Contents
|
Reflection & Dialogue Regarding Scholarship
The questionnaire items associated with the theme of responsiveness showed
a mixed result – not surprising given that the innovations did not
address it directly. On the other hand, OSU Extension has engaged in a
variety of methods to elicit the input of its program participants and
the broader public, including an intensive, statewide needs assessment
carried out in the winter and spring of 2000.
Responsiveness to input from participants and the broader public is one
of the guidance mechanisms of an organization; adhering to a stated mission
is another. It might seem to some that being guided by a stated mission
would be at odds with listening and responding to input from program participants
or the broader public, but there is no evidence in the questionnaire data
that this is the case. If anything, the respondents seem to understand
the Extension mission to mean responsiveness to new clientele and emerging
needs.
Questions regarding responsiveness
Based on the questionnaire responses, the areas that appear to need further
attention are:
- (1) Listening to participants or the broader public?
-
How is OSUES striking the balance between responsiveness to the input
of program participants vs. responding to input from the broader public?
- (2) Fine-tuning or rethinking?
-
Is responsiveness limited to fine-tuning existing programs or does
it extend to rethinking mission and goals and adapting the program
profile in major ways, to address new program areas or serve new clientele
groups?
Recommended indicators of success regarding responsiveness
The following three questions relate to the first area of emphasis listed
above.
- How can Extension address the gap that questionnaire respondents perceive
between a loyal group of supporters and a broader public that may have
little understanding of what Extension does?
- How can Extension best tap the input of the broader public, beyond
current program participants?
- What happens when Extension’s program participants and the broader
public disagree?
The following questions relate to both of the numberd areas of emphasis
listed above.
- Is Extension using an optimal mix of input-gathering means, ranging
from day-by-day feedback from program participants to occasional, intensive
methods that elicit input from a broad range of interests? What methods
for gathering input will give even better ongoing input?
- What happens if participant input or public input conflict with the
Extension mission as currently understood?
- Are appropriate judgments being made about maintaining the focus of
existing Extension programs vs. responding to changing needs, or needs
and desires of new clientele groups (including growing population segments
and citizens who need help the most)? What is the mechanism for making
such judgments?
Recommended indicators of success regarding responsiveness
- Extension professionals, program participants, and the broader public
all believe their input has helped shape Extension programming.
- Program details and broad program directions are benefiting from public
input.
|
