Strawman/Papers

A CONTOUR MAP FOR IMPLEMENTING MULTISTATE, INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES IN THE NORTHEAST REGION May 1999

Introduction

On February 2 –3, 1999 the association of Northeast Extension Directors (NEED) and the Northeastern Regional Association of State Agricultural Experiment Station Directors (NERA) held a formal one and a half day Joint Session. The meeting was facilitated by Donal O'Hare, who led the participants through a listing of:

This activity was followed by the formation of some next steps that could be used to move the two associations forward into multi-state collaborations and integrated research and extension activities.

The participants identified that our shared core values were derived from the fact that we are employed at public institutions, working toward public services and goods:

In addition to these core values, we share some common interests and goals:

In addition, we would like to improve upon the public goods and services that we deliver. And, we would like to have increased public (and legislative) acceptance of what we do. We would like to find ways to address the undeserved populations that deserve our attention. We all want our universities to value return to its "traditional role" as a land-grant university, which may require a clarification of the definition of the land-grant university.

We care about stakeholder issues, and we all want to communicate the impacts of what we do well. We want to make sure we continue to be more relevant and accountable to the public. We all want appropriate rewards and recognition for what we contribute.

Finally, we share subject-matter interests that relate to agricultural, natural and human resources.

So what is working well?

We believe that joint appointments between research and extension are working well to integrate our functions. We believe that the regional IPM program is a good example of how the faculty and state-to-state collaborations are working well.

We believe joint appointments at the administrative level for both college and department units are working well to promote integration. We believe that shared leadership on administrative issues helps in planning activities jointly. And, joint planning works well when there is a shared understanding of the goals to can be accomplished. We believe that joint research and extension activity increases our grant competitiveness, and this aspect is working well for us. We believe that there is equal recognition of the roles of research and extension, but this equality may not be completely reflected in our reward systems.

We believe there is open communication between the two functions, which helps to build on each other’s strengths. We are starting to realize that we are dependent on each other as we seek to find models of seamless integration of our institutions' faculty. Our human relationships are strong and we have good cooperative relationships with other agencies. We believe that others are coming to our 'table' to work with us because we have a process already in place. We are now beginning to talk about outcomes from the beginning of our planning activities.

The creation of multi-functional faculty teams allows us to undertake multifaceted approaches to problem solving. Our operational structures encourage cooperation and collaboration. Today, our clients and administrators expect cooperation. The pooling of resources between the two functions has worked to facilitate this.

So what should the relationship between extension and research look like?

To do the above may require us to think about research, development and extension as a continuum rather than as a linear scale. We think that some new models need to emerge that let us look at how dynamic we are, as we plan our integrated activities.

Perhaps what is needed is for us to sit down with a common topic and talk about it rather than about the relationship between the two functions.

We also need to seek each other out and talk about our ideals and goals along the continuum of what we all want to work towards. This might require us to collaborate on a joint strategic plan. Or it could lead us to joint program/project development between researchers and educators. We need real integrative thinking along all segments of the continuum. Importantly, everyone should be at the table at the beginning of the discussion, including a commitment to talk to our 'customers'. We need to be outcome-focused from the beginning as well.

Our future relationship should be built around where the action is to be located. And, some equitable setting of regional priorities may be necessary to start some new integrated activities.

So where is the scope for improvement and opportunities for success within three years?

Categorically, these improvements and opportunities are seen as:

Interpersonal: The use of aggressive language and labeling of people is getting in the way of our community working together. There are also places within the system that promotes head-to-head conflict. These intersections should be removed. Also, we are having conversations without all parties being present. We need some personal resolution of our differences, and recognition of our common core values. We need to acknowledge individual differences and value our individual diversity.

Interfunctional: There are cultural differences in the 'positions' (i.e., philosophy) of the two functions that sometimes get exasperated by us not using a common language. We need to define our terms and identify our assumptions when we dialogue.

There needs to be a recognition that we don’t all answer to one "master" and that there is institutional pluralism within in our system. We need to value our institutional diversity.

cThere appears to be a lack of respect for the other function's processes used for decision-making, and for getting things done. It seems that we don’t appreciate the value of the differences that each function brings to the table. In our current set of issues is the complication that "extension" has previously done Plans of Work and thus recognizes that the expectations constantly change. This experience is different from "research" that has never before done Plans of Work.

There seems to be a lot of "working off" old models, the use of slang terminology, and some stereotyping seems to occur. Our responsibilities are multi-dimensional, and should occur in both functions.

The flow of information from our communities needs to be reported back to research for their priority setting. We need to somehow engage our stakeholders/customers in listening sessions that will serve the needs of not only extension, but research as well.

There is a need to have substantive conversations around items like scholarship. These topics seem to relate to the culture/rewards systems of the university, which are different for research than from extension. There needs to be an improved university level appreciation of the rewards systems for research, development and extension, as it is believed that it is more than just a perception of a problem. There is poor communication of our scholarship. This issue goes deep, to the question of what constitutes scholarship.

There is a need to recognize that the processes of extension and research are very different. We must guard against jealousy over resources of what we have, and what we might have.

Interinstitutional: The differences that sometimes characterize our regions’ institutions must not be seen as a deficiency, but as a strength. We seem to be spending too much time on our deficits rather than how to build on our strengths.

We don’t think or plan with a systems perspective.

We need to create a system of accountability that allows us to communicate our successes without being overly burdensome. We need to find funding sources that will support our integrated activities.

We need to address the concerns (real or perceived) that research and development is drifting, over time, away from the land-grant university mission.

Some solutions to the above items might be:

Next Steps:

Drs. Trish Manfredie (MA) and John Nye (DE) have been asked to edit the Outcomes Framework and return it to the group by February 10 (and this is now available at the URL http://www.umass.edu/umext/consortium).

Other participants will then be given an opportunity to comment on the revision by (e-mail) to James Wade, indicating their agreement or disagreement. Reference to the goals and subgoals on which they intend to work in a multi-state capacity; the contact person, (i.e., who is making the commitment); and individuals which may be potentially interested in future multi-state collaborations is requested.

The next step after this will be to prepare individual state-based Plans of Work referencing other states' involvement in the joint work that will be based on intended outcomes.

Additionally, Ralph Otto (CSREES) will set up a meeting with Nancy Bull (CT) and John Nye (DE) on the topic of fiscal reporting responsibilities, especially from the perspective of reporting expenditures, organized by goals.

Subsequently, there will be request to schedule a discussion on evaluating scholarship at the Summer '99 Joint Session. This is initially to be conducted within this group of deans and directors.

Organizational structures of individual institutions (and the implication of how we do business) should be inventoried to help us understand how we will come together.

It will be recommended that CARET be asked to attend future listening sessions, as they are held.

A document capturing the essence of the spirit of our functional relationships will be developed and circulated.

There is a plan to hold a future visioning session (referenced to the Futurist Magazine). Participants were asked to send ideas to John Nye (DE), especially regarding Federal Office of Management and Budget input, messages on the amounts allocated to research and extension, and an understanding of the evolving politics of agriculture.

In the meantime there will need to be an interpretation of our understanding of what constitutes multi-state activities, and a better understanding of the spirit of what we are being asked by the Congress to do. We must all recognize that it is an evolutionary process, and that will need to be both genuine and creative.

There will be a need to develop a set of common definitions of terms, and more recognition that the current ambiguity of what is required in the 1998 Farm Bill gives us a degree of freedom. We must use this opportunity to create synergy across state boundaries, building on our interdependency, cooperation and collaboration.

Appendix I- Points to Consider in Stakeholder Listening Sessions

From the regional and national level perspective it may be desirable to have each state share their stakeholder listening information. This could then be reviewed from the regional and national perspectives. There is also a need to bring CARET into the process. But how that will be organized remains to be decided.

Regarding stakeholder listening, there is a need to explain the importance of focusing on outcomes. There is also a need to listen and then verbalize in the words of the speakers.

Also, "We are to be seeking direction from our stakeholders, not directions".

Finally, opportunity to learn from each other what works and what does not is one of our great strengths in operating as a system. Some institutions already have quite sophisticated stakeholders-listening processes, which they are willing to share with others.

Appendix II – Phases in Developing Multi-State Integrated Activities.

  1. Consultation process – Stakeholders should have input to the process for both program/activity design and for implementation.
  2. Plans of work- The design and implementation documents should address program content, vis-à-vis national goals, the processes that will be used for peer and merit review (both pre and post evaluations), and for the reporting of accomplishments, with special reference to a common format.
  3. Submissions and reviews- A process should be developed for submission and review of draft Plans of Work.
  4. Implementation- Decisions in the Plan of Work should be spelled out in a companion implementation plan.
  5. Reporting- Processes for annual reporting by impact statements, sources of funding and accomplishments against indicators of outputs and outcomes should be developed. Special consideration should be given to highlighting multi-state, integrated activities.
  6. Review- Post activity peer and merit review processes should be developed and implemented.

Throughout the planning process there should be sample formats offered to member institutions for their consideration, options outlined (especially for stakeholder-input methods), and points of contact of individuals and institutions willing to serve in an advisory/assistance capacity.

Proposed by: Donal O'Hare February 1999