Executive Summary

Contents

Oregon State University (OSU) and its Extension Service began a series of strategic innovations in the mid-1990s, intended to enhance its ability to address the needs of the people of Oregon. There were four core innovations:

1. Reconceptualizing Extension as a university-wide mission
2. Integrating Extension faculty into academic departments
3. Placing responsibility for Extension program guidance with the leaders of academic units
4. Adding a scholarship expectation to all Extension faculty members’ job descriptions.

Several other important innovations were also implemented:

1. Redefining scholarship to encompass the activities of Extension faculty
2. Committing to regular updates of Extension faculty members’ position descriptions
3. Deploying new promotion and tenure guidelines that recognize and reward all three of the University’s primary mission areas (including Extension)
4. Allocating Extension program support funds for campus-based Extension faculty largely through academic departments.

OSU’s new definition of scholarship attracted considerable attention as an innovative way to understand the role of a diverse range of intellectual and creative activities within a single unified framework. The degree of Extension integration into academic departments and other features of the OSU innovations have also drawn national attention.

The current study was designed to address these key questions:

• Since 1995, has there been progress in the various categories of capacity building and with respect to the ultimate goals which the innovations were intended to achieve?
• What remains to be done, and how might it be achieved?

Group interviews and a questionnaire were used during the spring and summer of 2001 to assess the impact of the innovations as perceived by Extension faculty members and leaders. The questionnaire was sent by email to all campus and off-campus Extension faculty; 56% responded. Many of the questionnaire items elicited comparisons between early 1995 (before the innovations were in place) and “now” (mid-summer 2001).

The findings from the interviews and the questionnaire are summarized here, grouped around a half-dozen key themes:

Integration

Academic units are perceived as welcoming the involvement of Extension faculty and implementing Extension as part of their fundamental missions. Research and Extension are perceived as more integrated than before 1995. Research, instruction, and Extension are perceived as having more nearly equal status and importance, although there is room for further improvement in that regard.

Scholarship

Extension faculty members’ scholarship activities are perceived as enhancing Extension programs. This is less true of non-Extension faculty members’ scholarship activities. Extension faculty who responded to the questionnaire undertake scholarship with a variety of purposes in mind, and use various ways to validate and communicate knowledge. This suggests that the university’s broadened definition of scholarship may be having its intended affect, at least for Extension faculty.

Responsiveness

Questionnaire respondents perceive that Extension listens attentively to the people and communities it serves and makes good use of participants’ guidance, although it is perceived as making less use of the broader public’s guidance. Respondents also perceived that Extension has a group of supporters who are willing and capable at speaking out in its behalf, but that the general public has a weak understanding of what Extension does.

Flexibility

Questionnaire respondents indicated positive change since 1995 with respect to four measures of flexibility. They perceive that Extension people are increasingly committed to “adapting programs and methods to the changing times” and “responding quickly to develop and deliver programs when an issue is time-sensitive.” The 2001 rating for “my program area uses new communications technologies when appropriate” was one of the two highest ratings. Flexibility has its limits, however: there is caution about moving into entirely new program areas that Extension hasn’t addressed before.

Resources

Even though there is indication that OSU Extension Service programs are well supported (compared with Extension programs in other states), questionnaire responses indicated that there is a perception that program support resources (including funding) and support staff are not believed to be fully sufficient. This is a surprising finding which merits further consideration.

Outcomes

Outcomes of the OSU innovations were considered on three levels: outcomes that benefit the people of the state, the organization (OSUES) itself, and the individual OSUES professionals. At the statewide level, the OSU Extension Service faculty who responded to the questionnaire believe they are making a worthwhile contribution to the quality of life in Oregon. A related question about Extension’s success in making a worthwhile contribution to the quality of life in Oregon for those who need its help the most received significantly lower ratings. At the organization level, OSU ES’s health as an organization and its financial well-being were rated in the mid-range of 29 items; the “financial well being” item showed a strong positive shift from 1995 to 2001. At the individual level, the respondents’ sense of professional satisfaction and job security were both strong, but were not necessarily influenced by the mid-1990s innovations.

The full report includes further detail on each of the above themes, including breakouts by program area, location (county, campus, or other), and date of hire.

Overall, OSU’s innovations were successfully implemented and have shown real benefit in a number of key components of effective Extension programming. In order to achieve full and continuing benefit from the innovations, these recommendations are proposed:

• OSU and its Extension Service should renew the commitment to the overarching purpose of the innovations – addressing the needs of the people of Oregon – and the University should reaffirm its commitment to a University-wide Extension function.
• University and Extension leaders should exert active leadership to develop new Extension efforts in well-chose new areas.
• OSU Extension Service should continue the self-renewal process which the mid-1990s innovations began by means of ongoing strategic dialogue and reflective practice. Guidance for such a process is found throughout the discussion section of this report in the form of questions regarding each theme.

This online report is presented as a series of Web pages accessed via the active links in the sidebar to the left, or the links at the bottom of each page. To begin, click Situation Statement at the top left of this document or next page at the bottom right, below.

The full report has interactive graphics and is designed for online viewing, not for print. Individual pages can be printed using the Print command of your Web browser, although some sections require “landscape” formatting, and some Web browsers will not print all of the the graphs and charts properly.