INFORMATION TO USERS
The most advanced technology has been used to photo­
graph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm
master. UMI film s the text directly from the original or
copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies
are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type
of computer printer.
The quality of th is reproduction is dependent upon the
quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print,
colored or poor q uality illustrations and photographs,
print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a
complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these
will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright m aterial
had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re­
produced by sectionin g the original, beginning at the
upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in
equal sections with sm all overlaps. Each original is also
photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced
form at the back of the book. These are also available as
one exposure on a standard 35mm slide or as a 17" x 23"
black and w h ite photographic print for an additional
charge.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have
been reproduced xerographically in this copy. H igher
quality 6" x 9" black and w hite photographic prints are
available for any photographs or illustrations appearing
in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly
to order.

U niversity M icrofilm s International
A B ell & H ow ell Inform ation C o m p a n y
3 0 0 North Z e e b R o a d , Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 -1 3 4 6 U SA
3 1 3 /7 6 1 - 4 7 0 0
8 0 0 /5 2 1 -0 6 0 0

Order N u m ber 9018761

F actors in flu en cin g leg isla to r s’ p ercep tion s o f a s ta te -su p p o r te d
e d u c a tio n a l o r g a n iza tio n — th e M ich igan C o o p era tiv e E x te n sio n
S erv ice
Wahl, Mary E., Ph.D.
Michigan State University, 1989

UMI

300 N. ZeebRd.

Ann Arbor, MI 48106

FACTORS INFLUENCING LEGISLATORS’ PERCEPTIONS OF A STATESUPPORTED EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION--THE MICHIGAN
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
By
Mary E. Wahl

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f t h e r e q u ir e m e n ts
f o r t h e degree o f
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department o f Educational A d m i n i s t r a t i o n

ABSTRACT
FACTORS INFLUENCING LEGISLATORS’ PERCEPTIONS OF A STATESUPPORTED EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION--THE MICHIGAN
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
By
Mary E. Wahl

The p u r p o s e
de ter mi ne

th at

whether

directed

leg islato rs’

th is

exploratory

perceptions

of

a

study

was

to

state-supported

e d u c a ti o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , t h e Michigan C oo per ati ve Extens ion S e rv ic e
(CES),

a re

in f l u e n c e d

by s e l e c t e d

demographic/organizational

fam iliarity

factors.

factors

and s o c i o ­

The dependent v a r i a b l e s

under

c o n s i d e r a t i o n were l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e importance o f CES
program t h r u s t s / o v e r a l l

e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e CES,

adequacy of

i n fo r m a t io n r e c e i v e d from t h e CES, and f a m i l i a r i t y wit h t h e CES.
The p o p u l a t i o n f o r t h i s s tu dy comprised t h e 148 l e g i s l a t o r s
t h e 1986 s e s s i o n o f t h e Michigan l e g i s l a t u r e .
sample

of

60

legislators

representing

in

A s t r a t i f i e d random

rural,

urb an ,

and

mixed

c o n s t i t u e n c i e s and t h e s i x CES a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e g i o n s was s e l e c t e d .
Legislators

were

interviewed

d u ri n g

June

and

July

1986

using

a

s t r u c t u r e d i n t e r v i e w s c h e d u le .
Basic

descriptive

aspects of the d ata.

statistics

were

used

to

a na ly z e

various

Stepw ise m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n was performed f o r

each o f t h e 14 r e s e a r c h s u b q u e s t i o n s t o de te rm in e which independent

Mary E. Wahl
variables,
tions.

if

any,

were

factors

influencing

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ percep­

Although t h e f a m i l i a r i t y f a c t o r s and t h e so c io - d e m o g r a p h ic /

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f a c t o r s used in t h i s study were analyze d c o l l e c t i v e l y
to te s t

for significance,

s e v e ra l

emerged

as

significant

statistically

individual

indepen de nt v a r i a b l e s

factors

influencing

legis­

l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e CES.
Based on t h e study f i n d i n g s , i t was concluded t h a t (a) l e g i s l a ­
t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e importance o f CES program t h r u s t s / o v e r a l l
e f f e c t i v e n e s s were i n f l u e n c e d p r i m a r i l y by frequ en cy of nonpersonal
c o n t a c t s with t h e CES;

(b) both nonpersonal

and pe rs on al

contacts

with t h e CES are n e c e s s a r y f o r l e g i s l a t o r s t o p e r c e i v e an adequate
in f o r m a t io n

base co ncerning t h e CES;
legislators

majority

of

pe rs on al

c o n tact, e sp e c ia lly a t the local

consistently

preferred

significant

to

(c)

t h e method by which the

receive

CES i n f o r m a t i o n

level;

was

(d) t h e r e were no

socio-demographic/organizational

factors

i n f l u e n c i n g l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f a l l CES program t h r u s t s ; (e)
r u r a l c o n s t i t u e n c y make-up and p r i o r oc cu pa tio n in a g r i c u l t u r e most
often

in f l u e n c e d l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e rc e iv e d f a m i l i a r i t y w ith

the

CES;

( f ) p r i o r involvement w it h t h e CES and l e g i s l a t i v e committee e x p e r i ­
ence were not

factors

importance

program t h r u s t s / e f f e c t i v e n e s s

of

influencing l e g i s l a t o r s ’ perceptions

l e g i s l a t o r s with a r u r a l

of

the

CES;

o f th e
and

(g)

c o n s t i t u e n c y make-up p e r c e iv e d t h e CES to

be s i g n i f i c a n t l y more e f f e c t i v e tha n d id l e g i s l a t o r s w it h a non rur al
constituency.

To my p a r e n t s , A rth ur and P h y l l i s G a r l i c k ,
who through t h e i r example proved t h a t age
need n o t be a d e t e r r e n t t o a c a d e m i c
achievement. They a re s h in in g examples o f
l i f e l o n g l e a r n e r s and e d u c a t o r s .
Their
c on tin uo us su p p o rt and u n c o n d it io n a l love
w i l l always be remembered and c h e r i s h e d .

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many pe op le have pr ovi de d s u p p o r t , encouragement, and guidance
f o r t h i s s tu d y and my d o c t o r a l program.
a l l o f them.
Sincere
throughout

I e s p e c i a l l y acknowledge t h e fo l l o w i n g :
appreciation
my d o c t o r a l

committee.

My s i n c e r e a p p r e c i a t i o n t o

His

to

Dr.

p ro g r am

encouragement,

g reatly appreciated.

Richard
and

chairman

of

my a d v i s o r
my

and

guidance

patience

ar e

I am g r a t e f u l f o r t h e a s s i s t a n c e and a dvice of

Winston R. Oberg,

unique p e r s p e c t i v e s

Gardner,

understanding,

my committee members--Drs. C ha r le s A.
Marylee Davis,

E.

Blackman,

Howard W. Hickey,

and Mary P. Andrews--and f o r the

th e y brought t o

the

committee.

I especially

acknowledge Dr. Andrews f o r her guidance in t h e r e s e a r c h d e s ig n and
analysis of th is

s tu d y .

She has always pro vided me wit h academic

i n s p i r a t i o n and broadened my h o r i z o n s .
I express

appreciation

to

t h e Michigan C oo pe ra ti ve

Extension

S e r v i c e f o r g r a n t i n g me s tu d y l e a v e s t o complete my c o u rs e work and
t h e r e s e a r c h f o r t h i s s tu d y .
Guyer, former S t a t e
Service,

for

his

Doris E. W e t t e r s ,
Economics

and

D i r e c t o r o f t h e Michigan C oo per at iv e Extension

su p p o rt

of th is

s tu d y

from

its

inception;

former A s s i s t a n t D i r e c t o r o f Extension

Programs,

professional

I e s p e c i a l l y acknowledge Dr. Gordon E.

a

for

h e r s u p p o rt

graduate stu d en t;

v

and
and

c o n fi d e n c e
Dr.

Adger

f o r Home

in me as
B.

Dr.

a

Carroll,

A ssistant

Director

of Extension

f o r Natural

Resources

and P ubli c

P o li c y Programs, whose su p p o rt was a key f a c t o r in t h e com pletion o f
th is project.
To t h e

National

Association

of

Extension

Home

Economists

I

e x p re s s a p p r e c i a t i o n f o r a NAEHE g r a d u a t e f e l l o w s h i p , which pro vided
f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e f o r my d o c t o r a l program.
Spec ial a p p r e c i a t i o n i s extended t o t h e 60 Michigan l e g i s l a t o r s
in t h e

sample who g ra n te d me i n t e r v i e w s

p a r t i c i p a t e d in th e p i l o t s tu d y .
data

for

th is

leg islativ e
R epresentative

research

process.
Lewis

N.

legislators

who

They provided me not only with th e

project
I

and th e

but

a c k n o w le d g e

Dodak and

also

insights

my

S e n a to r

encou ragin g t h e i r c o l l e a g u e s to p a r t i c i p a t e

local
James

into

the

leg islato rs,
A.

in t h i s

Barcia,

for

st ud y and f o r

t h e i r c on fi d e n c e in me as a p r o f e s s i o n a l .
Sincere

appreciation

is

extended

to

Judy

Pfaff

for

her

s t a t i s t i c a l and computer a s s i s t a n c e , t o Marilyn W hi tt a k er f o r t y p in g
numerous rough d r a f t s and t o Susan Cooley f o r e d i t i n g and t y p i n g th e
final

manuscript.

T h e ir p a t i e n c e and p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m a r e g r e a t l y

appreciated.
S pec ial thanks to B i l l and Fran Mester f o r t h e i r encouragement
and s u p p o r t and f o r s h a r in g in my p r o f e s s i o n a l growth.
A p p r e c i a t i o n i s extended t o my very good f r i e n d , B et ty Ketcham,
who provided me with a "home away from home"

and an environment

conducive t o s tu d y , r e f l e c t i o n , and r e l a x a t i o n .

Her f r i e n d s h i p w i l l

always be c h e r i s h e d .

vi

A s p e c i a l no te o f g r a t i t u d e i s r e s e r v e d f o r t h e l a t e Madeline
Caruso,

who pro vided lo v in g

care

for

our

children

and

household

w hi le I was invol ve d in g r a d u a t e s t u d i e s .
Most

im p o r ta n t,

I exten d my th a nk s

to

my s t r o n g e s t

"support

team"--my husband, Ken, and our so n s, Mike and Mark--who s a c r i f i c e d
and endured so t h a t Mom could a ch ie ve a p e rs on al
goal.

vii

and p r o f e s s i o n a l

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF T A B L E S ..................................................................................................

xi

LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................................

xiv

C hap te r
I.

II.

III.

INTRODUCTION

......................................................................................

1

I n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e Study........................................................
Need f o r t h e S t u d y ..................................................................
St at em en t o f t h e Problem ......................................................
Purpose .............................................................................................
Importance o f t h e S t u d y ..........................................................
Research Q ue stions ..................................................................
D e l i m i t a t i o n s ................................................................................
L i m i t a t i o n s ....................................................................................
A s s u m p t i o n s ....................................................................................
D e f i n i t i o n o f T e r m s ..................................................................
O r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e D i s s e r t a t i o n ....................................

1
5
6
6
7
8
10
10
11
12
13

REVIEW OF LITERATURE....................................................................

15

I n t r o d u c t i o n ................................................................................
The Concept o f P e r c e p t i o n .....................................................
The Role o f P e r c e p t i o n in C o g n it iv e Learning . . .
R e l a te d Research on L e g i s l a t o r s ’ P e r c e p t i o n s
o f t h e C E S ................................................................................
R e l a te d Research on L e g i s l a t o r s ’ P e r c e p t i o n s
o f Other S t a t e - S u p p o r t e d O r g a n i z a t i o n s ....................
Summ ary.............................................................................................

15
15
19

27
33

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ..............................................

35

I n t r o d u c t i o n ................................................................................
Design o f t h e S t u d y ..................................................................
Dependent and Independent V a r i a b l e s ..................................
Research Q ue stions ..................................................................
The P o p u la ti o n and S a m p l e .....................................................
Development and T e s t i n g o f t h e In s tr um e n t .....................

35
35
37
37
39
43

viii

21

Page

IV.

V.

V a l i d a t i o n ...............................................................................
The Final In t e r v i e w Schedule . . . ...........................
R e l i a b i l i t y ...............................................................................
D a t a - C o l l e c t i o n Procedures .................................................
D a ta - A na ly s is Procedures .....................................................

43
44
45
46
48

RESULTS OF THE DATA ANALYSES.................................................

49

I n t r o d u c t i o n ...............................................................................
R e s u l t s o f Analyses f o r t h e Research Q ue stions . .
R e l a t i v e Importance o f CES Program T h r u s t s /
Ov erall E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e CES X
F a m i l i a r i t y F a c to rs ..........................................................
Adequacy o f Info rmatio n X F a m i l i a r i t y F a c to r s . .
R e l a t i v e Importance of CES Program T h r u s t s /
Overall E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e CES X So c io ­
d e mo gra phi c/ Or gan iz at ion al F a c t o r s ......................
F a m i l i a r i t y With t h e CES X So ci o-d em og rap hic /
O rg a n i z a t i o n a l F a c to rs .................................................
A d d it io na l Findings ..................................................................
P r e f e r e n c e s f o r Contact Methods ....................................
P r e f e r e n c e s f o r Communications o f CES I n f o r ­
mation ....................................................................................
A na ly si s of Responses to Open-Ended Que stions . . .
Summary............................................................................................

49
49
49
55
57
63
68
70
71
73
75

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND
REFLECTIONS....................................................................................

76

I n t r o d u c t i o n ...............................................................................
Summary............................................................................................
P u r p o s e ........................................................................................
D e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e Sample ........................... . . . . .
M e t h o d o l o g y ...............................................................................
Findings Regarding Research Q ue stio ns ......................
A d d it io na l Findings ..............................................................
C o n c l u s i o n s ....................................................................................
Recommendations ...........................................................................
Recommendations f o r A p p l i c a t i o n ....................................
Recommendations f o r F u r th e r Research ......................
R e f l e c t i o n s ....................................................................................

76
76
77
77
78
79
80
81
84
84
88
89

MAPS OF LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS AND CES ADMINISTRATIVE
REGIONS
...............................................................................

94

THE INTERVIEW SCHEDULE (RESEARCH INSTRUMENT). . . .

97

APPENDICES
A.
B.

ix

Page
C.

SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES

....................................................................

103

D.

CORRESPONDENCE.................................................................................

114

E.

RESPONSES TO OPEN-ENDED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ...................

119

......................................................................................................

125

BIBLIOGRAPHY

x

LIST OF TABLES
Table

Page

3.1

C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e S a m p l e ..................................................

41

3.2

R e l i a b i l i t y C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r Combined V a r i a b l e s
Under Major V a r i a b l e s o f I m p o r t a n c e / E f f e c t i v e n e s s
and F a m i l i a r i t y ...........................................................................

47

R e s u l t s o f Stepwise M u l t i p l e R egr ess ion A n a ly s is o f
L e g i s l a t o r s ’ Pe rce ive d Importance o f 4-H Youth
Program T h r u s ts and S e l e c t e d F a m i l i a r i t y F a c to r s . .

51

R e s u l t s o f Stepwise M u l t i p l e R egr ess ion A n a ly s is of
L e g i s l a t o r s ’ Per ce ive d Importance o f Extension
Home Economics Program T h r u s t s and S e l e c t e d
F a m i l i a r i t y F a c t o r s ..................................................................

52

R e s u l t s o f Stepwise M u l t i p l e Regr ess ion A n a ly si s o f
L e g i s l a t o r s ’ Perc eived Importance o f Natural
R e s o u r c e s / P u b l i c Po li cy Program T h r u s t s and
S e l e c t e d F a m i l i a r i t y F a c to r s .................................................

53

R e s u l t s o f Stepwise M u l t i p l e Regr ess ion A n a ly s is o f
L e g i s l a t o r s ’ Percei ved Importance o f t h e CES and
S e l e c t e d F a m i l i a r i t y F a c to r s .................................................

55

R e s u l t s o f Stepwise M u l t i p l e R egr ess ion A n a ly s is of
L e g i s l a t o r s ’ Perc e iv ed Adequacy o f Info rm at ion
Received From t h e CES and S e l e c t e d SocioDemog raph ic/Org aniz ation al F a c t o r s ...................................

56

R e s u l t s o f Stepwise M u l t i p l e Regr ess ion A n a ly s is o f
L e g i s l a t o r s ’ Pe rce ive d Importance o f A g r i c u l t u r e /
Marketing Program T h r u s t s and S e l e c t e d SocioDemog raph ic/Org aniz ation al F a c t o r s ...................................

58

R e s u l t s o f Stepwise M u l t i p l e Regr ess ion A n a ly si s of
L e g i s l a t o r s ’ Pe rce ive d Importance o f Extension
Home Economics Program T h r u s t s and S e l e c t e d
S oc io -D em ogr ap hic /O rga niz ation al F a c t o r s .................. .

60

4.1

4.2

4 .3

4 .4

4 .5

4.6

4 .7

xi

Page
4 .8

R e s u l t s o f Stepwise M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s o f
L e g i s l a t o r s ’ Perc e iv ed Importance o f Natural
R e s o u r c e s /P u b li c Po li cy Program T h r u s t s and
S e l e c t e d Socio-Demo grap hic/Orga niza tiona l F a c t o r s

.

61

R e s u l t s o f Stepwise M u l t i p l e Regression A n a ly s is o f
L e g i s l a t o r s ’ Perc e iv ed E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e
CES and S e l e c t e d Socio-Demographic/Organiza­
t i o n a l F a c t o r s ...............................................................................

63

4.10 R e s u l t s o f Stepwise M u l t i p l e Regression A n a l y s i s o f
L e g i s l a t o r s ’ Perc e iv ed Frequency o f Nonpersonal
Con ta cts With t h e CES and S e le c t e d SocioDemographic/Organizational F a c t o r s ....................................

65

4 .9

4.11

R e s u l t s o f Stepwise M u lt ip le Regression A n a ly s is o f
L e g i s l a t o r s ’ Perc eived Frequency o f Personal
C on ta cts With t h e CES and S e le c t e d SocioDemographic/Organizational F a c t o r s ....................................

66

R e s u l t s o f Stepwise M u lt ip le Regression A n a ly s is of
L e g i s l a t o r s ’ Perc eived Degree o f P r i o r Involvement
With th e CES and S e l e c t e d Socio-Demographic/
O r g a n iz a ti o n a l F a c to r s ..............................................................

68

Summary o f Stepwise M u lt ip le Regression A n a ly si s
R e s u l t s ............................................................................................

69

Rank Order o f L e g i s l a t o r s ’ Five "Most Important"
Methods o f Contact With th e C E S ........................................

70

Rank Order o f L e g i s l a t o r s ’ Most Useful Types o f
Inf orma tion Received From t h e C E S ....................................

71

Rank Order o f L e g i s l a t o r s ’ P r e f e r r e d Sources o f
Inf orm ation About t h e C E S .....................................................

72

Rank Order o f L e g i s l a t o r s ’ P r e f e r r e d Time Frame f o r
Receiving CES Inf orm at ion .....................................................

73

C.l

In t e r v i e w Items f o r Each V a r i a b l e .........................................

103

C.2

Combined V a r i a b l e s f o r Importance o f Program T h r u s t s /
E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e C E S .......................................

104

C.3

Combined V a r i a b l e s f o r F a m i l i a r i t y .........................................

105

C.4

Average Rating f o r Adequacy o f Inf orm at ion Received

105

4.12

4.13
4.14
4.15
4.16
4.17

xi i

.

Page
C.5
C.6
C.7
C.8
C.9
C.10
C .ll
C .l2

L e g i s l a t o r s ’ R a t in g s o f Importance o f A g r i c u l t u r e /
Marketing Program T h r u s t s .....................................................

106

L e g i s l a t o r s ’ R a t in g s o f Importance o f 4-H Youth
Program T h r u s t s ...........................................................................

107

L e g i s l a t o r s ’ R a t in g s o f Importance o f Extension
Home Economics Program T h r u s ts .............................................

108

L e g i s l a t o r s ’ R a t in g s o f Importance o f Natural
R e s o u r c e s / P u b l i c Po li cy Program T h r u s t s ......................

109

L e g i s l a t o r s ’ R a t in g s o f t h e Ov eral l E f f e c t i v e n e s s
o f t h e C E S ........................................................................................

110

L e g i s l a t o r s ’ P e r c e p t i o n s o f Frequency o f Nonpersonal
C ont act s With t h e CES During t h e P a s t Year ...................

Ill

L e g i s l a t o r s ’ P e r c e p t i o n s o f Frequency o f Personal
C on ta cts With t h e CES During t h e P a s t Year ...................

112

L e g i s l a t o r s ’ R at in gs o f Adequacy o f In fo rm a tio n
Received From t h e C E S ..............................................................

113

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figu re
3.1

Page
Design o f t h e Study .......................................................................

xiv

36

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
I n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e Study
The r o o t s of t h e C oo per ati ve Extension S e r v i c e ’ s p h i l o s o p h i c a l
base a r e broad and deep.

One a s p e c t ,

a d u l t s , has a long h i s t o r y .
activities

became

societies

(San de rs ,

especially

1966).

org a ni z ed

The informal

as

formal

century,

most

re la te d to a g ric u ltu re .
land-grant
Not

onl y

college
was

learning

which

learning

agricultural

approach became

opportunities

for

Through t h e f i r s t h a l f o f t h e
offered

few,

In 1862, t h e M o r r i l l

system,

formal

r e s e a r c h emerged.

colleges

through

learning

a g r i c u l t u r e were ex tre mely l i m i t e d .
nineteenth

e d u c a ti o n f o r a l l

As long ago as 1785, informal l e a r n i n g

system atically

im portant

nonformal

helped

being

if

any,

courses

Act e s t a b l i s h e d t h e

promote

promoted,

formal
but

the

learning.
need

for

When P r e s i d e n t Cleveland si gned l e g i s l a t i o n

in

1882 t h a t e s t a b l i s h e d experiment s t a t i o n s a t one l a n d - g r a n t c o l l e g e
in each s t a t e ,

r e s e a r c h became f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h e d as a f u n c t i o n o f

land-grant in s titu tio n s .
Another

component

of

the

Extension

philosophy

has

be en

a t t r i b u t e d t o Seaman Knapp (Vitzthum & F l o r e l l , 1976).

He b e l i e v e d

that

the

farm ers

would

change

th eir

behavior

and

use

latest

knowledge and r e s e a r c h thro ugh " d e m onst r at io ns conducted by farme rs

1

2
the ms elv es

on

their

(Vitzthum

& F lo rell,

E x t e n s i o n ’ s informal

own

farms

1 976,

teaching

p.

under
5).

ordinary

farm

Regardless

relied

conditions"

of

the

topic,

h e a v i l y on d e m o n s t r a t i o n s

or

p r o v id i n g r e s o u r c e s f o r d e m o n s t r a t i o n s .
As

E x t e n s io n - ty p e

apparent

th at

work

g reater

in c r e a s e d

federal

and

support

flourished,

was

needed.

it
In

became
1914,

P r e s i d e n t Woodrow Wilson si gne d t h e Smith-Lever Act, which f o r m a ll y
e s t a b l i s h e d t h e Co o pe rati ve Extension S e rv ic e (CES).

The purpose of

E xt en s io n, as s t a t e d in t h e a c t , was " to a id in d i f f u s i n g among th e
people o f t h e

United S t a t e s

use fu l

and

practical

i n f o r m a t io n

on

s u b j e c t s r e l a t e d t o a g r i c u l t u r e and home economics, and t o encourage
t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e same" (S e c t i o n 1 ).

Extension was proposed as

a division

chief

of a land-grant

college;

the

task

of

Extension

f a c u l t y was t o te a c h people who could not go t o c o l l e g e (Ca ldwell,
1976).

Applying t h e most

became a major a t t r i b u t e

current

knowledge

for

problem

s o lv in g

o f t h e Coop erati ve Exten sio n philo s op hy.

The purpose o r r o l e o f t h e CES became t h e i n t e g r a t i o n o f t e a c h i n g ,
research,

and p u b l i c s e r v i c e in l a n d - g r a n t i n s t i t u t i o n s

t o pr ovi de

e d u c a t i o n in i t s b r o a d e s t se ns e .
In t h e y e a r s t h a t f o ll o w e d , as r e s e a r c h and te ch no lo gy r a i s e d
fa rm - p r o d u c t io n c a p a c i t i e s ,

t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f t h e CES expanded t o

i n c l u d e o t h e r a r e a s o f conce rn:
mark et ing

and u t i l i z a t i o n ,

community development,

management o f t h e farm and home,

r e s o u r c e development

and 4-H and f a m ily l i v i n g

and c o n s e r v a t i o n ,
in

urban

areas.

Changing c l i e n t e l e , changing needs, and s o c i a l i s s u e s have con tin ue d
to th ru s t

Extension

i n t o new f i e l d s .

Its

open-ended c h a r t e r has

3
allowed Extension t o be almost l i t e r a l l y
(H ildreth,

1976).

inherent r i s k s .

This

freedom t o

all

things to a ll

s e r v e brought with

it

people
certain

Emphasis on a c c o u n t a b i l i t y , d u p l i c a t i o n o f e f f o r t s ,

and e v e r - g r o w i n g f i n a n c i a l

constraints

necessitated

e v a l u a t i o n o f an o r g a n i z a t i o n t r y i n g t o s e r v e a l l

a careful

people

(Edwards,

1979).
At

its

fun din g.
w ell.

inception,

the

CES d e p e n d e d

prim arily

on

federal

L a t e r , t h e CES depended on s t a t e and county d o l l a r s ,

S t a t e su p p o rt became even more i m p o r t a n t ;

as

almost t w o - t h i r d s

of t h e Michigan CES budget i s now d e r i v e d from s t a t e d o l l a r s , with
federal
budget.

and

funds

combined

contributing

one-third

of

th e

The n a t u r e o f t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p between a s t a t e - s u p p o r t e d

organization
e d u c a ti o n

county

such as t h e CES,

and t h e

state

community c o l l e g e s ,

legislature

is

crucial

o r K-12 p u b l i c

in

these

days

of

c o m p e t it io n f o r d o l l a r s .
Trends i n d i c a t e t h a t d e c i s i o n s about p u b l i c o r g a n i z a t i o n s w i l l
increasingly

be

made

in

the

public

domain.

Such

decisions

by

e l e c t e d or ap poin te d o f f i c i a l s can d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y a f f e c t th e
CES.

I t i s c r i t i c a l t o t h e f u t u r e o f Extension t h a t t h e s e d e c i s i o n

makers have a knowledge and u n d e r s ta n d in g o f t h e CES as a b a s i s f o r
t h e i r d e c i s i o n s c oncer nin g a p p r o p r i a t i o n s (Thomson & Brown, 1976).
Simon (1964) s t a t e d ,

"No a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n can long

e x i s t w it hout t h e s u p p o rt o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e "
unde rs ta n d in g

of

leg islators’

perceptions

building stronger l e g i s l a t i v e support.

(p. 383).
is

the

Knezevich

A thorough

first

step

in

(1969) noted t h e

e x t e n t o f a l e g i s l a t u r e ’ s i n f l u e n c e over p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n :

4

S t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e s de te r m in e broad p o l i c y m a t t e r s gove rni ng t h e
o r g a n i z a t i o n , f i n a n c i n g , and o p e r a t i o n o f p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n and
the n d e l e g a t e t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f s t a n d a r d s t o a s t a t e agency.
No one today q u e s t i o n s t h e a u t h o r i t y o f a s t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e t o
i n f l u e n c e t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n and o p e r a t i o n o f p u b l i c e d u c a ti o n
w i t h i n i t s b o u n d a r ie s , (p. 155)
Community c o l l e g e s ,
and

supportive

as well as t h e CES, depend on an informed

relationship

with

the

(1971) no te d t h a t d u ri n g P r e s i d e n t

state

legislature.

Harper

Lyndon Jo h n so n ’ s Great S o c i e t y

many human-service o r g a n i z a t i o n s emerged.

Community c o l l e g e s ,

in

p a r t i c u l a r , e x pe r ie nc e d phenomenal growth d urin g t h e 1950s and 1970s
because s t a t e lawmakers endorsed and funded t h a t program.

However,

as t h e p r o s p e r i t y o f t h e n a t i o n d e c l i n e d , t h e c o m p e t it io n f o r s t a t e
dollars

became more

community c o l l e g e s

intense.

across

th e

G leaser
nation

(1 9 8 5 )

e n c o u n te r

contended

th at

d ifficulties

when

t r y i n g t o communicate t h e i r philos ophy and r o l e a t t h e s t a t e l e v e l .
He

described

"relative

three

newness

major

and

an

factors
associated

r e la tin g to the l e g i s l a t u r e ,

as

sources

lack

of

of

d ifficu lty :

sophistication

lack of a u n ified voice,

in

and l a c k of

r e l i a b l e , a c c u r a t e d a ta " (p. 110).
Many e d u c a t o r s ,

i n c l u d i n g t h e l e a d e r s o f t h e National

Council

o f Community C o l l e g e s , a r e r e c o g n i z i n g a need f o r g r e a t e r a s t u t e n e s s
in

political

thinking

and

expertise

g e ne r al

w e l l - b e i n g and i n t e g r i t y

are

be

to

surv ey

to

political

action

if

the

o f t h e community c o l l e g e concept

p re s e r v e d

and e f f e c t i v e l y

de te rm in e

the

need

in

to

promoted.

improve

community c o l l e g e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s and s t a t e
c o l l e g e p r e s i d e n t s ranked as t h e i r f i r s t

In

a natio nwide

communications
legislators,

between
community

need " to communicate our

5

strengths to the l e g is la tu r e "

( Management Needs Assessment Sur vey ,

1979).
In summary, t h e CES i s a f e d e r a l - , s t a t e - , and c o u n t y - s u p p o r t e d
organization

whose

primary

purposes

a re

to

he lp

pe ople

identify

t h e i r own problems and o p p o r t u n i t i e s and the n t o p r o v id e p r a c t i c a l ,
r e s e a r c h - b a s e d i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t w i l l help them overcome t h e problems
and t a k e advantage o f t h e o p p o r t u n i t i e s .

The CES, l i k e such o t h e r

s t a t e - s u p p o r t e d o r g a n i z a t i o n s as community c o l l e g e s and p u b l i c
education,

relies

on an informed and s u p p o r t i v e

r e l a t i o n s h i p with

t h e s t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e f o r c o n tin ue d fundin g.
Need f o r t h e Study
L i t t l e r e s e a r c h has been conducted on t h e f a c t o r s
l e g i s l a t o r s ’ perceptions

of

state-supported

influencing

organizations.

This

s tu dy d i f f e r e d from p r e v io u s i n v e s t i g a t i o n s because t h e focus was on
the

factors

influencing

legislators’

perceptions

of

the

CES,

a

p a r t i c u l a r s t a t e - s u p p o r t e d o r g a n i z a t i o n , r a t h e r than simply d e s c r i b ­
ing t h e l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s p e r s e .
to

help

the

legislators

CES be p r o a c t i v e

in

Such a s tu d y was n e c e s s a r y

de vel opi ng

t h a t i s m u tu a ll y b e n e f i c i a l

a relationship

f o r both t h e

with

CES and t h e

legislators.
Even t h o u g h

ten

research

studies

ha ve b e en

conducted

on

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e CES, not one has been done in th e
M id w e s t.
geographic,

Li ke a l l

states,

and demographic

M ic h i g a n

ha s

characteristics.

unique

p o litical,

These d i s t i n c t i v e

6
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were e x p lo r e d

in t h i s

s tu d y so t h a t

Michigan

CES

personnel can b e t t e r u n d e rs ta n d t h e l e g i s l a t o r s the y s e r v e .
St a te m e nt o f t h e Problem
To m a in ta in a v i a b l e s t a t e - s u p p o r t e d o r g a n i z a t i o n in a time of
budget c u t b a c k s ,

it

how l e g i s l a t o r s

perceive

u n d e rs ta n d in g

is essential

of the

the

factors

t o know as a c c u r a t e l y as p o s s i b l e

organization.
influencing

More

important,

an

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ perceptions

w i l l allow a d m i n i s t r a t o r s t o d i r e c t f u t u r e e f f o r t s more e f f e c t i v e l y
in e d u c a ti n g l e g i s l a t o r s .
Because o f t h e

influence th a t

su ppo rte d o r g a n i z a t i o n ,

it

is

legislators

on a s t a t e -

im p o r ta n t t o know not only how they

p e r c e i ve t h a t

organization,

perceptions.

Channel s o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n

o r g a n i z a t i ons

to

i n fo rm

exert

but

and

what

educate

fa c to rs influence
ne ed

to

be

1e g i s i a t o r s

thei r

open f o r

about

the

o r g a n i z a t i o n and a l s o t o s o l i c i t t h e i r i n p u t i n t o i d e n t i f y i n g needs
and d e ter m in in g f u t u r e d i r e c t i o n s .
interested
perceptions

in

investigating
of

the

the

Therefore,
factors

im portance

of

t h e r e s e a r c h e r was

influencing
selected

t h r u s t s / o v e r a l l e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e CES,f a m i l i a r i t y

legislators’
CES

pro g r am

with t h e CES,

and adequacy o f i n f o r m a t i o n r e c e i v e d from t h e CES.
Purpose
The w r i t e r ’ s purpose in c onduct in g t h i s s tu d y was t o de ter mi ne
whether l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f a s t a t e - s u p p o r t e d o r g a n i z a t i o n ,
th e C ooperative Extension
fam iliarity

and

Service,

can be p r e d i c t e d

socio-demographic/organizational

from s e l e c t e d

factors.

F a c to r s

7

i n v o l v i n g f a m i l i a r i t y w it h t h e CES were (a)

fr eq ue nc y o f pe rsonal

co ntacts,

contacts,

(b )

frequency

of

nonpersonal

(c)

prior

involvement with t h e CES, and (d) l e g i s l a t i v e committee e x p e r i e n c e .
The s o c i o - d e m o g r a p h i c / o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
were

(a)

prior

age,

(b) e d u c a t i o n a l

occupation--education

agriculture

related,

party,

constituency

(h)

legislature.
factors

The

(f)

level,

(c)

related,

position

in

make-up,

fam iliarity

influencing

fa c to rs selected fo r inclusion

(e)

(b)

addition,
factors

the

prior

and

factors

(i)

years

were

adequacy

of

in for ma ti on

of

received

ser ved

(a)

in

the

as

possible

the

relative

about

the

CES.

In

f a c t o r s were examined as

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ perceptions

importance o f CES program t h r u s t s / o v e r a l l

political

e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e CES

socio-demographic/organizational
influencing

(g)

examined

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ perceptions

(d)

occupation--

legislature,

importance o f CES program t h r u s t s / o v e r a l l
and

place o f residence,

of

(a)

the

relative

e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e CES

and (b) f a m i l i a r i t y w ith t h e CES.
Importance o f t h e Study
S tate-supported
colleges,

such as

the

and p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n r e l y on f i n a n c i a l

state leg islatu re.
that

organizations

financial

perceptions

community

su p p o rt from t h e

The d e c i s i o n s t h a t s t a t e l e g i s l a t o r s make a f f e c t

support.

can

CES,

be

If

factors

iden tified

or

that

influence

predicted,

a

legislators’

basis

may

be

e s t a b l i s h e d f o r making b e t t e r d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e e d u c a ti o n o f
legislators.

I f i n s i g h t can be gained i n t o what f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c e

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e CES, t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n can develop a

8

more e f f e c t i v e e d u c a t i o n a l d e l i v e r y system.
could c a p i t a l i z e
factors

and

This e d u c a t i o n a l system

on t h e new knowledge r e g a r d i n g t h e s e

could

thus

be

more

effectiv e

in

influential
developing

communications with l e g i s l a t o r s .
Because
le g islato rs’
organization,
organizations.

th is

study

perceptions

was
of

focused
a

on

factors

influencing

state-su p p o rted

educational

t h e f i n d i n g s may be u s ef u l

to other state-supported

R e s u l t s o f t h e stu dy may a l s o p ro vi d e i n s i g h t i n t o

f u t u r e pla nn in g f o r o t h e r s t a t e - s u p p o r t e d o r g a n i z a t i o n s t h a t need to
communicate w it h and e d u c a te a l e g i s l a t i v e body.
Research Questions
The f o ll o w i n g major r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s

and s u b q u e s t i o n s

were

posed t o guide t h e c o l l e c t i o n and a n a l y s i s o f d a t a f o r t h e s tu dy.
1.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e r e l a t i v e importance o f CES
p ro g r a m t h r u s t s and o v e r a l 1 e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e CES be
p r e d i c t e d from s e l e c t e d f a m i l i a r i t y f a c t o r s ?
la.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e r e l a t i v e importance of
A g r i c u l t u r e / M a r k e t i n g program t h r u s t s be p r e d i c t e d from
selected fa m ilia rity factors?

lb.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e r e l a t i v e importance of
4-H Youth p r o g r a m t h r u s t s
be p r e d i c t e d from s e l e c t e d
fa m ilia rity factors?

lc.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e r e l a t i v e importance o f
Ext ension Home Economics program t h r u s t s be p r e d i c t e d from
selected fa m ilia rity factors?

Id.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e r e l a t i v e importance of
N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s / P u b l i c Pol i c y p ro g r a m t h r u s t s be
p r e d i c t e d from s e l e c t e d f a m i l i a r i t y f a c t o r s ?

le.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e o v e r a l l
effectiveness
o f t h e CES be p r e d i c t e d from s e l e c t e d f a m i l i a r i t y f a c t o r s ?

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ perceptions o f the adequacy o f
received from the CES be predicted from se le c te d
factors?

information
f a m ilia r ity

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ perceptions o f the r e l a t i v e importance o f CES
program thrusts and ov eral1 e f fe c t iv e n e s s o f the CES be pre­
dicted from s ele cted socio-demographic/organizational factors?
3a.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e r e l a t i v e i mportance o f
Agri c u l t u r e / M a r k e t i n g program t h r u s t s be p r e d i c t e d from
s ele cted socio-demographic/organizational f a c t o r s ?

3b.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e r e l a t i v e i mportance o f
4-H Youth program t h r u s t s be p r e d i c t e d from s e l e c t e d s o c i o ­
de mo g r a p h i c / o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f a c t o r s ?

3c.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e r e l a t i v e importance o f
Extension Home Economics program t h r u s t s be p r e d i c t e d from
selected socio-demographic/organizational f a c t o r s ?

3d.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s of t h e r e l a t i v e i mportance of
Natural Re s o u r c e s / P u b l i c Po l i c y program t h r u s t s be p r e ­
d i c t e d from s e l e c t e d s o c i o - d e m o g r a p h i c / o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f a c ­
tors?

3e.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e o v e r a l l e f f e c t i v e n e s s
o f t he CES be p r e d i c t e d from s e l e c t e d s oci o - d emo gr ap hi c /
organizational factors?

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ perceptions o f famil i a r i t y with the CES be
predicted from se le c te d socio-demographic/organizational f a c ­
tors?
4a.

Canl e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e i v e d f r equency
t a c t s with t h e CES be p r e d i c t e d
d e mo g r a p h i c / o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f a c t o r s ?

o f nonpersonal
from s e l e c t e d

con­
socio­

4b.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ pe r c e i v e d f r equency o f per s onal c o n t a c t s
with t h e CES be p r e d i c t e d from s e l e c t e d s o c i o - d e mo g r a p hi c /
organizational factors?

4c.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e i v e d de gr e e o f p r i o r involvement wi t h
t h e CES be p r e d i c t e d f r o m s e l e c t e d s o c i o - d e m o g r a p h i c /
organizational factors?

10
Del i m i t a t i o n s
The major d e l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h i s s t udy were as f o l l o ws :
1.

The st udy was c onf i ne d t o i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h e p e r c e p t i o n s of

members o f t h e 1986 Michigan L e g i s l a t u r e .
or

legislators

fr om o t h e r

states

Members o f o t h e r s e s s i o n s

might

have

given

different

responses.
2.

A random sample o f l e g i s l a t o r s was i n t e r v i e w e d , not a l l of

the l e g i s l a t o r s .
3.

Only

one

structured

interview

was

conducted

wi t h

each

l e g i s l a t o r in t h e sample.
4.

The st udy was d e l i m i t e d t o t h e l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s of

t h e CES as one example o f a s t a t e - s u p p o r t e d o r g a n i z a t i o n .
5.

Fa c t o r s

influence

other

t han

the

ones

examined

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ perceptions.

in

However,

this

s t udy

may

the

study

was

d e l i m i t e d t o t h e v a r i a b l e s chosen f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n .
6.

The r e l a t i o n s h i p

between l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s

o f t he

CES and t h e i r v ot i n g r e c o r d on m a t t e r s p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e CES was not
c o n s i d e r e d in t h i s s t udy.
L i mi t a t i o n s
The

data

gathered

in

this

study

might

be

limited

by

the

f o l l o wi n g f a c t o r s :
1.
researcher

Some d a t a d i s t o r t i o n might have oc cur r ed even though t he
t ook

precautions

to

p r e ve nt

such

r e s p o n d e n t s we r e g u a r a n t e e d c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y
interview data

would be p r e s e n t e d

in

a

possibility.

and t o l d

The

that

an a g g r e g a t e manner,

in

the
an

11
a t t e mpt

t o encourage t h e l e g i s l a t o r s t o e x p r e s s t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s

openly and h o n e s t l y .
2.
in

The i n t e r v i e w s

session.

Hence,

were

the

conducted wh i l e

the

le g is la to r s ’ duties

legislature

was

and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s

might not have allowed them t o r e f l e c t on t h e i r r e s p o n s e s .
3.

The p r o c e s s

used

in

this

s t udy

could

state-supported organizations to obtain insights
perceptions of those organizations.
st udy

are

generalizable

onl y

to

However,
members

be

used

into

by o t h e r

legislators’

the r e s u l t s

of

the

1986

of t h i s
Michigan

Legislature.
Assumptions
The r e s e a r c h e r made

the

f o l l owi ng

assumptions

in

conduct i ng

t h i s st udy:
1.

An i n d i v i d u a l ’ s p e r c e p t i o n s

are

influenced

by h i s / h e r

i n t e r a c t i o n wi t h e x t e r n a l f o r c e s .
2.

An i n d i v i d u a l ’ s p e r c e p t i o n s a r e i mpor t ant f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c ­

ing h i s / h e r be ha vi or .
These assumptions a r e suppor t ed by t h e t h e o r i e s o f p e r c e p t u a l
psychologists.
(1976)

Allport

theorized

objective

(1955)

and Combs,

that

all

be h a v i o r

envi ronment ,

but

by

perceiving t h a t

is

a

is

Ri c har ds ,

and Ri chards

influenced,

personal,

individual

unique t o each person and i n c l u d e s

u n i v e r s e as i t i s e x p e r i e n c e d by t h e i n d i v i d u a l .

no t

by

manner

the
of

the en tire

12
D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms
To ensur e c l a r i t y , t h e f o l l o wi n g t erms a r e d e f i n e d as t hey are
used in t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n :
F a m i l i a r i t y wi t h t h e CES.

The f r eque ncy wi t h which a l e g i s ­

l a t o r had personal and nonpersonal c o n t a c t wi t h t h e CES ( i n t h e p a s t
year),

the

leg islato r’s prior

involvement

wi t h

the

CES,

and t h e

l e g i s l a t o r ’ s l e g i s l a t i v e committee e x p e r i e n c e .
L e g i s l a t i v e committee e x p e r i e n c e .
legislator

had served

on

the

Educat i on,

and A g r i c u l t u r e

The t o t a l

House/Senate

Committees,

number o f y e a r s a

Appropriations,

pl us

the

number

Higher

of

years

s er ved as a county commissioner.
Michigan Cooper at i ve
tional

organization

appropriations.

Extensi on

supported

by

Service.

A nonformal

e du c a ­

federal,

state,

county

and

The Michigan CES s e r v e s as an e x t e n s i o n o f Michigan

S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y and t h e Uni t ed S t a t e s Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e t o
Michigan c i t i z e n s .

The f o u r program a r e a s o f t h e Michigan CES a r e

Agriculture/Marketing,

Nat ural

Resources/Public

Pol i c y ,

4-H Youth,

and Ext ension Home Economics.
Michigan
members

of

Legislature.
the

Senate

Representatives.

The

and

Thi s

law-making

the

body

110

body

members

approves

or

composed

of

the

rejects

of

38

House

of

bills

and

r e s o l u t i o n s t h a t det er mi ne v a r i o u s p o l i c i e s t h a t govern t h e S t a t e of
Michigan as well

as

local

governments.

Legislators

also

review

agency o p e r a t i o n s and d e t er mi ne whet her p u b l i c laws a r e a d mi n i s t e r e d
in

accordance with

legi s ia tiv e

intent.

The

body

al so makes

13
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s f o r t h e o p e r a t i o n o f a g e n c i e s , s t a t e d e p a r t me n t s , and
e d u c a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s / i n s t i t u t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g t h e Michigan CES.
Nonpersonal c o n t a c t s .
legislators

that

is

not on

Communi c at i on b e t w e e n

t h e CES and

a o n e - t o - o n e o r pe r s onal b a s i s ,

i.e.,

mass ma i l i n g s t o l e g i s l a t o r s , r a d i o and t e l e v i s i o n announcements or
programs,

newsletters

and

newspaper

articles,

and

Extension

b u l l e t i n s and p u b l i c a t i o n s .
Perception.

The

process

by

whi ch

an

individual

differentiations

in h i s / h e r p e r c e p t u a l

wi t h a degree o f

c l a r i t y c e r t a i n e vent s over o t h e r s .

makes

f i e l d or c a l l s to the fr ont
This pr oc e s s

o f d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g e v e n t s and r e l a t i o n s h i p s between o r among e vent s
c o n s t i t u t e s t he f i e l d o f personal

meaning f o r t h e

individual

at a

gi ven time (Combs e t a l . , 1976).
Personal
legislators

contacts.

One-to-one

and t h e CES o r CES c l i e n t e l e ,

communication
i.e.,

visits,

be t we e n
personal

l e t t e r s , p a r t i c i p a t i o n in Extensi on e v e n t s .
Program t h r u s t s .

Educat i onal

( A g r i c u l t u r e / M a r k e t i n g , Nat ural

efforts

in

four

program a r e as

Re s o u r c e s / Pu b l i c Pol i c y ,

4-H Youth,

and Ext ens i on Home Economics) on which t h e Michigan CES has focused
i t s resources.
State-supported

( o r g a n i z a t i o n ).

A portion

of

the

organiza­

t i o n a l budget i s provi ded by s t a t e a p p r o p r i a t i o n s .
Or g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e D i s s e r t a t i o n
Thi s d i s s e r t a t i o n i s or g a n i z e d i n t o f i v e c h a p t e r s .
I,

a b r i e f i n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e t o p i c o f concern,

In Chapt er

t h e need f o r t he

14
s t udy,

and a s t a t e me n t

of the

problem were

p r ovi de d.

fol l owed by t h e purpose and importance o f t h e s t u d y ,
questions,

delim itations

and

lim itations,

Thi s

was

the research

assumptions,

and

d e f i n i t i o n s o f key t e r ms .
A r evi ew o f l i t e r a t u r e

on t h e concept o f p e r c e p t i o n and t he

r o l e o f p e r c e p t i o n in c o g n i t i v e l e a r n i n g i s p r e s e n t e d in Chapt er I I .
An e x p l o r a t i o n

of

factors

used

in

related

research

studies

is

i ncl uded t o pr ovi de a r a t i o n a l e f o r t h e v a r i a b l e s s e l e c t e d in t h i s
s t udy.

Rel at ed r e s e a r c h

i s reviewed t o examine how o t h e r s t a t e -

suppor t ed o r g a n i z a t i o n s have i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e p e r c e p t i o n s of s t a t e
legislators.
The de s i g n employed in t h i s st udy i s d i s c u s s e d in Chapt er I I I .
Included

are

a

description

of

the

population

and

sample,

t he

dependent and independent v a r i a b l e s , and development and t e s t i n g of
the

research

i n s t r u me n t .

The d a t a - c o l l e c t i o n

and

data-analysis

pr ocedur es a r e a l s o e x p l a i n e d .
Re s u l t s

of

the

statistical

a na l ys e s

of

data

related

to

t he

r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s , a d d i t i o n a l f i n d i n g s , and r e s pons e s t o t h e openended i n t e r v i e w q u e s t i o n s a r e p r e s e n t e d in Chapt er IV.
Chapter V contains

a summary o f t h e

study,

conclusions,

recommendations f o r p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n s and f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h , and
reflections.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction
Thi s c h a p t e r c o n t a i n s
topics

of

interest

in

a r evi ew o f l i t e r a t u r e
this

investigation.

related
First,

u nd e r s t andi ng o f t he concept o f p e r c e p t i o n i s p r o v i d e d .
and p r o p e r t i e s
possible

of perception

factors

that

are

elaborated

influence perception.

to

to
a

basic

Attributes

help

identify

The r e l a t i o n s h i p

between p e r c e p t i o n and c o g n i t i v e development i s a l s o e x p l o r e d .
related

studies

variables that

in which
affect

researchers

have

the

a t t e mpt e d

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ perceptions

are

to

Then

identify

presented.

Investigations of l e g i s l a t o r s ’ perceptions of other state-supported
o r g a n i z a t i o n s , such as community c o l l e g e s and p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n ,

are

a l s o reviewed.
The Concept o f Pe r c e p t i o n
Ear l y d e f i n i t i o n s
( c i t e d in A l l p o r t ,

of perceptions,

1955),

such as

focused on phy s i c a l

that

o f Helmholtz

s en s o r y s t i m u l a t i o n .

A l l p o r t broadened t h e d e f i n i t i o n by s t a t i n g t h a t p e r c e p t i o n i n vo l v e s
both sensory awareness and u n d e r s t a n d i n g o r meaning:
[ P e r c e p t i o n ] i s d e p e n d e n t t o a l a r g e e x t e n t upon t h e
i mpr essi ons t hos e o b j e c t s make upon our s e n s e s .
I t i s t h e way
t h i n g s look t o us, o r t h e way t h e y sound, f e e l , t a s t e , or
s mel l .
But p e r c e p t i o n a l s o i n v o l v e s , t o some d e g r e e , an

15

16
u n d e r s t a n d i n g , a "meaning" o r a " r e c o g n i t i o n " o f t h e s e o b j e c t s ,
(p. 14)
All p o r t

s ug ge s t e d

that

perception

r e c e p t i o n o f s e ns o r y s t i m u l i .

is

more complex t han

just

the

I t i n vo l v e s t h e meaning an i n d i v i d u a l

a s s o c i a t e s wi t h t h o s e s ens or y messages.
Combs

and

Snygg

(1959)

contributed

to

a

comprehensive

d e s c r i p t i o n o f p e r c e p t i o n by d e f i n i n g a pe r c e p t u a l

field.

of

or

focusing

authors

on p e r c e p t i o n s

e x pl or e d

of

perceptions

individual
from

a

objects

larger

Instead

events,

perspective.

the
They

stated:
By t h e p e r c e p t u a l
h i m s e l f , as i t i s
of action.
I t is
o f awareness, t h e
b e h a v i o r , (p. 20)

f i e l d , we mean t h e e n t i r e u n i v e r s e , i n c l u d i n g
exp e r i e nc e d by t h e i n d i v i d u a l a t t h e i n s t a n t
each i n d i v i d u a l ’ s per s onal and unique f i e l d
f i e l d o f p e r c e p t i o n r e s p o n s i b l e f o r h i s every

Thus, Combs and Snygg under s cor ed t h e importance o f e x p e r i e n c e s and
pe r s o n al

meaning t o t he concept o f p e r c e p t i o n .

Combs e t
p e r s o n al

al.

(1976)

asserted

meanings gi ve d i r e c t i o n

that these

perceptions

to people’s actions,

choices,

and
or

behaviors.
People do not behave a cc or di ng t o t h e f a c t s as o t h e r s see them.
They behave accor di ng t o t h e f a c t s as t he y see them.
What
governs be ha v i o r from t h i s p o i n t o f view a r e t h e p e r s o n ’ s
unique p e r c e p t i o n s o f h i ms e l f and t h e world in which he l i v e s ,
t h e meanings t h i n g s have f o r him. (p. 20)
In e s s e n c e , Combs e t a l . a s s e r t e d t h a t b e havi or i s a f u n c t i o n ,
not o f an e x t e r n a l event but o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l ’ s p e r c e p t i o n o f

it.

All

b e h a v i o r , t h e n , i s lawful or p u r p o s i v e , r e l e v a n t , and p e r t i n e n t

to

the

moment.

situation

only

as

the individual

un d e r s t a nd s

it

at

the

17
Combs e t a l . i d e n t i f i e d f o u r dimensions o f t h e p e r c e p t u a l f i e l d
as i t r e l a t e s t o a p e r s o n ’ s p e r c e p t i o n a t a gi ven t i me:
1.

The p e r c e p t u a l f i e l d i s f l u i d o r c o n s t a n t l y changi ng.

a l l ows t h e i n d i v i d u a l

This

t o respond t o new or changing c o n d i t i o n s

in

t h e envi ronment .
2.

The p e r c e p t u a l f i e l d has s t a b i l i t y as a r e s u l t o f imposing

o r d e r and meaning on t he envi ronment .
3.

The p e r c e p t u a l f i e l d has d i r e c t i o n .

I t i s always or gani zed

and meani ngf ul ; p e r c e p t i o n s a r e never masses o f meani ngl es s s t i m u l i .
4.

The p e r c e p t u a l

field

has

a figure-ground

characteristic;

t h a t i s , a t any given ti me c e r t a i n a s p e c t s o f t h e f i e l d a r e brought
i n t o a c l e a r f i g u r e or a r e seen with g r e a t e r i n t e n s i t y t han o t h e r
aspects

of

one’s

field.

This

is

called

the

process

of

differentiation.
Hi l ga r d and Atkinson (1967) suppor t ed t h i s d e f i n i t i o n when t hey
wr ot e:
P e r c e p t i o n i s t h e p r o c e s s o f becomi ng a war e o f o b j e c t s ,
q u a l i t i e s or r e l a t i o n s by way o f t h e sense or g a n s .
While
s ens or y c o n t e n t i s always p r e s e n t in p e r c e p t i o n , what i s
p e r c e i v e d i s . . . t h e r e s u l t o f compl ex p a t t e r n s o f
s t i m u l a t i o n pl us p a s t e x p e r i e n c e and p r e s e n t a t t i t u d e , (p. 632)
Hi l g a r d and Atkinson added t o p r e vi o us d e f i n i t i o n s o f p e r c e p t i o n t he
di mensions o f p a s t e x p e r i e n c e and c u r r e n t a t t i t u d e s .

They s a i d t h a t

p e r c e p t i o n i s a pr oc e s s o f becoming aware-- a pr ocess t h a t he l ps t h e
individual
inputs.

incorporate past

knowledge or i n f o r ma t i o n wi t h

current

Thus, p e r c e p t i o n can be seen as r e s u l t i n g from t h e complex

i n t e r a c t i o n among incoming i n f o r ma t i o n , p a s t e x p e r i e n c e , and c u r r e n t
attitudes.

As

perceptions

f or m,

they

become

part

of

past

18

e x p e r i e n c e s , which come t o be ar upon and i n f l u e n c e t h e development
of future perceptions.
Hi l ga r d
Dewey’ s views

and At k i n s o n ’ s n ot i o n
concerni ng

habit

of

perception

and t h e

was

continuity

similar

to

of experience.

Dewey (1935) s t a t e d :
The b a s i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of h a b i t i s t h a t e ver y e x p e r i e n c e
enact ed and undergone modi f i es t h e one who a c t s and undergoes,
whi l e t h i s m o d i f i c a t i o n a f f e c t s , whet her we wish i t o r n o t , t h e
q u a l i t y o f subsequent e x p e r i e n c e s .
I t c o v er s t h e f o r mat i on of
a t t i t u d e s , a t t i t u d e s t h a t a r e emotional and i n t e l l e c t u a l ; i t
c o v e r s o u r b a s i c s e n s i t i v i t i e s and ways o f m e e t i n g and
respondi ng t o a l l t h e c o n d i t i o n s which we meet in l i v i n g , (p.
35)
Pe r c e p t i o n i s s i m i l a r t o h a b i t in t h a t both c on ce pt s a f f e c t an
individual’s
perceives

and

attitudes

and

incorporates

r e l a t i o n s h i p as f ol l ows :

behaviors,
the

based

experience.

on

how t h a t

person

Dewey d e s c r i b e d

this

"The p r i n c i p l e o f c o n t i n u i t y o f e x p e r i e n c e

means t h a t every e x pe r i e n c e both t a k e s up something from t h o s e which
have gone b e f o r e and modi f i es in some way t h e q u a l i t y o f t h o s e which
come a f t e r " (p. 35).
Combs e t
will,

to

al.

a great

(1976)
extent,

said

that

depend

what
on

the

an

individual

ki nds

of

perceives

opportunities

a f f o r d e d him.

Exposure t o e vent s in no s ens e c o mp l e t e l y d e t e r mi n e s

or

the

guarantees

perceptions

a

person

will

have.

Even

with

e q u i v a l e n t exposure t o an e ve n t , d i f f e r e n t p e o p l e ’ s p e r c e p t i o n s o f
t h a t e vent might not be a l i k e .
the

factors

i nvolved

differentiated.

in

Exposure t o e v e n t s i s only one of

det e r mi n i n g

whet her

O pportunities to experience

an
are

e vent

will

be

essential

to

19
perceiving,

but

what

is

perceived

is

influenced

by

the

unique

p e r c e p t u a l f i e l d o f each pe r s o n .
Perception,
and depends

then,

on t h e

i n v o l v e s both i n t e r n a l

experiences

and

and e x t e r n a l

attitudes

of

the

factors

individual.

Krech, C r u t c h f i e l d , and Bal l achey (1962) suppor t ed t h e n o t i on o f t he
i n d i v i d u a l n a t u r e o f p e r c e p t i o n when t h e y s t a t e d :
There a r e no " i m p a r t i a l f a c t s . "
Data do n o t have a l o g i c of
t h e i r own t h a t r e s u l t in t he same p e r c e p t i o n s and c o g n i t i o n s
f o r a l l pe op l e . Data a r e pe r c e i ve d and i n t e r p r e t e d in t erms of
t h e i n d i v i d u a l p e r c e i v e r ’ s own n e e d s , own e m o t i o n s , own
p e r s o n a l i t y , own p r e v i o u s l y formed c o g n i t i v e p a t t e r n s , (p. 24)
Because f a c t s do not have t h e same meaning f o r

all

pe opl e,

it

is

i mp e r a t i v e t o c o n s i d e r p e o p l e ’ s p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e f a c t s .
In summary, t h e o r i s t s have expanded t h e concept of p e r c e p t i o n
t h r o u gh ou t t h e y e a r s .
sensory

stimuli;

understanding.
attitudes,

as

I n i t i a l d e f i n i t i o n s o f p e r c e p t i o n emphasized

later

ones

Theorists
well

as

incorporated

the

role

have c o n c l u d e d t h a t

internal

and

external

of

meaning

experiences

factors,

or
and

influence

perceptions.
The Role o f P e r c e p t i o n in Cog n i t i v e Learning
The r e l a t i o n s h i p

of perception

to

cognitive

e x pl o r e d by Forgus ( 1966), who r e l a t e d p e r c e p t i o n
thinking,
perceptual

thereby connecting these to
phenomena

c an

to

knowledge.

be d e s c r i b e d

as

being

learning

was

learning

and

He s t a t e d
organized

that
at

d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s and t h a t " p e r c e p t i o n i s f i r s t concerned with man’ s
reception

and

meaningful

interpretation

of

i n f o r ma t i o n

received

20
t hrough h i s s ens e s "

(p. 289).

These p e r c e p t i o n s a r e t he n combined

and grouped wi t h o t h e r p e r c e p t i o n s t o form more complex phenomena.
Cogni t i on o r

thinking

has been

complex l e v e l s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n .

used t o

describe

Forgus wrot e,

these

more

" J u s t as p e r c e p t i o n

i s concerned wi t h t h e r e c e p t i o n and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f i n f o r ma t i o n ,
so i s t h i n k i n g concerned wi t h t h e ma ni pu l a t i o n o f t h i s
in o r d e r t o a d j u s t t o t h e world and t o

i nf o r mat i o n

s ol ve problems"

(p.

289).

Thus, Forgus suppor t ed t h e n o t i o n t h a t p e r c e p t i o n s a r e not only t he
way in which peopl e r e c e i v e i n f o r ma t i on about t h e i r world, but , most
impor t ant t o t h i s s t udy, p e r c e p t i o n s a r e t h e pr ocess i n d i v i d u a l s use
t o t h i n k about t h e i r world and a d j u s t t o i t .

Forgus 1 inked t h i n k i n g

t o be ha v i or when he d e s c r i b e d t h e pr oc e s s o f a d j u s t i n g t o t h e world.
This 1 ink has
perceptions

of

implications

f o r the

an o r g a n i z a t i o n

present

influence

st udy as
their

legislators’

thinking

or

final

d e ci s i on- maki ng p r o c e s s .
Forman (1979)

suppor t ed t h e n o t i o n o f a r e l a t i o n s h i p

between

p e r c e p t i o n and c o g n i t i o n in d e f i n i n g c o g n i t i o n as "an unobser vabl e
system

of

mental

rules

inferred

from

be havi or

suggesting

that

i nf or ma t i o n has been or ga ni z ed in some manner t h a t may o r may not be
consciously

known"

(p.

4).

In a d d i t i o n ,

Forman s t a t e d

that

t he

system o f mental r u l e s o r t h e way t h e i n f o r ma t i o n has been or gani zed
changes over t i me.
well

The change can be r e l a t e d t o p a s t e x p e r i e n c e as

as t o new i n f o r ma t i o n ,

as d i s c u s s e d in

t h e p r e vi o us s e c t i o n .

In c o n c l u s i o n , p e r c e p t i o n , t h i n k i n g , and l e a r n i n g a r e d i r e c t l y
related.

An i n v e s t i g a t i o n

of

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ perceptions

i n d i c a t e t h e i r c u r r e n t t h i n k i n g but would not pr ovi de i n s i g h t

mi g h t
into

21

how t o i n f l u e n c e or p r e d i c t t h e i r f u t u r e t h o u g h t s .
woul d

be

to

determine

perceptions.

Us i ng

what

s uch

factors

More i mpor t ant

influence

information,

an

legislators’

effective

plan

for

e d u c a t i n g l e g i s l a t o r s mi g h t be d e v e l o p e d - - o n e

that

takes

account t h o s e a r e a s of e xp e r i e n c e and p e r c e p t i o n

that

legislators

rely

influences

on most

for

the

cognitive

knowledge

that

into

their

decisions.
Rel at ed Research on L e g i s l a t o r s ’ P e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e CES
A review o f

the

literature

explored r e la t i o n s h i p s
perception--in
organization
limited

to

that

researchers

b e t wee n many i n d e p e n d e n t

particular,

perceptions

such as t he CES.
studies

indicated

with

of

The p r e s e n t

state

legislators

a

variables

have
and

state-supported

literature
as

the

review was
population.

Although many s t u d i e s have been conducted us i ng l e g i s l a t o r s

as t h e

p o p u l a t i o n , none i n v e s t i g a t e d Michigan l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f a
state-supported

educational

organization.

Neither

did

any

r e s e a r c h e r s at t empt t o e x pl or e a p r e d i c t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t he
combi ned

variables

identified

in

this

study

and

legislators’

perceptions.
Earlier

researchers

like

Bl al ock

(1963)

did

not

id e n tif y fac tors influencing l e g i s l a t o r s ’ perceptions,
explore

various

areas

of perception.

a t t e mp t

to

but t h e y di d

Investigators

gathered

i n f o r ma t i o n t o a s s e s s l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f a s t a t e - s u p p o r t e d
organization--in
Agricultural

Blalock’ s

study

Extension S erv ice.

the

North

Carolina

Cooper at i ve

Blalock explored l e g i s l a t o r s ’

22
degree

of

understanding

objectives,

and

organizational

of

activities;
affiliation

the

Extension

current

S e r v i c e ’ s purposes,

programs

and

program

areas;

and s t r u c t u r e ; met hod o f f i n a n c i n g ;

c l i e n t e l e and t h e amount o f time and e f f o r t devot ed t o each group;
and p r o f e s s i o n a l

staff.

In a d d i t i o n , he a t t e mp t e d t o de t er mi ne t he

r e l a t i o n s h i p between l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e E xt e n s i o n
Service

and

the

following

independent

variables:

degree

of

knowledge, d e gr e e o f a p p r a i s a l o f E x t e n s i o n ’ s v a l u e , and b r e a d t h and
scope o f E x t e n s i o n ’ s programs and c l i e n t e l e .
Blalock

f ou nd

that,

in

general,

legislators

vi e wed

the

Ext ensi on S e r v i c e as an e d u c a t i o n a l agency but one t h a t was o r i e n t e d
solely

toward

working

wi t h

f a r me r s .

The

legislators’

level

of

u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n and f i n a n c i n g was r e l a t i v e l y low,
but

they

had a high

regard

for

the

training

and a b i l i t y

of

t he

staff.
Chadwick

(1966)

conduct ed

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ perceptions
correlations

of

the

a

descriptive
CES.

between two v a r i a b l e s :

understanding of the
Ext ens i on S e r v i c e .

He

s t udy

of

Colorado

a t t e mp t e d

to

identify

(a) degr ee o f knowledge and

Ext ens i on Se r v i c e and

(b)

evaluation

of

t he

Chadwick found t h a t l e g i s l a t o r s from r u r a l a r e a s

had a g r e a t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n t han d i d t h e i r urban
counterparts.

Also,

legislators

who

had

a

high

u n d e r s t a n d i n g e v a l u a t e d t h e CES as being more e f f e c t i v e

degree
t han

of
di d

t h o s e wi t h a low degree o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g .
Smi t h
legislators

(1967)
toward

also

investigated

a state-supported

the

perceptions

of

state

organization--the

No r t h

23

Ca r o l i n a A g r i c u l t u r a l
degree

of

Ext ens i on S e r v i c e .

association

be t we e n

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ perceptions
Service.

However,

selected

about c e r t a i n

personal
areas

Smith used t h e f o l l owi ng pe r s onal

variables:

he examined t h e
factors

of the

and

Extension

f a c t o r s as independent

(a) t h e l e g i s l a t o r ’ s concept o f t h e county o r d i s t r i c t

he/she re pre se nt ed,

(b) t h e l e g i s l a t o r ’ s degree o f i nvolvement wi t h

Ext ension S e r v i c e , (c) t h e ge ogr a phi c a r e a o f t h e s t a t e in which t he
le g is la to r resided,

(d) p l a c e o f r e s i d e n c e ( r u r a l , urban, e t c . ) ,

length of l e g i s l a t i v e s er vi ce ,

(e)

( f ) o c c u p a t i o n , and (g) s i z e o f t he

bu s i n e s s or farm wi t h which t h e l e g i s l a t o r was a s s o c i a t e d .
Smith found t h a t
Extensi on
related

Service

to

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ degr ee o f

was

the

perception.

most

Degree

i mpor t ant
of

involvement wi t h t he
of

the

involvement

seven

was

factors

significantly

a s s o c i a t e d with 10 o f t h e 42 el ement s o f p e r c e p t i o n ; t h r e e o f t h e s e
a s s o c i a t i o n s were s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01 l e v e l o f p r o b a b i l i t y .
l e g i s l a t o r s ’ occupations

and s i z e o f b u s i n e s s

or

The

farm wi t h which

t hey were a s s o c i a t e d e x e r t e d t h e second g r e a t e s t i n f l u e n c e on t h e i r
perceptions.

Length

of

legislative

service

exerted

the

least

influence.
White (1970) i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f seven independent
variables

to

Alabama

state

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ perceptions

s upport ed o r g a n i z a t i o n , t h e CES.
legislative

experience,

of

a

White s e l e c t e d v a r i a b l e s

residence,

urbanization,

and

statesuch as

occupation,

which had been used in p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s , but he a l s o i n c l u d e d l e v e l
of

e du c a t i on

and degree

of

c o n s e r v a t i s m.

He l i m i t e d

degree

of

24
involvement t o d i r e c t c o n t a c t .

Using c h i - s q u a r e v a l u e s t o d e t er mi ne

t h e l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e , White found t h a t d i r e c t c o n t a c t wi t h t he
Ext ensi on S e r v i c e appeared t o be more s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o t he
l e g i s l a t o r s ’ perceptions

than were t h e

other

factors

he

studied.

Pl ace o f r e s i d e n c e and u r b a n i z a t i o n o f t h e d i s t r i c t t h e l e g i s l a t o r
represented

exerted

the

second g r e a t e s t

influence.

Level

of

e d u c a t i o n e x e r t e d t h e l e a s t i n f l u e n c e on l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s .
In F l o r i d a ,

McCown (1969)

investigated

s i m i l a r t o t h o s e used by Smith (1967).
to

determine

whether

there

r e l a t i o n s h i p between f i v e
variables.

The

was

a

statistically

independent v a r i a b l e s

i ndependent

(c)

variables

orientation

of

legislators’
the

were

(d)

(a)

significant

and f i v e dependent
number

of

years

(b) l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p l a c e of

perceptions

district,

variables

He used c h i - s q u a r e a n a l y s i s

l e g i s l a t o r s had served in t h e l e g i s l a t u r e ,
residence,

i nde pende nt

of

legislators’

the

rural-urban

contact

wi t h

the

Ext ensi on S e r v i c e , and (e) l e g i s l a t o r s ’ a t t i t u d e s toward l i b e r a l i s m
or c o n s e r v a t i s m.
of perception:
(c)

The dependent v a r i a b l e s were t h e f o l l o wi n g a r e a s
(a) Ex t e n s i o n ’ s purpose, (b) E x t e n s i o n ’ s o b j e c t i v e s ,

Extension’s

operational

p r o g r a ms

pr oc e du r e s ,

and

pr o g r am

areas,

( d)

Extension’s

and (e) Ex t e n s i o n ’ s c l i e n t e l e .

In s t a t i n g

h i s r e s u l t s , McCown focused on d e s c r i b i n g t h e a c t u a l p e r c e p t i o n s o f
legislators

toward

the

FIorida

CES,

rather

than

id e n ti fying

f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g t h os e p e r c e p t i o n s .
Walker
relationship

(1977)

at t empt ed

be t we e n

several

to

det er mi ne
independent

whet her

there

variables,

was
s uc h

a
as

o c c u p a t i o n , s e l e c t e d l e g i s l a t i v e committee memberships, f a m i l i a r i t y ,

25

and

extent

of

legislators

participation,

c oncer ni ng

selected variables.

the

an a s s o c i a t i o n

Extension

Service

legislators’
familiarity

and

in
place

wi t h

t he

overall

perceptions

Extensi on

of

program

Loui si ana
and

other

In a d d i t i o n , she at t empt ed t o de t er mi ne whether

t h e r e was

participation

and

between
their

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ perceptions

degree

the

Extension

of

residence

the

overall

of

fam iliarity

Service.
was

Wal k e r

directly

Ext ension

l e g i s l a t o r s were more aware o f and i nvol ved
urban l e g i s l a t o r s .

with

and

found

related

Se r v i c e

of the

to

program.

that
their
Rural

in t h e CES t han were

L e g i s l a t o r s wi t h f a r m - r e l a t e d

occupations

committee ass i gnment s were more f a m i l i a r with t h e t o t a l

and

Extensi on

program t h a n were l e g i s l a t o r s wi t h n o n - f a r m - r e l a t e d o c c u p a t i o n s and
committees.
overall

Even

Ext ensi on

though

some

program,

legislators

t he y di d

not

knew more

participate

about

at

t he

a higher

l e v e l t ha n t h o s e who knew l e s s .
In Alabama, C u r t i s (1978) sought t o de t er mi ne t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p
of previously i n v e s t i g a t e d v a r i a b l e s ,
characteristics,

to

characteristics

included

which he termed l e g i s l a t o r s ’

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ perceptions
position

of

the

CES.

in l e g i s l a t u r e ,

These

occupation,

committee membership, p l a c e o f r e s i d e n c e , and c h a r a c t e r o f d i s t r i c t .
In

a ddi t i o n ,

Ext ens i on.

Curti s

explored

the

variable

of

contacts

with

He d e f i n e d c o n t a c t s as being made through an a d v i s o r y

c o u n c i 1 member
legislators’
understanding

or

by means

perceptions
of

the

of
major

of

reports.

the

CES were

purposes,

The m a j o r
identified
( b)

areas

of

a s:

(a)

fam iliarity

with

26
E x t e n s i o n ’ s major

program t h r u s t s ,

E x t e n s i o n ’ s program and a c t i v i t i e s .

and

(c)

participation

in

C u r t i s found t h a t l e g i s l a t i v e

p o s i t i o n and committee membership were s i g n i f i c a n t l y a s s o c i a t e d with
the

a r e a s o f p e r c e p t i o n s examined. He

a l s o noted t h a t

who

had r e c e i v e d r e p o r t s on t h e CES’ s

work and accomplishments did

not

have a more a c c u r a t e p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e Alabama CES

who

had not r e c e i v e d such
Adkins

(1980)

legislators

t ha n t h os e

reports.

at t e mpt e d

to

discover

whether

a

relationship

e x i s t e d between t h e p e r c e p t i o n s o f Maryland s t a t e l e g i s l a t o r s toward
t h e CES and
party

t h e f ol l o wi n g f a c t o r s : (a)

affiliation,

leadership,
race,

(c)

tenure

r o l e in l e g i s l a t u r e ,

in ge ner al

(e) s e r v i c e on county c o u n c i l ,

(i ) educational

level,

(j)

(d)

( f ) age,

committee

(g) gender ,

s chool s a t t e n d e d ,

(1) geogr aphi c r e gi on r e p r e s e n t e d ,
(n) p l a c e o f r e s i d e n c e .

assembly,

(b)

(h)

(k) o c c up a t i on ,

(m) c o n s t i t u e n t s r e p r e s e n t e d , and

The f a c t o r s most f r e q u e n t l y a s s o c i a t e d with

t he l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e Maryland CES were (a) ge ogr a phi c
region

represented,

(b)

l e g i s l a t o r ’ s place of
age, and

(e)

residence,

constituents

r e p r e s e n t e d , (d)

race.

representing

c o n s t i t u e n t s from r u r a l a r e a s o r l i v i n g in r u r a l

(c)

Legislators
areas

were more f a m i l i a r and invol ved wi t h Ext ensi on work t ha n were t h e i r
urban

counterparts.

Ol der

legislators

were

more

familiar

than

younger l e g i s l a t o r s wi t h t h e Ext ensi on S e r v i c e .
In South C a r o l i n a , M i l l e r (1986) a t t e mpt ed t o de t er mi ne whet her
t h e r e was an a s s o c i a t i o n between l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e CES
and c e r t a i n personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
variables

as

role

in

the

He examined such i ndependent

legislature,

years

of

legislative

27
experience,

political

character

of

variable

was

objectives,
activities,

the

party

district,

affiliation,

age,

and

basic

and

program

of

the

and

residence,

The

CES’ s

involvement

areas,

of

occupation.

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ perceptions
participation

place

in

dependent

purpose

and

programs

clientele.

Results

and
of

a

c h i - s q u a r e t e s t i n d i c a t e d t h a t a l l o f t h e i ndependent v a r i a b l e s were
s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o one o r more a r e a s o f p e r c e p t i o n t h a t were
examined.

Political

party

affiliation,

place

of

residence,

and

c h a r a c t e r of the d i s t r i c t exerted the g r e a t e s t in fl u en c e.
G a t c h e l 1 (1986) examined not only demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
s i m i l a r t o t ho s e
scope

of

i ncl uded

socioeconomic

characteristics
Gatchel1 ’ s

st udy:
title,

(d)

of

(a)
(c)

studies

s e r v e d as

l eng t h

of

in

service

Georgia,

also

(e)

as

a

a f f i l i a t i o n with 4-H,

g e n de r ,

(f)

or

characteri sties

(k)

per s onal

(1) c h i l d r e n ’ s a f f i l i a t i o n wi t h 4-H,

wer e

not

considered

Following a m u l t i p l e - r e g r e s s i o n

The l a s t
in

(g)

represented,

occupation,

phi l os ophy f o r E x t e n s i o n ’ s f u t u r e mi s s i on .

(b)

age,

position,

(j)

in

a s s i g nme n t s ,

(i)

appoi nt ed

variables

committee

(h) d e s c r i p t i o n o f d i s t r i c t

or

following

legislator,

description of residence,
elected

a broader

The

independent

agriculture-related

residence

but

characteristics.

or fa c to rs

legislative
length

in p r e vi ous

and (m)

three factors

previous

a n a ly s is , several

research.

independent

v a r i a b l e s emerged as f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s of
the

Georgia

committees,

CES.
gender,

They

were

personal

experience
affiliation

on

agri c u l t u r e - r e l a t e d

with

4- H,

a f f i l i a t i o n wi t h 4-H, and l eng t h o f r e s i d e n c e in Geor gi a.

children’s

28

In summary, r e s e a r c h on l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e CES has
progressed

from

descriptions

of

perceptions

( Bl a l oc k ,

1963)

to

a t t e mp t s t o e s t a b l i s h c o r r e l a t i o n s between a v a r i e t y o f i ndependent
v a r i a b l e s and l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s r e g a r d i n g v a r i o u s a s p e c t s o f
t h e CES (Adkins, 1980; C u r t i s , 1978; Ga t c h e l 1, 1986; J e n n i n g s , 1983;
McCown, 1969; M i l l e r , 1983; Smith, 1967; Walker, 1977; White, 1970).
Rec e n t l y, Ga t che l l a t t e mp t e d t o det er mi ne what v a r i a b l e s e x e r t e d t he
greatest

influence

studies,

independent v a r ia b l e s

associated

with

involvement,

determined to

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ perceptions

( b)

affiliation

on l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s .

with

direct
4- H,

contact,
(d)

(c)

place

of

In p r e v i o u s

be s i g n i f i c a n t l y

wer e

(a)

personal

or

residence,

(e)

degree

of

children’s
committee

membership, ( f ) c o n s t i t u e n t s r e p r e s e n t e d , and (g) p a r t y a f f i l i a t i o n .
The dependent
defined
pur pos e,

as

variables

involving

objectives,

in
the

the

p r e vi ous

fol l owi ng

activities;

f a m i l i a r i t y wi t h program t h r u s t s ;
(e) c l i e n t e l e ,

(b)

studies

areas

of

operational

were

most

often

perception:

(a)

procedures,

(c)

(d) p a r t i c i p a t i o n wi t h programs;

( f ) s t r u c t u r e , and (g) o r g a n i z a t i o n a l fundi ng.

Rel at e d Research on L e g i s l a t o r s ’ P e r c e p t i o n s
o f Ot her S t a t e - S u p p o r t e d O r g a n i z a t i o n s
Administrators
p u b l i c school

of

state-supported

districts

organizations

and h i g h e r e d uc a t i o n

such as

institutions

K-12

such as

community c o l l e g e s have r e a l i z e d t h e val ue o f e x p l o r i n g l e g i s l a t o r s ’
perceptions

of

their

organizations.

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ perceptions

i ncl uded

Early

detailed

investigations

descriptions

of

of

t ho s e

29
perceptions.
Vocational

For

example,

Education

Legislatures

the

and

conducted

Nat i onal

the

Cent er

National

a telephone

Research

Conference

and mail

l e g i s l a t o r s (Nunez & R u s s e l l , 1981).

for

survey

of

in

of

State

209

state

The purpose o f t h i s survey was

t o d e t er mi ne s t a t e l e g i s l a t o r s ’ views about v o c a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n and
i t s outcomes, what v o c a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n should be doing and how i t
coul d

be

improved,

and

federal

and

state

roles

relative

to

t he

improvement o f v o c a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n programs.
In

addition

to

describing

legislators’

perceptions,

i n v e s t i g a t o r s have a l s o compared l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s wi t h t h o s e
of o th e r groups.

St.

Gemme

p e r c e p t i o n s o f 20 c r i t i c a l
institutions.
those

hel d

( 1 9 75 )

i s s u e s f a c i n g Mi ssouri

He a l s o compared t h e
by

investigated

educational

groups

legislators’

p u b l i c e du c a t i on

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s with
toward

the

same

20

critical

educational issues.
Milstein
making

process

and J e n n i n g s
by

(1971)

comparing

the

studied the

educational

perceptions

of

l e g i s l a t o r s wi t h t h o s e o f e d u c a t i o n a l
conducted

structured

executive

officers

results

in

indicated that

interviews
six

major

New York

i n t e r e s t groups .

wi t h

207

education

t h e r e were s e v e r a l

state

state

The a u t h o r s

legislators

interest
critical

policy­

groups .
differences

and
The
in

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ and e x e c u t i v e o f f i c e r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e e d u c a t i o n a l
pol i cy- maki ng p r o c e s s .

These c r i t i c a l

had major i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r e d u c a t i o n a l

differences

in p e r c e p t i o n s

pol i cy-maki ng s t a f f as t he y

planned f u t u r e i n t e r a c t i o n s wi t h s t a t e l e g i s l a t o r s .

30
Cistulli
legislators

( 1977)

ascertained

the

perceptions

i n Con ne c t i c ut r e g a r d i n g g u i d e l i n e s

of

state

and c o n s i d e r a t i o n s

f o r community c o l l e g e s and t he n compared them wi t h t h e p e r c e p t i o n s
o f a d v i s o r y counci l members and f a c u l t y and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e personnel
from p u b l i c

t wo- year

colleges.

He

found

that

most

d i f f e r e n t p e r c e p t i o n s r e g a r d i n g community s e r v i c e s .

groups

had

The groups a l s o

d i s a g r e e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e g a r d i n g t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n and management of
community s e r v i c e s .
Glasman

(1981)

c omp ar ed

the

perceptions

of

California

l e g i s l a t o r s , department a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ,

and o u t s i d e e v a l u a t o r s

r e g a r d i n g t he f u n c t i o n s and uses o f s t a t e

depar t ment o f e d u c a t i o n

evaluations.

He s a i d t h a t comparisons o f p e r c e p t i o n s a r e n e c e s s a r y ,

e s p e c i a l l y wi t h r e ga r d t o s t a t e l e g i s l a t o r s , because t h e s e lawmakers
i n f l u e n c e funding s o u r c e s .
Raho
legislators

( 19 80 )

compar ed

and p r e s i d e n t s

the
of

u n i v e r s i t i e s concerni ng v a r i o u s

perceptions

Florida’s
types

of

Florida

i ndependent

state

colleges

and forms o f s t a t e

and

support.

Raho d i s c o v e r e d t h a t t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e
perceptions of l e g i s l a t o r s

and c o l l e g e

and u n i v e r s i t y

presidents.

He recommended f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h t o d e t e r mi n e t h e f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g
l e g i s l a t o r s ’ perceptions.
Ot her

investigators

have

s up p or t e d

the

notion

that

research

focused on t h e p e r c e p t i o n s o f s t a t e l e g i s l a t o r s shoul d be conducted
on an i n d i v i d u a l - s t a t e b a s i s (Raho, 1980; Root, 1983).

One r eason

f o r t h i s p o s i t i o n i s t h a t each s t a t e ’ s unique h i s t o r y and t r a d i t i o n s

31
shape

the

s t a t e ’s

policies

as

much as

do c u r r e n t

conditions

or

future considerations.
Another area of
influence
Ferguson
four

investigation

legislators’
(1960)

states

educational

perceptions

ha s c o n c e r n e d f a c t o r s
of

education-related

i n t e r v i e we d more t ha n 420 s t a t e

concerning
need.

their

perceptions

He t hen c o r r e l a t e d

home count y,
legislative
tenure

in

i deol ogy,

political

experience.
the

Ferguson

legislature

were

of

lobbyist

found t h a t
more

likely

to

"conservatives"

in t h e i r p o l i t i c a l

to

be

favorable.

from

problems

nature of the

perception,

be

of

individual

members wi t h

e d u c a t i o n t han t h o s e who had l e s s e x p e r i e n c e .
generally "liberal"

the

urban-rural

party,

matters.

legislators

t h o s e d a t a wi t h

v a r i a b l e s o f age, e d u c a t i o n , o c c u p a t i o n ,

that

and

l o ng e r

favorable

to

L e g i s l a t o r s who were

views were more l i k e l y than
Legislators

who

lived

in

m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a s were l e s s l i k e l y t o be f a v o r a b l e t han t h os e who
1 ived in o t h e r a r e a s .
Vann (1970) examined North Ca r o l i n a l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s of
t h e North Ca r o l i n a Community Col lege System (NCCCS).
the

study

was

to

e x a mi n e

the

association

One purpose o f

b e t we e n

selected

demographic f a c t o r s and l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f f o u r el ement s o f
t h e NCCCS--philosophy,
found

that

variables

there
(length

objectives,

wer e
of

programs,

significant

legislative

associations

service,

e d u c a t i o n , geogr aphi c r e g i o n o f d i s t r i c t ,
degree

of

contact

with

the

and c l i e n t e l e .
between

occupation,

Vann
seven

level

of

urbanizati on of d i s t r i c t ,

communi t y

college

system,

and

32
l e g i s l a t o r s ’ degr ee o f con s e r v a t i s m) and one or more o f t h e el ement s
o f p e r c e p t i o n examined.
Wilson (1973)
pe r s onal

i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e c o r r e l a t i o n between s o c i a l

attributes

knowledge about

of l e g i s l a t o r s

the

and t h e i r

community c o l l e g e

level

concept

of

and

perceptual

in North C a r o l i n a .

M u l t i p l e - r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s was used t o det er mi ne t h e n a t u r e o f t he
relationships.
trustees

of

Only
an

Democratic

two

factors,

institution

Party,

were

in

found

membership

the
to

NCCCS and

be

on

the

board

membership

significantly

in

of
t he

correlated

to

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ knowledge about t he community c o l l e g e c oncept .
Other

researchers

have

explored

such

variables

as

race,

p r o f e s s i o n , and e d uca t i on when examining l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s of
the

NCCCS ( P a r k e r

variables
service

such
as

education,
ge ner al

with

1984).

and

H e s s e n f 1ow ( 1 9 8 7 )

tenure

commissioner,

in

t he

in

legislators

her

research

concer ni ng

She concluded t h a t

tenets

of

the

demographic, p o l i t i c a l

on

the

ge ner al

me mbe r s hi p

and membership on a h i g he r e d u ca t i on

state.
the

capacity

county

assembly

Carolina
their

a

as

& Seymour,

the

on

perceptions

community c o l l e g e

not

participation,

assembly,
board

committee o f

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ level

NCCCS was

a

used

influenced

of
by

or p o l i t i c a l

of

of
t he

North

system

in

agreement
the

socio­

orientation

f a c t o r s s e l e c t e d f o r h e r s t udy.
In summary, many r e s e a r c h e r s have i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e p e r c e p t i o n s
of l e g i s l a t o r s concerning s ta te -s u p p o rte d vocational
programs, K-12 p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n ,

education

and h i gh e r e d u c a t i o n i n s t i t u t i o n s

33
in an a t t e mpt t o

i d e n t i f y f a c t o r s t h a t might

i n f l u e n c e lawmakers’

knowledge, u n d e r s t a n d i n g , and s u p p o r t .
Summary
A r evi ew o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e p e r t i n e n t t o t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n was
p r e s e n t e d in t h i s c h a p t e r .

The concept o f p e r c e p t i o n was reviewed

to

basis

suppor t

the

theoretical

of t h i s

study.

Pe r c e p t i o n

was

d e f i n e d as t h e p r o c e s s by which an i n d i v i d u a l makes d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s
in h i s / h e r perceptual
over o t h e r s .

as

role

of

or c a l l s to the

front

certain

e vent s

Thi s p r o c e s s c o n s t i t u t e s t h e f i e l d o f pe r s onal meaning

for the individual
well

field

internal

a t a gi ven t i me.
and e x t e r n a l

perception

in

Experi ence and a t t i t u d e s

factors

cognitive

influence

learning

r e s e a r c h e r s have i n d i c a t e d t h a t p e r c e p t i o n ,

perception.

was

al so

thinking,

as
The

reviewed;

and l e a r n i n g

are d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d .
Research on f a c t o r s
next.
numerous

a s s o c i a t e d wi t h p e r c e p t i o n s was p r e s e n t e d

Investigators

have

i ndependent

variables

particular

state-supported

examined in t h e s e s t u d i e s
tenure,

degree

of

explored
and

the

i ncl uded age,
with

the

ge n der ,
the

CES,

CES.

of

a

Variables

educational

level,

geographic

r e p r e s e n t e d , a t t i t u d e s toward 1i b e r a l i s m and c o n s e r v a t i s m,
in t h e l e g i s l a t u r e .

b e t we e n

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ perceptions

organization,

involvement

relationships

area

and r o l e

Some major a r e a s o f l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f

t h e CES were i d e n t i f i e d as (a) u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e major p ur po s e s ,
(b)

familiarity

wi t h

E x t e n s i o n ’ s major

program t h r u s t s ,

p a r t i c i p a t i o n in E x t e n s i o n ’ s programs and a c t i v i t i e s .

and

(c)

34
Research concern in g s t a t e - s u p p o r t e d
r eviewed.

institutions

was a l s o

Personnel in v o c a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n , K-12 p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n ,

and h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n

institutions

such as community c o l l e g e s

have

r e a l i z e d the importance of e x p lo rin g l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s .
Demographic and p e r s o n a l - s o c i a l
been

ex pl o r e d

as

factors

that

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f l e g i s l a t o r s have
might

perceptions of p a r t i c u l a r i n s t i t u t i o n s .

be

related

to

legislators’

CHAPTER I I I
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The

stud y

d e si gn

and

d e s c r i b e d in t h i s c h a p t e r .

proce dures

used

in

the

research

a re

The c h a p t e r in c l u d e s an e x p l a n a t i o n o f

t h e d e s i g n , dependent and independent v a r i a b l e s , r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s ,
a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n and sample, development and t e s t i n g
of the research

instrument,

and d a t a - c o l l e c t i o n

and d a t a - a n a l y s i s

pr o c e d u r e s .
Design o f t h e Study
The p u r p o s e
de te rm in e

whether

that

directed

legislators’

th is

exploratory

perceptions

of

a

study

was

state-supported

e d u c a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , t h e Coop er ati ve Extension S e r v i c e ,
predicted

from

organizational
Figu re

3.1.

selected

factors.
The f i g u r e

fam iliarity

also

shows

how t h e

socio-dem ographic/

the

four

broad

in

research

This d e si g n was used in d e te r m in in g

whether l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e rc e p tio n s of th e
of

can be

The d e si gn o f t h e stu dy i s i l l u s t r a t e d

questions r e l a t e to the design.

thrusts/effectiveness

and

to

CES,

im portance

fam iliarity

wit h

adequacy o f in fo r m a t io n r e c e i v e d from t h e CES could
from t h e independent v a r i a b l e s i d e n t i f i e d .

35

o f program

the

CES,

and

be p r e d i c t e d

36
Question
1.

Independent Variable

D ep enden t Variable
Importance of Pro gram Thr usts/
Effectiveness of the CES

Fam iliar ity W it h the CES

Importance of Agricult ure/
Mar ketin g p r o gram thrusts

Frequency of nonpersonal
contacts with the CES

Importance of 4-H Youth
program thrusts

Frequency of personal
contacts with the CES

Importance of Extension Home
Economics p r o gram thrusts

Prior involvement with the
CES

Importance of Natural Resources/
Public Policy program thrusts

Legislative com mitte e e x p e ­
rience

Overall effectiveness
2.

A d e q u a c y o f Information

Fam iliar ity With the CES
Frequency of nonpersonal
contacts with the CES
Frequency of personal
contacts with the CES
Prior involvement with the
CES
Legislative committee e x p e ­
rience

3.

Importance of Program Thr usts/
Effectiveness of the CES

Soci o-Demographi c/Organi zational Factors

Importance of Agricult ure/
Mar ketin g pro gram thrusts

Age
Educational level
Place of residence
Prior occupation ed.-related
Prior occupation ag.-related
Position in legislature
Political party
Con stituency make-up
Years served in legislature

Importance of 4-H Youth
program thrusts
Importance of Extension Home
Economics program thrusts
Importance of Natural Resources/
Public Policy p r o gram thrusts
Overall eff ectiveness
Fam i l i a r i t y With the CES

Soci o-Demographi c/Organi zational Factors

Frequency of nonpersonal
contacts with the CES

Age
Educational level
Place of residence
Prior occupation ed.-related
Prior occupation ag.-related
Position in legislature
Political party
Constitu ency make-up
Years served in legislature

Frequency of personal
contacts w it h the CES
Prior involvement w it h the CES

Fi g u r e 3 . 1 :

Design o f t h e s t u d y .

37
Dependent and Independent V a r i a b l e s
The dependent v a r i a b l e s f o r t h i s

stud y were l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r ­

c e p t i o n s o f (a) t h e importance o f CES program t h r u s t s / o v e r a l l e f f e c ­
t i v e n e s s o f t h e CES, (b) adequacy o f i n f o r m a t i o n r e c e i v e d from t h e
CES,

and

(c)

independent

fami 1 i a r i t y
variables

were

demographic/organizational
The

with

the

used

in

Two

th is

fam iliarity

socio-dem ographic/organizational

variables

level,

p la c e o f r e s i d e n c e ,

categories

study:

and

e d u c a ti o n a l

factors

CES.

of

socio­

with

the

CES.

included

age,

p r i o r oc c u p a ti o n e d u c a t i o n -

r e l a t e d , p r io r occupation a g r i c u l t u r e - r e l a t e d ,

position

in t h e

l e g i s l a t u r e , p o l i t i c a l p a r t y , c o n s t i t u e n c y make-up, and y e a r s served
in t h e l e g i s l a t u r e .

V a r i a b l e s r e l a t e d t o f a m i l i a r i t y with t h e CES

inc lud ed frequency o f nonpersonal c o n t a c t with t h e CES in t h e p a s t
y e a r , fr equency o f per so nal c o n t a c t with t h e CES in t h e p a s t y e a r ,
p r i o r involvement with t h e CES, and l e g i s l a t i v e committee e x p e r i e n c e
(number of y e a r s served on th e County Board o f Commissioners and on
t h e Senate/House A g r i c u l t u r e ,
Committees).

Higher Edu ca tio n,

When f a m i l i a r i t y

with t h e

and A p p r o p r i a t i o n s

CES was

used

as

a main

dependent v a r i a b l e , t h e s u b v a r i a b l e l e g i s l a t i v e committee e x p e r i e n c e
was omitte d because o f i t s

high c o r r e l a t i o n

with

the

independent

v a r i a b l e o f y e a r s ser ved in t h e l e g i s l a t u r e .
Research Questions

1.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ perceptions o f the r e l a t i v e importance o f CES
program t h r u s t s and o v e r a l 1 e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f th e CES be
predicted from sele cted fa m ilia r ity factors?

la.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e r e l a t i v e importance o f
A g r i c u l t u r e / M a r k e t i n g program t h r u s t s be p r e d i c t e d from
selected fa m ilia rity factors?

lb.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e r e l a t i v e importance o f
4-H Youth p r o g r a m t h r u s t s be p r e d i c t e d fr om s e l e c t e d
fa m ilia rity factors?

lc.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e r e l a t i v e importance of
Extension Home Economics program t h r u s t s be p r e d i c t e d from
selected f a m ilia rity factors?

Id.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e r e l a t i v e
N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s / P u b l i c Pol i c y p r o g r a m
p r e d i c t e d from s e l e c t e d f a m i l i a r i t y f a c t o r s ?

le.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e o v e r a l l e f f e c t i v e n e s s
o f t h e CES be p r e d i c t e d from s e l e c t e d f a m i l i a r i t y f a c t o r s ?

importance o f
th ru sts
be

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e adequacy o f i n f o r m a t i o n
r e c e i v e d from t h e CES be p r e d i c t e d from s e l e c t e d f a m i l i a r i t y
factors?
Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e r e l a t i v e imp ortanc e o f CES
program t h r u s t s and o v e r a l l e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e CES be p r e ­
d i c t e d from s e l e c t e d s o c i o - d e m o g r a p h i c / o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f a c t o r s ?
3a.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e r e l a t i v e importance of
A g r i c u l t u r e / M a r k e t i n g program t h r u s t s be p r e d i c t e d from
selected socio-demographic/organizational fa c to rs?

3b.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e r e l a t i v e importance o f
4-H Youth program t h r u s t s be p r e d i c t e d from s e l e c t e d s o c i o ­
demographic/organizational fa c to rs ?

3c.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e r e l a t i v e importance o f
Extension Home Economics program t h r u s t s be p r e d i c t e d from
selected socio-demographic/organizational fa c to rs ?

3d.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e r e l a t i v e importance o f
Natural Resources/Publ i c Pol ic y program t h r u s t s be p r e ­
d i c t e d from s e l e c t e d s o c i o - d e m o g r a p h i c / o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f a c ­
tors?

3e.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e o v e r a l 1 e f f e c t i v e n e s s
o f t h e CES be p r e d i c t e d from s e l e c t e d s o c io - d e m o g r a p h ic /
organizational factors?

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ perceptions o f f a m ilia r ity with the CES be
predicted from s ele cted soci o-demographi c/organi za ti onal fa c ­
tors?

39

4a.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e rc e iv e d fr equency o f nonpersonal c on ­
t a c t s w it h t h e CES be p r e d i c t e d from s e l e c t e d s o c i o ­
demographic/ o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f a c t o r s ?

4b.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e iv e d frequency o f p e rs on al c o n t a c t s
with t h e CES be p r e d i c t e d from s e l e c t e d so ci o - d em o g r ap h ic /
organizational factors?

4c.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e iv e d degree o f p r i o r involvement with
t h e CES be p r e d i c t e d from s e l e c t e d s o c i o - d e m o g r a p h i c /
organizational factors?
The Po pu la ti o n and Sample

The p o p u l a t i o n f o r t h i s stud y comprised th e 148 l e g i s l a t o r s

in

t h e 1986 s e s s i o n o f t h e Michigan L e g i s l a t u r e :

110 members o f th e

House

the

of

Representatives

and

38

members

of

S e n a te .

(See

Appendix A f o r maps showing Michigan l e g i s l a t i v e d i s t r i c t s

and CES

adm inistrative regions.)
A

stratified

representatives
urban,

and

was

mixed

adm inistrative

random

s am pl e

selected

for

constituency

regions.

ade qu a te f o r t h e s tu d y .

This

of

the

25

s tu d y ,

d istricts

sample

size

senators

and

representing
w ithin

was

the

rural,
six

d etermine d

urban,

constituency

category.

were

alphabetical

o r d e r and a s s ig n e d a t w o - d i g i t

followed

to

be

Names

in

each

c a te g o ry

number.

o r mixed
p la c e d

Numbers

sample members were then drawn from a t a b l e o f random numbers.
was

CES

Before s e l e c t i n g t h e sample, each s e n a t o r

and each r e p r e s e n t a t i v e was as s ig n e d t o a r u r a l ,

procedure

43

in

an e f f o r t

to

obtain

in
for
This

proportionate

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f l e g i s l a t o r s , based on p o p u l a t i o n , from each o f t h e
s i x CES r e g i o n s .

Of t h e 68 l e g i s l a t o r s s e l e c t e d f o r t h e s t u d y , 60

agreed t o p a r t i c i p a t e - - 2 2

s e n a t o r s and 38 r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .

Three

40

leg islato rs
researcher,

indicated

they

did

not

grant

interview s

and t h e o t h e r f i v e had sc h e d u le s t h a t

to

any

p r e v e n te d t h e i r

participation.
The

researcher

i n fo r m a t io n
Manual

on t h e

(1986)

secured

socio-dem ographic/organizational

legislators

before

the

in

the

sample

interviews.

from t h e

Missing

Michigan

information

was

e l i c i t e d d ur in g t h e i n t e r v i e w s .
Table 3.1 shows t h e s o c i o - d e m o g r a p h i c / o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r ­
i s t i c s o f t h e sample.

F i f t y - f i v e members o f t h e sample (91.7%) were

males; 52 (86.7%) were C au c a si a ns .
t o 69 y e a r s ;

Respo nden ts ’ ages ranged from 30

t h e mean age was 46.5 y e a r s .

The sample c o n t a i n e d

s l i g h t l y more Republicans (33 or 55%) than Democrats (27 o r 45%).

A

m a j o r i t y o f sample members (44 or 73.4%) were c o l l e g e g r a d u a t e s ; 29
(48.4%) held g r a d u a t e o r p r o f e s s i o n a l d e g r e e s .
(26.7%)

had

previously

been

em plo ye d

Sixteen l e g i s l a t o r s

in

education-related

o c c u p a t i o n s ; 16 (25%) had a g r i c u l t u r e - r e l a t e d p r i o r o c c u p a t i o n s .
The number o f y e a r s re s p o n d e n ts had s erved in t h e l e g i s l a t u r e
ranged from 2 t o 30;

t h e mean was 9 .6 y e a r s .

Fifteen

(25%)

had

s erved on t h e House o r Sen ate A g r i c u l t u r e Committee, 10 (16.7%) on
t h e Higher Education Committee, and 25 (41.7%) on t h e A p p r o p r i a t i o n s
Committee.

In terms o f c o n s t i t u e n c y make-up o f t h e i r

d istricts,

the

represented

urban

(11.9%)

rural

largest

number

districts,

districts.

16

Most

of

respondents

(27.1%)

mixed

r e s p o n d e n ts

legislative

(36

districts,

had an

36.7%) or a suburban (17 o r 28.3%) p l a c e o f r e s i d e n c e .

urban

or

61%)
and
(22

7
or

41
Table 3 . 1 . - - C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e sample (N = 6 0 ).
C haracteristic

n

%

P o s i t i o n in L e g i s l a t u r e
Se n a to r
Representative

38

36.7
63.3

P o l i t i c a l Pa rt y A f f i l i a t i o n
Democrat
Republican

27
33

45.0
55.0

2
3
6

3 .3
5.0

22

CES Administ. Region Repr ese nted
Upper P e n in s u la
North
East-Central
West-Central
South West
South East

9
32

13.3
15.0
53.3

Gender
Male
Female

55
5

91.7
8.3

Age
Race
Caucasian
Black
High est Academic Level
High school
Attended c o l l e g e but no degre e
F o u r -y e a r c o l l e g e g r a d u a t e
Graduate degree
P r o f e s s i o n a l school g r a d u a t e
Years in Michigan L e g i s l a t u r e
Served on House/Senate A g r i c u l t u r e Comm.
Yes
No
Years ser ved
Served on House/Senate Higher
Education Committee
Yes
No
Years ser ved

8

Mean

S.D.

46.5

9.41

10.0

(Range 30-69)
52
8

86.7
13.3

14

6.7
20.0
25.0
31 .7
16.7

3.3a

1.17

(Range 2-30)

9 .6

6.59

15
25.0
45
75.0
(Range 0-8)

1.1

2.22

10
16.7
50
83.3
(Range 0-10)

0.9

2.45

12

15
19
10

42
Table 3 . 1 .- - C o n t i n u e d .
C haracteristic

n

%

Mean

S.D.

Served on House/Senate A p pr op ri a ­
t i o n s Committee
Yes
No
Years served

25
41.7
35
58.3
(Range 0-18)

2 .2

3.92

Served as County Commissioner
Yes
No
Years served

18
3 0 .0
42
70.0
(Range 0-14)

1 .2

2.51

L e g i s l a t i v e D i s t r i c t C on sti tue nc y
Make-Up13
Urban
Mixed
Rural

36
16
7

61 .0
27.1
11.9

Plac e o f Residence
Rural farm
Rural nonfarm
Small town
Suburban
Urban ( c i t y )

10
2
9
17
22

16.7
3 .3
15.0
28.3
36.7

P r i o r Occupation
Education-related
Business-related
Agri c u l t u r e - r e l a t e d
P olitical science-related
Law
R e l ig io n
S tu de nt
Other

16
15
10
8
7
2
1
1

26.7
25.0
16.7
13.3
11.7
3 .3
1.7
1.7

aThis f i g u r e r e p r e s e n t s sch o o li n g beyond t h e f o u r - y e a r c o l l e g e
degree.
^Response c a t e g o r i e s
f o r a n a l y s i s purpos es.

on t h e

i n t e r v i e w s c h e d u le were combined

43

Development and T e s t i n g o f t h e Ins tru ment
The s t r u c t u r e d pe rs on al

i n t e r v i e w was chosen as t h e method o f

d a t a c o l l e c t i o n f o r t h i s s tu d y .

Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s from e i g h t s t u d i e s

d e a l i n g with l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e CES were reviewed, and
appropriate
draft

of

items
an

were s e l e c t e d

interview

for

incorporation

questionnaire.

To

into

en su re

the

first

a ccu racy

and

i n c r e a s e m e a n i n g f u l n e s s , Assi s t a n t Di r e c t o r s o f E x t e n s i on ( f o r
programs) were q u e r i e d about t h e i r c u r r e n t program t h r u s t s and major
program

activities.

The

in fo r m a t io n

th e y

provide d

was

used

in

f o r m u l a t i n g a d d i t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s f o r t h e i n t e r v i e w sc h e d u le .
V alidation
The

i n s tr u m e n t was reviewed

knowledgeable
individuals
present

about
in c lu d e d

State

the

CES and

the

former

State

the

Director

by a panel

of

the

CES,

Michigan

to

the

State U niversity,
Several

Dean o f t h e

Legislature;

Director

the

of

Manager

N atural Resources Inform ation S e rv ic e s ,
A ssistant

o f e x p e r t s who were

the

of

CES,

these
th e

A griculture/

and t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e

College o f A g r i c u l t u r e

at

Michigan

who p r e v i o u s l y had worked a t t h e S t a t e C a p i t o l .

s u g g e s t i o n s were made f o r d e l e t i n g items and modifying t h e

instrument.
After

the

recommended changes

had

been made,

the

interview

s ch e dule was p i l o t t e s t e d with two l e g i s l a t o r s who were not inc lud ed
in

the

sample.

Their

suggestions

for

modifying

the

interview

sc h e d u le and improving t h e i n t e r v i e w proce dure were a l s o used.

The

f i n a l v e r s i o n o f t h e i n t e r v i e w sch ed ule i s c o n t a i n e d in Appendix B.

44

The Final I n t e r v i e w Schedule
As K e r l i n g e r (1973) s u g g e s te d , t h e i n t e r v i e w s ch ed ule c o n t a i n e d
fix ed -altern ativ e
questions.
0.

questions,

scaled

questions,

and o p e n - e n d e d

The in s t r u m e n t was d i v i d e d i n t o t h e f o ll o w i n g s e c t i o n s :

Personal

D a ta .

This

in fo rm at io n was g a t h e r e d b e f o r e t h e

i n t e r v i e w from p u b l i c r e c o r d s and t h e Michigan Manual (1986).
1.

Background.

This s e c t i o n c o n ta i n e d items p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e

u r b a n / r u r a l c o n s t i t u e n c y make-up o f t h e l e g i s l a t o r ’ s d i s t r i c t , pi ace
of

residence,

p re v io u s

e x p e r ie n c e

as

a county

elected

o fficial,

p e r c e i v e d de gre e o f involvement with t h e CES, and p r i o r o c c u p a t i o n .
II.

C on ta ct s with t h e CES.

Items in t h i s s e c t i o n concerned t h e

fr eq ue ncy with which l e g i s l a t o r s had v a r io u s ty p e s o f c o n t a c t s with
t h e CES ( i . e . , newspaper a r t i c l e s , r a d i o programs, v i s i t s with l o c a l
Extension s t a f f members, a t t e n d i n g Extension e v e n t s , and so on) (0 =
nev er t o 3 = f r e q u e n t l y ) .

Respondents were a l s o asked t o s e l e c t and

ra nk o r d e r t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e f o r t h e f i v e most im por ta nt methods o f
c o n t a c t w ith t h e CES.
III.

Network I n f o r m a t i o n .

asked t o r a t e t h e e x t e n t
adequate

inform ation

excellent).

In t h i s

section,

legislators

were

t o which th e y th ought th e y had r e c e i v e d

about

the

CES

(1

= not

at

al 1 t o

5

=

They were a l s o asked t o rank o r d e r t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s

f o r t y p e s o f CES in f o r m a t io n th e y would 1 ike t o r e c e i v e , s o u rc e s o f
th a t information,

and time frame f o r d e l i v e r y o f t h e

The l a s t q u e s t i o n in t h i s s e c t i o n was open ended.

information.

L e g i s l a t o r s were

45
asked:

"Are

t h e r e any

comments

yo u ’d

like

to

make

re g a r d in g

r e c e i v i n g in f o r m a t io n from CES?"
IV.

P e r c e p t i o n s o f CES Program T h r u s t s .

were int e nd e d t o e l i c i t

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ ra tin g s o f the

v a r i o u s CES program t h r u s t s
im portant).

Items in t h i s s e c t i o n

(1 = not

im p o r ta n t t o

importance of
6 = extremely

Respondents were a l s o asked how t h e y would r a t e

th e

o v e r a l l e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e CES (1 = no t e f f e c t i v e t o 6 = extremely
effective).
asked:

The f i n a l

"Are

q u e s t i o n was open e n d ed .

t h e r e any

other

points

L e g i s l a t o r s were

concerning

the

C ooperativ e Extension S e r v i c e which we have not t a l k e d

M ic h i g a n
about t h a t

you f e e l a re im po rt an t t o d i s c u s s ? "
A tabular

presentation

of the

specific

interview

items

that

were used t o e l i c i t in f o r m a t io n

on p a r t i c u l a r

st ud y v a r i a b l e s

shown in Table C . l , Appendix C.

The means and

standard d eviations

for

the

combined

effectiveness

variables

of the

CES,

for

importance

combined v a r i a b l e

of

program

for

fam iliarity,

is

thrusts/
and

adequacy o f i n fo r m a t io n r e c e i v e d a r e provided in Tables C.2 through
C.4.
R eliabil itv
To s i m p l i f y d a t a a n a l y s i s , s e v e ra l i n t e r v i e w items were grouped
t o form v a r i a b l e s .
grouped

into

The 16 items p e r t a i n i n g t o program t h r u s t s were

f o u r dependent

variables

(one

f o r each o f t h e

four

program a r e a s in CES) under t h e major dependent v a r i a b l e ,

relative

importance o f program t h r u s t s / e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e CES.

The f i v e

n o n p e r s o n a l - c o n t a c t items were grouped i n t o one v a r i a b l e (f re qu e nc y

46
o f nonpersonal

c o n t a c t s with CES).

Likewise,

t h e e i g h t p e rs o n a l -

c o n t a c t items were grouped i n t o one v a r i a b l e (f re q u e n c y o f p e rs on al
c o n t a c t s with CES), under t h e major v a r i a b l e , f a m i l i a r i t y w it h t h e
CES.
Because t h e s e v a r i a b l e c a t e g o r i e s were formed by t h e r e s e a r c h e r
and a c o n s u l t a n t , a r e l i a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s was conducted t o check t h e
c o n s i s t e n c y o f t h e items comprising each combined v a r i a b l e .
3 .2

shows

variable.

the

Cronbach

alp ha

reliab ility

coefficient

Table

for

each

All o f t h e r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s were ov er .70; t h u s ,

t h e newly formed v a r i a b l e s had good i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y .
D a t a - C o l l e c t i o n Procedures
A l e t t e r describing

t h e purpose t h a t

ma iled t o t h e l e g i s l a t o r s
support

for

Administration
A ffairs,

the
and

from t h e

P u b li c

the

A ssistant

A ffairs,

Office

introduction,
when

representative

interview

s tu d y was

A letter

V ice-President
of

State

and

delivered

appointment

l e t t e r s may be found in Appendix D.)

was

to

of
for

P u b li c

In a d d i t i o n ,

and s e n a t o r pre pa re d

which w er e p e r s o n a l l y
the

the

sample.

a t Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y was a t t a c h e d .

t h e w r i t e r ’ s lo c a l

offices

study

selected for

directed

letters

of

leg islato rs’

requested.

(These

47

Table 3 . 2 . - - R e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r combined v a r i a b l e s under
major v a r i a b l e s o f i m p o r t a n c e / e f f e c t i v e n e s s and
fam iliarity.

Major V a r i a b l e /
Combined V a r i a b l e s

No. o f
Items
Inclu de d

N

Interview
S e c ti o n /I te r n s

Alpha
Coeff.

Agri c u l t u r e / M a r k e t i n g
program t h r u s t s

56

IV: 1 , 5 , 9 , 1 3

4

.71

4-H Youth program
thrusts

57

IV: 2 , 6 , 1 0 , 1 4

4

.81

Ext ension Home Eco­
nomics program t h r u s t s

57

IV: 4 , 8 , 1 1 , 1 5

4

.86

Natural R eso urc es/
P u b li c P o l i c y program
thrusts

57

IV: 3 , 7 , 1 2 , 1 6

4

.75

Nonpersonal c o n t a c t s

60

I I : a -e

5

.80

Personal c o n t a c t s

60

II: f-k ,o ,p

8

.85

Importance o f Program
Thrusts/O verall E ffe ctiv e ­
ne ss o f t h e CESa

F a m i l i a r i t y With t h e CES

a0 v e r a l l e f f e c t i v e n e s s of th e CES was a s i n g l e - i t e m
and t h e r e f o r e does not appea r on t h i s t a b l e .

During
session,

June

and

interviews

July

were

1986,

conducted

agreed t o p a r t i c i p a t e in t h e s tu d y .
in t h e

le g is la to rs ’ offices.

Sections I I ,

w hil e

the

legislature

with

the

60

variable

was

legislators

in
who

The i n t e r v i e w s were conducted

Participants

were gi ve n

a copy of

I I I , and IV o f t h e i n t e r v i e w sc h e d u le t o f o l l o w d urin g

48

the

interview ,

to

facilitate

th eir

response.

A ll

interview

r e s p o n s e s were re c o rd e d on t h e i n t e r v i e w s ch e d ul e form.

Within a

week f o l l o w i n g t h e i n t e r v i e w , each l e g i s l a t o r was s e n t a l e t t e r o f
a p p r e c i a t i o n f o r p a r t i c i p a t i n g in t h e s tu dy (s e e Appendix D).
D a ta - A n a lv s is Procedures
The i n t e r v i e w sc h e d u le was de signed so t h a t r e s p o n s e o p ti o n s
f o r most o f t h e q u e s t i o n s could be coded by t h e r e s e a r c h e r d i r e c t l y
onto computer s p r e a d s h e e t s and e n t e r e d i n t o t h e mainframe computer
at

Michigan

State

University.

The d a t a were analyze d

using

the

S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r t h e So ci al Science s (SPSS-X).
Basic d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s , i n c l u d i n g fr eq ue ncy d i s t r i b u t i o n ,
p e r c e n t a g e , mean,

standard d eviation,

correlation,

were used t o a na lyz e v a r i o u s a s p e c t s o f t h e d a t a .
regression

was performed

f o r each r e s e a r c h

which ind ep end en t v a r i a b l e s ,
dependent v a r i a b l e ( s ) .

if

any,

The .05 l e v e l

and rank o r d e r ,
Stepwise m u l t i p l e

question

were f a c t o r s

to

de ter mi ne

influencing

the

was chosen as t h e c r i t e r i o n

for s t a t i s t i c a l significance.
The d e s i g n and pro c e dure s used in co nduct in g
described
additional

in

this

C ha pte r.

findings,

and

The

results

res pon se s

q u e s t i o n s a r e p r e s e n t e d in Chapter IV.

to

the

of

the

the

stu dy were

data

analyses,

open-ended

interview

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS OF THE DATA ANALYSES
Introduction
R e s u lt s

of the

analysis

of data

gathered

through

interviews

with 60 Michigan l e g i s l a t o r s a re p r e s e n t e d in t h i s c h a p t e r .
f i r s t s e c t i o n , each r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n i s r e s t a t e d ,
r e s u l t s of the data an aly sis for th a t question.
a re d i s c u s s e d

in t h e

second s e c t i o n .

r e s p o n se s t o th e open-ended
the t h i r d s e c tio n .

In th e

fol lo we d by t h e

A d d it io n a l f i n d i n g s

Q u alitative data,

interview q u estions,

are

based on

presented

in

A b r i e f summary c onclu de s t h e c h a p t e r .

R e s u lt s of Analyses f o r t h e Research Questions
R e l a t i v e Importance of CES Program T h r u s t s /
O verall E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e CES
X F a m i l i a r i t y Fa c to rs
1.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e r e l a t i v e imp ortanc e o f CES
pr o g r am t h r u s t s and o v e r a l l e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e CES be
p r e d i c t e d from s e l e c t e d f a m i l i a r i t y f a c t o r s ?
For a n a l y s i s p u rp o s e s , t h e broad r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n was d i v i d e d

i n t o f i v e s u b q u e s t i o n s , which a re d i s c u s s e d below.
la.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e r e l a t i v e importance o f
A g r i c u l t u r e / M a r k e t i n g program t h r u s t s be p r e d i c t e d from
selected f a m ilia rity factors?

Stepw ise m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s io n
legislators’

ratings

of

the

a n a l y s i s was p e r f o r m e d u s i n g

importance

49

of

Agriculture/M arketing

50
program t h r u s t s as t h e dependent v a r i a b l e and s e l e c t e d f a m i l i a r i t y
f a c t o r s (nonpersonal c o n t a c t s , p e rs on al c o n t a c t s ,
with

the

CES,

independent

and

leg islativ e

variables.

Based

committee

on

this

p r i o r involvement

experience)

analysis,

no

as

the

significant

r e l a t i o n s h i p was found (p > .05) between l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f
th e importance o f A g r i c u l t u r e / M a r k e t i n g program t h r u s t s and s e l e c t e d
fam iliarity

factors.

Therefore,

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ perceptions

importance o f A g r i c u l t u r e / M a r k e t i n g

program t h r u s t s

co ul d

of

th e

no t

be

p r e d i c t e d from t h e s e l e c t e d f a m i l i a r i t y f a c t o r s .
lb.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e r e l a t i v e importance o f
4-H Youth p ro g r a m t h r u s t s be p r e d i c t e d from s e l e c t e d
fa m ilia rity factors?

Stepwise m u ltip l e r e g r e s s i o n

analysis

was p e r f o r m e d u s i n g

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ r a t i n g s o f t h e importance o f 4-H Youth program t h r u s t s
as

the

dependent

variable

and

selected

fam iliarity

facto rs

(nonpersonal c o n t a c t s , pe rs on al c o n t a c t s , p r i o r involvement with th e
CES,

and l e g i s l a t i v e

committee e x p e r ie n c e )

as t h e

independent

v a r i a b l e s (s e e Table 4 . 1 ) .
The

results

indicated

that

legislators’

perceptions

of

the

importance o f 4-H Youth program t h r u s t s could be p r e d i c t e d from onl y
one independent v a r i a b l e ,

fr equ en cy o f nonpersonal c o n t a c t s ,

was s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .001 l e v e l .
accounted

for

17% o f

the

which

The n o n p e r s o n a l - c o n t a c t v a r i a b l e

explained

p e r c e p t i o n s of 4-H Youth program t h r u s t s .

variance

in

leg islato rs’

51

Table 4 . 1 . - - R e s u l t s o f s te p w is e m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s o f
l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e iv e d importance o f 4-H Youth program
t h r u s t s and s e l e c t e d f a m i l i a r i t y f a c t o r s (N = 57) .
M u l t i p l e R = .413
d f = 1,55

R Square = 17.1%
F = 11.35

Independent V a ri a b le

B

Nonpersonal c o n t a c t s

.591

Standard E r r o r = .903
p - .001

SE o f B

Beta

T

Si g . T

.175

.413

3.365

.001

V a r i a b l e s Not Entered
in Equation

Beta In

Personal c o n t a c t s
P r i o r involvement with CES
L e g i s l a t i v e committee e x p e r ie n c e

-.178
-.08 5
.027

T
-1.127
- .617
.188

Si g . T
.265
.540
.851

T ol era nc e le v el f o r t h e e n t r y o f each independent v a r i a b l e
s e t a t .05.

Note:

1c.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e r e l a t i v e importance o f
Extension Home Economics program t h r u s t s be p r e d i c t e d from
selected fa m ilia rity factors?

Stepwise m u ltip le re g re s s io n

a n a l y s i s was p e r f o r m e d u s i n g

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ r a t i n g s of t h e importance o f Extension Home Economics
program t h r u s t s as th e dependent v a r i a b l e and s e l e c t e d f a m i l i a r i t y
f a c t o r s (nonpersonal c o n t a c t s , pe rsonal c o n t a c t s , p r i o r involvement
w ith

the

CES,

and

leg islativ e

committee

indep enden t v a r i a b l e s (s e e Table 4 . 2 ) .

experience)

as

the

52
Table 4 . 2 . - - R e s u l t s o f s te p w is e m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s o f
l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e i v e d importance o f Extens ion Home
Economics program t h r u s t s and s e l e c t e d f a m i l i a r i t y
f a c t o r s (N = 57).

B

Nonpersonal c o n t a c t s
Personal c o n t a c t s

.835
-.6 35

SE o f B

Beta

.223
.237

.584
-.418

V a r i a b l e s Not Entered
in Equation

T

-.033
.168

S ig . T
.000
.010

3.750
-2.690

Beta In

P r i o r involvement with CES
L e g i s l a t i v e committee e x p e r i e n c e

CT)
CO

Independent V a r i a b l e

Note:

Sta nda rd E r r o r
p = .002

R Square = 20.9%
F « 7.12

II

M u l t i p l e R = .457
d f = 2,54

T

Si g . T

- .207
1.211

837
231

To le ra nc e le v e l f o r t h e e n t r y o f each independent v a r i a b l e
s e t a t .05.

The

results

importance

of

indicated

Extension

that

legislators’

Home Economics

program t h r u s t s

p r e d i c t e d from fr eq ue ncy o f nonpersonal
pe rso na l

contacts.

perceptions

contacts

of
could

the
be

and fr eq ue nc y of

Both independent v a r i a b l e s worked t o g e t h e r to

p r e d i c t t h e importance o f Extension Home Economics program t h r u s t s .
However, nonpersonal c o n t a c t s c o n t r i b u t e d more t o t h e p r e d i c t i o n of
t h e dependent v a r i a b l e th a n d id p e rs on al c o n t a c t s .
two i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s
variance

in

accounted

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ perceptions

program t h r u s t s .

for
of

To g e th e r, t h e s e

21% o f t h e

Exten sio n

explained

Home Economics

53
Id.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e r e l a t i v e importance of
Nat ura l R e s o u r c e s / P u b l i c P o l i c y program t h r u s t s be p r e ­
d i c t e d from s e l e c t e d f a m i l i a r i t y f a c t o r s ?

Stepw ise m u ltip le r e g r e s s io n

a n a l y s i s was p e r f o r m e d u s i n g

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ r a t i n g s o f t h e importance o f Natural
Policy

program

thrusts

as

the

dependent

R e s o u r c e s /P u b li c

variable

and

selected

f a m i l i a r i t y f a c t o r s (nonpersonal c o n t a c t s , p e rs on al c o n t a c t s , p r i o r
involvement wi th CES, and l e g i s l a t i v e committee e x p e r i e n c e )

as th e

ind ep end en t v a r i a b l e s ( s e e Table 4 . 3 ) .

Table 4 . 3 . - - R e s u l t s o f s te p w is e m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s o f
l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e i v e d importance o f Natural R es ourc e s/
P u b li c P o li c y program t h r u s t s and s e l e c t e d f a m i l i a r i t y
f a c t o r s (N = 57 ).
R Square = 27.7%
F = 10.36

M u l t i p l e R = .527
d f = 2,54
Independent V a r i a b l e

B

Personal c o n t a c t s
Nonpersonal c o n t a c t s

-. 8 40
.675

V a r i a b l e s Not Entered
in Equation

SE o f B

Beta

.192
.181

-.651
.555

Beta In

P r i o r involvement with CES
L e g i s l a t i v e committee e x p e r i e n c e
Note:

St an da rd E r r o r = .724
p = .000

.071
.070

T

Sig . T

-4.373
3.732

.000
.001

T

Sig . T

.464
.520

.644
.605

T o l e ra n c e l e v e l f o r t h e e n t r y o f each independent v a r i a b l e
s e t a t .05.

The

results

indicated

importance o f Na tur al

that

leg islators’

perceptions

of

th e

R e s o u r c e s / P u b l i c P o li c y program t h r u s t s could

54

be p r e d i c t e d from frequ en cy o f pe rs on al
contacts.

prediction

than

direction.

The two independent v a r i a b l e s t o g e t h e r accounted f o r 28%

of the

e x p la i n e d

contacts

and fr eq ue nc y o f

nonpersonal

did

Personal

contacts

nonpersonal

variance

contributed

contacts,

but

more t o

in

the

a negative

in l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s

o f Natural

R e s o u r c e s / P u b l i c P o li c y program t h r u s t s .
le.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e o v e r a l l e f f e c t i v e n e s s
o f t h e CES be p r e d i c t e d from s e l e c t e d f a m i l i a r i t y f a c t o r s ?

Stepwise m u ltip le r e g r e s s io n

analysis

was p e r f o r m e d u s i n g

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ r a t i n g s o f t h e o v e r a l l e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e CES as th e
dependent

variable

and

selected

contacts,

per so nal

contacts,

fam iliarity

prior

factors

involvement w it h

(nonpersonal
the

CES,

l e g i s l a t i v e committee e x p e r i e n c e ) as t h e in de pe nd e nt v a r i a b l e s

and
(s e e

Table 4 . 4 ) .
The
overall
of

results

that

legislators’

perceptions

of

the

e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e CES could be p r e d i c t e d from fr equ en cy

nonpersonal

variance

indicated

in

the

contacts.
dependent

independent v a r i a b l e .

Thirty-four
variable

percent

was

of

acco unte d

the
for

explained
by

this

T h e r e f o r e , fr eq ue ncy o f nonperso nal c o n t a c t s

with l e g i s l a t o r s was a f a c t o r i n f l u e n c i n g l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s
o f t h e o v e r a l l e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e CES.

55
Table 4 . 4 . - - R e s u l t s o f s t e p w is e m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s o f
l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e i v e d importance o f t h e CES and
s e l e c t e d f a m i l i a r i t y f a c t o r s (N « 56).
M u l t i p l e R = .583
d f = 1,54

R Square = 34.0%
F = 27.854

Independent V a r i a b l e

B

Nonpersonal c o n t a c t s

.806

SE o f B

Beta

T

S ig . T

.153

.583

5 .278

.000

V a r i a b l e s Not Entered
in Equation

Beta In

Personal c o n t a c t s
P r i o r involvement with CES
L e g i s l a t i v e committee e x p e r ie n c e
Note:

Standard E r r o r = .774
p = .000

.246
.097
-. 1 14

T

Si g . T

1.789
.789
-.90 3

.079
.434
.371

T o l e ra n c e l e v e l f o r th e e n t r y o f each independent v a r i a b l e
s e t a t .05.

Adequacy o f In fo rm atio n
X F a m i l i a r i t y F a c to r s
2.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e adequacy o f
r e c e i v e d from t h e CES be p r e d i c t e d from s e l e c t e d
factors?
Stepw ise m u ltip l e re g r e s s io n

information
fam iliarity

a n a l y s i s was p e r f o r m e d u s i n g

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ r a t i n g s o f adequacy o f in f o r m a t io n r e c e i v e d
CES as

the

dependent

variable

and

selected

fam iliarity

from th e
factors

(nonpersonal c o n t a c t s , pe rs on al c o n t a c t s , p r i o r involvement wit h t h e
CES,

and l e g i s l a t i v e

committee e x p e r ie n c e )

v a r i a b l e s (s e e Table 4 . 5 ) .

as t h e

independent

56
Table 4 . 5 . - - R e s u l t s o f st ep w is e m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s o f
l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e i v e d adequacy o f i n fo r m a t io n r e c e i v e d
from t h e CES and s e l e c t e d s o c i o - d e m o g r a p h i c / o r g a n i z a ­
t i o n a l f a c t o r s (N * 58).
M u l t i p l e R = .720
d f = 2,55

R Square = 51.8%
F = 29.52

Independent V a r i a b l e

B

Nonpersonal c o n t a c t s
Personal c o n t a c t s

.739
.554

SE o f B
.212
.222

V a r i a b l e s Not Entered
in Equation
P r i o r involvement with CES
L e g i s l a t i v e committee e x p e r ie n c e
Note:

Standard E r r o r = .825
p = .000
Beta

T

S ig . T

.454
.325

3.492
2.500

.001
.015

Beta In

T

S ig . T

-. 0 05
-.04 6

-.042
-.4 20

.967
.676

T o l e ra n c e l e v e l f o r t h e e n t r y of each independent v a r i a b l e
s e t a t .05.

The

results

indicated

that

legislators’

perceptions

of

th e

adequacy o f in f o r m a t io n r e c e i v e d from t h e CES could be p r e d i c t e d
from two ind ep end en t v a r i a b l e s - - f r e q u e n c y
and f r e q u e n c y o f p e r s o n a l

contacts.

accounted

explained

for

perceptions

of

52% o f

the

adequacy

of

o f nonpersonal
Both

variables

variance

inform ation

in

contacts
together

leg islato rs’

received.

However,

nonpersonal c o n t a c t s was a s l i g h t l y s t r o n g e r i n f l u e n c i n g f a c t o r .

57
R e l a t i v e Importance o f CES Program T h r u s t s /
Overall E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e CES X Sociod em oq ra p h ic / O r q an iz a ti o n a l F a c to r s

3.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ perceptions o f the r e l a t i v e importance o f CES
program thrusts and o v era l1 e f fe c t iv e n e s s o f the CES be pre­
dicted from se le c te d soci o-demographi c/organi zati onal factors?
For a n a l y s i s p u r p o s e s , t h e broad r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n was d i v i d e d

i n t o f i v e s u b q u e s t i o n s , which a r e d i s c u s s e d below.
3a.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e r e l a t i v e importance of
A g r i c u l t u r e / M a r k e t i n g program t h r u s t s be p r e d i c t e d from
selected socio-demographic/organizational fa c to rs?

S t e p w i s e mu11 i p i e r e g r e s s i o n
legislators’
program

ratings

thrusts

as

of
the

the

a n a l y s i s was p e r f o r m e d u s i n g

importance

dependent

of

Agriculture/M arketing

variable

and

selected

socio­

d e m o g r a p h i c / o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f a c t o r s (age, e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l , p la c e of
residence,

prior

occupation,

position

in

legislature,

political

p a r t y , c o n s t i t u e n c y make-up, and y e a r s ser ved in l e g i s l a t u r e ) as the
independent v a r i a b l e s (s e e Table 4 . 6 ) .
The

results

im portance

indicated

that

legislators’

of A g ricu ltu re/M ark etin g

perceptions

program

th ru sts

of

could

th e
be

p r e d i c t e d from t h e l e g i s l a t o r ’ s p o s i t i o n in t h e l e g i s l a t u r e - - w h e t h e r
t h e l e g i s l a t o r was a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e .
of

the

explained

variance

in

This v a r i a b l e accounted f o r 9 %
leg islato rs’

A g r i c u l t u r e / M a r k e t i n g program t h r u s t s .

perceptions

of

58
Table 4 . 6 . - - R e s u l t s o f st ep w is e m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s o f
l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e rc ei v e d importance o f A g r i c u l t u r e / M a r k e t ­
ing program t h r u s t s and s e l e c t e d so c io - d e m o g r a p h ic /
o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f a c t o r s (N = 55).
M u l t i p l e R = .291
d f = 1,53
Independent V a r i a b l e

B
.395

P o s i t i o n in l e g i s l a t u r e
(Representative)
V a r i a b l e s Not Entered
in Equation
P o l i t i c a l p a r t y (Democrat)
Age o f l e g i s l a t o r
Educational l e v e l
Years ser ved in l e g i s l a t u r e
C o n s ti tu e n c y make-up ( r u r a l )
Plac e o f r e s i d e n c e (farm)
Prior occupation--Ed-related
Prior occupation--Ag-related
Note:

St an da rd E r r o r = .636
p = .031

R Square = 8 . 5 %
IF = 4.899
SE o f B

Beta

T

Si g . T

.178

.291

2.21

.031

Beta In

T

Si g . T

-.049
.200
-. 01 9
.230
.100
.023
.233
-. 09 9

-.367
1.473
-.141
1.632
.754
.166
1.791
-. 7 4 5

.715
.147
.889
.109
.454
.869
.080
.460

T ol era nc e l e v e l f o r th e e n t r y o f each indepen de nt v a r i a b l e
s e t a t .05.

3b.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e r e l a t i v e importance of
4-H Youth program t h r u s t s be p r e d i c t e d from s e l e c t e d s o c i o ­
demographic/organizational fa c to rs ?

Stepwise m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s io n

a n a l y s i s was p e r f o r m e d u s i n g

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ r a t i n g s o f t h e importance o f 4-H Youth program t h r u s t s
as

the

dependent

variable

and

selected

socio-dem ographic/

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f a c t o r s (age, e d u c a ti o n a l l e v e l ,
prior

occupation,

constituency

position

make-up,

and

in

years

place of residence,

leg islatu re,
ser ved

in

p o litical

legislature,

party,
as

th e

59

ind ep end en t

variables.

Based

on

this

analysis,

no

significant

r e l a t i o n s h i p (p > .05) was found between l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f
the

importance o f 4-H Youth

program t h r u s t s

demographic/organizational fa c to rs .

and

selected

Therefore, l e g i s l a t o r s ’ percep­

t i o n s o f t h e importance o f 4-H Youth program t h r u s t s
predicted

from

the

selected

socio­

could not be

socio-d em o g raph ic/o rg an izatio n al

factors.
3c.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e r e l a t i v e importance of
Extension Home Economics program t h r u s t s be p r e d i c t e d from
selected socio-demographic/organizational fa c to rs ?

Stepw ise m u ltip le re g re s s io n

a n a l y s i s was p e r f o r m e d

using

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ r a t i n g s of t h e importance o f Exten sio n Home Economics
program

thrusts

as

th e

dependent

variable

and

selected

socio­

d e m o g r a p h i c / o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f a c t o r s (age, e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l , p l a c e o f
residence,

prior

o c c u p a ti o n ,

position

in

legislature,

political

p a r t y , c o n s t i t u e n c y make-up, and y e a r s served in l e g i s l a t u r e ) as t h e
indep end en t v a r i a b l e s (s e e Table 4 . 7 ) .
The

results

importance

of

indicated

Extension

that

legislators’

Home Economics

perceptions

program t h r u s t s

of

th e

co uld

be

p r e d i c t e d from l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p r i o r oc cu pa tio n in an e d u c a t i o n - r e l a t e d
area,

position

in l e g i s l a t u r e ,

and age.

These t h r e e

v a r i a b l e s t o g e t h e r accounted f o r 23% o f t h e e x p l a i n e d

Economics program t h r u s t s .

P o s i t i o n in l e g i s l a t u r e ( r e p r e s e n t a t i v e )

most;

age

and

prior

occupation

Extension

in

of the

the

of

variance

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ perceptions

contributed

importance

indepen de nt

in

Home

education

60
oc c u p a ti o n in e d u c a t i o n were l i k e l y t o r a t e t h e i d e n t i f i e d Extension
Home Economics program t h r u s t s as being i m p o r ta n t.

Table 4 . 7 . - - R e s u l t s o f s t e p w is e m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s o f
l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e i v e d importance o f Extens ion Home
Economics program t h r u s t s and s e l e c t e d s o c i o ­
d e m o g r a p h i c / o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f a c t o r s (N = 56).
M u l t i p l e R = .480
d f = 3,52

R Square = 23.0%
F = 5.187

Independent V a r i a b l e
Prior occupation-Ed-related
P o s i t i o n in l e g i s l a ­
tu re (Representative)
Age o f l e g i s l a t o r

B

Standard Er ror = .869
p = .003

SE o f B

Beta

T

Sig . T

.562

.274

.261

2 .053

.045

.709
.030

.254
.014

.356
.280

2 .792
2 .132

.007
.038

= = = =: = = = = := = : =

V a r i a b l e s Not Entered
in Equation
P o l i t i c a l p a r t y (Democrat)
Edu ca tio na l l e v e l
Years s er ved in l e g i s l a t u r e
C o n s ti tu e n c y make-up ( r u r a l )
Place o f r e s i d e n c e (farm)
Prior occupation--Ag-related
Note:

Beta In

T

Sig. T

.224
-. 0 75
.083
-. 08 8
.004
-.08 4

1.886
-.5 48
.561
.719
.026
-.6 2 8

.065
.586
.577
.475
.979
.533

T ol er a nc e l e v e l f o r t h e e n t r y o f each independent v a r i a b l e
s e t a t .05.

3d.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e r e l a t i v e importance o f
Nat ura l R e s o u r c e s / P u b l i c P o l i c y program t h r u s t s be p r e ­
d i c t e d from s e l e c t e d s o c i o - d e m o g r a p h i c / o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f a c ­
tors?

S t e p w i s e m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s was p e r f o r m e d u s i n g
l e g i s l a t o r s ’ r a t i n g s o f t h e importance of Natural

Resources/Public

61

P o l i c y program t h r u s t s as t h e dependent v a r i a b l e and s e l e c t e d s o c i o ­
d e m o g r a p h i c / o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f a c t o r s (age, e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l , p l a c e of
residence,

prior

occupation,

position

in

legislature,

political

p a r t y , c o n s t i t u e n c y make-up, and y e a r s s er ved in l e g i s l a t u r e ) as th e
independent v a r i a b l e s (s e e Table 4 . 8 ) .

Table 4 . 8 . - - R e s u l t s o f s t e p w is e m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s o f
l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e i v e d importance o f Natural R es ourc e s/
Pu bli c Po li cy program t h r u s t s and s e l e c t e d s o c i o ­
d e m o g r a p h i c / o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f a c t o r s (N = 56).
M u l t i p l e R = .412
d f = 1,54
Independent V a r i a b l e
P rio r occupation-Ag-related

R Square = 17.0%
F = 11.049
B

-.871

V a r i a b l e s Not Entered
in Equation
P o s i t i o n in l e g i s l a t u r e (Repre­
sentative)
P o l i t i c a l p a r t y (Democrat)
Age o f l e g i s l a t o r
Edu cation al le v e l
Years ser ved in l e g i s l a t u r e
C o n s ti tu e n c y make-up ( r u r a l )
Plac e o f r e s i d e n c e (farm)
Prior occupation--Ed-related
Note:

Sta nda rd E r r o r = .751
p = .002

SE o f B

Beta

T

Sig . T

.262

-. 4 1 2

-3 .324

.002

Beta In

T

S ig . T

.108

.864

.391

-. 0 04
.202
-. 0 3 5
.195
-. 0 8 6
.001
.120

-.028
1.628
- .2 4 6
1.594
-. 676
.006
1.567

.978
.109
.806
.117
.502
.995
.123

To le ra nc e l e v e l f o r t h e e n t r y o f each independent v a r i a b l e
s e t a t .05.

62
The

results

indicated

that

legislators’

perceptions

of

th e

importance o f Natural R e s o u r c e s / P u b l i c P o l i c y program t h r u s t s could
be p r e d i c t e d

from whether t h e

agriculture-related.

l e g i s l a t o r ’s

prior

o c c u p a ti o n

was

However, because t h e b e t a v a l u e was n e g a t i v e ,

t h i s f i n d i n g could be i n t e r p r e t e d t o mean t h a t i f t h e l e g i s l a t o r ’ s
o c c u p a t i o n was a g r i c u l t u r e - r e l a t e d
perceive
thrusts

the
as

identified
im p o r ta n t.

Natural
This

he would

not

Resources/Public

variable

accounted

be 1 i k e l y
Pol icy

for

to

program

17% o f

the

e x p la i n e d v a r i a n c e in l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f Nat ura l R es ourc e s/
Pu bli c Po li cy program t h r u s t s .
3e.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e o v e r a l l e f f e c t i v e n e s s
o f t h e CES be p r e d i c t e d from s e l e c t e d so ci o - d em o g r ap h ic /
organizational facto rs?

Stepwi se m u l t i p i e r e g r e s s i o n

a n a l y s i s was p e r f o r m e d u s i n g

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ r a t i n g s o f t h e o v e r a l l e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e CES as the
dependent
factors

variable
(age,

o c c u p a ti o n ,
m a k e- u p ,

and

selected

educational

position

and y e a r s

socio-dem ographic/organizational

1e v e l ,

in l e g i s l a t u r e ,
served

in

pi a c e

of

political

leg islatu re)

residence,
party,
as

the

prior

constituency
independent

v a r i a b l e s (see Table 4 . 9 ) .
The
overall

results

indicated

effectiveness

of

that
the

leg islators’
CES

could

perceptions
be

predicted

of

the
from

c o n s t i t u e n c y make-up--whether t h e l e g i s l a t o r s ’ c o n s t i t u e n c y make-up
was

rural.

This

variable

accounted

for

14% o f

the

e x p la i n e d

v a r i a n c e in l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e o v e r a l l e f f e c t i v e n e s s of
t h e CES.

63

Table 4 . 9 . - - R e s u l t s o f s te p w is e m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s of
l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e i v e d e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e CES and
selected socio-demographic/organizational fa c to rs
(N = 5 5).
M u l t i p l e R = .373
d f = 1,53

R Square = 13.9%
F = 8.550

Independent V a r i a b l e

B

C o n s ti tu e n c y make-up
(Rural)

.493

V a r i a b l e s Not Entered
in Equation
P o s i t i o n in l e g i s l a t u r e (Representative)
P o l i t i c a l p a r t y (Democrat)
Age of l e g i s l a t o r
Educ at ion al l e v e l
Years ser ved in l e g i s l a t u r e
Pl a c e o f r e s i d e n c e (farm)
Prior occupation--Ed-related
Prior occupation--Ag-related
Note:

Standard E r r o r = .887
p - .005

SE o f B

Beta

.169

,373

Beta Ir

T

Sig . T

2. 924

.005

T

Si g . T

.019

.151

.880

-.112
.177
-.02 6
.236
.047
.083
.067

-.8 09
1.400
-.204
1.881
.340
.648
.512

.422
.168
.839
.066
.735
.520
.611

To le ra n c e l e v e l f o r t h e e n t r y o f each independent v a r i a b l e
s e t a t .05.

F a m i l i a r i t y With t h e CES X Sociode m og ra p h ic / O r q an iz a ti o n a l F a c to rs

4.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ perceptions o f f a m ilia r ity with the CES be
predicted from s e le c te d socio-demographic/organizational f a c ­
tors?
For a n a l y s i s p u r p o s e s , t h e broad r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n was d i v i d e d

i n t o t h r e e s u b q u e s t i o n s , which a re d i s c u s s e d below.

64

4a.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e iv e d fr equ en cy o f nonpersonal con­
t a c t s with t h e CES be p r e d i c t e d from s e l e c t e d s o c i o ­
demographic/organizational fa c to rs ?

Stepwise m u ltip le r e g r e s s io n
l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e iv e d

a n a l y s i s was p e r f o r m e d u s i n g

fr eq ue ncy o f nonpersonal

CES as t h e d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e

c o n t a c t s wit h

the

and s e l e c t e d

socio-dem ographic/

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f a c t o r s (a ge , e d u c a ti o n a l l e v e l ,

place o f residence,

prior

occupation,

constituency

position

make-up,

and

in

leg islatu re,

years

served

in

p o litical

party,

legislature)

as

th e

independent v a r i a b l e s (s e e Table 4 . 1 0 ) .
The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e rc e iv e d fr equency of
nonpersonal

contacts

w it h t h e

CES could

be

predicted

from t h r e e

independent v a r i a b l e s - - c o n s t i t u e n c y make-up, age o f l e g i s l a t o r ,
educational le v e l .

These t h r e e v a r i a b l e s t o g e t h e r accounted f o r 29%

of t h e e x p la i n e d v a r i a n c e

in l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e i v e d

nonpersonal c o n t a c t s with t h e CES.
the

most

to

Educational
equation.
older,

and

colleagues

and

the

p rediction;

age

fr equ en cy

of

C o n s ti tu e n c y make-up c o n t r i b u t e d
contributed

l e v e l , with a n e g a t i v e b e t a v a l u e ,

a small

a mo unt .

s u b t r a c t e d from t h e

T h e r e f o r e , l e g i s l a t o r s who had a r u r a l c o n s t i t u e n c y , were
had
w e re

a

slightly
lik ely

to

lower

educational

perceive

nonpersonal c o n t a c t s with t h e CES.

a

level

g reater

than

their

frequency

of

65

Table 4 . 1 0 . - - R e s u l t s o f s t e p w is e m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s o f
l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e iv e d fr eq ue ncy o f nonpersonal con­
t a c t s wit h t h e CES and s e l e c t e d so ci o - d em o g r ap h ic /
o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f a c t o r s (N = 59).
M u l t i p l e R = .538
d f = 3, 55

R Square = 29.0%
F = 7.471

Independent V a r i a b l e

B

C o n s ti tu e n c y make-up
(rural)
Age o f l e g i s l a t o r
Educational l e v e l

SE o f B

Beta

.378

.123

.352

3.084

.003

.020
-.160

.010
.079

.243
-.241

2.043
-2.032

.046
.047

V a r i a b l e s Not Entered
in Equation
P o s i t i o n in l e g i s l a t u r e (Repre­
sentative)
P o l i t i c a l p a r t y (Democrat)
Years ser ved in l e g i s l a t u r e
Place o f r e s i d e n c e (farm)
Prior occupation--Ed-related
Prior occupation--Ag-related
Note:

Sta ndar d E r r o r - .655
p - .000
T

Sig. T

Beta In

T

Sig . T

-. 055

-.45 0

655

.044
.164
.059
.099
.010

.345
1.231
.445
.805
.079

732
224
658
424
937

To le ra nc e l e v e l f o r t h e e n t r y o f each independent v a r i a b l e
s e t a t .05.

4b.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e rc e iv e d fr equ en cy o f pe rs on al c o n t a c t s
w ith t h e CES be p r e d i c t e d from s e l e c t e d s oci o- de m og r ap hic /
organizational factors?

Stepwise m u l tip l e re g r e s s io n
l e g i s l a t o r s ’ fr eq u e n cy
dependent
factors

variable
(age,

occupation,

and

o f per so nal
selected

educational

position

analysis

was p e r f o r m e d u s i n g

contacts

with

the

CES as

th e

socio-demographic/organizational

level,

in l e g i s l a t u r e ,

place

of

political

residence,
party,

p rior

constituency

>i/A

66

make-up,

and y e a r s

served

in

leg islatu re)

as

the

independent

v a r i a b l e s (s e e Table 4 . 1 1 ) .

Table 4 . 1 1 . - - R e s u l t s o f s te p w is e m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s o f
l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e iv e d fr eq u e n cy o f p e rs o n a l c o n t a c t s
with t h e CES and s e l e c t e d s o c i o - d e m o g r a p h i c / o r g a n i z a ­
t i o n a l f a c t o r s (N = 59).
M u l t i p l e R = .670
d f = 2,56

R Square = 44.9%
F = 22.78

Independent V a r ia b le

B

C o n s ti tu e n c y make-up
(Rural)
Prio r occupation-Ag-related

SE o f B

Beta

.492

.099

.503

4.974

.000

.652

.184

.358

3.542

.001

V a r i a b l e s Not Entered
in Equation
P o s i t i o n in l e g i s l a t u r e (Repre­
sentative)
P o l i t i c a l p a r t y (Democrat)
Age o f l e g i s l a t o r
Educ at ion al l e v e l
Years s er ved in l e g i s l a t u r e
Pla c e o f r e s i d e n c e (farm)
P rio r occupation--Ed-related
Note:

St a nd a rd E r r o r = .521
p = .000

Beta In

T

T

Si g . T

Sig . T

-.1 56

-1.5 74

.121

-.1 72
.014
.022
.045
.128
.054

- 1 .5 56
.142
.196
.450
.773
.520

.125
.888
.845
.654
.443
.605

T ol er a nc e l e v e l f o r t h e e n t r y o f each ind ep en d en t v a r i a b l e
s e t a t .05.

The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e i v e d fr eq ue nc y of
pe rs on al c o n t a c t s with t h e CES could be p r e d i c t e d from c o n s t i t u e n c y
make-up

(rural)

and p r i o r o c c u pa tio n

in a g r i c u l t u r e .

Of t h e two

67
p r e d i c t o r v a r i a b l e s , r u r a l c o n s t i t u e n c y make-up c o n t r i b u t e d s l i g h t l y
more than d i d p r i o r o c c up a tio n in a g r i c u l t u r e .

The two v a r i a b l e s

t o g e t h e r accounted f o r 45% o f t h e e x p la i n e d v a r i a n c e in l e g i s l a t o r s ’
p e r c e iv e d frequ en cy o f pe rs on al c o n t a c t s with t h e CES.
4c.

Can l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e rc e iv e d degree o f p r i o r involvement with
t h e CES be p r e d i c t e d from s e l e c t e d s o c i o - d e m o g r a p h i c /
organizational factors?

Stepwise m u ltip le r e g r e s s io n

a n a l y s i s was p e r f o r m e d u s i n g

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e rc ei v e d degr ee o f p r i o r involvement with t h e CES as
t h e dependent v a r i a b l e and s e l e c t e d s o c i o - d e m o g r a p h i c / o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
factors

(age,

occupation,
make-up,

educational

position

and y e a r s

level,

in l e g i s l a t u r e ,
served

in

place

of

political

leg islatu re)

residence,
party,
as

the

prior

constituency
independent

v a r i a b l e s (s e e Table 4 . 1 2 ) .
The r e s u l t s

indicated

that

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ perceived

d e gre e

of

p r i o r involvement with t h e CES could be p r e d i c t e d from whether th e
le g is la to r s ’ prior
accounted

for

oc cu pa tio n was

17% o f

the

in a g r i c u l t u r e .

explained

variance

This
in

variable

leg islato rs’

p e r c e i v e d degre e o f p r i o r involvement with t h e CES.
Table 4.13 c o n t a i n s a summary o f t h e r e s u l t s
m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s conducted t o t e s t
tions.

o f t h e s te p w is e

the research ques­

68

Table 4 . 1 2 . - - R e s u l t s o f s te p w is e m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s o f
l e g i s l a t o r s ’ pe rc ei ve d degr ee o f p r i o r involvement with
t h e CES and s e l e c t e d s o c i o - d e m o g r a p h i c / o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
f a c t o r s (N = 59).
R Square = 16.7%
F = 11.395

Independent V a r ia b le

B

SE o f B

1.608

Prior occupation-Ag-related

.476

V a r i a b l e s Not Entered
in Equation

Beta

T

Si g . T

.408

3.376

.001

Beta In

T

Si g . T

-.703

.485

-.204
.010
.083
.163
.177
.088
.099

-1.63 0
.080
.605
1.355
1.450
.469
.781

.109
.937
.548
.181
.153
.641
.438

I

P o s i t i o n in l e g i s l a t u r e (Repre­
sentative)
P o l i t i c a l p a r t y (Democrat)
Age o f l e g i s l a t o r
Educational l e v e l
Years ser ved in l e g i s l a t u r e
C on st i tu e n c y make-up ( r u r a l )
Place o f r e s i d e n c e (farm)
Prior occupation--Ed-related
Note:

Standard E r r o r = 1.373
p = .001

O
CO
or

M u l t i p l e R = .408
d f = 1,57

To le ra nc e l e v e l f o r the e n t r y o f each independent v a r i a b l e
s e t a t .05.

Ad diti on a l Findings
A d d it io n a l
m e th o d s

of

data

contact

pertaining
with

the

to
CES

legislators’
and

th eir

preferences

for

preferences

for

communications o f CES in f o r m at io n were o b ta in e d from t h e i n t e r v i e w s
with l e g i s l a t o r s .

Those f i n d i n g s a re d i s c u s s e d in t h i s s e c t i o n .

69
Table 4 .1 3.--Summary of stepwise multiple regression analysis results.
Research
Question
1.

2.

Dependent
Variable

4.

Significant
Factor

R2
(%)

P

Importance/Effecti veness
x Familiarity:
la

Ag/Marketing

Familiarity

. . .

--

--

lb

4-H Youth

Familiarity

Nonpersonal

17

.001

lc

Extension Home
Economics

Familiarity

N o n p e r s o n a l •>
a Per sonal

21

.002

Id

Natural Resources/
Public Policy

Familiarity

a P e r sonal
■>
Nonpersonal

28

.000

le

O v e r a l l Effect.

Familiarity

Nonpersonal

34

.000

Familiarity

Nonpersonal .
Per sonal
'

52

.000

Pos. in 1 e g i s .

9

.031

--

--

23

.003

Adequacy of Information
x Familiarity
Perceived adequacy
of information

3.

Independent
Variable

Importance/Effectiveness x
Socio-demog./Organizational
3a

Ag/Marketing

Socio-demog./
or g a n i z .

3b

4- H You t h

Socio-demog./
or g a n i z .

3c

Extension Home
Economics

Socio-demog./
o r g aniz.

3d

N a t ural R e s o u r c e s /
Public Policy

Socio-demog./
organiz.

aPrior occ.-Ag.

17

.002

3e

O v e r a l l e f f ect.

Socio-demog./
or g a n i z .

Const, m a k e - u p

14

.005

—
Prior occ.-Ed.
Pos. in legis. }
Age

Familiarity x SocioDemographic/Organizational
4a

Nonpersonal contacts

Socio-demog./
o r g aniz.

Const, m a k e - u p
Age
}
“ Educ. level

29

.000

4b

Per sonal c o n t a c t s

Socio-demog./
or g a n i z .

Const, m a k e - u p .
Prior occ.-Ag. '

45

.000

4c

Prior involvement

Socio-demog./
or g a n i z .

Prior occ.-Ag.

17

.001

aT h i s f a c t o r had a n e g a t i v e e f f e c t in the m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n .

70
P r e f e r e n c e s f o r Co nta ct Methods
A f t e r i n d i c a t i n g t h e fr equency o f t h e i r c o n t a c t s wit h t h e CES,
l e g i s l a t o r s were asked t o review t h e p r i n t e d l i s t o f c o n t a c t methods
and t o rank o r d e r t h e i r f i v e "most im p o r ta n t" o r p r e f e r r e d methods
o f c o n t a c t with t h e CES.

Table 4.14

o r d e r o f p r e f e r r e d c o n t a c t methods.
visit

with

personal

local
contact

interesting
methods

Extension

ar e

that

with
both

perso nal

Extension n e w s l e t t e r s

staff

Extension
the

in

first

nature.

(49.1%)

indicates

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ rank

T h e i r f i r s t p r e f e r e n c e was to
member(s)

(73%),

cl i e n t e l e
and

second

These

f o l 1owed

(50.8% ).
c h o ic e s

were

It

of

followed

by
is

contact
by

local

and Extension b u l l e t i n s / p u b l i c a t i o n s

( 3 9 . 1 ) , both o f which a re nonpersonal c o n t a c t methods.

The method

ranked f i f t h was t o a t t e n d or p a r t i c i p a t e in an Extension program/
e ven t (30.6%).

Table 4 . 1 4 . - - -Rank o r d e r o f l e g i s l a t o r s ’ f i v e "most im por tan t"
methods o f c o n t a c t with t h e CES (N = 59).
Rank

%

Method o f Co ntact

1

73.0

V i s i t with l o c a l Extension s t a f f member(s)

2

50.8

Personal c o n t a c t with Extension c l i e n t e l e

3

49.1

Local Extension n e w s l e t t e r s

4

39.1

Extension b u l l e t i n s / p u b l i c a t i o n s

5

30.6

Attend o r p a r t i c i p a t e in Extension pro gram/event

71
P r e f e r e n c e s f o r Communications
o f CES Info rmatio n
Three

supplem ental

questions

were

asked

relativ e

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p r e f e r e n c e s f o r ty p e s o f CES i n f o r m a t i o n ,
in f o r m a t i o n ,

and time frame f o r r e c e i v i n g

such

sources

information.

to
of
The

f i n d i n g s a r e d i s c u s s e d in t h i s s e c t i o n .
L e g i s l a t o r s ’ most u s ef u l ty pe s o f i n f o r m a t i o n r e c e i v e d from t h e
CES a re shown in rank o r d e r in Table 4 . 1 5 .
types of info rm atio n ,

statistics/d ata

Of t h e s i x c h o i c e s of

was r a n k e d

followed by announcements o f new programs

(63.3%).

first
State

(65%),
annual

r e p o r t s were ranked lowest (6.6%).

Table 4 . 1 5 . - - ■Rank o r d e r o f l e g i s l a t o r s ’ most u s e f u l ty p e s o f
in f o r m at io n r e c e i v e d from t h e CES (N = 58).
%

Rank

Type o f In fo rm at io n

1

65.0

S tatistics/data

2

63.3

Announcements o f new programs

3

60.0

S p e c i f i c succ ess s t o r i e s

4

55.0

Broad accomplishment r e p o r t s

5

28.3

County annual r e p o r t s

6

6.6

S t a t e annual r e p o r t s

L e g i s l a t o r s ’ p r e f e r r e d sources o f i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e CES a re
shown in rank o r d e r in Table 4. 1 6 .
County

Extension

offices

were

Of t h e f i v e p o s s i b l e c h o i c e s ,
ranked

first

by

96.7%

of

the

72
legislators

as

the

preferred

so urc e

of

information,

followed

by

S t a t e E xt ens ion o f f i c e s (80%).

Table 4 . 1 6 . --Rank o r d e r o f l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p r e f e r r e d s o u rc e s o f
i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e CES (N - 58 ).
Rank

%

Type o f In fo rm a tio n

1

86 .7

County Extension o f f i c e s

2

80.0

S t a t e Extension o f f i c e s

3

53.3

Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y In fo rm a tio n S e r v ic e s

4

50.0

Leg islativ e research o ffic e s

5

5.0

Other

L egislators’ preferred

time

frames

for

receiving

from t h e CES a r e shown in rank o r d e r in Table 4 .1 7 .
possible

choices,

inform ation
relating

to

at

78.3% o f

the

time

the

the

legislators
leg islatu re

Extension’ s e x p e r tis e .

Tied

preferred
is

for

in fo r m a t io n
Of t h e f i v e
to

receive

discussing

issues

second p l a c e

(61.7%

each) were l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p r e f e r e n c e s f o r r e c e i v i n g

i n f o r m a t io n when

new programs a r e being developed and on a r e g u l a r b a s i s ( q u a r t e r l y ) .
The l e a s t
(5%).

preferred

time frame was a t

the

be gin nin g

of the year

73
Table 4 . 1 7 . --Rank o r d e r o f l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p r e f e r r e d time frame f o r
r e c e i v i n g CES in f o r m a t io n (N = 58).
%

Rank

Time Frame

1

78.3

At time l e g i s l a t u r e i s d i s c u s s i n g i s s u e s r e l a t e d
to Extension’s e x p ertise

2

61.7

When new programs a r e being developed

2

61.7

On a r e g u l a r b a s i s ( q u a r t e r l y )

4

6.7

Other

5

5.0

At th e beginning o f t h e y e a r

A na ly si s o f Responses t o Open-Ended Questions
Two open-ended q u e s t i o n s were posed d ur in g t h e i n t e r v i e w s with
legislators.
here.

Responses

to

those

questions

a re d i s c u s s e d

briefly

The re s p o n s e s appear in t h e i r e n t i r e t y in Appendix E.
The f i r s t open-ended q u e s t i o n was:

would

like

C ooperative
e xtr em ely

to

make

Extension

varied.

information,

regarding

receiving

Service?"

Some

"Are t h e r e any comments you
inform ation

L egislators’

legislators

said

the y

from

comments
would

like

the
were
more

some th o u g h t t h e amount o f in fo r m a t io n t h e y r e c e i v e d

was j u s t r i g h t , and o t h e r s s a i d th e y r e c e i v e d too much in f o r m a t i o n .
Many l e g i s l a t o r s

liked

personal

contacts

with

the

CES.

All

re s p o n d e n ts who p r e f e r r e d p e rs on al c o n t a c t s were most p o s i t i v e about
such

contacts.

However,

not

all

of

the

comments

i n f o r m a t io n methods, such as d i r e c t m a i l , were p o s i t i v e .

about

other

74
In co ncluding t h e i n t e r v i e w s , t h e r e s e a r c h e r asked:
any

other

points

con cer nin g

the

Michigan

C o o p e r a ti v e

S e r v i c e which we have not t a l k e d about t h a t you f e e l
to

discuss?"

This

question

received

numerous

g e n e r a l l y could be grouped i n t o f o u r c a t e g o r i e s .
could be termed " v i s i b i l i t y . "
th e

the

word

mentioned;
cited.

particular

members

however,

from a l l

local

itself

People were e i t h e r

Another c a te g o r y ,

Another c a t e g o r y

Respondents o f t e n mentioned t h e
staff
levels

county

members were
of

staff

te r m e d

d i f f e r e n t programs l e g i s l a t o r s
abo ut.

which

L e g i s l a t o r s seemed t o be concerned t h a t t h e

o f re s p o n s e s p e r t a i n e d t o " s t a f f . "

Staff

responses,

"visibility"

very f a m i l i a r or not f a m i l i a r a t a l l with t h e CES.

done.

a r e im p o r ta n t

The f i r s t c a t e g o r y

o r g a n i z a t i o n was not promoting i t s e l f t o o t h e r s .

outstanding job th a t

Extens ion

Ph rases such as " g r e a t e r awareness o f

o r g a n i z a t i o n , " " m a r k e t i n g , " and

were f r e q u e n t l y vo ic ed .

"Are t h e r e

the

doing

or

organization

members

were

had
were

most

often

"program m ing," p e r ta in e d

to

s a i d th e y had e x p e r i e n c e d o r heard

The programs most o f t e n were r e l a t e d

to

agriculture.

In

a d d i t i o n , l e g i s l a t o r s recommended programming t h a t t h e CES should be
offering.

The one mentioned

programs in urban s e t t i n g s .
was

also

mentioned.

The

most

often

was

job

of

last

category,

Another res po nd en t s a i d ,

assisting

legislators

the

need

to

pro v id e

W a t e r - q u a l i t y programming in s c h o o ls

inc lu de d s t a t e m e n t s such as "I proba bly use
leg islato r."

a

House

Taxation

"CES

as

a

r e s o u r c e , 11

CES more tha n any o t h e r

"CES has done an e x c e l l e n t
Com m ittee."

Some tim es

p e rc e iv e d t h e CES as a r e s o u r c e on a p e rs o n a l

level:

75
"[CES] came t o my farm s e v e r a l times and helped us g e t our farming
o p e r a t i o n on t a r g e t . "
Summary
Thi s c h a p t e r

contained

a presentation

and d i s c u s s i o n

of the

r e s u l t s o f t h e d a t a a n a l y s i s f o r t h e r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s , as well as
additional

findings.

In a d d i t i o n , re s p o n s e s t o t h e two open-ended

i n t e r v i e w q u e s t i o n s were d i s c u s s e d .

Chap ter V c o n t a i n s a summary of

t h e s t u d y , c o n c l u s i o n s , recommendations f o r a p p l i c a t i o n and f u r t h e r
r e s e a r c h , and r e f l e c t i o n s .

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND REFLECTIONS
Introduction
This
in c l u d i n g

chapter
the

methodology

from t h e f i n d i n g s
for

contains

application

an

overall

and major f i n d i n g s .

a r e th e n p r e s e n t e d ,
and

summary

further

of

the

study,

Conclusions

drawn

followed by recommendations

research.

The w r i t e r ’ s

reflections

conclude t h e c h a p t e r .
Summary
Because o f t h e i n f l u e n c e l e g i s l a t o r s
organizations,

it

is

im p o r ta n t

to

e x e r t on s t a t e - s u p p o r t e d

de te rm in e

no t

only

p erceiv e those o rg a n iz a tio n s

but,

influencing t h e i r perceptions.

Channels o f communication need t o be

open t o

more i m p o r t a n t ,

inform and e du c a te l e g i s l a t o r s

the

how they
factors

about t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n

and

a l s o t o s o l i c i t t h e i r i n p u t i n t o i d e n t i f y i n g needs and de te r m in in g
future

d irections.

leg islato rs’

In

perceptions

th is
of

a

study,

the

factors

state-supported

organization,

Michigan C ooper ati ve Extension S e r v i c e , were examined.
was c o n s id e r e d

influencing

Such a study

im por tan t in o r d e r f o r t h e CES t o be p r o a c t i v e

developing

a relationship

beneficial

to

society,

the

with

leg islato rs

organization,

the m s el ve s .

76

th at

and

the

the

is

in

m utually

leg islato rs

77
Purpose
The
de ter mi ne

purpose

that

whether

provided

direction

legislators’

educational o rganization,

for

perceptions

this

of

a

perceptions

was

to

state-supported

t h e CES, can be d e te r m in e d from s e l e c t e d

f a m i l i a r i t y and s o c i o - d e m o g r a p h i c / o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
dependent

s tu d y

variables

under

consideration

of the

im portance

of

factors.
were

CES p r o g r a m

The main

leg islato rs’

th ru sts/o v erall

e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e CES, adequacy o f i n f o r m a t i o n th e y r e c e i v e d from
t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n , and t h e i r f a m i l i a r i t y wit h t h e CES.
D e s c r i p t i o n o f th e Sample
The p o p u la ti o n f o r t h i s study comprised a l l

l e g i s l a t o r s in th e

1986 s e s s i o n o f t h e Michigan L e g i s l a t u r e - - 1 1 0 r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s and 38
senators.
senators,

A s t r a t i f i e d random sample o f 43 r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s and 25
representing

rural,

urban,

and mixed c o n s t i t u e n c i e s

t h e s i x a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e g i o n s o f t h e CES, was s e l e c t e d .

and

Of t h a t

number, 60 l e g i s l a t o r s agreed to be in t e r v i e w e d in t h e s tu d y .
A m a j o r i t y o f t h e sample were Caucasian males wit h a mean age
o f 46.5 y e a r s .

The sample c o n ta i n e d s i i g h t l y more Repub lica ns than

Democrats.

A m a j o r i t y o f sample members were c o l l e g e

almost h a l f

held g r a d u a t e

or

professional

degrees.

graduates;
The

largest

number o f re s p o n d en ts r e p r e s e n t e d urban c o n s t i t u e n c i e s ; most o f them
1 ived in urban or suburban a r e a s .

Respondents had s er ve d

l e g i s l a t u r e from 2 t o 30 y e a r s ; t h e mean was 9 . 6 y e a r s .

in t h e

About 40%

had ser ved on t h e House o r Senate A p p r o p r i a t i o n s Committee, 25% on
the A g ric u ltu re

C o m m it te e ,

and 16.7% on t h e

Higher

Education

78
Committee.

About

em plo yed

in

25% o f

the

re s p o n d e n ts

education-related

had

occupations;

previously
another

been

25%

had

a g r i c u l t u r e - r e l a t e d p r i o r occupations.
Methodology
The r e s e a r c h e r developed a s t r u c t u r e d i n t e r v i e w s c h e d u le , usi ng
several

items from p r e v io u s s t u d i e s o f l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s of

t h e CES.

In a d d i t i o n , i n p u t was s ecu red from CES a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and

u n i v e r s i t y f a c u l t y who had p r e v i o u s l y been involved with l e g i s l a t i v e
activities.
and

the

A panel o f e x p e r t s who were knowledgeable about t h e CES

Michigan

validation

was

Legislature
provided

validated

by

the

p retestin g

instrument.
the

Further

instrum ent

with

l e g i s l a t o r s who were not in t h e sample.
Data were c o l l e c t e d
legislators

in

the

through

sample.

d u r in g June and J u l y 1986,

per so nal

Structured
w hile t h e

interviews

interviews

with

the

were conducted

l e g i s l a t u r e was in s e s s i o n .

I n t e r v i e w r e s p o n s e s were cod ed o n t o c o m p u t e r s p r e a d s h e e t s
entered

60

and

i n t o t h e mainframe computer a t Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ,

where t h e d a t a were analyze d using t h e S t a t i s t i c a l

Package f o r t h e

S oc ia l S c ie n c e s (SPSS-X) (Norusis/SPSS, 1988).
Basic d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s ,

i n c l u d i n g frequ en cy d i s t r i b u t i o n ,

p e r c e n t a g e , mean, s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n ,

correlation,

were used t o a na ly z e v a r i o u s a s p e c t s o f t h e d a t a .
regression
which

was performed f o r

indepen de nt v a r i a b l e s ,

each r e s e a r c h

and rank o r d e r ,
Stepwise m u l t i p l e

question

i f any, were f a c t o r s

to

de term in e

influencing the

79
dependent v a r i a b l e ( s ) .

The .05 l e v e l was e s t a b l i s h e d as t h e c r i t e ­

rion for s t a t i s t i c a l s ig n ific a n ce .
Findi ngs Regarding Research Que stions
Nonpersonal c o n t a c t s were found t o be a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r in
f i v e o f t h e s i x r e s e a r c h s u b q u e s t i o n s conce rni ng t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s
of

selected

fam iliarity

perceptions
adequacy

of

of

com bination

the

factors

influencing

im portance/effectiveness

inform ation
with

in

received.

personal

of

1e g i s i a t o r s ’

the

CES

Nonpersonal

contacts,

wer e

and

th e

contacts,

in

sig n ifican t

factors

i n f l u e n c i n g l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e importance o f Extension
Home Economics and Natural
and

in

legislators’

R e s o u r c e s /P u b li c P o li c y program t h r u s t s

perceptions

r e c e i v e d from t h e CES.

of

the

adequacy

N e i t h e r nonpersonal

of

in f or m at io n

nor pe rs on al

contacts

were s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f th e
importance o f A g r i c u l t u r e / M a r k e t i n g program t h r u s t s .
the

other

two f a m i l i a r i t y

factors

inc lu de d

in

Furthermore,

this

s tu d y ,

prior

involvement in t h e CES and l e g i s l a t i v e committee e x p e r i e n c e , did not
s u r f a c e as s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r s f o r any o f t h e r e s e a r c h s u b q u e s t i o n s .
Of t h e nine s o c i o - d e m o g r a p h i c / o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
as

possible

factors

influencing

legislators’

importance o f CES program t h r u s t s and o v e r a l l
CES,

prior

position

in

o c c upa tio n

in

legislature,

agriculture,
and

prior

factors

perceptions

examined
of

th e

e ffe c tiv e n e s s of the

constituency

o c cu pa tio n

in

make-up,

age,

e d u c a ti o n

were

found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r s , i n d i v i d u a l l y o r in co mbination, f o r
one o r more o f t h e r e s e a r c h s u b q u e s t i o n s .

Edu cation al l e v e l , p la c e

80
o f r e s i d e n c e , p o l i t i c a l p a r t y , and y e a r s s e r v e d in l e g i s l a t u r e were
not p r e d i c t i v e o f l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f CES program t h r u s t s or
o v e r a l l e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e CES.

There were no s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r s

i n f l u e n c i n g l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f 4-H Youth program t h r u s t s .
Four o f t h e n i n e s o c i o - d e m o g r a p h i c / o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
examined as p o s s i b l e
with

th e

prior

C ES -- c on st it u en c y

oc cup at ion

individually

of

factors

in

or

subquestions.
p la c e

factors

influencing

make-up,

le g is la to rs ’ fam iliarity

age,

educational

agriculture-surfaced

in combination,

for

factors

as

level,

and

significant

factors,

one o r more o f t h e

research

P o s i t i o n in l e g i s l a t u r e , y e a r s s erved in l e g i s l a t u r e ,

residence,
influencing

nonpersonal c o n t a c t s ,

and

prior

oc c u p a ti o n

in

education

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ perceptions
pe rsonal

contacts,

of

were

not

frequency

of

o r p r i o r involvement with

t h e CES.
Ad diti on a l Findings
L e g i s l a t o r s ’ p r e f e r r e d method o f c o n t a c t with t h e CES was to
visit

with

local

Extension

staff

c o n ta c t with Extension c l i e n t e l e ,

members,
local

foll owed

by

pe rso na l

Extension n e w s le tte r s ,

Extension b u l l e t i n s / p u b l i c a t i o n s , and a t t e n d i n g or p a r t i c i p a t i n g
an

Extension

pro gra m/ ev en t,

statistics/data
CES.

in

that

as t h e most u s ef u l

order.

ty p e

of

Respondents
in f o r m a t io n

in

cited

about

the

Announcements o f new programs were ranked second, foll ow ed by

s p e c i f i c su cc e ss s t o r i e s .
Legislators
offices,

preferred

S t a t e annual r e p o r t s were ranked lo w e st .

receiving

information

followed by s t a t e Extension o f f i c e s .

from county

Extension

They a l s o p r e f e r r e d

81
t o r e c e i v e i n f o r m a t i o n "while t h e l e g i s l a t u r e

is discussing

issues

r e l a t i n g t o E x t e n s i o n ’ s e x p e r t i s e , " followed by "when new programs
a r e being developed" and "on a r e g u l a r b a s i s . "
Conclusions
Based on t h e

study

findings,

the

f o ll o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s

were

drawn:
1.

L e g i s l a t o r s ’ p a s t e x p e r ie n c e and hence t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f
t h e importance o f CES program t h r u s t s / o v e r a l l e f f e c t i v e n e s s
o f t h e CES were formed p r i m a r i l y by nonpersonal c o n t a c t s .

The

CES

nonpersonal
positive
Combs,

ha s

largely

manner.

effect,

been

Although

perceptual

and H il g a r d

have

influencing

this

approach

has

psychology t h e o r i s t s

sug ges te d

that

n a t u r e t e n d s t o have a g r e a t e r impact.
this

sample had fewer per so nal

wit h

the

CES from which

leg islato rs

to

contacts
draw,

it

been

in

a

having

a

such as A l l p o r t ,

experience

of

a per so nal

Because t h e l e g i s l a t o r s
than nonpersonal
was

concluded

in

contacts

that

their

p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n were formed by nonpersonal c o n t a c t s .
Or i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t th e y e x p er ie n c e d more perso nal c o n t a c t s than
they

re m e m b e r e d .

Perhaps

those

personal

contacts

w ere

not

meaningful enough t o have l e f t an im pre ssi on.
2.

Both nonpersonal and pe rs on al c o n t a c t s with t h e CES were
n e c e s s a r y f o r l e g i s l a t o r s t o p e r c e i v e t h a t th e y had an
ad equ at e in fo r m a t io n base conce rni ng t h e CES.

Experience
em oti ons .
perceptions.

influences

People

interpret

These

a person’s fe e lin g s,
their

perceptions

person’ s fu tu re experience.

experiences,

serve

as

thoughts,

and

forming them i n t o

a way o f

organizing

a

People do not a c t o r behave acc or di ng

82

t o an o b j e c t i v e s e t o f f a c t s ; r a t h e r , the y a c t acc or d in g t o how they
have i n t e r p r e t e d th o s e f a c t s o r e x p e r i e n c e s .

What d r i v e s d e c i s i o n

making,

pe rs on al

what d r i v e s

behavior,

then,

are the

meanings or

p e r c e p t i o n s people have formed r e g a r d i n g t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e s .
I t can be concluded t h a t l e g i s l a t o r s r e l y on both nonpersonal
and p e rs on al e x p e r i e n c e s f o r t h e i r in f o r m a t i o n .

Perhaps d i f f e r e n t

t y p e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n a r e being d e l i v e r e d through t h e v a r i o u s ty p e s
of contacts.

Factual d a t a de si gne d t o i n c r e a s e knowledge concerning

t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n have been d e l i v e r e d through nonpersonal means.
the

other

hand,

inform ation

personal

through

contacts,

a cognitive

although

d o m a in ,

they

might

i n f l u e n c e t h e i n d i v i d u a l ’ s f e e l i n g s and emotions.
could

help

legislators

remember

pre v io u s

also

more

On

im part

strongly

Personal c o n t a c t s

contacts

of

a

sim ilar

n a t u r e t h a t might not be r e c a l l e d by re a d in g a r e p o r t o r h e a r in g a
r a d i o program.
3.

There were no c o n s i s t e n t l y s i g n i f i c a n t s o c io - dem og r ap hi c /
organizational fa c to rs influencing l e g i s l a t o r s ’ perceptions
of a l l program t h r u s t s .

Although
representing

leg islato rs
their

perceived

constituencies,

th eir

th e y must

role
also

from o t h e r l e g i s l a t o r s f o r t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r agendas.
that

the

e lements

that

influence

a

le g is la to r’s

as

fairly

secure

su pp or t

I t is evident
de ci si on-m ak in g

p ro c e s s might not be r e s t r i c t e d t o s o c i o - d e m o g r a p h i c / o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
factors.

Legislators

p ro c e s s o f s u p p o r t ,
successfully.

must

engage

in

a

give-and-take

political

in o r d e r t o r e p r e s e n t t h e i r own c o n s t i t u e n c i e s

They must

s u p p o rt

other

le g is la to rs ’ interests

in

83

o r d e r t o be a s s u re d o f r e c i p r o c a l su p p o rt in m a t t e r s o f i n t e r e s t to
t h e i r own c o n s t i t u e n t s .
4.

C ertain socio-demographic/organizational f a c t o r s influenced
l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e iv e d f a m i l i a r i t y w ith t h e CES.
Rural
constituency
make-up and p r i o r
occupation
in
an
a g r i c u l t u r e - r e l a t e d f i e l d were t h e two f a c t o r s t h a t most
frequently surfaced.

The l e g i s l a t o r s who were most famil i a r w ith t h e CES had t h e
most e x p e r i e n c e with t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l component o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n .
Perhaps t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n has promoted t h a t p a r t i c u l a r program a re a
more

than o t h e r s .

It is

also possible

that

certain

leg islato rs’

lo n g -t e rm a g r i c u l t u r a l e x p e r i e n c e s had in f l u e n c e d how th e y p e r c e iv e d
the w o rld .

If

a 1 eg i s i a t o r

had a r u r a l

constituency,

those

c o n s t i t u e n t s could have been a c t i v e c l i e n t e l e o f t h e CES; t h u s , th e
l e g i s l a t o r s would have become f a m i l i a r with t h e CES by i n t e r a c t i n g
with

those

residents.

It

is

logical

to

concl ude

l e g i s l a t o r s were f a m i l i a r with th e o r g a n i z a t i o n ,

but

that
it

these

cann ot be

concluded t h a t th e y were n e c e s s a r i l y s u p p o r t i v e o f i t .
5.

According t o th e a d d i t i o n a l f i n d i n g s , p e r s o n a l c o n t a c t ,
e s p e c i a l l y a t t h e l o c a l CES l e v e l , was t h e method by which
a m ajority of l e g i s l a t o r s p refe rre d to re c eiv e information
about t h e CES.

L e g i s l a t o r s valued t h e in fo r m a t io n t h e y r e c e i v e d a t t h e l o c a l
CES l e v e l
level.

more

than

the

in fo r m a t io n

they

received

at

Perhaps l e g i s l a t o r s p e rc e iv e d a need t o r e t u r n

data of the experience.

the

state

t o t h e raw

In fo rm a tio n r e c e i v e d a t t h e l o c a l CES l e v e l

i s c l o s e r t o d i r e c t c o n t a c t with t h e i r c o n s t i t u e n t s and has no t been
filtered

through

layers

of

the

organization

to

re a ch

the

state

84
level.

The p r e f e r e n c e f o r p e rs on al r a t h e r tha n nonpersonal c o n t a c t s

also r e f l e c t s the d e s ir e o f l e g i s l a t o r s to maintain c lo s e r contact
with c o n s t i t u e n t s in t h e i r d i s t r i c t s , who may a l s o be c l i e n t e l e of
t h e CES.
6.

According t o r e s p o n s e s t o t h e open-ended i n t e r v i e w q u e s ­
t i o n s , l e g i s l a t o r s were w i l l i n g t o c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e CES.

Legislators
from t h e i r

past

e x p re s s e d a w i l l i n g n e s s
experiences.

to share

insights

Some sug ges ted t h a t

the

gained

CES needs

in c r e a s e d v i s i b i l i t y - - t h a t more l e g i s l a t o r s need t o be aware o f th e
CES and t h e

services

it

programs and s e r v i c e s .

offers.

Legislators

also

su ggest ed

new

Perhaps i f more l e g i s l a t o r s were aware of

t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n , i t would be e a s i e r t o gain t h e i r s u p p o r t .
CES wants t o i n f l u e n c e l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s ,

I f the

l e g i s l a t o r s should

be encouraged to pro vid e i n p u t i n t o t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n .
Recommendations
In

this

s tu d y ,

data

were

g a th e r e d

on

factors

influencing

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f v a r i o u s a s p e c t s o f t h e Michigan CES, as
well as how l e g i s l a t o r s p r e f e r t o r e c e i v e i n fo r m a t io n about t h e CES.
It

i s hoped t h a t t h e

findings will

be b e n e f i c i a l

su pp or te d o r g a n i z a t i o n s / i n s t i t u t i o n s

and w i l l

to other s t a t e -

perhaps

s ti m u lu s t o t h e CES in Michigan and in o t h e r s t a t e s .

serve

as

a

The f o ll o w i n g

recommendations a r e made f o r a p p l i c a t i o n and f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h .
Recommendations f o r Ap p I i c a t i o n
1.
factor

L e g i s l a t o r s ’ committee
influencing

their

perceptions

experience
of

the

was

no t

importance

a

significant
of

CES

85

program t h r u s t s / e f f e c t i v e n e s s

of

the

CES.

Thus,

CES personnel

should focus on e d u c a t i n g and informing a l l l e g i s l a t o r s

about th e

o r g a n i z a t i o n , and not j u s t on communicating with t h o s e l e g i s l a t o r s
serving

on t h e

A ppropriations,

A griculture,

and

Higher

Education

Committees.
2.
sonal

L e g i s l a t o r s i n d i c a t e d th e y had fewer p e rs onal than nonper ­

c o n t a c t s with t h e CES, y e t 73% o f t h e l e g i s l a t o r s p r e f e r r e d

perso nal
should

c o n t a c t s with t h e l o c a l
examine

legislators.

their
The

public

researcher

staff.

Therefore,

relations/m arketing
recommends

that

CES personnel

strategies

the

with

CES develop

s t r a t e g i c plan f o r i n c r e a s i n g t h e number o f pe rs onal

a

c o n t a c t s with

l e g i s l a t o r s , p a r t i c u l a r l y from t h e l o c a l s t a f f l e v e l , as a means of
e d u c a ti n g l e g i s l a t o r s about th e o r g a n i z a t i o n .
3.

An on-going

s t a f f - d e v e l o p m e n t program needs t o

l i s h e d t o en su re t h a t a l l
contacts
contacts.
also the

with

legislators

be e s t a b ­

CES a g en ts a r e p re pa re d t o make pe rsonal
and

are

c o m f o r ta b le

w ith

making

th o s e

A d m i n i s t r a t o r s need t o p ro vi de not only t h e t r a i n i n g but
support,

i n c l u d i n g time a l l o c a t i o n ,

for

local

a g en ts

to

perform in t h i s p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s r o l e .
4.

Frequency o f nonpersonal

c o n t a c t s was t h e

influencing l e g i s l a t o r s ’ perceptions of the
program t h r u s t s / e f f e c t i v e n e s s
contacts

should

effectiveness.

be

o f t h e CES.

continued

but

im portance

Therefore,

should

To t h e e x t e n t p o s s i b l e ,

primary f a c t o r

local

should send t h e i r l e g i s l a t o r s CES i n f o r m a t i o n .

be

o f CES

nonpersonal

reevaluated

for

county CES o f f i c e s

86

5.

L e g i s l a t o r s p r e f e r r e d t o r e c e i v e CES i n f o r m a t i o n w hi le th e

legislature
expertise.
position

is

discussing

Thus, i t

related

to

the

organization’s

i s recommended t h a t a CES l e g i s l a t i v e l i a i s o n

be c r e a t e d

U niversity Office

issues

in

collaboration

f o r Governmental

confronting the le g i s l a t u r e

with

A ffairs

the

to

Michigan

m o n it o r t h e

and t o be p r o a c t i v e

S tate
issues

in p r o v i d i n g

CES

e x p e r t i s e and in f o r m a t io n .
6.

S ix ty -t w o p e r c e n t o f th e l e g i s l a t o r s s a i d th e y p r e f e r r e d to

receive

in fo r m a t io n

de vel ope d.

Thus,

from
it

is

the

CES

when

recommended

new

that

programs
each

are

State

being

A ssistant

D i r e c t o r d i r e c t l y communicate with l e g i s l a t o r s when new programs are
being

developed,

informed.

keeping

the

O ffice

for

Input from s e l e c t e d l e g i s l a t o r s

th e program-development s ta g e .

Governmental

A ffairs

could be sought d urin g

Selected

leg islato rs

could

be

preferred

to

invol ve d on s t a t e program a r e a a d v is o r y bo a rd s.
7.

S ix ty -t w o

percent

of

the

legislators

also

r e c e i v e CES in fo r m a t io n on a r e g u l a r b a s i s ( i . e . , q u a r t e r l y ) .
recommended t h a t l o c a l

Extension o f f i c e s

p ro v id e

I t is

b rie f reports

on

v a r i o u s program a r e a s t o l e g i s l a t o r s s e m i - a n n u a ll y o r q u a r t e r l y .
8.

Both personal

and nonpersonal

contacts

a re n e c e s s a r y f o r

l e g i s l a t o r s t o p e r c e i v e th e y a r e r e c e i v i n g a deq ua te i n f o r m a t i o n from
the

CES.

continued.

Thus,
Just

it

is

recommended t h a t

because

adequate i n f o r m a t i o n ,

legislators

both

contact

indicate

th e y

are

methods

be

receiving

t h i s cannot be i n t e r p r e t e d t o mean th e y a re

r e c e i v i n g i n fo r m a t io n t h a t i s t r u l y " e d u c a t i v e . "

It

is

im p e r a t i v e

t h a t CES pers onn el review t h e i r p r e s e n t nonpersonal c o n t a c t methods,

87

such as county n e w s l e t t e r s , t o a s c e r t a i n how e d u c a t i v e and e f f e c t i v e
the y a r e .
9.
county,
with

Longregional,

and s t a t e

le g islato rs,

Economics,

and s h o r t - r a n g e

Na tural

p la n s

levels

p articu larly

to

should be developed

increase

concerning

Resources/Public

Policy,

p e rs onal

the

at

contacts

Extension

Home

and 4-H Youth program

thrusts.
10.

L e g i s l a t o r s who had a p r i o r o c cu pa tio n in an a g r i c u l t u r e -

r e l a t e d area p erceiv ed N atural
thrusts

to

colleagues
Thus, i t

be

sig n ifican tly

who had

not

R e s o u r c e s / P u b l i c P o l i c y p ro gr am
less

previously

im portant

been

i s recommended t h a t Natural

than

employed

in

did

th eir

agriculture.

R e s o u r c e s / P u b l i c Pol ic y s t a f f

members develop a ma rk et in g s t r a t e g y f o r e d u c a ti n g l e g i s l a t o r s who
were p r e v i o u s l y

employed

in

agriculture

about

the

importance

of

Natural R e s o u r c e s / P u b l i c Pol ic y program t h r u s t s and t h e i r e f f e c t on
r u r a l and urban a r e a s o f Michigan.
11.

L e g i s l a t o r s with a r u r a l c o n s t i t u e n c y p e r c e i v e d t h e CES to

be s i g n i f i c a n t l y more e f f e c t i v e than di d l e g i s l a t o r s with a non rur al
constituency.

The CES should a d d re ss t h i s

i s s u e by a n a ly z in g th e

pe rc ei v e d needs in n onru r al a r e a s , t o a l i g n t h e mis sio n and s e r v i c e s
o f t h e CES w ith c l i e n t s ’ needs.
should encourage l o c a l

In a d d i t i o n ,

CES a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

CES s t a f f and c l i e n t e l e

in urban and mixed

c o n s t i t u e n c i e s t o communicate more f r e q u e n t l y with t h e i r l e g i s l a t o r s
about CES p r o g r a m s / s e r v i c e s and should s u p p o rt t h e s t a f f
efforts.

in t h e s e

th e

88

12.
and

L e g i s l a t o r s who r e p r e s e n t e d r u r a l c o n s t i t u e n c i e s were o l d e r

had

less

formal

constituencies,
nonpersonal

and

contacts

education
they
w it h

than

those

from

a

greater

perceived
the

CES

th a n

d id

urban

and

mixed

frequency

other

of

legislators.

Perhaps t h e s e l e g i s l a t o r s were more a v a i l a b l e f o r and a t t u n e d t o th e
nonpersonal c o n t a c t s , such as CES r a d i o pr og ra ms , a r t i c l e s in r u r a l
newspapers, n e w s l e t t e r s ,
their

efforts

and

and so on.

redefine

th eir

CES p e rs onn el
strategies

for

should examine
re a c h i n g

other

legislators.
13.
pation

L e g i s l a t o r s from r u r a l c o n s t i t u e n c i e s who had a p r i o r oc cu­
in

agriculture

perceived

a greater

fr eq u e n cy

c o n t a c t s with t h e CES than d id o t h e r l e g i s l a t o r s .

of

pe rsonal

Therefore, i t is

recommended t h a t t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n develop a s t r o n g ma rketing e f f o r t ,
using pers onal c o n t a c t s d i r e c t e d toward l e g i s l a t o r s
mixed c o n s t i t u e n c i e s

whose

p rior

from urban and

o c c u p a t i o n s were o t h e r

than

agriculture.
Recommendations f o r F u r t h e r Research
1.

The s tu dy should be r e p l i c a t e d with a n o t h e r s e s s i o n o f th e

Michigan L e g i s l a t u r e ,

to v a lid a te the findings of t h i s exploratory

st u d y .
2.
view

To promote t h e g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y o f t h i s

schedule

should

agency/organization

so

be
that

adapted f o r
the

stud y might be f u r t h e r v a l i d a t e d .

p ro c e s s

another
used

study,

the i n t e r ­

state-su p p o rted

in t h i s

exploratory

89
3.

An i n v e s t i g a t i o n

such as p r i o r o c c up a tio n
additional

factors

usi ng

other

socio-dem ogr aph ic

in a b u s i n e s s - r e l a t e d

influencing

area,

factors,

might y i e l d

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ perceptions

and prove

valuable fo r o ther organizations.
4.
depth

An ex per im en ta l
legislative

staff,

with

an

stu dy should be cond uct ed ,

staff-development tra in in g
emphasis

on

per so nal

for

contact

involving

part
wit h

in-

of the

CES

legislators,

follo wed by a st udy on f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s
o f t h e CES.
5.

To v a l i d a t e

the

factors

influencing

l e g i s l a t o r s ’ percep­

t i o n s o f t h e importance o f program t h r u s t s and o v e r a l l e f f e c t i v e n e s s
o f t h e CES, a s tu dy should be conducted on t h e c o r r e l a t i o n between
l e g i s l a t o r s ’ voting records

on a p p r o p r i a t e

issues

and t h e

factors

found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t in t h i s s tu d y.
6.
yield

An i n - d e p t h e th n o g ra p h ic stud y o f s e v e r a l l e g i s l a t o r s might
additional

insights

into

factors

influencing

leg islato rs’

p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e CES.
7.
pa re

A correlational

legislative

stu dy should be conducted t h a t would com­

a i d e s ’/ a s s i s t a n t s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s

of

the

CES w it h

t h e i r l e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e CES.
Reflections
For t h i s s t u d y , t h e CES was chosen as an example o f a s t a t e supported

organization.

The CES i s

a nonformal

educational

o r g a n i z a t i o n whose purpose i s t o extend knowledge from t h e
g r a n t u n i v e r s i t y t o t h e people o f t h e s t a t e .

la n d -

Although t h e n a t u r e o f

90
CES program t h r u s t s and t h e v a r i e t y o f c l i e n t e l e have changed as th e
CES has
state

e v olv ed ,

the

legislature

Consequently,
efforts

at

fact

for

that

this

financial

the

state

organization

s u p p o rt

level,

the

has

remained

CES has

in communicating with l e g i s l a t o r s

depends on th e

p ut

unchanged.
forth

each y e a r ,

major

in o r d e r

to

s e c u r e fu n di n g.
Upon r e f l e c t i o n , two

issues

emer ged

from

th is

research.

Although i t i s indeed a p p r o p r i a t e f o r an o r g a n i z a t i o n depending on
the

1e g i s i a t u r e

for

funding

to

engage

in

an

extensive

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e communication e f f o r t , i t does not appea r t h a t t h i s is
t h e only f a c t o r t h a t

i n f l u e n c e s l e g i s l a t o r s ’ d e c i s i o n making.

In

t h i s s tu d y , l e g i s l a t o r s e x p re ss e d a d e s i r e f o r pe rs on al c o n t a c t with
lo c a l CES s t a f f members and with t h e i r t h e i r c o n s t i t u e n t s , who are
also

CES c l i e n t e l e .

Were

legislators

indicating

that

th e y

want

t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e CES t o be in f l u e n c e d by l o c a l s t a f f members
and t h e c l i e n t e l e who a re p a r t i c i p a t i n g in CES programs?
As t h e
legislators,
rigid?

CES i n t e n s i f i e s
is

there

its

a tend enc y

efforts
for

the

to

c o m m u n ic a te

organization

Does t h a t r i g i d i t y c o n t r a d i c t t h e q u e s t i o n :

to

with
become

Does t h e CES

need t o s u s t a i n a s e l f - r e n e w i n g , e v o l u t i o n a r y o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p a t t e r n
in o r d e r t o meet t h e changing needs o f i t s

cl i e n t e l e ?

In o t h e r

words, i t would seem t h a t t h e da nger o f an e x t e n s i v e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
communication e f f o r t

is

th at

the

people

furthest

from d i r e c t

e x p e r i e n c e o r raw d a t a , t h o s e a t t h e s t a t e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l e v e l o f
t h e CES, may be p o r t r a y i n g a f a i r l y r i g i d , f i x e d image o f t h e CES in
t h e i r communications.

Legislators c lea rly

indicated

a preference

91

for

in teraction

and

communication

at

the

local

level.

The

in f o r m a t io n th e y r e c e i v e l o c a l l y would be v a r i e d and r i c h because i t
would not be shaped, f i l t e r e d ,

o r c o n t r o l l e d as i t could be a t th e

s ta te adm inistrative lev el.
In h i s book S e l f - R e n e w a l . Gardner (1981) ad dre sse d t h e need f o r
o r g a n i z a t i o n s t o shake o f f t h e i r r i g i d s t r u c t u r e and f o r t o p - l e v e l
managers t o throw o f f t h e s h a c k l e s o f f i l t e r e d

e x p e r i e n c e s and to

g e t in touch with t h e raw d a t a o f t h e i r o r g a n i z a t i o n s .

Legislators

seemed t o r e c o g n i z e t h i s need as th e y e x p re ss e d a d e s i r e t o r e c e i v e
communication

directly

from t h e

local

level.

A state-supported

o r g a n i z a t i o n such as t h e CES must heed G a rd n er ’ s a dv ic e :
self-renewing

organization

renewing i n d i v i d u a l s .
the

organization,

must

see

itself

as

that

comprising

a

self-

I t must keep pace w it h t h e changing needs of

the

individuals

w ithin

the

organization,

the

c l i e n t e l e , and s o c i e t y .
Decision-making and p u b l i c - r e l a t i o n s
need t o

be a c o l l a b o r a t i v e

ma nag em en t,

especially

p r e f e r e n c e f o r pe rs on al
clien tele.

This

proposition th a t,

is

v e n tu re

e f f o r t s with l e g i s l a t o r s

between t h e v a r i o u s

because

leg islato rs

c o n t a c t s w ith l o c a l
sim ilar

to

when s e a r c h i n g

P eters

levels

indicated

of

th eir

CES s t a f f members and
and

W at e rm a n’ s

for excellence,

(19 82)

one should

"stay

c l o s e t o t h e customer" and P e t e r s and A u s t i n ’ s (1985) concept o f th e
adaptive organ izatio n .
Methods

of

communications

with

legislators

need

planned and o r c h e s t r a t e d i f th e y a r e t o be e f f e c t i v e .

to

be

well

Nonpersonal

92
and pe rs on al

c o n t a c t s need t o be planned so t h a t

method i s used f o r t h e d e s i r e d r e s u l t - - t h a t i s ,

the

appropriate

nonpersonal-contact

methods f o r d e t a i l e d and t e c h n i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n , and p e r s o n a l - c o n t a c t
methods t o i n f l u e n c e a t t i t u d e s and v a l u e s .
be

used

wit h

legislators

so

the y

would

r a p i d l y as f i e l d s t a f f and c l i e n t e l e .
e v en ts

with

clientele

inv ol ve d .

This

E l e c t r o n i c media could
receive

the

as

However, p a r t i c i p a t i n g in CES

would allow l e g i s l a t o r s

illustrates

information

"high t e c h ,

to
high

feel

personally

touch"

approach

d i s c u s s e d by N a i s b i t t (1982) in Megatrends.
I f local
legislators,
u n d e rt a k e n ,
low

age

s t a f f ar e t o be more involved in communications with
i n - d e p th

pla nning

particularly

and

for

s t a f f development

e x p er ie n c e

(1972),

and

be

in view o f th e t u r n o v e r in s t a f f and th e
le v e l

of

many new s t a f f

members.

p r i n c i p l e s o f a d u l t l e a r n i n g espoused by Cross (1978),
Knowles

needs t o

A slanian

and

Brickel

(1980)

The

Knowles and
need

to

be

c o n s i d e r e d in t h i s p r o c e s s .
Newer,

less

Resources/Public
identity,

trad itio n al
P o li c y ,

need

p ro gr am
time

to

in o r d e r to be p e rc ei v e d as

areas,

such

develop

and

important.

as

N atural

establish
The g o a l s

an
and

o b j e c t i v e s o f such a program a re a need t o be c l e a r l y d e f i n e d so t h a t
t h e program’ s i d e n t i t y can be communicated.
From t h i s
legislato rs

s tu dy ,

viewed

organization.

it

became

evident

th e

CIS

prim arily

Perhaps

the

word

as

to

the

an

unlike

that

agriculture-related

"agriculture"

and m e a s u r a b l e ,

researcher

is

perceived

as

something

tangible

human d e v e l o p m e n t ,

nutrition,

l e a d e r s h i p , and p u b l i c p o l i c y , which have more a b s t r a c t

93

connotations.
lives,

Perhaps a g r i c u l t u r e i s more c e n t r a l

and t h e y see

it

as

a t t a c h more importance t o
strong

lobbyin g g ro u p s ,

agricultural

a business
it.

such

or a l i v e l i h o o d

In a d d i t i o n ,
as t h e

o r g a n i z a t i o n s ’ budget

to l e g i s l a t o r s ’
and hence

agriculture

Farm

Bureau,

requests,

has many

which

which

are

future

of

sup por t

basically

n o n e x i s t e n t f o r o t h e r program a r e a s .
In r e f l e c t i n g
research er finds
Change:
existing

Fac t

or

on t h i s

study

and

the

B o y l e ’ s (19 89) comments
Fiction"

structures

and

appropriate:
traditional

in

"Extension

"We’ r e

linkages

CES,

se e in g t h e Extension System [CES] as i t might be ."

System

preoccu pie d

that

blind

the

us

with
from

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
MAPS OF LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS AND CES ADMINISTRATIVE REGIONS

94

SENA TORIAL
DISTRICTS
A pportionm ent and Districting
Plan of 1 9 8 2

i 37

33,

!30

95

REPRESENTA TIVE
DISTRICTS
APPORTIONMENT AND DISTRICTING
PLAN OF 1982

110

108

107

106

103 i

104 '

105
98
102
96.

89

55.

95

,

9094

43.
44

‘ MACOMB —

DISTRICTS 2 5 ,2 6 ,7 0 -7 5

“ OAKLAND —

DISTRICTS 2 0 ,2 4 ,6 0 -6 9

••’WAYNE — DISTRICTS 1-17, 2 7 -3 8

79-83

56
4648

85. 86.;
100 p —

88

54
45

101

49

**

5759
2 3 . 50

84

22.

52, 53
40

96

MICHIGAN CES
S U P E R V IS O R Y R E G IO N S

U P PE R PENINSULA

•« *

8782^783

NORTH

[;i EAST CENTRAL
;r^'
<

WEST CENTRAL

0

l& jd r

SO UTHW EST

SOUTHEAST
• T h e s t a t e is d iv id e d in to six s u p e r v i s o r y r e g io n s .

APPENDIX B
THE INTERVIEW SCHEDULE (RESEARCH INSTRUMENT)

PRE-INTERVIEW SCHEDULE DATA COLLECTION
S e c t i o n 0.

Personal Dat a/Selected Factors About Michigan Legislators

1.

Name of Legislator

2.

P o s i t i o n d u r i n g t h e 1 98 6 L e g i s l a t u r e
Senator
Representative

3.

Political Party
Democrat

4.

Code #

Republican

Legislative District Represented_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
C o u n t i e s i n c l u d e d t o t a l l y o r in p a r t in L e g i s l a t o r ' s D i s t r i c t

C.E.S. S u p e r v i s o r y Region rep resen ted
UP
5.
6.

Age of Leg islat or _ _ _ _ _ _

7.

Race of L e g i s l a t o r

9.
10.

11.
12.
13.

_ __
___
____
East
West
South
Central Central West

South
East

Sex of Leg islat or
MaTe

8.

____
North

^
Wh ite

Pemale

B1ack

^
Indian

Spanish

H i g h e s t a c a d e m i c lev el c o m p l e t e d in s c h o o l :
H i g h school
Attended college, but did not complete a degree
4 - y e a r c o l l e g e g r a d u a t e (n a m e o f inst.
Graduate Degree Masters
Ph.D.
P r o f e s s i o n a l sch ool g r a d u a t e (ex. l a w s c h o o l )

_
Asian

Other

; major

)

H o w m a n y y e a r s h a s l e g i s l a t o r s e r v e d in M i c h i g a n L e g i s l a t u r e ?
# years
Is l e g i s l a t o r a c a n d i d a t e f o r r e - e l e c t i o n t o o n e o f t h e c h a m b e r s o f t h e
_ _ _ _ No
M i c h i g a n L e g i s l a t u r e ? _ _ _ _ Yes
If y e s , w h i c h c h a m b e r ?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____
Has l e g i s l a t o r s e r v e d on t h e H o u s e / S e n a t e A g r i c u l t u r e C o m m i t t e e ? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No" Yes ¥ Y r s .
H as l e g i s l a t o r s e r v e d on t h e H o u s e / S e n a t e H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n C o m m i t t e e ? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
N o Y es ¥ Y r s .
H a s l e g i s l a t o r s e r v e d on t h e H o u s e / S e n a t e A p p r o p r i a t i o n s C o m m i t t e e ? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No Y es # Y r s .

98
INTERVIEW SCHEDULE
A Study of Michigan Legislators' Perceptions
of the Michigan Cooperative Extension Sevice
The purpose of this i nt ervie w
is t o f i n d
o u t if t h e
Cooperative Extension
S e r v i c e h a s d o n e an e f f e c t i v e j o b o f c o m m u n i c a t i n g w i t h y o u . We'll a l s o be
d i s c u s s i n g h o w m u c h c o n t a c t C o o p e r a t i v e E x t e n s i o n S e r v i c e has had w i t h
y o u / y o u ' v e h a d w i t h C o o p e r a t i v e E x t e n s i o n S e r v i c e . In s u m m a r y , t h i s is f e e d b a c k
t h a t will b e v a l u a b l e t o C o o p e r a t i v e E x t e n s i o n S e r v i c e in e v a l u a t i n g t h e i r
communications efforts with legislators.
Section I . - Background
( B r i e f oral r e v i e w o f p e r s o n a l

data with

legislator

- S e c t i o n 0.)

As w e s t a r t t h i s i n t e r v i e w , I
would like
legislative dis trict and y o u r background.

to a s k y o u

a few questions

1.

W h a t is t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f u r b a n / r u r a l c o n s t i t u e n c y m a k e - u p o f y o u r
legislative district?
90%
75%
50%
25%
90%

2.

+ urban
u r b a n / 2 5 % rural
u r b a n / 5 0 % rural
u r b a n / 7 5 % rural
+ rural

W h e r e is y o u r p l a c e o f r e s i d e n c e ? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Town
W o u l d y o u c o n s i d e r it t o be:

Rural f a r m
Rur al n o n - f a r m
S m a l 1 t ow n
Suburban
U r b a n (city)

3.

Prior to be c o m i n g a Michigan legislator, wha t was y o u r main occupation?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( R e c o r d a n d c a t e g o r i z e la t e r )

4.

H a v e y o u e v e r s e r v e d in a c o u n t y e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l p o s i t i o n ?
■Ro— T e T "
_____ _
# years
P r i o r t o b e c o m i n g a l e g i s l a t o r , y o u m a y h a v e p a r t i c i p a t e d in v a r i o u s a s p e c t s
o f t h e C o o p e r a t i v e E x t e n s i o n S e r v i c e s u c h as 4 - H c l u b w o r k , c o m m u n i t y
leadership dev elopment, educational meetings, workshops, or tours, related
t o a g r i c u l t u r e , h o r t i c u l t u r e , n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s o r h o m e e c o n o m i c s , e t c . In
y o u r o p i n i o n , t o w h a t e x t e n t d o y o u feel y o u w e r e i n v o l v e d in
Cooperative Extension Service activities?
If y e s , w h a t p o s i t i o n ? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

5.

1
N o t a t al 1
6.

2
Very kittle

3
Somewhat

4
Involved

In w h a t p r o g r a m s o r a c t i v i t i e s w e r e y o u i n v o l v e d ?

5
Highly involved

aboutyour

99
S e c t i o n II. - C o n t a c t s w i t h C o o p e r a t i v e E x t e n s i o n S e r v i c e
T h e r e a r e a n u m b e r o f d i f f e r e n t w a y s t h a t p e o p l e m a y c o m e in c o n t a c t w i t h t h e C o o p e r a t i v e
Extension Service. Would you e s t i m a t e how fre quently you had co n t a c t with the Cooperative
Extension Ser vice d ur ing the p as t y e a r for each of the co n t a c t met hods?

CONTACT METHOD
a.

Not Very
O f t e n (1
Occasionally
N e v e r or 2 t i m e s (3 to 5 t i m e s
(0)
per year)
per year)

Newspaper articles about
Extension programs

0

b.

Radio programs

0

c.

Television programs

0

d.

Loc al E x t e n s i o n n e w s l e t t e r s

0

e.

Extension bulletins/publications

0

f.

V i s i t local E x t e n s i o n o f f i c e

0

g.

T e l e p h o n e local E x t e n s i o n o f f i c e

0

Telephone state Extension office
at M.S.U.

0

Frequently
(6 o r m o r e
tim e s p e r y e a r )

V i s i t w i t h local E x t e n s i o n
staff member/s

0

Once
per year

Twice
per year

3 or more
times/year

A t t e n d o r p a r t i c i p a t e in
an E x t e n s i o n p r o g r a m / e v e n t

0

Once
per year

Twice
per year

3 or more
times/year

A t t e n d local E x t e n s i o n
ev e nt for el e c t e d officials

0

Twice
per year

3 or more
times/year

Attend VIP B r e a k f a s t
a t Ag. E x p o (MSU)

0

Once
per y e a r

Attend Legislative Breakfast
for 4 - H C a p i t o l E x t e n s i o n P r o g r a m

0

Once
per y e a r

n.

P a r t i c i p a t e in C E S
Legislative Tours

0

Once
per year

o.

Personal c o n t a c t with
Extension clientele

0

p.

Letters/visits from
Extension clientele

q.

Others (identify):

Once
per year

NOW PLEASE RANK ORDER THE FIVE M O S T IMPORTANT C ON TACT ME T H O D S WITH CES, F R O M YOUR
VIEWPOINT. (PLACE NUM BER TO LEFT OF CONTACT METHOD.)

100
S E C T I O N III - N E T W O R K I N F O R M A T I O N
1. D u r i n g t h e t i m e y o u h a v e s e r v e d in t h e l e g i s l a t u r e , t o w h a t e x t e n t d o y o u
feel y o u h a v e r e c e i v e d a d e q u a t e i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m t h e C o o p e r a t i v e
Extension Service?

2.

1

2

3

4

5

N o t a t all

Poor

Average

Good

Excellent

R a n k o r d e r t h e 3 m o s t u s e f u l t y p e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n y o u w o u l d l i k e to r e c e i v e .
Statistics/data
Specific success stories
Broad accomplishment reports
C o u n t y An n u a l R e p o r t s
S t a t e An n u a l R e p o r t s
Announcements of new programs
Ot h e r . I d e n t i f y _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

3.

R a n k o r d e r t h e 3 s o u r c e s f r o m w h i c h y o u w o u l d p r e f e r to r e c e i v e C E S i n f o r m a t i o n .
County Extension offices
State Extension offices
M.S.U. Information Services
Legislative Research offices
Other. Identify _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

4.

I n d i c a t e w h e n y o u w o u l d p r e f e r to r e c e i v e i n f o r m a t i o n . ( I n d i c a t e y o u r 3
p r e f e r e n c e s .)
At the beg innin g of the y e a r
On a r e g u l a r b a s i s ( q u a r t e r l y )
When n ew programs are being developed
A t t h e t i m e t h e l e g i s l a t u r e is d i s c u s s i n g i s s u e s r e l a t e d to
Extension's expertise
P r i m a r i l y w h e n y o u r e q u e s t it
Other.

5.

Identify

Are there any com ments y o u ' d like to mak e regarding rec eivin g information
f r o m C . E . S . ? ( R e c o r d a n d c a t e g o r i z e la t e r )

101

S E C T I O N IV —

PERCEPTION OF C O O PERAT IVE EXT ENSIO N SERVICE P RO GRAM THRUSTS

T h e d e f i n i t i o n o f p r o g r a m t h r u s t f or t h i s s t u d y is t h e d i r e c t i o n in w h i c h t h e
M i c h i g a n C o o p e r a t i v e E x t e n s i o n S e r v i c e will f o c u s its p r o g r a m m i n g e f f o r t s .
P l e a s e r a t e t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t s on p r o g r a m t h r u s t s in p r o g r a m a r e a s o f
C o o p e r a t i v e E x t e n s i o n S e r v i c e a c c o r d i n g to t h e d e g r e e o f e m p h a s i s y o u feel t he y
s h o u l d r e c e i v e . A r a t i n g o f 5 i n d i c a t e s t h e t o p i c s h o u l d r e c e i v e a h i g h d e g r e e of
emp hasis while a rating of one indicates the topic should not receive emphasis.
Of
Not
Not very Sane
Very Extremely
Inportant Inportant Inportance Inportant Inportant Inportant

C oo perat ive Extension Service should:
1. C o u n s e l f a r m f a m i l i e s f a c e d w i t h
fin an c i a l c r i s i s .
2. P r o v i d e y o u t h p r o g r a m s in l e a d e r ­
shi p, c i t i z e n s h i p , a n d w o r l d
understanding.
3. C o n d u c t e d u c a t i o n a l p r o g r a m s o n t h e
management of forest resources
for t h e e c o n o m i c d e v e l o p ­
m e n t of Michigan.
4. P r o v i d e u p - t o - d a t e i n f o r m a t i o n
on f o o d p r e s e r v a t i o n a n d f o o d
safety.
5. P r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n a n d e d u c a t i o n a l
p r o g r a m s o n p e s t i c i d e s a f e t y a nd
certification.
6. P r o v i d e y o u t h w i t h o p p o r t u n i t i e s
to e n h a n c e s e l f - e s t e e m a n d
develop responsibility through
relevant projects.
7. P r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n a n d e d u c a t i o n a l
programs on solid and hazardous
waste management.
8. A s s i s t l o w i n c o m e f a m i l i e s w i t h
wise use of their food dollars
for i m p r o v e d n u t r i t i o n .
9. C o n d u c t
promote
tillage
erosion

educational programs that
crop residue m a n a g e m e n t and
s y s t e m s w h i c h r e d u c e soil
and improve water quality.

102

Of
Not
Not very
Sore
Very Extrerely
Inportant Inportant Inportance Inportant Inportant Inportant

10. P r o v i d e l e a d e r s h i p t r a i n i n g f o r
adult volunteers.
11. P r o v i d e p a r e n t e d u c a t i o n a n d c h i l d
developm ent programs.
12. P r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n a n d e d u c a t i o n a l
p r o g r a m s on s u r f a c e a n d g r o u n d
water quality and non-point source
pollution control.
13. A s s i s t in r e g a i n i n g p r o f i t a b i l i t y
in M i c h i g a n a g r i c u l t u r e .
14. A s s i s t y o u n g p e o p l e w i t h t h e
e x p l o r a t i o n a n d e v a l u a t i o n of
career and job opportunities.
15. P r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n a n d e d u c a t i o n a l
p r o g r a m s t h a t will e n h a n c e t h e h e a l t h /
w e l l n e s s o f all f a m i l y m e m b e r s .
15. P r o v i d e e d u c a t i o n a l p r o g r a m s f o r
local g o v e r n m e n t o f f i c i a l s .
In y o u r o p i n i o n , h o w w o u l d y o u r a t e t h e o v e r a l l e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e C o o p e r a t i v e
Extension Service?
1
Not
Effective

2

3

SIightly
Effective

4

5

Somewhat Effective
Very
Effective
Effective

5
Extremely
Effective

This com pletes the int ervie w que stion s I have for you . Are there any other
points con cerning the Michigan Coo perative Ext ensio n Service which we have
n o t t a l k e d a b o u t t h a t y o u feel a r e i m p o r t a n t t o d i s c u s s ?

I truly appreciate y o u r time and cooperation.
#

#

#

APPENDIX C
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES

103

Table C . l . - - I n t e r v i e w items f o r each v a r i a b l e .
Combined V a r i a b l e

Individual Variable

F a m i l i a r i t y With
t h e CES

Frequency o f nonpersonal
contacts
Frequency o f p e rs on al c o n t a c t s
P r i o r involvement with t h e CES
L e g i s l a t i v e comm, e x p e r i e n c e

Im port anc e/
Effectiveness

Pe rc e iv ed importance o f A g./
Marketing program t h r u s t s
Pe rc e iv ed importance o f 4-H
Youth program t h r u s t s
Per c e iv ed importance o f Exten­
si o n Home Economics program
thrusts
Pe rc e iv ed importance o f Natural
R es o u rc e s/ P u b li c Poli cy
program t h r u s t s
Pe rc e iv ed e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f th e
CES

Section/Items

Il.a-e
II.f-k,o,p
1.5
0 .1 1 b ,1 2 b ,1 3 b ,
1.4b
IV .1 , 5 , 9 , 1 3
IV .2 , 6 , 1 0 , 1 4
IV.4 , 8 , 1 1 , 1 5
IV.3 , 7 , 1 2 , 1 6
IV. 17

So c io- de mo gra phic /O rga niz at i o n a l F a c to r s
Age
Educa tional l e v e l
Pla ce o f r e s i d e n c e
P r i o r oc cu p a ti o n -E d . r e l a t e d
P r i o r occupation-Ag. r e l a t e d
P o s i t i o n in l e g i s l a t u r e
P o litic a l party
U r b a n / r u r a l c o n s t i t u e n c y make-up
L e g i s l a t i v e y e a r s s er ved
P e r c e iv e d Adequacy o f
In fo rm a ti o n

0 .6
0 .8 a
1.2
I.3b
I . 3d
0.2
0.3
1.1
0 .9

III.l

104
Table C .2 . --Combined v a r i a b l e s f o r importance o f program t h r u s t s /
e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e CES.
Combined V a r i a b l e
N

No. of
Items

Mean3

S.D.

Average A g r i c u l t u r e / M a r k e t i n g
program t h r u s t s

56

4

5.03

0.666

Average 4-H Youth program t h r u s t s

57

4

4.46

0.983

Average Extension Home Economics
program t h r u s t s

57

4

4.22

0.984

Average Natural R e s o u r c e s / P u b l i c
Po li cy program t h r u s t s

57

4

4.44

0.836

Overall e f f e c t i v e n e s s

56

1

4.73

0.944

aRating s c a l e :

6 = Extremely im p o r ta n t
5 = Very i m p o r ta n t
4 = Impo rtant

3 = Of some importance
2 = Not very im po rt ant
1 = Not im port an t

105
Table C .3 . --Combined v a r i a b l e s f o r f a m i l i a r i t y .
Combined V a r ia b le
N

No. of
Items

Mean

S.D.

aAverage nonpersonal c o n t a c t s

60

5

1.63

0.750

aAverage p e rs o na l c o n t a c t s

60

8

1.15

0.684

^Average p r i o r involvement in t h e CES

60

1

2.85

1.482

cAverage l e g i s l a t i v e comm, e x p er ie n c e

60

4

1.95

0.832

^Scale :

5
4
3
2
1

aS c a l e :

3
2
1
0

=
=
=
=

F r e q u e n tl y
Occasionally
Not very o ft e n
Never

cScale:

3 = 7-32 y e a r s
2 = 1 - 6 years
1 = 0 years

=
=
=
=
=

Highly involve d
Involved
Somewhat
Very l i t t l e
Not a t a l l

Table C .4 . --Average r a t i n g f o r adequacy o f in fo r m a t io n r e c e i v e d .

N
Adequacy o f i n fo r m a t io n r e c e i v e d
aS c a l e :

5
4
3
2
1

=
=
=
=
=

Excellent
Good
Average
Poor
Not a t a l l

58

No. of
Items
1

Mean3
3.72

S.D.
1.167

Table C.5.--Legislators’ ratings of importance of Agriculture/Marketing program thrusts
(N = 57)
Rating a ( i n %)
Item No./Program Thr ust
2

3

1.8

--

5. Provide in fo rm at io n and ed uca­
t i o n a l programs on p e s t i c i d e
s a f e t y and c e r t i f i c a t i o n

--

1 .8

9. Conduct e d u c a ti o n a l program t h a t
promote crop r e s i d u e management
and t i l l a g e systems which reduce
s o i l e r o s io n and improve water
quality

00

00

--

--

Mean

S.D.

31.6

4.97

0.999

40.4

33.3

4.98

0.954

22.8

45.6

26.3

4.88

1.001

8.9

39.4

46.4

5 .2 7 b

0.842

4

5

6

5.3

17.5

43.9

5.3

19.3

r—

1
Cooperative Extension S e rv ic e should:
1. Counsel farm f a m i l i e s faced
with f i n a n c i a l c r i s i s .

aSca le:

1 = Not important
2 = Not very impor tant
3 = Of some importance

5.4

GO

13. A s s i s t in r e g a i n i n g p r o f i t a b i l i t y
in Michigan a g r i c u l t u r e

4 = Important
5 = Very impor tant
6 = Extremely impor tant

b0ne l e g i s l a t o r i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h i s program t h r u s t was too gener al t o respond.

Table C.6.--Legislators’ ratings of importance of 4-H Youth program thrusts (N = 57).
Rating a ( i n %)
Mean

S.D.

33.3

4.63

1.291

22.8

31.6

4.61

1.264

43.9

12.3

22.8

4.35

1.094

33.3

22.8

19.3

4.23

1.286

Item No./Program Thr ust
1

2

1.8

7.0

1.8

3

4

5

6

5.3

31.6

21.1

5.3

8 .8

29.8

--

1.8

19.3

3.5

5.3

15.8

Cooperative Extension S e rv ic e should:
2. Provide youth programs on th e
management o f f o r e s t re s o u r c e s
f o r th e economic development
of Michigan
6. Provide youth with o p p o r t u n i t i e s
to enhance s e l f - e s t e e m and
develop r e s p o n s i b i l i t y through
relevant projects
10. Provide l e a d e r s h i p t r a i n i n g f o r
adult volunteers
14. A s s i s t young people with th e
e x p l o r a t i o n and e v a l u a t i o n of
c a r e e r and jo b o p p o r t u n i t i e s
aSc a le :

1 = Not impor tant
2 = Not very important
3 = Of some importance

4 = Important
5 = Very impor tant
6 = Extremely impor tant

Table C.7.--Legislators’ ratings of importance of Extension Home Economics program thrusts
(N = 57).
Rating a ( i n %)
Item No./Program Thr ust

Mean

S.D.

14.0

4.32

1.038

35.1

28.1

4.67

1.258

40.4

10.5

10.5

3.75

1.229

40.4

24.6

12.3

4.16

1.162

1

2

3

4

5

6

1.8

1.8

12.3

45.6

24.6

3.5

3.5

7.0

22.8

5.3

7.0

26.3

3 .5

3.5

15.8

Cooperative Extension S e rv ic e should:
4. Provide u p - t o - d a t e in fo rm at io n on
food p r e s e r v a t i o n and food s a f e t y
8. A s s i s t low-income f a m i l i e s with
wise use o f t h e i r food d o l l a r s
f o r improved n u t r i t i o n
11. Provide p a r e n t e duca tio n and
c h i l d development programs
15. Provide in fo rm at io n and educa­
t i o n a l programs t h a t w i l l
enhance t h e h e a l t h / w e l l n e s s of
a l l family members
aSc a le :

1 = Not impor tant
2 = Not very impor tant
3 = Of some importance

4 = Important
5 = Very important
6 = Extremely impo rtan t

Table C.8.--Legislators’ ratings of importance of Natural Resources/Public Policy program
thrusts (N = 57).
Rating a ( in %)
Mean

S.D.

15.8

4.49

0.947

Item No./Program Th ru st
1

2

3

4

5

6

15.8

35.1

33.3

Cooperative Extension S e rv ic e should:
3. Conduct e d u c a ti o n a l programs
on th e management o f f o r e s t
re s o u r c e s f o r th e economic
development o f Michigan
7. Provide in fo rm at io n and educa­
t i o n a l programs on s o l i d and
hazardous waste management
12. Provide in fo rm at io n and educa­
t i o n a l programs on s u r f a c e and
ground w ater q u a l i t y and non­
p o in t source p o l l u t i o n co n tr o l
16. Provide e d u c a ti o n a l programs
f o r lo c al government o f f i c i a l s
aSc a le :

1 = Not impor tant
2 = Not very impor tant
3 = Of some importance

--

--

3.5

10.5

24.6

33.3

28.1

4.72

1.098

1.8

1.8

14.0

22.8

35.1

24.6

4.61

1.161

3.5

5.3

26.3

35.1

17.5

12.3

3.95

1.216

4 = Important
5 = Very important
6 = Extremely impo rtan t

Table C.9.--Legislators’ ratings of the overall effectiveness of the CES (N = 56).
R at ing 3 ( i n %)

Overall e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e CES

a Sc a le :

1 = Not e f f e c t i v e
2 = Slightly effectiv e
3 = Somewhat e f f e c t i v e

1

2

0

1 .8

3

8.9

4

5

6

23.2

46.4

19.6

4 = Effective
5 = Very e f f e c t i v e
6 = Extremely e f f e c t i v e

Mean

S.D.

4.73

0.944

Table C.10.--Legislators’ perceptions of frequency of nonpersonal contacts with the CES
during the past year (N = 60).
Frequency a ( i n %)
Contact Method
0

1

2

3

Mean

S.D.

Newspaper a r t i c l e s about Extension programs

10.0

20.0

41.7

28.3

1.88

0.940

Radio programs

33.3

18.3

25.0

23.3

1.38

1.180

T e l e v i s i o n programs

53.3

25.0

16.7

5.0

0.73

0.918

Local Extension n e w s l e t t e r s

11.7

13.3

31.7

43.3

2.07

1.023

Extension b u l l e t i n s / p u b l i c a t i o n s

10.0

11.7

36.7

41.7

2.10

0.969

aSca le:

0
1
2
3

=
=
=
=

Never
Not very o f t e n (1-2 t i m e s / y e a r )
O c c a si o n a ll y (3-5 t i m e s / y e a r )
Fr eq u e n tl y (6 or more t i m e s / y e a r )

Tab l e C . 1 1 . - - L e g i s l a t o r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f f r e q u e n c y o f per sonal c o n t a c t s w i t h t he C ES
d u r i n g t h e p as t y e a r (H - 60).
F r e q u e n c y 1a (in

%)

Contact Method

Mean

S.D.

8.3

0.9 2

0.979

2 5. 0

15.0

1.20

1.086

3 1. 7

18.3

3.3

0.78

0.865

26.7

13.3

30.0

3 0. 0

1.63

1. 1 7 8

At t e n d or p a r t i c i p a t e in an E x t e n s i o n
pr o g r a m / e v e n t

23.3

35. 0

26.7

15.0

1.33

1.003

A t t e n d local E x t e n s i o n eve n t for e l e c t e d
of f i c i a l s

50.0

3 3. 3

1 5. 0

1.7

0.68

0.7 92

At t e n d V IP b r e a k f a s t at Ag. Expo (MSU)

68. 3

31.7

--

--

0 .3 2

0.469

A t t e n d l e g i s l a t i v e b r e a k f a s t f or 4-H
Capitol E x t e n s i o n P r o g r a m

53.3

4 6. 7

- -

- -

0 .4 7

0.5 03

P a r t i c i p a t e in C E S l e g i s l a t i v e tou rs

7 5. 0

2 5. 0

--

--

0.25

1.0 66

Personal c o n t a c t w i t h E x t e n s i o n c l i e n t e l e

25.0

18.3

3 8. 3

18.3

1 .5 0

1.066

Letters/visits from Extension clientele

21.7

21.7

3 5. 0

21.7

1.57

1.064

O th ers

58.3

2 5. 0

15.0

1.7

.60

0.8 07

0

1

2

V is i t local E x t e n s i o n o f f i c e s

4 3. 3

30.0

18.3

T e l e p h o n e local E x t e n s i o n o f f i c e

35.0

25.0

T e l e p h o n e sta t e E x t e n s i o n o f f i c e

46. 7

Vis i t w i t h local E x t e n s i o n s t a f f m e m b e r s

a Scale:

0
1
2
3

=
=
=
=

Never
N ot v e r y o f t e n (1-2 t i m es/ye ar)
O c c a s i o n a l l y (3-5 t i m e s/ye ar)
F r e q u e n t l y (6 o r m o r e tim e s / y e a r )

3

Table C.12.--Legislators’ ratings of adequacy of information received from the CES
(N = 58).
R at in g3 ( i n %)
1

Adequacy o f Information Received

aS c a le :

1 = Not a t a l l
2 = Poor
3 = Average

5.2

2

3

8 .6

4 = Good
5 = E x c e ll e n t

27.6

4

25.9

Mean

S.D

3.72

1.167

5

32.8

APPENDIX D
CORRESPONDENCE

114

W-629 Owen Graduate C en te r
Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
E a s t La ns in g, MI 48825-1109
June 6, 1986

<ADDRESS>
Dear <NAME>:
I am a d o c t o r a l c a n d i d a t e a t Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y and my d o c t o r a l
r e s e a r c h fo c u s es on l e g i s l a t o r s ' p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e Michigan S t a t e
U n i v e r s i t y C ooper ati ve E xt ens ion S e r v i c e .
Your name has been randomly s e l e c t e d from a s t r a t i f i e d sample of Michigan
l e g i s l a t o r s t o be in c lu d e d in t h i s s tu dy. Your p e r c e p t i o n s and res po ns e s
a r e ex tre m el y i m p o r t a n t t o t h e s u c c e s s f u l completion o f t h i s p r o j e c t . The
s tu dy fo c u s es on c ha nn e ls o f communication between t h e Co operative Extension
S e r v i c e and l e g i s l a t o r s as well as l e g i s l a t o r s ' p e r c e p t i o n s o f the
importance o f v a r i o u s program t h r u s t s .
Within t h e n e x t few days I w i l l be c o n t a c t i n g you to sched ule a 20-30 minute
i n t e r v i e w . You can be a s s u r e d t h a t you r anonymity w il l be observed and t h a t
th e i d e n t i t y o f a l l l e g i s l a t o r s in t h i s st ud y w il l be t r e a t e d in a
c o n f i d e n t i a l manner.
Enclosed i s a l e t t e r o f s u p p o r t f o r t h i s stu dy from Dr. Marylee Da vis,
A s s i s t a n t Vice P r e s i d e n t f o r A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of P ub li c A f f a i r s o f Michigan
S tate U niversity.
Thank you in advance f o r y o u r c o o p e r a t i o n and time. I look forward to
v i s i t i n g with you a bout t h e Michigan Coop er ati ve Extension S e r v i c e .
S incerely,

Mary E. Wahl
Ph.D. Candidate
Ad ult and Continuing Edu cation
Enclo su re

115

MICHIGAN

STATE U N IV E R SIT Y

OFFICE OF STATE AND PIBLIC AFFAIRS

EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN • 48824-1046

484 ADMINISTRATION B lILD IN G

June 6, 1986

<ADDRESS>
Dear <NAME>:
This l e t t e r i s t o i n t r o d u c e you t o Mary E. Wahl, a d o c t o r a l c a n d i d a t e a t
Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , whose r e s e a r c h t o p i c i s e n t i t l e d "Deter mi nan ts o f
L e g i s l a t o r s ' P e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e Coop era ti ve Extens ion S e r v i c e . "
You have been s e l e c t e d t o be in te r v ie w e d as p a r t o f t h i s i m p o r t a n t s t u d y .
The s t r a t i f i e d sample r e p r e s e n t s l e g i s l a t o r s from r u r a l , urban and mixed
c o n s t i t u e n c i e s and i n c l u d e s a t o t a l o f 68 l e g i s l a t o r s .
Ms. Wahl i s keen ly aware o f t h e a c c e l e r a t e d sch ed u le t h e l e g i s l a t i v e
l e a d e r s h i p has agreed upon; however, i t i s most i m p o r t a n t t h a t she meet with
each l e g i s l a t o r in t h e sample.
I know you w i l l f i n d Ms. Wahl p l e a s a n t , t r u s t w o r t h y and co mpeten t. You may
be a s s u r e d your re s p o n s e s w i l l be handled wit h complete anonymity. In
b e h a l f o f Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y and t h e C oo per at iv e Ex te ns ion S e r v i c e ,
we s i n c e r e l y thank you in advance f o r y o u r a s s i s t a n c e .
Yours t r u l y ,

Marylee D a v is , Ph.D.
A s s i s t a n t Vice P r e s i d e n t
and
A ssociate Professor
C o lle ge and U n i v e r s i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n
MD:bw

116

House of Representatives
MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER

LANSING. MICHIGAN 4 8 9 0 9

C O M M IT T E E S ON

86 T M D IST R IC T

LEWIS N. DO D A K

H O U S E O V E R S IG H T . CHAIR

S T A T E C A PIT O L

LEG ISLA TIV E CO U N CIL

LA N SIN G . M IC H IG A N 4 8 9 0 9
TELEPH O N E 1 5 1 7 1 3 7 3 0 6 3 7

June

TO

MY

9,

1986

COLLEAGUES:

I w o u l d l i k e t h i s to s e r v e as a l e t t e r of
i n t r o d u c t i o n to m y c o n s t i t u e n t , M a r y W a h l , w h o
is c o m p l e t i n g h e r d o c t o r a t e at M i c h i g a n S t a t e
Univers i t y .
I wo uld a p p r e c i a t e your taking a few moment s
to a l l o w M a r y to i n t e r v i e w y o u as p a r t of h e r
d o c t o r a l r e s e a r c h o n t h e t o p i c " D e t e r m i n a n t s of
L e g i s l a t o r s ' P e r c e p t i o n s of the C o o p e r a t i v e E x ­
tension Service."
Thank

you

for

this

courtesy.
incerely

LEWIS
LND/da

N.

DODAK

117

THE siN A T E
LANSIN&ifllCHIGAN
JA M E S A. BA RCIA
34TH DISTRICT

A S S IS T A N T M INORITY W H IP

?

STA TE CA PITO L

t \

M EM BER
A G R IC U L T U R E A N D F O R E S T R Y

LA N SIN G . M IC H IG A N 4 8 9 0 9

ST A T E A F F A IR S . V E T E R A N S . A N D T R A N S P O R T A T IO N

(5 1 7 )3 7 3 -1 7 7 7

ED U C A T IO N A N D H EA LTH

June 11, 1986

Dear

Colleague:

your

I w o u l d l i k e to t a k e t h i s o p p o r t u n i t y to r e s p e c t f u l l y ask
c o o p e r a t i o n a n d a s s i s t a n c e on b e h a l f of Ms. M a r y W a h l .

Ms. W a h l is a d o c t o r a l c a n d i d a t e at M i c h i g a n S t a t e
University.
S h e is c u r r e n t l y c o n d u c t i n g r e s e a r c h for her t h e s i s
t o p i c e n t i t l e d " D e t e r m i n a n t s of L e g i s l a t o r s ' P e r c e p t i o n s of the
Cooperative Extension Service."
The study will focus upon
c h a n n e l s of c o m m u n i c a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e C o o p e r a t i v e E x t e n s i o n
S erv i ce and legislators.
It w o u l d be e x t r e m e l y h e l p f u l to Ms. W a h l if y o u w o u l d g r a n t
h e r a f e w m i n u t e s of y o u r t i m e t o b e i n t e r v i e w e d for her r e s e a r c h .
T h e e n t i r e i n t e r v i e w s h o u l d l a s t no l o n g e r t h a n t w e n t y to t h i r t y
m i n u t e s a n d y o u r p a r t i c i p a t i o n w o u l d a s s i s t h e r in c o m p l e t i n g t his
i m p o r t a n t study.
T h a n k you v e r y m u c h for c o n s i d e r i n g t h i s r e q u e s t .
c o o p e r a t i o n a n d a s s i s t a n c e is g r e a t l y a p p r e c i a t e d .
Witlwwarm

regards

J a m e s A. B a r c i a
atatl Senator
3 * U r District

JAB/mss/s

Your

118

W-629 Owen Graduate Center
Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
Eas t Lansing, MI 48825-1109
<DATE>

<ADDRESS>
Dear <NAME>:

:

Thank you very much f o r allow ing me a few minutes from your very busy
sc h e d u le t o v i s i t about your communications and c o n t a c t s wit h t h e
Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Coop erati ve Extension S e r v i c e . Your
p a r t i c i p a t i o n in my d o c t o r a l r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t i s g r e a t l y a p p r e c i a t e d .
P l e a s e extend my s i n c e r e a p p r e c i a t i o n t o <ASSISTANT>, who was so h e l p f u l
in a r r a n g i n g our i n t e r v i e w tim e.
Besides completing my r e s e a r c h i n t e r v i e w s , I have le a r n e d a g r e a t deal
by being a t t h e S t a t e L e g i s l a t u r e du ring t h i s very busy t i m e . Most of
a l l I have gained an enormous amount of r e s p e c t and a d m i r a t i o n f o r s t a t e
l e g i s l a t o r s and your d e d i c a t i o n t o t h e w e l l - b e i n g o f Michigan c i t i z e n s .
Sincerely,

Mary E. Wahl
Ph.D. Candidate
Adult and Continuing Education

APPENDIX E
RESPONSES TO OPEN-ENDED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

119

Responses to Open-Ended Questions
Section III--Network Information--Question 5:
Are there any
comments you would l ik e to make regarding receivin g information
from the Cooperative Extension Service?
Would 1 ike t o be a dv ise d o f CES s p ea k e rs a v a i l a b l e on c u r r e n t and
f u t u r i s t i c i s s u e s - - s u c h as p u b l i c a f f a i r s t o p i c s .
I ’ve had a good flow o f in fo r m a t io n from t h e county o f f i c e s
d i s t r i c t on a r e g u l a r b a s i s . I t ’ s very much a p p r e c i a t e d .

in my

O.K.
Somewhat la c k i n g (however, my a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a s s i s t a n t would r e c e i v e
and handle most i n fo r m a t io n when i t i s r e c e i v e d from CES).
E x c e l l e n t because I g e t a l l I n e e d - - I do n ’ t need any!
Would l i k e t o r e c e i v e a n n u a l l y o r s e m i a n n u a l l y t h e A v a i l a b l e
P u b l i c a t i o n s B u l l e t i n - - D o n ’t t h i n k I ’ ve e v e r r e c e i v e d one.
I would
1 ike to g e t t h e s e out t o my c o n s t i t u e n t s .
Could be b e t t e r !
Most CES in f o r m a t io n I r e c e i v e i s thrown o u t .
I throw out
d i r e c t mail i n fo r m a t io n because i t i s s e l f - s e r v i n g t o CES.

all

In fo rm a tio n I r e c e i v e i s on t a r g e t .
I t ’ s im port ant to g e t CES in f or m at io n t o urban l e g i s l a t o r s .
I l i k e t h e way CES m a t e r i a l [ i n f o r m a t i o n ] i s p r e s e n t e d ; I e s p e c i a l l y
1 ike gra phs.
My b e s t i n fo r m a t io n c o n t a c t i s with _____ , my CED [County Extension
D irector].
O.K.
I ’d l i k e t o r e c e i v e i n fo r m a t io n
youth in t h e i n n e r c i t y .

on CES,

At times I r e c e i v e to o much CES i n f o r m a t i o n .

especially

programs

for

120

I ’d l i k e more d i r e c t c o n t a c t wit h r e c i p i e n t s o f CES programs. I g e t
ve ry l i t t l e d i r e c t c o n t a c t with CES now ( I used t o a few y e a r s ago
when t h e r e was a b l a c k 4-H youth agen t on t h e s t a f f in my c o u n ty ) .
I have nev er had any c o n t a c t from CES e x c e p t perhap s n e w s l e t t e r s ,
which I don’t re a d .
Personal c o n ta c ts
i m p o r ta n t.

with

constituents

in

my d i s t r i c t

are

most

P le a s e don ’ t send more p r i n t e d m a t e r i a l !
I t h r o w o u t j u n k mail t h a t d o e s n ’ t r e f e r
assignm ents.
My s e c r e t a r y would know i f I
i n fo r m a t io n from CES.

t o my c o m m i t t e e
re c e iv e adequate

121

Last question:
Are there any other points concerning the
Michigan Cooperative Extension Service which we have not talked
about that you feel are important to discuss?
I think
g e t to o
Guyer i s
a c o u si n

sometimes t h e CES s t a f f members o v e r s t e p t h e i r b o u n d a r i e s - invol ve d p o l i t i c a l l y such as t h e _____ s i t u a t i o n .
Gordie
a pe rs on al f r i e n d o f mine. He d id a good j o b .
I a l s o had
o f mine in t h e Michigan CES.

CES a g en ts have been e x c e l l e n t as P.R. a g en ts in my d i s t r i c t .
CES
i s used as a r e s o u r c e f r e q u e n t l y by me.
I t h i n k CES should expand
t h e i r p u b l i c (mass media) in a l l a r e a s o f t h e s t a t e .
I ’d e s p e c ia lly
1 ike t o see s o i l e r o s i o n and w a t e r - q u a l i t y programming in s c h o o ls .
I pro ba bly use t h e CES more than any o t h e r l e g i s l a t o r .
CES needs to be more v i s i b l e t o s t a t e l e g i s l a t o r s , p a r t i c u l a r l y th e
new CES S t a t e D i r e c t o r , and I ’ve t a l k e d t o him a t MSU about t h i s !
I ’m very s u p p o r t i v e o f CES. _____ , former CED in _____ County, and
I were c o l l e g e roommates a t MSU. We’ re s t i l l good f r i e n d s .
I Know
, _____ , and _____ w e l l .
They a r e a l l t h r e e CEDs in my
district.
CES needs t o be v i s i b l e t o s t a t e l e g i s l a t o r s .
Gordon Guyer di d a
good j o b wit h l e g i s l a t o r s .
I t ’ s becoming h i g h l y c o m p e t i t i v e f o r
s t a t e d o l l a r s , and CES must become very a s s e r t i v e and very v i s i b l e
to a ll l e g i s l a t o r s .
I t ’ s a good program, but many l e g i s l a t o r s s t i l l
don’ t know i t e x i s t s .
Also, t h e s t a t e may no t always be a b le to
fund CES a t t h e p r e s e n t l e v e l - - t h e county should and must do more in
fundin g! Back in th e 50s t h e r e were l o t s o f l e g i s l a t o r s opposed to
CES because t h e y heard about "basketweaving" and t h a t type of
program. CES must be c a r e f u l t h a t d oe sn ’ t happen again !
CES i s a
very c o s t - e f f e c t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n . They do an e x c e l l e n t j o b with the
r e s o u r c e s th e y have--and I know th e y do n’ t have enough d o l l a r
resources.
I r e a l l y su p p o rt t h e C oo per ati ve Extension S e r v i c e .
I ’m a l s o a big
s u p p o r t e r o f t h e ______ County F a i r and 4-H hors e show.
I ’m always
a t t h e hors e show t o p r e s e n t a tr oph y t o t h e winner.
I do n ’ t r e a l l y know much about CES.
I ’m p r i m a r i l y i n t e r e s t e d
t h i n g s t h a t a r e r e l a t e d t o my J u d i c i a r y Committee ass ignment.
CES should keep in c o n t a c t with l e g i s l a t i v e a i d e s - - l e g i s l a t o r s
to o busy!

in
ar e

122

CES seems t o be a " s i d e k i c k " i n HSU l o b b y i n g and b u d g e t
presentations.
The h i g h - l e v e l MSU o f f i c i a l s app ear no t t o v a lu e
CES.
CES n e e d s t o h e l p fa rm f a m i l i e s become u p - t o - d a t e i n
a g r i c u l t u r a l b u s i n e s s management--that i s no t what i t used t o be.
MSU has l o b b y i s t s , e t c . , down here a t t h e C a pit o l t o g e t what the y
want, but the y don’ t mention CES. I f e e l t h i s i s a d e t r i m e n t t o t h e
Extension S e r v i c e .
CES needs to c r e a t e a g r e a t e r awareness o f i t s o r g a n i z a t i o n and
programs.
I t needs t o l e t l e g i s l a t o r s know how the y as l e g i s l a t o r s
can use CES.
CES should l e t t h e publ i c know what programs i t
pr o v id e s and p u b l i c i z e them more. I ’d 1 ike t o r e c e i v e a c a l e n d a r o f
CES e v e n ts in my county.
CES i s not t h a t big a t h i n g in my a r e a . Not t h a t many people in t h e
urban a r e a know about i t or i t s programs.
CES should do more
marketing o f i t s o r g a n i z a t i o n and i t s programs.
I t should a l s o do
more P.R. with urban f o l k s .
I t h i n k t h e y should g e t t h e county
commissioners t o promote CES t o t h e i r c o n s t i t u e n t s .
I t ’ s hard t o b e l i e v e one can be around here 20 y e a r s and ne ve r even
run over [ i n t o ] someone from CES, but I ne ver have.
I ’ d su g g es t
t h a t CES do more than j u s t lobby t h e members o f t h e A p p r o p r i a t i o n s
Committee!
I t h i n k t h a t CES i s prob ab ly a very e f f e c t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n , maybe
even more than j u s t e f f e c t i v e , but I r e a l l y d o n ’ t know much about
it.
CES i s a good program, t h e kind t h a t peo ple ought t o know ab o u t, but
i t needs t o bemore v i s i b l e a l l over!
I ’d 1 ike t o be more well
rounded, and I ’d 1 ike to
know more about
a g r ic u ltu r a lconcerns.
f i n d th e e a r l y
morning a g r i c u l t u r a l TV program very i n t r i g u i n g .
I ’ ve never been exposed t o problems o f a g r i c u l t u r e .
I ’m p r e s e n t l y
on t h e _____ County CES Advisory Board, but I don ’ t g e t t o a t t e n d
m e et in gs .
I ’m always in Lansing!
P r e s i d e n t DiBiaggio i s going t o be in my home town t h i s F r i d a y .
g ot a l e t t e r from, ______ CED, about t h i s , and I ’m going t o a t t e n d .

I

CES c o n t a c t s a r e a l l s e l f - s e r v i n g P . R . !
I ’ ve always been very impressed with t h e CES program and s t a f f , both
a t t h e s t a t e and county l e v e l s .
They’ ve done a good j o b t o keep me
informed.
I s erv e on t h e _____ County Extension Advisory Board.

I

123

I ’m a very s t r o n g s u p p o r t e r o f t h e 4-H program.
program.
The Extension ag en ts I
subject matter m aterial.

know a re

ve ry

T h a t ’ s an e x c e l l e n t

competent

and

know t h e i r

Dr. A1 House has done an e x c e l l e n t j o b o f a s s i s t i n g t h e House [ o f
R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s ] Taxa tion Committee, which I s e r v e on.
CES does an
e x c e l l e n t j o b in g e n e r a l .
I ’m very s u p p o r t i v e o f CES.
Have heard many good t h i n g s about CES from my c o l l e a g u e s in
S t a t e L e g i s l a t u r e , but I r e a l l y do n’ t know about i t f i r s t - h a n d .

the

I r e a l l y don’t know much about CES, but I h a t e t o not pu t in a good
word f o r _____ [County CED].
I ’m i n t e r e s t e d in knowing more about urban 4-H programs in myc i t y .
CES i s one o f t h e b e s t g r a s s - r o o t s o r g a n i z a t i o n s in Michigan!
CES needs more s e r v i c e s [programs] d i r e c t e d toward urban yo u th .
I r e a l l y don’t know too much about CES because I s e r v e on t h e
A p p r o p r i a t i o n s Committee, so most o f my time and c oncer ns a r e on th e
bud get. I hope CES w i l l keep th o s e " ca rd s and l e t t e r s " coming! CES
has r e a l good m a t e r i a l - - ! keep some o f i t , s h a r e some w it h my fami ly
members [ s o n s ] , and send t h e r e s t t o my l o c a l l i b r a r i e s .
I s e r v e on t h e _____ County 4-H Advisory Board, bu t I don ’ t g e t to
any m e et in gs.
I ’m i n v i t e d t o l o t s o f e v e n t s and meet ings by th e
CES, but I ne ver g e t t o any.
I r e a l l y do n’ t know much about CES in
my d i s t r i c t .
CES needs t o r e l a t e more t o new l e g i s l a t o r s .
h i s f i r s t term o f o f f i c e . ]

[This l e g i s l a t o r

i s in

CES i s a good program.
I t ’ s good when Ex tens ion a g e n t s make
p r e s e n t a t i o n s t o community groups such as Kiwanis, R o ta ry , e t c . One
o f my Extension ag en ts made a p r e s e n t a t i o n on Agent Orange t o a
l o c a l community group. This t o p i c ’ s o f i n t e r e s t in my d i s t r i c t and
local area.
[County CED] has done a good j o b o f keeping t h e t h r e e lo c a l
l e g i s l a t o r s informed.

124

My p a r e n t s [a s f a rm e rs ] d i d n ’ t use CES l i k e I have because th e y
d i d n ’ t need t o .
They d i d n ’ t have t h e farming problems we have had
i n t h e 60s and 70s.
I used CES e x t e n s i v e l y f o r a number o f y e a r s
[ c o n v e r t i n g t o bulk d a i r y t a n k s , e t c . ] .
[An MSU s p e c i a l i s t ] came t o
my farm s e v e r a l tim e s and helped us g e t our farming o p e r a t i o n on
target.
I ’ l l always be g r a t e f u l t o CES.
MSU has done a s u p e r j o b wi th t h e l e g i s l a t o r s , e s p e c i a l l y Jac k
B reslin.
J a c k g e t s what he wants ou t o f t h e L e g i s l a t u r e , whether
i t ’ s needed o r n ot ! CES has g o t t e n i n t o t o o many a r e a s i t s h o u l d n ’ t
be inv olv ed i n .
[ I t was obvious t h a t t h i s l e g i s l a t o r b e l i e v e d t h e
main CES a r e a should be a g r i c u l t u r e . ]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adkins, R. J . "A Study o f t h e Maryland L e g i s l a t o r s ’ P e r c e p t i o n o f
t h e Maryland Co op erati ve Extension S e r v i c e . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a ­
t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Maryland, 1980.
All p o r t , F. H.
New York:

Theor ie s o f Pe rc e p ti o n and t h e Concept o f S t r u c t u r e .
John Wiley and Sons, 1955.

A s l a n i a n , C. B . , and B r i c k e l l , H. M. Americans in T r a n s i t i o n : L i f e
Changes as Reasons f o r Adult L e a rn in g . New York: C ol le ge
Entrance Examination Board, 1980.
B la lo c k , T. C. " S t a t e L e g i s l a t o r s ’ Pe rc e p ti o n o f t h e North C a r o l i n a
Co op erati ve A g r i c u l t u r e Extension S e r v i c e . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a ­
t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Wisconsin, 1963.
Block, P. The Empowered Manager: P o s i t i v e P o l i t i c a l S k i l l s a t
Work. San F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y - B a s s , 1987.
Bohlen, J . M.; Powers, R. C . ; and W al l iz e , J . A. "Main S t r e e t Pokes
Along While Urban Areas Boom." Yearbook o f A g r i c u l t u r e . 1975.
Washington, D.C.: Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1975.
Borg, W. R . , and G a l l , M. D. Educational Research--An I n t r o d u c t i o n .
New York: Longman, 1979.
Boulding, K. E. The Image.
P r e s s , 1961.

Ann Arbor:

Boyle, P. G. "Extension System Change:
o f Extension (Summer 1989): 3-5 .

U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan
Fact o r F i c t i o n ? "

J o u rn a l

Cal dw el l, J . T. "What a Document . . . That Land Grant A c t . " In
H e r it a g e H or iz on s, pp. 12-16. Edited by A. C. Vines and M. A.
Anderson. Madison, Wis.: Journal o f Ex t en s io n , 1976.
Chadwick, D. K. "Colorado L e g i s l a t o r s ’ View o f E x t e n s i o n . "
M a s t e r ’ s t h e s i s , Colorado S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1966.

125

126
C i s t u l l i , J . V. "The P e r c e p t i o n s o f L e g i s l a t o r s , Advisory Council
Members, A d m i n i s t r a t o r s , and F a c u l t y Toward Three Aspects of
Community S e r v i c e s in P ubli c Two-Year C o l l e g e s . " Ph.D. d i s s e r ­
t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f C o n n e c t i c u t , 1977.
Combs, A. W.; R ic h a rd s , A. C . ; and R ic h a r d s , F. P e rc e p tu a l Ps yc ho l­
ogy: A Humanistic Approach t o t h e Study o f P e r s o n s . New York:
Harper and Row, 1976.
Combs, A. W., and Snygg, D. I n d i v i d u a l B ehavior: A Pe rc e p tu al
Approach t o B e h a v i o r . New York: Harper and Row, 1959.
Cross, K. P. The Missing Link: Connecting Adult Learne rs t o
Learning R e s o u r c e s . New York: C o lle ge En tr anc e Examination
Board, 1978.
C u r t i s , W. W. "A Study o f t h e Alabama L e g i s l a t o r s ’ P e r c e p t i o n s of
t h e A1abama C oo pe r at i ve Extension S e r v i c e . " Ed.D. d i s s e r t a ­
t i o n , L ouis ia na S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1978.
Davis, Marylee. "A L e g i s l a t i v e View o f t h e P u b li c S e r v i c e Function
o f S t a t e - S u p p o r t e d U n i v e r s i t i e s . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan
S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1960.
Department o f Management and Budget. Michigan Manual. Lansing,
M ic h .: Department o f Management and Budget, 1986.
DeVries, W. D. "The Michigan Lob by is t: A Study o f t h e Bases and
P e r c e p t i o n s o f E f f e c t i v e n e s s . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan
S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1960.
Edwards, P. " C r i t i c s A s s a i l V i r g i n i a Extension S e r v i c e ’ s ’Make
Work’ P r o j e c t s . " Washington P o s t . March 13, 1979, C - l - 2 .
Ferguson, L. C. "How S t a t e L e g i s l a t o r s View t h e Problem o f School
N e e d s ." Report No. CRP-532. Eas t Lansing: Michigan S t a t e
U n i v e r s i t y , 1960.
Forgus, R. H. P e r c e p t i o n : The Basic Pr ocess in C o g n it iv e Develop­
me nt. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.
Forman, G. E. C o g n it iv e Development:
C a l . : Brooks/Cole, 1979.

A Life-Span View.

Monterey,

Gardner, J . W. Sel f- Re ne w al- -Th e I n d iv i d u a l and t h e In n o v a ti v e
S o c i e t y . Rev. ed. New York: W. W. Norton, 1981.
G a t c h e l l , D. L. "A Study o f Georgia L e g i s l a t o r s ’ P e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e
U n i v e r s i t y o f Georgia C ooper ati ve Extension S e r v i c e . " Ed.D.
d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Georgia, 1986.

127
Glasman, N. S. " S t a t e P e r c e p t i o n on S t a t e W ide -Evaluation in C a l i ­
f o r n i a . " Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e T h i r t y - F i f t h Annual Meeting of
t h e National Conference o f P r o f e s s o r s o f Edu ca tio na l Adminis­
t r a t i o n , S e a t t l e , Washington, August 16-21, 1981.
G le a s e r , E. J . , J r . The Community C o lle ge : Values. V i s i o n , and
V i t a l i t y . Washington, D.C.: American A s s o c i a t i o n o f Community
and J u n i o r C o l l e g e s , 1984.
Gorden, Raymond L. I n t e r v i e w i n g : S t r a t e g y . Techniques and T a c t i c s .
Rev. ed. Homewood, 111.: Dorsey P r e s s , 1975.
H a r r i n g t o n , F. H. The Futu re o f Adult E d u c a t i o n .
J o s s e y - B a s s , 1977.

San F r a n c i s c o :

Hayes, J . " P r e f a c e . " Yearbook o f A g r i c u l t u r e . 1978.
D.C.: Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1978.

Washington,

Hermann, M. G.
1986.

Jossey-Bass,

P o l i t i c a l Psychology.

San F r a n c i s c o :

Hessenflow, L. H. " F a c t o r s A ss oc ia te d With North C a r o l i n a L e g i s ­
l a t o r s ’ P e rc e p ti o n o f th e North C a r o li n a Community Co llege
System, 1985." Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , North C a r o l i n a S t a t e Uni v e r s i t y , 1987.
H i l d r e t h , R. J . " P r e p a r in g f o r Tomorrow." In H e r i t a g e H o r i z o n s ,
pp. 225-236. Edi ted by A. C. Vines and M. A. Anderson.
Madison, W i s . : J o u rn a l o f E xt ens ion , 1976.
H i l g a r d , E. R . , and A tk in so n, R. C. I n t r o d u c t i o n t o Ps yc hol ogy .
4th ed. New York: H a rc o u r t, Brace, and World, 1967.
________ , and A tkins on, R. L. I n t r o d u c t i o n t o Psyc hology .
New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975.

6th ed.

Hogan, M. P. "The Role o f Extension in Rural America as Pe rc e iv ed
by United S t a t e s S e n a t o r s . " M.S. t h e s i s , West V i r g i n i a U n iv e r­
s i t y , 1985.
H u ll , C. H., and Nie, N. H.
H i l l , 1981.

SPSS Update 7 - 9 .

New York:

McGraw-

J e n n i n g s , J . L. "Arkansas R e s i d e n t s ’ P e r c e p t i o n o f t h e Arkansas
C oo pe r at i ve Extension S e r v i c e . " Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y
o f Arka nsas, 1983.
J e w e l l , M. E. R e p r e s e n t a t i o n in S t a t e L e g i s l a t u r e s .
U n i v e r s i t y Press of Kentucky, 1982.

Lexington:

128
________ . The S t a t e L e g i s l a t u r e - - P o l i t i c s and P r a c t i c e .
Random House, 1962.
J o n e s , E. T. Conducting P o l i t i c a l R e s e a r c h .
Row, 1971.

New York:

New York:
Harper and

K e r l i n g e r , F. N. Behavioral Research--A Conceptual Approach.
York: H olt , R in e h a r t and Winston, 1979.

New

________ .
Foundations o f Behavioral R e s e a r c h .
H o lt , R in e h ar t and Winston, 1973.

2nd ed.

New York:

________ .
Foundations o f Behavioral R e s e a r c h .
H o lt , R in e h ar t and Winston, 1986.

3rd ed.

New York:

________ , and Pedhazur, E. J . M u l t i p l e Regr ession in Behavioral
R e s e a r c h . New York: Holt , R in e h ar t and Winston, 1973.
Knezevich, S. J . A d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f P ubli c E d u c a t i o n .
York: Harper and Row, 1969.
________ .
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f Pu bl ic E d u c a ti o n .
Harper and Row, 1975.

2nd ed.

3rd ed.

New

New York:

Knowles, M. S . , and Knowles, H. I n t r o d u c t i o n t o Group Dynamics.
New York: A ss o c ia te d P r e s s , 1972.
Krech, D . , and C r u t c h f i e l d , R. S. Theory and Problems o f So ci al
Ps ychology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1948.
________ , and Bal lach ey , E. L.
McGraw-Hill, 1962.

I n d iv i d u a l in S o c i e t y .

New York:

Loewenbert, G . ; P a t t e r s o n , S. C . ; and Jewel 1, M. E. Handbook o f
L e g i s l a t i v e R es e ar ch . Cambridge, M a s s .: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y
P r e s s , 1985.
Management Needs Assessment Sur vey . Boulder. C o l. :
f o r Higher Education Management Systems, 1979.

N at ion al C en te r

McCown, J . T. "The F l o r i d a L e g i s l a t o r s ’ P e r c e p t i o n o f t h e F l o r i d a
A g r i c u l t u r e Extension S e r v i c e . " Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , North
C a r o l i n a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1969.
Merriam, S. B . , and Simpson, E. L. A Guide t o Research f o r Educators
and T r a i n e r s o f A d u l t s . Malabar, F l a . : Robert E. K r i e g e r
P u b l i s h i n g C o., 1984.
M iller, J. C ., J r .
"South C a r o li n a L e g i s l a t o r s ’ P e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e
Clemson U n i v e r s i t y C oo pe ra ti ve Extension S e r v i c e . " Ed.D.
d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Arkansas, 1983.

129

M i l l e r , P. A. The C o o p e r a ti v e Extension S e r v i c e : P a r a d o x ic a l
S e rv a n t- - T h e Rural P r e c e d e n t in Co nti nu ing E d u c a t i o n .
S yr acu se, N.Y.: Syrac us e U n i v e r s i t y , U n i v e r s i t y P u b l i c a t i o n s
in Continuing E d uc a tio n, August 1973.
M i l s t e i n , M. M., and J e n n i n g s , R. E. " P e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e Educa­
t i o n a l Policy-Making Pr oce ss in New York S t a t e : Ed uca tio na l
I n t e r e s t Group Leaders and S t a t e L e g i s l a t o r s . " Paper p r e s e n t e d
a t t h e F i f t y - F i f t h Annual Meeting o f t h e American Educa tiona l
Research A s s o c i a t i o n , New York, February 4 - 7 , 1971.
Mullen, S. R. "Lobbying S t r a t e g i e s : I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r I n c r e a s i n g
Budget A p p r o p r i a t i o n s o f S t a t e C oo p e r a ti v e Ex te n s io n Programs."
Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1980.
N a i s b i t t , J . Meoatrends--Ten New D i r e c t i o n s Transforming Our L i v e s .
New York: Warner Books, 1982.
Nerud, G. S. "A Survey o f t h e Ext ent o f Involvement o f P r o f e s s i o n a l
Home Economists in P u b l i c A f f a i r s A c t i v i t i e s . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a ­
t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Maryland, 1979.
Nie, N. H . ; H u l l , C. H . ; J e n k i n s , J . G . ; S t e i n b r e n n e r , K . ; and Bent,
D. H. S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r t h e Social S c i e n c e s . New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1975.
Nierman, W. H. "Lobbying Congress: A n a ly si s o f O r g a n i z a t i o n and
S t r a t e g i e s f o r Se c urin g C ooper at i ve E xt ens ion S e r v i c e A p p r o p r i a t i o n s . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan, 1982.
N o ru s is , M. J ./S P S S , Inc . SPSS-X Advanced S t a t i s t i c s G uid e .
ed. Chicago: SPSS, 1988.

2nd

Nunez, A. R . , and R u s s e l l , J . F. " S t a t e L e g i s l a t o r s ’ Views o f
Vocational E d u c a t i o n . " Columbus: C en te r f o r Research in
Vocational Educa tion, The Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , December 1981.
P a rk e r, S. D . , and Seymour, J .
Toward Higher E d u c a t i o n . "
1984.

" A t t i t u d e s o f Alabama L e g i s l a t o r s
R e s e ar ch /T ec hn ic al Report No. 143.

P a t t e r s o n , S. C . ; Hedlund. R. D . ; and Boynton, G. R. R e p r e s e n t a ­
t i v e s and R e p r e s e n t e d . New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1975.
Pedhazur, E. J . M u l t i p l e Re gr es s io n in Behavioral Research
Ex pl an a tio n and P r e d i c t i o n . 2nd ed. New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t
and Winston, 1982.
P e t e r s , T . , and A u s t in , N.
Random House, 1985.

A P a s si on f o r E x c e l l e n c e .

New York:

130

P e t e r s , T. J . , and Waterman, R. H., J r .
New York: Warner Books, 1982.
The People and t h e P r o f e s s i o n .

In Search o f E x c e l l e n c e .

E ps ilo n Sigma Phi , 1979.

Raho, L. E. "A Comparison o f P e r c e p t i o n s Held by F l o r i d a ’ s L e g i s ­
l a t o r s and Independent College P r e s i d e n t s Regarding Accounta­
b i l i t y Measures R el at e d t o S t a t e Support o f F l o r i d a Independent
Higher E d u c a ti o n ." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , F l o r i d a S t a t e U ni ve r­
s i t y , 1980.
Root, W. R. " P e r c e p t i o n s o f S t a t e L e g i s l a t o r s and De sig na ted L e g i s ­
l a t i v e R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s About Inf or ma tio n Sources P e r t a i n i n g to
Higher E d u c a t i o n . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Indi an a U n i v e r s i t y ,
1983.
R o s e n t h a l , R . , and Rosnow, R. L. E s s e n t i a l s o f Behavioral Research:
Methods and Data A n a l y s i s . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984.
Sa nde rs , H. C. The C oo pe ra ti ve Extension S e r v i c e .
C l i f f s , N . J . : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1966.
Simon, H. A . ; Smithburg, D. W.; and Thompson, V. A.
t r a t i o n . New York: A1fred A. Knopf, 1950.
_

.

P ub li c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n .
Knopf, 1964.

2nd ed.

New York:

Englewood
P ub li c Adminis­

A1fred A.

Smith, G. W. "An E x p l o r a t i o n o f F a c t o r s A s s o c ia te d With North
C a r o l i n a L e g i s l a t o r s ’ P e r c e p t i o n o f t h e North C a r o li n a
A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension S e r v i c e . " Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Duke
U n i v e r s i t y , 1967.
Smith Lever Act.

U.S. Code, Vol. 7, 1914.

S t . Gemme, P. D. "An A na ly si s o f t h e P e r c e p t i o n s o f Educators and
S t a t e L e g i s l a t o r s R e l a t i v e t o t h e Most C r i t i c a l Is s u e s Con­
f r o n t i n g Missouri P u b li c E d u c a t i o n . " Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Uni­
v e r s i t y o f M i s s i s s i p p i , 1975.
Thomson, J . S . , and Brown, E. J .
" P a r t n e r s h i p in T r a n s i t i o n . " In
H e r i t a g e H o r i z o n s . Edi ted by A. C. Vines and M. A. Anderson.
Madison, W i s . : J o u r n a l o f E xt ens ion , 1976.
Vann, J . E. "North C a r o l i n a L e g i s l a t o r s ’ P e r c e p t i o n o f t h e North
C a r o l i n a Community Co llege Sy s te m ." Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , North
C a r o l i n a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y a t R al ei gh, 1970.

131
Vitzthum, E. F . , and F l o r e l l , R. J . "The C oo pe ra ti ve Extension
H e r i t a g e . " In H e r i t a g e H o ri z o n s , pp. 2-11. Edi ted by A. C.
Vines and M. A. Anderson. Madison, W i s . : J o u rn a l o f Exten­
s i o n , 1976.
Walker, K. F. " A t t i t u d e s and P e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e L ou is ia na L e g i s ­
l a t u r e (1977) Concerning t h e Lo ui sia na C oop er at i ve Extension
S e r v i c e . " Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Loui sia na S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ,
1977.
W ells, J . H. "Lobbying S t r a t e g i e s : I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r I n c r e a s i n g
County A p p r o p r i a t i o n s o f t h e Maryland Co op erati ve Extension
S e r v i c e . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Maryland, 1981.
White, E. L. "A Study o f Alabama L e g i s l a t o r s ’ P e r c e p t i o n o f t h e
Auburn U n i v e r s i t y C oo pe ra ti ve Extension S e r v i c e . " Ed.D. d i s ­
s e r t a t i o n , North C a r o l i n a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1970.
Will ia ms , F. Reasoning With S t a t i s t i c s : How t o Read Q u a n t i t a t i v e
R e s e a r c h . 3rd ed. New York: H olt , R in e h ar t and Winston,
1986.
Wilson, E. H., J r .
"An I n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e Pe rc e p tu al Knowledge of
t h e North C a r o l i n a Community College System Possessed by th e
1973 North C a r o l i n a General Assembly." Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
North C a r o li n a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y a t R al ei gh , 1973.