOOOO...O. Sources (Ideal) Advisers, Administrators Item Arrays, MOSt DisagreeOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.......0.00.00.00.00...IO. Advisers and Administrators Ideal CES Arrays Compared With Sample Farmers' Actual Arrays (Q-l) , Most AgreeOOQOOOQ..0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQOOO0.0.0.000...... Advisers and Administrators Ideal CES Arrays Compared With Sample Farmers' Actual Arrays (Q-l) , Most Disagree.ooOOOOOooouooaooa.0900.-00.000000000000I0000 Advisers and Administrators Ideal Adviser Arrays Compared With Sample Farmers' Actual Arrays (Q-Z) , MOStAgreeOQOOOUOOO0....0.0.0.00........CCOOCQCQOOOI0 Advisers and Administrators Ideal Adviser Arrays Compared With Sample Farmers ' Actual Arrays (Q-Z) , most DisagreeOOQOOOCOOOOOOOOO0.000.090.0000.......‘O. Advisers and Administrators Ideal Sources Arrays Compared With Sample Farmers' Actual Arrays (Q-3) . MOStAgree...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODOOOOOOOOOCOOOO Advisers and Administrators Ideal Sources Arrays Compared With Sample Farmers' Actual Arrays (Q-3) , MOSt DisagreeOOOQOOOOOOOOOOOOO0..OOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOCO Page 194 200 201 203 204 206 Figure 1. 2. 10. LIST OF FIGURES Principal Axis Solution, showing position of 60 Illinois commercial farmers as determined by the relationships of their patterns of attitudes toward the COOperative Extension Service..................... 36 Two—Factor Varimax Rotation, showing positions of 60 Illinois commercial farmers as determined by the relationships of their patterns of attitudes toward the Cooperative Extension Service.............. 39 Principal Axis Solution, showing positions of 60 Illinois commercial farmers as determined by the relationships of their patterns of attitudes toward Cooperative Extension personnel....................... 96 Principa1.Axis Solution, showing positions of 60 Illinois commercial farmers as determined by the relationships of their patterns of attitudes toward sources of farming information........................ 115 First Varimax Rotation, showing positions of 10 Illinois county farm advisers as determined by the relationships of their "typical" patterns of attitudes toward the Cooperative Extension Service............................................... 163 First Varimax Rotation, showing positions of 10 Illinois county farm advisers as determined by the relationships of their "typical" patterns of attitudes toward Cooperative Extension person- n61.0.0.0.0...0.0.0.0...00....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.'174 First Varimax Rotation, showing positions of 10 Illinois county farm advisers as determined by the relationships of their "typical" patterns of attitudes toward sources of farming informa— tionQO......OOOOOOOOOCOO00............OOOOOOOOOOOOO...~182 .A diagram of the formal communication system within the Illinois Cooperative Extension Service and its Clientele groupsOOOOOOOOOOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 219 Farms visited, Stage 1, focused interviews in Septemmr, 196300.00000000000.000.00.000000000000000.. 220 Location of reSpondents' farms, Stage 2, Q-study, January-February, 1964................................ 221 viii Page CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Agricultural college editors in recent years have become increas— ingly interested in the characteristics of their various audiences. It is their editorial responsibility to disseminate among these audiences information about new and better farming practices based on the research of the agricultural experiment stations at the land—grant colleges and universities. Administrators of the C00perative Extension Service in each of the states share this interest, since dissemination of infor- mation is by law the primary responsibility of the Extension Service. Not too many years ago, the problems in infonmation dissemination were fairly simple and direct. The college editors spent much of their time hiring and educating writers and broadcasters who could interpret the results of agricultural and home economics research and put them into the form of newspaper articles, radio manuscripts, and publications that could be understood by most of the farm people in their respective states. Today, however, the situation has changed. The educational and economic level of the farm population has increased, the social system has become more complex, and the responsibility of the Cooperative Extension Service has broadened to include many new facets of both this changing rural and urban life than simply how to fanm or to cook or to sew better. The kinds of infonmation with which Extension has to deal have also become more complex--particu1ar1y in the area of technical agriculture. 1 2 A more complex social system means changes in the composition and characteristics of the audiences for-Extension infonnation. Thus, the problems of the editors have become more complex. One of the most pressing problems has been better understanding of the various audiences for'Extension informational efforts. It has become increasingly diffi- cult to give a clear answer to the question, "Precisely who makes up the audiences of Extension and what are their characteristics?" This study is designed to learn more about one specific audience for the educational programs of the Illinois Cooperative Extension Service. This audience-—Illinois commercial farmers as defined by the U. S. Census——consists of some of the crucial decision-makers for Extension education in the state. Among this group are farmers whose attitudes toward the Extension Service make a difference—-in support of educational programs, legislative objectives, financing, and organizational efforts. The principal problems to be explored in the study are: (l) to find out what the attitudes of this group are toward the Illinois Cooperative Extension Service, (2) to learn why they have these attitudes, and (3) to point out how these attitudes might affect Extension educational programs within that group. Theory upon which this study is based says that an individual's attitudes toward anything are based upon his past experiences with it. This study will employ an empirical investigation into the nature of these attitudes. From the results of the study we will Sort the target audience into typologies whidh reflect the range of attitudes toward the Extension Service. The study will show how understanding what these attitudes are and their distribution among Illinois com- mercial farmers can provide insights into alternative choices for action by Extension administrators. Conceptual Framework The Illinois Cooperative Extension Service wants to make its educational prOgrams more effective among its various clientele groups. Since its educational programs involve various aSpects of the communication process, it follows that any new information this study can elicit concerning the communication process among its clien- tele groups may help Extension administrators organize and direct more effective programs. This study proceeds from the following assumptions: 1.. Illinois commercial farmers, as the primary clientele group, will express attitudes toward the Illinois COOperative Extension Ser— vice which reflect their past experiences with the various aspects of Extension. "image" which 2. The pattern of these attitudes make up the Illinois commercial farmers hold toward the Extension Service. 3. An individual’s eXpectations affect his perception of and behavior resulting fromany communication contact with the Extension Service. From a practical standpoint, this study can provide valuable information to Extension administrators. First, it will give them a basic understanding of how one of their primary audiences feels toward their organization and why that audience holds those attitudes. This understanding may suggest to the administrators steps they could take to create conditions for changing those attitudes they feel need to be changed. A part of the study will be deveIOped to show administrators the communication system within which Extension's educational efforts are disseminated to its audiences, and the channels within which communication breakdowns and misunderstanding can occur. 4 (See Figure 8 for a diagram of this system.) This study will describe the various types of persons who make up the Illinois commercial farmer audience. It will use Q—sorts of attitude statements from which Q-blocks will be deveIOped to determine the prOportions of commercial farmers with various patterns of attitudes toward the Illinois COOperative Extension Service. Q-technique will also suggest reasons why these particular persons hold these attitudes. We will use factor analysis to identify the farmer typ010gies. We will investigate: (l) the range of attitudes toward the C00perative Extension Service organization, (2) toward its staff mem— bers, and (3) the place of Extension as a source of better farming information. .Commercial farmers are but one of the clientele groups of the Illinois C00perative Extension Service. Others include 4-H Clubs and other youth groups, Home Economics Extension Associations, marketing c00peratives, agricultural industries representatives, and many similar groups. This study may indicate to Extension administrators methods of learning more about the attitudes of these groups toward C00perative Extension Service with the ultimate goal of increasing communication effectiveness with them, too. Specific objectives of the study are: (l) to study the various attitudes of Illinois commercial farmers toward Extension Service, (2) to construct typologies of farmers based on their attitudes toward Extension, and (3) to provide Extension administration with informa- tion about one specific client group that may affect the communication strategies they may plan for that group in the future. CHAPTER II THEORETICAL BACKGROUND The COOperative Extension Service of the University of Illinois wants to make its educational efforts as effective and efficient as possible. Any management, to function most efficiently, must have effective channels of communication open to all components of its system. Management must also have a basic understanding of the pro- cess of interpersonal communication and how it influences behavior within the system. Wiener (34, p. 16) contends that control lies in communication. When we impart any control to the actions of another person, we must communicate with him. In much the same way we control machines by giving them orders. We give different kinds of messages to men and machines, and we have different problems of control between them. But the essential pattern is the same--the sender is aware that an order has gone out and that a signal of compliance or non-compliance has been received. Administrative officials, Wiener says, whether of a government or a university or a corporation, should take part in a two- way stream of communication, and not merely in one descending from the top. Otherwise, they may find that they have based their policies on a complete misconception of the facts that their underlings possess. Communication Behavior in Organizations Cooperative Extension administrators in Illinois believe that some farmers regard the Extension organization as the most reliable source of information about better farming methods, and that some farmers 5 6 regard their county farm adviser and the state Extension subdect mat- ter Specialists as the tOp authorities on better farming methods in the state. The administrators think that not enough farmers believe these things, so that the Cooperative Extension educational programs are not as effective as they might be. The adninistrators want to know: (I) what is the level of attitudes of Illinois commercial farm- ers toward the Illinois Cooperative Extension Service and its personnel, and (2) what steps they might take to improve this "image." By image we mean a focused set or pattern of attitudes, beliefs and Opinions toward (1) the C00perative Extension Service as an institution or or- ganization (impersonal sources of attitude formation), and (2) the persons who represent the organization-~state Extension Specialists and county farm and home advisers (personal sources of attitude formation). Cooperative Extension administrators in Illinois want to know if their educational program is considered obsolete by this important com- mercial farmer audience, whether this program is geared to satisfy their present needs, and whether the farmers believe that they are get- ting value received for the money they spend to support Extension’s educational system. They want to know also if the organization's ser- vice is satisfactory to farmers; if not, why not; and what they can do to improve it. ‘Answers to questions such as these require first an analysis of the communication network within which COOperative Extension conducts its educational programs. This analysis starts with a model of the Ex- tension communication system, which will help to locate the information gatekeepers, and the sources of misinterpretation and misunderstanding within the system. Research has shown that value orientations, expect- ations, reference groups and personality factors all affect communica- tion behavior. Analysis of the communication system will show admin- istration the source of commercial fanmer images toward their 7 organization. On the basis of insights into communication behavior uncovered by the analysis, the administration may design changes in organizational structure, new information and educational campaigns, and further evaluation procedures to make their system more effective and productive. This study requires a model of the recipient system (clientele groups) as well as a model of the source system (Cooperative Extension Service) A model of the system will help the investigator answer such questions as: "What is the pattern of information flow between the Co- operative Extension Service and the clientele group under study (Illi- nois commercial fanmers) within which individual attitudes affect response to Extension's activities ", and "How do clients derive their satisfactions or dissatisfactions with the source organization?" Wilkening (35, p. 48) reports recent studies which suggest that one of the main problems of agency workers is that of gaining accept- ance of the role in which they view themselves. Most Extension work- ers are not entirely happy that farmers see Extension's role as a source of recommendations for solving specific problems as they arise. Rather, Extension workers would like to be known as educators, and to spend more of their time teaching basic principles in depth. Extene sion administration supports this point of view and is willing to Spend any effort necessary to change the farmer perception of the Ex- tension worker‘s role from that of performing only an advisory service to that of being a professional educator of the latest fanning methods on a whole-farm, maximum-resource-use basis. As Lionberger points out (15, p. 42), most new information about better farming practices comes from public and private research cen- ters or progressive farmers. "Any communicator in the line of diffus sion from the source of origin to the final destination of the message is in a position to exercise some control over what is communicated, 8 how, and in what form. Farmers who serve as communicators may evalu— ate what they pass on to others, and incorporate positive or negative recommendations. They may also make a new idea, belief or practice locally acceptable by putting their stamp of approval on it." Diffusion research has shown (15, p. 47) that farmers use Extension agents mostly at the evaluation and trial stages of the adoption process. .Agents head the list for early adapters in general and as sources of information for all adopter groups about the special qualities and use of such complex practices as soil and water manage- ment. "The fact that such agencies ordinarily are designed to render other services to farmers, as well as disseminate information, tends to strengthen their position as information sources," Lionberger says. Emery and Oeser (7, p. 29) report that it is known that addition- al information does not necessarily change attitudes which are deter- mined by many factors; nor will it necessarily affect the selectivity towards exposure displayed by many farmers (11). Working out a model of the Cooperative Extension Service communication system (see Figure 8) will help Extension administra- tion better assess the alternatives for action when it receives information from clientele groups and from sources within its own organization. Churchman, Ackoff and.Arnoff (4, p. 74) say that the first thing to be determined about an organization in operations research is the existing structure of the communication network. Boulding (2, p. 103) says that we should study carefully the ways in which organizational communication networks affect the distribu- tion of images of roles and the value structures of the individuals concerned. This is the only way we can understand the decision— making process. Morse and Kimball (21) and Hall (8) say that 9 operations research is a scientific method of providing executive departments with a quantitative basis for decisions regarding opera- tions under their control. System analysis is useful to administration in the solution of "executive-type" problems, say Churchman, et a1 (4, p. 14). They say that so-called executive-type problems revolve around the strat- egies and tactics for optimizing the use of resources. The principal resources of Cooperative Extension are personnel and information. In general, the procedure of system analysis in Operations research involves formulating the problem to be analyzed, constructing a model of the system under study, deriving solutions from the model, testing the model and the solutions derived from it, establishing controls over the solution, and implementing the solution. In this study, we will not go into the development of mathematical or numerical solutions to be derived from the model, as in operations research. However, we will develop the system model to help Exten- sion administration more accurately predict how changes in the system may affect its overall effectiveness. It is often the case that insights into communication blocks, gatekeeper activity, and superfluous channels only become apparent when the researcher has a system model before him to delineate the channels of information flow. A model is never more than a partial representation of reality (4, p. 190). Its primary function is explanatory rather than descriptive. Many times it is obviously "actual" system more advantageous to manipulate a model than the itself, and thus evaluate possible changes in a process. We should remember that the use of a model as a process evaluator is not uni- directional. Especially in evaluating a communication process, 10 information continuously becomes available by which to evaluate the model. The model and the process can be used to evaluate each other. No model is ever perfect, because our knowledge about that which is modeled is always less than complete. Wiener (33) and Deutsch (6) both have pointed out that communi- cation and control are essential processes in the functioning of an organization. Their definition of cybernetics includes the view that all organizations from cells in an organism through machines in an automatic factory or an electronic communication network and human beings in social groups all follow the essential processes of communication and control in their Operation. Churchman, et a1, (4, Ch. 4).give a systematic analysis of the construction of and “fies for a model thought of as a group of elements tied together through their communication with each other. Attitude.Formation andehange Transmission and presentation of Extension's body of knowledge to its intended audiences requires communication efforts of various sorts. members of the COOperative Extension Service staff must conduct their educational efforts within some ”set" of attitudes and expectations on the part of their clientele groups of individuals. This set of attitudes and expectations directly affects the differ- ential response to Extension's educational efforts. ‘An explication of how commercial farmer attitudes and expectations affect their differential reaponses will indicate to Extension adninistrators how they can make their educational efforts more effective. Attitudes are important for'Extension to be concerned about. One example is to be found in the study by Hyman, et a1, investigat- ing some reasons why information campaigns fail (11). Their evidence — 11 obtained from national samples, indicates that people tend to expose themselves to information which is in agreement with their prior attitudes. Individuals also tend to avoid exposure to infonmation not congenial with their prior attitudes. The authors list five reasons why attitudes do not change with increased information: 1. There exists a hard core of "know nothings" who are extremely hard to reach. 2. People who are already interested acquire the most infonmation. 3. People seek information congenial to their prior attitudes. 4. People interpret the same information differently. 5. Information does not necessarily change attitudes. Zimmerman and Bauer (39) suggest that personality affects a "audience sensitivity." Each individual source remembers person's information and acts upon it to the extent that he perceives it as congruent with his preconceived attitudes toward it. Boulding (2, p.115) says that we behave in accordance with some image of the consequences of our acts. George Katona (13, p. 56) says that attitudes are generalized viewpoints with an affective connotation. Attitudes are emotionally colored points of view that may influence behavior irreSpective of whether they are based on rational arguments or held without clear awareness of their reasons. Katona says that expectations are a subgroup of attitudes. They, too, are intervening variables which influence behavior. They are those attitudes which represent an extension of the time perspective into the future. He believes that the basic distinction between different kinds of attitudes and expect- ations is that between stable and enduring attitudes on the one hand and variable attitudes on the other. 12 Expectation theory says that each individual's eXperiences 1! 11 with his own world develop within him a set or "pattern" of atti- tudes toward that world. These attitudes, in turn, affect his perception of and behavior toward subsequent experiences. Thus, it seems reasonable to assume that the strength and direction of his expectations toward any event will be a function of his past experi— ences with that kind of event as he perceives and interprets it, and its relative importance to him under the present circumstances (see Stogdill, 29, p. 62). Stogdill's definition Speaks of an expectation as an isolated event, when an expectation seems more likely to be thought of as one of a series of connected events-—as part of the perception process. It seems more accurate to think of an expectation as formed over a series of events, as a subjective prediction rather than a singular response to a particular stimulus. Given a choice from a set of alternatives based on his past experience, an individual will formu— late his expectations on the basis of a set of probability estimates that he assigns to each of the alternatives. He chooses his alterna- tive for action from among the various combinations of estimates of probability and desirability of outcome. Expectations and attitudes of Illinois commercial farmers, which are the concern of this study, are variable because they are influenced by each individual's past experience with either the personal or impersonal aSpects of COOperative Extension, or both. Examples of such experience might include messages in the mass media, meetings, tours, demonstrations, personal visits, telephone calls, or any other of the diverse methods which Extension uses to diffuse its educa- tional information. 13 Tech and MacLean (31, p. 58) point out that each experience or perception helps to provide man with unconscious expectations or assumptions about reality. We expect the world to behave in accord— ance with these assumptions. The purpose of perception is to help us cope with the world by assigning meanings to it which can stand the test of subsequent experience. As Boulding says (2, p. 86), "The larger the negative value that we give to uncertainty or to vagueness in our value orientation, the more likely we are to select the familiar and the known; the more likely we are, therefore, to do today what we did yesterday." Universally shared meanings are the simplest means of communica- tion, Tech and MacLean say, because they require little translation from one person‘s frame of reference into another‘s. Sometimes, we may deal with people under the assumption that their perceptions coincide with ours, although in fact differences in past experiences have pro duced fundamental divergences in outlook. Most failures in °°mmunication are due to mistaken assumptions about the correSpond- ence 0f meanings. Behavioral science mainly tries to disclose the sources of man's ext remely wide range of responses to environmental conditions in the belief that understanding these sources will help him gain more cont1‘01 over himself, his actions and his environment. The basic idea is that human living is one continuous problem-solving situation after another' F1°r1an Znaniecki is one sociologist who has expressed this “man’the‘~5cientist" point of view (40, p. 152). George Kelly, a psych01ogist, proposes a concept of "constructive alternativism" 14 which underlies his theory of personality (l4) . Since man is always faced with constructive alternatives, which he may explore ' if he wishes, he need not continue indefinitely to be the absolute victim either of his past history or of his present circumstances. From this point of view, man is essentially a problem-solving organism who bases his solutions to his own personal problems as he sees them on his private resources of hereditary intelligence and ability, his past experiences, and the fund of knowledge that he has acquired through both the formal and informal processes of learning. Since communication is a characteristic human behavior, it follows that patterns of communication behavior may be studied, experimented upon, modified, and altered as can any other human b6havio r. Ea ch Illinois commercial farmer thus lives in his own private W°r1d~—t2he universe as he has constructed it and as he sees it. As he 3098 on about. his daily life, he chooses from among alternatives for action and solves his problems as he faces them. His techniques are Structured and tend toward consistency (response set or patterned behavior) - He makes prolonged efforts to simplify his reactions, to reduce ambiguities and inconsistencies in his actions, and to make his chalces more effective and efficient. Out of the vast number of stimuli that impinge on his receptors during the course of a day, he consciously or unconsciously selects a reasonable and usable number to attend to. me this point of view, each farmer attends to, perceives and responds to the communication stimuli that he does to a large extent on the basis of his expectations about each particular message. As 15 Robert Bills (1) says, a person behaves in ways which are consistent with his views of the world. As he "sees," so does he behave. How he behaves is consistent with how he sees things, and what he believes is truth for him. It is in this context that we must organize and design our study of Illinois commercial farmers. Snygg and Combs (25, p. 21) say that each person's perceptual field is reSponsible for his every behavior. People do not behave according to the facts as others see them, but the way they see them. What governs behavior from the point of view of the individual are his unique perceptions of himself and the world in which he lives, the meanings things have for him. Stogdill (29) has put tOgether a comprehensive study of exDectation theory, even though he confines it to a study of human bahavior in groups. He points out that expectation theory has been deVeloloed as a branch of learning theory and represents an alterna- tive solution to the same problems with which learning theories are concerned (29, p. 10). 3"1:36 ctation historically has been a concern of the statistician and the gambler, according to Stogdill. These people have been interested in the probability of uncertain events, Just as Znaniecki (40): Kelly (14), and Bills (1) have implied, and Marks (19) and Irwin (12) have tested empirically. Other contributions have been made to eXpectation theory more recently by workers in the fields 01 e(”nonulcs, decision theory, learning and perception. E"togdill refers to the fact that George Kelly (14) bases his theory of personality on the fundamental postulate that "3 person's L__._r°°esses are psychologically channelized 191 the ways 12 Wh__i°h 112 16 anticipates events." Tolman (32), MOwrer (22), and Rotter (23) view learning in terms of reinforcement of expectation. These theorists believe that eXpectation is raised by reinforcement and depressed by the experience of failure to effect reinforcement. That is, a confirmed eXpectation increases the individual's probability estimate that such a successful course of action will similarly result in satisfying outcomes under similar future conditions. This seems to be the same point of view as our earlier hypothesizing, problem- solving motivation for human behavior. In one of the few references to expectations in communication research, Hovland, Janis and Kelley (9, p. 292) say that an essential difference between instruction and persuasion involves the expecta- tions or anticipations that affect a person's motivation to accept or reject a communication. They propose three types of expectations that operate to increase or decrease the degree of acceptance: (1) expectations of being "right" or "wrong," (2) expectations of mani- pulative intent (of being impartially advised or of being manipulated by the communicator), and (3) expectations of social disapproval (of being approved or disapproved by others). Solley and MUrphy (26, p. 30) also suggest that man constantly strives to organize and structure his environment, to make order out of chaos (to solve his problems on the basis of the alternatives that his private world offers as EE.§SE§.EEEE!) man selectively per- ceives out of the totality of the available stimuli, and makes his decisions for action on the basis of what his past experience has told him.will be most satisfactory for hhm under the present circumstances (i.e., on the basis of his expectations). l7 Hypothesis Development We prOpose to concern ourselves in this study with hypothesis development, rather than hypothesis testing. As Cattell says (3, p. 21), factor analysis has the peculiarity among scientific investiga- tion tools that it can be profitably used with relatively little regard to prior formulation of a hypothesis. The factor analyst may start with two or three dozen variables and without hypothesis formation arrive at whatever organization or structure is present and what factors or types are at work. .A detailed hypothesis is not essential to the design of the experiment. It can test hypo- theses, but it is a most useful tool in the behavioral sciences Where control is sometimes impossible, where a predictive hypothesis can be as misleading as helpful, where the crucial variables are unknown or not clear, and where the direction of causation is anyone's guess. Stephenson (27, p. 151) says we should be making discoveries rather than testing our reasoning. He believes that empirical curiosity rather than hypothetico-deductive logic should be the mainSpring of behavioral science, as it is of Q-methodology. Q- technique is particularly useful in this study in which we want to isolate useful and meaningful typologies of Illinois commercial farmers. We could offer several general predictive hypotheses about the makeup of these typologies. But we prefer to derive hypotheses from analysis of the Q-sorts, for further studies. CHAPTER III METHOD Stage 1--Focused Interviews Inspection of the system model (Figure 8) shows the flow of information among Illinois commercial farmers and the Cooperative Extension Service. Information, as defined here, refers to any contact, personal or impersonal, between a commercial farmer and an aspect of the Cooperative Extension Service. In the study, we are asking a structured sample of Illinois commercial farmers to express their attitudes toward the Cooperative Extension Service. Understanding these attitudes is important for the decision—making processes of Extension administration. Informa- tion derived from the study may be used by the administrators to help them formulate communication strategy for reaching their primary clientele groups among the citizens of the state. The study seeks to provide at least one answer to the question: “What kinds of information can research provide that will help administrators-choose meaningful alternatives for action?" The study uses Q-technique in its search for the answer to this question. Statements of attitudes toward the C00perative Extension Service to be used in subsequent Q-sorts were obtained through focused interviews with a variety of Illinois commercial farmers. Focused interviews at this stage provided statements of subdective experience from this one primary clientele group of the Extension Service. Such interviews are useful as a probing technique. We 18 19 wanted to explore the range of potential response to fill out a total pattern of client experiences with aSpects of the Cooperative Exten- sion Service that might help determine any individual's "set" of attitudes toward the service. The technique of the focused interview allows the investigator "to arrive at plausible hypotheses concerning the significant items to which subdects reSpond." (20) MacLean has this to say (17, p. 34): "Some researchers are seeking, rather directly, solutions to practical everyday communication problems. In such problem- oriented research, the focused interview is designed for exploratory tasks in determining attitudes and permits the researcher more latitude in question wording and question order than does the usual interview schedule. "The amount of planning a particular research project requires depends on the level of research appropriate at each stage. At one stage a researcher may be probing, using projective techniques or focused interviews to get relatively few peOple to express themselves as fully as possible on some subject. Such interviews may provide not only clues on what things may be important for his future study, but may also provide rich materials useful in them- selves." In the first stage of this study, we made focused interviews with 25 Illinois commercial farmers to allow them to express their personal attitudes toward the various aspects of the Illinois COOperative Extension Service (see Figure 9). Each of the farmers interviewed was selected by the county farm.adviser in his county to assure us of a variety of attitudes toward Extension ranging from favorable to unfavorable. Some were good.Farm Bureau members, while others belonged to the Grange, the Farmers union, the National Farmers Organization, or to no farm organization at all. Some were good.thension coopera- tors, some were not. They represented a variety of ages and kinds of farmers and farming Operations. ' 20 ‘ Not only did the focused interview ask their own Opinions about Extension, but it probed for their ideas of what their neighbors think about Extension and what they had heard other fanners in the county say. We continued to probe until we felt that each respondent had covered the range of attitudes that he was familiar with. The advantage of the probe is that it tends to uncover attitudes that are not likely to be eXpressed without so forcing the reapondents to give this special thought and atten— tion to the problem. The focused interview outline prepared in advance covered the range of anticipated responses, and allowed for unanticipated responses about the nature of contacts and experiences which respondents indicated had an effect on their attitudes toward Cooperative Extension. The focused interviews were continued until it became apparent that we had covered the principal range of response and had reached the point of diminishing returns. That is, we had reached the limit where any further attitudes to be uncovered were not adjudged to be worth additional time and expense for the investigator in this stage of the field work. Focused interviews were also made with several county farm advisers, assistant state leaders of farm advisers (district super- visors), state Extension specialists, and Extension administrators for their additional points of view on anticipated commercial farmer responses to the subsequent Q-sorts of attitudes toward Extension. 21 Stage 2 —- Q-Sorts of Attitude Statements MacLean says further (17, p. 34): "At another stage the researcher may be using statements gleaned from the first study to get a systematic picture of the variety of ways in which people orient themselves to aSpects of the world around them. Typical of work at this stage is the use of 'Q—methodology' to deve10p a typology of persons..." Stephenson (28, Ch. 3) has pointed out the problem of sociologists who think of their domain as the science of interviews 510), and who wish to prOpose their own interpretation of interview reports. In an effort to submit any interpretation to some kind of test involving quantitative measurement if it is to be acceptable, they usually turn to large—sample techniques, using a questionnaire and probability sampling. Questionnaires, however, he says, are designed to deal best with direct questions, and are inadequate in such a complex area as attitude probing. A lawyer, for example, who rarely reads a newSpaper may describe himself as "a paragon of all community virtues" and as a great reader on a questionnaire. Use of large-sample methods often is open to serious question. Selvin (24) doubts the validity of the logic and use of the statistical techniques as applied to questionnaire data. Rhys Williams (38) questions the unstated assumptions in all such survey techniques other than those concerning vital statistics. He asks social scientists to examine again the basic premises of these methods. For example, responses cannot be assumed to be equivalent from different respondents; some people say one thing and do the contrary (5). "PeOple rationalize, project, and make all sorts of psychologi- cal twists and turns in their reSponses to direct questions, wherever their values, beliefs, vanities and hOpes are touched upon,’ says 22 Stephenson. The real task, as Williams points out, is to offer as precise a description as possible of the phenomenon we seek to under- stand. Qzlechnigua Stephenson offers the solution of Q—technique to the problem of bringing some control into the field of interpretation of inter- views (27). Q-technique consists of making a sort of model of an interview. This is done by giving reSpondents a set of statements (in this study, about possible commercial farmers' attitudes toward the COOperative Extension Service) that they can then use to describe their attitudes toward the objective. Use of punched cards for the sorts practically eliminates human error in data coding and processing. The computer performs much as the researcher does when he sorts sets of statements into types of responses: it correlates each person's description with every other person's and sorts them out, precisely, into any distinct types (called factors) that may be present. Advantage of computer Operation, obviously, is that it performs a multitude of calculations very rapidly, making this procedure highly usable. Resulting typol— Ogies thus are formed objectively by the computer, not by a reader- analyst Of interviews. Interpretation still remains as an individual problem, but the important matter of "what goes with what" has been solved. We know at least what has to be explained. The method does not require the use of large numbers Of reapondents, or any probabil- ity sampling of peOple. It can be applied to only one person, if need b6. 23 Q-technique is particularly useful for this type of study since, as Stephenson points out (27, p. 5), it enables us to study attitudes, thinking behavior, personality factors, and social interaction patterns, and other things subjective to the individual or objective to others scientifically, without using the formal scales or meas— uring instruments with which psychology and other behavioral research is familiar. We did not, however, study individual personality factors in this research. Rather, this study uses factor analysis to generalize from group expressions of attitude instead of studying individual differences among a large number of cases. In contrast to R-technique in which pOpulations are groups Of people, the population of this study where we use Q—technique is groups Of statements (27, p. 58). As Stephenson says, "Each variate has reference to an operation of a single person upon all the state- ments in one interactional setting." The forced choice method of Q-technique appears to be highly arbitrary from the R-technique viewpoint. The operation Of Q, however, is simple: the subject sorts a sample Of E statements into classes, on a quasi-normal frequency basis, which gives a quantitative basis for almost any subjective behavior. In practice, the subject looks through all the E items and gains a ”general" impression about them. Then, he places the items highly positively significant at the high-score end of the distribu- tion and those negatively significant at the low-score end, with items judged to be doubtful or neutral at the center of the distribu- tion. All the statements have to be compared with one another, however loosely. Fine discriminations are not involved for every 24 item, as would be the case if all E items were ranked. Discrimination is most difficult in the middle classes where the largest preportion of the items are grOUped, but the importance of this is minimized by the fact that the end-classes gain most weight in product-moment cor- relations. Each reapondent must follow the same distribution plan. According to Stephenson, Q—technique SUppOrtS a wholly different standpoint of "type" psychology than R-technique (27, p. 153). While R-technique has restricted its definition of "type" to mean "3.3liii of persons having a common characteristic or characteristics," Q~ technique deals with the definition of "type" as "a person, serving as a characteristic Specimen of a class." He concludes that the factors issuing from a small number of variates in Q-technique may define person—types as well as could be done from very large numbers. QqAnalysis Major steps in Q-analysis have been summarized by MacLean, Danbury and.Ta1bott (18): 1. Respondents are asked to sort a deck Of cards which have items printed on them into a Specific number of ranked piles accord- ing to a modified normal distribution. The sorting is done on the basis of some criterion; e.g., agree-disagree, belief-disbelief, etc. 2. A matrix of intercorrelations is formed by correlating every person's sort of items with every other person's sort of items. 3. This matrix of correlations is submitted to factor analysis so that persons are variables and items are observations. A princi- pal axis solution is obtained. This is submitted to a varimax rotation which produces orthogonal factors approximating simple 25 structure. On this basis, a factor represents a grouping of persons around a common pattern of sorting the items. Hence, a factor represents a type of person. 4. Each pattern of sorting the items associated with each factor or type of person is estimated. This is done by weighting each item reSponse of each Of the persons most highly associated with a given factor by the degree to which they are loaded on that factor. The higher a person's loading on the factor, the greater is the weight. These weighted reaponses are summed across each item separately. This produces an item array of weighted reaponses for each factor in the rotated factor analysis solution selected. The arrays of weighted reSponses are then converted to z-scores. 5. The arrays of item z-scores are ordered from most accepted to most rejected for each factor. This provides a hierarchy of item acceptance for each factor or type of person. 6. The arrays of item z-scores for each factor are compared by subtraction for each pair of factors. This produces arrays of difference scores for each pair of factors. This provides the basis for differentiating one factor or type of persons from another. Developing the Q-Sorts This study uses sets of statements along three dimensions of attitudes toward the Illinois COOperative Extension Service that were developed from the material gathered in the focused interviews of Stage 1. These dimensions include: (1) the impersonal, institu- tional aSpects Of the Extension Service, (2) the personal aspects of Extension through its staff members, and (3) Cooperative Extension's position among sources Of agricultural information. 26 The focused interviews in Stage 1 resulted in a set of 74 different statements of attitude about the COOperative Extension Service. From these 74 original statements we established 10 categories of attitudes that they logically fell into and arranged them so. These categories include: (1) competence, (2) practical- ity, (3) effectiveness, (4) value, (5) communication ability, (6) up-to-dateness, (7) impartiality, (8) efficiency, (9) reliability, and (10) friendliness. In addition, the first Q-sort on impersonal attitudes toward the Cooperative Extension Service had an 11th category on aspects of CES organization. To avoid statement bias, we edited them until we had produced two negative and two positive statements within each category for the first two Q-sorts (appendices 4 and 16). Each set of statements thus made up one Q-sort in each Of the three dimensions. Once we had selected and edited the statements for each category, each was typed onto a plain white 3 x 5-inch card and suhnitted for pre-test to a group of six Champaign County, Illinois, farmers in January, 1964. These farmers were selected for the purpose by the farm adviser in that county to represent a variety of ages, locations, types of farming and estimated prior attitudes toward Extension. Considerable time was Spent during each session with these farmers probing to see if they had any additional attitudes in any of the three dimensions, whether the statements were understand- able by Illinois commercial farmers, and for their comments on the technique. On the basis of their critique, the statements received some minor editing. They did not suggest any major changes and thought 27 that the technique was interesting to do and not too difficult. Each statement was then printed on the back of an IRA card which was pie-punched with standard study information and ready to be put through the computer. Selecting the Sample Stage 2 of the study required a relatively small sample of Illinois commercial farmers arbitrarily selected tO obtain a wide range of attitude responses to the Q-sorts. The first criterion that we established for the sample selection procedure was geograph- ical distribution over the state to account for possible regional differences among the farmers. The easiest ready-made system was to select even-sized samples of commercial farmers from each Of the five Extension districts in Illinois. The second criterion we established for the system to expose he range of attitudes toward COOperative Extension was whether or pt there had been in the home county of each reSpondent a history successful and pOpular Extension programing. On that basis, we :ed each of the five district agricultural Extension supervisors name one county in his district in which he thought we were 1y to find attitudes at the extremely favorable and of the human based on good Extension programing. Then we asked him to >ne other county in his district in which he thought we would ely to find attitudes at the extremely unfavorable end of the cased on a history of poor Extension programs over the years. ave us a total of 10 Illinois counties geographically distri- >ver the state, five selected to provide us with the possibility 28 of locating extremely favorable attitudes toward the Cooperative Extension Service, and five in which we were likely to find extremely unfavorable attitudes. Two other criterion variables that we thought might make a difference in the formation of attitudes toward the CES were: (1) age of the farmer, and (2) the distance that he lives from the county seat or office of the county farm adviser, who is the local county Cooperative Extension Service agricultural representative in Illinois. Final choice of each Of the 60 Illinois commercial farmers in the sample was made by the investigator with the help of the county farm adviser in the sample counties and a variety Of other people. In Illinois, the county farm adviser probably knows more about the farmers and farming in his county than almost any other single source. Time that each farm adviser had lived in the sample counties ranged from less than two years to more than 35 years. However, we felt that any biasing of the sample selection by the newest farm adviser not knowing enough about his county farmers to the fann adviser with the longest tenure knowing too much about his county farmers would be balanced over the statewide sample by the range of farm adviser experience. In selecting each county sample, the investigator worked first with the county farm adviser to locate six farmers who met the established criteria for selection: (1) two whom the farm adviser thought had favorable attitudes toward Extension, two with moderate or neutral attitudes, and two whom he thought might have poor or unfavorable attitudes toward Extension for whatever reasons; 29 (2) two in the young age group (under 35), two in the middle age range (36-55), and two in the Older age group (over 55); and (3) scattered locations over the county to avoid the possibility of contaminating the sample with farmers from the same community with similar attitudes. Of course, we realize that it is possible for next door neighbors to have widely differing attitudes, and there~ fore we did not rigidly enforce the criteria in some instances. The criterion which had the major influence on the final selection of each farmer was his positiOn in the range of possible attitudes toward Extension. Our main purpose was to eXpose as many different attitudes as possible along the range from extremely favorable to extremely unfavorable. Since it is possible that personal bias would enter into sample selection if the farm adviser was the only source of reapondent names, we also sought names in each county from other sources who might be familiar with farmer attitudes in that county. We chose farmers to interview on the basis of recommendations by county Farm Bureau insurance.agents, professional farm managers, local veterinarians, bankers and bank farm management representatives, soil conservation- ists, vocational agriculture instructors and other farmers. In one county, we interviewed a farmer whose name we secured from a returned survey form on which he had indicated that he couldn't come in to the county farm adviser's office because he wasn't a Farm Bureau member. We believe that one of the reasons why Illinois farmers may or may not have favorable attitudes toward the Cooperative Extension Service is because they confuse its relationship with Farm Bureau. We tried to expose this misunderstanding by using a separate set of seven questions with all the respondents (see Appendix 2). “...—.... ..., . 30 It was necessary to set up a time and expense budget for this project. In order to meet this budget, we asked the county farm adviser in each of the counties visited to set up the first day's interviewing schedule, with the rest to be worked out when the investigator arrived. Since we assumed that the farmers whom we chose to give us favorable responses would not be biased by being interviewed in the farm adviser's office or in the county Farm Bureau building, in many cases the interviews were scheduled for those places with the farmers arriving at approximately three-hour intervals. 0f the 60 farmer interviews, 35 were made either in the farm adviser's office or in some vacant room in the Farm Bureau building, 22 were made in the respondent's home, and three were made at other places--one in the car when the farmer was found to be out plowing, one in the county abstract office, and one in the farmer's town office where he sells fertilizers. ‘We found many distractions during the home interviews such as small children underfoot, telephones ringing, and curious.wives trying to be of help. These were discon- certing to the reSpondents and caused a different kind of bias, from hurrying through the reaponses,than doing the sorts in a quiet room in the county Farm Bureau building or in the farm adviser's office. (See Figure 10 for location of respondents' farms). The schedule set up for the field work called for visits to two counties each week for five weeks during January and February, 1964. The interviews ran from slightly less than one hour to three hours, depending on how long it took each respondent to make his decisions, and how much extra visiting the investigator had to do before the sorts were finished. There were no turndowns, and the only individual 31 who missed his scheduled appointment was No. 60, who completed his Q-sorts a couple of days later. All reSpondents were contacted initially by telephone and a set time and date scheduled for each interview. ‘This procedure was necessary so that the 60 interviews could be completed within the time budget allowance. In order to allow travel time within and between counties to maintain the schedule, it was necessary to complete six interviews in each of the two counties each week. During each interview, the reapondent was given the three storts one at a time until he had completed each one. In two instances, missed schedules required that the investigator conduct parts of two Q-sorts at the same time. These were conducted in different rooms and only caused the inconvenience of traveling back and forth between rooms to keep the sorting pro- cess moving along, 3:§211.21finaduze .In conducting the Q-sorts, the interviewer asked respondents to arrange the statements in each of the three Q-sorts into 11 piles approximating a quasi-normal distribution ranging from the statements with which he most disagreed en-the left to those with which he most agreed (n1 the right. The sets consisted cf 44 cards in the first sort, 40 cards in the second, and 45 in the third, a total of 129 statement cards. To facilitate the selection process, the interviewer asked each respondent first to sort the cards in each Q-sort into two piles, one composed of the statements with which he agreed in general and the other of the statements with which he generally disagreed. He then asked the respondent to place each of the cards in the agree ——--m* " 32 pile face up in columns on the table and select in order according to the number required on each stack of the sort. For instance, in Q-sort l the respondent was asked first to select the two statement cards with which he most agreed, and so on down the ranks until he either had exhausted his pile of agree cards or reached the center pile. Then he was asked to choose the two cards from the other pile with which he most disagreed, and so on in reverse order until all of the cards had been sorted into the piles in the required frequencies. As an example, in Q-sort 1 (Opinions about the CoOper- ative Extension Service) the cards were sorted into the following frequencies: Mbst Disagree Most Agree Rank 1— 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Frequency 2 3 4 4 5 8 5 4 4 3 2 = 44 cards .As Stephenson points out (28, Ch. III-l3), each Q-sort is a description of a person's point of view, but in a statistical form ready for handling by a higheSpeed digital computer. "When he looks over the statements, the individual gives meaning to them by a process of interaction between the statement and his dispositions or'prefionmed ideas...The Q-sample is thus a fund of possible ideas or knowledge that a person can dip into, to represent his own position by interpret- ing the statements, selecting from them, making identifications with them, subsuming them, and finally indicating his preformations, his preconceptions, and no doubt some ideas he perhaps has had now for the first time." During the Stage 2 field interviews with the sample of 60 Illinois commercial farmers, the same sets of cards were given to the farm 33 advisers in each of the 10 interview counties and they were asked to go through the same procedure as their county farmers. We asked the 10 county farm advisers to make two sorts, with one set of , cards on the basis of the pattern that he thought a "typical" farmer in his county would have, and the other on the basis of the pattern of attitudes that he would want an "ideal" fanmer in his county to have. Following completion of the field work, we asked the five district agricultural supervisors and seven others of the Cooperative Extension Adninistrative group to go through one complete set of the three Q-sorts. We asked these persons to sort the cards on the basis of what they would like a farmer to have as his pattern of attitudes toward the Cooperative Extension Service, in order to make later comparisons with the way that the county fann advisers would like their farmers to think about Extension. Use of the Computer The resulting 92 different sorts (92 X 129 cards = 11,868 cards) were submitted to analysis by the Control Data Corporation 3600 com- puter at Michigan State university. We asked for simple correlation analysis, factor analysis and weighted ranking analysis on the various sorts. Summary of these analyses will follow in subsequent chapters. The matrix of intercorrelations was as follows: 34 Table 1 -- Matrix of Intercorrelations ’-. Extension Commercial Farmers Farm.Advisers Supervisors ,Administrators l-6O ‘ 1-10 1-10 1-5 1-7 92 Actual Typical ,1 deal Ideal 1 deal Sorts 3 / CHAPTER IV ATTITUDBS TOWARD THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE Here we will deal with patterns of attitudes of Illinois com- mercial farmers toward the less personal, more institutibnal aSpects of the COOperative Extension Service (Q-sort 1). We will analyze the patterns of attitudes toward farm advisers and sources in subse- quent chapters. One Factor A.look at Figure 1 clearly shows that in spite of a sample structured to insure a variety of attitudes, most of the 60 Illinois commercial farmers interviewed fall into one general pattern or type. Appendix 5 shows that all of the farmers except No. 3 had high or fairly high loadings on the first principal axis factor. This single factor accounts for 58 percent of the tota1.variance among the 60 respondents. They agree so well in their attitudes toward COOperative Extension that 31 of the 44 statements in this Q-sort are consensus items with less than 1.000 standard deviation difference. Specifically, what are these Illinois commercial farmers in agreement about? What are the most important attitudes that they share tOgether?. They most highly agree that a lot of the information that comes from the University of Illinois is of practical use to them. They next most highly agree that the COOperative Extension Service suggests sound practices that benefit the farmer who uses them, and.that when they have a farming problem, they find that they can get the information they need quickly and easily from the COOpera- tive Extension Service. They highly agree that generally speaking 35 36 F. O . . o O en's. .‘ ‘ a... ... a .0: .0 .0. O. .... . . Q h . .a . o .‘ . . ' . O O O O a e I 33 F, Figure 1 -- Principal Axis Solution, showing positions of 60 Illinois commercial farmers as determined by the relationships of their patterns of attitudes toward the Cooperative Extension Service. 37 they find the CES to be about as friendly an organization as they could find anywhere, and that scientists at the College of Agricul- ture in Urbana give farmers like them a lot of good help. They also highly agree that infonmation that comes from the CES is honest and can be trusted to be as accurate as possible, that they can rely on CES information, that most smart farmers will try a new practice that is recommended by the CES, and that Cooperative Extension can do its job well only so long as it main- tains an office in every county. These 60 Illinois commercial farmers are almost as one voice in their strong disagreement with the idea that the farmer who knows his business does not really have much need for Extension services like soil testing (Item 1, Appendix 8). They almost equally disagree in unison that most of the so-called.Extension experts have read so many books that they cannot talk common sense any more, and that their fathers taught them most of the things they need to know about farming. They highly disagree with the attitude that they don't have much confidence in CBS recommendations, and that they get most of their ideas on how to farm better from the Farm Progress Show or State Fair, and not from the CES. They also disagree with the statements that the CES as part of the university of Illinois doesn't fit in very well with the farmers in their area, that much of the information from the University of Illinois College of Agriculture is too advanced for the average farmer-~he is not ready for it, and that written materials from the CES are usually too cold and official for them. 38 As a group, they are most neutral toward the idea that one of the good things about the Cooperative Extension Service is its close ties with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. They also are neutral toward but slightly in disagreement with the attitudes that CES pro— grams are dictated too much by the U. S. Department of Agriculture, and that most of the information put out by the CBS is a review of what they have already heard or read about. A Different Way of Looking at it It is apparent from the range of correlations on Factor 2 in the principal axis solution that there is some reason to submit the data to varimax rotation analysis, in Spite of the clustering by 59 of the 60 farmers in the sample. However, the first rotation added only five percent to the explained variation, and rotation of additional factors added little more. Weights were calculated (see weighting schedule in.Appendix 7) on 17 persons identified as being highly loaded on Factor I, eight persons as highly loaded on Factor II, and 10 persons who seem to make up a "mixed" group whose correlations are about evenly divided between the two factors (Appendix 6). The scatter diagram around the first vari- max rotation may be seen in Figure 2. Relationships between the arrays for these types may be seen in this table of correlations: Types 1 2 3 1 1.000 2 .849 1.000 3 .598 .784 1.000 39 'a 45”“ 9‘4? 93 Figure 2 —— Two—Factor Varimax Rotation, showing positions of 60 Illinois commercial farmers as determined by the relationships of their patterns of atti- tudes toward the COOperative Extension Service. 40 This table shows that Type 2 correlates highly with both Types 1 and 3. The moderate correlation between Types 1 and.3 indicates that there are substantial differences between these two attitude types in Spite of the fact that the entire group has high agreement within itself. Further analysis of the factor item arrays shows hmportant differences between the three attitude types. Type 2 possesses some of the characteristics of both grOUpS, but is more like Type 1 than Type 3. CES Type 1 Farmers -- Technically Oriented In general, CES Type 1 farmers appear to be more technically or scientifically oriented than the other two types. A farmer of this type most highly agrees with the idea that information from the COOp- erative Extension Service (CBS) is honest and can be trusted to be as accurate as possible (Table 2). He strongly agrees that CES educa— tional programs in general tell him what he needs to know in his type of farming. He is like Type 3 in strongly agreeing that when he has a farming problem he can get the infonmation he needs quickly and easily from the CES. One of the major differences between Types 1 and 3 is that the first type of farmer firmly believes that CBS information helps increase fanm production and so returns more money than it costs in taxes. This follows his technical orientation, whereas Type 3 farmers strongly reject this idea. Type 1 strongly agrees with Type 3 that they can rely on CBS information. However, a farmer of the first CES type strongly be- lieves that Extension material is impartial and unbiased, and that the same farmers--usually, the best ones in the county—-tend to show Item * 9 18 * 38 28 * 35 41 ‘Table 2 -- CES Type 1 Item.Arrays, Mbst Agree Description Information that comes from the CoOpera- tive Extension Service is honest and can be trusted to be as accurate as possible. In general, Extension's educational pro- grams tell me what I need to know about new developments in my kind.of farming. ‘When I have a farming problem, I find that I can get the information I need quickly and easily from the Extension Service. Information from the Cooperative Extension Service helps increase farm production and so returns more money than it costs in taxes. The COOperative Extension Service suggests sound practices that benefit the farmer who uses them. I believe that a lot of the information that comes from the University of Illi- nois is of practical use to me. COOperative Extension Service material is impartial and unbiased. The same fanmers—-usually the best ones in the county-~tend to show up at every Extension meeting. The Extension educa- tional system thus does not get to the farmers who need the information the most. I like the COOperative Extension Service idea that no farmer is too old to learn better farming methods. Extension's educational programs tell me what I want to know. The Cooperative Extension Service should not concentrate on helping only farmers, but should try to help everybody. *Greatest item disagreement, the items that CBS Types 1 and 3. -Type 1 1.62 1.44 1.39 1.01 .71 .55 .28 1.53 - .97 1.59 1.44 - 033 most differ Type .64 .77 .83 1.04 1.37 1.58 - .08 1.17 1.72 .47 .28 between -.—.—.—— Item * 4O 36 26 42 'Table 3 -- CES Type 1 Item Arrays, Most Disagree Description So far as I am concerned, they could do away with the Cooperative Extension Ser- vice today.’ . I don't have much confidence in the recommendations of the COOperative Extension Service. Mbst of the so-called Extension experts have read so many books that they can't talk sense any more. The Cooperative Extension Service does not do what it is supposed to do--give farmers information they can use. The farmer who knows his business does not really have much need for'Extension services like soil testing. I get the feeling that the COOperative Extension Service as part of the univer- sity of Illinois does not fit in very well with the farmers around here. Cooperative Extension Service recommen- dations are influenced too much by commercial interests. It is hard to tell whether the tax money that is Spent on the COOperative Extension Service is doing any good or not. My years of experience tell me Just about all I need to know about farming. Type 1 ~2.01 ~1.59 -1.47 -1.47 ~1.39 -1.26 -1.23 -1.01 - .84 Type 3 ‘1001 -1.38 -1.49 - .49 .14 -1.78 Type -1.55 -1.18 -1.06 -1073 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between CES Types 1 and 3. 43 up at every Extension meeting and that the Extension educational system thus does not get to the farmers who most need the informa- tion. A farmer of the third type disagrees with these attitude statements rather strongly. Type 1 farmers tend to be the strongest SUpporters of the Cooperative Extension Service. They most strongly disagree with the statement that so far as they are concerned the CES could be eliminated today (Table 3). They highly reject the ideas that the CES dbes not do what it is supposed to do--give farmers information‘ they can use, and that the CES as part of the university of Illinois does not fit in very well with farmers in their areas. Three other attitudes toward the CES are major distinguishing aspects between the two extreme types of farmers. Type 1 farmers strongly disagree that COOperative Extension Service recommendations are influenced too much by commercial interests. The farmers of Type 3 are not in disagreement at all with this statement, and are inclined.to be nearly neutral in their attitudes toward that idea. In the most clear-cut attitude difference between the two extreme types of farmers in this Q-sort, those in the first type highly disagree that it's hard to tell whether the tax.money that is spent on the CES is doing any good or not, while farmers who fall into the third type almost as strongly agree with that attitude. Both types disagree that their years of experience tell them Just about all they need to know about farming, but Type 1 disagrees much less strongly than Type 3 with this attitude. This apparent incon- sistency probably can be explained in that Type 1 farmers have more confidence that their systems of Operation are soundly based on Ex- tension Service recommendations than db Type 3 farmers. 44 CES Type 1.A¢titudes Toward Advisers The three types that we have identified on Q-sort l as being divided in their attitudes toward the institutional aSpects of the Cooperative Extension Service (dimension 1) also differ somewhat in their attitudes toward the county farm advisers and state Exten- sion specialists. Differences between CES Types 1 and 3 are greater in these item arrays than in their attitudes toward.Cooperative Extension. The mixed'Type 2 tends to be very much like'rype l, as can be seen in this table of their correlations on Q-sort 2. Types 1 2 3 1 1.000 2 .943 1.000 3 .814 .831 1.000 Two of the most striking differences in their attitudes toward the personal sapects of COOperative Extension come: about when the CES Type 1 farmers agree somewhat that their county farm advisers try very hard to involve everyone in Extension educational pregrams regardless of which organization they belong to, and that it seems as if no matter how tough a problem they take to their county fann advisers they can find a satisfactory solution. Type 3 farmers disagree somewhat With these attitude statements (Table 4). The type of farmer whom we have identified as technically oriented most highly agrees with the idea that his county farm adviser*g1Ves him the straight facts as he sees them. Type 3 farmers share this attitude, but hold it much less strongly. Item * 16 12 29 15 40 28 * 24 * 38 45 Table 4 —- CES Type 1.Adviser.Arrays, Mbst.Agree Type Description 1 My county farm adviser gives me the straight facts as he sees them, and I appreciate it. 1.54 My county farm adviser is the most reliable source of information about farming that I know. 1.38 I think that there is a lot of value in most of the practices recommended by my county farm adviser. My county farm.adviser is interested in people and their problems. He is more than just a subject matter expert. My county farm adviser gives us farmers much valuable help in our farming oper— ations. 1.15 My county farm adviser almost always seems to have the information I need at his fingertips. 1.08 My county farm adviser gives good service to us farmers. 1.08 Farmers can get from the county farm adviser the most down-to-earth rec— ommendations on how to farm better. 1.08 I appreciate the sincere interest that my county farm adviser takes in helping me with my problems. 1.06 My county farm adviser tries very hard to involve everyone in Extension educa- tional programs regardless of which organization they belong to. .77 It seems that no matter how tough a prob~ lem I take to my county farm adviser he can find a satisfactory solution. .57 My county farm adviser is a wonderful person. .43 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most CES Types 1 and 3. Type .54 .76 1.81 .91 .45 .95 -' .42 - 044 1.79 Type N} 1.88 .46 1.01 1.34 1.18 1.07 .79 1.32 .39 .40 .46 differ between 46 Table 5 -— CES Type 1 Adviser Arrays, Most Disagree Item 25 *31 22 32 36 19 11 Description Most of the recommendations that I get from my county farm adviser sound like the horse-and-buggy days, they are so old—fashioned. My county farm adViser uses too many high-pressure tactics -- he pushes too hard in trying to get us to try out new things and ideas. My county farm.adviser plays favorites among the farmers in my county and I do not like it. Generally Speaking, county farm advisers are not worth what they are paid. It takes too much time and trouble to get information from my county farm adviser. My county farm adviser does not seem to be able to present information in a way that is easy to understand and use. My county farm adviser will not listen to new ideas and suggestions from the farmers in this county. I can get more reliable information that I need for my farming Operation from a local commercial dealer I know than I can from my county farm adviser. Type 1 "1076 ‘1.67 ”1.. 56 —1.53 "10 12 -1.10 -1.08 -1.08 Type -1.97 -1.39 .10 ~1.16 "1058 -1030 “1905 -1.10 ‘1037 -1.28 -1.19 -1.00 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between CES Types 1 and 3. 47 Type 1 farmers are lukewarm toward the idea that their county farm adviser is a wonderful person. 0n the other hand, they firmly disagree that their county fanm advisers play favorites among the farmers in their counties, while Type 3 farmers lean just a little on the positive side of neutral toward that attitude statement (Table 5). The CES Type 1 farmer strongly believes that his county farm adviser is the most reliable source of information about farming that he knows, but does not agree as strongly as Type 3 that there is a lot of value in most of the practices he recommends and that he is interested in peOple and their problems. Type 1 also believes fairly strongly that his county farm adviser gives him much valuable help in his farming Operations, that he almost always seems to have needed information at his fingertips, that he gives good service, that he takes a sincere interest in helping with farmer problems, that he gives down-to-earth recommendations on how to farm better, and that he is the most up-to-date source of new farming information. These technically oriented farmers strongly disagree with the attitudes that it takes too much time and trouble to get information from their farm adviser, that he doesn't seem able to present infor- mation in a way that is easy to understand and use, that he will not listen to new ideas and suggestions, and that they can get more reliable information from a local commercial dealer than they can from him. 48 CES Type 1 Attitudes Toward Sources Even greater differences between CES Types 1 and 3 appear in their item arrays toward the COOperative Extension Service as a source of technical farming information. Again, as in the attitudes of CES Type farmers toward the personal aSpects of COOperative Exten- sion, the Type 2 mixed group is closely aligned with Type 1, while Type 3 is even more divergent than before, as shown in this table of correlations: Type 1 2 3 1 1.000 2 .910 1.000 3 .721 .778 1.000 CES Type 1 farmers are most different from Type 3 farmers in their comparative attitudes toward the COOperative Extension Service as a source. While the Type 1 farmer regards the CES as his most reliable source, the Type 3 farmer is almost neutral in his agree- ment with that attitude (Table 6). On the other hand, all three types of farmers highly agree on the county farm adviser as a reliable source of technical information, although Type 3 is in much less agreement on this attitude than the other two. Other consensus agreement items between all three types on this Qusort include their attitudes toward bulletins and reports from the Agricultural EXperiment Station in Urbana and the Experiment Station itself, the College of Agriculture, the University of Illinois and successful farmers they know. {Ii Table 6 -- CES Type 1 Source Arrays, Mbst Agree 49 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between CES Types 1 and 3. Type Type Type Item Description 1 3 2 * l COOperative Extension Service 2.09 .40 1.50 8 My county farm adviser 2.04 1.32 2.27 13 College of Agriculture at Urbana 1.63 .86 1.23 22 Bulletins and reports from the Agricultural Experiment Station in Urbana 1.58 1.95 1.30 * 11 State Extension specialists 1.46 .40 .84 * 43 Farm Bureau Farm Management Service fieldman 1.39 - .17 .36 32 The Agricultural Experiment Station in Urbana 1.39 1.14 1.29 * 3 My years of farming experience 1.17 2.90 1.73 6 university of Illinois 1.01 1.19 1.09 10 Successful farmers I know .82 .85 1.65 * 30 .A veterinarian I know .48 1.45 .21 * 20 Extension council meetings .40 - .49 - .01 50 County ASCS office *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most CES Types 1 and 3. Table 7 -- CES Type 1 Source Arrays, MOst Disagree Type Type TYPe Item Description 1 3 2 * 36 The National Farmers Organization -l.88 - .61 -1.95 25 Advertising in neWSpapers -1.84 -1.26 -1.76 34 Farmers Union —1.68 —1.33 ~1.82 17 .Advertising in farm magazines -1.51 -1.09 -l.49 35 The Grange -1.21 —l.67 -l.75 12 A local fertilizer dealer -l.05 — .62 -l.04 * 26 .Articles in newspapers ~1.00 .01 - .99 31 My relatives "1.00 ~1.27 -1.48 * 21 My landlord or landlady w .81 -l.96 - .58 * l4 - .21 1.16 - .05 differ between 51 Another large difference between attitudes of the two most extreme types is toward the Farm Bureau Farm Management Service fieldman, whom the Type 1 farmers highly regard as a source and toward whom the Type 3 farmers take a slightly negative view. This may be explained by the fact that more of the technically- minded farmers in Type 1 are aware of the service or belong to it, while many Type 3 farmers do not use the service and do not know what it can do for them. Type 1 farmers have a much higher regard for state Extension specialists as sources than do Type 3 farmers, while they are almost equally divided on Opposite sides of the fence in their attitudes toward Extension Council meetings as a source of reliable farming information. Type 1 farmers are not nearly so confident in the reliability of their years of exper- ience or a veterinarian they know as information sources as are the Type 3 farmers. A farmer who falls into the classification Of CES Type 1 regards the National Farmers Organization and advertising in newspapers as almost equally unreliable sources of farming infor- mation (Table 7). He regards articles in neWSpapers as a strongly unreliable source. The other two CES types of farmers strongly agree with his belief that the Farmers Union, adver- tising in farm magazines, the Grange and a local fertilizer dealer are highly unreliable information sources. Type 1 also thinks that a landlord or landlady is an unreliable source and that the county ASCS office is slightly unreliable. 52 Summary -- What is a CES Type 1 Farmer Like? Analysis of the demographic data on the 17 Illinois commercial farmers in CES Type I tend to support our sample selection procedure. These 17 were chosen to represent Type 1 on the first Q-sort of atti- tudes toward the Cooperative Extension Service on the basis of their high loadings on Factor I of the first varimax rotation. However, the only criterion for selection that seems to make a difference for this type is prior attitude toward the CES (Appendix 9). Age for this group of 17 individuals who are more like each other than they are like any Of the other farmers is divided around the median in an approximation of a normal distribution. Their average age of 46.8 is not significantly different from the average age Of 47.5 of the 60 farmers. Location in the county does not seem to make any difference, nor does location in the kind of counties chosen for the sample. We might expect that our most favorable farm- ers would come from the counties with the better CES programs; actu- ally, more come from counties with the historically poorer CES programs. Education seems to make a difference, along with prior attitude. Of the 12 farmers in the total group with college educa- tions, 7 of them are in CES Type 1. Size of farm and income do not vary greatly within this group from the average of the entire sample of 60 farmers. The distribution corresponds very highly, with more farmers than we might expect from the smaller farms and lower income brackets. The most crucial selection criterion seems to be prior attitude which we have theorized is based on past experience. We chose one- third of the sample farmers on the basis Of having a favorable 53 attitude toward the Cooperative Extension Service. One-fifth of them.are included in CES Type 1. The two farmers included in CES Type 1 who were thought to have prior neutral or questionable atti- tudes, and the three who were chosen because they were thought to have unfavorable attitudes, turn out to be not so neutral nor unfavor- able. But the general results highly support our sample selection procedure as being soundly conceived. In terms of the COOperative Extension Service characteristics that the CES Type 1 farmers chose as being most important to them, competence and value stand out (Appendix 10). These farmers chose all four attitude statements in both of these characteristic cate— gories as among the most important for them (Appendix 4). The impartiality and'practicality of Extension also were more important than the other characteristics for these farmers. However, reliability rates the highest consensus agreement in the CES Type 1 item arrays, while value carries the highest consensus disagreement rating. These farmers are very consistent in most agree- ing with positive attitude statements and disagreeing with negative attitude statements. Only statement 44 appears out of place in these rankings. CES Type 1 farmers highly agree with this negative state- men: the same farmers-~usually the best ones in the county--tend to show up at every Extension meeting and the Extension educational system thus does not get to the farmers who need the information the most. CES Type 3 Farmers --Person-oriented,.Emotional In contrast to CES Type 1, CES Type 3 farmers do not tend to be so technically or scientifically minded. They seem to be more 54 person-oriented. They are in strong agreement with the idea that no person is too old to learn better farming methods (Table 8). They agree much more highly than Type 1 that the CES is about as friendly an organization as you could find anywhere, that the scientists at the College of Agriculture give them a lot of good help, and that most smart farmers will try a new practice recommended by CES. CES Type 3 farmers are completely different from the other two types when they agree that it's hard to tell whether the tax money being spent on the CES is doing any good or not, and agree a little that CES recommendations are influenced too much by com- mercial interests. Their person orientation shows up clearly as they are nearly neutral toward the idea that CES educational pro- grams tell them what they need to know about new farming deveIOpments. Farmers Of this third type disagree most strongly that their years of farming experience tell them just about all they need to know about farming, that their fathers taught them most of the things they need to know about farming, and that they get more ideas from the Farm Progress Show and the State Fair than they do from the CES (Table 9). These attitude statements might appear to be inconsistent with their person orientation until we look at where they do get their information.CTable'12). CES Type 3 Attitudes TowardmAdvisers Another indication of the personal orientation of CES Type 3 farmers is their highest agreement that their county farm adviser is interested in peOple and their problems and is more than just a sub- ject matter expert (Table 10). They strongly agree that there is a lot of value in most of the practices recommended by their county Item 28 18 10 43 20 33 19 *42 *16 55 Table 8 —— CES Type 3 Item Arrays, Mbst Agree Description I like the COOperative Extension Ser- vice idea that no farmer is too old to learn better farming methods. The COOperative Extension Service sug- gests sound practices that benefit the farmer who uses them. When I have a farming problem I find that I can get the information I need quickly and easily from the COOperative Extension Service. Generally Speaking, I have found the Cooperative Extension Service to be about as friendly an organization as you could find anywhere. I believe that a lot of the information that comes from the University of Illi- nois is of practical use to me. The scientists at the College of Agri- culture in Urbana give farmers like me a lot of good help. Mbst smart farmers will try a new prac- tice that is recommended by the Cooper- ative Extension Service. I can rely on information from the COOperative Extension Service. It is hard to tell whether the tax money that is Spent on the Cooperative Exten— sion Service is doing any good or not. In general, Extension's educational pro- grams tell me what I need to know about new developments in my kind of farming. Cooperative Extension Service recommenda- Type 1.59 1.49 1.31 1.04 .90 .28 tions are influenced too much by commercial interests. '.14 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most CES Types 3 and 1. 1.21 1.39 .63 1.21 .88 .40 1.15 -1.23 Type 1.72 1.37 .83 1.09 1.58 1.00 1.23 .70 - .51 .77 - .45 differ between Item * 24 21 22 * 40 * 38 * 13 * 44 * 35 * 25 56 Table 9 -— CES Type 3 Item Arrays, Most Disagree Type Type Type Description my years of farming experience tell me just about all I need to know about 3 1 2 farming. -l.78 - .84 -1.88 My father taught me most of the things I need to know about farming. -1.54 - .69 —1.57 The farmer who knows his business does not really have much need for Extension services like soil testing. -1.49 -l.39 -l.73 I get most of my ideas on how to fanm better from the Farm Pregress Show or State Fair, and not from the Coopera- tive Extension Service. -1.15 - .59 -l.31 SO far as I am concerned, they could do away with the Cooperative Extension Service today. -1.01 -2.01 -l.55 Information from the Cooperative Exten- sion Service helps increase farm produc- tion and so returns more money than it costs in taxes. - The COOperative Extension Service should not concentrate on helping only farmers, but should try to help everybody. - The same farmers-~usually the best ones in the county--tend to show up at eyery Extension meeting. The Extension educa- tional system thus does not get to the farmers who need the information the most. Extension's educational programs tell me what I want to know. ~ COOperative Extension material is im- partial and unbiased. - The Cooperative Extension Service does not do what it is supposed to do--give farmers information they can use. - *Greatest item disagreement, the items that CBS Types 3 and 1. .97 1.23 1.04 .84 1.01 1.17 .44 .66 .47 .33 1.15 - .08 .31 -1047 "' .69 most differ between Item 29 *17 26 27 *16 *31 57 Table 10 -- CES Type 3.Adviser‘Arrays, most Agree Type Type Type Description 3 l 2 My county farm adviser is interested in people and their problems. He is more than just a subdect matter expert. 2.06 1.23 1.01 I think that there is a lot of value in most of the practices recommended by my county farm adviser. 1.81 1.27 1.49 My county farm adviser is a wonderful person. 1.79 .43 .46 I like the way that my county farm adviser keeps up to date with new farming practices by attending meet- ings at the College of Agriculture in Urbana. 1.18 .91 1.33 Hy county farm adviser is almost never too busy to come out to visit my farm when I want him to. 1.00 .72 .80 my county farm adviser gives me the straight facts as he sees them and I appreciate it. .54 1.54 1.88 My county farm adviser plays favorites among the farmers in my county and I do not like it. .10 -1.56 -1.10 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between CES Types 3 and 1. Item 58 Table 11 -- CES Type 3 Adviser.Arrays, Host Disagree Description Type 3 Type 1 Type 25 39 11 22 13 * 38 24 Host of the recommendations that I get from my county farm adviser sound like the horse-and-buggy days, they are so old-fashioned. The Extension specialists who come around here cannot talk the language of the farmers-~they use too many technical terms and complicated langu- age. I can get more reliable information that I need for my farming Operation from a local commercial dealer that I know than I can from my county farm adviser. My county farm adviser uses too many high-pressure tactics--he pushes too hard in trying to get us to try out new things and ideas. My county farm adviser should have to foot the bill to establish some of the practices that he recommends so that he would become more practical. Generally speaking, county farm advisers are not worth what they are paid. My county farm adviser often does not follow up on things he says he is going to do. It seems that no matter how tough a pro— blem I take to my county farm adviser, he can find a satisfactory solution. my county farm adviser tries very hard to involve everyone in Extension educational programs regardless of which organization they belong to. -19 97 -1069 -1.39 -1.18 —1. 16 -1.14 " .42 -1076 -1.67 ”1053 .57 .77 -1930 -1.10 -1000 ”-1005 .40 .39 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between CES Types 3 and l. 59 farm.adviser, that they like the way he keeps up to date with new farming practices by attending meetings at the College of Agricul— ture in Urbana, and that he is almost never too busy to come out to visit their farms when they want him to. Type 3 CES farmers highly agree that their county farm adviser is a wonderful person. This is an emotional statement that we might more expect Type 3 to make than Type 1. Type 3 fanmers agree some- what that their county farm adviser gives them the straight facts as he sees them, and only slightly that their county farm adviser plays favorites in their county. Type 3 farmers again show their orientation toward other per— sons when they disagree with Type 1 farmers that their county farm adviser can find a satisfactory solution to tough problems and that he tries very hard to involve everyone in Extension educational programs regardless of which organization they belong to (Table 11). CES Type 3 Attitudes Toward Sources Type 3 farmers apparently are not being entirely consistent when they rate their years of farming experience as the most reli- able source of fanning information, after they hadlmost highly disagreed.with the attitude statement that their years of farming experience tell them Just about all they need to know about farm- ing (Table 12). They rate their years of experience most highly as a source, but earlier in the CES sort (Q-l) had most highly rejected the idea that they could rely only on their experience without benefiting from the educational programs of the Cooperative Extension Service. Perhaps they might have reacted differently if the statement about their years of experience telling them Just 60 about all they need to know had been presented to them in some context other than the Q-sort concerning their attitudes toward the CES. Type 3 farmers rate bulletins and reports from the Agricultural IExperiment Station in Urbana, their county farm adviser, the Univer- sity of Illinois, and the Agricultural Experiment Station in Urbana as highly reliable sources. They rate a veterinarian and the county ASCS office highly reliable in sharp contrast to Type 1 farmers, and the U. S. Department of Agriculture much more reliable. They are only mildly favorable toward the COOperative Extension Service as an institutional source, but are again inconsistent in their person- orientation when they rate state Extension Specialists low as reliable sources. They are neutral toward articles in newSpapers. They say that a landlord or landlady is their most highly unreliable source of farming information (Table 13). When asked why they rate landlords so low, the farmers say that their landlord or landlady is too far behind modern farming practices,.or that they never pay any attention to the farming Operations, or that they are against making needed improvements. Two of these eight farmers in Type 3 are members of the NFO, which accounts for the high rating this organization gets as a source with this group. They regard the Grange and Farmers Onion as unreliable. Type 3 farmers regard their relatives and Farm Bureau board meetings as less reliable, but advertising in newspapers and farm magazines not so unreliable as Type 1 does. As less technically oriented farmers than Type 1, Type 3 have not seen the need for the services of the Farm Bureau Farm Management Service and thus may not be familiar with that 61 Table 12 -- CES Type 3 Source4Arrays, most Agree Tyne Type Type Item ’ Description 3 1 2 * 3 -My years of farming experience. 2.90 1.17 1.73 22 Bulletins and reports from the.Agr1- cultural Experiment Station in Urbana 1.95 1.58 1.30 *30 A veterinarian I know 1.45 .48 .21 8 my county farm adviser 1.32 2.04 2.27 6 The University of Illinois 1.19 1.01 1.09 *14 County ASCS office 1.16 - .21 - .05 32 The Agricultural Experiment Station at Urbana 1.14 1.39 1.29 23 The U. S. Department of Agriculture 1.09 .36 .70 * 1 COOperative Extension Service .40 2.09 1.50 *11 State Extension Specialists .40 1.46 .84 *26 Articles in newspapers .01 -1.00 - .99 Table 13 —- CES Type 3 Source Arrays, most Disagree . Type Type Type Item Description 3 l 2 *21 my landlord or landlady -1.96 - .81 - .58 35 The Grange -l.67 -1.21 -1.75 34 Farmers Union -1.33 -l.68 -1.82 31 My relatives -1.27 -1.00 -1.48 25 Advertising in newspapers -1.26 -l.84 -1.76 19 Fanm Bureau board.meetings -1.18 - .44 - .67 17 .Advertising in farm magazines -l.09 -1.51 -1.49 *36 The National Farmers Organization '- .61 -1.88 -1.95 *43 Farm Bureau Farm Management Service fieldnan - .17 1.39 .36 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between CES Types 3 and l. 62 organization as a source of reliable farming information. Some may also identify this person as an employee of the Farm Bureau because of the connotation in the organization's name. Summary -- What is a CES Type 3 Farmer Like? In general, CES Type 3 farmers tend to be a little older than the sample farmers, averaging 50.5 years as compared with 47.5 years. Neither the county they live in nor their distance from the farm adviser's office apparently are crucial criteria in their attitude differences (Appendix 11). Again, what makes the most difference in identifying this type is their prior attitude toward COOperative IExtension. the that none of the eight farmers most like Type 3 were considered as favorable to CES prior to their selection as sample farmers, while only two were considered neutral or question- able. The other six were chosen for the sample as being unfavorable, and they formed a group on the basis of their card sorts. Only one of this type is a college graduate, and he is a national director of the NFO chosen for his outspokeness against certain aspects of the CES. Type 3 farmers have less education than Type 1, but are not necessarily smaller farmers with less income. Three of them are rated in the tap group of farm sizes with more than 500 acres, and four are included in the tap income group with annual gross incomes of more than $40,000. We do find fewer farm owners, however, than in Type 1 and five of the eight are in some renter category. Whereas, all of the Type 1 farmers belong to the Farm Bureau, only half of Type 3 farmers are active members and two of them have dropped their previous Farm Bureau membership. 63 Type 3 farmers share with Type 1 farmers a high regard for the value of the Cooperative Extension Service since they also chose all four value statements in the characteristic categories as high ranking attitudes (Appendix 12). However, Type 3 gave the CES reliability aSpect a much higher rating than Type 1 by using three of the reliability statements as highly important to them as com- pared with one such category statement by Type 1. Type 3 thinks CES is much more effective than Type 1, while rating practicality, communication skills, impartiality, friendliness and organization aSpects the same. Type 3 does not regard the competence or up-to- dateness of CES as highly as Type 1, but rates effectiveness and efficiency higher. CES Type 2 Farmers -- A Mixed Group CES Type 2 fanmers occupy a middle ground between CES Types 1 and 3. They share some of the characteristics of both and have some strongly held attitudes of their own.~ In general, they are more like Type 1 than Type 3 as can be seen on the scatter diagram in Figure 2. But the lines of demarcation are hard to define. This type was identified on the first varimax rotation as those farmers who are about evenly correlated with both Types 1 and 3. Farmers of the second type are in highest agreement with the idea that no farmer is too old to learn better fanning methods and they think that a lot of the information that comes from the Univer- sity is of practical use to them (Table 14). The Type 2, or middle-group farmers, are most different from Type 1 fanmers in their attitude that COOperative Extension Service material is impartial and unbiased CTable 15). While a middle-group 64 fanmer disagrees but is almost neutral toward the idea, the tech- nical-oriented farmers highly agree with that statement. On the other hand,'rype 2 farmers most highly disagree that their years of farming experience tell them all they need to know about farming. Type 2 farmers differ most from Type 3 farmers in their atti~ tudes toward the statement that the same farmers-~usually the best ones in the county--tend to show up at every Extension meeting, and the CES educational system thus does not reach the ones who need it most. They are almost as far apart in their attitudes toward the idea that information from the CES helps increase farm production and so returns more money than it costs in taxes (Table 14). These middle type farmers highly agree with these attitude statements, while the third type farmers strongly disagree with them. Type 2 farmers are somewhat in agreement with the statement that the CES should not concentrate on helping only farmers but should try to help everybody, while Type 3 farmers fairly strongly disagree with that. Middle group farmers disagree with the attitude that it is hard to tell whether the tax money that is Spent on the CES is doing any good or not, while Type 3 farmers agree with that state- ment (Table 15). Type 2 farmers disagree much more highly than do Type 3 farmers that most Extension services like soil testing take too much time and paper work. Both Types 2 and 3 share their atti- tude of highest agreement that no farmer is too old to learn new farming methods. They are in almost perfect consensus in their negative attitudes toward the statements that their years of experience tell them all they need to know about farming, and that their fathers taught them all they need to know about farming. 65 Table 14 -— CES Type 2 (mixecD Item Arrays, Most Agree Type Type Type Item Description 2 l 3 * 3 I like the COOperative Extension Service idea that no farmer is too old to learn better farming methods. 1.72 .71 2.43 43 I believe that a lot of the information that comes from the University of Illinois is of practical use to me. 1.58 1.21 1.44 28 The Cooperative Extension Service suggests sound practices that benefit the farmer who uses them. 1.37 1.21 1.59 33 most smart farmers will try a new practice that is recommended by the Cooperative Extension Service. 1.23 .40 1.17 **44 The same farmerS--usually the best ones in the county--tend to show up at every Ex- tension meeting. The Extension educational system thus does not get to the farmers who need the information the most. 1.17 1.01 - .84 10 Generally Speaking, I have found the Cooperative Extension Service to be about as friendly an organization as you could find anywhere. 1.09 .63 1.49 39 The Cooperative Extension Service is very thoughtful and considerate in its dealings with farmers like me. 1.07 .61 .87 **38 Information from.the Cooperative Exten- sion Service helps increase farm produc- tion and so returns more money than it costs in taxes. 1.04 1.23 - .97 32 COOperative Extension can do its Job well only so long as it maintains an office in every county. 1.00 .84 .92 20 The scientists at the College of Agri- culture in Urbana give farmers like me a lot of good help. 1.00 .88 1.31 * 9 Information that comes from the COOpera— tive Extension Service is honest and can be trusted to be as accurate as possible. .64 1.62 .65 Item 66 Table 14 -- CES Type 2 (mixed) Item Arrays, Most Agree (cont.) Type Type Type Description 2 1 3 ##13 The Cooperative Extension Service should not concentrate on helping only farmers, but should try to help everybody. .28 .55 - .86 *Greatest item disagreement-~the items that differ most between CES Types 2 and 1. **Greatest item disagreement-~the items that differ most between CES Types 2 and 3. Item * 24 21 4O **34 22 36 * #42 67 Table 15 -- CES Type 2 (mixed) Item,Arrays, Most Disagree Type Type Tyne Description 2 l 3 My years of farming eXperience tell me just about all I need to know about The farmer who knows his business does not really have much need for Extension services like soil testing. -1.73 ~1.39 -1.49 My father taught me most of the things I need to know about farming. -1.57 - .69 -1.54 So far as I am concerned, they could do away with the COOperative Extension Ser- Vice tOdaye ”1055 “2.01 ”1.01 MOst Extension services, like soil test— ing, take too much time and paper work. ~1.39 — .64 - .24 I get most of my ideas on how to farm better from the Farm Pregress Show or State Fair, and not from the COOpera- tive Extension Service. -l.31 - .59 -1.15 I don't have much confidence in the recommendations of the Cooperative Extension Service. -1.18 -l.59 - .74 Most of the so-called Extension experts have read so many books that they cannot talk common sense any more. -1.06 -1.47 -l.38 It is hard to tell whether the tax money that is Spent on the COOpera- tive Extension Service is doing any good or not. - .51 -1.01 .90 COOperative Extension Service mater- ial is impartial and unbiased. - .08 1.15 - .33 *Greatest item disagreement—-the items that differ most between CES Types 2 and 1. **Greatest item disagreement--the items that differ most between CES Types 2 and 3. ‘68 CES Type 2 Attitudes Toward.Advisers CES Type 2 farmers have a strong attitude that their farm advisers giVe them the straight facts as he sees them (Table 16). Two other attitudes that distinguish Type 2 from Type 3 farmers but that they Share with Type 1 farmers, are that their county farm advisers are interested in peOple and their problems, and that their county farm adviser is a wonderful person. However, Types 2 and 3 are alike in sharing a much weaker though still positive feeling that the county farm adviser is the most reli— able source of farming information that they know. Type 2 farmers highly disagree that their county farm adviser plays fav- orites in the county, while Type 3 differs greatly by agreeing somewhat with that idea (Table 17). The mixed group differs from both other types in disagreeing less strongly with the statement that their county farm adviser uses high-pressure tactics. The three types share about equally strong agreements_that there is a lot of value in practices recommended by their county fanm adviser, that he gives much valuable help in their farming operations, that they like the way he keeps up to date with new farming practices, and that they appreciate the interest that he takes in them. Type 2 farmers disagree more strongly than the other two types that their county farm adviser stays too much to himself, and disagree about equally with the attitudes that farm advisers are not worth what they are paid, and that the advisers put out old-fashioned ideas. .—.- __._—- " Item 69 Table 16 -- CES Type 2 (mixed) Adviser Arrays, Most Agree Type Type Type Description 2 T l ' . 3 ##16 26 28 34 ##29 ##17 *12 My county farm adviser gives me the straight facts as he sees them, and I appreciate it. 1.88 1.54 .54 I think that there is a lot of value in most of the practices recommended by my county farm adviser. 1.49 1.27 _1.81 My county farm adviser gives us farmers much valuable help in our farming opera- tions. 1.34 1.15 .91 I like the way that my county farm ad- viser keeps up to date with new farming practices by attending meetings at the College of Agriculture in Urbana. 1.33 .91 1.18 I appreciate the sincere interest that my county farm adviser takes in helping me with my problems. 1,32 1.06 .95 I enjoy visiting with my county farm ad- viser on just about any subject. ~ 1.20 .62 .70 My county farm adviser almost always seems to have the infonmation I need at his fingertips. 1.18 1.08 .45 My county farm adviser gives good service to us farmers. 1.07 1.08 .92 My county farm adviser is interested in peeple and their problems. He is more than just a subject matter expert. 1.01 1.23 2.06 My county farm adviser is a wonderful person. .46 .43 1.79 My county farm adviser is the most reliable source of information about farming that I know. .46 1.38 .76 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between CES Type 2 and 1. **Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between CES Types 2 and 3. K Item 37 22 25 36 19 39 ##31 11 70 'Table 17 -- CES Type 2 (mixed) Adviser Arrays, Mbet Disagree Description My county farm adviser stays too much to himself and just is not one Of us. Generally speaking, county farm advisers are not worth what they are paid. Most Of the recommendations that I get from my county farm adviser sound like the horse-and—buggy days, they are so Old-fashioned. My county farm adviser does not seem to be able to present information in a way that is easy to understand and use. My county farm adviser will not listen to new ideas and suggestions from the farmers in this county. The Extension Specialists who come around here can not talk the language of the farmers--they use too many tech- nical terms and complicated language. My county farm adviser plays favorites among the farmers in my county and I do not like it, My county farm adviser uses too many high-pressure tactics-~he pushes too hard in trying to get us to try Out new things and ideas. My county farm adviser tries too hard to be friendly. I can get more reliable information that I need for my farming Operation from a local commercial dealer than I can from my county farm adviser. Type 2 -1045 -1937 '1930 -1.28 -1.19 -1. 10 -1. 10 -1905 -1001 -1.00 Type 1 -1076 -1a10 -1008 -1056 -1.67 " .48 -1008 Type 3 -' .53 -1.16 ‘1097 '1e69 ..10 -1039 - .78 -1.58 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between CES Type 2 and 1. **Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between CES Types 2 and 3. 71 CES Type 2 Attitudes Toward Sources These Type 2 farmers Show how closely they are like Type 1 farmers in their agreement on the reliability Of information sources by having only two major items of disagreement in this dimension of attitude. Type 2 lies almost midway between Types 1 and 3 in their somewhat favorable attitude toward Farm Bureau Farm Management Ser- vice fieldmen, and are neutral toward other farmers as a source, while both Types 1 and 3 regard other farmers as somewhat unreliable (Tables 18 and 19). CES Type 2 farmers show many more areas of difference between themselves and.Type 3 farmers in their attitudes toward their years of fanning experience, the CES, farm cOOperatives, a veterinarian, the NFO, articles in neWSpapers, a landlord or landlady, and the county ASCS Office. In each Of these cases they are more like Type 1 than Type 3 farmers. Type 2 farmers are the most loyal supporters of the county farm adviser as a reliable source of farming information. They also have lots of confidence in their years of farming experience, successful farmers they know, the CES, bulletins and reports from the Agricult— ural Experiment Station in Urbana and the Station itself, the College Of Agriculture and the University Of Illinois as sources of reliable farming information. They regard as most unreliable the NFO, the Farmers Union, advertising in neWSpapers, the Grange, advertising in farm magazines, their relatives and a local fertilizer dealer. Summary -- What is a CES Type 2 Farmer Like? CES Type 2 farmers also are a little Older on the average than Type 1 farmers, but not quite as old as those in Type 3(Appendix 13). .._.._.—-—— 72 Table 18 -- CES Type 2 £2§xedlSource Arrays, most Agree Type Type Type Item Description 2 1 3 8 My county farm adviser 2.27 2.04 1.32 ** 3 My years of farming experience 1.73 1.17 2.90 10 Successful fanmers I know 1.65 .82 .85 ** l Cooperative Extension Service 1.50 2.09 .40 22 Bulletins and reports from the Agricultural Experiment Station in Urbana 1.30 1.58 1.95 32 The Agricultural Experiment Sta- tion in Urbana 1.29 1.39 1.14 13 College Of Agriculture at Urbana 1.23 1.63 .86 6 University Of Illinois 1.09 1.01 1.19 **33 Farmers cooperatives .46 - .09 - .52 *43 Farm Bureau Farm Management Ser- vice fieldman .36 1.39 - .17 **30 A veterinarian I know .21 .48 1.45 *Greatest item disagreement, the CES Types 2 and 1. **Greatest item disagreement, the CES Types 2 and 3. items that most differ between items that most differ between art-"1 . .h...- 1 ....: . I . ...-.flniih? . ”meantime; i... .......... _ 73 Table 19 -- CES Type 2 (mixed) Source.Arrays, MOst Disagree Type Type Tyne Item Description 2 l 3 **36 The National Farmers Organization -l.95 -1.88 - .61 34 Farmers union «1.82 ~1.68 -1.33 25 Advertising in newspapers -1.76 -l.84 ~1.26 35 The Grange -l.75 ~1.21 -1.67 17 Advertising in farm magazines -1.49 -1.51 -1.09 31 My relatives -1.48 ~l.00 -1.27 12 A local fertilizer dealer -l.O4 -1.05 - .62 **26 .Articles in newspapers - .99 -1.00 .01 **21 my landlord or landlady - .58 - .81 -1.96 **14 County ASCS Office - .05 - .21 1.16 * 44 Other farmers .00 ~ .88 - .70 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between CES Type 2 and 1. **Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between CES Types 2 and 3. 1 74 The Oldest farmer interviewed and the next to youngest are both found among this type, so that age apparently is not a crucial variable in forming this group. Neither are location in the county nor the type Of Extension prOgram. As we might expect from a mixed type, the prior attitudes upon which the farmers were selected for the sample are almost evenly balanced. Religion seemingly is not a factor in atti- tude formation, since one Catholic is included in each of the three types. None Of the farmers with a college education in our sample is included in this type; they are evenly balanced between a grade school and a high school education. Five of the 10 are owners, while four of the other five rent some land in addition to that they own. The one farmer who rents all the land he farms lives on the family farm and rents from his father. TheSe farmers live on all sizes Of farms, but are good fanmers as seen by the fact that most Of them fall into the tOp three income groups with gross incomes Of more than $10,000 a year. Eight of the 10 are Farm-Bureau members, while of the other two, one belongs to the Farmers Union and the other to the NFO. While these latter two were selected for the sample because they were thought to have unfavor- able attitudes toward the CES, they expressed neutral attitudes in the Q-sort. The other two farmers in this type who were selected on the basis Of prior unfavorable attitudes also turn out to be not as unfavorable as supposed, but actually neither of them uses COOperative Extension services very much, preferring to "go it" alone. Again, the value of CES to the entire group Of farmers shows up most highly in the choice Of Type 2 farmers of all four items in the 75 value characteristic category as highly important to them (Appendix 14h. They are more impressed than either of the other two groups with the friendliness of the CES and its organization. They agree with Type 3 in highly agreeing that the CES is about as friendly an organization as you can find anywhere, but also highly agree that the CBS is very thoughtful and considerate in its dealings with them. They are the only group who agrees that the CES can do its job well only so long as it maintains an Office in every county as an organizational policy. Type 2 farmers do not view CES as so practical as the other two types, and rank between them in their attitude towards its effectiveness. They agree with the other two in their attitudes toward the communication ability of CES, and like Type 3 have no feeling for its up-to-dateness. Their feelings are not as strong as the other two on the impartiality of CES information, but they rate along with Type 3 in having more feeling for its efficiency and reliability than Type 1 (Appendix 4). Farmer's ~- A Type By Himself As you can see from inSpection Of Figure 1, Farmer 3 occupies a unique position all by himself in attitudes expressed by this sam- ple of 60 Illinois commercial farmers toward the institutional aspects of the Cooperative Extension Service. Farmer 3 is in substantial disagreement with the majority of the other farmers, and his total expression of attitudes on Q-sort 1 has practically no correlation with the others (-.045 with the first principal axis). His attitude statement Of highest consensus with the rest of the farmers is that he finds the COOperative Extension Service to be about as friendly an organization as you could find anywhere (Table 76 20). He also is in high positive agreement with the rest that no farmer is too old to learn better farming methods, and that a lot of the information that comes from the University Of Illinois is Of practical use to him. He strongly believes this, even though he also strongly thinks that (38 recommendations are influenced too much by commercial interests and that CBS does not give farmers information they can use. Both of these attitudes are conflicting with the majority. One reason for these attitudes that he holds is that he reads many booklets and circulars that he identifies as coming from the University of Illinois rather than the Cooperative EXtension Service. He finds thGM ow masons new you meow homa>os snag measoo a: .pa mafia w.soo H one mussoo he aw maosawm one macaw mopfiao>aw maman homa>om sac“ menace >2 .aem«>om anew mussoo he an uoenossoooa mooaposac on» no pmos aw osas> m0 90H a me when» page saggy H .Hmowpomuc macs oaooon cases on page On mosofiaoooa on moowuoaan one mo oaom amaansumo 0» Haas on» 900% cu o>an oasosm Homw>oa seam menace m: .eoofiQSm has vsonw each so sema>os anew menace us news msaefima> mouse H ma Hm mm em maze n v came came a oaks N H onmfi came noducfihomon BouH momma «no: .mmmaa<.aeuH m can m.e.m.m meczu.aoma>c< In an manna 110 om.Hl mm.HI mm.HI mm.H| om.Hl mo.HI .aomH>os Shaw zussoo as song use H sane Boas H seamen HaHOHoaaoo HmOOH a Soaw coHuaaono wsHath he now coo: H page coHumanwsH cHnmaHoh mace new use H em. c .Hmoapomaa macs osoocn oHsoB on was» on mucossoooa on mooauoana 0:» mo osom anHnaumo 0» HHan 0:» poow 0» was: cHsoam soma>us Sham menace >2 mm. .cOausaom maceomwmauam a oaam nae as homa>om gnaw menace us ca axe» H EcHQoun a sweep Boa saunas 0: van» mscmm pH H¢.H| .msooH can mmaazu Ben vac haw 09 m: wow 0» weasau :« case 00» mosmsn onutmoHpoaw onsmmeacuann >nmfi oou mom: hoMH>om anew hugsoo k: we.Hu .HH mxHH w.nou H can menace as :H escapee one waofie meuHho>sm mthQ homeem Shaw hassoo a: HH mm mm Hm m n v m N onzh mama mama oahb snub H soHunHaomon onhfi ooawsmun vac: s3 H .mhwan< aepH w one m.v.m.w cease noma>c< :1 mm oHan 111 thinker and a hard worker who says that many of the farmers in his county would be better off financially if they would work harder and stOp going to so many Extension.meetings. He sells seed, feed and fertilizer as a business in addition to managing his wife's two farms, so he knows the financial condition of many of the county farmers. He doesn't think the farm adviser plays favorites. Farmer 3 -- He believes that the farm adviser is not making the preper recommendations that will guarantee the farmer a fair price for his products. This is one reason why he would like to have the farm adviser foot the bill for some of his recommendations. However, he doesn't think that the farm adviser is trying to push him around or trying to educate him against his will. Farmer 5 -- As a college graduate, he believes in the value of an education and he thinks that there is a" lot of value in most of the practices recommended by the farm adviser. He certainly doesn't agree, however, that the farm adyiser can answer all the problems of farming, eSpecially since he so strongly believes that the CES has traditionally neglected its reaponsibilities for educa- tion in the functions of the market and marketing procedures. Farmer 28 -- Highly prejudiced against the Farm'Bureau in his county, this farmer most highly agrees that his county fanm adviser plays favorites with Farm Bureau members because he is housed in the Farm Bureau office and he thinks is paid by that organization. He doesn't think his county farm adviser is a very reliable source of information or that he understands the problems of the farmers in his county very well. He gets much of the information he needs about seeds and fertilizers from his local farm supplies dealer. 112 Farmer 45 -- This farmer doesn't have much contact with COOpera- tive Extension education because he relies heavily on what information he gets about better farming methods from his farm manager. He doesn't have anything against Extension and thinks it puts out reliable infor— mation, but he never gets around to asking the farm adviser for any help. He wishes the adviser would get out to see him more often because he likes him and likes to visit with him, but he doesn't ask him to come out. He figures the farm adviser must be too busy giving his time to certain favored farmers, although he admits that it isn't efficient use of a farm adviser's time to visit too many farms. He doesn't trust the advice of commercial dealers at all in comparison to that from his county farm adviser. CHAPTER VI ATTITUDES TOWARD SOURCES OF FARM INFORMATION The third major pattern of Illinois commercial farmer attitudes of interest to COOperative Extension Administrators that we have chos- en to ‘study is that covered by the question of which sources of infor- mation about farming those farmers think are most reliable. The information they seek might be of a technical nature, but not neces- sarily. We did not restrict our list only to sources of technical farming information. The list of 45 potential sources of farming information that we developed was derived from the focused interviews with 25 farmers in southern Illinois (Figure 9), from visiting with the agricultural supervisors and administrators, from the pre-test responses with six Champaign County farmers, and from several years of personal experi- ence W0 rking with the various sources and with farm advisers on the part of the investigator. One farmer in the pre-test suggested adding 8Ource 45, the farm manager, because he had a farm manager whom he used as his most reliable source and couldn't vote for him. Probe qu¢stions with the 60 sample farmers during the interviews brought out other reliable sources they use such as experiment fields located Out in the state (Dixon Springs, Brownstown, etc.) , the local banker, v0<=ational agriculture adult classes, travel in other states and a round Illinois, and Extension Agmnomist Pat Johnson. None of 113 114 these mentioned were named often enough as major sources by sample farmers to alter the findings, but they are legitimate sources of information and if they had been in the list might well have been valued over some of the others. Principal Axis Analysis Factor analysis of the matrix of intercorrelations on this Q-sort of 45 observations indicates one principal factor for this set of attitudes, plus two minor factors (Appendix 22), in which ,we should be interested. The sum of the eigenvalues for these first three factors is 34.8, which indicates that they account for 58 percent of the total variance among the 60 variables. But in this Q-sort, the first principal axis factor accounts for 44 percent 01' the variation, as compared with 58 percent for the first princi- pal axis factor in Q-sort 1 and 63 percent in Q-sort 2. Thus, we can see that while the 60 farmers in our sample tend to be somewhat alike in their attitudes toward the sources of agri- cultural information so far as their reliability is concerned, these same farmers form less of a homogeneous group on this dimension of a“iii-tudes than they did on the first two dimensions that we studied. The Scatter diagram in Figure 4 shows this pattern of relationships. w-i_1_32iagte Three Types on This Q-Sort Two varimax rotations brought out 58 percent of the variation to be QXplained in the data, and further rotations only seemed to confuse the picture (Appendix 23). Highest factor loadings on the second varimax rotation analysis were weighted according to the sc hedule in Appendix 24 and used for the weighted ranks analysis of 115 \ . .4 ... ' .0 l ' O l o ' . co . 0 d ' o , . 0 . 0 g 0 . e O. 1 0 ' O O c O l O O . . e ' O O . . O 0*,“ . a" 0 anti _‘ a I 93- a o {3 IPigure 4 —- Principal Axis Solution, showing positions of 60 Illinois commercial farmers as determined by the relationships of their patterns of atti— tudes toward sources of farming information. 11.6 item arrays that distinguish the three types in Q-sort 3 (Appendix 25). Nine farmers were selected as most highly loaded on Factor I, seven on Factor II, and seven on Factor III. Correlations between the reliability rankings of the 45 sources by these three types of farmers is much lower than the ranking of attitudes by these same 60 farmers in our sample toward either the COOperative Extension Service (Q—sort l) or the county farm advisers and state Extension specialists (Q-sort 2). Here is what the Q-3 correlations look like: Types 1 2 3 1 1.000 2 .426 1.000 3 .315 .287 1.000 According to this table of correlations, Types 1 and 2 are most nearly alike in their attitude patterns. We will see how this pattern works out as we analyze the source reliability choices; what attitudes the 60 sample farmers share and what attitudes differ among the three types we identify. These Illinois commercial farmers in our sample show a much Wider range of attitudes toward the sources of farming information that they consider reliable than they do toward the COOperative EXtensiOn Service. This Q-sort indicates only 15 items of consensus (less than 1.000 standard score difference among tYPeS) as compared With 31 Consensus items on Q-l, but only 4 consensus items on Q-2. The princii-Iaal reason for the low number of consensus items on Q-2 117 twais the divergent group of eight farmers who diaplayed such a varied pattern of attitudes toward their county farm advisers. The sample farmers most highly agree among themselves on this cg—msort that they consider their county farm adviser and bulletins and reports from the Agricultural Experiment Station. in Urbana as their most reliable sources of farming information. Of course, some individual farmers do not rank these sources highest. Group consensus also is that the College of Agriculture is a highly reli- able source, and they rate the Agricultural Experiment Station in [Izfloazia and.the University of Illinois fairly high as reliable sources. On the positive side, they agree on a veterinarian they know, books they read on agriculture, friends who have been to college, their fathers, and the local vocational agriculture teacher as somewhat reliable sources of information on how to farm better. The source that they believe is most highly unreliable for them is "my relatives." Probe questions on this source reveals that ve ry often they completely disagree with the farming methods or Dhiilc>sophy of a father-in-law, cousin or uncle, or even a brother or father in some cases. They also are in consensus disagreement With ra die and television programs on agriculture, not necessarily against; lixtension programs but against the commercial programs such as the (Drle in which Edward R. Murrow tried to tell what was wrong With Allie rican agriculture. They said that such programs tell only one side of the picture which isn't their side, and the programs too Oftetl icompletely distort the facts as they see them. Not Illany of the sample farmers are able to see Extension agri- cultur a1 1ttelevision shows, because their number and range is so 118 limited. They like local radio shows put on by their county farm advisers and listen to them regularly, but are inclined to rate them with the farm adviser rather than the radio program as source. Much communication research in the past has not made clear to the respondents the difference between a primary source of information and a channel, but these sample farmers in most cases make the distinction themselves, even though channels and sources are both listed as sources in this Q-sort. They .tend to go back to the primary source, such as the Experiment Station, the College of Agriculture and the county farm adviser. Even though the farm adviser also is achannel for much of the information he puts out, his farmer audience tends to rate him a source. They rate State Fair exhibits more unreliable than the Prairie Farmer Farm Progress Show. When asked about these sources of infor- mation, the sample farmers said they think that the Farm Progress Show exhibits are somewhat less high-pressure and more entertaining than the State Fair exhibits, although in most cases they are pre- Sented by the same commercial companies. Throughout the interviews, the sample farmers showed the same general reluctance to accept the "pitches" of the commercial dealers for their business, as can be seen in their attitudes toward advertising and commercial companies as sources of information. Wpe 1 Farmers -- Somewhat Insecure Although it is not so easy to clearly identify the Q-3 types as f alling 1nto specific categories as it was the types in the other two -s Q orts, the Sources Type 1 farmers generally rate successful farmers 119 they know as their most reliable source of farming information and seem to be the most insecure farmers in the sample. For instance, we find the two Farmers Union members in this group plus two of the NFC members. Both of these organizations are rated as somewhat radical by their fellow farmers who are not members, eSpecially so by some loyal Farm Bureau members. We, also find three farmers in this group who have left the ranks of Farm Bureau, and one of the four Fann Bureau members in the group also belongs to the NFO (Appendix 26) . These farmers rate bulletins and reports from the Agricultural Experiment Station in Urbana, their county farm adviser and the College of Agriculture at Urbana as highly reliable sources of information on how to be better farmers, but they characteristically rate their years of farming experience very high also (Table 34). They like state Extension Specialists, the University of Illinois and the Agricultural Experiment Station in Urbana as sources, but unlike the other types are highly inclined toward U. S. government bulletins and reports and the U. S. Department of Agriculture. These farmers also have some confidence in the county ASCS office and ”SIM. representatives as reliable sources, in contrast with the other two types on the Q-sort. Thease Sources Type 1 farmers believe that commercial sources Of farm information are highly unreliable. They vote most highly againSt farm supplies salesmen and farm implement salesmen or dealers , and add the Farm Supply company (one of the commercial companies of the state Farm mreau organization, the Illinois A gricultural Association), and a local fertilizer dealer to those 120 Table 34 -- Sources Type 1 Item Arrays, Most Agree Type Type Type I tem Description 1 3 2 ##10 Successful farmers I know 1.69 1.60 .00 22 Bulletins and reports from the Agri- cultural Experiment Station in Urbana 1.63 1.24 1.42 8 My county farm adviser 1.57 1.16 1.57 13 College of Agriculture at Urbana 1.38 .56 1.44 3 My years of farming experience 1.37 2.60 .82 11 State Extension specialists 1.28 - .35 1.32 **24 U. S. government bulletins and reports 1.22 .12 - .67 6 University of Illinois 1.19 .30 1.10 **23 U. S. Department of Agriculture 1.18 .64 - .76 "14 County ascs office .64 .42 -1.31 “‘37 USDA representatives .63 - .35 -1.03 *Greatest item disagreement, items that most differ between Sources Types 1 and 3. ' **Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 1 and 2. 121 Table 35 -— Sources Type 1 Item Arrays, Most Disagree TYPO Type Type gem Description 1 3 2 fi< 4 Farm supplies salesman —1.73 .91 ° .53 it 5 Farm implement salesman or dealer —1.67 .98 - .73 31 My relatives —1.63 ~ .75 ~ .80 12 A local fertilizer dealer -1.47 .15 - .56 16 Farm Supply -1.42 .08 .44 * 9 My neighbors -1.38 .79 - .28 21 My landlord or landlady -1.28 - .18 - .29 19 Farm Bureau board meetings -1.17 -1.13 .60 ** 15 Farm Hireau - .99 .17 1.21 ** 43 Farm Bureau Farm Management Service fieldman - .67 - .69 1.87 * 34 Farmers Union - .54 -2.55 -1.24 *** 36 The National Farmers Organization - .49 -2.62 -2.28 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types-1 and 3. **Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 1 and 2. ***Both - -.-....__.____—.——._. 122 unreliable sources (Table 35). They highly reject their relatives, their neighbors, and a landlord or landlady. Six of these nine farmers either rent all the land they farm or some of it, and so are presently having to deal with a landlord or landlady. They have no liking for the Pam Bureau or its board meetings, or a Farm Bureau Farm Management Service fieldman as sources of iniormation. It is possible that they associate this latter person as. a Faun Bureau employee. and transfer to him their general dislike of anything having to do with that organization. Actually, he is employed by an independent organization sponsored by the COOpera— tive Extension Service, and in some cases the fieldnen are employed by Extension and are members of the staff. They have been Extension staff members only a little more than a year, however, and this 're'lationsh-ip is not well known. Farmers in Type 1 are less set 3831318": the Farmers Union and NFO as unreliable sources than the other two types, but even so do not consider them as reliable soul‘Ces for the information they need about technical farming °D°rations. Wype 1 Attitudes Toward Merativewixtension Service Attitudes of the three types of farmers that we have chosen to distinguish ”gong on Q-Sort 3 (the sources so‘rt) are not as greatly different in their attitudes toward the Cooperative Exten- sion 8° nice as they are toward the sources of farming information. When they think about the CBS, Sources Type 1 is more like Sources Type 3 than it 15 like Sources Type 2, as can be seen in this table or correlations: 123 Types 1 2 3 1 1.000 2 .749 1.000 3 .865 .791 1.000 Farmers in Sources Type 1 are consistent with their sources item arrays when they also most highly agree that a lot of the information that comes from the University of Illinois is of pract- ical use to them (Table 36). Here they indicate that they clearly distinguish between sources and channels by going back to the Univer-‘ sity as a primary source of information. They also rate the scientists at the College of Agriculture in Urbana high1y. They highly support the COOperative Extension Service idea that no farmer is too old to learn better farming methods, and that the CBS is very thoughtful and considerate in its dealings with them. Another indication of their favorableness toward the government and its Agri- cultural programs is their high agreement with the close ties between the CES and the U. S. Department of Agriculture. .An indication of their general non-conformist, non-institutional outlook is seen when they differ greatly from Sources Type 3 and somewhat from Sources Type 2 in the attitude that the CES should not concentrate on help- ing only farmers but should try to help everybody. Sources Type 1 farmers highly reject the ideas that either their fathers or their experience taught them what they need to know about farming (Table 37). Since they are looking for many sources of infor- Item 43 20 39 ##29 28 18 30 ** 9 **44 124 Table 36 -— Sources Type 1 CES Arrays, Most ggree Type Description 1 I believe that a lot of the informa- tion that comes from the University of Illinois is of practical use to me. 1.77 I like the Cooperative Extension Ser- 'vice idea that no farmer is too old to learn better farming methods. 1.65 The scientists at the College of Agri- culture in Urbana give farmers like me a lot of good help. 1.30 The COOperative Extension Service is very thoughtful and considerate in its dealings with farmers like me. 1.29 One of the good things about Cooperative Extension is its close ties with the U.S. Department of.Agricu1ture. 1.20 The Cooperative Extension Service sug— gests sound practices that benefit the farmer who uses them. 1.18 When I have a farming problem, I find that I can get the information I need quickly and easily from the Cooperative Extension Service. 1.06 Cooperative Extension Service circulars and booklets that I have read are well written and easy to understand. 1.00 The Cooperative Extension Service should not concentrate on helping only farmers, but should try to help everybody. .97 Information that comes from the Coopera- tive Extension Service is honest and can be trusted to be as accurate as possible. .54 The same farmers-—usually the best ones in the county-~tend to show up at every Extension meeting; the Extension educa- tional system thus does not get to the farmers who need the information the most. .29 Tvpe 3 .84 1.61 .47 1.54 .68 .68 - .16 1.34 " 032 Type .94 1.05 .46 .72 1.62 I} ll- 125 Table 36 -- Sources Type 1 CES Arrays, Most.Agree (Continued) -.., , ._~ Type Type Type Item Description 1 3 2 **41 Extension's system of holding educational .meetings is out of date. .08 - .45 - .92 * 32 Cooperative Extension can do its job well only so long as it maintains an office in every county. .04 1.42 .93 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 1 and 3. **Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 1 and 2. Item 21 40 24 17 36 22 26 25 11 126 Table 37 -- Sources Type I CES.Arrays, Most Disagree Description My father taught me most of the things I need to know about farming. Host of the so-called Extension eXperts have read so many books that they can't talk sense any more. So far as I am concerned, they could do away with the Cooperative Extension Service today. My years of farming eXperience tell me Just about all I need to know about farming. I think that the Extension specialists should be located out in the state and not at Urbana. The farmer who knows his business does not really have much need for Extension services like soil testing. I don't have much confidence in the recommendations of the Cooperative Extension Service. I get most of my ideas on how to farm better from the Farm Progress Show or State Fair, and not from the Coopera- tive Extension Service. I get the feeling that the Cooperative Extension Service as part of the Univer- sity of Illinois does not fit in very well with the farmers around here. The COOperative Extension Service does not do what it is supposed to do--give farmers the information they need. much of the infonmation from the University of Illinois College of Agriculture is too advanced for the average farmer-~he is not ready for it. Type 1 -1. 62 -1052 -1952 -1.51 -1.41 ’1038 -1. 16 "’1. 15 -1009 "-1007 -1006 Type 3 ‘1075 ”1.37 -1075 '1054 " 027 '1941 “1.28 '1075 -1.21 Type "' .83 ”1010 -1090 ”1.39 -1078 -1042 -1. 15 -1.13 " .55 127 Table 37 -- Sources Type 1 CES Arrays, Most Disagree (Continued) Type Type Type Item Description 1 3 2 ** 7 Cooperative Extension educational programs are dictated too much by the U. 8. Department of Agricul- ture. _ — .98 ~ .10 [.24 ** 16 Cooperative Extension Service recommendations are influenced too much by commercial interests. - .05 .01 -1.63 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 1 and 3. **Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 1 and 2. . __ ..__.r—- 128 Ination, they highly support the Cooperative Extension Service and the so-called.Extension "eXperts." They want the Extension Specialists to stay in Urbana and not be stationed out in the state much more highly than do either of the other two sources types. Sources Type 1 Attitudes TowardhAdvisers All three sources types share similar attitudes toward their county farm advisers.. Type 1 is more like Type 2 than it is like Type 3, as can be seen in this table of correlations on adviser attitudes: Types 1 2 3 1 1.000 2 .893 1.000 3 .864 .780 1.000 Type 1 farmers on this Q-sort give further evidence of their dependence on other people when they most highly agree that their county farm adviser is interested in people and their problems and more than Just a subject matter expert (Table 38). They pay strong allegiance to COOperative Extension in their high assessment of the attitudes that there is a lot of value in most of the practices recommended by their county farm adviser, and that they appreciate the sincere interest their county farm advisers take in helping them with their farming problems. They think more than the other types that their county farm adviser is a wonderful person, but Item 129 Table 38 -- Sources Type 1 Adviser Arrays, Mest Agree Description Type 1 Type 3 Type INK 29 28 *8! 17 26 34 16 my county farm adviser is interested in people and their problems; he is more than just a subject matter eXpert. I think that there is a lot of value in most of the practices recommended by my county farm adviser. I appreciate the sincere interest that my county fanm adviser takes in helping me with my problems. My county farm adviser is a wonderful person. I like the way that my county farm adviser keeps up to date with new farming practices by attending meetings at the College of.Agricul- ture in Urbana. I enjoy visiting with my county fanm adviser on just about any subject. My county farm adviser gives good service to us farmers. Farmers can get from their county farm adviser the most down-to~earth recommendations on how to farm better. my county farm adviser gives me the straight facts as he sees them, and I appreciate it. my county farm adviser makes us feel free to talk our problems over with him at educational meetings. My county farm adviser gives us farmers much valuable help in our farming ope rat ions . 1.53 1.34 1.21 1.11 1.08 1.68 1.84 .98 1.52 .74 1.45 .72 .56 .91 .09 1.10 .65 1.19 1.17 1.48 1.16 130 Table 38 -- Sources Type 1 Adviser Arrays, Most Agree (Continued) Type Type Type Item Description 1 3 2 ** 8 I never hesitate to put into prac- tice one of my county farm adviser's recommendations, because I know that it will usually work. .15 .61 .93 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 1 and 3. **Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 1 and 2. Item 25 19 32 21‘ 22 11 18 131 Table 39 -- Sources Type 1.Adviser.Arrays, Most Disagree Description most of the recommendations that I get from my county farm adviser sound like the horse-and-buggy days, they are so old—fashioned. My county farm adviser will not listen to new ideas and suggestions from the farmers in this county. my county farm adviser often does not follow up on things he says he is going to do. It takes me too much time and trouble to get information from my county farm adviser. Many ideas that my county farm adviser puts out are too expensive for farmers like me to use. Generally Speaking, county farm advisers are not Worth what they are paid. I can get more reliable information that I need for my fanning operation from a local commercial dealer than I can from my county farm adviser. My county farm adviser should have to foot the bill to establish some of the practices he recommends so that he would become more practical. my county farm adviser uses too many high-pressure tactics--he pushes too hard in trying to get us to.try out new things and ideas. I have already heard or read about most of the information that my county farm adviser puts out. My county fanm adviser does not get around to visit farms like he should. Type 1 -1078 -10 26 -1.24 -1021 -1. 19 -1. 18 -1. 17 -1.06 Type 3 -1061 " Q72 "’ 070 " 094 1.13 -1080 Type -1089 “1039 -1037 -1. 16 '1947 - 053 132 ‘Table 39 -- Sources Type 1.Adviser.Arrays, mest Disagree (Continued) . ' Type Type Type Item Description 1 3 2 ** 24 My county farm adviser tries very hard to involve everyone in Extension educa- tional programs regardless of which organization they belong to. - .14 - .02 .64 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 1 and 3. **Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 1 and 2. 133 they hesitate more to take his advice and put it into practice because they are less sure than the other types that it will work. They are more inclined to evaluate such advice in terms of their own or others' farming experience. They most highly reject the notion that their farm adviser's recommendations are old-fashioned.(Table 39), which the other two types also highly reject. All three types are in consensus in highly disagreeing that their county farm adviser will not listen to new ideas and suggestions, and that farm advisers are not worth what they are paid. The farmers in Type 1 are most different from Type 3 farmers in their attitudes that their county farm adviser uses too many high-pressure tactics, that they have already heard or read about most of the information that he puts out, and that he does not get around to visit farms like he should. Type 1 farmers are most different from those in Type 2 when they reject the idea that their county farm adviser tries to involve farmers from all organizations in Extension educational programs. Summary —- What is a Sources Type 1 Farmer Like? These farmers are olderthan the average of the 60 Illinois commercial fanmers sample (Appendix 26). Neither their location with reSpect to the farm adviser's office nor the kind of extension program the county has had historically apparently influence this farmer's attitudes toward sources of farming information. However, prior attitude toward.Extension and the organizations they belong to seem to be crucial variables in this dimension of attitudes. Only two of the nine farmers whose sorts were used to compose this attitude 134 type were selected for the sample because their attitudes were thought to be favorable toward Extension, while one was thought to be neutral or unknown and six were selected for their unfavor- able attitudes. Their attitudes turn out to be more unfavorable toward the Farm Bureau than toward CES, however,as seen by their source item arrays (Table 35). All of the four in this group who listed Farm Bureau membership might be classed as lukewarm members when compared with other Farm Bureau members. These farmers show definite attitudes in favor of COOperative Extension as an organization in their selection of all four organi- zation statements as highly important for them (Appendix 27). How- ever, they do not think that the best farmers in the county always go to Extension meetings, and they do think that Extension educa- tional material gets to the farmers who need it the most; namely, themselves (Item 44). They cast a highly favorable vote toward the reliability of Extension information (Items 21 and 24), and they vote highest agreement with practical, valuable and effective statements (Items 43, 3 and 20). They also think that their county farm advisers are praCtical, valuable and reliable, (Items 29, 3, 28 and L3), and think that the information they put out is up-to-date and impartial (Items 25 and 19). Sources Type 3 Farmers -- Person-Oriented and Independent Sources Type 3 farmers most clearly represent the traditional farmer stereotype of fierce independence, conservative reluctance to progress too fast, and close-knit togetherness within the farm- ing community. They rate their years of farming eXperience much 135 higher as a reliable source of farming information than the other two sources types of farmers, but they disagree slightly more than the others that their years of farming eXperience tell them all they need to know about farming (Table 40). They rely heavily on their own experience, but supplement it with what they see other successful farmers doing and eXperience stories in farm magazines. They also rate their neighbors as somewhat reliable sources in contrast to the other two types. They read bulletins and reports from the Agricultural Experiment Station in Urbana and also ask advice of their county farm advisers. They are not afraid to ask a salesman for his advice and will listen to it if they know him, and they like to read advertisements in farm magazines. They do not trust the advice and philosophy of either the NFO or the Farmers Union and they rate the Grange low (Table 41). They all own some land and highly distrust the advice of a fanm manager. They don'tthink much of Farm Bureau board.meetings or short courses and workshops at the University of Illinois as sources of farming information, and they agree closely with Sources Type 1 in their rating of a Farm Bureau Farm management Service fieldman as an unreliable source. In this case, their reason is apparently due to the fact that he is seen as a farm manager, rather than their being mistaken about his connection with the Farm Bureau organization. Sources Type 3 Attitudes Toward.The COOperative Extension Service Type 3 farmers are much like Type 1 farmers in agreeing with the Cooperative Extension Service idea that no farmer is too old to 136 Table 40 -- Sources Type 3 Item Arrays, mest Agree Type Type Type Item Description 3 l 2 3 My years of farming experience 2.60 1.37 .82 10 Successful farmers I know 1.60 1.69 .00 **18 Stories in farm magazines 1.39 - .25 - .73 22 Bulletins and reports from the Agri— cultural Experiment Station in Urbana 1.24 1.63 1.42 8 My county farm adviser 1.16 1.57 1.57 * 5 Farm implement salesman or dealer .98 -1.67 - .73 * 4 Farm supplies salesman .91 -1.73 - .53 * 9 My neighbors .79 -l.38 - .28 **17 ,Advertising in farm magazines .34 — .89 -l.86 Table 41 -- Sources Type 3 Item.Arrays, Most Disagree Type Type Type Item Description 3 1 2 I"36 The National Farmers Organization -2.62 - .49 -2.28 *34 Farmers Union -2.55 - .54 -l.24 35 The Grange -l.90 - .65 - .99 45 Farm Manager -1.33 - .13 - .47 19 Farm Bureau board meetings -1.13 -l.l7 .60 39 Short courses and workshops at the University of Illinois -l.00 .55 .75 **43 Farm Bureau Farm Management Service fieldman — .69 -.67 1.87 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 3 and 1. **Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 3 and 2. 137 learn better farming methods (Table 42). The main difference lies in where Type 3 farmers get their information -~ mainly from other farmers and from stories in farm magazines. All three types highly agree that the CES does a pretty good job of presenting information, and that the scientists at the College of Agriculture in Urbana give them a lot of good help. Sources Type 3 farmers highly differ from Type 1 in thinking that the CES can do its job well only so long as it maintains an office in every county. These independent farmers agree much more highly than those of the second type that CES is a friendly organi- zation, that one of the good things about it is its close ties with the USDA, and that its recommendations are influenced too much by commercial interests. They are nearly neutral on this latter idea, which reflects their confidence in commercial sources of infonmation. These farmers who show their bias toward persons in their atti— tudes toward the sources of farming information, most highly disagree that they could do away with the CES today, and that their fathers taught them most of what they need to know about farming (Table 43). In Spite of their comparative trust in commercial sources of infor- mation, they highly reject the idea that they get most of their ideas on how to farm better from the Farm Progress Show or State Fair rather than from the CES. All three types highly disagree that their years of eXperience tell them just about all they need to know about farm- ing, and that the farmer who knows his business doesn't really have much need for'Extension services like soil testing. Item 28 15 20 ##32 **1o 33 ##29 ##16 138 Table 42 -- Sources Type 3 CES Arrays, Most Agree Description I like the Cooperative Extension Ser- vice idea that no farmer is too old to learn better farming methods. The Cooperative Extension Service suggests sound practices that benefit the farmer who uses them. On the whole, the Extension Service does a pretty good job of presenting information to us. The scientists at the College of Agri- culture in Urbana give farmers like me a lot of good help. COOperative Extension can do its job well only so long as it maintains an office in every county. Information that comes from the Coopera— tive Extension Service is honest and can be trusted to be as accurate as possible. Generally speaking, I have found the Cooperative Extension Service to be about as friendly an organization as you could find anywhere. Most smart farmers will try a new prac- tice that is recommended by the Coopera- tive Extension Service. One of the good things about COOperative Extension is its close ties with the U. S. Department of Agriculture. COOperative Extension Service recommenda— tions are influenced too much by commercial interests. *Greatest item disagreement, the items that Sources Types 3 and 1. Type Type Type 2 3 1 1.52 .91 1.39 1.34 .54 1.62 .47 1.20 - .96 .01 - .05 -1.63 most differ between **Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 3 and 2. Item 40 21 22 24 36 11 14 ** 44 139 Table 43 -— Sources Type 3 CES Arrays, Most Disagree Description So far as I am concerned, they could do away with the Cooperative Extension Service today. My father taught me most of the things I need to know about farming. I get most of my ideas on how to farm better from the Farm Progress Show or State Fair, and not from the Cooperative Extension Service. My years of experience tell me just about all I need to know about fanning. The farmer who knows his business does not really have much need for Extension Services like soil testing. Most of the so-called Extension experts have read so many books that they can't talk common sense any more. I don't have much confidence in the recommendations of the Cooperative Extension Service. Much of the information from the Univer- sity of Illinois College of Agriculture is too advanced for the average farmer-— he is not ready for it. Written materials from the Cooperative Extension Service are usually too cold and official for me. The same farmers—-usually the best ones in the county-~tend to show up at every Extension meeting; the EXtension educa- tional system thus does not get to the fanmers who need the information the most. I think that the Extension Specialists should be located out in the state and not at Urbana. Type 3 -1.75 «1.75 ~1.75 ~l.54 -1.41 -1.37 “1.28 -1.21 Type 1 "1a52 -l.62 -1.15 -1.51 "1038 "'1052 -1.16 -1.06 .29 -1.41 Type 2 -1.90 -1.78 -1.10 "1a42 140 Table 43 -- Sources Type 3 CES Arrays, Most Disagree (Continued); Type Type Type Item ‘Description 3 l 2 * 13 The Cooperative Extension Service should not concentrate on helping only farmers, but should try to help everybody. - .16 .97 .31 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 3 and 1. **Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 3 and 2. 141 Sources Type 3 Attitudes Toward Advisers This independent type of farmer highly agrees with the other two types in believing that there is much of value in most of the practices recommended by the county farm adviser (Table 44). Type 3 apparently adds the farm adviser to his already large list of personal sources to whom he goes for his farming infonmation. Type 3 differs greatly from Type 2 when he highly agrees that his county farm adviser is interested in people. However, he is nearly neutral about the idea that his county fann adviser almost always seems to have the information he needs at his fingertips, whereas Type 2 highly agrees with that. Type 3 also believes strongly that his county farm adviser does not visit farms as often as he should in contrast to the other two types. His attitude toward having heard or read about most of the information that his county fanm adviser puts out is a reflection of his inclination to visit other farmers and to read stories in farm magazines. Sources Type 3 disagrees more highly than either of the other two types with the idea that his county farm adviser uses too many high-pressure tactics, and much more than Type 2 that his county) farm adviser tries too hard to be friendly (Table 45). All three types are in consensus disagreement that farm adviser recommendations are old-fashioned, and that farm advisers are not worth what they are paid. Summary —— What Are Sources Type 3 Fanners Like? Sources Type 3 fanmers are of average age, with three of the seven whose sorts make up the hypothetical type being over the average 142 Table 44 -- Sources Type 3 Adviser Arrays, Mbst agree Type Type Type Item Description . 3 1 2 3 I think that there is a lot of value in most of the practices recommended by my county farm adviser. 1.84 1.48 1.43 **29 My county farm adviser is interested in people and their problems; he is more than Just a subject matter eXpert. 1.68 1.53 .56 34 I enjoy visiting with my county farm adviser on just about any subject. 1.52 1.21 .65 16 My county farm adviser gives me the straight facts as he sees them, and I appreciate it. 1.45 1.11 1.48 30 Cooperative Extension Service farm advisers and Specialists really know their business. 1.28 .38 .45 ***18 My county farm adviser does not get around to visit farms like he should. 1.10 - .18 - .53 *** 9 I have already heard or read about most of the information that my county farm adviser puts out. .94 - .19 - .60 ** 15 My county farm adviser almost always seems to have the information I need at his fingertips. .22 .88 1.44 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between **Greatest item disagreement, Sources Types 3 and 1. Sources Types 3 and 2. *IlflllBo-th the items that most differ between Table 45 -- Sources Type 3.Adviser.Arrays, Most Disagree. Item * 4 25 22 35 39 ** 7 23 My county farm adviser uses too many high-pressure tactics--he pushes too hard in trying to get us to try out Description new things and ideas. Mbst of the recommendations that I get from my county farm adviser sound like the horse-and—buggy days, they are so old-fashioned. Generally Speaking, county farm advisers are not worth what they are paid. My‘county farm adviser is taking his connection with the University of Illinois too seriously--he claims to have more knowledge than I think he has. The Extension specialists who come around here cannot talk the language of the farmers-~they use too many techniCal terms and complicated lang— 11336. My county farm adviser tries too hard to be friendly. My county farm adviser should have to foot the bill to establish some of the practices he recommends so that he would become more practical. *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most Sources Types 3 and 1. Type 3 -1.61 -1.52 -1.38 -1932 -1.24 -1.13 **Greatest item disagreement, the items that most Sources Types 3 and 2. Type 1. - .99 ‘1078 -1.18 " e71 "’ .89 -1006 Type -1.89 -l.47 - .70 differ between differ between 144 age of the 60 sample farmers, and four being younger than average (Appendix 32). For some reason, six of them farm close to the county seat and the farm adviser's office, while only one was selected because he lived far away. This may be a reflection of the fact that the county farm adviser is more aware of dissidents nearby than he is those farther away, although four of these farm- ers were selected for the sample because they were thought to have neutral or questionable attitudes toward Extension and only two were thought to be unfavorable. Education, size of farm, ownership status and income all seem to follow closely the sample averages. All are or have been Farm Bureau members, while one still claims membership in the Grange. ' The value of Extension rates most highly in Type 3 attitudes, followed by competence and reliability (Items 3, 40, 28 and 21, Appendix 33). The organization of the CES also impresses these farmers with all four statements being included among the highest rating attitudes (Items 32, 29, 44 and 17). These farmers are most impressed with the practicality of their county farm adviser according to the statements they rated highest (Items 29 and 4, Appendix 34). Value, up—to-dateness and friendliness of their farm advisers also impress them (Items 3, 22, 25 and 34). l§gurces Type 2 Farmers -- A Mixed'rype By the way these farmers select their most important attitude Statements, we would be Justified in considering them to be the most t‘echnically oriented.of the three groups in the Q-sort. They most 1‘18th regard a Farm Bureau Farm Management Service fieldman as- their 145 most reliable source, in sharp contrast to the other two groups (Table 46). One reason for this is that two of the seven farmers whose sorts were used to definethis type are members of the Farm Bureau Farm Management Service and regard the fieldmen who service their accounts as their most reliable source of information about how to farm better. But the other five farmers also rate this professional farm manager high as a reliable source. This mixed group of farmers think of the COOperative Extension Service as a much more reliable source than do either of the other two groups. But all three are in essential agreement that the county farm adviser, the College of Agriculture at Urbana, and bulletins and reports from the Agricultural Experiment Station in Urbana are highly reliable sources of better farming information. This group 2 apparently sees a very close connection between the Extension Service, the county farm adviser and the College of Agri- culture that the other groups fail to recognize. Or, the other groups may see the CES as a channel of information flow rather than as a primary source. Type 2 casts a strong positive vote for.Exten- sion meetings held at the University in Urbana and for state Exten— sion Specialists, in sharp contrast to Type 3. These mixed farmers rate the Farm Bureau high as a source of farming information which sets them far apart from the Type 1 independent farmers, and they are neutral toward successful farmers as sources whereas both Types 1 and 3 rate them very highly reliable. Type 3 farmers characterize themselves as against government Programs in agriculture and are very different from Type 1 farmers when.they vote so strongly negative toward the county.ASCS office, 146 Table 46 -- Sources Type 2 Item Arrays, Most.Agree Type Type Type Item Description 2 l 3 ***43 Farm Bureau Farm management Ser- vice fieldman 1.87 - .67 - .69 1 Cooperative Extension Service 1.81 .65 .49 8 My county farm adviser 1.57 1.57 1.16 13 College of.Agriculture at Urbana 1.44 1.38 .56 22 Bulletins and reports from the Agricultural EXperiment Station in Urbana 1.42 1.63 1.24 40 Extension meetings held at the University in Urbana 1.39 .60 - .58 ll >State Extension Specialists 1.32 1.28 - .35 *15 (Farm Bureau ' 1.21 - .99 .17 6 University of Illinois 1.10 1.19 .30 ***10 Successful farmers I know .00 ' 1.69 1.60 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 2 and 1. **Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 2 and.3. *lllll‘Both 147 Table 47 -— Sources Type 2 Item Arrays, Most Disagree Type Type Type Item Description 2 l 3 * 36 The National Farmers Organization -2.28 - .49 -2.62 **17 Advertising in farm magazines -l.86 - .89 .34 25 Advertising in newspapers -l.47 - .98 - .15 * 14 County ASCS office —1.31 .64 .42 34 Fanmers Union -1.24 - .54 -2.55 * 37 USDA representatives —l.03 .63 - 35 * 23 U. S. Department of Agriculture - .76 1.18 .64 **18 Stories in farm magazines - .73 - .25 1.39 * 24 U. S. government bulletins and reports - .67 1.22 .12 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most Sources Types 2 and 1. **Greatest item disagreement, the items that most Sources Types 2 and 3. differ between differ between 148 USDA representatives, the U. S. Department of Agriculture and U. 8. government bulletins and reports (Table 47). They also show more distrust in the National Farmers Organization and advertising in farm magazines and new5papers than Type 1 farmers, and of Type 3 farmers so far as advertising is concerned. They don't trust stories in farm magazines, either. When asked about this, they reply that farm magazine reporters glamorize their stories until they are not realistic; they have known of stories, in some cases about their own farming operations, where the facts Just were not so; and they know that what sounds good about one farmer in a story may not work at all for them in their different situations. Sources Type 2 Attitudes Toward The COOperative Extension Service The mixed group of farmers on the sources sort is most unlike Type 3, the independent thinkers and doers, and somewhat unlike Type 1 in their high agreement that the best farmers tend to show up at every Extension meeting and therefore the education doesn't get to the farmers who need it most (Table 48). They are highly unlike Type 1 and like Type 3 in believing strongly that 088 informa- tion is honest and can be trusted. The mixed farmers cast another vote against government intervention in farming when they agree somewhat that CES programs are dictated too much by the USDA. In this they are most unlike Type 1. They are very unlike Type 3 when they register almost neutral toward the idea that the C88 is a most friendly organization. The Sources Type 2 fanmers are in highest disagreement, higher than the other two types but in high consensus with them, that CBS Table 48 —— Sources Type 2 CES Arrays, Most Agree Item ata44 15 33 38 19 149 Description Information that comes from the Coop- erative Extension Service is honest and can be trusted to be as accurate as possible. The same farmers—-usua11y the best ones in the county--tend to show up at every Extension meeting; the Extension educational system thus does not get to the farmers who need the information the most. 0n the whole, the Extension Service does a pretty good Job of presenting informa— tion to us. Cooperative Extension Service material is impartial and unbiased. Most smart farmers will try a new practice that is recommended by the Cooperative Extension Service. Information from the Cooperative Exten— sion Service helps increase fanm pro- duction and so returns more money than it costs in taxes. The content of Extension's echeational programs is as modern as agricultural research can make it. I can rely on information from the Cooperative Extension Service. I like the Cooperative Extension Service idea that no farmer is too old to learn better farming methods. Cooperative Extension educational programs are dictated too much by the U. S. Department of Agriculture. Type 2 1.18 .24 Type 1 .29 - .98 Type 3 1.17 .95 .67 150 'Table 48 -- Sources Type 2 CBS,Arrays, Mbst,ggree (Continued) Type Type Type Item 7 Description 2 1 3 **10 Generally speaking, I have found the Cooperative Extension Service to be about as friendly an organi- zation as you could find anywhere. .20 .80 1.20 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 2 and 1. **Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 2 and 3. ***Both 151 Table 49 -- Sources Type 2 CES.Arrays, Most Disagree Type Type Type Item Description 2 1 3 40 So far as I am concerned they could do away with the Cooperative Extension SGI‘ViCe tOday. ’1090 -1052 ‘1075 i The farmer who knows his business does not really have much need for'Extension services like soil testing.' ‘ -l.78 -1.38 -1.41 ***16 Cooperative Extension Service recommend- ations are influenced too much by com- mercial interests. -l.63 ~ .05 .01 36 I don‘t have much confidence in the recommendations of the Cooperative Extension Service. -1.42 -1.16 -1.28 24 My years of experience tell me Just about all I need to know about farming. -l.39 -l.51 -1.54 26 I get the feeling that the Cooperative Extension Service as part of the Univer- sity of Illinois does not fit in very well with the farmers around here. -1.15 -l.09 - .75 25 The Cooperative Extension Service does not do what it is supposed to do--give farmers information they can use. -l.13 -1.07 - .86 6 Mbst of the so-called.Extension experts have read so many books that they cannot talk common sense any more. -1.10 -l.52 -l.37 ***‘29 One of the good things about COOperative Extension is its close ties with the U. S. Department of.Agricu1ture. - .96 1.20 .47 * 41 Extension's system of holding educa- tional meetings is out of date. — .92 .08 - .45 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 2 and 1. **Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 2 and 3. ***Both 152 could be done away with today, and that farmers who know their business do not have need for Extension services like soil testing (Table 49). They are highly unlike both other types in their strong disagreement with the attitude that CES recommendations are influenced too much by commercial interests. We might expect Type 3 to be even more strongly in disagreement with this attitude than Type 2, but they are nearly neutral, probably because they so highly favor commercial information as a reliable source of farming informa- tion. Type 2 farmers are very different from both other types, especially Type 1, in their disagreement with the attitude that one of the good things about the CES is its close ties with the USDA. They differ’markedly from‘Type l, the farmers who seem to depend on experience to support their farming decisions, in their disagree— ment that Extension's system of holding educational meetings is out of date. Sources Type 2 Attitudes Toward4Advisers When their attention is focused on their county farm adviser, the mixed group of farmers agree more highly than the other two sources types, but in high consensus with them, that their county farm adviser gives them the straight facts as he sees them, and that there is a lot of value in most of the practices he recommends (Table 50). This is in line with their high regard for the county farm adviser, the College of.Agriculture and the CES as reliable sources of information. Type 2 supports the county farm adviser much more highly than Type 3 farmers in their agreement that the county farm adviser almost always seems to have the information Item 16 *1! 15 12 26 ** 3 *S‘ 24 153 Table 50 -- Sources Type 2.AdvisernArrays, Mbst.Agree Description My county farm adviser gives me the straight facts as he sees them and I appreciate it. My county farm adviser gives us farmers much valuable help in our fanning operations . My county farm adviser almost always seems to have the information I need at his fingertips. I think that there is a lot of value in most of the practices recommended by my county farm adviser. My county farm adviser is the most reliable source of information about farming that I know. My county farm adviser gives good service to us farmers. Farmers can get from their county_ farm adviser the most down-to- earth recommendations on how to farm better. My county farm adviser makes us feel free to talk our problems over with him at educational meetings. I like the way that my county farm adviser keeps up to date with new farming practices by attending meet~ ings at the College of.Agriculture in Urbana. I never hesitate to put into practice one of my county farm adviser's rec— ommendations, because I know that it will usually work. my county farm adviser tries very hard to involve everyone in Extension educa- tional programs regardless of which organization they belong to. Type 2 1.48 1.46 1.44 1.43 1.33 1.19 1.17 1.16 1.10 .64 Type ‘1 1.11 1.08 .88 1.48 .77 1.15 1.14 1.10 1.27 '- .14 Type 1.45 .72 .22 1.84 .74 .66 .32 - .02 154 Table 50 -- Sources Type 2.Adviser.Arrays, Mbst.Agree(Cont1nued) Type Type Type Item Description 2 1 3 ***29 my county farm adviser is interested in people and their problems; he is more than just a subject matter expert. .56 1.53 1.68 * 17 my county farm adviser is a wonderful person. .09 1.34 .98 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 2 and 1. **Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 2 and.3. ***Both 155 Table 51 -- Sources Type 2 Adviser.Arrays, Mbst Disagree Item 25 22 19 32 31 21 *t18 as 7 Description Most of the recommendations that I get from my county farm adviser sound like the horse-and-buggy days, they are so old-fashioned. Generally speaking, county farm ad— visers are not worth what they are paid. My county farm adviser will not listen to new ideas and.suggestions from the farmers in this county. It takes me too much time and trouble to get information from my counry fanm 8W1sere My county farm adviser plays favorites among the farmers in my county and I do not like it. Many ideas that my county farm adviser puts out are too expensive for farmers like me to use. I have already heard or read about most of the information that my county farm adviser puts out. My county farm adviser does not get around to visit farms like he should. my county farm adviser tries too hard to be friendly. *Greatest item disagreement, the items that between Sources Types 2 and 1. 'hiGreatest item disagreement, the items that between Sources Types 2 and 3. Type 2 -1.89 -1047 “1039 ”1.37 -1. 29 '1016 most Type 1 -1078 -10 18 ”1026 '1e21 -1.19 - .19 " .18 " .89 differ most differ Type 3 -1061 “1952 - .72 " e70 " 082 .94 1.10 -1.24 156 they need at his fingertips. They agree much more strongly than Type 1 farmers that they have confidence in their fans adviser's recommendations and that he works hard to involve everyone in educa- tional programs regardless of which organization they belong to. They agree, but much less than the other two types that their farm adviser is interested in people. They are almost neutral about and in much less agreement than the more emotional, dependent Type 1 farmers that their county farm adviser is a wonderful person. The mixed farmers are much unlike Type 3, the independent group, when they admit that they haven't heard or read about most of the information that their county farm adviser puts out, prob- ably because they call on the farm adviser for his advice oftener than do the Type 3 farmers (Table 51). They most disagree with the Type 3 attitude that their farm adviser doesn't get around to visit farms like he shoulxi again perhaps because they ask him to come out oftener and he does. They disagree some, but not as much as Type 3, that their county farm adviser tries too hard to be friendly. Summary —— What is a Sources Type 2 Farmer Like? These farmers appear to be older than average, but mainly because the second oldest fanmer in the sample, No. 7, is one of their group in the hypothetical sort (Appendix 29). Otherwise, their ages average about the same as the entire sample of 60. Loca- tion in county, type of county and even prior attitude are all well mixed in this group, as they should be if this is a mixed grouping as we have said. With the exception of Farmer 3, the NFO member in the group, they all appear to be good Farm Bureau members in sympathy 157 with its aims and programs. They represent the entire range of farm sizes and income groups, so there is nothing in those variables upon which to predict membership in this group. They regard reliability, value and impartiality highest among the characteristics of the Cooperative Extension Service (Items 9, 40, 8 and 16, Appendix 30). They are very consistent in voting with positive statements and against negative statements, with the excep- tion of Item No. 44, in which they highly agree that Extension's educational programs do not reach the farmers who need them most. They rate the value and impartiality of the county farm adviser most highly (Items 16, 2, 22 and 19, Appendix 31), and vote the up-to-dateness of the adviser's information high (Item 25). They are 100 percent consistent in voting with positive statements and against negative statements in the characteristic categories of the adviser sort (Q-Z). Thumbnail Sketches of Sources Types Sources Type 1 Farmers -- The typical Sources Type 1 fanmer seems to be somewhat insecure and seems to depend a great deal on other people for his infonmation on how to fanm better and for support in his decisions. He likes to watch what other successful farmers are doing and get ideas from them. He is apparently a con— servative and not an innovator. He reads a lot of University of Illinois and U. 8. government circulars and bulletins, and has a lot of faith in the information they contain. He also gets some information from his local school's vocational agriculture teacher-— in fact about anywhere he can find it, including the Farm Progress 158 Show and State Fair exhibits. He doesn't trust a farm manager, and he doesn't like the Grange, the Farmers Union or the National Farmers Organization. He appreciates the sincere interest that his county farm adviser takes in helping him with his problems, and he thinks his farm ad- viser is a wonderful person and that he is worth what he is paid. He thinks his farm adviser is reliable and will follow up on things he is going to do, but doesn't think his recommendations are too expensive for him to try out. He is a great supporter and user of the information that the University of Illinois puts out, and he firmly believes that neither he nor any other farmer ever gets too old to learn new things. He reads a lot and finds CES circulars and booklets easy to read, and he doesn’t think that Extension "experts" have read so much they can't talk his language any more. Sources Type 3 Farmers -- This type of farmer is the strongly independent type who has great faith in his own farming ability based on his years of farming experience. He is more inclined to read about other farmers and their experiences with different types of farming operations in farm magazines than he is to visit with other successful farmers, although he is somewhat person-oriented too. He hunts until.he finds a dealer or salesman whom he can trust and then uses him for an information source. He also gets farming advice from his veterinarian, his neighbors and other farmers, his father and a local fertilizer dealer. He likes to read articles in newspapers about farming and is interested in learning about new equipment and farm products from advertising in farm.magazines, 159 rather than going to the State Fair or Farm Progress Show to see them on display. He doesn't have much use for his relatives, his landlord or landlady, or television programs on agriculture. He is not an organization man, and includes the University of Illinois and Cooperative Extension among those organizations. He doesn't like farm managers because they also represent the organizational side of the farming business. He may not use CES recommended practices but he thinks they are good for anyone who does, and he gets What he wants from Exten- sion although it may not be much. He wants more information than his father or his years of eXperience provide for him, but he doesn't agree that information from the University of Illinois is very useful for him. He knows that if he wants information from his county farm adviser he can get it and he has faith in its value even though he may not ask for it often. He wishes his county farm adviser would come out to look at his farm more often, and he can't be classified as a good.Extension c00perator. He thinks his farm adviser ought to be more "pushy" in his efforts to give the farm~ ers better service, but he interprets better service as coming out to see him at his place. Sources Type 2 Farmers -- This type of farmer is somewhat like both of the other groups in many ways, but inclines to be much more institution-oriented and less person-oriented than they seem to be. He likes and trusts the professional help that the Farm Bureau Farm Management Service provides, and he is a firm supporter of the CES, the county farm adviser, the College of 160 Agriculture and the state Extension Specialists. He thinks highly of and probably attends with some regularity the Extension meetings, short courses and workshOps at the University of Illinois in Urbana. He is a good Farm Bureau member and believes strongly in the farm c00perative movement. .He likes the peOple who sit on Farm Bureau boards andlExtension Councils and may be one of them at one time or another. He buys much of his material from the Farm Supply Com- pany, one of the Illinois.Agricultural Association's (the state Farm Bureau) subsidiaries. He listens to farm radio programs but is not enthusiastic about them. He doesn't likeadvertising nor having the government in agriculture. He doesn't have much to do with other farmers-as. good sources of farming information, nor does he look to the State Fair or Farm Progress Show for his ideas on how to farm.better. He highly trusts CES information and thinks it is very impar- tial and unbiased. He is a strong Extension supporter and uses its information as much as he can. He likes to go to Extension meetings and does not think that this system of getting information to farmers is out of date or ineffective, even though he thinks that not enough farmers in his county take advantage of the availability of good sound technical farming information at such meetings. He wants the Extension Service to stay in business. He has lots of confidence in CES recommendations and firmly rejects the idea that they are influ- enced too much by commercial interests. He thinks farm advisers are competent and reliable sources of information and that their help is very valuable to him. His county farm adviser serves him very well with up-to-date information. He 161 is convinced that his farm adviser will listen to suggestions from his county farmers and does not play favorites. He finds it easy to get the information he wants, because he doesn't hesitate to ask for it. He is a good friend of his county fans adviser and probably is the type of fanmer who accepts appointments to the Extension Council and helps plan the county Extension program. CHAPTER VII ATTITUIES 0F FARM ADVISERS AND ADMINISTRATORS This chapter reports the analysis of the intercorrelations between the Q-sorts of the 60 sample Illinois commercial farmers and those made by the 10 farm advisers whose counties included the sample farmers, the five agricultural supervisors, and seven Extension adninistrators (Table 1). Factor analysis of the Q-sorts made by the 10 county fan advisers show two distinct types in each of the three dimensions of attitude (institutional, personal and sources). However, the types are not consistent, and three of the farm advisers vary be- tween types. We will look at the types more closely as we analyze each Q-sort separately. Two COOperative Extension (TfiiCEl) Types We asked each fans adviser in our 10 sample counties to sort the cards through once on the basis of how he thought the "typical" farmer in his county would sort them. In other words, his sort approximates his picture of how he thinks the average farmer in his county regards the Cooperative Extension Service, in this case. Figure 5 shows the distribution of the 10 farm advisers around the two factor coordinates based on the first varimax rotation analysis of this Q-sort. This solution explains 68 percent of the variance and further 162 39¢ T» Figure 5 -— First Varimax Rotation, showing positions of 10 Illinois county farm advisers as determined by the relationships of their "typical" patterns of attitudes toward the COOperative Extension Service. 164 rotation added little more information. These farm advisers agree with each other most highly when they think the average farmer in their county believes the 000p- erative Extension Service suggests sound practices that benefit the farmer who uses them. They also have about the same picture of the average farmers in their reSpective counties who believe that information from the Cooperative Extension Service is honest and can be trusted to be as accurate as possible. They also share these attitudes about their typical farmers: they like the CES idea that no farmer is too old to learn better fanning methods, the CBS is thoughtful and considerate in its dealings with farmers, and Extension can do its job well only so long as it maintains an office in every county. All 10 farm advisers are in highest consensus disagreement with the statement that most of the so-called Extension experts have read so many books that they can't talk common sense any more. They all think that their "typical" farmer highly disagrees that CES recommendations are influenced too much by commercial interests. CES (Typical) Type 1 Farm Advisers Type 1 farm advisers in this first Q~sort of "typical" atti- tudes toward the Cooperative Extension Service think that their farmers most like the idea that no other source of agricultural in- formation is more up-to-date than the CES (Table 52). They say their farmers strongly believe that CES material is impartial and unbiased, that the content of its educational programs is as modern as agricultural research can make it, and that its information is honest and accurate . Table 52 -- CES Type 1 Farm Advisers (Typical) Item Arrays, Mbst Agree Type Item * 4 19 23 15 18 33 35 28 165 Description No other source of agricultural informa- tion is more up-to-date than the COOperative Extension Service. COOperative Extension Service material is impartial and unbiased. The content of Extension's educational pro- grams is as modern as agricultural research can make it. Information that comes from the COOperative Extension Service is honest and can be trusted to be as accurate as possible. I can rely on information from the Coopera- tive Extension Service. I think that the Cooperative Extension system of getting information to farmers through educational meetings is very effective. On the whole, the Extension Service does a pretty good Job of presenting information to us. When I have a farming problem, I find that I can get the information I need quickly and easily from the COOperative Extension Service. Most smart farmers will try a new practice that is recommended by the Cooperative Extension Service. Extension's educational programs tell me what I want to know. The Cooperative Extension Service suggests sound practices that benefft the farmer who uses them. I like the COOperative Extension Service idea that no farmer is too old to learn better farming methods. 1 1.54 1.48 1.39 1.26 1.21 1.13 1.12 1.05 1.02 Type 2 .64 .18 .27 1.90 .37 1.09 .82 166 Table 52 -- (38 Type pl Faun Advisers (Typical) Item Arrays, Most Agree Continuedy Type Type Item Description 1 2 43 I believe that a lot of the information that comes from the University of Illinois is of practical use to me. 1.00 1.81 *13 The COOperat ive Extension Service should not concentrate on helping only farmers, but should try to help everybody. .73 -l.36 *10 Generally Speaking, I have found the COOperative Extension Service to be about as friendly an organization as you could find anywhere. .66 1.71 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between (38 Types 1 and 2 Farm Advisers. 'Table 53 -- CES Type 1 Farm Advisers (Typical) Item,Arrays, Item *36 4O *12 *24 *21 *42 *41 *27 *44 *26 167 agree Description I don't have much confidence in the recom- mendations of the Cooperative Extension Service. So far as I'm concerned, they could do away with the COOperative Extension Service today. Mbst of the information put out by the COOperative Extension Service is a review of what I have already heard or read about. Most of the so-called Extension experts have read so many books that they can't talk common sense any more. My years of experience tell me Just about all I need to know about farming. My father taught me most of the things I need to know about farming. It's hard to tell whether the tax money that is spent on the Cooperative Exten- sion Service is doing any good or not. Extension's system of holding education~ al meetings is out-of-date. Information presented at Extension's educational meetings is too general, it is not Specific enough to be of any real help to me. The same farmers--usually the best ones in the county-etend to show up at every Extension meeting; the Extension educa- tional system thus does not get to the farmers who need the information the most. I get the feeling that the Cooperative Extension Service as part of the University of Illinois does not fit in very well with the farmers around here. Type 1 .2e 10 -1070 -1.35 -1.35 -1.34 -1.29 ‘1019 - .76 - .72 Most Dis- Type 2 - 973 .-2.08 -1063 .89 .44 .71 .46 .73 -10 99 168 Table 53 -- CES Type 1 Farm.Advisers (Typical) Item.Arrays, Most Disagree (ContinuedD Type Type Item Description 1 2 *29 One of the good things about Cooperative Extension is its close ties with the U. S. Department of Agriculture. - .34 -l.46 *34 Most Extension services, like soil testing, take too much time and paper work. - .14 -l.7l *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between CES Types 1 and 2 Farm Advisers. 169 They express confidence in the CES when they say their farmers believe most smart farmers will try a new practice recommended by Extension, that Extension's educational programs tell the farmers what they want to know, and most highly disagree that their farm- ers don't have much confidence in Extension recommendations (Table 53). They express very different ideas about their county fanmers than Type 2 advisers when they disagree heartily with the ideas that most of the CES infonmation is a review of what they have already heard or read about, that their years of experience tell them Just about all they need to know about farming, and that it's hard to tell whether the tax money that is spent on the CES is doing any good or not. CES (Typiggl) Type 2 Farm Advisers Type 2 farm advisers are most concerned that their county farmers have a favorable attitude toward the process of getting infonnation to them, and that it is practical information, rather than that it is up-to-date and unbiased as Type 1 advisers said (Table 54). Their view of their farmers' attitudes toward Exten- sion vary most from the Type 1 advisers when they agree somewhat that their farmers think their years of experience tell them Just about all they need to know about farming. Type 2 farm advisers also take strong exception to the Type 1 stand when they say that their fanmers somewhat disagree that Extension has the most up-to- date infonmation. They think that their fanmer: will say their fathers taught them about all they need to know about fanning. 170 Table 54 -- CES Type 2 Farm Advisers (Typicallltem.Arrays, float Agree Type Type Item Description 2 l 15 On the whole, the Extension Service does a pretty good Job of presenting information to us. 1.90 1.13 43 I believe that a lot of the information that comes from the University of Illinois is of practical use to me. 1.81 1.00 10 Generally Speaking, I have found the COOp— erative Extension Service to be about as friendly an organization as you could find anywhere. 1.71 .66 20 The scientists at the College of.Agricu1~ ture in Urbana give farmers like me a lot of good help. 1.46 .50 9 Information that comes from the Cooperative Extension Service is honest and can be trust- ed to be as accurate as possible. 1.18 1.39 28 The Cooperative Extension Service suggests sound practices that benefit the farmer who uses them. 1.09 1.05 *24 My years of experience tell me just about all I need to know about farming. .89 -1.34 *27 Information presented at Extension's educa- tional meetings is too general, it is not specific enough to be of any real help to me. .73 - .76 *12 Meet of the information put out by the COOp-” erative Extension Service is a review of what I have already heard or read about. .72 ~1.35 *42 Its hard to tell whether the tax money that is Spent on the COOperative Extension Ser- vice is doing any good or not. .71 —1.19 *41 Extension's system of holding educational meetings is out of date. .46 - .95 *21 My father taught me most of the things I need to know about farming. .44 -1.29 * 5 The content of Extension's educational pro- grams is as modern as agricultural research can make it. .18 1.44 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between CES Types 2 and 1 Farm Advisers. Table 55 -- CES Type 2 Farm Advisers (Typical) Item 40 *26 *34 *29 I“13 *35 *33 171 Disagree Description So far as I am concerned, they could do away with the Cooperative Extension Service today. I get the feeling that the COOperative Extension Service as part of the Univer- sity of Illinois does not fit in very well with the farmers around here. Mbst Extension services, like soil test- ing, take too much time and paper work. Most of the so-called Extension experts have read so many books that they can't talk common sense any more. One of the good things about Cooperative Extension is its close ties with the U. S. Department oangriculture. The Cooperative Extension Service should not concentrate on helping only farmers, but should try to help everybody. No other source of agricultural informa— tion is more up-to-date than the COOpera- tive Extension Service. ‘Extension's educational programs tell me what I want to know. Most smart farmers will try a new practice that is recommended by the COOperative Extension Service. Item Arrays, Most Type Type 2 1 “2.08 “1.70 ‘1099 .' 067 "1.71 " 014 ‘1063 -1.35 ‘1046 " .34 -1036 .73 - .81 1.54 - .27 1007 - .18 1011 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between CES Types 2 and 1 Farm.Advisers. 172 Type 2 advisers on this Q-sort are a little more concerned than Type 1 advisers that their farmers don't want to get rid of the CES (Table 55). They think that their county farmers are strongly opposed to the idea that Extension doesn't fit in very well with the farmers and that most Extension services like soil testing take too much time. They think their farmers believe that Extension experts can talk common sense, that they don't want CES to be too closely linked with the USDA, and that CES should concen- trate on its farm audience. Thumbnail Sketches of CES Farm4Advisers (Typical) Types CES (Typical) Type 1 Farm,Advisers are concerned about the timeliness and up-to-dateness of Extension information. They feel that their farmers, on the average, want impartial, unbiased infor- mation that they can rely on. They think that they are getting out the information that their farmers want to them quickly and easily, and that the system of holding educational meetings is sound. They think that their typical fanners have confidence in 088 infornation, and that what they get is new to them. They vigorously deny that their farmers get all the information they need from either their father or their experience. They seem to be institutionally oriented toward the aSpects of Extension. CES (Typical) Type 2 Farm.Advisers are concerned that their farmers think of them as friendly persons putting out practical information. They are not so sure that Extension's system of holding educational meetings is the best way to get the information to farm- ers, and they think that their typical farmers do get much of their 173 information from their experience and their fathers. They are a little less traditional in their outlook towardfiExtension infor- mation, denying that Extension benefits from having close ties with the USDA, that no other source of information is more up—to-date than CBS, and that CES educational programs categorically tell the farmers what they want to know. Two Farm Adviser (Typical) Types The farm advisers are more nearly of one type on the dimension of attitudes toward themselves and their colleagues in the other counties. Seven of the 10 advisers on this Q-sort are much alike in their opinions about what their typical county farmers think of them. Hewever, two of the farm advisers are divergent enough to form a different type (Figure 6), and one is in the middle, about equally weighted toward both types. These two adviser types hold nearly the same strong attitude that their county farmers on the average appreciate the sincere inter- est that the farm advisers take in helping them with their problems. The advisers are a little sensitive that they don't get out to visit farms often enough when they agree that their farmers don't think they get around to visit farms like they should. All the advisers highly disagree with the ideas that their farmers think they should have to foot the bill to establish some of the practices they recommend so that they would become more practs ical, and that they will not listen to new ideas and suggestions from their farmers. They also disagree with the attitude that they play favorites among their farmers. f. /L O o 0 ’1 j F» Figure 6 —- First Varimax Rotation, showing positions of 10 Illinois county farm advisers as determined by the relationships of their "typical" patterns of attitudes toward Cooperative Extension personnel. 175 Adviser (Typical) Type 1 Farm Advisers These advisers mosthighly agree that their typical farmers believe there is a lot of value in most of the practices recommended by the county farm adviser, and that he gives good service to his county farmers (Table 56). Adviser Type 2 advisers highly disagree with Type 1 about these farmer attitudes. Type 1 advisers strongly believe that their average farmers think advisers are interested in people as well as subject matter and that they tell farmers the straight factsas they see them. Type 1 think their farmers will usually put one of their recommendations into practice because they know it will usually work, while those in Type 2 are not so sure about that. Type 1 advisers most highly disagree that their farmers think they are not worth what they are paid, and Type 2 advisers have the same feeling (Table 57). The majority of the 10 advisers also highly disagree with the idea that their farmers think CES recommendations are old-fashioned. They think their farmers are easily able to under- stand the way they present information, ,while Type 2 advisers do not go along with that idea. Adviser (Typical) Type 2 Farm Advisers Type 2 farm advisers most highly agree that they think their typical farmers can get from them the most down-to-earth recommenda- tions on how to farm better (Table 58). They agree much more than Type 1 advisers that farm advisers and state specialists really know their business. They suspect that their farmers might think that it takes a little too much time and trouble to get information from them, while Type 1 advisers don't agree with that idea at all. 176 Table 56 —-.Adw1ser’Type 1 Farm Advisers (Typical) Item Arrays, Mbst.Agree Type Type Item Description 1 2 * 3 I think that there is a lot of value in most of the practices recommended by my county farm adviser. 1.68 - .43 28 I appreciate the sincere interest that my county farm adviser takes in helping me with my problems. 1.66 1.65 * 5 My county farm adviser gives good serviCe to us farmers. 1.64 - .72 29 My county farm adviser is interested in people and their problems, he is more than just a subject matter expert. 1.59 1.78 16 My county fanm adviser gives me the straight facts as he sees them, and I appreciate it. 1.49 1.22 2 my county farm adviser gives us farmers much valuable help in our farming Operations. 1.12 .35 1 My county farm adviser makes us feel free to talk our problems over with him at edu- cational meetings. 1.07 .19 24 My county farm adviser tries very hard to involve everyone in Extension educational programs regardless of which organization they belong to. a 1.00 .74 * 8 I never hesitate to put into practice one of my county farm adviser's recommendations, be- cause I know that it will usually work. .85 - .29 *40 Farmers can get from the county fanm adviser the most down-to-earth recommendations on how to farm better. ‘ .79 1.97 *30 COOperative Extension Service farm advisers and Specialists really know their business. .30 1.65 *20 It is not efficient use of my farm adviser's time to visit too many farms. .13 —1.01 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between .Adviser'rypes 1 and 2 Farm Advisers. 177 Table 57 -- Adviser’rype 1 Farm Advisers (Typical) Item.Arrays, Item 22 25 *36 19 11 *35 Most Disagree ___ Description Generally Speaking, county farm advisers are not worth what they are paid. Most of the recommendations that I get from my county farm adviser sound like the horse-and buggy days, they are so old-fashioned. my county farm adviser should have to foot the bill to establish some of the practices he recommends so that he would become more practical. my county farm adviser does not seem to be able to present information in a way that is easy to understand and use. My county farm adviser will not listen to new ideas and suggestions from the farmers in this county. I can get more reliable information that I need for my farming operation from a local commercial dealer I know than I can from my county farm adviser. My county farm adviser uses too many high- pressure tactics--he pushes too hard in trying to get us to try out new things and ideas. my county farm adviser is taking his con- , nection with the University of Illinois too *32 seriously--he claims to have more knowledge than I think he has. It takes me too much time and trouble to get information from.my county farm adviser. My county farm adviser tries too hard to be friendly. *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ Adviser Types 1 and 2 Farm Advisers. Type 1 “2.01 ”1.78 -1031 -10 16 -1. 15 -1.12 -1010 Type 2 -1.68 -1065 -1.20 .43 -1022 -1994 .13 .72 -1049 between 178 Table 58 -- Adviser Type 2 Farm Advisers (Typical) Item A1393, Item *40 29 28 *30 16 26 27 *32 *36 *35 Description Type 2 Farmers can get from the county farm adviser the most down—to-earth recom- mendations on how to farm better. 1.97 My county farm adviser is interested in peOple and their problems. He is more than just a subdect matter expert. 1.78 I appreciate the sincere interest that my county farm adviser takes in helping me with my problems. 1.65 Cooperative Extension farm advisers and specialists really know their business. 1.65 My county fann adviser gives me the straight facts as he sees them, and I appreciate it. 1.22 I like the way that my county farm adviser keeps up-to-date with new farming practices by attending meetings at the College of .Agriculture in Urbana. 1.06 My county farm adviser is almost never too busy to come out to visit my farm when I want him to. 1.04 It takes me too much time and trouble to get information from my county farm ad- viser. ..72 My county farm adviser does not seem to be able to present information in a way that is easy to understand and use. .43 My county farm adviser is taking his con- nection with the university of Illinois too seriously--he claims to have more know- ledge than I think he has. *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ .13 Adviser Types 2 and 1 Farm Advisers. Tyne 1 .79 1.59 1.66 1.49 .28 .43 “1016 -1008 between 179 Table 59 --- Adviser Type 2 Farm Advisers (Typical) Item Arrayg, Item Most Disagree Description Type 2 Type 1 4 22 25 21 19 *20 My county farm adviser uses too many high pressure tactics--he pushes too hard in trying to get us to try out new things and ideas. Generally Speaking, county fanm advisers are not worth what they are paid. Mest of the recommendations that I get from my county farm adviser sound like the horse-and-buggy days, they are so old-fashioned. My county farm adviser tries too hard to be friendly. many ideas that my county farm adviser puts out are too expensive for farmers like me to use. My county farm adviser will not listen to new ideas and suggestions from the farmers in this county. My county farm adviser should have to foot the bill to establish some of the practices he recommends so that he would become more practical. It is not efficient use of my farm adviser's time to visit too many farms. my county farm adviser gives good service to us farmers. I think that there is a lot of value in most of the practices recommended by my county farm adviser. I never hesitate to put into'practice one of my county farm adviser's recommendations, because I know that it will usually work. *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ .Adviser'rypes 2 and 1 Farm Advisers. -1.94 “1.68 -1065 -1.49 -1922 -1922 ~l.20 -1901 - .29 -1.10 -2.01 -1.15 -1.31 .13 1.64 1.68 .85 between 180 ,Advisers of the second type most highly disagree that their farmers think they use too many high-pressure tactics (Table 59). They also disagree much more than Type 1 advisers that they try too hard to be friendly. While all the 10 farm advisers in our sample think that they don't make enough farm visits, Type 2 advisers on this Q-sort of attitudes disagree that their farmers think it's inefficient use of time to visit farms, while Type 1 advisers are lukewarm on that idea. Thumbnail Sketehes of.Adviser'Farm.Advisers (Typical) Types Adviser (Typical), Type 1 farm advisers are most concerned about the value of the information they put out and the kind of service they give to their county farmers. They want their farmers to appreciate the sincere interest they take in trying to help them with their problems. They also want to be known as highlyreliable and honest workers who take a sincere interest in peOple, regardless of which organization they belong to. They want to be thought of as earning their salaries, and they believe that the information they pass on is up-to-date. iAdviser’(Typical) Type 2 farm advisers are most concerned about whether their farmers are seeing them as capable persons who are keep- ing their recommendations down—to-earth. They share the idea that their farmers understand their great interest in people and in helping them with their problems. They are also sensitive that their farmers understand why it is necessary for them to attend so many meetings in Urbana. They don't want to be known as heavy pushers,-nor that they try to hard to be friendly. They also share a common interest in 181 being worth what they are paid, being up-to-date in their recommen- dations, and not having to foot the bill for some of their recom- mended practices. They don't want their farmers to think that their ideas are too expensive, nor that they will not listen to new ideas and suggestions. Two Sources (Typical) Types Two of the 10 farm advisers switched types on this Q-sort of attitudes toward the sources of farming information. Their pattern of intercorrelations is lower on this dimension of attitudes than on the other two (Figure 7). Correlation between the two types was only .258, compared with .393 on Q-l and .609 on Q-2. These two sources types of advisers are in most consensus in their mutual agreement that their typical county farmers regard the National Farmers Organization, the Farmers Union and the Grange as their most unreliable sources of information about better farming methods. They also highly agree with each other that their farmers are lukewarm toward the mass media as sources of information, regard- ing articles in newSpapers as somewhat reliable, but nearly neutral on television and radio programs. Type 2 farm advisers believe their farmers like stories in farm magazines fairly well, but Type 1 advisersido not regard them as so reliable a source. Sources (Typical) Type 1 Farm.Advisers These farm advisers believe most highly that their typical farmers regard the Cooperative Extension Service and the Agricultural Experiment Station in Urbana as their most reliable sources of agri- cultural information Crable 60). They also think their farmers 182 Figure 7 -— First Varimax Rotation, showing positions of 10 Illinois county farm advisers as determined by the relationships of their "typical" patterns of attitudes toward sources of farming information. 183 Table 60 -- Sources Type 1 FarmflAdvisers (Typical) Item Arrays, Mbst Aggee Type Type Item Description 1 2 * 1 Cooperative Extension Service 2.07 _ .06 *32 The.Agricultural Experiment Station in Urbana 1.91 - .98 *22 Bulletins and reports from the Agri— cultural Experiment Station in Urbana 1.49 - .50 8 My county farm adviser 1.43 1.89 13 College of.Agriculture at Urbana 1.40 .12 *39 Short courses and workshOps at the university of Illinois 1.40 - .97 11 State Extension Specialists 1.31 .37 *40 Extension meetings held at the university in Urbana 1.21 -1.00 I"41 State Fair eXhibits .11 -l.30 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 1 and.2 Farm.Advisers. 184 Table 61 -- Sources Type 1 Farm Advisers (Typical) Item Arrays, Mbst Disagree Type Type Item Description 1 2 36 The National Farmers Organization -l.93 -1.94 34 Farmers Union -1.89 -1.94 35 The Grange -1.64 -1.54 19 Farm Bureau board.meetings -1.63 - .63 37 USDA representatives -1.34 - .54 15 Farm Bureau -1.26 .08 21 My landlord or landlady -1.17 — .62 *16 Farm Supply -1.17 .79 *14 County ASCS office -1.17 1.14 * 9 My neighbors - .60 1.63 * 7 Our local school's vocational agriculture teacher - .47 1.58 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 1 and 2 Farm.Advisers. 185 regard as highly reliable sources the bulletins and reports from the.Agricultural Experiment Station, their county farm adviser, the College of Agriculture at Urbana,1hort courses and.worksh0ps at the University of Illinois, state Extension Specialists and Extension meetings at the University in Urbana. Type 2 advisers are unlike Type 1 in all of these attitudes except that they also believe farmers have a high reSpect for their county farm adviser as a reliable source of information. Typical Type 1 advisers in this Q-sort also think their farmers do not like Farm Bureau board meetings, USDA representatives, the Farm Bureau, or a landlord or landlady very much as sources of information (Table 61). They are most different from Type 2 ad- visers in saying that their farmers do not regard the Farm Supply Company, the county ASCS office, their neighbors or the local vocational agriculture teacher very highly as sources. Sources (Typical) Type 2 Farm Advisers The second type of farm advisers on the sources sort (Q-3) say that their typical farmers most like other successful farmers and rate them higher than their county farm adviser as a reliable source of farming information (Table 62). Next, they rate neighbors, the vocational agriculture teacher, other farmers and the county .ASCS office as sources most highly reliable for their farmers. These advisers are almost neutral in their view of what their typical farm- ers think of the Cooperative Extension Service as a source of infor- mation. Type 2 advisers on this Q-Sort also do not think their farmers look upon the farm organizations other than Farm Bureau as very 186 Table 62 -- Sources Type 2 Faun Advisers (Typical) Item Arrays, Most Agree Type Type Item ‘ Description 2 7 1 10 Successful farmers I know ' 2.29 .99 8 My county farm adviser 1.89 1.43 * 9 My neighbors 1.63 - .60 * 7 Our local school's vocational agri- culture teacher 1.58 - .47 44 Other farmers 1.18 .24 *14 County ases office 1.14 -l.1_7 18 Stories in farm magazines 1.10 .77 *16 Farm Supply .79 -1.17 If 1 Cooperative Extension Service .06 2.07 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 2 and 1 Farm Advisers. Table 63 -- Sources Type 2 FarmtAdvisers 187 Most Disagree (Typical) Item Arrays, Type Type Item Description 2 1 36 The National Farmers Organization -l.94 -l.93 34 Farmers Union -l.94 -1.89 35 The Grange «1.54 -1.64 25 .Advertising in newspapers -1.33 - .34 17 .Advertising in farm magazines -1.33 - .18 *41 State Fair exhibits -l.30 .11 24 U. 8. government bulletins and reports -1.11 - .28 *40 Extension meetings held at the university . in Urbana -1.00 1.21 *32 The Agricultural Experiment Station in Urbana . — .98 1.91 *39 Short courses and workshops at the University of Illinois - .97 1.40 *22 Bulletins and reports from the agricultural EXperiment Station in Urbana - .50 1.49 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 2 and l Farm.Advisers. 188 reliable sources of farm information (Table 63). They think that their farmers do not regard advertising in farm magazines and news- papers and State Fair eXhibitS very highly. Thumbnail Sketches of Sources Farm Advisers (Typical) Types Sources (Typical) Type 1 farm advisers believe that their average county farmers are oriented toward the institutional aspects of Extension information as sources of information on better fanning methods. They mention only themselves and state specialists as persons among the sources they think their farmers regard as most reliable. They believe that their farmers like to go to meetings, short courses and workshops at the University of Illinois in Urbana. They include the Farm Bureau among the farm organizations that they think their farmers do not regard as reliable sources of information, and they list the government rep- resentatives in the county ASCS office, a landlord or landlady, neighbors and the local vocational agriculture teacher as unreliable sources of information. Sources (Typical) Type 2 farm advisers list only the county ASCS office and Farm.Supply Company (the holding company for several of the Illinois.Agricultural Association commercial firms) as institutional sources of information that they think their typical county farmers regard as highly reliable. The other most reliable sources for their farmers are people. They think that their county farmers do not regard the Cooperative Extension Service as an import- ant source at all. They see their typical farmers as not thinking much of the three farm organizations other than Farm Bureau as 189 sources of information, nor as having much reSpect for commercial sources. Their farmers, they say, are not at all impressed with U. S. government bulletins and reports nor the various meetings at Urbana as sources of information. One Type for "Ideal" Sorts We asked the 10 farm advisers in whose counties we had selected and interviewed the sample of 60 Illinois commercial farmers, plus the five agricultural supervisors and seven administrators, to sort the attitude statement cards as they would like to have the "ideal" farmer arrange them. Analysis of these "ideal" sorts shows enough unanimity of agreement as to what these 22 Extension people would want commercial farmers to think of them that we are able to use the first principal axis solution for the factor loading matrix of intercorrelations. This one factor solution accounts for 69 percent of the sample variance on Q-sort l (Cooperative Extension), and for 73 percent of the variance on both Q-sort 2 (county farm .advisers and state Specialists) and.Q-sort 3 (sources of agricultural info rmat ion) . CES (Ideal) Type farm advisers and administrators highly agree with each other that CES information is honest and can be trusted to be as accurate as possible (Table 64). They next most highly agree that Extension information is reliable, impartial and unbiased, and returns more money than it costs in taxes. They thoroughly believe that CES information is as modern as research can make it, and that it is easy to get. They also believe that it is practical and sound information. 190 Table 64 -- CES (Ideal) Advisers and Administrators Item Arrays, Most Agree Item Description One Type 9 Information that comes from the COOperative Exten- sion Service is honest and can be trusted to be as accurate as possible. 1.45 38 Information from the Cooperative Extension Service helps increase farm production and so returns more money than it costs in taxes. 1.37 8 COOperative Extension Service material is impartial and unbiased. 1.37 19 I can rely on information from the COOperative Exten- sion Service. 1.37 5 The content of Extension's educational programs is as modern as agricultural research can make it. 1.25 4 No other source of agricultural information is more up-to-date than the COOperative Extension Service. 1.24 18 When I have a farming problem, I find that I can get the information I need quickly and easily from the COOperative Extension Service. 1.24 43 I believe that a lot of the information that comes from the University of Illinois is of practical use to me. 1.22 28 The Cooperative Extension Service suggests sound prac- tices that benefit the farmer who uses them. 1.22 35 Extension's educational programs tell me what I want to know. 1.00 191 Table 65 ~- CES (Ideal) Advisers and Administrators Item Arrays, Most Disagree Item Description One Type 40 So far as I am concerned, they could do away with the Cooperative Extension Service today. -2.03 36 I don't have much confidence in the recommendations of the COOperatiVe Extension Service. ~1.52 25 The COOperative Extension Service does not do what it is supposed to do-—give farmers information they can use. -1038 42 It is hard to tell whether the tax money that is Spent on the Cooperative Extension Service is doing any good or not. -1.30 16 Cooperative Extension Service recommendations are influenced too much by commercial interests. -1.21 6 Most of the so-called Extension experts have read so many books that they cannot talk common sense any more. -l.l7 1 The farmer who knows his business does not really have much need fornExtension service like soil test- ing. '1. 16 26 I get the feeling that the Cooperative Extension Service as part of the University of Illinois does not fit in very well with the farmers around here. -1.14 21 My father taught me most of the things I need to know about farming. -l.ll 7 Cooperative Extension educational programs are dictated too much by the U. S. Department of .Agriculture. ‘1°06 192 They are solidly for the Extension Service and most highly disagree that it could be done away with today (Table 65). They express confidence in CES recommendations and believe that it does what it is supposed to do. They strongly deny that it is hard to tell whether the tax:money that is Spent on Extension is doing any good or not, and that it is influenced too much by commercial interests. Adviser (Ideal) Type farm advisers and administrators most highly agree that they would like the Illinois commercial farmers to think that their county farm.adviser is interested in people and their problems and that he is more than just a subject matter expert (Table 66). They also want the advisers to be known in their coun- ties as reliable and capable sources of the latest farming informa- tion. They are concerned that the advisers be thought of as earning their salaries, that they are more reliable sources of up-to-date information than commercial dealers, and that they will listen to new ideas and suggestions from their farmers (Table 67). Sources (Ideal) Type farm advisers and administrators most want their commercial farmer clientele group to regard the county farm adviser as the most reliable source of agricultural informa- tion available (Table 68). They are also much more concerned about a strong image of Cooperative Extension as a reliable source with Illinois farmers than any other source. They are not as concerned about the Grange as the poorest source of agricultural information, as they are the National Farmers Organization and the Farmers Union (Table 69). In their Opinion, the ideal farmer will not pay much attention to advertising in neWSpapers and farm magazines, nor will 193 'Table 66 --,AdWiser (Ideal) Advisers andMAdministrators Item Arrays, Most.Agree Item. Description One Type 29 my county farm adviser is interested in peOple and their problems. He is more than just a subject matter eXpert. 1.74 12 My county farm adviser is the most reliable source of information about fanning that I know. 1.41 30 Cooperative Extension Service farm advisers and Specialists really know their business. 1.40 6 My county farm adviser is the most up-to-date source of new fanning information that I know about. 1.34 40 Farmers can get from the county farm adviser the most down-to-earth recommendations on how to fanm better. 1.24 28 I appreciate the sincere interest that my county farm adviser takes in helping me with my problems. 1.13 16 My county farm adviser gives me the Straight facts as he sees them, and I appreciate it. 1.03 24 My county farm adviser tries very hard to involve everyone in Extension educational prOgrams regard- less of which organization they belong to. 1.01 194 ’Table 67 -- Adviser (Ideal).Advisers and Administrators Item Arrays, Mest Disagree Item Description One Type 22 Generally Speaking, county farm advisers are not worth what they are paid. -1.89 25 Most Of the recommendations that I get from my county farm adviser sound like the horse-and- buggy days, they are so old-fashioned. -1.87 11 I can get more reliable information that I need for my farming Operation from a local commercial dealer I know than I can from my county farm adviser. -1.29 19 tMy county fanm adviser will not listen to new ideas and suggestions from the farmers in this county. -l.20 32 It takes me too much time and trouble to get infor- mation from my county farm adviser. -3.09 4 My county farm adviser uses tOO many high-pressure tactics--he pushes too hard in trying to get us to try out new things and ideas. -l.05 31 My county farm adviser plays favorites among the farmers in my county and I don’t like it. -1.04 195 Table 68 —- Sources (Ideal) Advisers and.Administrators Item.Arrays, Most,Agree Item Description > One Type 8 My county farm adviser 2.01 1 COOperative.Extension Service 1.94 11 State Extension Specialists 1 1.83 13 College of Agriculture at Urbana 1.65 40 Extension meetings held at the University in Urbana 1.38 32 The Agricultural Experiment Station in Urbana 1.37 6 University of Illinois 1.36 39 Short courses and workshOps at the University of Illinois 1.20 22 Bulletins and reports from the Agricultural Experiment Station in Urbana 1.01 Table 69 -- Sources (Ideal).Advisers andedministrators Item.Arrays, Moat Disagree .Item Description One‘Type 34 Farmers Union —1.75 36 The National Farmers Organization -1.61 25 .Advertising in newSpapers -1.59 17 .Adwertising in farm magazines -l.53 31 My relatives -1.35 35 The Grange -1.20 21 My landlord or landlady -1.13 196 he listen to his relatives or his landlord or landlady for ways to farm better. How'Well Did‘The.Advisers Predict? This study shows that, in general, the 60 Illinois commercial farmers hold attitudes more "ideal" than "typical" toward the Cooperative Extension Service, its personnel and toward sources of agricultural information. They are more likely to have the "ideal” attitudes that their advisers wish their county farmers had than they are the "typical" attitudes their advisers think they have. The sample of 60 farmers are more like the advisers' "typical" farmers in Q-sort l, the expression of their attitudes toward the Cooperative Extension Service, than they are in the other>Q-sorts. Four of the farm advisers correlate higher in their "typical" sorts than in their "ideal" sorts with the 60 sample farmers' actual sorts in Q-l. Three Of these four differences are practically negligible, however. All 10 advisers think their "typical" farmers rate them lower than the 60 sample farmers actually do. In every instance on Q-sort 2 (measuring attitudes toward advisers and state specialists), the 10 sample advisers correlated higher on the "ideal" sorts than they did on their~"typica1" sorts with the sample farmers' actual sorts. The two advisers with the most years of service are the only ones whose "typical" sorts on Q-sort 3, the sources of agricultural information, correlate higher than their ”ideal" sorts with the farmers' actual sorts. .Average correlations of the 10 advisers on Q-l were .684 with the farmers on the "typical" sort and .837 on 197 "ideal? .671 on "typical" compared with .834 on "ideaf'on 0-2, and .434 on "typical" compared.with .741 on "ideal” on Q—3. How Well Did The Administrators Predict? In general, the seven administrators' "ideal" sorts correlate highly with the sample farmers' sorts, and higher than the county farm adviSers in two of the three dimensions Of attitude. Comparable correlation figures on Q-sort l (attitudes toward the Cooperative Extension Service) are .777 for administrators, .829 for advisers; on Q-sort 2 (attitudes toward Extension personnel), .844 for admin- istrators, .644 for advisers; and on Q-sort 3 (attitudes toward the reliability of sources), .836 for administrators, .743 for advisers. The five district supervisors correlate even higher with the 60 farmers: .874 on Q-l, .903 on Q-2, and .876 on Q—3. How Do "Ideal".Arrays Compare With Actual.Arrays? ass "Ideal" Farmers Compared with CBS Actual Farmers -- When the cuestion is raised, "What communication strategies are indicated for'Extension administratiOn on the basis of farmer attitudes toward the Cooperative Extension Service?", the answer for CES Type 1 farm- ers is, "Not very much change is needed." This answer will not do for CES Type 3 farmers, however. Comparison Of advisers and administrators "ideal" sorts on Q-sort 1, dimensions of attitudes toward the COOperative Extension Service, with the actual sorts Of the CES Type 1 farmers shows a correlation of .948. Correlation of the advisers and administrators CES "ideal" sorts is only .566 with actual sorts of CES Type 3 farm- ers. Strategy in planning communication with this type of farmer 198 may "pay off" handsomely. Both CES Type 1 and 3 farmers highly agree with the advisers and administrators that they can rely on CES information, that they can get information quickly and easily from the CES, that information from the University of Illinois is of practical use to them, and that the CES suggests sound practices that benefit the farmer who uses them (Table 70). They are in high consensus agreement that the CES is a reliable, efficient, practical, compe- tent, and friendly organization (Appendix 4). But these groups do not agree at all on the value, impartiality, up-to—dateness and organization of CES. It is these latter discriminating items that provide clues to administrators that may indicate possible strate- gies to promote most effective communication with CES Type 3 farmers. For instance, whereas advisers, administrators and CES Type 1 farmers highly agree that information fromthe COOperative Extension Service helps increase farm production and so returns'moremoney than’ it costs in taxes, CES Type 3 farmers highly disagree. Almost the same situation exists toWard the attitude statement that Cooperative Extension material is impartial and unbiased. Other items that discriminate CES Type 3 farmers from CES Type 1 and "ideal“ farmers of advisers and administrators are that no other source of agricul- tural information is more up-to-date than the Cooperative Extension Service, that Extension's educational prOgrams tell them what they want tO know, and that the CES should not concentrate on helping only farmers, but should try tO help everybody. .Advisers, administrators and.CES Type 1 farmers only moderately agree that they like the CES 199 idea that no farmer is tOO Old to learn better farming methods, but CES Type 3 farmers most highly agree with this statement. Specific statements of attitudes such as these by Illinois commercial farmer groups should provide Extension administrators with valuable infor- mation to plan communication strategies designed to bring about desired attitude changes among the groups. Advisers and adninistrators are in consensus disagreement that the CES should be done away with today, while CES Type 3 farmers also disagree but not so highly (Table 71). The first two groups also more highly disagree than CES Type 3 farmers that they don't have confidence in CES recommendations and that the CES does not do what it is supposed to do--give farmers information they can use. Admisers, administrators and.CES Type 1 farmers disagree almost equally that it is hard to tell whether the tax money that is Spent on the Cooperative Extension Service is doing any good or not, and that CES recommendations are influenced too much by commercial interests, while CES Type 3 farmers agree with these attitudes. Both of these CES farmer types almost equally deny, and more so than advisers and administrators, that most of the so-called Ex- tension experts have read so many books that they cannot talk common sense any more, and that the farmer who knows his business does not have much need for Extension services like soil testing. CES Types 1 and 3 are at Opposite ends of the line, with advisers and administra- tors in the neutral position between them, in their attitudes toward the statement that the same farmers--usually the best ones in the county-~tend to show up at every Extension meeting, and that Extension education thus does not get to the farmers who need it the most. CES 200 Table 70 -- Advisers and Administrators Ideal CES Arrays Compared With Item *38 19 18 28 *35 *13 Sample Farmers: Actual Arrays (Q-l), Most Agree CES Description Information that comes from the COOperative Extension Service is honest and can be trust- ed to be as accurate as possible. 1.45 Information from the COOperative Extension Service helps increase farm production and so returns more money than it costs in taxes.1.37 Cooperative Extension Service material is impartial and unbiased. 1.37 I can rely on information from the Coopera— tive Extension Service. 1.37 The content of Extension‘s educational pro- grams is as modern as agricultural research can make it. 1.25 NO other source Of agricultural information is more up-to-date than the COOperative Extension Service. 1.24 When I have a farming problem, I find that I can get the information I need quickly and easily from the Cooperative Extension Ser- vice. 1.24 I believe that a lot of the information that comes from the University of Illinois is of practical use to me. ‘ 1.22 The COOperative Extension Service suggests sound practices that benefit the farmer who uses them. 1.22 Extension's educational programs tell me what I want to know. I like the Cooperative Extension Service idea that no farmer is too old to learn better farming methods. .73 1.00 The Cooperative Extension Service should not concentrate on helping only farmers, but should try to help everybody. .68 CES Ideal Type 1 Type 3 1.62 .63 1.39 1.21 .55 CES .65 1.04 .62 1.53 1.44 2.43 .86 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that-most differ between .Advisers andMAdministrators Ideal CES Type and Sample Farmers' Actual CES Types 1 and 3. 201 ‘Table 71 --.Advisers and.Administrators Ideal CES.ArrayS Compared With Sample Farmers' Actual Arrays (Q-l), Most Disagree CES CBS CBS Item . Description Ideal Type 1 Type 3 *40 So far as I am concerned, they could do away with the Cooperative Extension Ser- vice today. -2.03 —2.01 ~1.01 36 I don't have much confidence in the recom- mendations Of the Cooperative Extension Service. -l.52 -1.59 ~ .74 25 The COOperative Extension Service does not do what it is supposed to do--give farmers information they can use. ~1.38 -1.47 - .31 *42 It is hard to tell whether the tax money that is Spent on the COOperative Extension Service is doing any good or not. ~l.30 ~l.01 .90 *16 Cooperative Extension Service recommend— ations are influenced tOO much by com- mercial interests. -l.21 -1.23 .14 6 mest of the so-called Extension experts have read SO many books that they cannot talk common sense any more. -l.l7 -1.47 -l.38 l The farmer who knows his business does not really have much need for Extension services like soil testing. -1.16 -1.39 -l.49 26 I get the feeling that the COOperative Extension Service as part of the Univer- sity of Illinois does not fit in very well with the farmers around here. -l.l4 -1.26 - .49 21 My father taught me most of the things I need to know about farming. -l.11 - .69 -1.54 O» 7 Cooperative Extension educational pro- grams are dictated too much by the U. S. Department of.Agriculture. -1.06 - .58 - .22 *44 The same farmers-~usually the best ones in the county--tend to Show up at every Extension meeting. The Extension educa— tional system thus does not get to the farmers who need the information the most. .00 1.01 - .84 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between .Advisers and Administrators Ideal CES Type and Sample Farmers' Actual CES Types 1 and 3. 202 Type 1 farmers highly agree with this statement, while CES Type 3 farmers almost as strongly disagree with it. Adviser "Ideal" Farmers ComparedTWi h Adviser.Actua1 Farmers -- As noted earlier, the sample farmers in this study form a highly homogeneous group in this Q-sort of attitudes toward Extension per- "ideal" sorts Of the 22 advisers sonnel. The correlation between the and administrators on the one hand and the 52 actual sorts of the farmers who make up the one major type on this Q-sort is .934. None of the attitude item differences between these two groups is more than 1.000 standard deviation. One Of the greatest item disagreements is toward the idea that CES farm advisers and Specialists really know their business. The advisers and administrators would like farmers to highly agree with this attitude while the farmers actually are lukewarm toward it (Table 72). The actual farmers more highly agree than the advisers and administrators "ideal" farmers with the attitudes that their county farm adviser gives them the Straight facts as he sees them and they appreciate it, that they think there is a lot of value in most Of the practices recommended by their county farm adviser, and that their county farm adviser gives them good service. The advisers and.administrators would like their "ideal" farmer to think their county farm adviser tries to involve everyone in Extension educational prOgrams regardless of which organization they belong to, much more than the sample farmers think he does. Patterns of disagreement items are very much the same for both groups (Table 73). The farmers actually disagree more with the state- ment that the county farm adviser stays too much to himself than the ...-H-e- ....— .-.... .....— ~ '203 Table 72 -- Advisers and Adminstrators Ideal Adviser Arrays Compared With Sample Farmers' Actual Arrays (Q-z), Most Agree Adviser Ideal Adviser Actual Item Description 29 12 *30 40 28 *16 *24 My county farm adviser is interested in people and their problems; he is more than just a subject matter expert. My county farm adviser is the most reliable source Of information about farming that I know. COOperative Extension Service farm advisers and Specialists really know their business. My county farm adviser is the most up-to- date source of new farming information that I know about. Farmers can get from the county farm adviser the most down-to-earth recommendations on how to farm better. I appreciate the Sincere interest that my county farm adviser takes in helping me with my problems . My county farm adviser gives me the straight facts as he sees them, and I appreciate it. My county farm adviser tries very hard to involve everyone in Extension educational prOgrams regardless of which organization they belong to. I think that there is a lot of value in most of the practices recommended by my county farm adviser. My county farm adviser gives good service to us farmers. 1.74 1.41 1.40 1.34 1.24 1.13 1.03 1.01 .66 .58 1.05 .44 .91 .97 .55 1.36 1.16 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between .Advisers andMAdministrators Ideal Adviser'Type and Sample Farmers Actual Adviser Type. 204 Table 73 -- Advisers and Administrators Ideal Adviser Arrays Compared With Sample Farmers'.Actual Arrays (Q-2), Most Disagree Item 22 25 11 19 32 31 *37 Description Generally Speaking, county farm advisers are not worth what they are paid. Mest of the recommendations that I get from my county farm adviser sound like the horse- and-buggy days, they are SO old-fashioned. I can get more reliable information that I need for my farming operation from a local commercial dealer I know than I can from my county farm adviser. My county farm adviser will not listen to new ideas and suggestions from the farmers in this county. It takes me too much time and trouble to get information from my county farm adviser. My county farm adviser uses too many high- pressure tactics--he pushes too hard in trying to get us to try out new things and ideas. My county farm adviser plays favorites among the farmers in my county and I do not like it. ' My county farm adviser stays too much to himself and just is not one of us. I have already heard or read about most of the information that my county farm adviser DUtS OUt a Adviser Adviser Ideal -1089 -1.87 "1.29 -1.20 -1009 '1.05 "1.04 -080 " .74 Actual -1.41 -1050 -1006 -1013 -1. 21 -1.41 “1944 -1_016 " 032 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Advisers and Administrators Ideal Adviser Type and Sample Farmers Actual Adviser Type. 205 advisers and administrators would like their "ideal" farmer to dis- agree. Farmers do not disagree as much with the statement that they have already heard or read about most Of the information that their county farm adviser puts out as the advisers and administrators would like them to. Sources "Ideal" Farmers ComparedTWith Sources Actual Farmers -- Illinois commercial farmers differ more from the "ideal" farmers in their attitudes toward sources of better farming information than in the other two Q-sorts Of attitudes. It is where large variances appear between the ways that administrators regard farmer attitudes and their actual attitudes that information supplied by studies such as this can be most valuable to administrators. Correlation between the advisers and administrators group and Sources Type 1 farmers is .727, but only .302 with Sources Type 3 farmers. InSpection Of'Tables 74 and 75 shows that the majority Of the highest agreement and disagreement items for the advisers and adnin- istrators are greatest disagreement items for either Sources Type 3 farmers or both farmer types. Sources Type 1 farmers tend to occupy middle ground between the other two groups. .All three groups are in high consensus agreement about the county farm adviser, the Agricul- tural Experiment Station in Urbana, and bulletins and reports from the Agricultural Experiment Station. But that's where the similarity among their agreement items ends. As we have stated before, Sources Type 3 farmers tend to be much more impressed with the value and reliability of other successful farmers and stories in farm magazines than Sources Type 1 farmers or the advisers and administrators would like them to be. Sources Type 3 farmers regard state~ Extension Table 74 -- Advisers and Administrators Ideal Sources Arrays Compared 206 Withfample Farmers' Actual Arrays ’(Q-3) , Most Agree I deal Actual Actual Item Description Type Type 1 Type 3 8 My county farm adviser 2.01 1.57 1.16 ** l Cooperative Extension Service 1.94 .65 .49 '"11 State Extension Specialists 1.83 1.28 - .35 *13 College of Agriculture at Urbana 1.65 1.38 .56 **40 Ecbension meetings held at the Uni- versity in Urbana 1.38 .60 - .58 32 The Agricultural Experiment Station in Urbana 1.37 1.11 .93 * 6 University of Illinois 1.36 1.19 .30 *39 Short courses and workshops at the University of Illinois 1.20 .55 -1.00 22 Bulletins and reports from the Agri- cultural ‘Experimen‘t_7Station in Urbana 1.01 1.63 1.24 **43 Farm Bureau Farm Management Service fieldman .94 - .67 - .69 * 7 Our local school's vocational agri- culture teacher .91 .35 - .63 **10 Successful farmers I know .61 1.69 1.60 *20 Extension council meetings .47 .18 - .98 *45 Farm manager .31 - .13 -1.33 *18 Stories in farm magazines .06 - .25 1.39 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Advisers and Administrators Ideal Sources Type and Sample Farmers Actual Sources Type 3. **Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Advisers and administrators Ideal Sources Type and Sample Farmers Actual Sources Types 1 and 3. 207 Table 75 -- Advisers and Administrators Ideal Sources Arrays Compared With Sample Farmers' Actual Arrays (Q-3) , Most Disagree Ideal Actual Actual Item Description Type Type 1. Type 3 H34 Farmers Union —1.75 e' .54 -2.55 **36 The National Farmers Organization -1.6l - .49 -2.62 *25 Advertising in neWSpapers ~1.59 - .98 - .15 *17 Advertising in farm magazines -1.53 - .89 .34 31 My relatives —l.35 —l.63 - .75 35 The Grange -l.20 - .65 -1.90 21 My landlord or landlady -1.13 -l.28 - .18 *15 Farm Bureau - .92 - .99 .17 * 9 My neighbors - .89 -1.38 .79 * 5 Farm implement salesman or dealer - .84 -1.67 .98 ** 4 Farm supplies salesman - .52 -1.73 .91 * 2 My father - .50 - .28 .51 ** 3 My years of farming experience - .13 1.37 2.60 *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Advisers and Administrators Ideal Sources Type and Sample Farmers Actual Sources Type 3. **Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Advisers and Adninistrators Ideal Sources Type and Sample Farmers Actual Sources Types 1 and 3. 208 Specialists,Extension meetings in Urbana, short courses and workshOpS at the University Of Illinois, and farm managers as much less reliable than the administrative group would like them to. Sources Type 3 farmers, on the other hand, regard the three other major farm organizations except Farm Bureau, as much more highly unreliable and advertising, relatives, landlords, Farm Bureau, salesmen, their experience and their fathers as much more reliable sources than the advisers and administrators think they should ideally. CHAPTER VIII S UMMARY AND RECOMMENDATI ONS Research tells us that one Of the principal criteria for effec- tive communication is an understanding of the audience. That is, the better that we know the background Of our audience, their past experiences, and their present living habits, the better we are able, as sources, to formulate messages that they will understand. As a result, they will be more likely to change their behavior in ways that we prefer. We designed and conducted this systematic study to see if we could determine the general pattern of Illinois commercial farmers' attitudes toward the COOperative Extension Service. Such information provided to COOperative Extension administrators should help them plan more effective communication strategies in their informational and educational programs. Specifically, we tried to determine: 1. Major types of Illinois commercial farmers as determined by the patterns of their attitudes toward the more imper- sonal, institutional characteristics of the COOperative Extension Service. 2. Major types Of Illinois commercial farmers as determined by the patterns of their attitudes toward Extension personnel. 3. Major types Of Illinois commercial farmers as determined by the patterns of their attitudes toward the sources of 209 210 agricultural information that they consider most reliable. 4. Accuracy Of the "image" concepts that Extension adminis- trators and.county farm advisers have Of Illinois commer- cial farmers. Data gathering methods used in this study were based on Stephenson's Q-technique. We purposefully selected a relatively small structured.sample of 60 Illinois commercial farmers and used them as the variables which we correlated and factor analyzed. Q-technique is particularly useful for studying this prhmary audi— ence of Illinois commercial farmers, because it gives us a relatively few basic patterns of their thinking and feeling that describe well enough for our purposes the different kinds of farmers whom Extension administration wishes to communicate with. In addition, we assessed these farmers' sources Of farming information, assuming that Exten- sion administration will be able to increase its communication effectiveness with this primary audience if they know which sources they consider'most reliable. In general, we found that this primary audience for’Extension informational and educational efforts has a much more favorable ”image" or pattern of attitudes toward the Cooperative Extension Service than the administrators had supposed. This study provides evidence that this primary audience, at least, very much likes Extension's organization and educational system the way it is. The one large cluster of farmers brought out by the factor analysis indicates a high degree of consensus among this important clientele group. The factor analysis also disclosed a few other individual types of attitude patterns. The first factor type that resulted 211 from the principal axis solution on the first Q-Sort Of attitudes toward the Cooperative Extension Service was made up Of 52 Of the 60 sample farmers. Farmer attitudes were even more uniform on Q-sort 2 toward the county farm advisers and state Extension Special— ists, when the principal axis solution disclosed that 54 of the 60 farmers were enough highly correlated with each other to form a single type. A two-factor varimax rotation analysis on Q-sort 1 showed three types Of farmer attitudes, and the first rotation also developed three different types on Q-sort 3, the pattern of attitudes toward the sources of farming information. The first varimax rota- tion did not make much change in the principal axis type Of Q-Sort 2. One type of the farmers identified on Q-sort 1 appears to be technically oriented toward the institutional aSpectS of the Coopera- tive Extension Service, while another type appears to be made up of farmers who have an orientation toward people, not necessarily in Extension. The third type was a mixed group somewhere between the other two with some characteristics Of both and some attitudes Of its own. The same kinds of orientations toward institutions and persons was evident in the three types isolated in Q-sort 3 patterns Of atti- tudes toward the various sources of agricultural information. For instance, the study established that for some Illinois farmers, the COOperative Extension Service stands at the tOp of their list of reliable sources. These were the farmers in Type 1. For Type 3 farmers and some in Type 2, who have other sources that they rely on more than on Extension for information about farming, the study 212 provides administrators with information that should enable them more effectively to plan their communication strategy. This infor- mation should help them choose channels and prepare messages that will be most effective for the commercial farmers that they want to reach. Type 3 farmers, as an example, identify certain kinds of people in both the CES and Source sorts whom they regard as highly reliable sources. It will be necessary to work through these people tO reach that type of farmer most effectively. 'One farmer, No. 3 in the sample, provided evidence of the existence Of a divergent type Of commercial farmer in Illinois who is very dissatisfied with the way things are and the present educa— tional programs Of Cooperative Extension. Administrators must acknowledge the existence Of this type Of farmer among their clientele and be prepared to handle his Special kind of problems. The study also disclosed two different types of farm advisers in the way that they consider what the "typical" farmers in their counties think about Extension. These types were not entirely consistent through all three Q-sorts, but in general could be char- acterized as Older, more traditional advisers with much faith in the Extension educational system and its value, as against a more youthful, unsure pattern of attitudes that questions some of the traditional ways of doing things. .Extension administrators should be highly pleased by the favorabha attitudes that this Study shows Illinois commercial farmers have toward the COOperative Extension Service, its programs and peOple. The 60 sample farmers in their actual Q-sorts came close to matching the "ideal" patterns of attitudes as formulated by the 22 Extension 213 administrators, agricultural supervisors and county farm advisers included in the study. Farmer attitudes are closer to the "ideal" or hOped for attitude patterns of the administrators and supervisors than to the "ideal" patterns as visualized by the county farm advisers, and some different from the "typical" farmers that the advisers envision in their counties. This study also Shows that this audience Of Illinois commercial farmers makes a clear distinction between sources and channels Of information. This finding supports the research evidence, eSpecially in diffusion studies, that the mass media are most valuable for introducing new ideas and information to farmers and for keeping them informed about the latest research results. These farmers in this study, however, do not regard the mass media as highly reliable sources Of farming information, seeing them rather as channels and looking behind them to the persons or institutions they think are reSponsible for the information in the first place. Use Of Q-Blocks'With a Large_Sample A further extension Of this study, in order to generalize to the entire pOpulation of Illinois commercial farmers, would be to use Stephenson's "Q-block'questionnaire technique for assigning large numbers Of people to Q typologies. As Talbott points out (30), some communication researchers have been dismayed by the use Of Q-technique with relatively small numbers of persons, in some cases with only one. They have asked how the subjective procedures Of Q could be combined with the precision Of properly applied sample survey research methodology. It may not be economically feasible to apply Q-technique directly to large sample survey research because Of the 214 great amount Of time needed for adninistration and analysis. However, Stephenson shows how Q-technique can easily be applied in large sample survey research for greater reliability in generalization (27). "The method,"'Talbott says, "involves the construction of 'Q—blocks' which are comparable in one sense to a series Of small individual Q-Sorts. Detailed knowledge of a stable Q-typology factor structure is necessary for construction of these Q-blocks. This knowledge can be derived from direct application Of Q-technique to a smaller, usually structured sample from the pOpulation in which the researcher is interested." (30, p. 1) This study applies Q-technique to a small structured sample. For a large-sample study Of Illinois commercial farmers, it would be possible to construct Q-blocks from the arrays of state- ment z-scores for each of the types of farmers identified through the analysis Of the Stage 2 Q—sorts. A.number of item sets would be Selected from the arrays. Each set would include a statement from the arrays of each Of the attitude types at about the same level of acceptance, and each statement would be one which the other types accept substantially less. Each set of items makes up a Q-block. The process consists of selecting a set Of items in which the z-score in each Of the diagonal cells from upper left to lower right is substantially higher than the other z-scores in both the row and column the diagonal cell is in. Ideally, the separation should be at least a standard score Of 1.000. Statements from the negative end of the arrays can also be used to construct Q-blocks. When negative statements are used, z-scores in the principal diagonal cells must be substantially less than the z-scores in the row and column of the diagonal cell. 215 ReSpondentS then would be asked to rank-order the statements from agree-most to disagree-most for each Q-block independently. Instructions for this rank-ordering are similar to those used in the original Q-study from which the blocks are develOped. Scores are derived for each reSpondent, one for each type, from the sum Of the ranks assigned tO the statements. Scores for each respondent provide the basis for assignment to a type of attitude orientation toward the COOperative Extension Service. From this pattern Of typologies develOped by the analysis Of the Q-blocks, Extension administration would then be able to learn how many Illinois comm mercial farmers fall into each attitude type, and gain some back- ground data to be used in planning communication efforts to reinforce or change these identified attitudes. Carrying out this further study would require selecting a repre- sentative sample of Illinois commercial farmers to project the findings from the large sample to the general population Of Illinois commercial farmers. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Biilfilms, Robert E., “Believing and behaving: perception and learn- ing," in Alexander Frazier (ed.), Learning Mere About Learning. Papers and reports from the Third ASCD Research Institute, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, National Education Association, 1201 16th St. NW, Washington, D. C., 1959. 2° BOllilding, Kenneth E., The Image. Ann Arbor: University of Michi— gan Press, 1956. 3° cattell, Raymond I. , Factor Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953. 4’ <2hurchman, C. West, Russell L. Ackoff and E. Leonard.Arnoff, Introduction £2_Operations Research. New York: John.Wiley, 1957. 5‘ I)eming, W. G. , "On errors in surveys," American Sociolo_gica1 Re- view, 1944, 9, p. 359. 6' IDeutsch, K.‘W., ”On communication models in the social sciences," Public Opinion Quarterly. 1952, 16, 356-80. 7 ‘ Emery, F. E., and O. A. Oeser, Information, Decision and Action. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1958. £3 ' THall, Arthur D.,.5 Methodology for Systems Engineering. Prince- ton: D. Van Nostrand Co., 1962. ~ Hovland, Carl 1., Irving L. Janis and H. H. Kelley, Communication and Persuasion. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959 (third printing). ‘ Hughes, B. C., and M..Benny, "Of sociology and the interview: editorial preface," American qurnal gf'Sociology,1962, lg, 56, p. 137. - Hyman, Herbert, et a1, "Some reasons why information campaigns fail," Public Opinion Quarterly, 1947, 11, 412-23. . Irwin, F. W., "Stated expectations as functions of probability and desirability of outcome," Journal 3; Personality, 1953, _2_i_, 329-35. Katona, George, The Powerful Consumer. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960. ]“4. Kelly, George.A., The Psychology_g£_Personal Constructs. New York: Norton, 1955, (two vols.) 216 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 217 Lionberger, Herbert F., Adoption of New Ideas and Practices. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1960. MacCorquodale, K., and P. E. Meehl, "Preliminary suggestions as to a formalization of eXpectancy theory," Psycholggical Review, 1953, 69, 55-63. MacLean, Malcolm 8., Jr., "Research Planning," in Ralph O. Nafziger and David Manning White (eds.), Introduction to Communications Research. Baton Range: Louisiana State University Press, 1963, (revised edition). MacLean, Malcolm 8., Jr., Thomas Danbury and.Albert D. Talbott, Civil Defense Belief Patterns. (1) Peace and Defense; (2) Source Credibility; (3) Fallout Shelters and Radiation. East Lansing: Michigan State University, Communication Research Report (mimeo.), April, 1963. Marks, Rose W., "The effect of probability, desirability and 'privilege’ on the stated eXpectations of children," JOurnal of Personality, 1951, 12, 332-51 Merton, Robert K., Marjorie Fiske and Patricia L. Kendall, The Focused Interview. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1956. Morse, P. M., and G. E. Kimball, Methods of Operations Research. New York: John Wiley, 1951. Mowrer, O. H., Learninngheory and Personality Dynamics. New York: Ronald Press, 1950. Rotter, J. B., Social Learning and Clinical Psychology, New York: PrenticeeHall, 1954. Selvin, H. C., "A critique of tests of significance in social research," American SociOIOgical Review, 1957, 22, p. 519. Snygg, Donald, and.Arthur Combs, Individual Behavior: .A_Percep- tual Approach £2_Behavior. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959. Solley, C. M., and Gardner Murphy, DeveIOpment of the Perceptual ‘World. New York: Basic Books, 1960. Stephenson, William, The Study 2£_Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953. Stephenson, William, "An image for Missouri's public libraries," mimeographed report of research undertaken for the Office of the State Librarian, University of Missouri, Columbia, June, 1962. Stogdill. Ralph M., Individual Behavior and.Group Achievement. New York: Oxford University Press, 1959. Til. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 218 Talbott, Albert D. , "The Q-block method of indexing Q typologies," mimeographed paper presented at annual conference, Associ- ation for Education in Journalism, Communications Research Center, Michigan State University, August, 1963. Toch, Hans, and Malcolm S. MacLean, Jr., "Perception, communication and educational research: a transactional view,".Audio~ Visual Communication Review, 1962, 10, 5, September- October, 55-77. -... Tolman, E. C., Purposive Behavior in_Animals and Men. New York: Century, 1932. Wiener, N., Cybernetics: Control and Communication in_the Animal and the Machine. New York: ‘John Wiley and Sons, 1948. Wiener, N., The Human Use gf_Human Beings: Cybernetics and Society Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1950. Wilkening, E. A., "The communication of ideas on innovation in agriculture," in Studies in the Utilization of Behavioral Science, Vol. II, Institute for CommunicationnResearch, Stanford University, 1962, 39-60. Wilkening, E. A., The County Extension Agent in Wisconsin, Wiscon- sin Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 203, Madison, 1957. Wilkening, E. A., "Roles of communicating agents in technological change in agriculture," Social Forces, 33, May, 1956, 361-67 0 Williams, T. Rhys, "A critique of some assumptions of social sci- ence research," Public Opinion Quarterly, 1959, 23, p. 55. Zimmerman, Claire, and Raymond A. Bauer, "The effect of an audi- ence on what is remembered" Public Opinion Quarterly, Znaniecki, Florian, Cultural Sciences: Their Origin and Deve10p- ment. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1952. 219 [University of IllinoisI——m———[U. S. Department of Agricu] -tureI AIFDean and Director of Extension] I l I Agr. Business OffiCEI [College of Agr. Publicationsfij Subject Matter ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR Department Heads COOperative Extension Service 1 , l l ’1 ‘\ Ass't Dir. Ass't Dir. Extension Extension 4—H & Fiscal & PrOgrams Education Editor Youth _1 accounting] ‘ I Safety Rural Civil Agr. 4-H ' Defense State Staff 11 T State Subject [Egalgationl Home Ec. 4—H 'filMatter Specialists State Staff 13 I Assistant Director Assistant Director for.Agriculture for Home Economics Area Subject Matter Specialists Ass't Leaders ASSTt .eaders Agr. Home Economics 1 __ Co. Ext. Councilr‘JCo. Ext. Board Co. Ext. Council (Agriculture) (Finance) (Home Economics) Iikrea.AdvisersI I Co. Farm.AdvisersI L90. Home Advisers] [Assoc's & Ass'ts I IAssoc's & Ass'ts'I a: COMMUNITIES % 1 1 I l l l J‘ Industry Government Young J Representatives Agencies Producers Homemakers People Daily —_7Weekly Rjadio I IS Television Newspapers Newspapers Stations Stations L L Figure 8 —- A diagram of the formal communication system within the Illinois Cooperative Extension Service and its clientele grOUps. 220 J0 0A VIESS STEP/IDVSON WINNEBA so 3001/: ans/1mm LAKE I' VOGLE ‘l award I KANE I C00" DUPAGE WHITES/DE LEE IVE/VOA]. L W/L L LASALLE HENRY BUREAU kavo r ROCK ISLAND : “mm at: I5 74 RR 3 KNOX M 1? ALL IV/NGSTON H e WA RREN A 5 L _I O PfOR/A fl IROQUOIS 32 WOODFORD ”a g k: M _< L EA N t fUL row mxcocx 119001100611 :1 FORD N 1: VFPMIL ION .3 Cum PA [6N LOGAN SCHUVLEP DIN/f7 '\ k M Q3 MCNARD MACON 3A NGAMON DOUGLAS (OGAR ’L‘ ! E s e 3 K g Q MACOUPIN ”2 § X ‘ § *0 X K’ K CUM6IPL '0 7‘ MON mom X n r rr rr'au'M , X5 c ( JASPER ammo I X MADISON [ 30”” X x x Cl 4‘ V K MAP/ON man 0 “runs: CLINTON SICLAIR WA me év WA 5HIN670” Jt’FFfRSO/V d E mum row w RANDOLPH PERRY FRANKLIN X X X JACKSON X SAL/NE WILLIAMSON x" UNI O N JOHNSON POP! IIARDID Figure 9 -— Farms visited, Stage I, focused interviews, September, 1963 221 J0 DA V1555 SffPfif/VSON W/NNEBAGO BOON! MSHENRY OGLE j Df/MLB IMNE Hun—— wmrfsroz. LEE 0 O 0 o IffflDALL O ,_f LASALLE HENRY BUREAU . O GRUNDY O O 3 . KANKAKEE szrm 3 KN ‘ v .01 . MARSHALL LlV/NGSION WARRfN k 0 . xROOUOIS 0 . PEOR/A l {g 0 WOODFORD u. g 0 ‘u MFLEAN t fULfO/v . Q r._———d HANCOCK MSDONOUGH r0190 0 O Q . VEPMIUON C c PA cm 0 0 mm / D g 0 . . O SCHUVLER perv/r7 . ADAMS . O -p C}, MACON ‘ o ””6““ DOU6LAS (DEAR PIKE scan 3 E l x N COLES 3 o 5 t. a 2 GREENE MACOUPIN a t cup“ 2 O O 5 ‘0 q . x g . . 9 FA rr (FIGHM , JERSEY . 76 c JASPER curro #1 N MAD/SON ‘90 0 can ' meme: ' A MARION . .mcmo L CLINTON Q . O SICLAIR W‘V’“ V, mus»: Q 3. WA5H/NGTON JEFFIRSON 3 8 3 § u. mam row mm: RA NDOL PH PE RR 7 FHA/(KL IN C JACKSON _——I-—9— SAL/NE (mu. WILLIAMSON UNION JOHNSOII POP! [MIDI Figure 10 ~- Location of respondents' farms, Stage 2, Q-study, January-February, 1964 222 APPEN DI GS 223 APPENDIX 1 Name INFORMATION SHEET Address ,Illinois County 1. My age is Under 35 9 35-44 16 45-54 16 55-64 15 Over 65 4 Circle the highest grade or year in school that you have completed. 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 or more Highest (college) (graduate study) college degree 19 did not graduate 29 graduated from 12 college graduates from high school. high school How many acres of land did you farm in 1963? less than 180 9 15% 180-259 acres 9 15% 260-339 acres 10 17% 340-500 acres 15 25% more than 500 17 28% How many total? Please check the blank below that describes your situation I own all of the land that I farm 24 I own some and rent some of the land that I farm 26 I rent all of the land that I farm 10 In which of the following groups would your gross farm income for 1963 fall? I. under $2,500 3 5% IV. $1o,ooo-$19,999 15 24% II. $2,500-$4,999 0 V. $20,000-$39,999 20 33% III. $5,000-$9,999 6 10% VI. More than $40,000 16 28% 224 Appendix 1 -(Cont inue d) 6- 11, 12. What is your religious preference? 1 Mormon Protestant 52 Catholic 6 Jewish () Other 1 Primitive Baptist List below the make and year of your automobi1e(s) Check below the farm organization(s) you now belong to Farm Bureau 47 National Farmers Organization 8 Grange 2 List any others Farmers Union 2 Check below the farm magazines that you get and read regularly Successful Farming 52 List any others Better Farming Methods Farm JOurnal 52 Drovers Journal . Doane's Prairie Farmer 57 Soybean Digest Feedlot 1‘“ new” .22. NFO Reporter The Nation's Agriculture 47 Turkey World -*- Feedstuffs Hoard's Dairyman 5 Hereford Journal Polled Hereford World Famers Digest Shorthorn Journal National Livestock Producer 24 N tio Ho F e a nal g arm r -2EL- Angus JOurnal Wallace's Farmer 15 Breeders Gazette '——“— Illinois Union Farmer Farm Quarterly 20 Dairy Record Business of Farming Do you know your county farm adviser personally? Yes 57 No 2 I know who he is 1 Has he ever refused to give you information that you asked for? Yes 2 No 54 I haven't asked for any 4 Have you ever attended a county Extension educational meeting? Yes 54 No 6 I have never heard of them HHHHHHHNNHHHHHAAOO w —- .. _*-——-— V V.",_K. . Iii III-In. III I III: 225 APPENDIX 2 Summary of Attitudes Toward.Extension—Farm Bureau Relationships Farm Bureau needs the Cooperative Extension Service for its educa— tional programs. 32 , 16 , 1 , 5 , 1 : o. , 5 Highly Agree Agree a Neutral Disagree Disagree Highly agree some little a little some disagree The county farm adviser should have his office away from the Farm Bureau building. 17 : 1 : l 3 10 : l : 7- , 23 Highly Agree Agree a Neutral Disagree Disagree Highly agree some little a little some disagree I like the close tie-in in my county between the Cooperative Exten— sion Service and the Farm Bureau. 26 : 9 : l : 8 : 2 : ,4 : 10 Highly .Agree .Agree a Neutral Disagree Disagree Highly agree some little a little some disagree My county farm adviser has no business going to a county ASCS meet- ing, because it ties him in too closely with government prOgrams. 6 , 1 , 2 , 5 , 2 , 15 , 27 Highly Agree .Agree a Neutral Disagree Disagree Highly agree some little a little some disagree I think that my county farm adviser gives good recommendations because he is hired by the Farm Bureau. 5 : 3:___.Q__.___.§_._:___2___:____4__:._31.§_ Highly .Agree .Agree a Neutral Disagree Disagree Highly agree some little a little some disagree I'm glad that my county farm adviser has his office at the Farm Bureau building, because that's where most of the farmers in my county go frequently. 22 8 3 6 3 . 4 . 14 Highly‘fiAgree ‘ Agree a I Neutral : Disagree ’ Disagree ‘ Highly agree some little a little some disagree I will not go to see my county farm adviser at the Farm Bureau building, because I am not a Farm Bureau member. 3 1 0 3 4 4 . 45 Highly' Agree Agree a Neutral Disagree Disagree ’ Highly agree some little a little some disagree APPENDIX 3 226 Characteristics of the 60 Sample Farmers Loca- Prior Reli— Educa- Owner— In— Organi- No. Age tion County Att. gion tion Acres ship come zation 1 64 Far Good Fav. Prot. 8 2 Owns 6 FB 2 67 Near " Neu. Prot. l2 5 Owns 6 FB, G 3 47 Near " Unf. Prot. 12 5 Owns 5 NFO 4 52 Med. " Neu. Cath. 12 5 Owns 6 none 5 27 Med. " uni. Prot. 16 3 Rents 6 NFO 6 40 Far " Fav. Prot. l2 2 Owns 6 FB 7 76 Med. Poor Unf. Prot. 8 2 Owns 1 FB 8 32 Med. " Fav. Cath. 16 5 Rents 6 FB 9 42 Near " Neu. Prot. 8 5 Rents 4 none 10 59 Near " Fav. Prot. 12 1 Rents 4 none 11 45 Far " Neu. Prot. 12 2 Owns 5 FB 12 35 Far " Unf. Prot. 12 2 Rents 4 FB 13 50 Far " NBU. Prot. 12 4 0 & R 4 FB 14 35 Near " Fav. Prot. l6 4 Rents 6 FB 15 48 Med. " Unf. Prot. 12 3 Owns 5 none 16 51 Med. " Neu. Prot. 9 3 O & R 5 FB 17 56 Far " Fav. Prot. 12 1 Owns 4 FB 18 45 Near " Unf. P. B. 12 1 Owns 5 FB 19 31 Med. Good Fav. Prot. 16 4 O & R 5 FB 20 67 Near " Uhf. Prot. 12 5 o a R 3 'FB 21 60 med. " Neu. Prot. 8 4 Rents 6 FB 22 32 Near " Neu. PrOt. 12 2 0 & R 3 FB 23 35 Far " rev. Prot. 16 5 Owns 6 FB 24 41 Far " Unf. Prot. 12 4 O & R 6 FB 25 51 Near Poor Fav. Prot. 13 3 Owns 4 FB 26 38 Med. " Neu. Prot. l6 5 Owns 6 FB 27 55 Far " Neu. Prot. 7 4 o a R 4 FB 28 61 Near " Unf. Prot. 12 2 Owns 3 none 29 52 Med. " Fav. Prot. 8 5 Owns 3 FB 30 43 Far " Unf. Prot. 8 l Owns 1 FB 31 46 Med. Good Fav. Prot. 12 1 0 & R 3 G 32 46 Near " uni. Prot. 11 2 o a R 4 FB 33 60 Far " Fav. Prot. 16 4 Owns 4 FB 34 26 Near " Neu. Mor. 12 5 o a R 5 FB 35 60 Far " Neu. Prot. 16 5 O & R 6 FB 36 42 Med. " uni. Prot. 12 2 o a R 4 FB 37 55 Near " Fav. Prot. 8 3 o a R 5 FB 38 21 Far " Neu. Prot. 12 1 Rents 5 FB 39 49 Med. " uni. Cath. 8 3 o a R 4 NFO 40 43 Far " Unf. Prot . 12 5 O 8; R 6 FU 41 so med. " Fav. Prot. 9 5 Owns 6 FB 42 50 Near " Neu. Cath. 8 3 Owns 5 FB Appendix 3 -( continued) 227 Loca- Prior Reli- Educa- Owner- In" Organi— No. Age tion County .Att. gion tion Acres ship come zation 43 58 Near Poor Fav. Prot. 10 1 Owns 4 FB 44 38 Med. " Unf. Prot. 12 4 Owns 5 NFO 45 57 Near " Neu. Prot. 6 3 O & R 3 FB 46 42 med. " Fav. Prot. 8 4 O & R 5 FB 47 27 Far " Neu. Prot. 12 4 o s. R 4 none 48 43 Far " Unf. Cath. 12 5 o a R 5 FB, NFO 49 62 Med. Good Unf. Prot. 9 3 O,& R 5 FU 50 62 Near " Fav. Cath. 8 4 O & R 5 FB 51 36 Near " Fav. Prot. 16 1 Owns 1 FB 52 48 Far " Neu. Prot. 12 1 Rents 5 FB 53 42 Far " Unf. Prot. l3 4 Owns 4 FB, NFO 54 33 Med. " Neu. Prot. 12 3 Rents 5 FB 55 57 Far Poor Unf. Prot. 8 5 O & R 6 FB 56 49 Med. " Fav. Prot. l6 5 O & R 5 FB 57 56 Near " Unf. Prot. 9 4 o a. R 4 FB, NFO 53 52 Med. " Fav. Prot . 12 4 Owns 5 FB ‘ 59 41 Far " Neu. Prot. 16 4 o a R 5 FB 60 32 Near " Neu. Prot. l6 5 O & R 6 FB Summary and Key: Per- .Ave. age of sample ; 47.5 Acrggge Groups No. cent Oldest farmer : 80 1 - less than 180 - 9 15 Youngest farmer : 21 2 = 180-259 acres - 9 15 3 = 260-339 acres - 10 17 .Average age of Illinois commercial 4 = 340_500 acres _ 15 25 farmers, 196OCensus = 47.8 years 5 2 more than 500 _ 17 28 Protestants : 54 Income Groups No. Per- Catholics = 6 (1960 U. 8. Census) cent P. B. = Primitive Baptist 1 a under $2,500 3 5 Mor. : Mormon 2 : $2,500-4,999 0 0 3 : $5,000-9,999 6 10 College education = 12 4 : $10,000-l9,999 15 25 High school graduate = 29 5 : $20,000-39,000 20 33 Grade school only .-. 19 6 = more than $41000 16 27 Owners farming own land Owners that rent some Renters only HNM 0651b Organization memberships 47 FB = Farm Bureau 2 F0 : Farmers Union 7 NFO : National Farmers Organization G : Grange 2 6 = none .APPENDIX 4 228 Q—Sort l -- Institutional Characteristics (Impersonal Sources) Category Slant No. 1. Competence - 36 + 28 - 1 + 2 2. Practicality - 27 +‘ 35 - 11 +‘ 43 3. Effectiveness - 25 + 20 - 22 + 23 Description I don't have much confidence in the recommendations of the Cooperative Extension Service. The Cooperative Extension Service suggests sound practices that benefit the farmer who uses them. The farmer who knows his business doesn't really have much need for Extension services like soil testing. In general, Extension’s educational programs tell me what I need to know about new develOpments in my kind of farming. Information presented at Extension's educational meetings is too general; it's not Specific enough to be of any real help to me. Extension's educational prOgrams tell me what I want to know. Much of the information from the University of Illinois College of Agriculture is too advanced for the average farmer--he isn't ready for it. I believe that a lot of the information that comes from the University of Illinois is of practical use to me. ‘The Cooperative Extension Service doesn't do what it is supposed to do--give farmers infor- mation they can use. The scientists at the College of Agriculture in Urbana give farmers like me a lot of good help. I get most of my ideas on how to farm better from the Farm Progress Show or State Fair and not from the COOperative Extension Service. I think that the Cooperative Extension Service system of getting information to farmers through educational meetings is very effective. 229 Appendix 4-(Continued) Category Slant 4. Value + 3 + 38 - 42 r 40 5. Communication + 30 - 31 - 6 + 15 6. Up-to-dateness + 4 - 12 - 41 + 5 7. Impartiality + 8 No. Description I like the CoOperative Extension Service idea that no farmer is too old to learn better fanning meth- ods. Information from the COOperative Extension Service helps increase farm production and so returns more money than it costs in taxes. It's hard to tell whether the tax money that is Spent on the COOperative Extension Service is doing any good or not. So far as I am concerned, they could do away with the COOperative Extension Service today. Cooperative Extension circulars and booklets I have read are well written and easy to understand. Mbst Extension information materials use too many technical words and schoolbook language. Mbst of the so-called Extension "experts" have read so many books that they can't talk common sense any more. On the whole, the Extension Service does a pretty good Job of presenting information to us. No other source of agricultural information is more up-to-date than the COOperative Extension Service. Mbst of the information put out by the Cooperative Extension Service is a review of what I have already heardtor read about. Extension's system of holding educational meet- ings is out of date. The content of Extension's educational programs is as modern as agricultural research can make it. Cooperative Extension Service material is impar- tial and unbiased. The Cocperative Extension Service should not concentrate on helping only farmers, but should try to help everybody. 230 Appendix 4-(Continued) Category Slant NO. Description ‘ - 77 COOperative Extension educational programs are dictated too much by the U. S. Department of Agriculture. - 16 COOperative Extension Service recommendations are influenced too much by commercial interests. 8. Efficiency + 33. Mbst smart farmers will try a new practice that is recommended by the CoOperative Extension Ser— vice. - 34 Mbst Extension services, like soil testing, take too much time and paper work. - 37 The Cooperative Extension Service bombards us farmers with so much information that it's hard to sort out what is useful and what is not use- ful for my Operation. + 18 When I have a farming problem, I find that I can get the information I need quickly and easily from the COOperative Extension Service. 9. Reliability + 19 I can rely on information from the Cooperative Extension Service. - 21 My father taught me most of the things I need to know about farming. - 24 My years of experience tell me Just about all that I need to know about farming. + 9 Information that comes from the Cooperative Extension Service is honest and can be trusted to be as accurate as possible. 10. Friendliness + 10 Generally speaking, I have found the Cooperativei Extension Service to be about as friendly an organization as you could find anywhere. - 26 I get the feeling that the Cooperative Extension Service as part of the University of Illinois doesn't fit in very well with the farmers around here. - 14 ‘Written materials from the Cooperative Extension Service are usually too cold and official for me. 231 Appendix 4 '(Cont inued) Category Slant N0. + 39 11. Organization - 17 + 32 + 29 - 44 Des cript ion The COOperative Extension Service is very thought- ful and considerate in its dealings with farmers like me. I think that the Extension specialists should be located out in the state and not at Urbana. Cooperative Extension can do its Job well only so long as it maintains an office in every county. One of the good things about COOperative Extension is its close ties with the U. S. Department of Agriculture. The same famers--usually the best ones in the county--tend to show up at every Extension meeting; the Extension educational system thus does not get to the farmers who need the information the IOIt. 232 APPENDIX 5 Factor LoadingMatrix on Principal Axis.Analysis, Q-l* E ReSpond— Factor Factor Respond- Factor Factor ReSpond- Factor Factor ent No. I fig II ent No. . I II ent No. I.” II 1 .8083 -.0568 21 .7289 .2202 41 .7675 .1319 2 .4057 .3717 22 .8384 -.O428 42 .7017 .1012 3 -.0267 .5114 23 .7889 -.0607 43 .8755 .1040 4 .8239 .0602 24 .8046 .1198 44 .7652 .1945 5 .6354 .5164 25 .8259 -.l604 45 .6256 .4178 6 .8042 -.3065 26 .8066 -.0595 46 .8474 -.1686 7 .7098 —.2517 27 .8352 .0804 47 .8455 —.0614 8 .6240 -.1132 28 .5300 .4091 48 .7972 —.0385 9 .8023 .2210 29 .8496 -.2097 49 .7768 .0867 10 .7965 .0157 30 .5375 .4103 50 .8074 -.2754 11 .7551 -.2798 31 .8079 —.0559 51 .3352 -.2832 12 .7744 .0806 32 .8403 -.0586 52 .7302 -.2677 13 .7900 .2523 33 .8432 -.2124 53 .8056 -.1631 14 .7983 -.3195 34 .7959 .1718 54 .7975 .3491 15 .7994 .0077 35 .8112 -.0859 55 .6045 .4667 16 .8894 .0753 36 .6164 .2721 56 .8582 -.1694 17 .7508 .1662 37 .8276 -.0885 57 .5523 -.0749 18 .8542 —.1911 38 .8343 .0132 58 .7246 -.2951 19 .8168 -.2274 39 .5694 .3181 59 .8370 -.1512 20 .8000 .0082 40 .5008 .2169 60 .7580 —,1119 *Eigenvalue of Factor I : 34.5766 - 57.7% (34.6 t 60.0) 233 APPENDIX 6 Factor Loadings on First Varimax Rotation Analysis, Q-1* ReSpond- Factor Fact01 Beepond- Factor FactorIReSpond- Factor Factor ent No. I II vent No. I II ‘ent No. I II 1 .6919 .4217 21 .4668 .6015 41 .5494 .5519 +- 2 .1156 .5339 22 .7084 .4505 42 .5136 .4888 (— 3 -.3179 .4015 23 .6784 .4072 43 .6536 .5917 (— 4 .6369 .5261 24 .5867 .5635 4- 44 .5113 .6017 (— 5 .2191 .z_8_8_9_ ’ 25 .7163. .3474 45 .2682 .zo_29 6 . §_3_:_3_2_ . 2157 26 . 6922 . 4185 45 . 19.2.5. . 3532 7 .7_2_g§_ .2057 27 .6345 .5491 (- 47 .7250 .4394 8 .5743 .2689 28 .1953 .9433 48 .6723 .4301 9 .5262 .6447 29 29.111. .3209 49 .5832 .5205 (— 10 . 6404 . 4739 30 . 2007 .§_4_5_7_ 50 .§_1_7_7_ . 2429 11 .7133 .2090 31 .6911 .4222 51 £41? .2526 12 .5848 .5141(-*I 32 .7190 . 4387 52 .1523 .2045 13 .4981 . 663 1 33 ._8_1_93 .3 150 53 .1533 .3334 14 ._§_3_5_9_ .2017 34 .5495 .6008 {- 54 .4482 .7463 15 .6474 .4691 35 .7111 .3996 55 .2227 .1292 16 .6816 .5763 36 .3451 .5787 56 .g_9_7_9_ .3587 17 .5159 . 5701 (- 37 .7261 .4070 57 . 4937 . 2587 18 .9171 .3388 38 .6726 .4938 58 .3211 .1789 19 .7977 .2875 39 .2801 .5890 59 .7190 .3613 20 .6476 . 4699 .40 . 2827 _.__4§_§_8_ 60 .§_§_g_8_ .3476 **The two loadings on those marked with weights. *Proportions of Variance l : .4005, 2 : .2276 -- 63% (— were averaged to derive JAPPENDIX 7 Weighting Schedule for Q-Sort l Var. : 60 ODS. : 44 Factor Variable No. Loading Weight CES Type I 6 .83 2.668 7 .72 1.495 N : 17 11 .78 1.992 14 .84 2.853 18 .81 2.355 19 .80 2.222 25 .77 1.891 29 .81 2.355 33 .81 2.355 50 .82 2.503 51 .84 2.853 52 .75 1.714 53 .75 1.714 56 .80 2.222 58 .76 1.800 59 .77 1.891 60 .68 1.265 CES Type III 2 .54 .762 5 .79 2.102 N 3 8 28 .64 1.084 30 .65 1.126 39 .59 .905 40 .47 .603 45 .71 1.432 55 .73 1.563 CES Type II 12 .54 .762 17 .54 .762 N : 10 24 .57 .844 27 .58 .874 34 .57 .844 41 .55 .789 42 .49 .645 43 .62 1.007 44 -.55 .789 49 .55 .789 ] i||- ! 235 APPENDIX 8 Item 10 11 Factor Item.Arrays in Q-Sort 1 -- Farmer’Attitudes Toward the Illinois Cooperative Extension Service Description Type 1 The farmer who knows his business does not really have much need for Extension services like soil testing. -1.39 In general, Extension's educational pro-‘ grams tell me what I need to know about new developments in my kind.of farming. 1.44 I like the COOperative Extension Service idea that no farmer is too old to learn better farming methods. .71 No other source of agricultural information is more up-to-date than the Cooperative Extension Service. .63 The content of Extension's educational pro- grams is as modern as agricultural research can make it. .65 Host of the so-called Extension experts have read so many books that they cannot talk common sense any more. 91.47 COOperative Extension educational programs are dictated too much by the U. 8. Depart- ment of.Agricu1ture. - .58 Cooperative Extension Service material is impartial and unbiased. 1.15 Information that comes from the COOpera- tiveIExtension Service is honest and can be trusted to be as accurate as possible. 1.62 Generally Speaking, I have found the COOp- erative Extension Service to be about as friendly an organization as you could find anywhere. .63 much of the information from the university of Illinois College of Agriculture is too advanced for the average farmer--he is not ready for it. - .88 Type 3 Z-SCOTOS -1.49 .28 2.43 -1038 1.49 -.73 Type 2(mixed) -1073 1.72 -1 .06 - .15 ~ .08 .64 1.09 " 079 236 .Appendix 8-»(Continued) Item 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Description MOst of the information put out by the CbOperative Extension Service is a re— view of what I have already heard or read about. The COOperative Extension Service should not concentrate on helping only farmers, but should try to help everybody. ‘Written materials from the COOperative Extension Service are usually too cold and official for me. On the whole, the Extension Service does a pretty good Job of presenting information to us. Cooperative Extension Service recom- mendations are influenced too much by commercial interests. I think that the Extension specialists should be located out in the state and not at Urbana. When I have a farming problem, I find that I can get the information I need quickly and easily from the Cooperative Extension Service. I can rely on information from the Coop- erative Extension Service. The scientists at the College of Agri- culture in Urbana give farmers like me a lot of good help. My father taught me most of the things I need to know about farming. I get most of my ideas on how to farm better from the Farm Progress Show or the State Fair, and not from the COOp- erative Extension Service. I think that the COOperative Extension System of getting information to farmers through educational meetings if very effective. Type 1 -.69_ .55 .73 -1.23 1.39 1.15 .74 Type 3 .14 - .86 - .78 .14 1.53 1.04 1.31 -1054 ‘1. 15 .15 Type 2 (mixed) Z-BCO res " .03 .28 1.00 -l.57 -1.31 237 .Appendix 8-(Continued) Item 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 Description My years of experience tell me just about all I need to know about farming. The Cooperative Extension Service does not do what it is supposed to do—-give farmers information they can use. I get the feeling that the Cooperative Extension Service as a part of the university of Illinois does not fit in very well with the farmers around here. Information presented at Extension's educational meetings is too general; it is not Specific enough to be of any real help to me. The Cooperative Extension Service suggests sound practices that benefit the farmer who uses them. One of the good things about COOpera- tive Extension is its close ties with the U. S. Department of Agriculture. COOperative Extension circulars and booklets that I have read are well written and easy to understand. Most extension information materials use too many technical words and school- book language. Cooperative Extension can do its Job well only so long as it maintains an office in every county. MOst smart farmers will try a new prac- tice that is recommended by the Coopera- tive Extension Service. Z~SCO res Type 3 .84 -1.78 ”1047 "' —1.26 - Most extension services, like soil testing, take too much time and paper work. Extension's educational programs tell me what I want to know. .18 .84 .40 .64 - .49 .18 1.59 .52 1.17 .24 966 - .44 Type 2 (mixed) -1.88 1.37 .46 - .51 1.00 1.23 -1.39 .47 238 .Appendix 8-(Continued) Z-SCO res Item Description Type Type Type 1 3 2 (mixed) 36 I don't have much confidence in the recommendations of the Cooperative Extension Service. -l.59 ~ .74 -l.18 37 The Cooperative Extension Service bombards us farmers with so much information that it is hard to sort out what is not useful for my opera- tion. - .52 - .81 - .76 38 Information from the COOperativelExten- sion Service helps increase farm production and so returns more money than it costs in taxes. 1.23 - .97 1.04 39 The Cooperative Extension Service is very thoughtful and considerate in its dealings with farmers like me. .61 .87 1.07 40 So far as I am concerned, they could do away with the Cooperative Extension 41 Extension's system of holding educa- tional meetings is out-of-date. - .75 - .30 - .94 42 It's hard to tell whether the tax money that is Spent on the COOperative Exten- sion Service is doing any good or not. -l.01 .90 - .51 43 I believe that a lot of the information that comes from the university of Illinois is of practical use to me. 1.21 1.44 1.58 44 The same farmers-~usually the best ones in the county-~tend to Show up at every Exten- 'sion meeting. The Extension educational system thus does not get to the farmers who need the information the most. 1.01 -.84 1.17 239 .APPENDIX 9 Data on CES Type 1 (technical) Farmers (Q-sort l) N : 17 Far— Loca- Prior Reli- Educa- Owner- In- Organi- mer Age tion County Att. gion tion Acres ship come zat ion 6 40 Far Good Fav. Prot . 12 2 Owns 6 FB 7 76 Med. Poor Unf. Prot. 12 2 Owns 1 FB 11 45 Far Poor Fav. Prot. 12 2 Owns 6 FB 14 35 Near Poor Fav. Prot . 16 4 Rents 6 FB 18 45 Near Poor Unf. P. B. 12 1 Owns 5 FB 19 31 Med. Good Fav. Prot. 16 4 O 8:. R 5 FB 25 51 Near Poor Fav. Prot. 12 5 O 8; R 3 FB 29 52 Med. Poor Fav. Prot. 8 5 Owns 3 FB 33 60 Far Good Fav. Prot. 16 4 Owns 4 FB 50 62 Near Good Fav. Cath. 8 4 0 8; R 5 FB 51 36 Near Good Fav. Prot. 16 l Owns 1 FB 52 48 Fa r Good Neu . Prot . 12 1 Rents 5 FB 53 42 Far Good Unf. Prot. 12 4 Owns 4 FB, NFO 56 49 Med. Poor Fav. Prot. 16 5 O 8: P. 5 FB 58 52 Med. Poor Unf. Prot. 12 4 Owns 5 FB 59 41 Far Poor Fav. Prot. l6 4 O & R 5 FB 60 32 Near Poor Neu. . Prot. 16 5 0 8; R 6 FB AV. . age = 46.8 3 young 6 live near 11 favorable 15 Protestant 11 medium 5 live medium 2 neutral 1 Catholic 3 old 6 live far 4 unfavorable l Primitive Baptist 7 college graduates 9 are owners Income Groups 8 high school graduates 6 are part owners 1 = 2 11% 2 grade school graduates 2 are renters 2 = 0 3 = 2 11% 17 Farm Bureau members Acre Groups No. . 4 z 2 11% l NFO member 1 : 3 17% 5 : 7 39% 2 = 3 17% 6 = 4 287. 3 = 0 4 : 7 39% 5 = 4 27% 240 APPENDIX 10 CES Type 1 Item.Arrays by Q-l Characteristic Categories Mbst.Agree lest Disagree Total Item Nos. f Item Nos. ‘ Items 1. Competence 2 +*, 28’+ 36 -, 1 - 4 2. Practicality 43 +, 35 +* - 2 3. Effectiveness 25 -* l 4. Value 38 +*, 3 +* 40 -*, 42 -* 4 5. Communication 6 - l 6. Up-to-dateness 24 -* l 7. Impartiality 8 +*, 13'+* 16 -* 3 8. Efficiency 18 + l 9. Reliability 19 +, 9 +* 2 10.. Friendliness 26 - 1 11. Organization 44 -* 1 11 positive 9 negative 1 negative 0 positive + positive statement negative statement *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between 088 Types 1 and 3. 241 APPENDIX 11 Data on CES $YPBZ3..(MOtional) .FarmerSL CQ-sort l) N = 8 Loca- Prior Reli- Educa- Owner-~ In— Organi- No. Age tion County Attufigion tion _._4-_cres .- ship . comeudzation 2 67 Near Good Neut. Prot. 12 5 Owns 6 FB 5 27 Med. Good Unf. Prot. l6 3 Rents 6 NFO 28 61 Near Poor Unf. Prot. 12 2 Owns 3 none 30 43 Far Poor Unf. Prot. 8 1 Owns 1 FB 39 49 Med. Good Unf. Cath. 8 3 0 & R 4 NFO 4o 43 Far Good Unf. Prot. 12 5 o a a 6 FU 45 57 Near Poor Neut. Prot. 8 3 0 8; R 3 FB 55 57 Far Poor Unf. Prot. 8 5 O 8: R 6 FB Av. age = 50.5 Acre Groups Income Groups 1 : 1 1 : 1 2 : l 2 :: 0 3 : 3 3 : 2 4 = 0 4 : 1 5 : 3 5 : 0 6 : 4 FB FU NFO Farm Bureau Farmers Union National Farmers Organization 242 APPENDIX 12 CES Type 3 Item Arrays by Q~1 Characteristic Categories Most.Agree Mbst Disagree Total Item Nos. Item Nos. Items 1. Competence 28 43 2'+* l - 3 2. Practicality 43 4‘ 35 +* 2 3. Effectiveness 20 4’ 22 -, 25 ~* 3 4. Value 3 'fi, 42 -* 40 -*, 38 +* 4 5. Cemmunication 6 - l 6. Up-to-dateness 0 7. Impartiality 16 -* 13 +*, 8 +* 3 8. Efficiency 18 +, 33 + 2 9. Reliability 19 + 24 -*, 21 - 3 10. Friendliness 10 +' 1 11. Organization 44 -* 1 9 positive 8 negative 2 negative 4 positive + : positive statement - : negative statement *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between CES Types 3 and 1. 243 Datafion (38 Type 2 (Mixed) Farmers (Q-lsort 1) N a lo Ioca- Prior Reli- Educa- Owner- In Organi- No. Age tion County Att. Eon tion Acres ship F come zation 12 35 Far Poor Unf. Prot. 12 2 Rents 3 PB 17 56 Far Poor Fav. Prot. 12 l Owns 4 FB 24 41 Far Good Unf. Prot. 12 4 08; R 6 FB 27 55 Far Poor Neut. Prot. 8 4 O 8; R 4 FB 34 26 Near Good Neut. Ilor. 12 5 O 8; R 5 FB 41 80 led. Good Fav. Prot. 8 5 Owns 6 FB 42 50 Near Good Neut. Cath. 8 3 Owns 5 FB 43 58 Near Poor Fav. Prot. 8 l Owns 4 PB 44 38 led. Poor Unf. Prot. 12 4 Owns 5 NFO 49 62 Med. Good Unf. Prat. 8 3 O a R 5 FU Av. age : 50.1 Acre Groups Income GrouE FB :- Farm Bireau .I‘U : Farmers Union 1 : 2 1 : 0 NFO = National Farmers Organization 2 _-_- 1 2 = 0 G = Grange 3 = 2 3 = l 4 = 3 4 : 3 5 t: 2 5 : 4 6 z 2 ' _1. .4. . r- I... ..II APPENDIX 1:; 244 CES Type 2 (Mixed) Item.Arrays by Q-l Characteristic Categories Mbst Agree Most Disagree Total Item Nos. Item NOs. Items 1. Competence 23 1+ 1 -, 36 - 3 2. Practicality 43 -+ 1 3. Effectiveness 20 '+ 22 - 2 4. Value 3-ta, 33-+** 40 _, 42 -** 4 5. Communication 5 _ 1 6. Up-to-dateness 0 7. Impartiality 13-+** 3-+* 2 8. Efficiency 33 + 34 .t* 2 9. Reliability 9 + 24 -a, 21 - 3 10. Friendliness lo-t, 39 + 2 11. Organization 44 -aa, 32 + 2 11 positive 1 negative = positive statement : negative statement 9 negative 1 positive *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between CES Types 2 and 1. **Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between CES Types 2 and 3. APPENDIX 15 245 Farmer’3 Item‘srrays by Q-l Characteristic Categories Mbst Agree Mbst Disagree Total Item Nos. Item Nos. Items 1. Competence 1 ~*, 2 +* 36 -* 3 2. Practicality 43 + 35 + 2 3. Effectiveness 25 ~*, 23 + 20 +*, 22 -* 4 4. Value 3 +, 40 -* 38 +*, 42 - 4 5. Communication 30'+ 15 +*, 31 -, 6 - 4 6. Up-to-dateness 12 -*, 41 -* 2 7. Impartiality 16 -*, 13 +* 8 +* 3 8. Efficiency 37 -, 18 +* 2 9. Reliability 9 +*, 19 +*, 24 -* 3 10. Friendliness 10 +, 26 -* 39 +* 3 11. Organization 0 7 positive 7 negative 7 negative 9 positive + 3 positive statement : negative statement *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Farmer 3 and all others. APPENDIX 16 246 Q~Sort 2 —- Staff Characteristics (Personal Sources) Category Slant No. l. Competence - 33 + 30 + 38 - 35 2. Practicality - 4 - 23 + 29 + 8 3. Effectiveness + 5 - 18 - 14 + 27 Description My county farm adviser could do a much better job if he had more practical farm experience. COOperative Extension Service advisers and Specialists really know their business. It seems that no matter how tough a problem I take to my county farm adviser, he can find a satisfactory solution. My county farm adviser is taking his connection with the University of Illinois too seriously-- he claims to have more knowledge than I think he has. My county farm adviser uses too many high- pressure tactics--he pushes too hard in trying to get us to try out new things and ideas. My county farm adviser Should have to foot the bill to establish some of the practices he recommends so that he would became more practi- cal. ' My county farm adviser is interested in people and their problems; he is more than Just a sub- ject matter "expert." I never hesitate to put one of my county farm adviser's recommendations into practice on my farm because I know that it will usually work. My county farm adviser gives good service to us farmers. My county farm adviser doesn't get around to visit farms like he should. My county farm adviser Spends too much time going to meetings to be of any real help to me. My county farm adviser is almost never too busy to come out to visit my farm when I want him to. 247 .Appendix 16 --(continued) Category gSlant No. 4. Value - 22 - 21 + 3 + 2 5. Communication - 39 + 40 + 1 - 36 6. Up-to-dateness - 9 + 6 + 26 - 25 Description Generally speaking, county farm advisers are not worth what they are paid. Many ideas that my county farm adviser puts out are too expensive for farmers like me to use. I think that there is a lot of value in most of the practices recommended by my county farm adviser. My county farm adviser gives us farmers much valuable help in our farming operations. The Extension Specialists who come around here can't talk the language of the farmer--they use too many technical terms and schoolbook language, Farmers can get from their county farm adviser the most down-to-earth recommendations on how to farm better. My county farm adviser'makes us feel free to talk our problems over with him at educational meetings. My county farm adviser doesn't seem able to present information in a way that is easy to understand and use. I have already heard or read about most of the information that my county farm adviser puts out. My county farm adviser is the most up-to-date source of new farming information that I know about. I like the way that my county farm adviser keeps up to date with new fanning practices by attending meetings at the College of.Agri- culture in Urbana. Most of the recommendations that I get from my county farm adviser sound like the horse- and-buggy days, they are So old-fashioned. 248 Appendix 16 --(continued) Category Slant NO. Description 7. Impartiality + 16 My county fanm adviser gives me the straight facts as he sees them and I appreciate it. - 19 My county farm adviser will not listen to new ideas and suggestions from the farmers in this county. + 24 My county farm adviser tries very hard to involve everyone in Extension educational programs regardless of which organization they belong to. - 31 My county farm adviser plays favorites among the farmers in my county and I don't like it. 8. Efficiency +' 10 My county farm adviser uses his time very well-- he's one of the most efficient persons that I know. - 20 It is not efficient use of my county farm ad- viser's time to visit too many farms. - 32 It takes too much time and trouble to get infor- mation from my county farm adviser. +’ 15 My county farm adviser almost always seems to have the information I need at his fingertips. 9. Reliability - 13 My county farm adviser often doesn't follow up on things he says he is going to do. ‘* 12 My county farm.adviser is the most reliable source of internation about farming that I know. 't 28 I appreciate the sincere interest that my county farm adviser takes in helping me with my problems. - 11 I can get more reliable information that I need for’my farming operation from a local commercial dealer I know than I can from my county farm ad- viser. 10. Friendliness - 37 My county farm adviser stays too much to himself and Just isn't one of us. 249 .Appendix 16 --(continued) Category Slant NO. Description + 17 My county farm adviser is a wonderful person. - 7 My county farm adviser tries too hard to be friendly. + 34 I enjoy visiting with my county farm adviser on Just about any subdect. ,1. .'~. 250 APPENDI X 17 Factor Loading Matrix on Principal Axis Analysis (Q-Sort 2)* ReSpond- Factor Respond- Factor Reapond— Factor ent No. I ent No. I ent No. I l .8675 21 .8647 41 .7511 2 .4175** 22 .8715 42 .8208 3 .1075** 23 .8674 43 .6946** 4 .8471 24 .6126. 44 .7492 5 .5143** 25 .8255 45 .3805** 6 .8664 26 .8771 46 .7960 7 .8751 27 .8406 47 .8084 8 .4921** 28 -.2149** 48 .7427 9 . 8373 29 . 8842 49 . 8697 10 .7778 30 .7821 50 .8512 11 .8869 31 .8455 51 .8611 12 .7436 32 .8819 52 .7901 13 .8798 33 .8142 53 .8903 14 .8721 34 .8383 54 .8549 15 .8673 35 .8613 55 .8328 16 .8321 36 .7613 56 .8763 17 .8126 37 .8574 57 .8353 18 .8276 38 .8593 58 .8074 19 .9181 39 .7480 59 .8498 20 .8415 40 .5157** 60 .7730 *Eigenvalue of Factor I : 37.6736 : 63.3% (37.6 4 60.0) **Eight variables excluded on weighted ranking analysis 251 h APPENDIX 18 Weighting Schedule for Q-Sort 2 Var. : 60 Obs. : 40 Variable Variable .... No. Loading» Weight No. Loading' Weight Type I l .868 3.579 32 .882 3.901 4 .847 3.063 33 .814 2.355 N = 52 6 .866 3.579 34 .836 2.853 7 .875 3.901 35 .861 3.303 9 .837 2.853 36 .761 1.800 10 .778 1.992 37 .857 3.303 11 .887 4.281 38 .859 3.303 12 .744 1.636 39 .748 1.714 13 .880 3.901 41 .751 1.714 14 .872 3.579 42 .821 2.503 15 .868 3.579 44 .749 1.714 16 .832 2.668 46 .796 2.222 17 .813 2.355 47 .808 2.355 18 .828 2.668 48 .743 1.636 19 .918 5.990 49 .870 3.579 20 .842 2.853 50 .851 3.063 21 .865 3.579 51 .861 3.303 22 .872 3.579 52 .790 2.102 23 .867 3.579 53 .890 4.281 24 .613 .971 54 .855 3.303 25 .826 2.668 55 .833 2.668 26 .877 3.901 56 .876 3.901 27 .841 2.853 57 .835 2.853 29 .884 3.901 58 .807 2.355 30 .782 1.992 59 .850 3.063 31 .846 3.063 60 .773 1.891 Factor 11 2 1.000 Factor III 3 1.000 Factor IV 5 1.000 Factor V 28 1.000 Factor VI 45 1.000 Factor VII 8 1.000 Factor VIII 40 1.000 Factor IX 43 1.000 252 .maeamsse 2.7 mm. - we. we. - 8. E. - on 0p can: 00p moan» nomfl>ps shew mussoo m: b wbo mas al who mm. who Hm. Opus“ Boss H page scapesaoHsa msHEusm 30: mo menace oncolownms umos es» ma nomfiacm seem mussoo >2 m mH.HI we. a .we. mm. u wH.H ma.a .maoshew m: o» oofi>aom eoow mmawm nomw>ea Emmy mussoo m: m wH.Hn mH.MI we. mm.Hu oo. HV.HI .maopfl use mmsage 36s may 09 m: wow 0» madman me can: co» msnmsm onnlmoapome 022m Imoaou:m«s mesa oov moms nomw>cs sham mussoo >2 4 hm.H we. mm.H we. mm. mm.a .aomw>pm anew mussoo he an momsoEEoooa moowuoman on» we um08 um esama mo poH a me when» page mean» H m we. 3 mm. bm.a 00. mm. NN.H .msprmhono msaauew aso ca name oanmsHe> nose mHoEHmH ms mo>Hw nomw>cs anew mussoo AS N mm. hm.Hn wa.H mm.a an. mo.H \ .mwswuoos assofiueosbe as as: news ao>o msoanoan aso Mass 09 menu Home as momma noma>cs sham messoo a: a o -m e m N H meme oamh 0929 6959 came cams scaunuaomon sown mpmwasuoonm scamsonxm evepm use maomeac¢.samm messoo one cameos monouuup<.uoahem In N phonic sw mmeau¢.souu aovosm ma NHQZEQ 253 mm. I oo. mm. mH.HI mm. mm. .msspaomssa man as some H noasaauonsa on» w>as 0» names mmeBHe pmoaHe nemHave anew mussoo m: mH we. 00. 00. we. I we. I mm. I .05 cu mHoa Heep has no on ow mmsHuooa o» msHom 06H» sons 009 museum aomH>se sham zvssoo m: vH am. I 00. mm. I wH.H we. I mm. I .oc on msHom mH on amen on mmanp so as BOHHOH woe doom sopmo aomHace Show messoo z: MH mH.H em.HI mm. I mH.HI we. mo.H . .aoqx H page msHanmw usage soHuaahowsH Ho eoasom OHneHHou pmoa one mH nomH>oe anew mussoo >2 NH mm.HI wH.H hm.HI mH.HI wH.H mo.HI .nomH>oe anew messoo me some see H sane aoHeoc HsHoaanoo HaooH a scam sovauoao msHauem he no“ use: H pane soHvashomsH eHnsHHoa once we» use H HH 00. mm. mm. am. I mm. I on. .eosx H_uanu msomuom usoHonHo woos one we see mH onIIHHoB mama made an moms mundane.anew mussoo m: 0H am. I wH.H an. we. mH.H an. I .950. mean nemHave anew masses he use» soHuesuowsH one Ho 9208 usone veep ao_caao: mesoaHs was: H m mm. mm. mH.HI an. I we. I He. .maoB mHHeSms HHHB a« use» 3can H emseoon .msoHuepsoaaooeu m.aome>pe shew mussoo as no oso ooHuoeam oasH «an o» epeuHmoa hopes H m some some some coma roams coma soHvaHaomon aoeH 2905:2233 II 3 “Season; 254 we. em.HI oo. 5H.H em. I mm. .o» enoHon sass soHpeuHsemao nouns no mmoHeuemea essences HesoHpeosco sonsoaKfl :H edemaoao oaHoasH 09 use: mesa uoHav HomHaee anew hassoo as ea hm.HI em.HI we. I mm.H um.H em. I .HeoHpoaan macs oaooon pHSOB on page on nesesaooea on nooHvoean one no case anHneeao Op uHHHn on» 900% o» can: vHsonm homHacs and“ mansoo h: an em.HI em. I em. I mm. oo. He.HI .6255 one sun» «as: space so: one naemH>cs Shaw messoo .wsamaona hHHeuosoc an we. I wH.H oo. em.H oo. Hm. I .oms on as mmHH maesuem you oaHmsomuo 00» one #30 musm.uomH>ve shew mussoo ma page meocH use: Hm mH.H mH.HI an. I oo. oo. mm. I .nfiuew mass oov uHmH> 0» new“ m.aomH>us Show we no on: usoHOHumo so: mH pH on wH.HI co. co. em.HI co. mH.HI .spasoo was» sH sneaks“ one son“ msoHpnowwsa can mecca as: o» soanH uos HHHB.aonH>pe Show mussoo A: mH mm.H hm.H oo. 00. we. I on. I .cHsonm on anH alum“ anH> ep_vs20ue so» 90: coco nomHaps sue“ messoo a! wH mm. co. me. an. rm.H Hm. .somhom Hsuaocsos a a« nomHace anew mussoo m: 8H em. I an. I an.HI an. I «H.H me.H .aa opaeoouasa H sea .soss moon on me wanna pawuehum on» as mo>Hm nomH>om and“ hassoo m: 6H m m e m N H came oaks comb mama same 0958 soHunHuonoa aouH HsossassoovII eHixaesosa< 255 we. I hm.H oo. mH.H mm. I mm. mm. hm.HI we. mm.H mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mH.HI mm. mm. bm.a hm.H wH.H mH.H hm.HI wH.H wH.H mm. mm. mm. 00. 00. we. mm.HI mm. hm.H am. I mm. mm. mH.HI HN.HI v¢.HI we. mN.H wN.H No. om.HI .HomHaee shew mussoo he Bonn soHuefinowsH saw on oHnsoap use 05H» nose 00» some» 9H .9H omHH u.soo H use hassoo he sH maoauaw one msoaa movHHo>eH ameHn henH>oe shew mussoo a: .mmesHmsn aHoap Bosx mHHseammumHHeHoonm use mammH>ce anew 00H>aom :onsome oaHpeaomooo .waomxo sevens Hosanna a wash seep macs mH on “msoHnonQ aHonp use onoom :H copmonovsH mH homH>pe shew massoo m: . 2603 can he spHs as msHoHon sH moms» nomH>ce anew masses ma page emoaoesH whosHm as» epsHoounns H .0» EH; uses H some anew ha vaH> ow uso oaoo ow mass 00» Ao>os pmoaHe mH aomHace anew hassoo ha .essnua sH snapHsoehm< Ho mmeHHou on» we mmsHuooa MsHosouua he meOHpoean usHauem Bod 39H? oven 0» as anon: nomH>ce anew mussoo me asap has on» oxHH H .cosoHnmsHIcHo On one use» .mmsc mumsnIcse Isaac: one oxHH meson HomH>ce anew menace as some new H use» msoupspsessoooa one no “no: NM AM on am mm EN mm mm 6959 onhfi mama mama onafi 0958 GOHuQHaomoa s53 ApossHusOOV II mH 2.2239; 256 00. wH.H mm. QH.HI wH.HI hm.H mH.H ah. I hm.H wH.H QH.HI ma.HI an. I 00. we. I QH.HI wH.HI hm.HI hm.HI co. we. wH.HI mH.HI QH.HI hm.HI co. hm.HI @Q.H hm.HI hm. HG. I ®H.HI HH.HI em. No.H we. I .333 spam 3 so: so asoHueesoaaoooa avasOIouIsBoc umos one Hogans shew. .3550 .32: song" «om sec unmask .omeswseH coueoHHnaoo use memo» HeoHsnoou mass 03 on: honuIIaoshaw on» no omen—ms: on» 3:25 posses one: cases 0500 one apeHHeHoonm sonsouxn one .soHasHom Egoeumquem s on: see on .3323 «new 435.60 as Op 825 H £0393 e ammo» so: houses 0: van» mason «H .6: no oso pom was“. 3 one “Hem—fin ow nose oos. macaw .8333 Easy assoc a: .06: use vacuums—was 3. hose 6.“ 223 was e 5 dogs-Bows.“ anemone o» 6.3... on 09 seen no: moot aomfiée Shem .3550 an: I onfl 0: “—523 H :23 033306— 938 can: o» 9530 on IImHmsoHHea 009 30533 Ho maHmaoaHsa on» £33 soHuoossoo 62H mat—3 na .3323 shew 3:28 a: .uoonnsm use usage and... so .36ng anew hassoo ha 553 959ng homes H . oosoaaonxo anew HsoHaoeam macs can on HH eon heaven nose a on vHsoo Hombres Show 585.00 a: 0v an an mm mm mm vn mm on»? same N oaks came H soH page no: 53 8253.53 II 2 26.8.33. '1..\. 257 APPENDIX 20 .Adviser'rype l Item.Arrays by Q-2 Characteristic Categories Most Agree Most Disagree Total Item Nos. Item Nos. Items 1. Cbmpetence 0 2. Practicality 29 + 4 -, 23 -* 3 3. Effectiveness 5 +* 1 4. Value 3 +, 2 + 22 - 3 5. Communication 1 +*, 40+ * 36 - 3 6. Up—to-dateness 25 - 1 7. Impartiality 16 +* 31 -*, 19 - 3 8. Efficiency 32 - 1 9. Reliability 28 +, 12 +* 11 - 3 10. Friendliness 34 + 37 - 2 10 positive 10 negative 0 negative 0 positive + positive statement negative statement *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between‘Adviser'Type 1 and the five most extreme types. m 258 ‘APRENDIX 21 Data on‘Adviser‘rypes 2,3,4,5 and 6 (Q-sort 2) N g 5 Loca- Prior Reli- Bduca- Owner- In- Organi- No. ‘Age tion County .Att. “tgfion tion .Acres ship come zation 2 67 Near Good Neut. Prot. 12 5 Owns 6 FB 3 47 Nea r Good Unf . Prot . 12 5 Owns 5 my 5 27 Med. Good Unf. Prot. 16 3 _ ‘Rents 6 RFC 28 61 Near Poor . Uhf. Prot. 12 2 Owns 3 none 45 57 Near Poor Neut. Prot. 6 3 08: R 3 FB Av. age = 5198 PB : Farm Bureau NFC = National Farmers Organization v: '.‘I. .5 . Ahx,‘ 259 APPENDIX 22 Q-3 Factor Loading Matrix on Principal.Axis.Analysis* Responq- Factor Factor Factor Reapond- Factor Factor Factor ent No., 7 I . , II III ent No. I II _ III 1 .7706 -.1173 -.1862 ‘ 31 . .6262, ‘.0290' “.0271 2 -.0099 .6998 .1232 32 - .4798 .5772 '.0595 3 -.3418 .0574 .6303 33 .8239 -.1264 ‘-.0831» 4 ..7582 .0689 .3651 34 .5828 .3830 .1646 5 .4785 -.2773 .3882 35 .6999 -.1492 -.1967 6 .8376 -.1788 -.2843 36 .7320 —.0166 .1540 7 .7867 .0691 -.3315 37 .7944 -.2002 .0844 8 .7549 .0282 -.2613 38 .5393 .1642 .0773 9 .6886 ..3528 .0353 39 .4329 «.3838 -.1108 0 .6135 .0251 .3828 40 .6616 -.1183 .5619 .7250 .2861 .0527 41 .6143 .3835 .1860 .6121‘ .1480 -.3864 42 .4215 .3247 -.3981 .6258 -.0404 .2821 43 .7390 -.1684 -.1577 .7336. .1730 .1597 44 .6880 .1300 .2268 .7485 .0173 .3855 45 .1861 .6589 -.0320 .4261 .2526 -.1110 46 .6437 —.1476 -.4967 .6692 -.1368 .2804 47 .8179 -.2392 .0780 .8493 -.0898 -.0784 48 .8908 -.1301 .1540 .7577 -.2261 -.2642 49 .4519 -.8527 .2076 .6396 -.4418 .1487 50 .8309 -.1433 .1543 .7012 .1298 -.3139 51 .8905 -.0089 .0177 .8071 -.1898 .0047 52 .6599 .0324 -.2987 .8756 -.0132 -.0438 53 .6906 -.0855 .-.0967 .7785 .1432 -.1093 55 .6455 -.0668 .0961 .6986 .4323 -.2492 56 .7572 .0535 -.2880 .4986 -.0919 -.0110 57 .3879 -.2636 .4171 .2365 .5658 .3735 58 .6393 .3513 -.2150 .7983 -.3641 .1202 59 .7883 .1624 -.1194 .6009 -.1851 .0560 60 .4843 .4473 .3498 26.3086 _ 43.9% (26.3 + 60.0) 4.7485 3.7317 34.7888 - 58.0% (34.8 5 60.0) *Bigenvalue of Factor I I! N 0' I 1 fl '0 u I I I ll 1| II APPENDIX 23 260 Factor headings on Second Varimax Rotation Analysis, Q~3* Reapond— Factor Factor Factor Respond- Factor’ Factor Factor ent No. I II III ent No. I II III 1 .4687 .1020 .6421 31 .4316 .2438 ..3846 **2 -.2376 .6611 -.1071 32 .1131 .6976 .2598 3 .1116 .1098 -.7019 33 .5696 .1400 .5981 4 .7031 .4167 .2122 34 .3293 .5860 .2483 5 .6753 .0171 .0168 35 .4279 .0467 .6046 6 .4835 ..0422 .7608 36 .5982 .2730 .3570 7 .3135 .2356 .7614 37 .6797 .1094 .4521 8 .3507 1.2073 .6877 38 .3431 .3503 .2888 9 .6446 -.0771 .4225 39 .3974 -.2309 .3685 10 .6551 .2882 .1059 40 .8336 .2695 .0015 11 .4029 ‘.5157 .4266 41 .3631 .6028 .2524 12 .1277 .2330 .6894 42 -.0861 .3251 .5731 13 .6111 .2510 .1907 43 .4858 .0532 .6004 14 .5206 .4460 .3518 44 .5474 .4103 .2715 15 .7307 .3725 .1909 45 -.1769 .6475 w .1385 16 .1168 .3403 .3581 46 .2127 -.0529 .7968 17 .6815 .1782 .2211 47 .7088 .0804 .4726 18 .5738 .1827 .6107 48 .7560 .2240 .4608 19 .4611 -.0217 .6942 49 .5837 -.1092 .1379 20 .7161 -.1427 .3052 50 .7210 .1921 .4220 21 .2391 .2664 .6920 51 .6233 .2958 .5633 22 .6370 .1012 .5209 52 .2620 .1689 .6546 23 .5789. .2701 .6006 53 .4526 .1283 .5217 24 .1020 .7579 .0673 54 .0188 .5172 .3717 25 .4063 .3606 .5861 55 .5268 .1828 .3455 26 .1443 .5559 .6381 56 .3257 .2235 .7093 27 .3744 .0815 .3322 57 _fl§243 .0070 -.0640 28 .1359 .6917 -.1369 58 .1589 .4724 .5744 29 .7743 -.0272 .4290 59 .3987 .3784 .6000 30 .5240 .0503 .3482 60 .3428 .6616 .0428 * Preportions of Variance Factor I : .2414 " II : .1184 ” III : .2200 .5798 : 58% ** Underlined variables were arrays used for three source types (see Appendix 24) 261 APPENDIX 24 Weighting Schedule for Q-Sort 3 Var. : 60 Obs. : 45 Variable No. Loading Weight Sources Type 1 5 .675 1.265 10 .655 1.169 N z 9 13 .611 .971 15 .731 1.563 17 .682 1.265 20 .716 1.495 40 .834 2.668 49 .584 .874 57 .624 1.007 Sources Type 3 2 .661 1.169 24 .758 1.800 N : 7 28 .692 1.317 32 .698 1.373 34 .586 .905 45 .648 1.126 60 .662 1.169 Sources Type 2 3 .702 -1.373 7 -.761 1.800 N : 7 12 -.689 1.317 21 -.692 1.317 46 -.797 2.222 52 ~.655 1.169 56 ~.709 1.432 262 APPENDIX 25 Factor Item.Arrays in Q-Sort 3 -- Farmer'Attitudes Toward the Most Common Sources of.Agricultural Information Item Description Type Type Type 1__ 1 2 3 1 COOperative Extension Service .65 .49 1.81 * 2 My father - .28 .51 - .11 3 my years of farming experience 1.37 2.60 .82 4 Farm supplies salesman ~1.73 .91 - .53 5 Farm implement dealer or salesman -l.67 .98 - .73 * 6 university of Illinois 1.19 .30 1.10 * 7 Our local school's vocation agriculture teacher .35 - .63 .34 * 8 my county farm adviser 1.57 1.16 1.57 9 My neighbors -1.38 .79 - .28 10 Successful farmers I know 1.69 1.60 .00 11 State extension specialists 1.28 - .35 1.32 12 .A local fertilizer dealer -1.47 .15 - .56 *13 College of Agriculture at Urbana 1.38 .56 1.44 14 County.ASCS office .64 .42 -1.31 15 Farm Bureau - .99 .17 1.21 16 Farm Supply -l.42 .08 .44 17 .Advertising in farm.magazines - .89 .34 -1.86 18 Stories in farm.magazines - .25 1.39 - .73 19 Farm Bureau board meetings -1.17 -1.13 .60 20 Extension Council meetings .18 - .98 .43 21 My landlord or landlady -1.28 - .18 - .29 *22 Bulletins and reports from the.Agri- cultural Experiment Station in Urbana 1.63 1.24 1.42 263 Appendix 25 —-(ggntinued) Item Description Type Type Type 1 2 3 23 U. S. Department of Agriculture 1.18 .64 - .76 24 U. S. Government bulletins and reports 1.22 .12 - .67 25 .AdWertising in newspapers - .98 - .15 -1.47 26 Articles in newSpapers - .43 .18 - .85 *27 Radio programs on agriculture - .55 - .69 - .14 *28 Television programs on agriculture - .24 - .23 - .26 *29 Friends of mine who have been to college to study agriculture .71 - .07 .11 *30 .A veterinarian I know .52 .89 .56 *31 My relatives -1.63 - .75 - .80 *32 The.Agricultural Experiment Station in Urbana 1.11 .93 .88 33 Farmers COOperatives - .47 - .10 .65 34 Farmers Union - .54 -2.55 -1.24 35 The (Image - .65 -1.90 - .99 36 The National Fanmers Organization - .49 -2.62 -2.28 37 USDA representatives .63 - .35 -1.03 *38 Books I read on agriculture .79 - .20 .27 39 Short courses and workshOps at the university of Illinois .55 -l.00 .75 40 Extension meetings held at the University in Urbana .60 - .58 1.39 *41 State Fair'Bxhibits .06 - .38 - .62 *42 Prairie Farmer Farm Progress Show .18 - .16 - .26 43 Farm Bureau Farm Management Service fieldman - .67 - .69 1.87 264 Appendix 25 -- (continued) Item Description Type Type Type 1 2 3 44 Other farmers - .17 .59 - .75 45 Penn manager - .13 -1.33 - .47 * Consensus items, no difference more than 1.000 standard deviation from the mean . 265 A PPBNDI X 26 Data on Sources Type 1 Farmers (Q-sort 3) N = 9 Loca- Prior Reli- Educa- Owner- In Organi- No. Age tion County Att. flgionfi tion Acres . ship come zation 5 27 Med. Good Unf. Prot . 16 3 Rent 9 6 NFO 10 59 Near Poor Fav. Prot . 12 1 Rents 4 none 13 50 Far Poor Neut. Prot. 12 4 O 8; R 4 FB 15 48 Med. Poor Unf . Prot . 12 3 Owns 5 none 17 56 Far Poor Fav. Prot. 12 1 Owns 4 FB 20 67 Near Good Unf. Prot. 12 5 O 8; R 3 FB 40 43 Far Good Unf. Pmt. 12 5 O 8; R 6 PH 49 62 Med. Good Unf. Prot. 9 3 O 8: R 5 FU 57 56 Near Poor Unf. Prot. 9 4 Owns 4 FB, NFO AV. age : 52.0 FB ..Fam Bureau FU - Farmers Union NFO :: National Farmers Organization 266 .APPENDIX 27 Sources Type 1 Item.Arrays by Q—l (CBS) Characteristic Categories Mbst Agree Mbst Disagree Total Item Nos. Item Nos. Items 1. Competence 28'+ 1 -, 36 - 3 2. Practicality 43 + 11 - 2 3. Effectiveness 20'+ 22 -, 25 - 3 4. Value 3 + 40 - 2 5. Communication 30'+ 6 - 2 6. Up-to—dateness 41 -** l 7. Impartiality 13 +* 7 -**, l6 -** 3 8. Efficiency 18-t 1 '9. Reliability 9-+** 21 -, 24 - 3 10. Friendliness 39't 26 - 2 11. Organization 29'+**, 44-**, 32+* 17 -* 4 11 positive 13 negative 2 negative 0 positive + - positive statement - 3 negative statement *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 1 and 3. **Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 1 and 2. APPENDIX 28 Sources Type 1 Item.Arrays by 0-2 Omdviser) Characteristic Categories Mbst Agree Mbst Disagree Total Item NOS. Item Nos. Items 1. Competence 0 2. Practicality 29 +*, 8 +* 23 -, 4 -** 4 3. Effectiveness 5 + 18 -** 2 4. Value 3 +, 2 + 21 -, 22 - 4 5. Communication 40 +, 1 + 2 6.‘ Up-to-dateness 26 + 25 -, 9 -** 3 7. Impartiality 16 + 19 —, 24 ** 3 8. Efficiency 32 - 1 9. Reliability 28 + 13 -, ll - 3 10. Friendliness 17 +*, 34 + 2 12 positive 11 negative 0 negative 1 positive + positive statement negative statement *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 1 and 2. **Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 1 and 3. 268 APPENDIX 29 Data on Sources Typefz Farmers (Q-sort 3) N a 7 Loca- Prior Reli-fi‘ Sduca— Owner- In- Organi- No . Age t ion County At t . L12” t ion A cres sh 1;; come zation 3 47 Near Good Unf. Prot. 12 5 Owns 5 NFO 7 76 Med. Poor Unf. Prot. 12 2 Owns . 1 FB 12 35 Far Poor Unf. Prot. 12 2 Rents 4 FB 21 60 Med. Good Neut. Prot. 8 Rents 6 FB 46 42 Med. Poor Fav. Prot. 8 o 3.. 5 FB 52 48 Far Good Neut. Prot. 12 Rents 5 FB 56 49 Med. Poor Fav. 16 O 87 R 5 FB ' Prot. AV. age = 51.0 FB = Farm Bureau NFO .-.- National Farmers Organization 269 APPENDIX 30 Sources Type 2 Item.Arrays by Q—l (CBS) Characteristic Categories Most.Agree Most Disagree Total Item Nos. Item Nos. Items 1. Competence 1 -, 36 - 2 2. Practicality 0 3. Effectiveness 25 - 1 4. Value 38 +3 3 i- 40 - 3 5. Communication 15 +- 6 - 2 6. Up-to-dateness 5 + 41 -* 2 7. Impartiality 8 +3 7 -* 16 -*** 3 8. Efficiency 33 +- l 9. Reliability 9 +*, 19+- 24 — 3 10. Friendliness 10 4** 26 - 2 11. Organization 44 ~*** 29 +*** 2 9 positive 9 negative 2 negative .1. 1 positive : positive statement - = negative statement *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 2 and 1. **Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 2 and 3. *IIIIII Both 270 APPENDIX 3 1 Sources Type 2 Item.Arrays by Q-2 (Adviser) Characteristic Categories Mbst Agree Most Disagree Total Item Nos. Item Nos. Items 1. Competence 0 2. Practicality 8 +**, 29 +*** 2 3. Effectiveness 5 + 18 -** 2 4. Value 2 +3 3 + 22 -, 21 - 4 5. Communication 40 +, l 4- 2 6. Up-to-dateness 26 +- 25 -, 9 -** 3 7. Impartiality 16 +3 24-+** 19 -, 31 - 4 8. Efficiency 15 +** 32 - 2 9. Reliability 12 +- 1 10 . Frien d1 ines s 17 4* 7 ~** 2 13 positive 0 negative 9 negative positive 0 positive statement negative statement *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 2 and 1. **Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 2 and 3. ***Both 271 APPENDIX 32 Data on Sources Type 3 Farmers (Q-sort 3) = 7 Loca- Prior Reli- Educa- Owner- In- Organi- No . Age t ion County Att . gion t ion Acres ship come zation 2 67 Near Good Neut. Prot. 12 5 Owns 6 FB, G 24 41 Far Good Unf. Prot. 12 4 O 8. R 6 FB 28 6 1 Near Poor Unf . Prot . 12 2 Owns 3 none 32 46 Near Good Unf. Prot. 12 2 O 8. R 4 FB 34 26 Near Good Neut. Mar. 12 5 O 8; R 5 FB 45 57 Near Poor Neut. Prot. 6 3 O 8: R 3 FB 60 32 Near Poor Neut.‘ Prot. 16 5 O 8. R 6 FB Av. age = 47.0 FB -_- Farm Bureau G : Grange APPENDIX 33 272 Sources Type 3 Item.Arrays by Q-l (CES) Characteristic Categories Meat Agree Most Disagree Total . Item Nos. Item Nos. Items 1. Competence 28 +~ I l -, 36 - 3 2. Practicality 11 - l 3. Effectiveness 20 +- 22 - 2 4. Value 3 +- 40 - 2 5. Communication 15 +- 6 - 2 6. Up—to-dateness O 7. Impartiality 16 -** 13 +* 2 8. Efficiency 33 1. 1 9. Reliability 9 + 21 -, 24 - 3 10 . Friendl iness 10 M 14 4 2 11. Organization 32 +*, 29 +** 44 —*¥, 17 -* 4 9 positive negative ...: 11 negative 1 positive positive statement negative statement *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 3 and 1. **Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 3 and 2. 273 APPENDIX 3 4 Sources Type 3 Item Arrays by Q-2 (Adviser) Characteristic Categgries Mbst.Agree most Disagree Total Item N09. . Item NOS. Items 1. Competence 3O 4' 35 - 2 2. Practicality 29 +** 4 -*, 23 - 3 3. Effectiveness 18 -*** l 4. Value 3 f“ 22 - 2 5. Communication 39 - 1 6. Up-to-dateness 9 -*** 25 - 2 7. Impartiality 16 + 1 8. Efficiency 15 *** 1 9. Reliability 0 10. Friendliness 34 +' 7 -** 2 6 positive, 7 negative 2 negative 0 positive + a positive statement - = negative statement *Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 3 and 1. **Greatest item disagreement, the items that most differ between Sources Types 3 and 2. *IlullBoth ROOM USE om 1" i" I“, _‘ h- Alexander': :1. * "Tr-2569 Co. «-3 Sent“ “‘ ". _. . Ijl‘f‘ . J ~- . '-tb -‘, r-: \.-’. - ' v ’. u . "‘ l "I7'11?@fifl'flii'ififlflflfliilw