Draft--May 20, 2002.  Comments welcome!

Introduction

Over the last several years, the phenomenon of a State Extension Specialist holding an appointment requiring both significant classroom teaching and research seems to have become more commonplace.  The movement has been going on for some time (Gerber, 1985), but seems to be accelerating.  The changes are at least partially driven by financial considerations as departments traditionally serving as hosts to Extension Specialists have downsized and combined positions.  The Extension system is under increasing financial pressure (McDowell, 2001, Acker, 2001).  There may be sound programmatic reasons for the move as well.  Faculty with significant Extension appointments bring rich experiences and real-life examples to enhance the student’s classroom experience.  Conversely, the relatively “safe” classroom setting may help the Specialist hone methods and arguments to be used in Extension teaching, where audiences may be more familiar with (and probably more interested in) your subject, and therefore tougher on the technical details of your work.  As George Morse once told me, “In classroom teaching you can go back the next period and correct your mistake.  In Extension teaching, you only get one chance!”  Another programmatic advantage of blended appointments comes because classroom teaching is familiar to a wider array of individuals than Specialist work.  So a blended appointment may attract candidates who would otherwise be mystified by the position or simply not apply.  Appointments mixing research and extension are easily justified due to the obvious synergy between the two functions (Jones and Finley, 1997).   Extension’s mission, after all, is to translate knowledge generated in university research programs into ways to solve everyday problems.

While significant potential benefits may accrue to combined appointments, an obvious pitfall is that the individual may not be able to focus his or her efforts and so fail to do any of the three functions well.  This can create stress or tension in fulfilling the expectations associated with the position.  In a survey of newly hired Specialists, Brittingham (1999) reports they rated “Balancing a split appointment” at an average of 4.2 on a five-point scale of “challenges and concerns.”  Because appointments combining all three functions are relatively new in many academic departments, faculty who find themselves in these roles may lack mentors who can help them identify the best techniques for balancing among sometimes competing objectives.  The rest of this article focuses on strategies that Extension Specialists might employ to enhance their odds of achieving a program of work that effectively balances among the three functions and maintain the excellence required for tenure, promotion and favorable annual reviews. While the main audience of the article is intended to be faculty with three-way splits, mentors and Specialists with two way splits will also find the suggestions worth reading.  Administrators can benefit from the article as they design new positions or evaluate those who hold split appointments.  The next section of the article deals with classroom teaching.  A section on options for blending research and Extension activities follows.  A section on ways of adapting Extension teaching methods to smaller percentage time appointments is next.  Some brief conclusions and overall recommendations complete the article.
 

Classroom Teaching Options

An excellent way of blending classroom teaching and Extension is to find ways to connect students to County Extension Offices and other groups who might benefit from the interaction.

My first example comes from my teaching role at the University of Minnesota.  Prior to the beginning of the semester, I distributed to County Extension offices and local economic development authorities a “Request for Research Topics” for my graduate course on Regional Economic Impact Modeling.  Proposers were to develop a one or two page problem statement that involved modeling economic impacts of some local event or industry.  There were no guarantees to proposers.  Students selected their semester project from the resulting list.  (Student also had the option of developing a research question independently.)  Students were expected to interact with proposers to learn details of the modeling problem.  Midway through the semester, students submitted a draft analysis to both the instructor and the proposer, and defended the draft before the proposer (via speakerphone), the instructor, and a subset of the class.  Based on this initial feedback, students revised their work and submitted the final version to the instructor towards the end of the semester.  Papers with a grade of B or better were forwarded by the instructor to the proposer.  There was incredible enthusiasm for the work on the part of constituencies receiving the student services, and I continued to hear from proposers for years after the class was over, even after I had moved to another State!  From the perspective of the students, the experience was considered very valuable.  Several of them reported that it made the difference in getting their first job out of graduate school.  Student evaluations of my teaching were very strong.  And in the process, through my students, I produced ten tailored Extension economic impact studies in less time than it would have taken me to do one!  While service learning strategies can take some professors extra time, with an Extension appointment, the same strategy can save time.  Service learning can actually even take less time for Extension professionals because as a Specialist, your frequent contact with stakeholder means you understand needs better than most people whose only teaching assignment is classroom instruction.  So you should have an easier time identifying appropriate stakeholder groups and framing the student assignment in an appropriate way.

Here at Michigan State University, Professor George Rowan employed a similar strategy in teaching his grant writing class.  Extension Agents presented community issues needing grants in guest lectures to the class.  The class members then selected issues around which to write a grant.  Communities got free services of grant identification and grant writing.  Students got real-life examples around which to build their class assignment.

One example of using Agents as guest speakers was mentioned above.  Another example is to use the contacts developed in Extension settings to strategically plug gaps in the Specialist’s course schedule that arise due to the need to travel to do Extension programming.  For example, a Specialist with a significant agribusiness appointment might use industry executives as guest lecturers in agribusiness courses.  Students appreciate this break from the routine and opportunity to hear from industry leaders as long as it does not go beyond four or five lectures per semester.  Similarly, the guest lecturer may be flattered as long as you aren’t asking for a guest lecture several times a year.  Ask the guest lecturer to provide some suggested test questions and warn students that a selection of these will figure on the exams—do this well in advance of the guest lecture.  If you don’t test from the guest lectures, students may tend to be absent for the guest lectures, embarrassing you with your contacts.  An additional benefit from the guest lectures is that you may learn certain things about the person’s operation that they would not address in your normal interactions with them.  And the students can ask questions that you might not dare to ask!  Even when you are not using a guest lecturer, you can cut your lecture preparation time by drawing examples or exercises from your Extension work.  Students appreciate the real-life problems, and, as Campbell (1995, p. 145) points out, an effective way of demonstrating the University’s commitment to service is to incorporate more service-related topics into the curriculum.  Extension Specialists, with their applied focus, have a natural advantage in framing the syllabus around real issues and problems.

Another idea in combining Extension with teaching is to encourage students to write term papers on topics important to your Extension interest groups.  If you are a wildlife specialist, for example, you might encourage a student to write a term paper on the life cycle of some nuisance animal about which you routinely get calls from homeowners.  The term paper, if well written and researched, might be converted into an Extension bulletin.

Teaching provides an opportunity to observe students and determine which of them might be willing and able to work on topics that advance their careers and at the same time provide support to Extension.  Relevant courses are useful in identifying and inspiring students who are particularly interested in your subject matter area.  Exceptionally motivated students can be encouraged to develop thesis topics that contribute to your overall Extension program. Similarly, at the undergraduate level, you might create some independent study options for interested students who create materials or do analysis that adds to your Extension program. You may also be able to get undergraduate students to serve as interns in your Extension program.  The best undergraduates are often better than average graduate students.

Not all subjects in classroom settings easily lend themselves to interactions with stakeholders.  Creative solutions must be applied.  One can think of using Spring break or other natural interruptions in the normal weekly flow of class activities as opportunities to get students off campus for face-to-face interactions.  Many large universities support an Office of Service Learning Programs.  These units exist to help faculty learn how to integrate student learning with services to the residents of the state.  Connecting with these offices can be an effective way of stimulating thought on how to adapt your subject matter to student service learning projects.  Sometimes these offices can even help you identify sources of funds to help offset any travel costs students may incur.

Finally, there is the matter of negotiating your teaching assignment.   A generally accepted rule of thumb is that one undergraduate course is equal to about 15% of a full time equivalent (12 month).  Some units assign a lower percentage for graduate courses on the theory that the sections are smaller and the students are easier to motivate.  Find out whether your department or university has an established standard and ask that your teaching assignment match your funding sources.  If you are paid 45% out of Extension funds, 40% out of Research funds, and 15% out of Teaching funds, your fair load would be one course per year, or even less!  Don’t forget that in some instances, teaching leads to advising.  Advising students, particularly at the undergraduate level, should be counted in addition to your time in the classroom.

Try to get a teaching assignment where the subject is closely aligned with your Extension work.  Alignment will generally be better in upper-division and introductory graduate classes.  Advanced undergraduate courses are better than introductory undergraduate courses because they give you a more specialized set of students with whom you can work.  On the other hand, advanced graduate classes may involve students who are too specialized to feel sufficiently challenged when asked to help solve the day-to-day problems that are brought to Extension.  For example, a stakeholder may want to know how (or if) to deal with a bug that is invading his land. The advanced entomology PhD student may wish to respond with a treatise on insect ethology, population dynamics, migration patterns, or a new theory related to how the bug is classified.

A third element of negotiating your teaching assignment is to consider the seasonality of demand for your extension activities and work towards concentrating your classroom teaching on the off-season.  Team teaching with someone who doesn’t have an extension appointment can also help focus your work in the extension off-season.

Research Options

Let us now turn to how a Specialist might blend a research assignment with Extension activities.  The advice a junior Specialist often receives seems to be, “Downplay your Extension activities until after tenure.”  This is unfortunate because if done with the right strategy in mind, extension work can greatly enhance a faculty member’s research program.  Increasingly, academic review for promotion and tenure includes consideration not only of published works, but the faculty member’s grant writing history.  The sources of grant funds are considered along with the amount and frequency of the grants.  A grant from a major science agency or internationally known foundation will—ceteris paribus—receive more weight in administrative reviews than money from a local group.  Some changes are underway among the major agencies that fund basic research across the nation.  The 1990s saw a movement to highlight and promote connections between scholarly research and the people served by research institutions.  Frequently cited works by Boyer (1990), Lynton (1995), Glassick et al. (1997) and the Kellogg Commission (1999) found their way into the common parlance of research agencies.  As a result, funding agencies are beginning to place more value on whether the research results might have application in society as they consider which projects to finance.  As an example of this trend, in December 2001, the Bush Administration moved funding for research programs at the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and U.S. Geological Survey into the National Science Foundation budget.  While critics saw this move as detrimental to the applied nature of the programs, it can also be viewed as an acknowledgement of NSF’s increasing focus on problem-solving research.  An Extension appointment, with the close contact it brings with people who have practical needs, is an excellent way to develop research questions that have solid applications.

Glenn Johnson’s 1986 book described a taxonomy of research questions: problem solving, subject matter, and disciplinary.  The taxonomy describes a continuum as one moves from research that solves a particular problem to research that has no obvious application at all.  Johnson argued that all three kinds of research are necessary and valuable.  One can conceive of a system in which the campus researcher with no Extension appointment does disciplinary research.  The Extension Specialist with a research appointment does subject matter research that integrates several pieces of disciplinary research.  A highly specialized Extension Agent might then develop problem-solving research by using the subject-matter research generated by the Specialist.

Drawing research examples from my own field of Agricultural Economics, a number of Extension Specialists have blended their research with outreach activities by developing models to help predict changes in the agricultural or rural economy.  The resulting models do Extension’s work by helping farmers better understand markets for agricultural products (Popp and Keisling, 2001) or local economic development officials better understand how a new industry will affect the number of jobs created in their service region (Siegel et al., 1995).  At the same time, refinements in these models become fundable, publishable research activities.  Extension Specialists are often called upon to answer questions quickly, and of course a research program takes years.  Use the stakeholder questions as a way of identifying major themes for research.  As you become immersed in issue identification through dialog and interaction with stakeholder groups, your value as a partner on multi-disciplinary research teams increases as long as you maintain currency in your disciplinary arena.  Strategic partnering with non-Extension faculty can be a way of leveraging your strengths in issue identification and applications of research results.

Use your grant-writing to seek funds for post-docs who or program associates who might be able to do some of the heavy lifting of Extension program delivery, buying you time to complete more research and write more grants. If your discipline is aligned with industry groups with sufficient funds, think of industry-sponsored research as a way of blending your Extension and research activities.  The funds generated through the sponsored research might pay for a teaching assistant so you can focus more on the research and dissemination of results.  Investigate your institution’s arrangements to find out how it works when you free up the dollars for your salary by getting grants to pay for your time.  In some institutions, you get at least partial control of these salary savings.  In other institutions, all salary savings remain under the control of administrators.

If your line of research involves some kind of field trials, think about involving Agents in managing, coordinating, or monitoring trials in their service regions.  The hands on familiarity with field research techniques may help them hone their knowledge of your techniques.  If Agents are working towards MS of PhD degrees, think of collaborating with them as you establish your research protocols.  In any event, close relations with field personnel can be a valuable source of information for framing research questions.

Further along this continuum, there is increasing interest among funding agencies in participatory research projects.  In participatory research, stakeholders develop the questions, the approach, and implement the trials or experiments with coaching from the researcher.  It sounds like an Extension program, doesn’t it?  It is.  At Michigan State, Extension Specialists are following this approach through a grant to work with local associations to evaluate alternative methods of educating people about ways to protect water quality.

Another research strategy lies in the domain of program evaluation.  If you are doing an innovative program, develop a strategy that leads to publication of the evaluation results.  For an example, see Loveridge (2002).  You can even evaluate other Specialists’ programs as a way of learning about the ingredients of a successful Extension program in your discipline while gaining research outputs—see for example Loveridge and Smith (1992).  Dann (1999) points out the importance of finding mentors at various levels in the Extension system—an evaluation research project can help give you an excuse to do this.
 

Extension Program Development Strategies

As a Specialist with a three-way blended appointment, you may be filling two (or more) positions held by your predecessors.  It is important to first assess and prioritize the Extension demands that your position’s history may place upon you (Craven, 1999).  A radical shift away from the prior programs may be needed, but it can be dangerous to make changes that alienate stakeholders before you have a better program to offer!  As a new Specialist, you may have certain skill sets that allow you to quickly do this.  For example, you may be able to assemble a web page more quickly than the thirty-year veteran you replaced.  More importantly, if your degree is relatively fresh, you likely have exposure to lines of research that may be new to stakeholders in your state.

A path to be avoided is filling your calendar with dozens of speeches for civic groups.  Most communities have a few groups that meet once a week for a meal.  The major purpose of the group is to provide an informal setting for members of the community to communicate with each other.  They often invite a topical speaker.  The problem with this kind of program is that you may provide an entertaining speech that results in nice thank-you letters, but at the end of it all you have no evidence that anything changed as a result of your activities.  With so many demands on your time, you simply can’t afford the time to prepare for events that don’t have an impact.  Find ways to disengage from activities that don’t educate people to change their behavior.  An easy way to determine whether an organization is really committed to your topic is to ask for a speaker’s fee or travel cost reimbursement to be made out for deposit in a University account.  With declining specialist travel budgets, fees are also often necessary because you simply cannot travel without them (Ukaga et al.).  Another time saving method is to videotape yourself giving the speech (use your Extension communications unit to make the tape).  Then offer to join the group via speakerphone after the video has been viewed.  If you are really locked into a civic group circuit by your position’s institutional history, then at least minimize your preparation time by offering a limited selection of talks.  Use the extra time to work on extension teaching approaches that have more impact.

Ideally, you should focus on a very limited number of high profile programs with substantial potential for real impacts in the short-to-medium term.  Look for real issues that are bothering a large cross-section of your stakeholders.  Don’t be afraid to charge something for programs that make a difference in people’s lives.  If your audience is not poor, you might ask yourself whether your information will be used if the audience won’t pay a even small proportion (less than 20%) of the total cost of generating and transmitting it.  The fees can enhance your travel and materials budget or might even pay for a grader to free you from some of your more mundane classroom duties.  Again, you need to consider the history of your position and your university’s attitudes towards fees before pressing forward with this revenue generation strategy.  If your audience is below the poverty line, think of alternatives to fees as you screen for intent.  For example, if you could ask that a minimum of twenty people read your bulletin and mail you a “pre-seminar evaluation instrument” before you agree to do a program.  If they follow through, you’ll have a much better-informed audience when you do the program.

Find out if your department has conducted an in-depth discussion of its Extension program in the recent past.  If the answer is “yes” then get a summary of what transpired.  If the answer is “no” then you have a clear opportunity to initiate discussions about what the department values in an Extension program.  An excellent resource for this dialog might be Lynton’s (1995, p. 56) “Questions for Departmental Discussion”—available on the web at http://www.compact.org/advancedtoolkit/lynton.html.

Many specialists opt for the train-the-trainer model of program delivery, in which they train agents (or others) who then perform the final step of taking the material to constituents.  A train-the-trainer program can help agents zero in on what you have to offer, thereby limiting requests for work that is unrelated to your expertise.  The train-the-trainer approach can also serve to greatly expand the number of requests for you to go out and deliver the exact same training to local stakeholders, so be clear at the outset how much of this you will do and under what conditions.

Another way to generate good programs is through outreach-related grants.  Most states have at least one major foundation interested in improving the lives of its residents.  Successful grant writing to these agencies will be popular with your supervisors, whether they are department chairs interested in research or extension administrators interested in your interaction with the state’s residents.  Outreach grants can pay for a program associate to help you strengthen your Extension programming, freeing you to do more of the conceptual work. For example, here at Michigan State, the Kellogg Foundation funded a full time coordinator for Extension’s “Citizen Planner” program.  Part of the coordinator’s task is to build the capacity of county agents to deliver modules in the program, freeing up the Specialists’ program delivery time.
 

Conclusions

This article presents some ways Specialists with appointments blending research and classroom activities with extension can cope and even thrive under the competing demands for their time.  The appropriateness of the strategies presented here must be evaluated in the context of one’s own assignment, discipline, and institution.  Before you launch into any of the suggestions listed above, consult with your more seasoned peers and your supervisor.

A good mix of research and classroom assignments can benefit an Extension program.  While the appropriate mix may vary by discipline and place, it is important to keep in mind that the basic proportions in any good recipe can’t change much without ruining the flavor.  Mixing research and teaching with extension work in your appointment is a little like mixing a salad—if you put in twenty parts crouton and one part lettuce the salad won’t be very satisfying.  Similarly, a faculty appointment with only a small percentage of Extension time may not be very satisfying—it may result in a lack of focus on Extension program development—it takes time to develop effective mechanisms for informal education.  Research and classroom experiences should be viewed as seasoning for the salad—making life more interesting through combining flavors and experiences, but not the main ingredient in a Specialist’s position description.  Integrating research and classroom teaching with a meaningful extension appointment may seem daunting, but it can be done.  The most important part of success in the venture is to creatively assess opportunities for blending the activities in a synergistic way instead simply segmenting one’s time across the three functions.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Vera Bitsch, Roy Black, Cheri Booth, Ted Ferris, Geoff Habron, George Morse, Members of the Michigan State University Extension Specialists Association, and participants at the 2002 National Extension Agricultural and Natural Resources Program Leaders conference for substantive comments on an earlier draft.
 

References

Acker, Duane. Budget Cutbacks: Some Strategies for Deans, Directors, and the Staff They Lead.  Journal of Extension.  39(2).  2001.  http://joe.org/joe/2001april/comm1.html.

Boyer, Ernest L. Scholarship Reconsidered, Priorities of the Professoriate.  The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Princeton University Press: Lawrenceville, NJ.  1990.

Brittingham, Margaret C.  Challenges Facing Today’s Extension Specialists: Where’s the Stress? In Timm, Robert M. and Shari L. Dann (eds.)  Leading the Way toward Sustainability: Extension in the New Millennium.  Proceedings of the 9th National Extension Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Conference.  Portland Maine.  Sept. 29-Oct. 2, 1999.

Campbell, John R.  Reclaiming a Lost Heritage: Land-Grant and Other Higher Education Initiatives for the Twenty-first Century.  Iowa State University Press.  Ames, IA.  1995.

Craven, Scott R.  Survival within the University System.  In Timm, Robert M. and Shari L. Dann (eds.)  Leading the Way toward Sustainability: Extension in the New Millennium.  Proceedings of the 9th National Extension Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Conference.  Portland Maine.  Sept. 29-Oct. 2, 1999.

Dann, Shari L. Succeeding within the Extension System. In Timm, Robert M. and Shari L. Dann (eds.)  Leading the Way toward Sustainability: Extension in the New Millennium.  Proceedings of the 9th National Extension Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Conference.  Portland Maine.  Sept. 29-Oct. 2, 1999.
 
Gerber, John M. Extension Specialists: A Self-Analysis.  Journal of Extension.  23(4).  1985.  http://www.joe.org/joe/1985winter/a2.html.

Glassick, Charles E., Mary Taylor Huber, and Gene I. Maerhoff.  Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate.  Jossey-Bass Publishers.  San Francisco.  1997.

Kellogg Commission on the Future of Land-Grant Universities.  Returning to Our Roots: The Engaged Institution.  February 1999.

Johnson, Glenn. Research Methodology for Economists: Philosopy and Practice.  Macmillan.  New York.  1986.

Jones, Stephen B., and James C. Finely.  Integrating Extension in Natural Resources Graduate Education.  Journal of Extension.  35(6).  1997. http://www.joe.org/joe/1997/december/a5.html

Loveridge, Scott.  Keys to Engaging Faculty in Service: Lessons from West Virginia’s Community Design Team.  Journal of Planning Research and Education. 21:332-340.  2002.

Loveridge, Scott, and Thomas R. Smith.  Factors Related to Success in Business Retention and Expansion Programs.  Journal of the Community Development Society.  23(2):66-78.

Lynton, Ernest A., Making the Case for Professional Service. American Association for Higher Education. Washington, D.C.  1995.

McDowell, George R., Land Grant Universities and Extension into the 21st Century: Renegotiating or Abandoning a Social Contract.  Ames: Iowa State Press.  2001.

Popp, Michael P., and Terry C. Keisling.  An Economic Simulation Game with Fast Feedback for a Lay Audience: An Example of Seasonal Cash Marketing Strategies.  Review of Agricultural Economics.  23(2): 538-546.  2001

Siegel, Paul B., Jeffrey Alwang, and Thomas G. Johnson. Decomposing Sources of Regional Growth With an Input-Output Model: A Framework for Policy Analysis. International Regional Science Review 18(3): 331-353.  1995.

Ukaga, Okechukwu, Mike R. Reichenbach, Charles R. Blinn, Deborah M. Zak, William D. Hutchinson, and Nancy J. Hegland.  Building Sucessful Campus and Field Faculty Teams.  Journal of Extension 40(2).  April 2002. http://www.joe.org/2002april/a3.html.
 

Appendix:  Lynton  (p. 56) Questions for Departmental Discussion

What kinds of engagement activities are possible and typical within our discipline or professional field?
Which of these activities are particularly consistent with the mission of our school, college and university?
Which of these are of greatest potential value in enhancing our department’s undergraduate and graduate programs?
Which could best provide opportunities for direct student involvement?
Which are likely to benefit classroom instruction?
Which of these activities are most strongly linked to basic and applied research carried out by members of our department?
Which might enhance our extramural funding?
What documentation would be appropriate for evaluating and rewarding the engagement activities we want to encourage?